BOHICA! Weiner's Bill to Restrict GA

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

Oooook...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

No, it is a desire to control an individual's choice as to who they can
marry. It's none of Bush's damn business who I, you or anybody else
choose to marry.


It places no restrictions on who anybody can marry.


I sure hope you look out for other traffic better than you look out for this
country's freedoms.

Your politics gives you a whopping blind spot, and there is a torpedo
heading right toward you.

Well Pete I have defended the Constitution have you? VET USMC
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Does anyone else see a pattern
with the Democratic Party.
Seems they preach and preach about freedom, but always do their best
to
take it away from us against The Constitution. It's frustrating!



Stop with this garbage about the Democratic party. Those wanting to take
our freedoms and everything else from us come from both parties so cut the
crap and be prepared to defend those rights from assault no matter which
party they come from.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:59:36 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote:

If the church tells us what marriage "WILL BE" is
that not establishing religion..

Yes, and our constitution prohibits this country from passing it AS
LAW.

wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:59:36 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote:

If the church tells us what marriage "WILL BE" is
that not establishing religion..

Yes, and our constitution prohibits this country from passing it AS
LAW.

Unfortunately, our Constitution is not self-limiting. That is, if we pass
an amendment which makes the US a theocracy, a theocracy it will be.

The only real protection we have is that the threshold for passing an
amendment is set relatively high.

- 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,

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Well Pete I have defended the Constitution have you? VET USMC

Being a veteran does not prove you have defended the Constitution. Your
words tell a lot about you.
Are you so blinded by your politics and religion that you do not see the
danger of your viewpoint?

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

I sure hope you look out for other traffic better than you look out for
this country's freedoms.

Your politics gives you a whopping blind spot, and there is a torpedo
heading right toward you.

You're mistaken, I have no blind spot.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

Unfortunately, our Constitution is not self-limiting. That is, if we pass
an amendment which makes the US a theocracy, a theocracy it will be.

The only real protection we have is that the threshold for passing an
amendment is set relatively high.


Doesn't matter. We can just ignore the Constitution or declare it to mean
something other than what it clearly states.

Bryan Martin wrote:

Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It's true that most religions
have adopted the concept of marriage and tacked on their various religious
trappings and rites and ceremonies, but the core concept of marriage is a
social convention regarding the care and raising of children. All of the
tax breaks, insurance benefits and other various benefits associated with
marriage exist for the purpose of easing the burden of raising children.

Ideally, this would have been true. If so, though, multiple marriages would
permitted. In fact, there's a fair chance that they'd be encouraged given
the greater redundancy involved in having more "parents".

[This is something of which I'm very aware when I'm flying, now that I'm a
parent myself.]

- Andrew