Thursday, July 17, 2008

Increase in STD Cases vs. Economic Boost...Is That a Trick Question??

The Massachusetts Senate, AKA Gomorha, caved into the homosexual lobby and "passed" a bill to repeal a 1913 law banning out-of-staters from marrying in MA. Somehow, someway, and ONCE AGAIN, the homosexual community has juxtiposed their cause with the civil rights movement of the 1960's and brainwashed the public into thinking that the 1913 law has to do with interracial marriage and therefore the law is discriminatory.

Let's get TWO things straight here. 1. This 1913 law has NOTHING to do with discrimination. 2. Gay "marriage", as of May 17, 2004, is STILL illegal in Massachusetts.
So, before reading the news briefs on this 1913 law below please provide FACTUAL and LEGALLY BINDING evidence that 1. the 1913 law HAS something to do with racism and/or discrimination and 2. How gay "marriage" became "legal" in MA.
Please stop with the falacious opinions that the judicial system makes law, ect, ect. You all just sound so intellectually lazy. And no more Christ never said anything about the sinful behavior of homosexuality because OMD has provided all the facts we need to hear on this topic and I don't like to read long, kinostetic paragraphs from those who fail miserably to refute the man.
Read what Bay Windows has to say.
Read another point of view on the matter.
Oh, I have to provide an article from MassResistance because some of you think they are a "hate group" for providing a different opinion (whatever that means).

43 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Common law:
A system of law that is derived from judges' decisions (which arise from the judicial branch of government), rather than statutes or constitutions (which are derived from the legislative branch of government).

Case law:
Legal precedent that is created by judges rather than legislatures. In case law, judges can either interpret statutory law or apply the common law.

10:10 PM, July 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The Massachusetts Senate, AKA Gomorha…”

Can Arizona be Sodom? I’ve always wanted to turn to salt.

“And no more Christ never said anything about the sinful behavior of homosexuality because OMD has provided all the facts we need to hear on this topic and I don't like to read long, kinostetic paragraphs from those who fail miserably to refute the man.”

I must be brain dead or something because I never saw OMD put up any quotes from Jesus claiming homosexuality as evil. Lazy guy didn’t even call slavery bad. But watch out if a woman gets divorced; she’s in for a hell of a time if she finds someone new. But if you’re a male you got off scott free! YIPPEEEE! Hurray that I have a penis!

“1. This 1913 law has NOTHING to do with discrimination.”

“The law dates to a time when the majority of states still outlawed interracial marriages, and backers of repeal said the law was intended to smooth relations with those states. Massachusetts has allowed interracial marriages since 1843.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071501332.html

“2. Gay "marriage", as of May 17, 2004, is STILL illegal in Massachusetts.”

“Several dozen legally married same-sex couples rallied at the State House yesterday to mark the one year anniversary of Rhode Island couples being able to legally marry in neighboring Massachusetts.”

http://www.massachusettsweddings.com/gaymarriage/index.html

Ken Weaver

10:18 PM, July 17, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

1. As stated in the Washington Post article:

"The law makes no explicit racial reference, but outlaws marriages by couples from other jurisdictions if the nuptials "would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction."

NO racial reference here or any evidence that the law was EVER racially motivated!! Do you have evidence that the law was racially motivated Ken???

Just because the law was made in a time of racial tension, does NOT mean that it was intended to squash racial tension. Still waiting for your evidence to contradict this statement.

Your second link did not follow through. I think I had this trouble as well when I had given you or my other readers links in the comment section of my blog. What is the jist of the link and how is it supposed to answer how gay "marriage" is "legal" in MA?????

2:52 PM, July 18, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“NO racial reference here or any evidence that the law was EVER racially motivated!! Do you have evidence that the law was racially motivated Ken???”

Believe what you will Scia, but I believe the law and its timing are pretty self explanatory.

“What is the jist of the link and how is it supposed to answer how gay "marriage" is "legal" in MA?????”

Basically it reads how a number of people are heading to get married in Massachusetts.

While it is not unheard of for a government to break its own laws I find it odd that it would so people could get married. Some people in my state believe we should enforce the old morality laws that are still on the books but it’s doubtful that the government would acquiesce. I think gay marriage (if you are correct in your assertions that it is still illegal) is like that. The government just refuses to enforce the law. If that is the case the opponents of marriage equality are in a real pickle because it is extremely difficult to persuade a government to enforce laws that it doesn’t wish to; just look at illegal immigration.

Ken Weaver

8:12 PM, July 18, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"Believe what you will Scia, but I believe the law and its timing are pretty self explanatory."

Your belief that the 1913 law came about in a time of racial tension is not enough evidence, and is nothing but a coincidence.

The Washington Post article states:

"...and backers of repeal said the law was intended to smooth relations with those states."

