Thursday, January 01, 2009

Where is the TRUTH??

"Coalition for the glorification of lawlessness and lies" is more like it.
Please read the following JUNK mail I received not to long ago:
SAVE THE DATE TO CELEBRATE PROP 8 in MA
Dear Friends,
This past Election Day, voters turned out in droves and confirmed what we’ve known all along: Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and it needs to be protected.
In particular, the liberal state of California, whose activist judges had legalized same-sex marriage, voted in favor of a Marriage Protection Amendment: Proposition 8.
The passage of Prop 8 in California was a crucial win for family values—one worth celebrating—even as our opponents violently take to the streets in protest of its passage.
We’d like to show Massachusetts that we SUPPORT Prop 8. That’s why we’re having a special fundraising celebration.
Celebrate Prop 8! Saturday, January 10 Noon to 2:30 PM Skyline Restaurant, Quincy, MA $18 per person ($10 for food, $8 to Celebrate!) $88 to Sponsor

Paid for by The Coalition for Marriage and Family Action

So, let me get this straight. The Coalition for Marriage and Family...Action!!, previously known as Vote On Marriage.org, have thrown up their hands after FAILING to understand that same-sex "marriages" were ILLEGAL since May 17, 2004 and now have CONTINUED to spread the"unconstitutional lie that judges make law"??? (Thanks GS!!)

Kris Mineau and Chanel Prunier, President of Mass Family Institute and Director of the Coalition respectively, why can't you both come out and refute the FACT that same-sex "marriages" are ILLEGAL in MA and CA?? Did activist judges legalize same-sex "marriages" in MA and CA or did you both and the MA Founding Father of Same-sex "Marriages", Mitt Romney, just not understand the basic concept that the Goodridge OPINION was just that, an opinion and NOT...N.O.T... a law and therefore, legally and constitutionally, cannot be enforced by a governor, by the Department of Public Health, any town clerk or any justice of the peace?!!

We will ALL be waiting for an answer on Saturday, January 10th.

Sponsored by LET THE PEOPLE hear the TRUTH

84 Comments:

Blogger Ken Weaver said...

I think someone needs to take a “chill pill.” I must ask though; if same sex marriages are really illegal, why hasn’t anyone filed for an injunction or a lawsuit? It seems to me that those would be some steps that should be taken to prove that SS marriages are illegal.

Also someone needs to check the name “LET THE PEOPLE here the TRUTH” If it is a real organization they haven’t really considered the spelling of their own name or it has been misspelled. If that is the name of a real organization, they’d probably get laughed out of the courtroom.

6:39 PM, January 01, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Good to HEAR from you. Thanks for the typo. My editing staff got a slap on the wrist for that one.

You said:

"...why hasn’t anyone filed for an injunction or a lawsuit?"

Well, it is not that easy Ken, especially in a state that thinks the judiciary makes the law. I think we have touched base on that subject quite well in the past and wish not to beat a dead horse again over the topic.

You said:

"It seems to me that those would be some steps that should be taken to prove that SS marriages are illegal."

Again, the only proof needed is Chapter 207 of the Mass General Laws. From http://www.undergroundjournal.net/igroops/theunderground/adminpages/Letter-To-Romney-JAN-07:

As stated by the judges who resided over the Goodridge decision who admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: “We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.” Plain and simple.

How was your holidays? I hope all is well with you and your family.

Happy New Year,

Scia

7:53 PM, January 01, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“Again, the only proof needed is Chapter 207 of the Mass General Laws.”

Scia, I looked up chapter 207 of the Mass General Laws and went through each section 1 through 58 and found NOTHING that details any thing about gender or requirements about marriages being solely for opposite genders. It is written that certain family members cannot intermarry and it details each one in sections 1 and 2. In section 37 it does read “The commissioner of public health shall furnish to the clerk or registrar of every town a printed list of all legal impediments to marriage, and the clerk or registrar shall forthwith post and thereafter maintain it in a conspicuous place in his office.” However I did look up these “impediments” and these in no way affect a nullification of marriage but crimes and such that may affect how a government “sees” the marriage. These "impediments" are also crimes for which there are punishments

The holidays came and went. Halloween wasn’t as good as the year before my son Zak wasn’t really into it this time, but my cousin’s daughters and husband came to play parts which was really cool. He was excellent with a chainsaw and the 2 girls can scream really well. Zak got his own apartment with a couple of friends which is nice because the house is sooooo quiet. But sometimes I do miss the boy.

I hope your holidays went well.

12:37 PM, January 02, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Understand what the judiciary stated in their opinion in regards to marriage:

"We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may NOT be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

Add this to what is written in the MA Constitution:

"All causes of marriage…shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)

Why are you so confused?

1:22 PM, January 02, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

"We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may NOT be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

I don’t really care what these people said about it; I read it; did you? Did you find any section that detail at all about same sex marriages? I found nothing that could even be construed as a prohibition against them. The Mass General Law 207 does not detail who can get married but who can’t i.e. minors and relatives. I did find it odd that it went into great detail about who can solemnize a marriage. If there is no law barring something that must mean it is permissible. In AZ in the early 1900’s there was no law barring prostitution or gambling, hence it was legal to partake until a law was enacted to prohibit such activities. So any prohibition to SSM’s must be created unless the current laws already bar it. And no such prohibition exists in chapter 207 of the M.G.L.

As for the Massachusetts constitution, didn’t Romney in a manner pave the way for SSM’s?

3:41 PM, January 02, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

If the statute doesn't limit marriage to one man and one woman why did the court acknowledge that if same-sex "marriage" were to become "legal" that the statute would have to be changed by the legislature to reflect that expanded definition?

Also, why if in fact the current statute allows for same sex "marriage", why did the legislature just attempt to amend it to accomodate same-sex "marriages" which are not currently allowed?

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm.

6:36 PM, January 02, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote that the state's constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens" and that the state had no "constitutionally adequate reason" for denying marriage to same-sex couples. On the legal aspect, instead of creating a new fundamental right to marry, or more accurately the right to choose to marry, the Court held that the State does not have a rational basis to deny same-sex couples from marriage on the ground of due process and equal protection.”

“We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”

Who wrote that?

The court gave the legislature 180 days to CREATE a law to bar same sex marriage.

“Also, why if in fact the current statute allows for same sex "marriage", why did the legislature just attempt to amend it to accomodate same-sex "marriages" which are not currently allowed?”

Is there a bill number I can look up for this? I might be able to explain more if I had more info.

9:30 PM, January 02, 2009  
Anonymous omd said...

The truth is; It matters not what foolish men think for

~ "the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength" ~ Cor 1:25

Scia... Cor 1:30 & 31

Jesus, the Christ was crucified for mankind's sins. He came for those God gave Him. He has arisen from the dead and now sits on the judgement seat of God, the Father Almighty. From there He will judge the living and the dead and in the end ALL will kneel and proclaim Him King of kings. ALL will acknowledge Him even those that rejected Him.

Now is the time to come before the throne of God and ask Jesus for forgiveness and declare Him Lord of your life. Not later, for it may then be to late.

This goes for each of us here no matter what persuasion we claim we are. God's laws are interpretted by God NOT mankind or some silly judges that think they are wise. For those of us in Christ, He is our wisdom. He is our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Come to Jesus today. He will accept you. He chose to die for us so we could choose to live for him.

4:28 AM, January 03, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“The truth is; It matters not what foolish men think for…”

A few questions if you don’t mind. Is stealing really wrong or is it wrong because God said it was wrong? If God said it was right to steal would stealing then be okay? Does God know what the future holds for all people? Is slavery ever permissible? Is child sacrifice something God would ever want? Would you ever create a torture chamber in your basement to punish your children?

When I have an understanding that God is good and actually exists I’ll be happy to allow his law to become social policy without protesting.

“Come to Jesus today. He will accept you. He chose to die for us so we could choose to live for him.”

If Jesus is God then what may I ask did he really sacrifice for us?

