BOHICA! Weiner's Bill to Restrict GA

W P Dixon wrote:

but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs

So don't do it. But by what right do you or your religion tell others whom
they may marry?

Or do you think that your religion (whichever one that happens to be) owns
the right to define "marriage"? What about those religions that regard it
as blasphemous for women to walk around w/o face coverings or with bare
legs? Should they have their way too so those believers aren't offended?

- Andrew

Well Andrew,
The point of my entire presentation was who is the government to intrude
on religion. The judges and congress do not tell people they can not wear
their headscarves, but however there have been rulings that say a teacher
can not wear a cross necklace in school...but the Star of David is ok. See
the point, it is christianity that is under attack. And sorry but I do not
know of any religion that says gay marriage is ok. The Holy Bible and the
Koran state it is un natural and an abomination. Only in the US can a
minority tell the majority what the law will be....
So just trying to get you and anyone else to see there is alot more to
the issue than G. W. Bush trying to play morales police. He may just be
trying to stop a tyrannical judical system from doing what he has been
accused of. Read our Constitution the Judical Branch has NO AUTHORITY to
make laws but they insist on doing so. It is time to put the Constitution
ahead of the courts.
As for my religion I am an Independent, but the Bible I read is the KFV.
I got married before God, and to myself an abomination can not. So if you
can tell me it is ok for it to happen does that not infringe on my rights of
freedom of religion? See the entire point is "It is not just a gay person's
rights at stake...it is the rights of every religious person that actually
believes the Bible." And in this country the majority is supposed to make
the laws. Dilemma isn't it!
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
W P Dixon wrote:

but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs

So don't do it. But by what right do you or your religion tell others
whom
they may marry?

Or do you think that your religion (whichever one that happens to be) owns
the right to define "marriage"? What about those religions that regard it
as blasphemous for women to walk around w/o face coverings or with bare
legs? Should they have their way too so those believers aren't offended?

- Andrew

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
See
the point, it is christianity that is under attack.

Oooook...

W P Dixon wrote:

And sorry but I do not
know of any religion that says gay marriage is ok.

So? Why should "marriage" be defined by *any* one religion? Or should
"marriage" be defined as any religion permits? That is, should we permit
multiple marriages in the US as permitted by some religions?

The Holy Bible and the
Koran state it is un natural and an abomination. Only in the US can a
minority tell the majority what the law will be....

That's almost correct. The Bill of Rights, along with other measures, is
designed to prevent (as much as possible) a Tyranny of the Majority. W/o
this type of protection, we'd have nothing but glorified mob rule. If the
majority (let's say for the sake of argument: european descendants) decided
that a minority (again for the sake of argument: african descendants)
should work for free, then that would be permitted...absent rules which
limit the majority's ability to define law.

[It's slightly more accurate to say that this is defining what the law
cannot be, as opposed to what it can be.]

[...]
I got married before God, and to myself an abomination can not. So if you
can tell me it is ok for it to happen does that not infringe on my rights
of freedom of religion?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Should all people be prevented from doing
what is prohibited by your religion?

- Andrew

We have already crossed the line... The government already allows special privileges to 'married' couples that single
folks do not have. If marriage is as defined by 'religion', and the government freezes that definition into law, then
the government is establishing a religion - contrary to the constitution.

There should be no special government considerations given to 'married' folks, regardless of the institution that
defined the 'marriage.

But this is way OT....



Here is a sample letter someone passed my way:

Dear Congressman,



I just heard about H.R. 5053 introduced by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). I strongly request that you NOT support this
bill and actively seek to stop the passage of this bill in any form.



As a private pilot that understands general aviation I strongly disagree with the assumptions presumed by this bill.
This bill proposes to add SEVERE restriction to all aviation activity, exempting the airlines, in the name of furthering
security. Shamefully this bill again attacks general aviation which government and private security experts have
continually said does not present a significant threat.



This bill imposes major increases in government regulation and raises major costs for all parties involved. It will
also severely restricts use of major public and private infrastructure throughout the nation, 17,000 landing facilities
and more than 200,000 aircraft. Those numbers represent ENORMOUS investment of both public and private funds. Those
investments generate substantial business activity throughout our economy.



A bill like this does nothing to increase security but does further restrict the freedom of law abiding citizens. I
would ask that you not just work to keep America free, but work to keep in place the freedoms Americans treasure.



Thank you,