Again, no one is citing evidence here, just opinion.

You said:

"While it is not unheard of for a government to break its own laws I find it odd that it would so people could get married."

Interesting point. That is why the people need to elect representatives whom are interested in representing the PEOPLE and not DEEP pockets.

This election year should be interesting then considering abortion and traditional marriage are the #1 and #2 largest social issues to date in the U.S.

9:23 AM, July 19, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

I will show you some reading material that you need to look at before making such silly comments about common law and case lawon my blog.

I will share them with you later today.

Thank you for your patience.

Scia

9:25 AM, July 19, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Your belief that the 1913 law came about in a time of racial tension is not enough evidence, and is nothing but a coincidence.”

Okay Scia, why do you think the law was enacted in a time of tense racial issues?

“That is why the people need to elect representatives whom are interested in representing the PEOPLE and not DEEP pockets.”

Oh yes, the super rich homosexuals bought all the politicians and won’t share (reminds me of the Godfather). All the poor churches never have any money and those anti homosexual groups never have the kind of donations that the rich homosexuals can afford. Maybe the churches and anti homosexual groups spent all their money on Bush? Maybe they don’t like Massachusetts and spent all the money in other states for the vote on marriage initiatives there (they must not like Arizona either). Hey!! This reminds me of the Jews!! Everyone blamed the Jews for their problems because the Jews were all so rich and they bought the politicians and all the media outlets and they’re trying to take over the world. Yes Scia, I’m sure Deval Patrick and all of your other politicians are in league (if not in bed) with the super rich homosexuals.

Ken Weaver

12:56 PM, July 19, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Wow, you finally have a clue!!

7:20 PM, July 19, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

Just a few questions for you regarding your common law and case law:

1. So if judges have this remarkable authority to pick and choose and even to make up new "law" why do judges swear an oath of office?

2. Is it their oath to uphold the Constitution and the statutes, or previous court opinions? (Answer: no public official in America swears any oath to uphold any court opinion about the law or anything else!)

3. Is there any limit then to judicial power?

4. Can judges make "law" that violates statutes or constitutions?

From the Massachusetts Constitution (which explicitly defines the American form of government that is implicit at the federal level and in all other states):

"[T]he people...are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (Part the First, Article X.)

"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature...." (Part the First, Article XX.)

"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (Part the First, Article XXX.)

"All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved...shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature...." (Part the Second, Article VI.)

Doesn't sound to me like "a system of law that is derived from judges' decisions" applies here does it anonymous???

7:28 PM, July 19, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You asked:

"Okay Scia, why do you think the law was enacted in a time of tense racial issues?"

Back in 1913, interracial marriages were legal in Massachusetts, but not in most states. Yet it's not at all clear that any interracial couples were ever turned away under the law. The etiology, if you would, of the law is unclear, but there is no irrefutable evidence that it was used to prevent the spread of interracial marriages...NONE.

This whole "connect the dots" game with trying to relate interracial marriages and same-sex "marriages" is weak and is only used to get some sort of leverage for the same-sex couples whom want to "marry" in MA and foot their "rights" back in their home states by whining to the court systems.

If the law was meant to prevent the spread of interracial marriages, don't you think there would of been records of out of state black folk fighting this law in courts across the country? Is there any such documentation? That is something I would be interested in researching.

Other states can enforce their own laws. And if most states refuse to recognize some marriages that are legal in Massachusetts, that's their problem.

In Massachusetts common law marriages are NOT allowed, but in Utah they ARE allowed. So, if someone from Utah comes to MA and they took part in a common law marriage can they in turn fight the fact that they are married in MA courts? Same-sex "marriages" fall under the same rules. HETEROsexuals and HOMOsexuals have to follow them. No discrimination there Ken.

If I live in MA and am married to my cousin, which is legal according to the marriage laws in MA, and want to move to Arkansas where marriages to your cousin is not allowed, do I have a right to bitch about this too?

Each state should have their own laws and other states should not have a right to change them just because people are screaming equaility and can't get their way. Give me a break, the 1913 law has NOTHING to do with racial issues, it has to do with each state wanting to stick to its own marriage laws. PERIOD.

8:24 PM, July 19, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Ken, you wrote:

"I must be brain dead or something because I never saw OMD put up any quotes from Jesus claiming homosexuality as evil. Lazy guy didn’t even call slavery bad."

Slavery - Evangelical Christians in Massachusetts were the prime movers and shakers behind the abolitionist movement. In earlier times William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian, worked tirelessly for over years as the most ardent voice of teh English abolitionist movement.

I presume you were not calling me lazy, rather, it was another of yor indictments of Jesus?

Now for your major premise regarding quotes by Jesus saying homosexual sexual behavior is evil.