7:34 AM, January 03, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My editing staff got a slap on the wrist for that one."

Indeed, where is the truth? Why not just be truthful and admit that there is no staff. I think you are just one lone loon who pretends to have support where none exists. There is no evidence to the contrary.

4:30 PM, January 06, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

I sense some jealousy
and an inability to articulate your sloppy intellectual lazyness.

8:10 PM, January 06, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Now who is talking like a true socialist?

You start out saying:

"Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority..."

Funny how ONE person wrote for the majority. Interesting, even the black robes can't practice democracy only totalitarianism by ONE voice. Come on!!

Your comments STILL do not refute the fact that "We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may NOT be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry." (Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003).

In conclusion you asked for information in regards to the failed attempt to legislatively "legalize" same-sex "marriages":

"Is there a bill number I can look up for this? I might be able to explain more if I had more info."

Bills: H1710, S918, which would have officially legalized same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts were stopped in the Judiciary Committee on Thursday afternoon, March 20th.

Read my post on March 20th, 2008 titled "Transgender Rights and Gay "Marriage" Bills Drown Under Pressure".

8:46 PM, January 06, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I sense some jealousy
and an inability to articulate your sloppy intellectual lazyness."

First point, why would I be jealous of one lone loon making a half-assed stand while lying about his support? If anything you have my pity. Tell me, if you have a staff why are no other people listed as contributors to your blog?

You want to have us believe your fantasy that you have an office and a staff yet you can't even share who you are. Does your office have a number you or your "staff" can be reached at?

Stop the lying, it only makes you look that much more foolish.

As far as the "intelectual lazyness", first try spelling it correctly, then stop over-using the phrase.

7:51 AM, January 07, 2009  
Anonymous omd said...

Ken, regarding your response to my post -

Ken, are you trying to be cute. All you are saying is you do not trust God.

You seem, to me, to be unaware that mankind has free will and can make decisions that exclude God and God's teachings.

"Is stealing really wrong or is it wrong because God said it was wrong?"

This only shows rebellion to God. Ken, I know you do not believe stealing is a right behavior. BUT you try to dance around it by thinking you are asking clever questions. [not to be taken as an afront]

To ask such a questions only shows your rebellion towards the authority of God.

Ken you are simply, once again, are sitting on mankind's judgement seat for the purposes of judging God!! Your questions are similar to satan's demand to be equal to God. Jesus sits on the judgment seat and is the judge of all that is, including you and me and everyone else.

Ken, you want to get into predestination and I will not enter that discussion as I do not pretend to have a solid grasp on the subject.

God knows all as He can be everywhere at the same time. We are linear, He is not.

God did not create slavery, Mankind did.

God never sacrificed anyone except Himself, as the human, Jesus.

God stopped Abraham from sacrficing his son and then provided the suitable sacrifice, a ram found in the thicket, remember?

God wants to know that we will follow Him and obey him, just as we want our own children to obey us.

God wants none to perish and wants all to have everlasting life.

I have instructed my children in the way they should go but because they have free will they make their own decisions. Many times they do not follow my sound instructions. They'll look at me and say that I should let them find out on their own. They go off and do as they please, rebelling against me and my advise. Then they pay the consequences for that rebellion, which may have escalated way beyond what they intended.

Example ~ I told my sons do not drink and drive. One son drank and drove. He got pulled over, arrested, charged with DUI, lost his license, paid a fine etc. etc. etc.

I told my sons to pull over to the side of the road and take a 10 minute power nap, if they were were ever falling asleep at the wheel. One of my sons did not follow my advise, because he thought he could make it as he was only one exit from home. Thank God there was a guard rail on Rt 93. He totaled his car, banged his head and scared the you know what out of his passenger who was also sleeping.

I told my sons to pay their bills. One of my son felt like his needs were more important than paying his bills. Now he has bill collectors hounding him and threats of repossession.

These are simply consequences for not following the rules or the authority that we all live under, whether that be the authority of man or of God.

God has told us the consequences for rebellion

~ the wages of sin are death ~

God has told us that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus, the Christ.

He has told us the consequences for rejecting Jesus will result in separation from God, the Father.

How much more simple can it get? Are you foolish Ken? Do you think you or mankind is wiser than God? Your questions sound like those of rebellious people or children shaking their fist at authority. It's like my kids telling me "Let us live our lives" "You don't know what you are talking about" "Times have changed, it's not that way anymore" and on and on and on. We've all used those arguments ourselves. Probably still do.

There are consequences to every decision we make, good or bad as they may be.

You murder, you go to jail or maybe even get put to death.

You reject Jesus and you are separated from God. Thus, He is not your Father, satan is, because satan rejects Jesus [even though satan knows who Jesus is]. satan will be thrown into the pits of hell because of his rejection of Jesus and all that follow him will follow him there.

The gift of God is eternal life. He loves each and everyone of us BUT Ha allows us to make our own decisions and by doing so WE choose the end result.

Come to Jesus today and tell Him your cares and concerns. tell Him you are angry with God and you don;t trust Him and maybe you are afraid of Him, whatever is on your mind He will listen to. He offers you Himself, even now, just as he did 2000 or so years ago. He paid the your ransom with His life. He bought you but will not drag you with Him unless you go voluntarily. Ask Jesus into your life today. Tomorrow may be to late

11:07 AM, January 07, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"...Tell me, if you have a staff why are no other people listed as contributors to your blog?"

Why, do they have to be?? Would that justify my organizations exsistance more?

You then ask:

"Does your office have a number you or your "staff" can be reached at?"

No, because I do not want them to be exposed to any harrassment during the day. You can e-mail any of us at Knowthyfacts@yahoo.com with any concerns that you wish to not share with others. Hey, if you e-mail us within the next 10 minutes I will share my cell phone number with you!!

"intellectual lazyness", I do use that phrase a lot don't I?? So to the point though is it not??

Are you done with your audit because I am waiting for you to refute any of the facts presented in the post.

Oh, my research consultant John says "hi" and he will make sure I give him and my staff more "air" time by mentioning their names more often. After all, it's important to spread the "kudo" factor!!??

5:58 PM, January 07, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“Funny how ONE person wrote for the majority. Interesting, even the black robes can't practice democracy only totalitarianism by ONE voice. Come on!!”

Scia, have you lost all that makes you sane? How do you get totalitarianism from one person writing for a group? Have you ever seen a movie called The Breakfast Club? There are 5 teenagers that are stuck in a Saturday detention. The teacher instructs them to write a paper detailing who they thought they were. At the end 4 of the teenagers chose the other to write one paper for the group as a whole. If you knew much about the judicial system you would understand that it is nearly the same.

"We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may NOT be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

I asked before but I guess I’ll ask again; who wrote that statement and who is the judge referred to?

I’ll look up those bills and get back to you.

8:28 PM, January 07, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“Ken, are you trying to be cute. All you are saying is you do not trust God.”

Omd, I was not trying to be cute, I want answers or at least a reason as to why you can’t answer them. At least at that point a discussion can continue.

I said: Is stealing really wrong or is it wrong because God said it was wrong?

Your response: This only shows rebellion to God.

Maybe but that is not the point. The point is that I want to know whether or not God is the creator of the law or the messenger of the law. If God is the creator of the law anything he says is permissible; even child sacrifice.

“Jesus sits on the judgment seat and is the judge of all that is, including you and me and everyone else.”

If that is true, he also created the human mind; and so he would know that we would question his judgment. And if he is the all powerful creator you say I would think he would respect more the man that looks at the world with an inquisitive mind then the man who respects only his power.

“God did not create slavery, Mankind did.”

You’re hopefully correct; but God had ample opportunities to tell us slavery was evil. God did not even stay silent on that issue but told us rules for having slaves. So God at least condones slavery; or am I wrong? Please tell me if I am.

“God never sacrificed anyone except Himself, as the human, Jesus.”

“God knows all as He can be everywhere at the same time. We are linear, He is not.”

