jackson33

enorbet2; Since you have taken a great deal of time offering the above post, generally which I do NOT disagree with, I'll offer some comments; First; your replying to a comment, out of context to another post and a poster that for years has declared the Founders and the Society of that day as secular or in some way not Christian or anti- Christian. The apparent 'flame' comments coming from 'Wallbuilders', which was offered to a member of this forum, an apparent strong belief in his religion, who happened to have been on the Mike Huckabee Fox program the day before. Related; Although I feel Mike Huckabee is a fine person and no doubt a great Governor for Arkansas would never have been elected, did NOT get my support and probably lost a great deal of support over the weekend by guesting David Baron, in the first place. If anything about GWB that concerned me it was his religious conviction and the potential for his judgments being based on those convictions. Second; I understand Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison have made deist comments (not believing in a Christ or a Messiah) and Franklin may have had reservations on religion itself, arguably many others. That's not the point...They also made comments/quotes to the other side or professed the Christian Agenda, for the most part away or after serving (purposely or keeping to the separation), including Mr. Franklin. It's my belief the society that existed in the late 18th Century, would make todays society seem atheistic, by comparison. I do believe the vast majority of the signers (of each document) and promoters of the Republic that formed were in fact Christian and my point the society, which remains today, to a majority degree. Related; Since I believed you missed this,.. Personally I am not Christian and call myself a Constitutional Conservative (Smaller Government, Fiscal Responsibility and the like) who happens to vote, support and promote the Republican Party. While the Evangelical Movements of the 19th and early 20th Centuries formed many of our moral dilemma of today, they also had a great deal of influence into giving purpose of/to life itself to a struggling society, that firmed the intend of those founders. IMO. Third; Spin doctoring works both ways. On the thread issue SSM, trying to insert the Founders or their intent on personal rights is an insult to intelligence. While Slavery, Womens Roll in Governing or the many issues of today were being discussed then and before the Constitution, they would have never considered Same Sex Marriage and from the laws of the many States then, I would suggest they or future generation to this day would have or will Amend the Constitution to forbid any thought of such recognition. Related and again, think you may have missed; I DO NOT OPPOSE same sex ANYTHING. I strongly believe that sexual conduct is a personal issue, the choice of being attracted to anything a person choice (not genetic), be it a red head, tall person, another race or the same sex, BUT in making that choice there may or can be social consequences/limits which should be expected and accepted, in making that choice. Then and most important to this thread and many others here or elsewhere, folks with established ideology on the meaning and concepts of 'what constitutes a marriage' have equal rights to protect that meaning. I would have the same opinion in watching a porn flick, if in the middle they are took a time out and prayed, it borders on intimidation/harassment of a portion (very large) of society or trying to establish in some manner an acceptance of life style, which to virtually every religion, by vast majorities, is unacceptable. Forth; In bringing in 'Secular Progressive Movement', if you noticed, even the mention of a Slippery Slope or incremental achievement of an end objective, will get a response from ever poster with any distaste on the society they live in, regardless how trivial that objective may be. "All I want, is this little rule" and so on.... Related; On the forth point, in my life, or in my study of History, I've noted a hundred well intentioned movements that became established law of the day and have evolved well beyond the capacity for any society to maintain, finance, enforce and in many cases the ending of that society.

pamela; First thank you for your nice comments on 'some' of my post. I have tried to raise my grammar level and gratified it's been noticed.... My post to IN, was based on he, AGAIN either giving me or a cause for my rep points going into the red (responsible or not, he knows this). This would make it the 5th or 6th time to my user name and I have no idea how many others he is responsible for. The fact he can complain to management, yet do no less to others himself, in my mind is hypocritical. You are correct however, I was and am upset (emotional), but for reasonable cause, my opinion. As for his issue oriented comments, yes he is consistent and I frankly rarely agree with ANY majority myself. A beer drinking, womanizing, smoker, rather old and set in my ways, has left me no choice. However at some point my objecting to the laws/rules/government mandates, over the last 70 years that have infringed on a good many personal rights, becomes a judgment of respect for a majority. Infinite; Since somehow on two post I've managed to go from three green to three red dots, I accept the point I am not wanted on this forum. It's up to the the administration, whether they call this fair and just or not to my many post or the time taken.

Infinite now; "Ditto" on both counts Mr. InfiniteNow; First I was responding to YOUR post, BEGGING for an off topic reply to an off topic post, then explaining my reasons. Second, I believe your the bigot in the room, opposing anything religious, this coming from a self admitted agnostic, which I believe is one of your problems. You are searching for religious answers yourself and in your frustrations are can't accept the fact "Some people are happy" in their religious belief's/convictions. Third, your an out and out hypocrite about this forum or any you have posted on. I believe your a 'Secular Progressive**', or one that would prefer religion itself be outlawed, then any opinion you have be made law. Traditions mean nothing to you or does what any majority believe. http://hypography.com/forums/user-feedback/15405-marketing-of-the-forum-2.html ** Debate.org | Secular Progressive movement will destroy this country One more time; The founders were highly religious by any of todays standards and the Constitution was written with that thought in their minds. SSM, would have never been a thought in this country, until the mid/ late 20th Century, at least as a socially acceptable format. Opposing (I do not) makes no one a bigot, that's crazy, or your really saying 80-90% of the human race are bigots. YOUR argument makes no sense. On 'separation' and must be a repeat; From your article Paine said "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." which is the essence of the founders desire to keep one religion from being dominate or sponsor by any State or the US. That was the point, NOT the elimination of religion from society, quite the opposite the Freedom of ALL to practice. Add and mentioned elsewhere, religion is a personal belief/opinion/conviction or whatever you call it, including believing in nothing. If you wish, the first RIGHT granted(A-1) after the formula for governance... For the record, I have never given or taken points toward or from any poster (believe it's a means for a forum to maintain like minded posters or censor -get rid of- those not in line with the forums purpose and believe me, they ALL have one). I am not at all convinced this forums agenda and yours are anything close to the same, even Dave...

