Comments for Budosworld http://budosworld.com Common and Sense Together again Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:22:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on CNN tries to paint the Narrative on same sex marriage by Patrick Budowski http://budosworld.com/cnn-tries-to-paint-the-narrative-on-same-sex-marriage/#comment-297 Patrick Budowski Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:22:25 +0000 http://budosworld.com/?p=85#comment-297 Current Federal Law defines marriage between a man and a women. Does that pass the constitutional ? I really don't know. Doing away with the State issuing marriage license's entirely and replacing them with Civil unions for EVERYONE is the cleanest way to give people want they want. If a Church want's to marry a couple then they can, it would have nothing to do with what the State has issued. Current Federal Law defines marriage between a man and a women.
Does that pass the constitutional ? I really don’t know.
Doing away with the State issuing marriage license’s entirely and replacing them with Civil unions for EVERYONE is the cleanest way to give people want they want.
If a Church want’s to marry a couple then they can, it would have nothing to do with what the State has issued.

]]> Comment on CNN tries to paint the Narrative on same sex marriage by zankou chicken http://budosworld.com/cnn-tries-to-paint-the-narrative-on-same-sex-marriage/#comment-296 zankou chicken Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:57:02 +0000 http://budosworld.com/?p=85#comment-296 the courts are an integral part of the checks and balances. one of the three equal branches. gay couples don't want civil unions they want equality. you're not answering the the basic question. is the denial of marriage unconstitutional? your solution is unconstitutional on the grounds of freedom of religion. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/27/999468/-Obama-Bush-s-Pollsters-Team-Up-To-Crunch-Marriage-Equality-Polls the courts are an integral part of the checks and balances. one of the three equal branches.
gay couples don’t want civil unions they want equality.
you’re not answering the the basic question. is the denial of marriage unconstitutional?
your solution is unconstitutional on the grounds of freedom of religion.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/27/999468/-Obama-Bush-s-Pollsters-Team-Up-To-Crunch-Marriage-Equality-Polls

]]> Comment on CNN tries to paint the Narrative on same sex marriage by admin http://budosworld.com/cnn-tries-to-paint-the-narrative-on-same-sex-marriage/#comment-294 admin Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:50:08 +0000 http://budosworld.com/?p=85#comment-294 No, we are being ruled by a Judges decision in most cases. By removing the word marriage from what is already a civil union license in everything but name we would end the argument. The point of having a civil union lic is to deal with the legal issue that can arise. Some Christian Churches allow same sex marriage. Tooo tired to get into it,will close with this; my way win-win for everyone. Your way leaves a bit of uncertainty, suppose a case goes to the SC, since we never know which direction they will take, lets say they pick the religious right side in this, then those who got married are left wondering what it all means to them. MY way allows plenty of legal precedent to make sure that the SC rules in favor of the gay couple. No, we are being ruled by a Judges decision in most cases. By removing the word marriage from what is already a civil union license in everything but name we would end the argument.
The point of having a civil union lic is to deal with the legal issue that can arise.
Some Christian Churches allow same sex marriage.
Tooo tired to get into it,will close with this; my way win-win for everyone. Your way leaves a bit of uncertainty, suppose a case goes to the SC, since we never know which direction they will take, lets say they pick the religious right side in this, then those who got married are left wondering what it all means to them. MY way allows plenty of legal precedent to make sure that the SC rules in favor of the gay couple.

]]> Comment on CNN tries to paint the Narrative on same sex marriage by zankou chicken http://budosworld.com/cnn-tries-to-paint-the-narrative-on-same-sex-marriage/#comment-293 zankou chicken Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:02:17 +0000 http://budosworld.com/?p=85#comment-293 "If a couple decides to get say they are married or have a ceremony, why should anyone stop them?" that's MY point. as numerous states have realized, the definition of marriage is between two consenting ADULTS. we don't rule by dictionary, we rule by constitution. my point is also to level the playing field. your religious belief as to what's immoral should have no consequences on law. what is the basis of your objection to gay marriage? you say leave up to the people not the state. you mean churches? churches are not representative of all people. there are times when legal issues arise during and after marriage. there is a separation of church and state in this country. if a homosexual couple is christian, won't the church disallow marriage? “If a couple decides to get say they are married or have a ceremony, why should anyone stop them?”
that’s MY point.
as numerous states have realized, the definition of marriage is between two consenting ADULTS. we don’t rule by dictionary, we rule by constitution.
my point is also to level the playing field.
your religious belief as to what’s immoral should have no consequences on law. what is the basis of your objection to gay marriage?
you say leave up to the people not the state. you mean churches? churches are not representative of all people. there are times when legal issues arise during and after marriage. there is a separation of church and state in this country.
if a homosexual couple is christian, won’t the church disallow marriage?

]]> Comment on CNN tries to paint the Narrative on same sex marriage by admin http://budosworld.com/cnn-tries-to-paint-the-narrative-on-same-sex-marriage/#comment-292 admin Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:18:21 +0000 http://budosworld.com/?p=85#comment-292 Your missing the point, Marriage is already defined between a man and a woman. By changing the license that is issued, each person would get the exact same rights. That's the point. No one should be denied the chance of love. With that said why should we redefine the definition of marriage ? Remove the State from issuing those licensees and we remove the problem. The polls are mixed and vary depending on the poll and the questions. I feel that every couple should be able to get a Civil union lic. and that it should come with the same rights. Leave marriage up to the people. If a couple decides to get say they are married or have a ceremony, why should anyone stop them? The point here is to level the playing field. Not to force either sides view on the other. Take out the word marriage and its a win-win for everyone. Not perfect but better then the back and forth that has been going on. Your missing the point, Marriage is already defined between a man and a woman. By changing the license that is issued, each person would get the exact same rights. That’s the point. No one should be denied the chance of love. With that said why should we redefine the definition of marriage ? Remove the State from issuing those licensees and we remove the problem.