That’s where I start to have a real problem. In the book of Judges Chapter 11 v 30 Jepthah vowed to God that he would sacrifice the 1st thing that he sees come out of his house if God would help him win the battle. If God knows the future as you said he KNEW that the 1st thing out of Jepthah’s house would be his daughter. God did not stop the sacrifice as he did with Abraham; he let it end with blood.

“These are simply consequences for not following the rules or the authority that we all live under, whether that be the authority of man or of God.”

Are there any crimes for which you would create a torture chamber in your basement to torture your children? If not then I say you are more moral than the God you worship. I grant any the consequences they deserve, but I have yet to know of any crime that my child could do to cause me to torture him for an unending period of time. Is there any crime that we can commit on earth that justifies unending pain and torment? Infinite punishment for finite crimes is immoral.

“You reject Jesus and you are separated from God.”

I love my son enough to let him choose to separate himself from me; but if he finds that unbearable he could come back to me and I would forgive. Your God doesn’t.

You said God sacrificed his body for us. This sacrifice is due to our sins and due to his demand for a blood sacrifice for those sins. Think about that please; God creates humans, humans mess up, God demands blood for those mess ups, after a while he decides to pave a way to stop the blood sacrifice he demands, he creates a body for himself, sacrifices that body to himself and now we can live forever. I’m sorry but if that’s the best system God could come up with… I’m not impressed. I’m not impressed with the system and certainly not his sacrifice. It’s no sacrifice to be all powerful, create a body to be tortured and then once again be in a position to create another body. I am mortal. I can say with complete conviction that if my death would end all child molestations in the world forever I would end my life immediately. That would be a real sacrifice. And yet it’s such a minor sacrifice for such a noble end that I truly doubt many would not choose the same.

10:13 PM, January 07, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

I thought you understood that Chief Justice Margaret Marshall was the swing vote in the Goodridge decision and I was eluding to the fact that many, if not all..like yourself.., are throwing all of your weight into her opinion in the case.

Marshall's opinion does not refute the FACT that M.G.L. 207 still stands to this day.

11:56 AM, January 08, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Hey Scia I looked up those bills and can only offer an opinion. In AZ we have a law against SSM’s and recently the constitution was amended to ensure that “activist” judges wouldn’t/couldn’t change it. I think it’s likely that those bills were introduced to ensure that SSM’s couldn’t be taken away easily. But that’s just my opinion.

“Marshall's opinion does not refute the FACT that M.G.L. 207 still stands to this day.”

I never said it did. 207 does stand, but as I stated before there is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 207 that makes SSM’s illegal. If you disagree please cite where it does; don’t just give some anecdote that I’ve patiently been waiting to hear who wrote it.

And please Scia… please please pretty please with cherries on top; would you tell me who wrote or said "We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may NOT be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry." And who is the judge it is referring to. If you ignore it once again I’ll have to assume you don’t know. I’ve already proven once before that you jump to conclusions when you don’t know the whole context of a small quote.

8:15 PM, January 08, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken, THIS FUNDAMENTAL ADMISSION IS IN THE GOODRIDGE DECISION! EVEN THE ULTRA-LIBERAL JUDGES AGREED ON THIS: THE STATUTE FORBIDS HOMOSEXUAL "MARRIAGE." Read the easily comprehensible :Letter to Romney at the UndergroundJournal.net:

http://www.undergroundjournal.net/igroops/theunderground/adminpages/Letter-To-Romney-JAN-07

IF YOU"RE REALLY SERIOUS, READ ATTY. 'ROBERT PAINE'S' PROOF, WHICH IS LONGER, BUT GIVE'S YOU AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE BASIC SEPARATION OF POWERS IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND SHOWS WHY WE'RE NOW UNDER A DICTATORSHIP THAT USES THE MYTH OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND JUDGE-MADE "LAW" TO DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF SELF-GOVERNMENT:

http://robertpaine.blogspot.com/2006/06/governors-new-clothes-how-mitt-romney_17.html

As Paine points out, even the lawyer for the homosexual plaintiffs admitted in court -- and after the opinion came out -- that licenses could not be issued to same-sex pairings unless the Legislature changed the marriage statutes.

Moreover, Paine, whose arguments have been affirmed by some of the top constitutional scholars in the country, proves that the binding original definition intended in the use of the term "marriage" in the MA (and CA) Constitutions means that only a constitutional amendment changing the Supreme Law of those states could make a new kind of marriage legal:

http://robertpaine.blogspot.com/2006/06/governors-new-clothes-how-_115059418356101051.html

Words have meaning. This is the most basic concept in all of law. Judges cannot chance the intent or the meaning of words and legal concepts ratified by the sovereign people or by their elected representatives in the exclusive lawmaking body in the American form of government. This is why the radical abortion movement, the global sodomy revolution are anti-constitutional, anti-democratic and use a false "jurisprudence" identical to that used by Nazis and communists. These people are achieving their political goals by destroying self-government and replacing it with dictatorship of the powerful elites -- all covered attractively by the superficial appearance of "democracy."

Thanks, Ken, for siding with selfish fascists who are destroying my children's, grandchildren's an great grandchildren's unalienable right of self government, and stealing their freedom of speech, freedom of religion, association, parents' rights, etc. criminalizing their beliefs and their moral framework with Stalinist "hate crimes" laws that crush those who are honest enough and care enough about those struggling with same-sex attraction to tell the simple truth about the long-term self-destruction that comes from homosexual behavior.

I just want to know, Ken, when will this wonderful "tolererance" reach the point at which no Christian can work as a teacher, police officer or other public official? At what point do you expect to have accomplished your goal of getting most companies in America to fire those who refuse to mouth the falsehoods about homosexuality that the new Stalinism is forcing on a formerly free society built by Christians?

And please show me any society in human history that had any true measure of liberty and human rights that did not get those things directly or indirectly from people who found those principles in the Judeo-Christian Bible? Do you know what you are doing by ripping the moral and theological foundation of liberty and functional family and childhood innocence out from under all of us? Look at the tyranny under which most of humanity has always lived. Then tell me the Founding Fathers were wrong when they said that the liberty they were bequeathing for us would depend entirely on our moral and religious foundation.

But don't do any of that until you've read the materials I linked to above.

John
www.UndergroundJournal.net

12:57 PM, January 09, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

I was wrong Scia, and I apologize. You see the plaintiffs in the Goodridge case petitioned the court that since MGL 207 did not explicitly deny same sex couples the right to marry that there was no reason to deny them marriage licenses. I thought that was correct, yet it was not. The Supreme Court judges said "We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may NOT be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry." However their decision also says that 207 may not be construed to outlaw same sex couples to marry either. Once again Scia you’ve taken a small quote that some have either misused or through ignorance used it to say that 207 outlaws SSM’s. It doesn’t. It doesn’t even come close. The judges basically said 207 makes no difference either way. So your continual reference to it is complete BS. The court also addresses concerns that the legislature must be involved in marriage changes. If you had read the notes from the Goodridge decision you would realize that. “To label the court's role as usurping that of the Legislature, see, e.g., post at 394-395 (Cordy, J., dissenting), is to misunderstand the nature and purpose of judicial review. We owe great deference to the Legislature to decide social and policy issues, but it is the traditional and settled role of courts to decide constitutional issues.” The court said that this is a constitutional issue unless and until the legislature amends the constitution. This is a constitutional issue because it is about civil rights. “It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a "civil right." See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) ("Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"), quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48 , 56 (1810) (referring to "civil rights incident to marriages"). See also Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 561 (1993) (identifying marriage as "civil right[ ]"); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 242 (1999) (Johnson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (same). The United States Supreme Court has described the right to marry as "of fundamental importance for all individuals" and as "part of the fundamental 'right of privacy' implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978). See Loving v. Virginia, supra ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"). [Note 14]
Without the right to marry - or more properly, the right to choose to marry - one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's "avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." Baker v. State, supra at 229. Because civil marriage is central to the lives of individuals and the welfare of the community, our laws assiduously protect the individual's right to marry against undue government incursion. Laws may not "interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry." Zablocki v. Redhail, supra at 387. See Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 714 (1948) ("There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and reasonable means").”

