What Would Hitler Do? 


Not a question most civilized people would ask.  But who else would EVER think about conducting oxygen restriction studies on newborn babies without the parents knowledge or consent?


Tensions exist between doctors who are obligated to do what’s best for the patient, and researchers who are not. In the case of the 1,316 infants, Attkisson reported, medical personnel “intentionally rigged” the oxygen monitors without the knowledge of doctors or parents. “These are pretty stunning things for researchers to be, after the fact, defending,” she said.

A branch of the National Institutes of Health, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, funded the baby oxygen trials. And once HHS’s own ethics body discovered the study violated the government’s consent rules, “this incredible pressure came to bear on the ethics body, basically to back off of its enforcement action,” Attkisson said.



  1. I see these stories and wonder, what has happened to my America? Most important to this was our laws apply to all of us equally. Even though government has authority to administer and enforce our laws, they are also subject to obeying those laws themselves. IRS agents pay the same taxes. Sure, we know there is a high rate of tax cheats among government workers, but justice seems to slowly be catching up to them.

    But here we have our government breaking the law, preforming medical experiments on infants that can cause death or permanent damage. Then we have government illegally covering up their actions. Sadly, some of this sounds familiar. In our culture, with our history, comparing anyone & anything to Hitler & the atrocities committed by the Nazi’s to be the ultimate insult.

    Our government looks to have used babies as lab rats. Is there anything worse I can say about them or compare them to?????

    • Hey LOI,
      Did you notice this from the Daily Signal article:

      The experiment, which cost taxpayers $20.8 million, was conducted at 23 academic institutions from 2005 to 2009 under the National Institutes of Health, part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

      This was done under the Bush Administration. I think the Hitler comparison is appropriate.

      Keep up the good work!!

      • Hey Todd,

        Glad you liked it! Your response reminds me about how people make terrible witnesses. Two can watch the same accident & see/report two widely different events. Bush/Hitler? OK. And now it’s Obama/Hitler. Maybe the Nazi comparison is more to the point? Doesn’t much matter the face of the figurehead on big government. When they decide the law does not apply to them, there is little we can do. I do suggest all read the entire story.
        (and there are links)

        “In an April 2013 letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, however, Public Citizen demanded that the government address alleged ethical lapses and apologize to the study families. In a follow-up letter Jan. 27, the liberal-leaning watchdog group said the design of the study was unethical because it lacked a control group to compare with the study babies and failed to adequately monitor their safety.

        Government vs. Government

        The entire dispute might be little more than an academic debate if it weren’t for one crucial factor: The Office for Human Research Protections, the ethics body within HHS, ruled that the consent process for the study violated federal regulations designed to protect human research subjects.
        Public Citizen demanded an apology to study’s ‘ethical lapses’ from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (Photo: Pete Marovich/ZumaPress.com/Newscom)

        Public Citizen wants answers from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (Photo: Pete Marovich/ZumaPress.com/Newscom)

        “The consent was significantly deficient,” Menikoff, director of the ethics office, says.

        His office sent a stern letter to SUPPORT researchers on March 7, 2013 stating consent forms signed by parents of the preemies “failed to describe the reasonably foreseeable risks of blindness, neurological damage and death.”

        It was a bombshell.

        One agency within HHS, the ethics office, had slapped another, NIH, with a formal ethics violation. This unleashed a torrent of pushback.

        Little more than three months later, the ethics office appeared to back down. In a follow-up letter, it formally suspended corrective action or punishment.”

        • LOI,

          Your response reminds me about how people make terrible witnesses. Two can watch the same accident & see/report two widely different events.

          Maybe one “terrible witness” – someone who can’t (or doesn’t want to) comprehend the basic facts.

          Now because you’ve accidentally compared Bush to Hitler, you think that comparison automatically transfers to Obama?? Ha ha – that’s a good one!

          Maybe this scandal will finally stick to Obama??? 🙂

          Remember over a year ago I told you you’re just being led around from one scandal to the next? Hoping one will stick? The right-wing is so whipped up, they have to create crazier and crazier scandals to keep everyone interested – cause you just KNOW one of these must be true – they have to be – because you’ve been told so many times how EVIL Obama is…

          Keep searching – I’m sure you’ll eventually find one…or at least it will keep you busy…

          • You know Todd, sometimes you can get a bit annoying. Back when Ronnie Reagan was president, perhaps before your time, the left delighted in denigrating him by referring to him as “the teflon president” because nothing ever stuck. He even seemed to skate on Iran-Contra for a while.

            There is a difference. Reagan was pretty much despised by the media who even back then were polled at voting 80 plus percent democrat. He did however have the ability to speak directly to the people and he was right far more often than he was wrong (economy, Soviet Union for openers)The current occupant of the white house is not despised by the press whom I am sure voted for him more than 80 percent of the time. Instead, they provide him cover and excuses.

            The NY Times last weekend is a brilliant example. Once the PFC (I refuse to give him the automatic promotion since I knew real sergeants who earned the rank) Bergdahl thing blew up in O’s face and yet again showed the total incompetency of the administration and the scandal of releasing five terrorists, the Times says that the entire Battalion Bergdahl belonged to basically is lying about him. Somehow by concentrating on PFC Bergdahl, we should magically forget the murderers who were let go, the same as we should forget the running of the guns into Mexico, the interference in Egypt, the illegal war in Libya, the gotcha of tea party groups by IRS people who seem to have early onset Alzheimers when asked about it and last and perhaps least the Benghazi controversy, perhaps the only thing that just might not be a scandal if the White House told the truth instead of lying about it to put a good face on. Perhaps we could even discuss the legality of things like this order to ice to “let my people go.”

            These things are NOT scandals because you say so? That dumb I’m not.

          • Toddster,

            You want me to defend Bush? OK. The left has went out of they way to portray him as an idiot & Obama as an intellectual. By their stereotyping, Bush was just stupid & didn’t know. Obama knew & covered it up.

            In reality, I suspect neither knew, although it appears Sebelius did know & is responsible for the cover up. Consider also, she could have come forward on this & rightly laid it all on Bush…

  2. People need to get with the program, folks, your government is evil, period. They need replaced and done so soon, before they become the 4th Reich, which is the next step. Mathius has been right all along, people. are. stupid.

  3. I really dropped by celebrate with Kathy. Wisconsin took a great big leap into the 21st century Friday!

    Wooh-whoo!! 🙂

    • Gay marriage licenses-yea it’s always great when a judge thinks he has the right to over rule the voice of the people and take away the rights of the states to govern themselves.

      I have always found it troubling when they allow the marriages to take place before all the legal battles are over-seems unfair to tell these people they are married and then have it reversed-which sometimes happens-of course I know why they do it-so they can then go to court and argue they were permitted to be married so it’s not right to overturn their marriages. Which makes a mockery of the court systems. They overstep, then that overstep is used to make their overstep okay.

      • “…it’s always great when a judge thinks he has the right to over rule the voice of the people and take away the rights of the states to govern themselves.”

        It’s always great when a judge understands his role and overrules the voice of the majority to ensure the equal rights and protection of the minority.

        • He didn’t ensure their rights-he changed the definition of a word. One man decided to overrule a State Constitution-to nullify the voice of the people. So tell me Buck if it is unconstitutional for a State to designate marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If the state has no choice in defining the institution- than why aren’t any limitations on the institution unconstitutional or are they unconstitutional?

          • It’s not Gay Marriage Supporters who are changing the definition of “Marriage.”

            It’s those against Gay Marriage who are trying to changing the definition of “Marriage” to suit their prejudices:

            The federal judge who struck down Wisconsin’s gay marriage ban thinks state officials have a thing or two to learn about the history of marriage as a social institution.

            In defending their same-sex marriage ban, state officials claimed that “virtually all cultures through time” have recognized marriage “as the union of an opposite-sex couple.”

            But as U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in her 88-page ruling on Friday, that’s simply not true.

            “As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument. Throughout history, the most ‘traditional’ form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue,” Crabb wrote in her opinion.

            History alone wasn’t enough to justify a ban on same-sex marriage, Crabb said.

            “Like moral disapproval, tradition alone proves nothing more than a state’s desire to prohibit particular conduct,” she wrote, citing Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in a 2003 sodomy case, which stated that “‘preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.”

            Crabb pointed out that tradition was used as an argument to keep women from voting.

            • Maybe they should just have stuck with man-woman and left the numbers blank!

            • I’ll ask you the same question-You are supporting the judges claim that marriage defined as between a man and a woman is Unconstitutional -So lets talk about it based on the Constitution-on what basis do you make this claim -and if it is unconstitutional for a State to designate marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If the state has no constitutional right to define the institution- than why aren’t any limitations on the institution unconstitutional or are they all unconstitutional. And if they are all unconstitutional than it seems to me that having laws about the institution itself is unconstitutional.

              And I’ll add a second-do we the people have the right to determine what we wish as a society to support?

              Remember per the Constitution we the people can by amendment pass any law we choose even if some believe it denies freedoms to the majority or the minority. And it truth -I think the minority are getting so many so called rights that the majority is getting screwed.

              • Sedgewick says:

                ” I’ll ask you the same question-You are supporting the judges claim that marriage defined as between a man and a woman is Unconstitutional -So lets talk about it based on the Constitution-on what basis do you make this claim ”

                The US and state constitutions explicitly protect the right to freedom of/from religion.

                Defining marriage based upon religious doctrine is an example of free expression and practice of a religion. Defining a legal institution by the standards of a religion is forcing religious values, thus violating the freedom from religion.

                ” And I’ll add a second-do we the people have the right to determine what we wish as a society to support? ”


                ” And it truth -I think the minority are getting so many so called rights that the majority is getting screwed. ”

                How exactly is the majority getting screwed?