The polls are mixed and vary depending on the poll and the questions. I feel that every couple should be able to get a Civil union lic. and that it should come with the same rights. Leave marriage up to the people. If a couple decides to get say they are married or have a ceremony, why should anyone stop them?

The point here is to level the playing field. Not to force either sides view on the other. Take out the word marriage and its a win-win for everyone. Not perfect but better then the back and forth that has been going on.

]]> Comment on CNN tries to paint the Narrative on same sex marriage by zankou chicken http://budosworld.com/cnn-tries-to-paint-the-narrative-on-same-sex-marriage/#comment-291 zankou chicken Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:55:42 +0000 http://budosworld.com/?p=85#comment-291 Ha. "The way he wrote the article." the author quoted two separate polls by two respected polling firms that show gay marriage favorability (and growing). how can you say it's not the case? there are plenty of christians who feel that gays have a right to marry. that's because it's a matter of love AND equality. you're all about following the letter of the constitution. ever read about equal rights? hint: it's the 14th. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/02/07/ninth-circuit-california-gay-marriage-ban-is-unconstitutional/ the state handles marriage because it's a matter of law. we have a little thing in the u.s. called separation of church and state. i've raised the issue before that not all civil union partners receive married partner benefits. in addition, you fail to answer how atheists could (or should) marry in a church. Ha. “The way he wrote the article.” the author quoted two separate polls by two respected polling firms that show gay marriage favorability (and growing).
how can you say it’s not the case?
there are plenty of christians who feel that gays have a right to marry.
that’s because it’s a matter of love AND equality.
you’re all about following the letter of the constitution. ever read about equal rights?
hint: it’s the 14th. “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/02/07/ninth-circuit-california-gay-marriage-ban-is-unconstitutional/
the state handles marriage because it’s a matter of law. we have a little thing in the u.s. called separation of church and state.
i’ve raised the issue before that not all civil union partners receive married partner benefits.
in addition, you fail to answer how atheists could (or should) marry in a church.

]]> Comment on Quick Links by zankou chicken http://budosworld.com/quick-links/#comment-289 zankou chicken Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:06:15 +0000 http://budosworld.com/?p=81#comment-289 yeah, eating lunch with bloggers is almost the same thing as burglarizing and bugging the opposition political party headquarters. republicans are best not mentioning watergate. but you know who could recommend private investigators? rupert murdoch and news corp. obama has made no strides toward imposing further gun regulations and has even expanded rights by signing a measure allowing Americans to carry guns inside national parks. so this is a result of fear mongering from the nra. yeah, eating lunch with bloggers is almost the same thing as burglarizing and bugging the opposition political party headquarters. republicans are best not mentioning watergate.
but you know who could recommend private investigators? rupert murdoch and news corp.

obama has made no strides toward imposing further gun regulations and has even expanded rights by signing a measure allowing Americans to carry guns inside national parks.
so this is a result of fear mongering from the nra.

]]> Comment on Bishops to Obama: No dice VIA HotAir by zankou chicken http://budosworld.com/bishops-to-obama-no-dice-via-hotair/#comment-288 zankou chicken Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:31:46 +0000 http://budosworld.com/?p=62#comment-288 it's the law. more importantly, how is unconstitutional? it’s the law. more importantly, how is unconstitutional?

]]> Comment on Bishops to Obama: No dice VIA HotAir by admin http://budosworld.com/bishops-to-obama-no-dice-via-hotair/#comment-286 admin Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:17:47 +0000 http://budosworld.com/?p=62#comment-286 Come on, you know darn well that the insurance company's are not going to pay this for free. Come on, you know darn well that the insurance company’s are not going to pay this for free.

]]> Comment on Bishops to Obama: No dice VIA HotAir by zankou chicken http://budosworld.com/bishops-to-obama-no-dice-via-hotair/#comment-285 zankou chicken Sun, 12 Feb 2012 07:50:55 +0000 http://budosworld.com/?p=62#comment-285 how is this unconstitutional? Institutions which are affiliated with a church such as Catholic hospitals, universities, and the like will not have to include birth control in the health insurance they provide to employees. Employees of those institutions will have access to contraceptives without a copayment because the insurer will cover it with no copayments separately. This means the insurer will reach out to women to offer free contraceptives outside of any relationship with their employer. why would lawmakers approach any organization that's discriminatory and harbors felons? how is this unconstitutional?
Institutions which are affiliated with a church such as Catholic hospitals, universities, and the like will not have to include birth control in the health insurance they provide to employees.
Employees of those institutions will have access to contraceptives without a copayment because the insurer will cover it with no copayments separately. This means the insurer will reach out to women to offer free contraceptives outside of any relationship with their employer.
why would lawmakers approach any organization that’s discriminatory and harbors felons?

]]>