Maybe you haven't read past posts and I will not belabor it here. Your are correct there are no verses in the Bible where it is written "Jesus says... homosexual sexual behavior is evil.

1. The Bible is the word of God given to mankind by God.

2. God is a triune being made up of 3 parts, God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit.

3. Jesus is the Word of God and Creator of all. He is God, in human form.

Therefore: The Bible being given to mankind by God, who is the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, thus, each is the same being. Then it is Jesus that authored the Bible.

Believe it or don't beleive it. It's your choice.

You do make a very interesting point about government choosing which of the laws they will enforce.

9:25 PM, July 19, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Ken you will find that the publication "Bay Windows" stated that they paid for every vote they received when the Legislature thwarted the people's voice. BUT that's politics, legal bribes.

9:29 PM, July 19, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

I'm sorry I did not write that correctly.

"Bay Windows" is a pro-homosexual publication. They did not payoff the Legislature. Bay Windows wrote that the homosexual lobby leadership said the lobby paid for every vote they received.

9:31 PM, July 19, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“…there is no irrefutable evidence that it was used to prevent the spread of interracial marriages...NONE.”

There isn’t irrefutable evidence for anything in this world.

“This whole "connect the dots" game with trying to relate interracial marriages and same-sex "marriages" is weak and is only used to get some sort of leverage for the same-sex couples whom want to "marry" in MA…”

If it wasn’t so similar we couldn’t, but it is similar! Maybe homosexuality isn’t wholly comparable with race but it does have some similarities. If I looked really hard I bet I could find some similarities in the way American Indians were treated to the way homosexuals are treated, but it would be extremely weak because not many others would have looked into like I had. But the similarities to the racial tensions of the 60’s to the homosexual issues of today are striking. So striking lots of people see it, it’s just those who are against marriage equality to begin with that don’t want to admit it, because it would mean they are on the wrong side. It would mean that those who have fought so hard to stop homosexual marriages are akin to the supporters of segregation. And who would want to admit to that?

Ken Weaver

9:42 PM, July 19, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“I presume you were not calling me lazy, rather, it was another of yor indictments of Jesus?”

You’re right; I calling Jesus lazy.

“Therefore: The Bible being given to mankind by God, who is the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, thus, each is the same being. Then it is Jesus that authored the Bible.”

I can’t fathom that. We’ve got the OT (Old Testament) god; jealous, ethnic cleaning, child killing, loves the smell of burning flesh, “do what I say or I’ll turn you to a pillar of salt” and Jesus; humble, loves kids, wants peace, loves his neighbors “let the one without sin cast the first stone”. I can find little to no evidence that they could possibly even be related let alone the same person. Did god suddenly discover Prozac 2000 years ago? The two are practically diametrically opposed to each other and the rules they wanted society to live by.

Ken Weaver

10:00 PM, July 19, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

OMD: "Then it is Jesus that authored the bible."

This one just keeps getting funnier every time you say it!!! Thanks again for the laugh.

7:18 PM, July 20, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Scia:

Why is it that you never seem to answer my questions. For example, I asked you to show me that there is no such thing as case law, but only statutes as you have decreed, by citing either the Federal or state statutes that establish and define the tort known as negligence.

You further insist on stating that judges swear an oath of office to uphold the Constitution (I assume Federal and state) and the statutes enacted by Federal and State Legislatures. This is just not true.

The federal oath of office is, by statute, "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

There is no mention of statues, nor of case law, in this oath. I dare say you will not find such a reference in any other oath of office at either the Federal or state levels.

7:25 PM, July 20, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Please pardon my misspelling of "statutes" as "statues." Thank you.

7:30 PM, July 20, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Ken, as I have stated before, whether you believe it or not is your choice. The Bible does teach that God is a triune being consisting of mind, body and spirit. Jesus IS God in human form. He came to testify to the truth. He was not sent to judge the world but save. God does not want even one to perish.

It's your decision and your decision only.

---------------------------

dmurphy98 - Glad you allow me to brighten your day. It is my pleasure and honor to be able to share the truth of God with you so you, too, can make your decision of acceptance or rejection of Jesus and who He is.

---------------------------

All participants on Scia's blog are in my prayers

God's grace and peace to each of you.

7:14 AM, July 21, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"It would mean that those who have fought so hard to stop homosexual marriages are akin to the supporters of segregation."

Can you provide evidence of this please?

7:30 PM, July 21, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

dmurphy98,

You said:

"The federal oath of office is, by statute, "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

AKA: it is the judicial systems oath to uphold the Constitution which includes the following article:

"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature...." (Part the First, Article XX.)

7:48 PM, July 21, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: case law and common law

These definitions are from an online legal dictionary and very similar definitions can be found in many other reputable sources (Webster's dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, etc). Go argue with the dictionary if you have a problem with this. Sheesh.