              • This is where Bill O’Reilly was right. He said this would give him the ability to marry the McGovern twins if he wanted to. Yep, absolutely!

                Anything goes in the name of freedom, no matter how perverse, evil or self destructive it may be. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the real freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights get revoked by placing “reasonable limitations and interpretations” on their meaning. Wow! This rally is a different country than it used to be.

              • “Anything goes in the name of freedom, no matter how perverse, evil or self destructive it may be.”

                What bullshit.

                “Anything” does NOT go “in the name of freedom”. Your ignorant display of freedom is telling.

                Freedom is allowing others to be free so that you can be free.

                This does NOT suddenly give a man a right to destroy another’s freedom, since THIS IS NOT ALLOWING OTHERS TO BE FREE.

              • Sedgewick says:

                ” Anything goes in the name of freedom, no matter how perverse, evil or self destructive it may be. ”

                …like forcing values of a belief which is based on a long series of gross rationalizations onto the rest of the population and calling it freedom of religion?

                Evil indeed.

              • Sed

                You didn’t answer this one.

                “and if it is unconstitutional for a State to designate marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If the state has no constitutional right to define the institution- than why aren’t any limitations on the institution unconstitutional or are they all unconstitutional?”

              • Sedgewick says:

                “and if it is unconstitutional for a State to designate marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If the state has no constitutional right to define the institution- than why aren’t any limitations on the institution unconstitutional or are they all unconstitutional?”

                Lawfully protected against it or not, forced religion is a violation of rights.

                If the state constitution protects the right to freedom of/from religion, it cannot limit marriage to only that which is defined by religion[s].

              • Okay it’s a simple question-does the state have the right to define the institution of marriage? This lawfully protected doesn’t make it right argument isn’t the point. Or I’ll put it another way it is a different type of argument than arguing it is unconstitutional to do so. So yes or no?

                Think of it as the starting point in this discussion. First can they legally place limits. If that answer is yes-than you can move on to are there limits to the limits they can place and why.

              • “Okay it’s a simple question-does the state have the right to define the institution of marriage?”

                Absolutely not!

                Marriage is a RIGHT of INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS – and the State nor you has utterly no say whatsoever in this choice.


              • Sedgewick says:

                ” does the state have the right to define the institution of marriage? ”

                By default, I will say, No, states do not have rights. People do. The state is there to (supposedly) serve and protect the rights of the people, and not regulate romance.

                But to entertain the context of your question, it depends on how you define marriage.

                If marriage is a legal contract, then it should apply to everyone equally, just like any other laws or contracts. If it a religious institution, then it depends on the state’s constitution and whether or not it protects the right to freedom from/of religion.

              • Semantics, semantics, semantics. It is all in the words and YOU people have fallen in the trap big time by allowing them to define the words. Marriage, militia, truth, honor “it”, what difference does it really make when they set the definition? Fools!

              • VH,
                The 14 amendment – equal protection clause.

                Laws cannot apply to or exclude certain groups or individuals. They have to apply to everyone equally. If the government sanctions marriage, it has to apply to all marriages. Not just a man and woman.

                The states can make laws about marriage. They just have to apply to everyone equally.

              • Sometimes Mr. Flag, you come across as a total Nah, I won’t say it, I’ll try to be civil to an uncivil egotist.

              • Post bullshit, and I will call it bullshit.

  4. A person, to the State, is merely a thing to be used, abused and manipulated for its own desire.

  5. What still staggers my belief is why there are still people who support government.

    After its slaughter of hundreds upon hundreds of millions, its abuse upon people, there will still be people singing its praise.

    The greatest mystery of men…

    • Sedgewick says:

      Gman – ” Mathius has been right all along, people. are. stupid. “

    • They will flock to the polls in November, only to learn later that the more things change in DC the more they stay the same. Now, if things work out and Obama gets impeached after November, I will enjoy the entertainment, beyond that, it’ll be business as usual.

      • Sedgewick says:

        It isn’t only about politics, but religion and economics as well.

        As long as the masses are voting, paying taxes, divided, scared, buying shit they don’t need, and attaching their egos to it all ..they’re happy slaves.

        The whole system needs to be broken down and replaced with something functional, sooner rather than later.

    • I support government. I stand by that & the principal of law it represents. And I stand here and say, this is not what our founders tried to create. This is not a government by the people, for the people…. This is not a government that serves the people, this is a government that controls the people. The master, not the servant.

      I support government, very damned little government. I think Norquist said it should be small enough we could drown it in a bathtub… That’s about right!

      • Sedgewick says:

        The principle of law is coercion.

        The principles of social order are respect for rights and personal responsibility.

        Social order does not require coercion.

        • I know too many people who are not respectable. (friends in low places) But what to do when neighbors disagree? Oh, that is the where & why of laws. Now there are too many laws & lawyers, but I think the principal of law is civilized conflict resolution. We as a society agreed not to kill or steal and some other complicated stuff. But it had to be written down. Details, details….


          • Sedgewick says:

            You have a right and responsibility to protect your property. You do not have a right to trespass.

            ” Hey neighbor, …If you acquire the materials, I will help you build a fence to keep your cows from being shot, butchered and eaten on my property.”


          • LOL- I don’t know what the law is-but if westerns were accurate -you might get shot for putting up a fence 🙂

            Now BF will probably show up 🙂 But without government or some type of community democratic process, you are in danger of landing in -“might is right” territory without a few laws. As far as laws being coercive-that’s kinda the definition of laws-follow them or there is a consequence.

            • V.H.

              “But without government or some type of community democratic process, you are in danger of landing in -”might is right” territory without a few laws. As far as laws being coercive-that’s kinda the definition of laws-follow them or there is a consequence.”

              But that is what you have now! “Might is Right” is exactly the application of violence of the State!

              It is always strange to me how people are utterly clueless to the applications of force and violence upon them – and argue for its continuation because they fear precisely what is being done to them…

              • Yes, I agree, our government is out of control-might is right-is a good representation of where we are. But might is right isn’t limited to the state and every application of law isn’t a matter of might is right.

              • Might is not limited to the State.
                The State, however, is the concentration of such Might, and hence, the greatest concentration of evil on Earth.


                There is absolutely no need of “government” law to enforce human rights. ABSOLUTELY NO NEED.

                You do not need a government to tell you murder is wrong, or theft is wrong. You incorrectly believe that if the State merely articulates and notes a human natural law, that it is the government that made such law.

                “Legal history teaches that the science of jurisprudence, without which progress would have been impossible, is not the work of the few but of the many, not the work of lawgivers or of great men, but of the steadily and silently built structure of voiceless millions, “who bravely led unrecorded lives and dwell in unvisited tombs.”

              • James Coolidge Carter’s 1889 monograph, The Provinces of the Written and the Unwritten Law ;

                Carter summarizes the main conclusions that he came to after considering the nature of law and of legislation:

                [H]uman transactions, especially private transactions, can be governed only by the principles of justice; that these have an absolute existence and cannot be made by human enactment;K/b> that they are wrapped up with the transactions which they regulate, and are discovered by subjecting those transactions to examination; that the law is consequently a science depending upon the observation of facts, and not a contrivance to be established by legislation, that being a method directly antagonistic to science.

              • Berkeley law professor Robert Cooter’s 1994 article in the Southwestern University Law Review, “Decentralized Law for a Complex Economy“:

                Many intellectuals believe that centralized law is inevitable, just as they once believed that socialism is inevitable.

                In fact, centralized law, like socialism, is not plausible for a technologically advanced society.

                The forces that reversed the trend towards socialism and destroyed central planning are also undermining legal centrism.

                An advanced economy involves the production of too many commodities for anyone to manage or regulate.

                As the economy develops, the information and incentive constraints tighten upon public policy. These facts suggest that, as economies become more complex, efficiency demands more decentralized lawmaking, not less.

              • F.A. Hayek’s 1960 volume, The Constitution of Liberty:

                The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful means that human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from trying to do better.

              • The notion that valid norms of conduct might be established by way of legislation was peculiar to later states of Greek and Roman history; in Western Europe it was dormant until the discovery of Roman law and the rise of absolute monarchy.

                The proposition that all law is the command of a sovereign is a postulate engendered by the democratic ideology of the French Revolution that all law had to emanate from the duly elected representatives of the people. It is not, however, a true description of reality, least of all in the countries of the Anglo-Saxon Common Law.

            • Hayek’s 1967 paper “The Results of Human Action But Not of Human Design”

              The whole conception, however, that law is only what a legislator has willed and that the existence of law presupposes a previous articulation of the will of a legislator is both factually false and cannot even be consistently put into practice.

              Law is not only much older than legislation or even an organized state: the whole authority of the legislator and of the state derives from pre-existing conceptions of justice, and no system of articulated law can be applied except with a framework of generally recognized but often unarticulated rules of justice.

        • Exactly, Sed.

          If one requires coercion upon non-violent people, then it is a statement of evil irrationality.

          That person could not convince his neighbors because he cannot communicate well or his ideas are poor. Overcoming these deficits with violence is evil.

      • Government is not law, thus the utter failure of your position.

        Government is rule by arbitrary dictate.

        No law has ever existed because of government. Natural human law derives by the interaction of men, who in that interaction seek a benefit. Civilization exists because of a diminishment of violence, not an expansion of it.

        All government requires an increase in violence to enforce itself. It creates edicts upon non-violent men that it enforces with violence, thus, creating violence where there was none before.

        Government is the polar opposite of civilization. The more you want of one, it reduces the other.