Basically your whole argument that SSM’s are “illegal” because of 207 is bunk.

“IF YOU"RE REALLY SERIOUS, READ ATTY. 'ROBERT PAINE'S' PROOF, WHICH IS LONGER, BUT GIVE'S YOU AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE BASIC SEPARATION OF POWERS IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND SHOWS WHY WE'RE NOW UNDER A DICTATORSHIP THAT USES THE MYTH OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND JUDGE-MADE "LAW" TO DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF SELF-GOVERNMENT”

“Moreover, Paine, whose arguments have been affirmed by some of the top constitutional scholars in the country, proves that the binding original definition intended in the use of the term "marriage" in the MA (and CA) Constitutions means that only a constitutional amendment changing the Supreme Law of those states could make a new kind of marriage legal”

I don’t know who this “Robert Paine Esq” is nor do I know who these “constitutional scholars” are. This Robert Paine fellow keeps his real identity a secret. And the only organizations that seem to even recognize him are fundamental right wingers. I have no doubt he is smart as a whip, but if he can’t even stand up and say his real name why should I feel any compulsion to put any weight into his statements?

“These people are achieving their political goals by destroying self-government and replacing it with dictatorship of the powerful elites -- all covered attractively by the superficial appearance of "democracy."”

Hey don’t blame the liberals; we’re not the ones trying to create a sex police force.

“Thanks, Ken, for siding with selfish fascists who are destroying my children's, grandchildren's an great grandchildren's unalienable right of self government, and stealing their freedom of speech, freedom of religion, association, parents' rights, etc. criminalizing their beliefs and their moral framework with Stalinist "hate crimes" laws that crush those who are honest enough and care enough about those struggling with same-sex attraction to tell the simple truth about the long-term self-destruction that comes from homosexual behavior.”

Why, you’re welcome.

“I just want to know, Ken, when will this wonderful "tolererance" reach the point at which no Christian can work as a teacher, police officer or other public official?”

I keep hoping tomorrow.

“At what point do you expect to have accomplished your goal of getting most companies in America to fire those who refuse to mouth the falsehoods about homosexuality that the new Stalinism is forcing on a formerly free society built by Christians?”

Well I’ve gotten together with the other “selfish fascists”, “radical abortion movement” people, “the global sodomy revolution” and even a few Nazis, KKK members and some Black Panthers too. We are working on a done date of 8/15/2009.

Okay, enough with the sarcasm. If you want to have a real discussion tone down the rhetoric somewhat. I’m willing to debate with you (whoever you are) but if you think around every corner is a liberal fascist homo Nazi pinko-commy you are way too out there even for me.

“Do you know what you are doing by ripping the moral and theological foundation of liberty and functional family and childhood innocence out from under all of us?”

Trying to promote a free society that does not depend upon an invisible sky god to stop themselves from hurting people.

“Look at the tyranny under which most of humanity has always lived. Then tell me the Founding Fathers were wrong when they said that the liberty they were bequeathing for us would depend entirely on our moral and religious foundation.”

They were wrong; not that liberty depends upon our morality but that morality comes from religion.

“And please show me any society in human history that had any true measure of liberty and human rights that did not get those things directly or indirectly from people who found those principles in the Judeo-Christian Bible?”

Ohhhhh. I love this game!! Most people never see me coming but I pile society upon society in such great numbers that they are generally overwhelmed and don’t even bother to respond. However Scia some of your caveats disturb me. If you will list the provisions and explicitly name rights they must have to have “any true measure of liberty and human rights” I will be more than happy to list some for you. But I don’t want to waste my time and yours by listing some and than you come out and say something like they couldn’t have guns so they don’t count.

11:31 PM, January 10, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Yes Ken, the right to marry was already there is the correct understanding of what the SJC said. That explains why we don't need a second law to clarify that same sex marriages are valid, because they were never excluded to begin with.

This is an unpopular and painful point for the oppostion to equality, but it is the law and that's why my marriage stands fully valid.

To try and say otherwise would simply be incorrect information.

Scia, when are we going to hear about your visit to the MFI, uh.. I mean Coalition for Marriage fund raiser. ;)

Apparently they changed the name in this failing venture just like we do in retail sales. After all, you have to distance yourself from the stink sometimes, right? ;)

I hope you have something to say on the matter, I kind of expected it after what's already been said.

12:57 PM, January 14, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken,

Ken wrote:

"However their decision also says that 207 may not be construed to outlaw same sex couples to marry either."

Perhaps Ken could actually quote them and identify the portion of Goodridge where he found this.

Then, AFTER reading the devastating proof assembled by Atty. Robert Paine:

"The Governor’s New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America."

http://robertpaine.blogspot.com/2006/06/governors-new-clothes-how-mitt-romney_17.html

...Ken can try to explain how the SAME court, having admitted in the 1990's (see Paine's citations) that changes to the marriage law could ONLY come from the Legislature, why he (Ken, even clings to the fantasy that Goodridge has any legal force at all.

And Ken could do at least fifteen minutes of homework and read the Letter to Romney, where he will learn that the Supreme Law of Massachusetts makes any opinion of judges on marriage law totally irrelevant. In fact, it makes clear that by agreeing to hear the Goodridge case the judges violated their oath and the state Constitution and in a functioning democracy under the rule of law would long ago have been removed from the bench and stripped of their pensions.

http://www.undergroundjournal.net/igroops/theunderground/adminpages/Letter-To-Romney-JAN-07

Then Ken can explain to himself and then to us how these judges got up the gumption to declare the marriage laws violate what is known as the "rational basis test." This means that the judges went way out onto a limb by claiming that the one man-one woman marriage laws could only have been ratified by an irrational legislature and that no rational person could have ratified such a law. This, of course, refutes Ken's claim that the judges opined that the marriage statutes do NOT prevent sodomy-based "marriage" licenses from being issued. If that were true, why would they call the statutes irrational?

Now, Ken needs to understand the basic reason why the rational basis test matters: The court needed a pretext to offer even an advisory opinion to the executive or legislative branches on a statute. They chose to declare it "irrational" because otherwise they would have to admit as they had in the 1990's (when they were more honest and less fascist) that they have no business second-guessing the Legislature at all. PROBLEM: by declaring that Chapter 207 fails the rational basis test they find themselves concluding that all those who disagree with them are clinically insane. This includes not only the Legislature, the Founding Fathers, 99% of the citizens who have lived in the United States of America, every other state legislature, but also very liberal pro-homosexuality judges in all the other states where courts stayed within their legal limits and admitted that the entire issue is strictly within the hands of the Legislature and courts have no role in this at all! In fact the four judges who wrote Goodridge were calling the three dissenting judges sitting beside them clinically insane! They had to do this nonsense in order to cook up any pretense to tell the Legislature to change the statutes.

STILL the Legislature rejected the judges' bluff, and left sodomy-based counterfeit "marriage" illegal. Moreover, as Ken can surely understand, if he steps back and takes a breath, so-called "homosexuals" have the right to marry and always have. "Marriage" is by definition a covenant between a man and a woman. No one has ever been stopped from taking advantage of the legal privileges to marry. Pairing two people of the same gender is not marriage. Just as the unalienable right to life cannot be twisted into an unalienable right to death by judges or anyone else, the right to marry is the right to enter into a marriage, which is a real concept with real meaning. That meaning is not subject to sabotage or Orwellian ju jitsu to destroy the legal concept. Marriage is what marriage is.

And the term is found in the Massachusetts Constitution. It has the specific and obvious meaning the statutes have: One man. One woman. Judges who ignore the words and meaning in the constitutions they swore to uphold and enforce are liars. They are totalitarian fascists. That is Law 101. That is Democracy 101. And that is America 101.