The first 7 posts of this thread were moved from the Gay Marriage thread, because they are only slightly related to that thread’s topic. Infinite post 511; Infinite; I wish I had more time to discuss this issue, even though it's not new to any forum you participate on. The Founders or Framers of the Confederation, US Declaration of Independence, the Constitution where not only religious in nature, but Christian. You have on more than one occasion depicted these folks as anything but, picking out deist or a branch of Christian Philosophy as your reference and that they created those doctrines in some manner to prevent Religious influence by a Federal/State Government in the American Society. I suppose you could say in producing a Secular Constitution, they intended for a immoral society (from their viewpoint) to develop from Individual Rights being offered, but nothing indicates this and that deviance from the morals involved would certainly void the meanings of their words. In addition to your previous mentioned deist (arguable) are many of the 56 signers of the Constitution, a majority in fact trained (educated) and practiced (preached) Christianity, Jesus and all. You should recall many of the letters and comments already submitted for your review on another forum..... WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible My last word on this issue; The American Society, above that of the UK or even Canada or Australia, certainly more so that all of Asia is a cluster of religious viewpoints from all parts of the world, that have for the most part melted into a basically Christian Society, long ago. This is NOT a bad thing, something to be ashamed of or ridicule. You, I and others might have a different viewpoint of religion, but I don't understand how you can deny these truths. The moral code that you live with itself is an example of a tolerance, unheard of not 250 years ago or in most the World today. We really do have a thousand plus different religions, not all believing in a Messiah but are morally near the same. What on earth is wrong with that??? The Big Dog; Last night on the Huckabee Fox Show, David Barton was a guest, reminding me of you and what may appear to be a fruitless effort in discussing colonial religion in the US. Not all Atheist/Agnostic or non Christians, in fact very few try to push their attitudes off on others, I'd bet less than 1% of what is a small minority of the American population. Any way, thought you might like review his site, in particular the owned documentation from the Colonial and early days of this republic. WallBuilders | Presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage. I apologize for being off topic, don't have time to follow up on a new thread and wanted to address IN's definition of Secular. Feel sure dannie (T/A) would understand.

This post and responses to it were moved to 20427, because they are only slightly related to this thread’s topic. Infinite post 511; Infinite; I wish I had more time to discuss this issue, even though it's not new to any forum you participate on. The Founders or Framers of the Confederation, US Declaration of Independence, the Constitution where not only religious in nature, but Christian. ...

RevOfAllRevs I find it interesting that this user name and the initial post on this thread, in the 'Theology Section' a collective forum 'opinion' is "infamous around these parts". Using your own words, atheist and secular humanist are PEOPLE and should be loved. I'll note your not saying ignorant or those Christan's pursue with intentions or those with other than Christan theological beliefs or those like myself can find nothing substantial or consistent in any of the 3,721 different practices currently preached. Atheism itself is a belief in the individualism or that the human spirit is and should be a private issue, which unlike every religion teaches conversion. Hitler was born and raised Catholic, probably believing he would eventually make it to some heavenly place, although granted is arguable and surely he had some mental problems. However his action if indeed in revenge against the Jewish (I don't think so), he was not the first and very likely the last in centuries of warfare over religious convictions in those high degrees. As for murder being legal in Germany in the 1930's, well that's just not true. I would bet 99% of persons in Germany, felt Hitler was sending those folks off for their own safety or maybe exiling, but NOT to slaughter...my opinion. Having said all that; Religion or the belief in a higher power than their own existence has been a leaning post for society, long before the religions of today existed. Mankind since reasoning began, tried to search out cause and effects, knowing they could do nothing. They invented Gods to protect themselves from Natures perceived evils. As humanity developed and their brains for that reasoning capability those God's became a God, becoming the modern concepts for safety in an unsafe world. My point; Since time began and as it is today, it's helpful to the majority of all humans to accept a possibility of struggling through a life, with all the problems involved, feeling there should be some reward, someplace else to go and for some reason. This is and has been good, it's not going to change for hundreds of generation, maybe never, but the question that must be asked; Is there a better way to accept life, its problems, the hopes and desires of those that pass on or will than the current philosophy? Could it be or would it be any different to an end result, if each person could (they won't) form and live with some understanding based on their personal life. Socially speaking, taking out the speeches from text written long ago, Church's and religious philosophy have worked just fine. Benevolence with out purpose is a great thing, has been for thousands of years, all sciences have benefited and much of each of the Worlds major culture, laws and morality have come from their respective viewpoints. I personally just bought Elvis Presley's religious CD's. I kind of think if their is an after life, whether I believe in it or not, any God I would or could have worshiped in my many years would not pick, choose or reward or punish any person, maybe any living thing....

No sir, I'm a casual poster. It doesn't matter to me if I'm banned, censored or humiliated by any person. When you go after some poster, who has spent time to offer his/her legitimate opinions, I feel obligated to protest publicly. Remember I'm protesting your public comments. As for debating under any debate model I've practiced, you would not get past the first response, "relevance". There WERE NO laws then and what were and as is today, limitations on who can be recognized. Some Colonies had moral clauses or required some religious conviction, then on to racial differences and so on. Again, since Sodomy was already outlawed, no consideration was given to same sex, since same sex would infer sodomy and forbidden. All this relates to traditional reasoning, you have classified 'not relative'. Would you really like the Congress to be forced to address SSM or your OPINION, DOMA is unconstitutional. For each of the 50 States; 50-state rundown on gay marriage laws Insert relevance, then argue the point??? There was/is no 'right' in effect 1790 or 2009 that was or does not include all people. In 1790, NO ONE was allowed to practice sodomy, gay, bi or straight. Nationally today and for Federal Purposes all persons can marry one person of the opposite sex, no mention of reasoning behind the marriage, gay, bi or heterosexual. You are presenting you opinions as factual judgments. If qualified, as in your doctor, when he/she tells you something, it's acceptable. Your arguments are just that, arguments/opinions which stand on no merits other than your own concepts. If we are talking law, the validity would mean more with a law degree or at least having studied law, otherwise are opinions formed. I might add in any court, you would never make a statement based on your merits, even if referencing precedence or previous opinions. The other Camp, are members of your society, most of which have agreed with you and in your opinions to a certain level. For some yet known reason, anything short of a Constitutional Amendment (required) and the use of a religious term (Sanctity of Marriage, demeaning to all religions worldwide) and the full acceptance of each and every variation of what Gay/Lesbian activity includes, seems to be your argument. This is neither practical, acceptable or realistically possible IMO. I don't think religious people in the US oppose, same sex relationships or said another way what goes on in a bedroom. Having said that, they (the majority of States) have the right to under the Constitution and the Congress to dictate anything they can agree on. That's the idea of our Constitutional Government, where Congress, with or with out the Executive or the SC can offer Amendments and be ratified. For instance, if an amendment were offered "Marriage in the US is defined as (insert DOMA)", the executive does not need to sign and the SC cannot find it unconstitutional. Prohibition was just such an example, probably effecting 80/90% of a drinking society. I have no ax to grind on this issue. I don't oppose gay rights, sodomy or promote religious tolerance. I'd agree rights are important, mine being infringed on many times in my years and in nearing the end see many more that may be taken. I jumped into this debate when you were attacking 'larv', adding my two cents and here again on another personal attack on a poster. I do have opinions however, and have made them opposed to your comments, not that I disagree with your comment, rather respect those opinions in that other camp.