  6. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    LOI……I could have posted 25 more links with the global # on the incarcerated prison population, especially here, from the ACLU, NY Times, Washington Post ad nauseum. However, one link that HAD been the root of many of the articles came from our own DOJ statistics. I did not post the data from those links because they all came across as “Unavailable” and still are as I write this. With our business’s being thrown out of more countries due to truly unethical policies, why not bring work back home to a population that can not complain or quit. The so called convict “road gangs” like in the movie “Cool Hand Luke” had virtually disappeared, by pressure from business to NOT use the cheap prison labor. Reason given was that practice was taking food out of the mouths of honest hard working people. Over the last 15 – 20 years here in the south, the practice is back with a vengence. Almost all work along the roads is accompanied by a prison bus, guards and rifles and dark reflector sun glasses. The honest labor has priced itself out of business and the State and business’s has to cut costs and maximize results by any means. Just think of our welcome in the Philippenes, and Indonesia and the Kathy Lee Gifford scandal, the CEO of Nike bragging on how cheap they got the $150.00 pair of work out shoes we all proudly wore and the return to the share holder he managed to get, and the sweat shop labor used by US business abroad. In Colombia, workers would be shot at their work station for daring to speak out.

    Why does the pursuit of scientific research on human engineering, regardless of how the data was derived shock you here in the US. At the Nuremberg trials there was irrefutable evidence submitted that the Nazi’s only refined the science of ex. eugenics, was pursued actively in the US. The practices were only publicly stopped in the 70’s. Remember it is for our own good and any result derived by a scientific methodology is good, regardless of its ethics and morality. Please note my sarcasm. The practices you noted in your lead article are alive and well here and just about everywhere all in the guise of creating a more perfect human being.

  7. Lou Dobbs: The President hasn’t mentioned a word about Sgt. Tahmooressi held in a Mexican prison. Your thoughts on the distinction here between the two, in at least Obama’s mind?

    Dr. Loudon: You know, I will say to you, Lou, I am very, very concerned about the mental stability of this President at this point. Some of his behavior seems irrational to me. It seems beyond that of just a typical narcissistic, arrogant, sort of, ‘I’m a leader of a big country and I feel tyrannical at the moment’ kind of attitude. It really seems to me like this President is demonstrating behavior that is not only anti-American, but irrational and erratic and perhaps not exactly what we might want to deem sane.

    I wonder if any politician is sane at this point.

  8. There is a great moral dilemma here at work. I know that we gave a walk to the Japanese scientists in Manchuria who conducted all sorts of experiments on prisoners (including western POW’s) during the war. They managed to bargain their way out of war crimes trials by exchanging data for their lives. We, of course, did the Tuskegee syphilis experiment on our own.

    • Funny how moral dilemma’s occur when people use the reasoning of “for the Greater Good”. We do research to help people but when we cloak that into the idea of the greater good-we tend to forget the value of every human being or to actually think we can justify the harming of a few to help the many.

      • Exactly.

        Whenever you hear someone claim “for the greater good”, it is merely empty rhetoric. It always and only means “to my benefit at your cost”.

  9. What might Articles look like against the current president? Here are some examples:

    Whereas the President of the United States knowingly violated two statutory provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, one of which identifies as a felony the unmitigated, material support of an identified terrorist organization, and the second of which expressly required 30-day notice to the United States Congress prior to transfer of prisoners from the Gitmo Prison facility

    …Whereas the President … publicly divulged the name of a senior US intelligence officer serving in a foreign country, in violation of Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, Public Law 97-200, United States Code Sections 421 to 426;

    …repeatedly asserted false, material facts in association with prospective healthcare legislation subsequently signed into law;

    …propagated false statements with the intent of deceiving the American People concerning cause of death for four American citizens, including one United States Ambassador;

    …failed to preserve the lives of innumerable combat veterans by refusing to respond, over a five year period, to life-threatening conditions documented by multiple inspector general reports on multiple Veterans Administration hospitals

    …knowingly asserted executive privilege over thousands of documents related to secret shipments of firearms to criminals in a foreign country resulting in the death of a U.S. law enforcement officer…

    …knowingly utilized the powers of the federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to search, seize data, intimidate American citizens, pursue private information without warrant, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments;

    …knowingly collected private information on millions of American citizens for unknown purposes and without conforming these searches to the US Constitution’s “search and seizure” guarantees of the Fourth Amendment;

    …knowingly sought to intimidate, chill and silence through abuse of law members of the press, both collectively and individually, suppressing “freedom of the press” to which all Americans are entitled under the First Amendment;

    …repeatedly abused executive authority through the unprecedented issuance of ultra vires executive orders and waivers of law not authorized by the US Constitution or by Congress;

    Therefore the President of the United States shall be subject to impeachment in the United States Senate, under Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, for such “high crimes and misdemeanors” as are described in the foregoing Articles and petition for removal.


    • Matt asked once if Obama offered to step down would we take him up on it-I said NO because I felt it would just give the democrats more power by making him a martyr for the progressive cause-but now I would happily accept his resignation-anyone would be better. Jerk said not only did he go around Congress but he intends to do it again-Why-I ask -do we have a government if the Dems. want a dictator. Why keep acting like we are a democratic republic if the meaning of the words are meaningless? I may not always like what our government does but if we destroy the process what are we left with-please tell me-I vote for representatives to represent me-if their voice is silenced my voice is silenced and so is YOURS!

  10. The Post also reported that it was the first time in U.S. history when two federal agencies raided a third agency. The EPA didn’t exist when the site began operations in 1952 and its practices were out of step with subsequent environmental regulations.

    The FBI and EPA agents faced heavily armed DOE guards with shoot-to-kill orders and surface-to-air missiles among their defenses, according to the LA Times, but they got onto the base by saying they were there to conduct terrorism preparedness training.

    Rockwell International, the DOE’s main contractor, pled guilty in 1992 to 10 environmental crimes and violations of the Clean Water Act. It agreed to pay $18.5 million in fines. At the time, it was the largest fine for an environmental crime ever levied.

    After 10 years and $7 billion in pollution mitigation, the site was cleaned and decontaminated by 2007 — with the exception of a 1,309-acre site containing radioactive soil and concrete, which is still off-limits, according to the Post.

    Most of Rocky Flats is now a wildlife refuge, but it wasn’t until earlier this year that Congress recognized the sacrifices of some 40,000 people who worked at the site over the years, many of whom died after suffering serious illnesses due to their close work with radioactive materials.

    Those with 22 types of cancer are now presumed to have gotten them due to their work at the plant; previously, workers had to prove their illnesses were related to their employment at Rocky Flats.

    Although Rocky Flats stands as a monument to the bygone Cold War, its legacy remains.

    “The bombs manufactured there are still in the U.S. arsenal,” Boulder author Len Ackland told the Denver Post.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/06/the-other-wartime-june-6-anniversary-the-raid-on-rocky-flats/#ixzz349URk2W5

  11. They argue that all the babies were treated in the accepted levels-but they already knew that the lower levels and the higher levels were the ones created a greater risk-So why would they experiment at those levels-why would they keep them within the framework of “standard of care” ?

    “This principle has direct bearing on the SUPPORT study. When there
    is a range of oxygen levels within the standard of care, clinicians
    (and their institutions) often do, in fact, make their own
    determinations regarding which oxygen levels within that
    range to employ in treating their patients. Some physicians,
    recognizing the particular concerns about risks near the low (85%)
    and high (95%) ends of that range, might choose to avoid one or both
    of those regions. ”

    “Unless, as is extraordinarily unlikely, an institution used
    for clinical purposes exactly the same randomization
    assignment procedure that was used in the SUPPORT trial,
    every child in the SUPPORT trial experienced some change in
    the likelihood of being assigned to the various oxygen levels.
    And as the above discussion demonstrates, for at least some of
    the children participating in the SUPPORT trial, the effect of
    such participation was to specifically increase their likelihood
    of being assigned to oxygen levels close to either end of the
    range of standard care – and thus to oxygen levels at which, as
    a clinical matter, they would not have been assigned by their
    individual physicians, had they not been in the study. “

    • There are a lot of links-still reading them but this is where I got the above information if you want to read the whole thing.


      • One other thing-they pointed out that the trials were done at clinics that specifically reduced the range of oxygen levels they used to between 88 and 92 to be safer for their patients but the research trials were between 85 and 95 for research participants-I ask again Why-why would they use the full range in the trials if they already knew it was more dangerous?

        I know that research is important -but I don’t understand the range being so broad if they already know these outside ranges are dangerous.

  12. I find it just amazing that the Federal government-namely Obama and the democrats-don’t believe the States have the right to enforce our laws at the border-but when the situation gets out of hand because of their policies -the problem is just dumped in the States lap. Add in the danger they are putting these people in- encouraging them to come with all their talk of amnesty and intentionally ignoring the immigration laws is pretty sick. Not to mention the danger they are putting us, the people of this Country in-How are these dropped off people gonna support themselves?

    I have an idea the states should give all these people a bus ticket to Washington DC. Let them handle the problem they created. I hear the job market there is just thriving.

    Feds: No, We Won’t Stop Dropping Off Illegal Immigrants in Arizona
    Katie Pavlich | Jun 09, 2014

    Last week Arizona Governor Jan Brewer sent a letter to President Obama demanding inhumane drop offs of illegal immigrant women and children in 100 degree temperatures be stopped. That request was ignored and the feds have no plans to stop dumping hundreds of illegal immigrants at bus stops with a court date, hoping someday they show up again for their immigration hearing. More from CBS 5 AZ:

    Andrew Wilder told CBS 5 News that reports claiming no more buses would arrive in Phoenix are inaccurate.

    Wilder also confirmed that unaccompanied children crossing into the U.S. in Texas were making their way to southern Arizona, and the first shipment was expected to arrive Friday.