9:52 PM, July 21, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I said: It would mean that those who have fought so hard to stop homosexual marriages are akin to the supporters of segregation.

“Can you provide evidence of this please?”

Maybe I should have started it with an exclusion marking it as my opinion. It is my opinion Scia, I can’t give you any evidence for it. I agree my opinion isn’t worth much so you have to take from it what you see as valuable and discard what you wish.

Ken Weaver

10:37 PM, July 21, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Scia:

Once again, when asked a simple question, you torture logic beyond recognition. Proof that you do not accept reality, but instead live in some fantasy world. You need help. Get it fast, please, before you hurt yourself or others.

Out of here. Not worth the time or effort.

6:44 AM, July 22, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"Increase in STD Cases vs. Economic Boost...Is That a Trick Question??"

Exactly how would banning marriage equality change the amount of STD cases?

3:45 PM, July 26, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I am comforted by how few people visit this site. Thanks for keeping that site meter up, I thought for a moment you had pulled it down. ;)

3:46 PM, July 26, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

If you focus on Christ, He will focus on you and your life, and your thinking will change.

Just pray man, just pray.

I don't know what else to say to you.

8:14 PM, July 26, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Why not start by answering the question that you continue to evade. Being that we will never agree on this issue, how do we live as peaceful neighbors?

Whether you like it or not you are going to have to deal with GLBT people in your life. What standards do you hold yourself to when dealing with them?

3:40 PM, July 27, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

John, you wrote

"...how do we live as peaceful neighbors?"

"Whether you like it or not you are going to have to deal with GLBT people in your life. What standards do you hold yourself to when dealing with them?"

Living peacefully with ones neighbor does not mean an affirmation of behavior.

11:26 PM, July 27, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I neither asked for nor expected your affirmation of my behavior. It would be foolish to expect that given your beliefs. However, I don't think civility is out of the question, do you?

4:03 AM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Again I'll repeat the same question paraphrased:

By what standards do you hold yourself and others when dealing with GLBT people?

4:06 AM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Take a deep breath and chill.

You said:

"By what standards do you hold yourself and others when dealing with GLBT people?"

By the standards that Christ would uphold, which is to love the person, but hate the sin.

7:20 PM, August 01, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Your answer does little to shed light on how you think Christ's standards are upheld by your own actions.

Break that answer down a little and give us your guidance as if you were trying to teach someone how you would expect them to behave in this situation.

This question seems to be avoided deliberately, like people on your side know what a geniune answer will do to your image. If this accusation is not true then give me an answer that leaves little question of your intentions.

7:35 PM, August 01, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Jesus loved the prostitute at the well, but hated her sin and told her to sin no more and she did not.

What are you confused about???

Love the GLBT person, but hate their sin and tell them to sin no more in the name of Christ.

8:39 PM, August 01, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

You're being evasive. What form of action does that love take? Do you think this answer would suffice for someone who you are trying to educate on how to act properly?

Try again.

8:44 AM, August 04, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"Do you think this answer would suffice for someone who you are trying to educate on how to act properly? "

Yes.

8:13 PM, August 10, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

What form of action does that love take Scia? Are you afraid to answer the question and let people see your true colors?

12:01 PM, August 11, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You asked:

"What form of action does that love take Scia?"

Loving the person and getting them to repent in the name of Christ.

Now, would you move on allready.

7:34 PM, August 19, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Scia, my question was:

"Being that we will never agree on this issue, how do we live as peaceful neighbors?"

Your reply was:

"Love the GLBT person, but hate their sin and tell them to sin no more in the name of Christ."

This does not answer the question. We can move on once you have made a coherent reply, until then I will continue to ask by what terms we both live as peaceful neighbors provided we disagree on this issue.

It's a fair question and deserves an honest answer if you are cabable of being honest for a moment and providing one.

1:17 PM, August 21, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Why are you asking me to put my faith in the teachings of Christ aside in order to answer your question?

8:32 PM, August 22, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I did no such thing. You can believe whatever you wish, I take no exception to that. What I am asking you is what form of behavior can I expect from you given the fact that we disagree?

For example, do we smile and nod as we pass, or are you going to run in the house to avoid me when I walk by? Do we speak well of each other in mixed company, or can I expect you'll be running me down verbally in public? These are measurable actions unlike the answers you have tried to pass off until now.

What form of action(s) does your love for your neighbor take? So far you have not answered this in a way that communicates your intentions.

1:24 PM, August 24, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

What do you think Christ would do if he knew you were his neighbor?

8:39 PM, August 30, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I think you have a responsibility to answer my question before you move on to ask me more questions.

What form of behavior can I expect from you given the fact that we disagree?

3:18 PM, August 31, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com