Infinite; Are you trying to add NEW meaning to the WORD arrogance. Your opinions are worth no more or less than any person that has ever posted on a forum, IN MY OPINION. Yet, your attitude and total lack of respect for ANY POSTER, who won't give you points or become your friend is getting a little tiring. You are responsible for having a good many posters over years banned, for making inflammatory comments far less outrageous than yours. Well we live in the US and had few marriage laws whatsoever, well into the 19th Century, then to outlaw, not establish marriage between people. It was an 1850 Congressional ruling that established one man/ one woman, for the Utah Territory to become a State and States have always maintained authority over such things. This being a repeated comment; Ask any young person, why they wish to someday marry. Number one I WILL BET, is to legitimize having kids and or social acceptance of their relationship (maybe in different words) and love if mentioned in regards to the above. I understand Gays fall in love, feel it's more sexual than emotional and also desire acceptance in the general society. How many 70 yo gays wish to marry, or those with out sexual drive, plenty of heterosexual couple marry, well into their 80's. If you think about all your comments on birth-less couples could lead to any number of movements. The Federal Government is the only secular and relevant entity in this discussion. The American Society is anything but secular and the primary point of that discussion, it's desires, hopes, wishes or whatever word you wish to use are based on personal perceptions of traditional attitudes. Even the Federal is made up of Religious folks, with no less hopes, desires etc.... 1- When you create an opinion, it's spin, no less than my spin on this topic. If not please list your credentials for under which your authority in civil matters come come. In this case a PhD in Genetics Social Science or law would be helpful, though not definitve... 2- You name what secular philosophy is mandated to be accepted by a religious society and its government, with out proper and acceptable/reasonable consideration. It's called common decency; Aside from that most folks arguing either side are simply stating their own opinions, not asking for a verbal thrashing. There have been a good many decent/respectful post on both sides with interesting content and not thrashing anyone. What ever happened to the thread author anyway, she simply asked an honest question or two.

Infinite quote; As I said before, your would not, but not then stated, nor should you if your CONVICTIONS dictate otherwise. In the case of SSM, however the Congress can impose a likely lengthy time period against recognition of what constitutes marriage for legal status in the US, that the SC would have to enforce. Traditional values - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia lemit quote; lemit; The above was written not posted (off topic in that context)) and directed to 'Infinite', however it's relevant in your context; Personally I believe the US general Traditional values/customs and Cultural Values stem from the first settlements into what became the US on to whatever exist today. If you prefer a difference to some degree of where each group came from and the melting into a single Colony, then States. The Constitution that we exist under today being part of that evolved culture. Slavery was never an accepted concept by any National majority and more a concept of compassion to many people than over that of forced labor. I might add this slave/owner relationship lasted well into the 20th century under 'share cropping' and by no means was it forced. Traditions are ACCEPTED ideas, belief's, morals, that get passed down, many of which have been well before 1790, the second effort to unite the States. Christmas, itself is based on religious beliefs was NOT Nationally Celebrated in the US, though in England and other parts of the World, until the late 19th Century. Christmas History in America 'Human rights'; Do you believe it's the Federal Governments job to dictate what may or may NOT be acceptable behavior. If not and I would agree, then who or what is it that should place limitations on what's acceptable. Would you then agree that society has certain rights over the individuals rights?

dannie quotes; R1- And there are a lot of things heterosexuals can't do, more likely are obligated TO DO, and this includes any so called rights. This is what I really don't understand in all these arguments. By applying for a license in the first place your agreeing to rules, regulation, responsibilities to basically control or manage a relationship or at best a very minor degree of benefits. Would think the same holds true in the UK or England. I understand the desire to be equal in status with sociably acceptable others, but in some cases this is neither going to be or IMO should it be. Society must reflect the society. R2- Probably should have stated 'personal experience' since I did question sexuality in my younger days, feel most all have at some point. However your site does add to my mention of acceptance in the US on adoption rights. Keep in mind we are talking short periods in time for assessing results, which in time may not prove out to be correct. On the site itself, something new for me. A very large share of transgenders, never complete the process or another group 'cross dresser' never start the process, both directions. I might ask. at what point in the process of social evolution, would you personally say...Now that's enough? It will happen... LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Side note; Seems to me in a good share are trying to tranditionalize same sex unions, though don't accept the idea of natural conception. In my world, we call this artificial at best and blatant hypocrisy at worst. R3- Okay we have established your lesbian, which is 100% fine in my heart, no less than my one daughter, now 40 and still in the closet. I am not going to try an analyze you or what did or did not lead you to this belief. I will say "wake up one morning and decide" which is a rather common saying. I am going to go on but please do not confuse my examples in any way with you. People, the human species never consider life altering experiences as a determining factor in the later action of their life. They don't wake up one morning and declare anything, THEY CONCLUDE for whatever reasons those experience have offered. We could go through the latest studies, many indicating nothing a human does like murder, being a dope dealer, an adulterer, a loyal partner, an attorney, priest or a Doctor have underlying reasons. Personally again I feel most comes from that simple nurturing of a parent, the family life (if had) and the ideas and morals of those parents. R4- However you believe humans of today evolved, they did so from a very strong desire to experience sex, not necessarily the results. This is where so much confusion comes from IMO. If your turned on (enjoy sex) from persons with the same sex, or for some reason do not enjoy sex with the opposite sex, obviously your inclined to BELIEVE yourself G/L. This is true through out society and the so called 'Straights' develop preference (including G/L) beyond gender. This otherwise known as 'natural selection' where certain features (red hair/body parts/skin color a few) were preferred. China has a very long Social History, long indulged in 'isolationism' and traditions that are maintained today. Yes, their concerns were 'over population' (more for control and/or caring for) but it would have been just as easy to outlaw children (for a period) or promote a lifestyle that produced none, but did not... What you are saying actually WOULD confirm my personal theory if possible to prove. Your saying that those engaged in HSA, either men or women have never experienced the opposite gender in sex. While I do know this is true in many cases the overwhelming numbers have experienced the opposite sex and for some reason did not enjoy their first or first few experiences, then somehow did with a a person of the same sex. As for 'common harm', this may be true for the ladies, but most certainly not for men.... Remember we are talking about changing social acceptance of a change in what 3000+ years of the word 'Marriage' means to 80% of the worlds people, forget Sodomy altogether. I have agreed many times on right of people to engage in any sexual activity they please. In fact I've written a great deal on our US TLDS (commune style life) and their right to exist with in other current laws. You should already have realized I don't oppose G/L and would defend their rights, under law with the same passion I respect the traditionalist. Since the US was founded and remains a secular government and I believe Marriage is traditionally a religious term, government could and should simply drop the term and allow States, Church's or individuals to call their unions whatever they please. This includes G/L unions who could call their relationship a marriage. It's the idea that a relatively minor portion of society could or should dictate to the majority, that I oppose. Well the UK has been ahead of the US on change on many social issues, but from what I read are behind the US on accepting G/L relationships. I will disagree on 10-20 or 100 years for traditional ideology, suggesting you yourself will grow into thinking this way. In my years, I've seen 20 movements alone to eliminate the Monarchy (King/Queen and family) which has been around a very long time. Traditional thinking is the face of England, the US and in fact any Country. You'll find English Law, Governments, Languages all around the World, in places that have long broke from the 'Commonwealth'. You generation and our young folks in the US, seem to agree on change, but as things change, you and they will change, in the end I feel you will find change is NOT what you wanted. Choice is already available and your just beginning to accept choice, but with consequences. If I am wrong (hope not) you will lose choice altogether or to the degree government is manipulated.