    An immigration official told CBS 5 News that 195 unaccompanied children a day are crossing the border into the U.S., and if left unchecked more than 142,000 of them would cross within the next year.

    Wilder said he participated in a call with federal agencies including DHS, HHS, ICE, Border Patrol and FEMA about the transportation of immigrants into Arizona from the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

    “The federal government has no plans to terminate this operation any time in the immediate future,” Wilder said.

    “The governor is troubled about this new information today,” Wilder said. “It is absolutely unconscionable this is continuing.”

    But despite the feds’ response to Brewer’s original request, she isn’t backing down.

    “Not only does the federal government have no plan to stop this disgraceful policy, it also has no plan to deal with the endless waves of illegal aliens once they are released here. If the Obama administration put half the effort into securing our border as it has invested to institute this operation, our state and nation would not be facing this situation. This is a crisis of the federal government’s creation, and the fact that the border remains unsecure – now apparently intentionally – while this operation continues full-steam ahead is deplorable,” Brewer said in a statement. “I have reached out to Federal Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson for answers. Meanwhile, I reiterate my call on President Obama to secure our southern border and terminate this operation immediately.”

    I would expect to see a response in some way from the Arizona State Legislature very soon.


  13. I would strongly urge Governor Brewer to follow the example set in the 1960’s by such stalwarts as Governor Jimmy Carter. When faced with a blossoming welfare problem because of the mandates of the Great Society, recipients in Georgia and many other Southern states were offered one way tickets for themselves and their kids to New York, Boston or Chicago. This is no folk tale I interviewed many of these people when they showed up looking for emergency housing. Apparently Connecticut was another destination because I remember that the state legislature passed a requirement for one year residency in the state before welfare benefits would be granted. The courts knocked that one down in months citing the constitutional right to be able to move freely in the country which would have been jeopardized if freebies were not available at the end of the rainbow.

    For the younger set, this is how dominoes begin to fall. .

    • That police officer is nuts-he is paid to protect the public-he is not there to champion any political view. He presence there By definition is to not show any preference to any view-HE IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IRREGARDLESS of HIS PERSONAL VIEWS-His only view in this case is no view just enforce the law. The whole argument is ridiculous.

      • V.H.
        “HE IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IRREGARDLESS of HIS PERSONAL VIEWS-His only view in this case is no view just enforce the law.”

        You contradict yourself.

        He has NO OBLIGATION whatsoever to protect the public.

        The police are there to ENFORCE THE LAW. The two concepts are not connected.

  14. IRS Sent Confidential Information On Nonprofit Groups To FBI Days Before 2010 Midterm Elections
    4:38 PM 06/09/2014

    Former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner sent confidential taxpayer information about nonprofit groups to the Federal Bureau of Investigation days before the 2010 midterm elections.

    New emails provided by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for its investigation into the IRS targeting scandal show that the IRS sent 21 disks containing 1.1 million pages of information on groups to the FBI, which is overseen by DOJ, in October 2010.

    DOJ has the authority to monitor elections nationwide. Lerner previously coordinated with DOJ in 2013 to attempt to prosecute conservative activist groups.

    The Daily Caller previously reported that Lerner shared confidential taxpayer information on nonprofit groups with high-ranking White House officials Ellen Montz and Jeanne Lambrew in 2012. Lerner was held in contempt of Congress by a full House vote after stonewalling the chamber’s investigation into her improper targeting of conservative and tea party groups between 2010 and 2012.

    “We were extremely troubled by this new information, and by the fact that the IRS has withheld it from the Committee for over a year,” House Oversight chairman Rep. Darrell Issa and Oversight member Rep. Jim Jordan wrote in a letter to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. ”We were astonished to learn days ago from the Justice Department that these 21 disks contained confidential taxpayer information protected by federal law. We ask that you immediately produce all material explaining how these disks were prepared and transmitted to the FBI.”

    “The IRS’s transmittal of this information to the FBI shows that the IRS took affirmative steps to provide sensitive evidentiary material to law-enforcement officials about the political speech of nonprofits,” Issa and Jordan wrote. ”At the very least, this information suggests that the IRS considered the political speech activities of nonprofits to be worthy of investigation by federal law-enforcement officials. The IRS apparently considered political speech by nonprofit groups to be so troublesome that it illegally assisted federal law-enforcement officials in assembling a massive database of the lawful political speech of thousands of American citizens, weeks before the 2010 midterm elections, using confidential taxpayer information.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/irs-sent-confidential-information-on-nonprofit-groups-to-fbi-days-before-2010-midterm-elections/#ixzz34BZ8omD4

  15. @V.H. I’ve been reading along all day, trying to understand your complaint. After much thought, let me put a few things in perspective, as I see it. First, the term Marriage is not a religious word. Most of us have been through the religious ceremony where a man and women are “brought together in Holy Matrimony”. I have not read the Bible when it comes to this ceremony, but, I can say that if the term Marriage is involved, their can be NO LAW that interferes with this religious practice, anywhere! The words married or marriage is not even written in the Bible, to the best of my knowledge, therefore, you are fighting a losing battle over a word not even written in the Bible. If I’m wrong, correct me, and I don’t mean the words that have been changed via interpretation, I mean the actual words.

    Now, let’s see what you come up with! 🙂

    • Hebrews 13:4

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Please post exact words. 🙂

        • And G – please explain your comment that if the term appears in the Bible no law can interfere with the religious practice

        • Hebrews 13:4
          21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
          4 Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

          • Yep, good for you to appeal to a book of insanity for your ethics.

          • Anita,

            Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled;

            It would seem to me that “all” would include gay marriage. Don’t you agree?

            • Ah Todd — good to have you back!

            • Except for the part about a man leaving his father and mother and clinging to his wife. So, no, I don’t agree.

              • So you reach into another quote, and not the one you provide, to support the quote you provide.

                Okie dokie……

                But whatever, continue quoting a book of Insanity gets you no points.

                As always, you merely cherry pick the ones you want and ignore the ones that utterly devastate your position, like:

                “One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death.”

                “Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense. ”

                “You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on that day must be put to death”

                ” any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ … and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones … ”

                “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves”

                “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent”

                Strange you don’t quote those, Anita as justification of your “cause”.

              • I justified my cause. So shoot me. I’ll agree that the Bible contradicts itself. I also know I won’t have to answer to Him for a gay marriage.

              • So, pray tell, how do YOU know when the Book of Insanity contradicts itself (thus, you decide to ignore its edicts) and when it does not (thus, you decide to preach its edicts)?

                What clue do you use to determine which is which?

                Where in your Book of Insanity does it give you grace to make such a decision? Is there a passage that says “If you don’t like these edicts, ignore them…”?

                Or, perhaps better, you shouldn’t base your ethics on a Book of Insanity, and instead start from a root principle and build them from that.

              • Sedgewick says:

                Who is “him”? …Paul?

                What about Timothy?

                1 Timothy 2:11 – Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 – Do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

              • Anita,

                I’ll agree that the Bible contradicts itself.

                If the Bible contradicts itself, then it’s not the “inspired word of God” and can’t be taken literally, right?

                Because if you think it should be applied literally, per Black Flag’s post, there’s gonna be an awfully lot of “putting to death” here at SUFA….

                And I would expect you to “learn in quietness and full submission- and be silent”…

              • Sedgewick says:

                ” I’ll agree that the Bible contradicts itself. ”

                The word “Bible” comes from blibia or blibia sacra(sacred books), and/or Byblos originating from the Egyptian word for papyrus. It is a collection of 66 books, written by MEN who were ‘inspired by god.’

                ‘God’ is perfect. Men are fallible. If it is contradictory in it’s instruction, it came from men and not god. Why worry about answering to god based on a list of contradictory statements from men?

              • Anita

                Matthew 7:6

              • Good one V. I shoulda known better but I figured the tolerant ones would give me some slack. Guess not! 😉

    • ” First, the term Marriage is not a religious word”


  16. @ Dale………..just got back from being gone for 8 days….no computer contact and no SUFA and no news……just wanted to thank you for posting the The Longest Day.

    • Dad, at 95. is still alive. He was in the Pacific with the Navy…an Ensign in charge of LCVP’s ( Landing Craft Vehicle and Personnel ) Had 6 under his command taking marines into the beaches on Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Okinawa. Several “Longest Days” on the Pacific as well and for the same purpose. Thanks again.

      • Please express my gratitude to him. As I am wont to say these days when I run across the old men in their baseball caps emblazoned with the CIB or Purple Heart or WW 2 vet patch, Thank you, for the life you have given me.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        The story of your Father’s role in the Pacific, raised images of the story of Eddie Albert and Tarawa. Here are people who were not professional military personnel doing unbelievable acts of selfless heroism. And then just stepping back into their previous lives when it was over.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Sir….Thanks, but I believe Stephen posted “The Longest Day” I had the follow on post about signing statements. I still find it hard to believe the imbalance of the exchange, 5 top level leaders for 1 low level non-com. Regardless of the legality of the exchange I would have thought it would have been 1 low level for 1 of equal rating.

      It still boggles my mind the shear off the scale bravery it took to pull off “The Longest Day”. The logistical planning, the deceptions, the decision to just plain go, the breakout and eventual defeat of Hitler. I had friends when growing up that were involved with the battle and later with Patton on the swing up from the south during the Battle of the Bulge, they never spoke brazonly or were verbose. Mostly it was very quiet reflection with very few most humbling comments. The event spoke for itself and what it meant to mankind.