Ken is showing up to class without having done the necessary homework -- although, he deserves credit for at least pretending to. Most people are too lazy even to pretend. The right to govern ourselves depends on holding lying judges, politicians and journalists accountable to the law.

Ken, are you going to be jumping up and down when the new Stalinists start taking our children away because we refuse to let you brainwash them into your selfish hypocritical "tolerance?" How about when your friends file bogus "hate" crimes charges and lawsuits against us to bankrupt us and get us locked up in prison for daring to disagree with you? Have you eve defended the right of Christians not to be fired for refusing to mouth Orwellian lies about the culture of sodomy? I doubt it, Ken. I think you get a nice feeling deep down inside when people's careers are ruined because they refuse to embrace the new fascism that is swallowing the rule of law, self-government, freedom of conscience and speech and parents' rights.

Frankly, I have zero respect for people who fail to object when their allies and friends use Stalinist and Nazi methods crush other people for not agreeing with them. This kind of "diversity" and "tolerance" is truly evil.

John

6:56 PM, January 15, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

...you stole my thunder. Thanks!!

6:59 PM, January 15, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

All that said we still have marriage equality and no judge has been stripped of their bench.

If these points were true where is the law suit from your office SCIA?

John sounds a lot like the smae old same old here, I wonder why... ;)

5:08 AM, January 16, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“Perhaps Ken could actually quote them and identify the portion of Goodridge where he found this.”

Now why on Earth should I feel any compunction whatsoever to point out to you where you can find anything? When I asked where this quote came from “We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may NOT be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry." The only response I got was that it’s in the Goodridge decision. You didn’t bother to help me why should I help you?

“Then, AFTER reading the devastating proof assembled by Atty. Robert Paine:”

Do you have any idea that this “Robert Paine” is only a nickname or a handle he likes to go by?

“And Ken could do at least fifteen minutes of homework and read the Letter to Romney, where he will learn that the Supreme Law of Massachusetts makes any opinion of judges on marriage law totally irrelevant.”

I did read the letter and found it to be a bunch of whining because they didn’t like what happened.

“Then Ken can explain to himself and then to us how these judges got up the gumption to declare the marriage laws violate what is known as the "rational basis test."”

If you had read the Goodridge decision like you had me do, you wouldn’t need to ask such a lame question.

“This, of course, refutes Ken's claim that the judges opined that the marriage statutes do NOT prevent sodomy-based "marriage" licenses from being issued. If that were true, why would they call the statutes irrational?”

Marriages based on butt love?????? Lay off the drugs!!!!

“PROBLEM: by declaring that Chapter 207 fails the rational basis test they find themselves concluding that all those who disagree with them are clinically insane.”

If you had read the Goodridge decision you would realize they said no such thing. 207 had absolutely NOTHING to do with their decision. They based their decision on other things that they detail in the report.

“Moreover, as Ken can surely understand, if he steps back and takes a breath, so-called "homosexuals" have the right to marry and always have. "Marriage" is by definition a covenant between a man and a woman. No one has ever been stopped from taking advantage of the legal privileges to marry. Pairing two people of the same gender is not marriage.”

This is another “straw man” argument that the court dealt with in detail.

“They are totalitarian fascists. That is Law 101. That is Democracy 101. And that is America 101.”

If it wasn’t so damn sad that you actually believe that crap it would be hilarious.

“The right to govern ourselves depends on holding lying judges, politicians and journalists accountable to the law.”

True, but also on individual freedom. Which the “lying judges” tried to ensure.

“Ken. I think you get a nice feeling deep down inside when people's careers are ruined because they refuse to embrace the new fascism that is swallowing the rule of law, self-government, freedom of conscience and speech and parents' rights.”

Warm fuzzies feel good don’t they!!

“Frankly, I have zero respect for people who fail to object when their allies and friends use Stalinist and Nazi methods crush other people for not agreeing with them. This kind of "diversity" and "tolerance" is truly evil.”

I couldn’t agree more! Which is why I have little to no respect for you John. I don’t know what it’s like in Massachusetts, but in Arizona it’s monetary suicide to “out” yourself as a supporter of marriage equality. Luckily for me I am self employed and most don’t know that I support the civil rights up to and including the right to choose one’s marriage partner.

I don’t like you John. And I doubt you like me either. You’re not humorous, and you have such a wild imagination with your “sodomy based marriages” and your “Nazi” rhetoric that it gives me a headache to sink down to your level. If you would like to have a discussion I am game, but don’t throw these lame insults at me like I’m in class and I’m getting a poor grade because I only pretend to do the homework. Get real and not so melodramatic and I’ll show you proper respect. Until then you’re just another “nut-job” that I’ll mostly ignore unless I’m feeling sarcastic and wish to make fun of you.

7:49 PM, January 16, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"And please show me any society in human history that had any true measure of liberty and human rights that did not get those things directly or indirectly from people who found those principles in the Judeo-Christian Bible?"

How ethnocentric can you get to assume no civilization in history has had true liberty and human rights unless they shared your view of God. Your ego never ceases to amaze me.

Ken, I am amazed at your ability to keep the discussion focused in the midst of a veritable monsoon of attempts to derail and avoid the matter at hand.

9:23 PM, January 18, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The new title for this event shall be "Save the Date to Celebrate Hate."

5:19 PM, February 08, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AAAAAH The Weaver has his own website

All business up front and a party in the back with that mullet hey
Ken!

I see you are still flailing away with your hate propaganda.

President Obama is against gay marriage - doesn't that make him a homobigotNazi?

The Patriot

1:42 PM, February 09, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“All business up front and a party in the back with that mullet hey”

Hey, it was cool in 89. Now I have a buzz cut but about a year ago it was longer than what you see in the photo but it was long all over.

“I see you are still flailing away with your hate propaganda.”

You betcha!! Hatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehate!!!!!

“President Obama is against gay marriage - doesn't that make him a homobigotNazi?”

Pretty much yes, but I didn’t have much of a choice now did I? McCain who has become like a twin to Bush which totally made him lose his man card, or Obama who is closer to what I want to see in a president, but still wants a separate but equal marriage. You would figure he should know better.

OMG it’s Patriot!! How are you doing? Are you still an a** hole?

8:37 PM, February 09, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Ken,

You are a breath of fresh air sometimes, man can you make me laugh! Yup, "Patriot" is the same old person we've all come to "love".

I guess he was getting lonesome over at KTN being the sole troll and all.

Hey Scia, looks like Patriot needs an outlet. Do any of your international offices for KTFNTN have room for one more? hehehe...

7:23 AM, February 10, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've always been an a-hole to my enemies, I would expect nothing more or less from the ignorant.

8:44 AM, February 10, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“I've always been an a-hole to my enemies…”

I never thought of you as my enemy and I’m surprised you see me as such. I thought we just had opposing viewpoints. Enemies as I see it wish to kill one another, I’ve no wish to kill you; just educate you.

As far as you still being an a-hole there is a therapy for it. Sex works wonders! You can even have it with yourself if you can find none who wish to participate with you (don’t worry, you won’t go blind or get hairy palms, mommy just told you that so you wouldn’t mess up her clean sheets.)

9:49 PM, February 10, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll leave the jerkoff stuff to you Ken.

I am much too busy taking care of my beautiful wife.

8:33 AM, February 11, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Ya Ken, she's got him so wrapped up that he was posting crap on KTN CHRISTMAS MORING.

There are only three reasons I see for people to be talking about GLBT affairs day after day:

1. You are gay.
2. You are straight, but understand what equality means.
3. You are GAY!

So Patriot, are you reason one or three?

1:21 PM, February 11, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“I'll leave the jerkoff stuff to you Ken. I am much too busy taking care of my beautiful wife.”

IMPOSSIBLE!!! I am way too demanding for her to be a bigamist, and I doubt she would give you the time of day anyway.

“Ya Ken, she's got him so wrapped up that he was posting crap on KTN CHRISTMAS MORING.”