dannieyankee; "I have several arguments in regards to gay marriage, pinpointing specific ideas that I have heard opposing such an arrangement. " Now that I have an idea where your coming from; It's not proper to quote you from another forum, and the above comment can be drawn from this thread. However the answers are relevant to your thread. A1- In the US all people have equal rights, assume the same in the UK. The right to OBTAIN a marriage license is available to all people including Gay or Lesbians, and all restrictions apply to everyone. Meaning of equal rights. In the same vain, all people have the right to cohabitate with anyone or anything they want, regardless of sexual orientation or if no sex is involved. Not all people want a license to begin with, for a variety of reasons. A2- I personally believe G/L adoption is harmful, am very happy I had a mom and dad around when I went through that questioning/puberty age. However, in the US each State already allows Gay or Lesbian Adoption of Children or to be foster parents of children, to some degree. I don't know UK laws on this subject. A3- Just what IS natural? What excites or stimulate your hormones today may not be the same next week or month. If you marry anyone, gay straight or whatever...that person and you will change in looks, character, desires, possibly even sexual preference. Many would agree love comes in well after marriage and as people accept these changes. A4- As written to you, IMO marriage or some synonym word has been used by mankind since day one. Maybe just a ceremonial commitment or maybe a showing of faith (as in baptism) but the act or acts have always been linked to religion and most all people were religious. BUT, lets keep this other word traditional in mind; A5- In China, where births are limited to one per couple, preferably none, SSM is not allowed. I'll add a large number of G/L Couple, where allowed use their own egg/sperm to generate kids or adopt others. Isn't this then disingenuous to say a purpose in marriage is not for reproduction. Recognition of same-sex unions in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A6- This is a reasonably new idea, at least to my beliefs, probably in the past few months. Solutions to G/L that may be offended by social acceptance, the mental stress created and so on. But if Government, from the Federal down simply changed the word 'Marriage' to some generic wording, meaning nothing less to Government (religious free in US), allowing the parties, States or Church in use any word they wish, INCLUDING MARRIAGE, what would the harm be. This kind of brings up a question for you. Doesn't the UK still sponsor the 'Church of England' and if so, do you have additional problems??? What does unofficial blessing mean? BBC - Religion & Ethics - Same-sex marriage Your current post; Under British Common Law and most US State Laws, Implied consent is a valid argument. Very old myself, have known a good many folks who truly loved their pets. While sex with animals (bestiality) is totally legal in many places (no forbidding laws), many folks today actually contract their pets into their wills, giving care in the event of their death. My parents had their 17 yo Puddle, cremated on his death and is now sets side by side with their ashes. Since your suggesting 'LOVE' as a main reason for allowing same sex marriage (contract), implying sex is not always a reason, the door is left open. I no longer use the 'slippery slope' argument with regards to rights, but I could guarantee you their are today other segments of society waiting in the wings for acceptance of SSM. Consensual sex between adults is not always legal. A retarded person for instance can't give consent under law in many cases, the very elderly or as you say by those with authority over another. Covered above, but it can work both ways. While legal aged persons can consent to any otherwise legal sex act, silence of the act is not protected by liable law. The junior status partner then can request a job, pay raise, write a book or any number of things short of 'blackmail' and in these type cases blackmail is hard to prove. You trying to place 'homosexuality' above heterosexual, by bringing other issues into the argument. Fair enough; There are probably more bi-sexual than gay or lesbians. In other words either sex can turns on an individual. Aside from that many folks today live in little communes, not always one man multiple women, but one woman multiple guys. Fundamental Latter Day Saint's, still exist or groups like them, some estimates in the hundreds of thousands. There are large societies around the world, as in many Islamic States that allow multiple wifes, even add the right of the father to pre arrange marriages for their children. What's right/correct, your word 'committed' is purely a personal belief. Those folks, a good many in the UK and the US and all the above examples are IMO more committed to their lifestyle than any two individuals, SS or not. Think separation rates in G/L Unions is equal to that of traditional marriages, nearly 50%, when 2nd, 3rd, 4th times are counted. I really don't like going here: Having already addressed the equal distributions of ALL relationships, abuse, misfortune or the loyalty...Gay Men have had serious problems coming from their life style. Well, I'm not going there and you already know. Let me reverse your question; What in your opinion, gives government the right distinguish between laws, if not from cultural/traditional norms. Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia dannie; On a personal note, when discussing this issue it's difficult to argue, knowing the opposing person may have some vested interest in the issue. Whether yourself, a friend, family member or just interested in the social consequences, in your case also an apparent young lady from England. I haven't seen one comment of this thread in anyway attacking G/L relationships, frankly rarely have on any forum and the many times on each it comes up. There are G/L forum sites, that go over many of the same issues/conversations seen here and personally my first girl friend (a lesbian in the 1950's on) was a life long advocate FOR the rights your promoting, long passed on, naturally for the record. I have one daughter and one niece that I know are Lesbians. I also raised or helped raise 12 others that are not and somehow are all religious people (I am not). What concerns me is rapid changes in my Society or the laws that govern my US society and that traditions are maintained. You will understand this many years from now, as you see what your grand kids are headed for, probably no less than mine did from their perspective.

Infinite; I don't know when the first government issued the first license to marry and I am not sure how many atheist were around in distant history. I am sure, at least in my mind that PEOPLE in societies have made a ritual out of joining a man and a woman probably since reasoning was achieved by our species, not necessarily 'Homo Sapians'. All religions with a written history have addressed the issue, seemingly with a purpose and under some religious ideology. What your suggesting and I agree, is that today and yesterdays societies are not the same and this is where we part... Since a marriage means one thing to the Jewish, another to the Hindu, yet another thing to Catholics, different things over time to all including the Mormons or to the thousands of former, current or future religions and as your indicating nothing similar to Atheist, I see no reason ANY Government should install a religious uniform meaning to the word. If marriage truly meant something other than a union or joining of two individuals for whatever reason to you, you should embrace a secular mention to these unions. Let the States, Church's or the parties involved insert whatever wording they choose. The implication, whether from you or activist in this movement to me indicates a worry that somehow they are not mainstream, which in FACT they are not, at least currently. I'm not sure then your arguments stand on anything. They are your opinions, few of which would stand up in 90% of the worlds courts or legal systems, even then probably being argued down. There are just to many other realistic solutions to what injustices are perceived toward G/L or their lifestyle, most of which in the US have been properly handled. IMO. The following on DOMA, was not written for you, but I'll enter it now. It's not going to change your 'OPINION' but adds a couple points, I feel you or someone back on page 3,111, left out. We have discussed this someplace, I feel sure, but laws tend to follow social acceptance or not the reverse. My two cents on this argument; Keep in mind those in law already strongly disagree according to their personal ideology. IMO, DOMA does NOT fall under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, as DOMA is in essence is a guide line Act or clarification from Congress. There are very similar laws already in most States that are not required acceptance by all States, certainly just as critical to social activity, inheritance laws, tax laws, corporate laws just a few. Obama's dilemma; Having campaigned on over turning this Act (does not have authority), had not considered the final arbiter of US LAW, Constitutional Amendment. The original vote count below may have changed a little, but if the SC actually did declare this act unconstitutional (not likely IMO 9/0 vote, legal), Congress would be forced to offer an amendment clarifying Marriage in the US for legal/benefit purposes, declaring the same thing. Once cleared of Committee (problem here) it would be passed in hours by both the House and Senate, sent to the States and ratified with in a month, especially if approaching a National Congressional Member Election, ie 2010. Once an Amendment, it would become the law of the land taking generations to get repealed, if ever. Neither side wants this, fearing social unrest, possible rioting or for certain the base of each party as it currently stands. Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dannieyankee quotes; You did join in... dannie; While I am sure you didn't want this to go one Country, in this case many of the arguments are the same. Being a "Free Country" to most of your responses, has nothing to do with the "Sexual Orientation" and is a private issue. The arguments IMO, are over governments and law into the issue. It's been my argument, believe a couple others, that the issue being private, marriage itself a traditionally religious premise, that Democratic Governments that declare human rights, have no business in private matters. This includes specific laws and or recognition. Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Partnership laws, in the UK, the US and many nations around the world have existed since commercial business began... Civil unions are an off branch of these laws allowing a means for individuals (any sexual orientation) to join under law/commitments, as do the traditionals do under their separate religious understandings. In California in fact the laws thats have been used for Civil Unions are also used for Corporate Partnerships. Additionally, even in UK today, government is and should be tolerant of all religious activity, which in the US in forbidden. I don't truly understand your point, other than your 'FREE' has a different meaning than myself with regards to 'RIGHTS'. We and I mean all 'WE"S, just can't be allowed to do anything we want in our specific society....In my opinion. I would agree if your suggesting your thread was high jacked, however 'Infinite' is kind of a favorite son on this forum and is passionate on this issue, but the discussions have not ventured very far from you original points....Since I have not read every post or care to, I could be incorrect in my assessment.

1- That's also incorrect and again I know that you know this; During negotiations to establish a 'Constitution', with the idea it could be 'ratified' many issues were left alone, not addressed or became options for the States. Virginia was the 'BIG DOG' in Philadelphia and a Slave State, without them there would have been no positive conclusion to those negotiations. A brief history of Slavery, separate from racism/bigotry which is your intended connection and could not be a negotiable issue then or today. Abolitionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A Time line of the History of African Americans and the Republican Party Should Black Americans Come Back Home To The GOP? for more. 2- Male/Female relationships were very different through history, IMO well into the 20th Century than they are today. Simply expressed they formed unions, nearly all by Religious Ceremony (marriage) with the idea of specific purposes to each other. These were commitments to each other, rarely ending until death (traditional). 3- While it's true societies do change, the basic ideas of a society will remain with in certain limits or that original society will no longer exist. Those framers planned for such change, giving instruction how to afford change. Limitation were expressed by instilling a great majority of the several States into that change, for the Union itself. Two Thirds (2/3) of BOTH chambers of Congress to produce an Amendment and them Three Fourths (3/4) for ratification. What your suggesting and where society has imposed itself on the majority is through laws or the incremental changes in the understanding of previously ratified amendments, into laws. 4- Talk about il"logical fallacies", frankly your most common argument to many posters, who by the way take out time in their day to address your issues just to get that reply. 5- General premise behind your arguments; I'm not sure you really understand the history of Marriage or the when the State became involved and/or why they did become involved. Although the following is from a religious angle, not my cup of tea, it does explain the concept of tradition. Laws are generally restrictions by authority OVER rights, not the reverse. marriage license How about those that do NOT get a license, might be an interesting argument for Gay/Lesbian Legal Unions and/or as States sanction marriages; Common-law marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia dannieyankee; I was going to make this a new topic (reply to IN), since it's so off topic to your thread, but it seems all these other issues may relate in some manner to your OP. The US Constitution is a process for how laws can form or if you prefer the limits of what laws can effect. If they frowned on something personally, your correct that means nothing. Briefly; though religious, many even being member of the then 'Church of England' they opposed England State Sanctioned Religion. Keep in mind England and their commonwealth, was similar to the 13 individual colonies or eventual States. As for pursuit of Happiness in those days or today, morality and social acceptance must agree, IMO. Today, acceptance of G/L lifestyles ARE accepted and I assume MOST involved lead very happy lives. What your asking for are perceived benefits given to heterosexual couples (religious or traditional), which are opposed only on premise they would demean their understanding or that would make G/L Unions acceptable to religious/traditionalist couples. This will happen, but over generations, if not pushed, IMO. Think your misunderstanding me a bit; Church's are treated different than business on the idea of 'separation of State/Church'. If they become political entities, try to influence Government, government can and will lift that status, happens fairly often. I do agree with you that Church's should be taxed, noting the Mormon Church has a billion dollar portfolio of business enterprises. Very few people oppose Unions for Gay/Lesbians; In most every State today a gay or gay couple can adopt children, many business/government agencies offer equal benefits and so on. Aside from previous discussion, problems come in when this equal status to another concept (not rights) comes into play. Keep in mind, the general public today was raised by the general public of yesterday and that concept of G/L activity was frowned on. If the majority of the country becomes "uncomfortable" with an issue, YES laws would change. They became "uncomfortable" with Slavery long before the Constitution and up to 600 to 700,000 American died (various reason) to change those laws. Since then womens society has changed, all minority rights and in some manner children's right. Casualties In The Civil War I think your Muslim question may be interesting. Your aware Muslims societies do maintain a completely different understanding of morality and justice, than do Christan's or in particular the current American Society, including you. Try to think of this from the viewpoint of those that feel homosexual activity remains questionable; If Muslims were to move into say Montana, or many in Montana converted to their beliefs. They are elected to office, changing State law to their beliefs and then began to attack Federal Laws. With out going into specifics, they could change society as known today in Montana. There are checks involved, but the point is you would not uphold their rights to pursue happiness as they understand it...

IN; I wrote the above the other day for another purpose; Your playing games with Larv, much like you do with every person who may disagree with you. You most certainly do know the founders frowned on Sodomy, it's practices and opposed in the laws of all 13 Colonies. You also know hundreds of issues are not mentioned in that document that were assumed 'common sense' of the day. The fact that 'common sense' no longer prevails in ALL American Society (prevails in 80% of the Worlds population) will not negate the founders personal beliefs or the morality of the day, IF indeed different today. If you like I'll go back over some of those State Laws, three of which punished conviction by death or that Jefferson himself offer legislation for dismemberment for placing that 'penis' in the immoral place. Quote: Originally Posted by Larv And if your opinion were to be overruled by a supreme court you wouldn't accept it. A decent question, frankly one I would also like you to answer, although we ALL know you would not, blaming George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Larv, jackson33, Kriminal99 or any number of people many of which today DO NOT OPENING OPPOSE gay/lesbian rlelationships, including many in those relationships that understand the diversion from normal conduct. Are you taking medicine, having a sugar attack or do you get your kicks typing that word. As for the last part, a legitimate question; Because in the MAJORITY of States their Constitution defines what constitutes a marriage, ONE MAN - ONE WOMAN. dannieyankee "Marriage does not legitimize"; Actually it would legitimize how sex is performed, but today how sex is performed is up to two consenting individuals. Most religions in the US do not recognize Gay/Lesbian Lifestyles (not all) but if government were to recognize such couples Church's or religion itself would be pressured to accept the lifestyle or lose either funding or tax free status, which itself is unconstitutional. Beliefs of the Founding Fathers: Religion, Morality, and the U.S. Constitution | Suite101.com Morality and the Founding Fathers

And you would be correct, additional source; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since October 1, 1877, all U.S. currency has been printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which started out as a six person operation using steam powered presses in the basement of the Department of Treasury. Now, 2,300 Bureau employees occupy twenty-five acres of floor space in two Washington, D.C. buildings. The Treasury also operates a satellite printing plant in Ft. Worth, Texas. Currency and stamps are designed, engraved, and printed twenty-four hours a day on thirty high speed presses. In 1990, at a cost of 2.6 cents each, over seven billion notes worth about $82 billion were produced for circulation by the Federal Reserve System. Ninety-five percent will replace unfit notes and five percent will support economic growth. At any one time, $200 million in notes may be in production. Notes produced in 2002 were the $1 note, 41% of production time; the $5 note, 19%; $10 notes, 16%; $20 note, 15%; and $100 note, 9%. No $2 or $50 notes were printed in 2002. Fun Facts About Money from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As I recall however the paper used, may not be produced in the US..... The Federal Reserve DOES operate under the Corporate Structure, said to be independent of Government, however the Chairman is appointed by the US Executive and confirmed by the Congress. I DON'T think Fred Smith, CEO/Founder of Fed Ex, need go through that process. Federal Reserve System, Chairman - Presidential Appointments: Top "Prune" Jobs - Excellence in Transition While I agree, the current economic health of the US, is a bit strained, I would suggest a great deal has to do with where the current and last (final 6 months) administration's has taken policy. There is nothing IMO conducive to 'Free Market Capitalism' which the US has practiced extensively for 140 years and in spirit since formation. The elections in 2010 and the actions of Congress until then, will determine the length of this recession, the direction of policy and the hoped for rebuilding of confidence of the US consumer/business communities, possibly the worlds....