      Many years ago, I found a scrapbook that followed an American army group, via the correspondents who were embedded in the group and wrote for the Chicago papers. Started at D-Day and then suddenly stopped at battle for the bridges at Remagen. I always believed this was how a family, I never knew who, tracked a son or Father in the campaign. When it just plain ended, I always believed the family had received a letter from the Army expressing their regrets and had no longer any reason to cut and paste the articles. The book just closed mid page.

      My Father who is no longer with us, was gearing up and training for the invasion of Japan. He always looked at the atomic bombs as used, were extremely humanitarian for all involved, both the invaders and defenders. And subsequently throughout the cold war, the threat existed, but nobody let the genii out of the bag purely based on the vision of one plane and no city. Even though Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin, Munich were just as destroyed and killed many more people conventionally the impact was different.

      • They were different wars at the same time. Dad told me of the atrocities of the things that he saw…..but he also said that he saw them from the keel of a landing craft. At Iwo Jima, he related to me that he was the third wave. The Japanese let the first two waves on the beach to get bunched up and hit the third wave….he still dreams about losing half of the marines when they dropped the gate on the LCVP…..shot down in the mouth of the boat and because the shore was so steep and the waves broke right on the shore and would wash back into the landing craft….he still has visions of floating bodies being washed back into the boat before he could get his squadron off the beach for another load. He had two boats shot out from under him, well, one boat swamped and another hit by mortar.

        However, technology has improved to render the storming of beaches over…we will never see that again. But the bravery was beyond reproach.

        I will thank Stephen for the post…..on my computer it came up under your name but maybe what I saw was a response. Have a great day.

  17. Don’t know all the facts or if the story is distorted but it seems to be an incredibly bad idea. Unless this kid was expressing the idea of a sex change long before he came into contact with these kooks, we are definitely looking at some severe mental abuse. And please do not tell me that parents cannot influence their children to make bad as well as good decisions. It won’t wash.


  18. No comments about the Las Vegas shooting?

  19. RE: Marriage and law. Funny how tunnel vision folks can be at times. Marriage, the religious term for being Wed in Holy Matrimony, cannot be regulated by Congress, 1st Amendment, or the States, 14th Amendment (as Todd said). The only way marriage can be regulated is if were not a religious term. Therefore the judges have all ruled correctly, that denying gay’s the ability to Marry is not legal.

    Now, let’s put things into perspective, WHY do any of you ALLOW for the requirement of a Marriage License if it is a religious term? Anyone know the history behind the Marriage License requirement? For those who want to protect the religious sanctity of the word marriage, try forcing the States to change the term for their license (since it can’t demand a license for a religious event anyway, per most State Constitutions) to a Civil Union license. Let the term marriage stay religious, give everyone equal footing under the law and change the name of the “license” to what it should be to begin with, a non-religious term.

    Of course, I don’t like licenses to begin with, but if it must be, then give it the proper term 🙂

    • Sedgewick says:

      …or simply take government out of romance.

      If people want to make marriage a religious thing, they can get married in a place of worship. If they want to make it a legal thing, they can sign a contract like a prenuptial agreement. If they don’t like those options and just want to build a life together, nothing is stopping them.

      If I find a suitable woman, my options are pretty much open because my sexuality and idealism does not conflict with what religions define as marriage. If I were a gay/lesbian or polygamist, I would have to abide by the standards of others.

      Others should not define who you are or what makes you happy. It is counter-intuitive to the whole idea of freedom or what it is supposed to mean to be an American.

    • While I generally agree with your solution, the fact is that marriage is not just a religious term. It is also a civil term.


      (a) Make ‘marriage’ refer only to the religious context; the government does not recognize any ‘marriage’ but any two people can have a ‘civil union’.


      (b) Stop all of this nonsense, recognize that words can have multiple meanings and contexts. Marriage can be either religious or civil or both. I don’t need religion to recognize my marriage; you don’t need government to recognize your marriage (though failure to file for government recognition means no government benefits).

      Honestly this whole issue is getting ridiculous — gay marriage is here to stay, there are only a handful of states holding out and in a few short years there will be no states holding out.

      • States may recognize it, Buckster……but banks and financial institutions do not when it comes to common law. Loan documents, titles, wills and codicils…etc….must name the specific individual or individuals….depending on the issue at hand but common law will not recognize it and it is not assumed.

        I have not researched it but plan to ask some barrister friends of mine……I wonder what the law says as it pertains to alimony, distribution of property, etc. Even in states that do recognize gay marriages, I wonder of those applications apply. I can’t wait to see what happens when two same sex couples marry, legally, and then, legally divorce, and want to split property. I see no reference to it in California Statutes at this time. I see NO recognition of gay marriages in these instances in any state…UNLESS…one wants to stretch the issue to “marriage” in general and make the assumption that “marriage” as defined becomes sacrosanct.

        • Buck…I take this position in regards to the term “civil union” that you brought up.

          • Ah that clarifies a bit — you raise a good point: pretty much all existing state and federal statutes would need to be amended to delete references to ‘spouse’, ‘wife’ and ‘husband’.

            But the point remains that one solution would be to get rid of ‘marriage’ in the civil/legal context altogether and replace it with ‘civil union’. Though I don’t think the religious right would be happy about the government’s refusal to recognize their marriage. Which is why this will never happen.

            • Instead (as you can see happening), marriage will just be marriage, regardless of the gender of the two individuals.

            • I also do not think that the left will like that. I have gay friends that do not like the term civil union as, to them, it is not a marriage….as marriage as defined. I asked them that specific question and they WANT the term marriage and not done away with at all.

              • Fair enough point. But I doubt this would be an issue if ‘marriage’ was never a civil term to begin with.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                It would make all couples equal under the law. Gays could also get a Marriage Certificate if they desire one. Easy fix 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Buck, I agree on calling civil unions just that as far as the law is concerned. Churches can provide Marriage Certificates if some kind to solve the religious dude of the problem. I also agree, the argument is fixable by getting govt out of religious issues totally. That would be best solution. I also think the religious right would go for it!

              • You think the religious right would go for it?

                Go ahead and ask them how they would feel if suddenly the government refused to recognize their marriage. That, in the eyes of the law, they are not married. Yeah, I’m sure they’ll love that one!

        • What’s going to happen when two people marry and then divorce? Ummm…hate to tell you this, but this phenomenon has been happening for years.

          Not following your first point about banks and financial institutions though. At least in my neck of the woods, if two people are legally married (regardless of gender), the marriage is recognized as any other.

        • Now, stretch the common law issue further…..even in states that recognize common law…that is not absolute. As where people of any sex can live together for years and as long as they do not “co-mingle” funds…..common law pretty much flies out of the window, And there has been plenty of rulings that “co-mingle” does not apply to sharing of expenses,,,,,ie: Utility bills. Civil Union is not defined anywhere that I can see….in a legal sense….Interesting issues in the future.

          • My personal prediction is that ‘civil unions’ are going to go the way of the dodo…

          • I reference this from New York….

            .”The Marriage Equality Act amends the state’s
            Domestic Relations Law to state that “[n]o appli-
            cation for a marriage license shall be denied on
            the ground that the parties are of the same, or
            a different, sex.” All other qualifications, rights
            and responsibilities of civil marriage in New York
            remain unchanged”.

      • Sedgewick says:

        ” Honestly this whole issue is getting ridiculous ”

        It always has been ridiculous.

        It is a solid example of conflicts within government and religion, though. It also serves to aggravate and provoke, as a vigorous stir to the egotistical pot, …because many feel uncomfortable talking about gayness.

  20. Stephen…..I gave a “thank you” to Dale for posting of the Longest Day…….the credit, I believe belongs to you…..Thank You. Dad, whom is blind and wants nothing to do with computers anyway, listened to the music. To this day, he still does not talk about his role in the Pacific very much…I do not press him….but would like to have the history. However, he still fights battles in his mind, I am sure. I know that I do from my travels..it is inevitable. But thanks again.

  21. Down here, G man……………..I disagree that it is an easy fix. Ok….so, anyone can get a marriage license…then get married. Cool beans. Now…fast forward to the civil side of law. Without changing permanently the law as written all across the fifty states and the Feds….it does not address civil issues……..property, alimony, child support (legal adoptions)…even in Buck’s area….other provisions of the laws remain unchanged.

    Now, once can stretch the “meaning of the action” to definition that it becomes “accepted”. but I do not think it will be that easy.

    • Now that you are married, you have two spouses. Most laws are written with reference to spouse, or I’ve also seen “husband/wife”. How would these not apply to a same sex couple legally married? Both are spouses; both are either husbands or wives. It seems you think this is much more difficult than it actually is.

      Worst case — pass a law simply stating that every reference to ‘married couple’ / ‘spouse’ / ‘husband’ / ‘wife’ shall be interpreted to mean one or both individuals in a marriage, regardless of gender.

    • Easy fix starts with the fed… Any agency that pays benefits to a spouse, such as SS or the military can change the automatic requirement to a beneficiary named by the person who’s money it supposedly is to begin with…

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Morning Colonel, at the Pittsburgh VA this morning for my appt, things are going smooth. Did run into one scheduling conflict, which the Doctor promptly fixed. It was a system issue, which if not addressed would have led to a lengthy delay.

      My suggestion of a Civil Union License can be written to fix all the issues that a common marriage has. It just takes one piece of legislation in each State and the arguments can end. Let the gays be treated equal, along with any other couple, let the religious have their word to themselves. Nobody is harmed. Also, see my previous on Marriage certificates!

  22. People are foolish to allow the other side to capture the language and definitions. I have been fighting the second amendment thing since I was a teenager and bought my first rifle, a 1917 vintage No1 MkIII Enfield which I fell in love with when I first saw “Lawrence of Arabia”. By the way it is now outlawed in the very city, N.Y. where I bought it because though a bolt action, it has a ten shot detachable box magazine. .