That’s okay John, as long as it’s not Christmas night ;)

8:33 PM, February 11, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well there you go! Hosty has finally figured it out!

Boy Hosty - you really should be in some investigative field where you can help society with your sluething skills! ROFLMGAO

The haters love to use the "He must be gay" attack. Because Hosty hates himself.

Hosty the heathen has some kind of sick fascination with people blogging on Christmas day. Isn't that ok in your secular quasi religious universe Hoisty?

Why does that strike you as sooooo I don't know, damning?

My mission knows no holidays Hosty

I will fight you and your terrorist haters until the day you die.

12:57 PM, February 14, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

LOL, you can always tell when you hit a nerve Ken! LOL!!!

1:14 PM, February 14, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nudge nudge wink wink say no more say no more

Your a real goer eh?

I mean - do you go?

know what I mean, nudge nudge wink wink

8:12 PM, February 14, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“I will fight you and your terrorist haters until the day you die.”

START WITH ME!

“know what I mean, nudge nudge wink wink”

I don’t have a clue.

6:54 AM, February 15, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

What's a goer?

12:08 PM, February 15, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

File under "have you never been yellow" or "Let's get physical"


An elderly Ohio man was "exercised to death" by his transgendered wife - who forced him to swim even as he gasped for breath, authorities said.

Christine Newton-John, 41, pleaded guilty last week to reckless homicide in the death of James Mason, 73, and could get five years in prison.

Cops said she/he was caught on video dragging her/his frail hubby around the pool in their apartment complex, stopping him from getting out 43 times.

"The man was exercised to death," Middlefield Police Chief Joseph Stehlik told the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

"The video is bone-chilling," he said. "The whole case is very sinister. My personal feeling is that what she/he did was more intentional than reckless.

"This is a case that could just slip through the cracks."

It didn't because Stehlik's deputy became suspicious after Mason's June 2 heart attack, recalling that he'd investigated previous allegations of abuse.

A police officer noticed a surveillance camera above the pool and retrieved the tape - which showed Mason struggling to breathe during the marathon swim session.

A grand jury indicted Newton-John on reckless homicide, and she/he pleaded guilty Thursday.

"You can see the man struggling for his life on the tape, but there is no audio, so we couldn't hear what he was saying," prosecutor David Joyce told the newspaper, explaining why he didn't pursue a murder rap.

Newton-John's lawyer declined comment.

The suspect was born a male, named John Vallandingham, but underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1993 and took a new name in honor of singer Olivia Newton-John.

Mason knew Vallandingham's family for years. They got married in 2006 in Kentucky, which recognizes such unions as legal, officials said.

The marriage was troubled, authorities said.

"I think he was victimized for years by her/him," Stehlik said.

Before her arrest, Newton-John had the gumption to threaten the owner of the apartment complex with a lawsuit over Mason's death.

Peter Demopoulos, a private investigator hired by the landlord, said Newton-John is getting off easy. "Considering what she did, it seems like she faces a pretty light sentence," he said. "That tape is startling."

4:07 AM, February 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-speech16-2009feb16,0,6896300.story

another hater bites the dust - University will be sued over hate speech

4:08 AM, February 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

must be a couple of bigots'

Gays against Gay Marriage

" Watching the rally outside the hotel, Richard and Michele Goff of Rancho Peñasquitos said they support gay rights, but they voted for Proposition 8 because they would rather have the legal partnership called a union instead of a marriage.

They brought their two daughters to watch the protest and catch a glimpse of the president.

“We just love Bill Clinton,” said Richard Goff, 40. “I just wanted to see the dude.”

4:15 AM, February 16, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

OK, in the first article you have a wife trying to kill her husband, the most remarkable thing I see is the method.

Second, you have a student that doesn't understand the laws of free speech do not apply to classrooms. Everybody knows the professor reigns supreme, if you don't like his class you leave it.

Third, just because someone is gay it doesn't make them have the same beliefs. Stupidly you are just pointing out yet again how much of a bigot you are.

I see MFI has rebranded itself, has the "Patriot" done this too? ;)

6:44 AM, February 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually Hosty it was a MAN and not a wife - a very disturbed individual who needed treatment - not surgery

Second - you are a hater and are against free speech - I wouldn't expect you to understand

Third - The education of Hosty continues............

8:12 PM, February 16, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Hey Patriot, what’s the point in the 3 articles you brought up? Is it that gays and supporters of equality are just as screwed up as anyone else? If so I agree. I almost feel bad for the student; he didn’t get to finish his public hate/good Christian speech.

10:06 PM, February 16, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"Actually Hosty it was a MAN and not a wife - a very disturbed individual who needed treatment - not surgery"

How well did you know the assailant, or are you just speaking out of your ass again?

I think the latter. She is transgender, which means she changed her sex. Her transgenderness should not be your issue, it should be the murder, but that just goes to show how screwed up your priorities are.

Paul, why did you bother to start using the moniker "Patriot" if you're not going to stick with it?

Oh, that's right, I forgot that you and your friends use multiple monikers to mask how small your hate group's support really is:

Here's the begining

6:47 AM, February 17, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Ken

Your secular hate knows no bounds

What it must be like to live a life of fear and intimidation.

And Hosty is thinking in his paranoid delusional again.

What other conspiracies have you thought up today?

6:56 AM, February 17, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Paul, have you forgotten that I have your IP address from posting on KTN and my website? I KNOW it's you. You tried twice to post this article on my site and I rejected it.

What does your God say about lying?

7:12 AM, February 17, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“Your secular hate knows no bounds”

If you had ever looked at religion without being brainwashed by it you just might understand. I don’t know if I REALLY hate religion; sometimes I think I do, and sometimes I don’t. I hate the effects of religion. The genital mutilation, the indoctrination of children, and where you have to turn off your brain to accept what’s being told to you, I hate all that and more.

“What it must be like to live a life of fear and intimidation.”

No Patriot; those feelings I let go of when I stopped believing in the invisible man in the sky. I don’t fear a god and I’m not intimidated by a god because god’s don’t exist.

7:58 AM, February 17, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There goes Hosty again with his superior intellect

My God is NOT your God Hosty

Ken - you hate religion therefore you are a hater of most people - probably 90%

8:26 AM, February 19, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"My God is NOT your God Hosty"

One of the most important beliefs of Christianity is that there is only one God.

You don't even know your own religion, do you?!

From KTN Archives:

I was thinking about this last night, after Caroline Rhea made that joke, to which I early referred, John H.

I wondered if this is the case:

PATRIOT has admitted being taunted and bullied when younger, perceived to be gay.

He is dominated by shame, fear, and inner-loathing.

He follows the rules. He becomes addicted to his religion, which serves as a strong shield to him. A hiding place. A salvation.

But there is still the inner hate.

He gets married, then has kids.

Always speaking out against "the gays."

Then his vote is "stolen," and he is outraged.

But is his outrage strictly a matter of narcissistic disorder?

Or.

Is the real contempt because he sees others like him, who took the "other" road, the "out" road...

getting something he resents them having because he's taken the "hard road"...the one where he played by the rules yet he still found himself frustrated and bitter, and self-hating.

Now he resents gays for being able to have something that doesn't seem fair to him, for he was promised that the ONLY road to decency, happiness, and righteousness is through Christ, marriage, and family.

He resents gays who are out and seeking marriage because, deep in his heart, he knows they will know what TRUE happiness and spiritual authenticity will be like.

That's my theory.

Or, well, he's a flat out narcissist with pathology.