Are you asking for a list of items, humanity has already accomplished though technology to enhance the quality of life, in turn to control adverse effects on themselves? Are you thinking that man should revert back to 'say' the fifth century or maybe before history was written and live as the real "caretakers?" lived? How do you think, this human society has grown to give some quality (certainly by comparison) to the 6.6 BILLION people now living on the planet and why on earth would your want to choose which parts of society should sacrifice life itself to establish some utopia which may not be possible, in the first place? For YOUR information, probably half the people in industrialized nations today, over 60-70 yo could not live WITH OUT air conditioning and I am not sure how many more of all ages would die off for lack of modern hearting systems. Where is your limitation on "greed and selfishness"? If some stranger family with out a home, knocks on your door, will you let them in feed them, educate them or all the things most every modern society does daily in some manner? I doubt it.... Yes, by all means lets give religion the authority over humanity and it's arrogant authority over those that agree with each of the 2,765 different faiths. Go back to the Religious Renaissance of of the 14th-18th th Century where each wared over every little detail, forcing their beliefs and practices on any society they could defeat in war. Where mankind's only existence is framed on the idea of an inevitable end. Hundreds of such wars occured each century, people were born/raised to die for that admirable cause. Frankly to much of that nonsense still exist today. Don't be quite so hateful of the generations that have not only given you the possibility of a long, productive life, but the right to feel and say openly what you wish or in fact those other 6,599,999.999 individuals, many of which don't have all you have. As for direct stewardship, you have the right pitch a tent, live off your garden and NOT do all those destructive earthly things blamed on people you can't possibly know and their habits but from some reading or some others opinion have decided, must be correct.

Moon; When I read something like this, I like to review the author. He apparently is a contributor to 'Common Dreams' and not much else. Couldn't find any other articles. The US Is Facing a Weimar Moment | CommonDreams.org This is the original with 'comments' which he (Freeman) discusses his article. To shorten my comments, think you will find he and others are basically just Bush/Conservative haters and trying to link pre-Hitler Germany to actions of Conservatives, possibly back to Teddy Roosevelt. IMO, the reality is/was GWB was no conservative and actions by the current administration may indeed be maintaining this 'so called crisis', creating an environment of need of Government with an agenda I feel is in motion, that is not sure how far or where this agenda can go...

Lookie here, you can post on topic. Thank you and now with some understanding, especially regarding JFK, will answer accordingly. I'll admit GWB, speaks like a Texan and drives the Grammar Elite crazy. I'll address the Obama factor, after his first news conference, to prompters and expecting some real issues. As for my grammar, the only 'D' I ever received was in related subjects, English, Grammar, Spelling etc...I should post some notes from editors that have corrected my errors with comment. Your certainly not 106 or whatever your profile claims, but then I doubt many profiles are near correct. When JFK ran, I had already spent 4 years in the AF and with my second wife. JFK from a Historical viewpoint and IMO was a very good president and an inspiration to far to many people thinking Johnson, Carter and Clinton followed in his footsteps, including much of media. The closest through that period was Nixon, in both policy and foreign affairs. On forums, no wouldn't call it politics but sometimes think totalitarian would apply. I don't post of 'Liberal Forums', but do read many and any comment seen objective can create a downpour of criticism. No less true on Conservative Forums'. We had a user name 'Turtle' on FC, who also had a problem with my grammar, but was somewhat a religious nut. Must not have been you...

First; Comparing Obama to FDR, Reagan or as he tries to Lincoln, are IMO (Turtle) a bit premature. In fact its that linkage to Lincoln, by him and many other statements during the campaign that has me questioning his education in the first place. Remember were talking about a Harvard Law Graduate in Constitutional Law and the required US History knowledge. 'He would reach out as Lincoln, to other parties for his cabinet members' or something like this...Well, the Republican Party was formed in 1856, on the issue of slavery being granted/denied to Kansas and Nebraska, for pending statehood. When Lincoln ran (1860) and won, there were very few Republicans on the planet and in reaching across the isles or picking people from other parties, the reason was quite simple...HE HAD TO. I have acknowledged, Obama or his handlers ran an effective campaign and the fact McCain lost really didn't disappoint me. The fact he is black, may be the one GOOD factor and it could be the worst. I agree with GWB and that now millions of young minorities will grow up knowing they have an equal playing field and with effort can become President and I am pleased Ms. Clinton's efforts or those of Ms. Palin, also show the young ladies that they to will get a shot. That's all good stuff. B U T, to much emphasis is being put on Obama, for a successful tenure, 4 or 8 years, but in particular for the first few months. Nothing will change in the two wars, for minorities, with regards to foreign policy, Environmental policy or will National interest change to accommodate International Leaders. At least I don't think so and if wrong, were in for many more problems. Urban area are also a mess and no amount of cash infusion will do anything to correct. Educational influence is limited and no State Legislature would tolerate Federal involvement and driving the Corporate Structure off shore would accomplish nothing. And don't kid yourself about expectations, even from those that contributed 10.00 and think they now have access to the Federal or that of Obama in thinking he can somehow keep in touch through his blackberry or some lap top. He is entering a world of control and for his own good. The 'Messiah Thing' came from Obama, his following and the words he chose. If you going to act like a duck....your going to be called duck. He ain't no Messiah and won't lower ocean levels or make a world in his image. Sorry!!!

Turtle; This is the original post, one which caught my attention and have been responding to. It is my sincere belief, as was on another such thread by Nitack, and on other forums or in public discussion, that many Americans are interested in changing the format/model of the American Political System. I further believe, in most cases ideas are subjective to personal grievances, or not the actual purpose of the Federal or State Governments. The election of Obama, was IMO based on this assertion and the hopes of to many people, one person or an administration can achieve their personal goals or create the climate to their independent progress in society and then with no additional effort. None of this and in my opinion is going to happen and we may be headed for serious disappointment in a good share of the American Society. I do hope I am wrong and somewhat impressed by Mr. Obama's appointments, however the facts from history, indicate no one president has singularly achieved such change. If you are anywhere near the age you claim, whether from the US or abroad, I would have been much more interested in your OPINIONS, than your current approach to denouncing my opinions. I do believe however, some method for segments of society, for whatever reason feeling disenfranchised should have some means to participate and in that participation and in the process become somewhat more informed on the actual purpose of each of the governments that control society. I am aware of the rules, have mentioned many times that owners and management of any forum have the rights to control input and/or membership well beyond the rules posted. For this reason, I no longer post on Science issues on this forum, which is unrelated to my education, personal interest of mine. You will also note there are rules for complaining about posters and/or PM's which can be used to take personal grievances off record and I might add taking a thread's objectives totally off topic.

Turtle; I have no idea, how you form an opinion. Mine are generally formed from experience, items written over many years. Any one today, may have been quite the opposite weeks to years ago. From high school on in education and in what public life most debate was between myself and another or groups of like minded DEBATING an issue and letting others decide any validity on their own. This said and my point; Anything you give as an opinion today, I could easily validate or find information to the complete opposite. It puzzles me when two or more posters start giving 'sites' that conform to their opinions, letting that opinion get lost in the discussion. I'll mention Craig, as a moderator and Pluto as a poster. Both, I am sure are intelligent and would make good debaters, but many times its very difficult for me to determine their personal viewpoint. Essay; I don't think you were being sarcastic, but just in case; Statutory (law) and forcible only differ in what/who is making the accusation. "The audacity of unachievable hope"...and the expression of what is achievable, yet knowing its not, to achieve a goal are two entirely objectives. IMO; There are now millions of young folks, that honestly believe the Federal government or Obama himself, will address their personal grievance, yet the President has absolutely no authority over any individual for either good or bad things perceived by anybody. Generally speaking of course. Forms of 'Corperate Farming' have been around a very long time. In Texas, for at least 100 years, individual farmers have planted fields of Sorghum and Cotton, chopped (weeding) and harvested by virtually the same labor each year, yet not affiliated with those farms, as each segment moved through the State. Cooperatives in nearly every farming community have set up storage and transport systems into the markets and governments try to control whats produced, by adjusting grants. When I think of Corporate Farming, its the 10 big ones in California, primarily operating in the San Joaquin Valley, Southern California/Southern Arizona and now most having operations in Mexico. Most have there own distribution systems, buy seed, fertilizers and other needs by the rail car and contract to produce/food dealers around the world. There are such operations now in Canada, Brazil, Russia and probably many places I don't know, but do so at a fraction of the cost any original 'Truck Farm' could or even some rather large mid-west operations. As for the economic engines that drive world economies, your watching what happens when one engine needs tuning. In agriculture, I feel it could happen in the distribution system, but in the financial system the engine has been accessibility to financing which 99% of industry has relied on to be there and now not. The US has a combined 15-16 Trillion dollar annual GDP, most of which is financed each year and government is trying to provide this financing availability with its (at best) 2.5T income. I won't bore you with the other markets (Equities/Commodities) which require trillions of dollars in financing almost weekly. On the topic, I believe most folks have absolutely no idea how government operates, the functions of the Federal/States or even their City/County or how to distinguish between Business and Government. My little suggestion for a federal sub-branch, could be used as an educational tool for the electorate and the participation by actual participants in the system, outside government.

Essay; In short what your calling for and Mr. Pollan, is the restructuring of the American appetite, for the sake or reasons of other issues, then primarily climate control or the effects of mankind on it...Natural Foods, outlets for these products and a consumer base already exist and growing, but hundreds of years from being a viable source for human nutrition and probably will be beat out by some pill with all that is required to fill that requirement. In the meantime, Food Production by 'Industrial Farming' is by far less damaging on the environment, than would be if we returned to individual farms, gardens and the like, allowing even the possibility to feed 6.6 Billion people, much of which lives in poor areas to grow anything. I find it interesting Michael Pollan, who was born in NYC and now teaches at the University of Berkley in California would harbor such views or the idea we are reaching a point of where production will fall below human needs. (Farmer In Chief. 10/9/08 letter to Obama). Then contribute pollution by those farms, over what would be with 20,000 small farms to equal their production, or the control over harmful run off or contamination of the product from outside sources. I won't go into the hundreds of food products being commercially produced, including Sea Food, Animal Stock, Poultry or the artificial products produced by altering currently easily available product as White Fish into Crab meat... Obama won on an inspirational message, no question here and most Presidents have been elected by inspiring segments of a society. I see nothing wrong in this and do believe a good part of that job is to lead his/her nation to others in world with those ideas. The question is whether others will accept and in this case, will those thoughts/ideas filling many with unachievable hope from individual perceptions even be achievable. The one I recall most was two chickens in every pot and prosperity for all, which in reality became the 'Great Depression'... Forcible Rape is a classification, used in statistics, which is different in each State and most certainly in every country. My point, I think your referring to is American's raping or creating havoc toward Iraq Women which over 7 years has been extremely minimal. I do recall some articles indicating up to 17 and 20% of US Women in the military being harassed or some degree of rape, while on duty, but a different topic and I personally don't like the idea of ladies serving in military conflicts...

What would you suggest Congress or the Executive branch is to do? Both have renounced actions of a few GI's and/or Contractor employee's, but we already have an active Court System to deal with such problems, under the Military Code of Justice. Are you suggesting ANYONE is obstructing that justice? Each case, has its own merits and as here in the US, should be judged on factual evidence. If possible, would think you'll find most Iraq women feel quite safe around American's possibly more so than around their men. Also, keep in mind here in the US, forcible rape is a major crime compared to the statistics available in Iraq or even for the UN Peace Keepers, raping the one they were protecting, according to the American MEDIA sources. Maybe a couple per 100k, compared to Cleveland 138/100k, Minneapolis 101/100k. I'll acknowledge reporting rape in the first place is going to be restrained in a Country, where rape had virtually not been address or that many go unreported for reason, but it happens here, there and everyplace.

Turtle; Your welcome to 'google' Safest/Worst City, State or Countries and get a variety of OPINIONS, based on one angle or another. I had to do this and picked one that gave details on 'Violent Crime Rates' to offer you a reason, I don't have much faith in those or in fact many 'references'. In my mind El Paso Tx is NOT 5+ times safer than Detroit, then taking auto thefts out 7-8 times safer. As for who and why folks are confined in the US, the best reference I know is 'drugwarfacts.org' which seems to be factual, but is motivated against being criminal in the first place. 'Prison, Jails and Probation, overview' there, will give you all the statistics you want and can be easily manipulated to construct any argument. For instance, first time drug users for some time only receive a probationary sentence, or time served (day to weeks) and probation. With over 7 million (think 2006) at years end listed in one group or another you can configure into anything. My objection to your comments were and remain, the idea the US is the worst on some issue, when in fact there is no comparable legal system between our own States, much less to world communities...If you take the Federal Legal System, inmate cause/count, you would conclude we don't enforce anything. PS; Please list one or more politician who, DOES NOT support protecting women from violence from any party.