    Anyway, I digress. I can read clearly, I also can research fairly well and even better my Sr. year “Rise of the American Nation” textbook in high school clearly defined “Militia”. I have banged my head and that word against my anti-gun friends for 50 years. They really insist, when you get down to it, that they have the right to re-define the word. Why? Because it is inconvenient to their narrative.

    Marriage is exactly the same. If the word has meant man and woman (regardless of number) for several thousand years and has appeared in the dictionary as such since dictionaries were invented, then the sudden switch is as Flag would say, bullshit.

    Does nobody out there besides me see the Orwellian “1984” nature of all this? We are heading to a time when nothing can be defined with any assurance that the meaning cannot be changed along with the change of the wind.

    I do not give a flying crap what the left, libertarians, free soilers or anyone else calls same sex unions. They are not and cannot be marriage. No more than up can be down, cold can be hot, wet can be dry or……..right can be wrong.


    • BRAVO!!! Here, here! (standing ovation & clapping)

    • “Marriage is exactly the same. If the word has meant man and woman (regardless of number) for several thousand years and has appeared in the dictionary as such since dictionaries were invented, then the sudden switch is as Flag would say, bullshit.”

      No, that is your errant understanding. “Marriage” is and always has been a union of families and a creation of a family. It has been because same-sex unions for most of history has been violently attacked – ie: jailing, killing and murder of the participants – that it appeared only to be applied to heterosexual unions.

      Your claim, rephrased, is “Since we slaughtered anyone who disagreed, our definition must hold over all time”

      • Cloud coo-coo land time again!

        Got another one for you. Just listened to a discussion on the radio regarding the term “minority”. There is a problem with it. The two best public high schools in NYC, Stuyvesant and Bronx science are 70 plus percent Asian. Admission is by test only.

        The argument among the mentally challenged is how is it possible to allow “minorities” to be so under represented in these schools? It seems that the new definition of minority must include the fact that they are incapable of performing at an acceptable level. If you are not in that category, regardless of your background, you can no longer be a minority.

        I seem to remember this is/was an issue in California Universities (state) as well as places like MIT.

        “Marriage is and always has been a union of families and a creation of family.” Wrong!

        Marriage is the union of a 1957 Chevy Nomad with a brand new 427 Chevy big block engine as in; ” Bob used his spare time to marry a new 427 big block Chevy engine to his grandpa’s old Chevy Nomad station wagon. It was a marriage made in heaven”. Just as valid a use as yours.


        • Wrong???

          No, SK, absolutely not wrong. Marriage absolutely exists to join families and to create a new family unit. Period.

          Procreation does not need marriage.
          Companionship does not need marriage.
          Sex does not need marriage.

          It’s existence as an institution lies solely in the creation of a family unit and expansion of such a unit. Period.

          Your bizarre understanding of this institution is stunted.

          • Sedgewick says:

            The simplest definition of marriage is to “Join” or “Conjoin” or “Unite”

            It is even a mariner’s term meaning … “To temporarily sew the ends of two ropes together for rendering through a block. Also to grip together parts of a fall to prevent running out. To marry strands to prepare for splicing.”

      • Try to play “word games” with me, will ya? I went to Catholic School!

    • Ahhhhh…the Enfield…..a great and reliable weapon……actually highly accurate even in these days….not much on effective range but a really cool rifle. Have one myself….in my lighted gun case that is nine feet wide……can you guess the number of weapons? Long guns only in that one….the other gun case for hand weapons is a solid wall 14 ft wide, 8 ft high….( Do not try to guess…you cannot)…Anyway…the Enfield ( I am assuming the .303 ).but where did you manage to find a ten round detachable?

      • Standard Issue. I’ve been an Enfield buff for a long time especially now that I am reloading .303. The ten round box mag was pretty much left in place, the ears are sensitive and she was loaded with charger/stripper clips through the top bridge.

        Trying to make the range on the anniversary of Mons (23AUG14). Need someone to stand behind me and yell in proper RSM mode, :”give ’em ten rounds rapid boys!”

        Don’t knock it for effective range, the Brits were terrific riflemen in 1914. Those long range volley sights let them engage at 1,000 yards.



        Outgrew the gun cabinet a long time ago. Damn it, still buying these things at 67.

        • Interesting…..I can find ten round box magazines for the No 4…..but not the No. 1,,,,,cool. Mine is a five round magazine that also uses stripper clips from the top. I want a ten round box now….

          • And….as a volley weapon at 1000 yards…I will agree.

            • Best places for parts in the entire world. Re-built a couple of “sporter” chop jobs with parts from these guys.



              Mags are ridiculously expensive at $ 40.00 used to be three for ten but then the rifles used to cost less than $ 20.00 each. I guess the price is ok.

              Now, little did I know back in the ’70’s when I picked up three extra mags for a German G-43 semi-auto at 3 for $ 10 that they would be running $ 250.00 apiece today. If I ever figure how the hell to scan photos I may make a killing on E-bay.

  23. I’ve read a lot of words stating that the government should change the definition of marriage to include gay unions-based on being fair-but I have yet to hear a constitutional reason that demands it.

    Todd named equality under law as his basis-and that if the government is going to allow man/woman marriages it has to allow all marriages.

    This seems like two different arguments-So why is the law as stated not equal under law-it defines marriage as between one man and one woman-how is this not equal-it treats all woman and all men equally-normally when this is brought up people simply pooh pooh it but they never offer a reason why this argument is wrong. So how about it-how is this not equal under law.

    Now as far as the government having to allow all marriages. Well that statement requires more details-just which of the unions that people have engaged in throughout time are required to be considered marriage and recognized by the government so that your new definition isn’t also unconstitutional.
    Todd said that there could be limits on the definition of marriage-so what are they and why are they constitutional?

    • There can be no limits. That is very clear from what has happened. Age of consent will be an interesting barrier yet to be challenged or broken. One would think a fairly bright attorney could theoretically challenge age of consent by using the fact that different states set different standards. This obviously is unconstitutional, any idiot can see that.

    • “So why is the law as stated not equal under law-it defines marriage as between one man and one woman-how is this not equal-it treats all woman and all men equally-normally when this is brought up people simply pooh pooh it but they never offer a reason why this argument is wrong.”

      For one thing, It does not treat all women and all men equally. You are allowed to marry a man; I cannot; ergo, you can do something that I cannot do simply because of your gender. How is this equal treatment?

      • This is your stance-you’re gonna go all the way to it’s actually unconstitutional to make laws that acknowledge the differences between men and women. How about progressive taxes that charge people a higher percentage rate of taxes is that unconstitutional? How about differences based on age-how about our government giving money to clinics that are there solely for woman-How about woman being considered a minority-Or men being drafted. Or insurance companies having not to just cover birth control but to actually pay for it. You might as well of written How is that fair-because by your other stances you don’t seem to believe it is unconstitutional to write laws based on the differences between men and woman not to mention many other differences.

        How about my other questions?

        and I have another one-you studied law so if you have time please explain to me why a judge ruling that our licensing of marriages is unconstitutional results in gay couples running out and getting married-why would this ruling not result in the suspension of the licenses themselves-shouldn’t it at that point lead to a determination of what a constitutional law would be?

        • “it’s actually unconstitutional to make laws that acknowledge the differences between men and women.” — so long as the law being challenged fails to further an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest, then yes, it is unconstitutional.

          This is what’s referred to as ‘intermediate scrutiny’ which applies to classifications based on gender. But in the context of gay marriage, the government cannot even sustain a rational basis review (which merely requires a demonstration that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest).

          The reason these cases result in the ability of same sex couples to get married is because the cases deal with the prohibition on them getting married; this prohibition is what is found to be unconstitutional.

          • Then your argument isn’t that it’s not equal under the law-it’s that marriage between a man and woman doesn’t further an important government interest?

            ‘The reason these cases result in the ability of same sex couples to get married is because the cases deal with the prohibition on them getting married; this prohibition is what is found to be unconstitutional.’ So it depends on the question being asked not the constitutionality of the current law.

            and they are being found unconstitutional on what basis?

            • “…marriage between a man and woman doesn’t further an important government interest”

              Not quite — it’s that government’s decision to prohibit same sex marriage (or limit marriage to only between a man and woman) doesn’t further an important government interest.

          • But Buck I’ve gotta tell you-I find it really scary that people are supporting this idea of ‘intermediate scrutiny’, which the best I can define it based on your words is the government deciding what is best for government instead of We the People deciding what is best for We the people.

        • To answer your other questions:

          How about progressive taxes that charge people a higher percentage rate of taxes is that unconstitutional? CONSTITUTIONAL

          How about differences based on age? RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW APPLIES (depends on the law in question)

          how about our government giving money to clinics that are there solely for woman? CONSTITUTIONAL

          How about woman being considered a minority? GENDER-BASED CLASSIFICATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY

          Or men being drafted? Personally, I believe this fails intermediate scrutiny and both men and women should be subject.

          • Those are examples 🙂 I was talking about these questions:

            Now as far as the government having to allow all marriages. Well that statement requires more details-just which of the unions that people have engaged in throughout time are required to be considered marriage and recognized by the government so that your new definition isn’t also unconstitutional.
            Todd said that there could be limits on the definition of marriage-so what are they and why are they constitutional?

            • VH……I hate to say this but “intermediate scrutiny” is a catch phrase that has been around a loooong time….and Buck, unfortunately (as Mathius would say :stifling nose bleed:) is correct. It falls along the same lines as ” selective enforcement “….you have to look at his (Buck’s) terminology very carefully…such as “which applies to classifications based on gender.” and the use of the “in the best interest of the Federal Government”……defined means, the interest of the people or the majority be damned.