Posted by: Lula | November 03, 2006 at 12:04 PM

11:11 AM, February 19, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“Ken - you hate religion therefore you are a hater of most people - probably 90%”

You infer too much patriot. Scia follows religion, so does Omd; but I don’t them. On the contrary I actually like them. Most discussions that I have with them are enjoyable. I don’t hate my family even though my grandmother and I are the only atheists. Mike Reid was a neighbor when I was younger he was devoutly religious yet he was a good man; he used to always have hard candies in his pocket and would hand them out to all the kids in the neighborhood, I didn’t hate him. I don’t even hate their beliefs. My wife is a Catholic; I don’t hate her. My son doesn’t follow any particular religion, yet he believes that there is a god; I don’t hate him. I’ll repeat myself for your benefit; I hate the effects of religion. Want to change my mind? It’s easy; show me one good thing religion has accomplished that REQUIRED a belief in god. I can mention numerous bad things that have happened that would not have happened without a belief in god i.e. 9/11, the crusades, witch trials, the inquisition etc etc. I want you to name just one good thing that COULD NOT have happened without the belief in god.

And by the way I particularly hate how religion pits one person against another i.e.” My God is NOT your God Hosty” or my god is better than your god.

12:47 PM, February 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well you are secularists and you dilute the word of God and according to my the bible that is unnaceptable.

You are wrong on abortion, homosexuality and other important doctrines of the faith.

Like the Pope told Nancy - you are either with us - or against us.

Patriot

12:55 PM, February 19, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Which of the over 5,000 versions of the truth have you decided is the undiluted version of God's will?

2:33 PM, February 19, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“Well you are secularists and you dilute the word of God and according to my the bible that is unnaceptable.”

I am a secularist, but how am I diluting the word of your god? Is me expressing my lack of belief diluting your god’s word? If so what are you going to do about it patriot? Take away my freedom of speech? That’s not what an American patriot would do but I’ve never considered you much of a patriot anyway. Anyway you can take my freedom of speech when you pry my gun from my cold dead fingers.

“You are wrong on abortion, homosexuality and other important doctrines of the faith.”

Really? Prove it. Show me in your bible that homosexuality and abortion are wrong. Book, chapter and verse please.

“Like the Pope told Nancy - you are either with us - or against us.”

Well then I am most assuredly against you because I can not stand by and allow your religious beliefs to intrude and remove rights of U.S. citizens. A true patriot stands for freedom, which IS the foundation of The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the United States of America.

3:04 PM, February 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Really? Prove it. Show me in your bible that homosexuality and abortion are wrong. Book, chapter and verse please."

You have got to be kidding me.

1 Cor. (6:9-10)

Saul of Tarsus was knocked off his horse by Jesus with a bolt of lightning and blinded by him for killing Christians. He was told BY JESUS to go and be his mouthpiece and to spread Christianity. He changed his name to Paul and wrote a good portion of the New Testament.

He starts his writings with "Paul an apostle - not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"

What Paul says - Christ says

2:52 PM, February 23, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Well, I guess first off I’ll say that I think religion is a poor excuse for law; but for the sake of argument I’ll assume that your statement that what Paul says is what Christ says is correct.

Look at 1st Corinthians ch6 v9-10 from a King James version.

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Now for some definitions

Fornicator- someone who has sex outside of marriage.

Idolater- worshiper of idols.

Adulterers- someone who has sex with another that is not their spouse.

Effeminate- a man whose behavior, appearance, or speech is considered to be similar to that traditionally associated with women or girls.

Abusers of themselves with mankind- This could mean just about anything. A boxer gets abused by another man. So is there any real definition for this one?

Thieves- Someone who steals often.

Covetous- a person with a strong desire for another’s property.

Drunkards- Someone who often drinks to excess.

Revilers- One who makes fierce verbal attacks on someone or something. (Some Christians really need to look at this again)

Extortioners- Someone who gains something valuable by using threats or force (Isn’t that what god does?)


Okay now where is it? Wow I’ve looked over this list many times and I just can’t find one that if a person lays with another person of the same gender they won’t inherit the kingdom of god. Maybe someone can point this one out for me because I haven’t found it. WAIT!! Is that it? Maybe it’s the abuser one. Nah; couldn’t be. Because that only mentions mankind. Not men or women but mankind is everyone.

Hey, do you think you can find any stronger quotes from the bible that show homosexuality as wrong because this one just doesn’t cut it because it just doesn’t mention men who lay with other men.

4:36 AM, February 24, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

The problem with Bible litaralists is that they believe all the answers to the world's problems are contained in the Bible.

How can you have all the answers to all the new developments in life from 2000 years ago and never need to update anyhting?

You can't.

I cite the example of how the Pope thought so much of his views on how the Universe works that people were put to death and imprisoned for trying to teach otherwise.

Then, finally, after enough bloodshed and the proof became so painfully obvious the church teachings were changed.

This is the same thing with marriage equality.

"One diocesan church - St. Francis of Assisi in northwest Raleigh - has an active gay and lesbian ministry but takes a different tack - to welcome gays and lesbians "into full participation in the faith community," according to its Web site: www.stfrancisglbt.org.

"Its purpose is not to change their orientation but to help them find a place in the community," said Gladys Whitehouse, coordinator of family life ministry at St. Francis. The group sponsors a supper during Lent, and has an annual retreat, among other things.

Chuck Small, one of the group's leaders, said gays and lesbians are respected at St. Francis and serve as lectors and Eucharistic ministers. Small, a former editor at The News & Observer who is openly gay, lives with his partner, Tom Attaway."

http://www.newsobserver.com/2178/story/1409912.html

8:29 AM, February 24, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can spin it all you like and liberals and gays have spun it out to fit their agenda. But any REAL Christian knows the truth and condemns the false prophets as Christ does.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf

It is actually one of the worst sins to speak falsely against the scriptures.


I mean c'mon Ken - use your brain - effeminate liers with men?

3:08 PM, February 24, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“You can spin it all you like and liberals and gays have spun it out to fit their agenda.”

I didn’t spin anything. I took a literal view of the bible and gave terminology so we can all understand what kinds of people won’t be inheriting the kingdom of god. If you think I took something out of context please explain and correct my mistake. But don’t you dare accuse me of spinning a quote you gave to fit my “agenda”. I asked you to provide me with biblical evidence that homosexuality is a sin and I gave my view of your quote. If you want to say effeminate means homosexuality that’s fine but according to what I know of the English language it does not.

“But any REAL Christian knows the truth and condemns the false prophets as Christ does.”

And who may I ask gets to decide what a real Christian is? You? The Pope? The KKK’s grand dragon? A Mennonite Elder? A Mormon prophet?

Your link sent me to a site that said “Oops !
Something went wrong.
The page you are looking for isn't here.”

“It is actually one of the worst sins to speak falsely against the scriptures.”


Did I speak falsely? Did I not take your quote from the bible and use it literally? I didn’t try to say it was crap because it’s from Paul. I didn’t make words say what they don’t. I didn’t lie about the quote at all. I gave a literal view. If you don’t like the literal view of what the bible says, no longer try to use religion to further your agenda.

“I mean c'mon Ken - use your brain - effeminate liers with men?”

Do you mean that effeminate means a man that lies with other men? How did you come to that conclusion because the English language does not support it?

4:25 PM, February 24, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

This is the type of teaching that used to get straight whimpy boys beat up while they overlooked me. Even now I'm 210lbs and can bench press 250. I used to play football in school.

Your stereotyping of others is based in ignorance, just like your religious teachings.

Christ taught that love should be your most important laws, above all else. I guess you can look past that as say your unfounded fears against neighbors is more important that what your God asks of you.

Then, after you're done personalizing your beliefs to fit your religion you ask us to follow it as Divine.

No, I won't. You're going to have to live with that. If you want my cooperation it starts with respect, which you have to give in order to get.

8:49 AM, February 25, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wha?

You need help Hosty

Mumbling and spewing about Divinity

Why not quote the whole line from Jesus - "Love Your Neighbor as YOURSELF"

You hate your neighbors

and no one is asking you to follow anything but the truth - go find a UU church and shut up

8:14 AM, February 27, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

You're right Patriot, why should I confuse you with Christ's teachings. After all, you're doing so well preaching your own agenda. ;)

Truth is you can't control your neighbors and that eats you up inside. You try to put yourself in God's place as our judge, so it is justice that you suffer in this way.

Maybe one day you'll learn how to be a more respectful and less bigotted neighbor. If love lead you instead of hate you would be happier and closer to God.

10:08 AM, March 02, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and you are sooooo close to God aren't you hater?

LOL - Jesus would be very leery of you and would wonder why you intimidate people and slander them with hatred.

It just kills that you are the minority and no kind of activism will ever make you anything other than that.

11:46 AM, March 03, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Say what you want, at least I don't hide my identity for shame of what I say like you do.

This country was founded on courage, not cowardice and false accusations like yours.

People like you are the problem, not me. You don't have to deny my rights to enjoy your own. You're simply a bigot, plain and simple. That's the ugly truth that no smart ass comment will wipe away.

11:52 AM, March 03, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wrong - haters like you and your intimidating buddies are what is wrong. I have a right to vote and so do you. We can debate, but I would never intimidate someone. Your hatred says "let's get them". Its the wrong move Hosty and not even close to being neighborly. Attacking people on account of their religion and culture and threatening them will get you no where.

Why do you think people hide their identities? Because nutjobs like you THREATEN them.

You sir are a bald face liar and a phony who cannot see Jesus looking right at him and asking "why do you do this to me"

1:07 PM, March 04, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Only an idiot would call someone a "nutjob" and deny their own hate.

I give you your credit sir. ;)

The difference between you and I is that I will stand up and face the consequences of my words from people I fear. That's what gives me the right to call you a coward for hiding while you peddal your fears and hatred.

I'm not worried about what Christ thinks of me, I have nothing to hide. In the end you will have to pay for all the false witness you bear against your neighbor, or had you forgotten that His rules apply to you too?

1:19 AM, March 05, 2009  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“wrong - haters like you and your intimidating buddies are what is wrong.”

Are you that easily intimidated? I thought Christians were supposed to not fear the those that hate and hurt them for their faith? Doesn’t the bible state that Christians that are killed for their faith would have a special place with their god?

“We can debate, but I would never intimidate someone.”

Maybe you are so easily intimidated because you are not a “real” Christian. You couldn’t be because a “real” Christian wouldn’t lie would they?

“You sir are a bald face liar and a phony who cannot see Jesus looking right at him and asking "why do you do this to me"”

You tried to intimidate me; right here on this thread. I’ll quote you “It is actually one of the worst sins to speak falsely against the scriptures.” You were trying to intimidate me with your god’s retribution. Only problem is I’m not afraid of invisible men.

“Attacking people on account of their religion and culture and threatening them will get you no where.”

Wow… such a profound statement. I wish you and your Christian brethren would actually believe that statement. John Hosty gets attacked for his culture and I get attacked for my lack of religion. You keep threatening John with your bible and telling him he won’t inherit the kingdom of god. Heck if I was a paranoid man I’d keep looking for the Christians coming to my house to kill me. Your bible even tells you how to deal with guys like John and guys like myself. We are to be stoned. I know, I know; you and your Christian brethren keep telling me that was old testament stuff but you still follow the ten commandments and that’s in the old testament. How are we supposed to know what scripture Christians are going to pick and choose like ala carte to start following?

“Why do you think people hide their identities? Because nutjobs like you THREATEN them.”

Oh and there just couldn’t be any nutjobs on your side of the fence now could there.

2:17 AM, March 05, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BECAUSE NUTJOBS LIKE YOU THREATEN PEOPLE.

You could be a murderer or child molester for all I know.

Who knows what kind of stuff someone like you or Hosty or even I am capable of.

stop the intimidation and stop the hate

7:15 AM, March 13, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"BECAUSE NUTJOBS LIKE YOU THREATEN PEOPLE."

I call you a liar, prove me wrong.

This is what domestic terrorists like yourself do, you try to make people afraid without cause by spreading lies. Freedom of speech should not intimidate or threaten anyone, especially when that speech is founded on truth.

8:03 AM, March 13, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Hosty,

You said:

"I'm not worried about what Christ thinks of me, I have nothing to hide."

1. So, you are NOT a sinner? If you ARE a sinner, how do you sin on a daily basis like I and the rest of those who comment or read this blog?

2. Why are you not worried about what Christ thinks of you?

8:46 PM, March 13, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

SCIA, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. Yes I sin, but no I'm not ashamed of my sins, nor do I hide them.

My comment about Christians is that people can accuse what they want of me. If those accusations are not founded in truth they will eventually be exposed as lies and the accuser will be the one left answering the questions that follow.

Some people want to look past a person's individuality and try to see them as merely one of "them". The fear ignorance creates is a poor subsitute for logic.

9:02 AM, March 16, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Hosty,

You said:

"SCIA, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. Yes I sin, but no I'm not ashamed of my sins, nor do I hide them."

Do you think Christ will be ashamed of your sins and if so, what do you think the consequences will be?

1:56 PM, March 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

wrong - haters like you and your intimidating buddies are what is wrong. I have a right to vote and so do you. We can debate, but I would never intimidate someone. Your hatred says "let's get them". Its the wrong move Hosty and not even close to being neighborly. Attacking people on account of their religion and culture and threatening them will get you no where.

Why do you think people hide their identities? Because nutjobs like you THREATEN them.

You sir are a bald face liar and a phony who cannot see Jesus looking right at him and asking "why do you do this to me"

5:07 AM, March 19, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"Do you think Christ will be ashamed of your sins?"

No. He grants us forgiveness through His grace, not through our actions. We are not worthy of forgiveness, not a single one of us, not through our actions.

Were we to compare sins I believe yours are larger because they violate both the Ten Commandments (bearing false witness) and one of the two most important commandments that Jesus re-clarified, love thy neighbor as thyself.

You have to dig around the Bible to come up with an excuse for your hate against GLBT people, and you know that the understanding of what was written is questioned by some of the best translators in the world.

There is no such question against your actions, there are just wrong.

"I have a right to vote and so do you."

If you believe this then you don't understand how the Constitution works.

"Because nutjobs like you THREATEN them."

Let's have a reality check here. Cite one single time where I have threatened anyone. I accuse you openly of lying; prove me wrong.

Speaking of nut jobs, whatever happened to your buddy that was with MassResistance who was taking photos of grade school children and then started running from the police stripping his clothes off as he ran?

Now THAT'S what I call nutty.

How shameful that you still support them even after being named a hate group, and even after the crazed stripping photographer.

"Those who lay down with dogs shall rise up with fleas." -Benjamin Franklin.

SCIA, if you are not going to keep this blog based in facts you should change it's name. Either that or keep your anonymity to save yourself from the embarassment.

11:07 AM, March 19, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"No. He grants us forgiveness through His grace, not through our actions. We are not worthy of forgiveness, not a single one of us, not through our actions."

I need to ask a serious question here: what Bible do you read from to justify this?

8:40 PM, March 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Cite one single time where I have threatened anyone. I accuse you openly of lying; prove me wrong"

Your association with KTN is an ongoing threat - but I might remind you of threatening someone on the KTN blog and then posting their phone number for people to call and harass.

10:17 AM, March 22, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"...but I might remind you of threatening someone on the KTN blog..."

This is a lie, feel free to prove otherwise. I did post Paul Jamieson's phone number which is public information, I simply looked it up. He was harassing us just after Jacob Robido had shot up a gay bar, then later killed two people before he himself was killed.

I apologised for this action, and Mr. Jamieson made a statement on the KTN blog reassuring people he recieved not one single call.

It's all right there so if anyone wants to read it feel free.

11:02 AM, March 22, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So its ok to threaten someone as long as nothing happens?

That is some twisted logic Hosty

11:47 AM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Threaten is a lie, feel free to prove otherwise.

1:52 PM, March 23, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well you threatened someone and you know it - as a matter of fact - everyone knows it.

7:07 PM, March 29, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

No, actually no one knows it because you have brought no proof once again. I accuse you of lying and call you to cite source source, you in turn ignore your responsibility to prove what you accuse.

Where have I heard something like this before? Know thy Facts, right? So where are they?

11:57 AM, March 30, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

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