              This has been around a long time and is not going away….unless the thinking in Washington is changed that the federal Government is not the authority and the state’s should be.

              • I’m just trying to determine what makes Buck think our current law is unconstitutional-if it’s because intermediate scrutiny makes the law not meet the equally applied clause than I want to know where in the constitution this intermediate scrutiny lies.

              • I think a prohibition on same sex marriage is unconstitutional because it cannot even pass the lowest threshold of review — rational basis.

              • Yes…correct…..it fails rational basis…….VH….remember that you are talking legal terms here….it has nothing to do with moral or ethical vision as to individual thought.

              • Woohoo — I’m right.

                The Colonel said so! 🙂

              • So I ask again -does this make the currant law unconstitutional-or just unfair?

              • What I need here Buck to assess your argument is a constitutional basis for your argument that we cannot make a distinction based on the differences between men and woman.

              • Well what I’m trying to talk here D is constitutional law-I’ve found in many instances law and constitutional law don’t seem to match.

              • Equal Protection Clause.

              • “Sigh”

  24. G,

    MY point in a nut shell is I think the argument that marriage as currently defined as it relates to government law is unconstitutional is a false argument, so they are codifying a false argument into law.

    Many years ago We the People gave the government through our votes the ability to license marriage using the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman-if that is going to change it should change through the vote of We the people-we gave them the ability and we should be the only ones who can change it. Not some judge.

    • Yes V, that’s what George Orwell warned us about. Apparently we are too damn dumb to listen.

      Lao-Tzu said, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”. Throughout my life, this phrase was always considered a positive one. Only in the recent past have I been able to see the bad guys use it too.

      You will lose your rights, YOUR REAL RIGHTS, not the nonsense that allows you to marry Larry and Bill at a triple ring ceremony, a single step at a time, until they are no more.

      I noted Todd saluted Wisconsin for joining the 21st Century. That’s the rub, Wisconsin had nothing to say about it. One unelected judge did . What 27 states now with only three or four where the legislature spoke?

      • Sedgewick says:

        ” You will lose your rights, YOUR REAL RIGHTS, not the nonsense that allows you to marry Larry and Bill at a triple ring ceremony, a single step at a time, until they are no more. ”

        Nonsense. You are saying respecting the rights of others is a violation of your rights.

        How exactly does it violate YOUR rights to not concern yourself with a stranger’s personal life?

        How are you violated by not being able to forcefully assert your ideas onto others?

        What is stopping you from personally defining marriage as one man and one woman and living accordingly?

        • Look I will not engage in a battle of semantics with you folks. People want to live together, fine, twos, threes, fours, more who cares? let them sign a contract. Males-males or Females- Females or three of one two of the other. Fine! Sign a contract, go to the county clerk, Justice of the Peace or some freaked out religion that forgot what it was once all about. Just don’t call it marriage. Simple? Nobody’s rights are violated. It is all friggen nonsense.

          • “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.
            ” It is all friggen nonsense.”

          • Sedgewick says:

            ” Look I will not engage in a battle of semantics with you folks.”

            You confuse principle with semantics.

            Consider my personal perspective…

            Like you, I am into the whole traditional heterosexual monogamy thing. My personal idea of marriage has nothing to do with law or religion and involves neither, but is a part of my ideas concerning spirituality.

            I am not married, but…

            I want my wife to never have a doubt that I truly love her, and never have to utter those three little words to her. I don’t want her to ever feel trapped or be with me for any other reason than because she is truly happy building a life together. She should stick around because she wants to, because I treat her well enough that she never has a desire or reason to stray.

            For me, it is about companionship, genuine love and happiness, and not a legal, contractual, religious, or financial obligation.

            My personal religious/spiritual beliefs do not fit into any particular category or necessarily have a label, only adjectives. I recognize there is an origin to the universe and define god as exactly that.

            When I see or meet gay people or couples (or any other labeled peoples) in my community, I don’t care. It is a little odd, ..so what? I don’t care what they are or how they define their life and beliefs. I feel no fear of them, or need to bother with or control their life any more than I don’t anyone else. As long as they treat me with some basic level of respect, I accept them like I would anyone else. I simply view them as individuals. …Live and let live.

            More times than not, I find gay people to be polite, honest, and friendly… very easy to get along with.

            My personal idealism does not conflict with or cause me to have issues with gay people, and I wonder why it does with others. Why do people have such an issue with ‘different’ types of people? What is it that drives such a harsh rejection of a harmless nonviolent subculture?

            How can I, like many others, define marriage as hetero-monogamy, recognize a ‘god’, and NOT care about homosexuals?

          • They can call it marriage if they like – as if what they call it effects you at all.

        • Real rights……Look up the Bill of Rights. Study them carefully. While the magician is distracting you with “gay marriage” your rights are going up in a puff of smoke. I owe the analogy to my 37 year old son, the Army Reserve Major, former Obama voter and sometime populist.

          • Sedgewick says:

            I have studied them well. They are based upon natural unalienable rights. It is not necessarily a list of rights, but rather a construct in recognition thereof. The Bill of Rights was an attempt to design government with limitations in recognition and respect for rights, as well as act as a protection of them.

            My rights are going nowhere, as they are unalienable, inseparable. Either they are being respected or violated.

            Gay people do not violate my rights by being gay.

            How do you rationalize that your rights are violated?

            • You two are getting way too intellectual for me. My point is similar to yours, they are enumerated in the Constitution to tell us what the government cannot do. Well, the government is fairly under the radar doing them and you, I and the rest are being distracted by this crap. My earlier comment hold though. We are engaged in a very serious argument over language and meaning. If traditional, historical meanings are subject to change on a whim, then nothing can mean anything and nothing does mean anything. Hence, we are in an Orwellian world.

              In the wolkenkuckkuchsheim that Flag lives in, the written word and especially written word that begat a government is meaningless. He, an absolutist, and believes that this stuff sprang from the head of Zeus.

              • SK,

                No one is changing the “meaning” except you, by exclusion.

              • And as I already corrected you, but -of course- you are immune to learning, I am not an absolutist. I am a radical. Get it straight, or be gay about it.

              • That’s it just keep it up. Just answer the parts you want, dismiss everyone else, live in your own world where you are always ABSOLUTELY right.

              • Nonsense comments.

                You want to live in a world of YOUR OWN arbitrary design, defunct of any principle.
                Then you get mad when your arbitrary designs are questioned by principle.

                Worse, you think your bizarre arbitrary designs should be “obeyed” and forced on others.

          • The “Bill of Rights” has nothing to do with Human Rights.

            You believe it they aren’t written, they don’t exist?

      • You speak of real rights, then proclaim the destruction of real rights.

        It is the likes of you, sir, that diminishes human rights, not expands them

    • Yeah……I wish the media would get away from calling this guy a prisoner. He was no prisoner and he was certainly no prisoner of war….not even in the simplest of the meaning.

      All what he says is true but that is not the point. The fact that the collaborator was released, (yes, that is what he is) does not lessen any impact anywhere. The general is correct in one thing….we can now take them out and probably will…..everyone knows that Qatar will not do anything to detain them nor watch them….but lives will be lost doing it. But he is Obama’s retired lap dog and everyone in the true military knows this.

      The hypocrisy of this administration is astonishing. Everyone on the left says that Afghanistan is not a war…therefore, we, the United States, are criminals. Yet, it becomes a war when a prisoner exchange is made….a POW. The most laughable part is Obama standing behind a podium uttering the words…”no soldier left behind.” The power of the President as the CIC may give him the authority to make such a statement but he has no ethical or moral right to do so. He makes my skin crawl when he does that…..so does John “I submitted my own Purple Hearts” Kerry.

      I wish that there is one general that will actually have the cajones to charge Bergdhal with treason and put me in charge of the firing squad…or better yet…make me the reigning officer of the Courts martial…..nah…cannot do that, it would not be fair….my mind is made up because I do know the true facts of the case….but I could easily say the words “FIRE” when necessary. (Yes, I am passionate about this particular subject).

      But you are quite right about this general……he may be correct in his assumptions but that still does not make the release of Bergdhal correct.

  25. SK, keep up the good fight. When they can amend the Constitution simply by rewriting Funk and Wagnall’s dictionary, the republic is lost. Squishy words do not define any rights or limit any government.

  26. Gee……another RINO bites the dust. Cantor got blindsided and by a challenger that only raised $200,000. This election was not about money….Cantor spent millions. This election was about principals. It was the same in Texas when Cruz got elected and it was the same in Texas that got Dewhurst ousted. Perhaps this will catch on and the RINOS will learn from it.

    I wonder who the new House Majority Leader will be now? He better not be an amnesty person because that is precisely why Cantor lost….that and his capitulation to the progressive left. .

  27. Score one for the conspiracy theorists… ( Still does not make me a conspiracy believer, but you got this one right ).

    The children that are pouring across the border under the guidance of the White House….the children, from age 5 on up…arriving WITHOUT parents and claiming political persecution and gang violence. The same children that are carrying cards from our government with the proper wording pre-printed on them. The same children that are quoting the dream act verbatim. The same children that, once discovered because we finally got leaked photos out, are being bused and flown into Republican strongholds. Arizona, Utah, Virginia, Florida and not one single child taken to New Mexico, California, or Nevada. These are the same children that are following Obama’s advice of coming here now so their parents can join them later but the same administration has thrown them into detention camps like WWII on military bases and warehouses until the numbers grew so big that they cannot keep them under wraps any longer.

    Yep…score one for the conspiracy theorists.

  28. @ Buck: curiosity has the best of me on this one..”Or men being drafted? Personally, I believe this fails intermediate scrutiny and both men and women should be subject.” Given your reasons of intermediate scrutiny on the issue of gay marriage…..why would you say that the draft of men fails?

    • It appears to me that you are applying separate standards….one of intermediate vs strict. Am I misreading you?

      • No, still intermediate. I don’t find the arguments for a prohibition on including women to be persuasive.

        • Ok…..fair enough…but your rationale stops with the draft issue…not assignments within the Armed Forces itself….correct? To that application….I can agree.

          • Would need more info on where you’re going with this.

            If you mean a blanket ban on serving on the front lines – I would argue that this blanket prohibition should also fail; BUT, I would also argue that the same standards can be applied to both genders. Make sense?

            • Yep…and that is what the Army does….applies the same standards…..however, it is being challenged that the standards are set too high for the direct purpose of freezing out the women.

              An example: When I was in command of a combat training brigade and had women wanting to be combat field troops….I had but only ONE standard. It was what we call dead man’s carry. If you can pick up or drag a wounded soldier and his/her equipment from the battlefield to safety ( considered 300 ft ), then you pass the basic requirement for combat duty. Out of over 700 women that went through my training program over three years, 16 could perform this task. Any woman can pick up a weapon and charge a hill like any dedicated soldier but not any woman could pick up a wounded soldier and carry or drag them 300 ft without extreme hazard to themselves and to the soldier. ( a typical wounded soldier with back pack and equipment weighed 250 pounds. There were some men that could not do it either and were, therefore, not qualified for combat duty. So, therein was a “compelling” reason. But the ratio was 96% of the men could do it where only 2% of women could do it.

              • “however, it is being challenged that the standards are set too high for the direct purpose of freezing out the women.”

                So long as the standards being employed are demonstrated to be necessary (hmm…necessary is probably much too strong of a word, but you get what I’m getting at I’m sure), and those standards are applied equally, those standards should be maintained. If it can be demonstrated that the standards are what they are with an intent to keep women out then that’d be a different issue.

  29. In the democrat primary in Nevada, NOTA won. Congrats NOTA

  30. @ VH……down here……Where I think you must be careful in examining law vs Constitutional law is making sure you compare apples to apples and not mix constitutional law with state law or natural law. This is where BF takes issues and rightly so….so when you say law….I think you need to understand that the constitutionality has already been examined and rendered….now the rub comes in as to interpretation and that is where the examination from judges comes into play. I happen to be a strict interpretation believer. Buck is not. Buck likes to stretch things…meaning, intermediate scrutiny vs strict scrutiny vs basic test. I do not follow that line of thinking very well because, to me, no means no. It does not mean maybe or perhaps. ( You cannot be a “little bit” pregnant )….so, you have to assess what is meant by “compelling national interest”. What I call radical court decisions have eroded our basic constitution, in my belief, and not strengthened anything and have allowed the clouded areas (grey). For example, Buck has said that the majority should rule….then he says…..except…this not strict interpretation but intermediate….and judges have made some pretty crappy rulings and that is the fault of permanently assigned SCOTUS…and permanently assigned Federal Judges.

    I think I need to be a Federal Judge assigned to New York or New Jersey and bring a little Texas justice up there. ( See my point? )

    • It seems my solution to this problem isn’t getting much support, so this gay marriage issue will continue. I have no doubts that the next step will be some Federal Judge claiming a church is in violation of some law for refusing to perform a gay wedding. Let the fun begin 🙂

    • D-I admit I do not know or even understand all the intricacies of law-but I’m sure that if a judge is going to overrule a law, especially a State Constitution based on the law being unconstitutional there should be a constitutional basis to do so.

      • There is — equal protection.

        • You’ve already admitted that it isn’t unconstitutional to make laws that make distinctions based on gender-you just seem to believe that those distinctions should be left to governmental officials to decide instead of the people-so I think not.

  31. Sedgewick says:

    I keep telling you guys, the answer is to take government out of romance(and everything else) entirely. It’s not going to be fully resolved through government. Government will only continue to slowly exacerbate the problem.

    Use a free market solution.

    People that want to call marriage a religious thing can get married in a place of worship and make it a religious ceremony. People that want to make it a binding contract can do so like any other contract. People that want to simply be together, can simply be together.

    But first, people have to recognize government in their personal lives as the problem as well as get over their hang-ups that divide them.

    Problem solved.

    • It would be nice if it were that easy….i agree with you, sir.

      • Sedgewick says:

        What makes it difficult is convincing the masses to see the difference.

        Individuals say ‘XYZ makes me happy’ – Government says ‘This label against that label’.

        The gay marriage thing is no different than any other adversarial construct. Gay vs. religion makes a good point of contention because of it’s unique sensitivities and general messiness. It is somewhat antidotal to complacency.

        If people can get over this one, what can’t they get over? Confidence training? lol

  32. VH…..Nowhere has SCOTUS held that a state must offer the expressive benefits of marriage.

    Marriage is a fundamental liberty right of individuals, and because it is that, it also involves an equality dimension: groups of people cannot be fenced out of that fundamental right without some overwhelming ( compelling ) reason. It’s like voting: there isn’t a constitutional right to vote. But the minute voting is offered, it is unconstitutional to fence out a group of people from the exercise of the right except by compelling reason….in the case of voting, non citizens has been ruled a compelling reason.

    So, it boils down to this….Who has this liberty/equality right to marry? And what reasons are strong enough to override it? Such as polygamy. I have seen the argument on SUFA that if same sex marriage or gender related marriage is approved, then polygamy is also approved….but that is not the case. Our constitutional tradition has upheld a law making polygamy criminal, so it is clear, at present, that polygamous unions do not have equal recognition. Intermediate vs strict vs basic rights.

    Therefore the judges that have ruled on some states on the constitutionality have based their rulings on the 14th Amendment of due process and equal protection.

    I hope this helps some..

    • Buck…feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this……but I do not think that I am…..I am not a Constitutional barrister.

      • Neither am I, by any stretch of the imagination, but pretty good one-liner: “it is unconstitutional to fence out a group of people from the exercise of the right except by compelling reason”

    • D,

      I know what they are claiming-I simply think the argument is wrong. You bring up polygamy-think about this situation-they are claiming that we the people cannot disallow gay couples from getting a governmental license but we can stop polygamist from getting a license -why is that-what is the argument? By what right do we allow one and not the other? By what right do we not allow 2 sisters from getting a license to form a sex free “marriage” in order to get the benefits of marriage?

      We argue about religious anything being placed in the public square-but we don’t even discuss the right to put kkk crap there-why is that?

      I can’t think of any other examples but I’m sure there are more-but the point is that we the people do not have the right to take away ones Rights-but we do have the right to decide what we want to promote or support. People are free to form whatever unions they want -they are not guaranteed the right to extra benefits from those unions just the right to form those unions.

      Now I would argue that the way our society has developed that gay couples are hurt because the private sector uses the governmental license to determine what unions they acknowledge and which they don’t-I would even agree that some of these things are unfair-but that is a different argument-not one of constitutionality. But the left insists on winning this argument by using the wrong argument one that will deny the people the right to make these decisions-or in truth they are using this government interest argument to totally wipe out we the people and give it to we the judges. At least that is my opinion.


      • I see your rationale…..and you are also correct…but legally speaking, constitutionally is where your questions are….and I was approaching it from a constitutional basis, the best I could.

        Now consider this….and this is a quote. ” Courts have held that there is no fundamental constitutional right to engage in private acts of consensual sexual intercourse and government can regulate individual conduct in the larger interests of preserving public health, safety and for upholding public morality. Such restrictions are neither unreasonable nor arbitrary.”

        Now, apply this to your questions. ( I wager that Buck is saying: “That Colonel is opening up a whole new dimensions here.”

        • Of course the Courts, who have no sense to what the Constitution actually provides (which is ALL RIGHTS to the Individual with ONLY articulated exceptions) turns the process upside down and claims unless it is articulated, there are no rights.

        • I’m sorry but I do not see how this applies to my questions-I made it clear that we do not have the right to disallow unions well except based on age-just the right to promote or support them or not. Nothing I said would support such a ruling. Because it isn’t disallowing benefits it is not allowing the acts themselves.

    • I am going to bet that there were a number of court cases on same sex marriage that went nowhere before they went somewhere. Therefore I am pretty sure that polygamy will eventually be recognized. using the same arguments that they used on same sex including various forms of freedom of choice I say it is eventually a shoe in. There is also the additional religious issue. As the courts have ruled that certain religions can break drug laws and I think even animal sacrifice in certain Caribbean religions, Mormons and Muslims should be able to revisit these prohibitions in our more modern, more enlightened society.

      Speaking of judges. How’s about the California judge who threw out teacher tenure as both unconstitutional and discriminatory. Must really hurt some gay teachers who just got married when the chickens come home to roost!,


    • Polygamy laws exist -not to reduce the number of mates per person- but to avoid the confusion of inheritance.

      The death of the spouse, where there are multiple equal claims based on “marriage” to the property becomes intractable in the eyes of the State – thus the State, who imposes upon the situation, simplifies the issue that a man can only have one “legal” wife at a time.

      • There you go!

        Reminds me of the Irish curse where property was split among the sons and farmers had smaller and smaller parcels through the generations farther and farther away until the land would no longer support a family.

  33. I’ve been thinking about the gay marriage discussion we’ve been having and I have one more thing to say before I tell my mind to STOP thinking about it for awhile. I can get obsessed and drive myself crazy 🙂

    If a law passed by the vote of the people is going to be declared unconstitutional it should be because the law in and of it’s self is unconstitutional. Any other way allows the judicial branch to create a new law out of thin air-a law that no American has voted for and that Congress did not pass.

%d bloggers like this: