Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 76
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriagePage 4 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
How did "God" settle the issue of marriage?

Adam and Eve, instead of Adam and Steve.


Isn't marriage merely a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship?


Tell it to Patrick and Susan Stubing. A married brother and sister with a family of three kids, all kids snatched by the state. Patrick has served two prison terms totaling six years, because he wouldn't leave his wife. I guess some love is just a little more "equal" than others.. go figure.


What kind of "protections" would be necessary?


THESE protections

Christian Photographer Who Refused Gay Wedding Lost Lawsuit
http://www.scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused-gay-wedding/

Gay couple wins discrimination case against Christian hoteliers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/18/gay-couple-win-case-hoteliers

I could list more, but google is your friend.

If a gay couple wants to get married, do religious groups really think that they would go to someone who doesn't want to perform the ceremony? Do they really think that a gay couple would try to force someone to perform such a ceremony? Wouldn't they want someone to perform the ceremony who really wants to do it?


They've already "been there, done that."

You can put lipstick on a pig, but that doesn't make it a beauty queen.

"Gay Marriage" doesn't exist. No matter what word you attach to a homosexual coupling, it will never be a marriage.

Words mean things.

And no, I'm not a "homophobe", I've never once in my life met a homosexual I was afraid of.

I'm just a realist.
 BlueTeaPot
Joined: 6/25/2011
Msg: 77
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 7/1/2011 11:06:29 PM
I will just put this out there....I am a Christian who believes that God made us as we are.
He does not want us to be alone no matter our sexual orientation.
I get upset when other Christians do the put downs of other people...drives me nuts!
What does it matter to others who my rellies go to bed with - got two aunts who are lesbians...got plenty of friends who are lesbians or gays.
I love them for who they are....I rather that they are happy and loved rather than single and wishing to be with someone....
It's not right to be completely alone.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 78
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 7/2/2011 2:27:48 AM
If you want to codify human relationships according to biblical principles, slavery, murder, dashing of children against rocks, selling daughters, genocide, rape and forced incest are a but a few things found within those pages that are currently frowned upon legally. The big difference with gay marrige, is that it is consensual compared to most biblical principles.

Unless Cain was a MFer, it is more than likely he married his sister according to the lore. Even Adam was a polygamist, abandoning Lillith for her headstrong ways and glomming onto the more docile Eve. Lot's daughters got their dad drunk to grab his mighty seed, Amnon raped his sister, Moses was a child of incest, and Noah and all the creatures who survived "the flood", were all incestuous.

Yes, we MUST fashion our morality on such high ideals.

And no..I am not a Christofascistphobe..just a realist.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 79
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 7/2/2011 3:02:36 AM
"your church"

If you directed that at me, it makes no sense. I don't belong to any church.

I was responding to the reference in #90 to "the religious dogma of your constitution" by pointing out why it's nonsense. The U.S. Constitution has nothing whatever to do with religious dogma. To show that, I restated what the First Amendment says about religion.

"The separation of church and state does not only go one way." Whatever that may mean, it might look good on a bumper sticker. But it's not an accurate statement of the law.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." That limits government interference in religion. It does nothing at all to limit what any church or religion can do.


It also grants everyone the "religious freedom" to not be religious and not to have to live under arbitrary rules made for religious reasons.


If you mean that any law which required people to practice a religion would violate the First Amendment, you're right. I've yet to see the cops lead anyone away in handcuffs for failing to go to church. But I don't know what point you're trying to make by restating the obvious.

I also don't know what arbitrary rules you're talking about, but any law that's arbitrary is invalid--no matter what motivated it.

A law doesn't violate the Establishment Clause just by being consistent with a majority's religious beliefs. Laws against murder, theft, and adultery aren't unconstitutional just because the Ten Commandments also forbid those things. And the First Congress, which proposed the Bill of Rights--including the Establishment Clause--opened its session with a prayer. How dare they!

The Supreme Court has usually upheld government actions against Establishment Clause challenges if they have a significant non-religious purpose; if their main effect is not to either advance or inhibit religion; and if they don't entangle government and religion too much.

This is known as the "Lemon Test." The Court hasn't always used all three prongs of this test, and in some cases it hasn't used it at all. The Court's decisions on the Establishment Clause tend to be especially complex and difficult. And it's a very good bet that the person who pretends to be able to reduce them all to a couple propaganda slogans has no idea what they're talking about.
 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 80
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 7/2/2011 5:36:46 AM

And no..I am not a Christofascistphobe..just a realist.


You are if you're AFRAID of "Christofascist".

But sonce you're not, then you support Patrick and Susan Stubing's "right" to equality to as well, right?
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 81
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 7/2/2011 6:48:16 AM

NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage

...and at the end of the day the only people that will walk away with more than they had before this battle is the lawyers, as their vested interest in in the benjamins and not the rights and the rest will just get caught on the cross fire.

So wait for the class action as I am sure it will be soon to come.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 82
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 7/2/2011 6:49:29 AM
The Stubings relationship becomes a matter of legality when it is no longer a victimless situation. The kids of their union are victims of the poor judgement of their parents. There is more than adequate science to back up law on this behavior where there is no such science to back up making same sex couplings illegal. Likewise, bestiality is not consensual. The homophobia response is based on personal morality from religious influencesl references. When legalized discrimination is based on religious mores, it crosses the line of seperation of church and state. Marriage is a civil function. To force the courts to address same sex equality is to politicize the courts for religious morality purposes.
 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 83
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 7/2/2011 7:11:36 AM
The Stubings relationship becomes a matter of legality when it is no longer a victimless situation. The kids of their union are victims of the poor judgement of their parents.


As I said, "some" love is a little more "equal" than other's "love"..

What ever happened to "love is love"? What happened to "any two people have a "right" to love each other? What ever happened to "two consenting adults"? Patrick didn't rape his sister. He's just not "equal" enough.



Likewise, bestiality is not consensual.


PROVE the sheep said no.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 84
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 7/2/2011 7:28:02 AM
That opinion conveniently ignores some very important facts, which I talked about in #48. If states could no longer refuse to allow same-sex marriages, what legitimate reason would they have to continue to ban polygamous ones? None.


Wrong. Or rather, this is the SAME claim made against allowing interracial marriage. I think you actually know better than this in other areas in your mind, because you have displayed a other times the awareness that LAWS ARE AS SPECIFIC AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.

As soon as religious people persuade the rest of us to add ANY of their beliefs and concepts into the government structure, they LOSE ALL RIGHT TO CONTROL THEM FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT. . . The religious of the world should take this into account before they demand any of their beliefs be codified



That's your opinion, but many of those beliefs are already codified. And that doesn't mean we live in a theocracy. Thousands of laws, including most criminal laws, enforce moral standards which religion sets out. It's not just coincidence that state laws make murder, theft, prostitution, etc. crimes.

The Supreme Court has made clear that the fact a law is ultimately based on a religious tenet about what's right or wrong doesn't violate the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause. It's also explained why absolute separation of church and state is not required or even possible, and why it would almost certainly violate the 1st Amendment's other guarantee of religious freedom--the Free Exercise Clause.


It IS just coincidence, from a logical standpoint. In fact, the Supreme Court case you mention in support of you argument, actually supports the opposite point. You misquote it, here. They didn't say that "laws based on religious tenet don't violate the 1st Amendment," they said that it is not enough to show that a law IS coincidentally shared with religious groups, to have it declared unconstitutional. By implication, they are saying that if a law IS passed to placate a religious groups' wishes, that it COULD be declared unconstitutional because of that.

And it's not just my opinion, that having your beliefs codified into law causes you to lose religious control over them. It is historically verified fact. This is actually PART of the reason why we can be so proud of our "founding fathers" for working to PREVENT the establishment of either state supported religion, or any elements thereof. It doesn't JUST protect the people who disagree with the Faithful, it protects the Faithful as well.
 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 85
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 7/2/2011 10:44:21 AM

The kids of their union are victims of the poor judgement of their parents. There is more than adequate science to back up law on this behavior where there is no such science to back up making same sex couplings illegal.


Patrick got a vasectomy in 2008, so they should now officially be left alone in peace right?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 86
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 7/2/2011 11:16:06 AM
When legalized discrimination is based on religious mores, it crosses the line of seperation of church and state.


That is only your opinion, and not the law. The Supreme Court has never said anything nearly that absolute.

A law doesn't necessarily violate the Establishment Clause because it's consistent with a majority's religious beliefs, or even because it was based on them.

Laws against murder, theft, adultery, and false testimony aren't unconstitutional just because some of the Ten Commandments also forbid those things.

Sunday closing laws discriminate against Seventh-Day Adventists and Orthodox Jews, whose beliefs require them to close up shop on Saturdays. Because of these laws--which were motivated by a religious belief of the majority--these minorities can only do business five days a week, instead of six. And yet Sunday closing laws don't violate the First Amendment.


Wrong. Or rather, this is the SAME claim made against allowing interracial marriage.


Yes, I know Justice Stevens cited Loving, the Virginia antimiscegenation case, in his dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick. I also know that the Court based its decision in Lawrence v. Texas on that dissent from 17 years earlier. Stevens wrote that:

" the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack."

Thanks for making my point. The three Justices who dissented in Lawrence noted that if what Stevens said were true, there would be no rational basis for criminal laws against several acts related to sex which they listed.

I just included laws against polygamy in that list--if states could no longer refuse to allow same-sex marriages, they'd have no legitimate reason to continue to ban polygamous ones.

If there were no rational basis for refusing to allow same-sex marriages, you'd have to find some other reason for refusing to allow polygamous ones than the fact the majority traditionally has viewed polygamy as immoral. And I agree with Judge Bork (and with what the dissenters in Lawrence all but said) that there is no such reason.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 87
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 7/2/2011 12:41:06 PM

They didn't say that "laws based on religious tenet don't violate the 1st Amendment,"


Neither did I. I said that "the Supreme Court has made clear that the fact a law is ultimately based on a religious tenet about what's right or wrong doesn't violate the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause." I'm not going to nit-pick about the difference in meaning, if any, between that and your paraphrasing of it. But when you accuse someone of misquoting, you'd do well not to do it yourself.


In fact, the Supreme Court case you mention in support of you argument, actually supports the opposite point. You misquote it, here.


I wasn't aware I'd cited any particular case to support that argument. If you're going to accuse me of misquoting something, specify what language, from which case. I do not misquote the law--period. Nor have I ever knowingly misstated it in anything I've written anything on these forums. I'll leave the mischaracterizing to you.


They didn't say that they said that it is not enough to show that a law IS coincidentally shared with religious groups, to have it declared unconstitutional.


The Court has allowed a he!! of a lot more religious motivation in laws than what you're implying. What it had to say in upholding Sunday closing laws in McGowan v. Maryland, a 1961 decision, is just one example. Marsh v. Chambers, a 1983 decision about state legislatures' use of ceremonial prayers, is another. Zorach v. Clauson, a 1952 decision, has some interesting comments about the futility of absolute separation of church and state. So do other decisions I could cite and quote from. What you're asserting is not accurate, and if you want to press the matter, I'll be happy to.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 88
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/23/2011 6:22:46 AM
Well it is about time that the LGBT community finally step up and admit all the wrong they have caused with respect to the sanctity of marriage.




An Open Apology to Amy Koch on Behalf of All Gay and Lesbian Minnesotans

Dear Ms. Koch,

On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community's successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage. We are ashamed of ourselves for causing you to have what the media refers to as an "illicit affair" with your staffer, and we also extend our deepest apologies to him and to his wife. These recent events have made it quite clear that our gay and lesbian tactics have gone too far, affecting even the most respectful of our society.

We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry. And we are doubly remorseful in knowing that many will see this as a form of sexual harassment of a subordinate.

It is now clear to us that if we were not so self-focused and myopic, we would have been able to see that the time you wasted diligently writing legislation that would forever seal the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, could have been more usefully spent reshaping the legal definition of "adultery."

Forgive us. As you know, we are not church-going people, so we are unable to fully appreciate that "gay marriage" is incompatible with Christian values, despite the fact that those values carry a biblical tradition of adultery such as yours. We applaud you for keeping that tradition going.

And finally, shame on us for thinking that marriage is a private affair, and that our marriage would have little impact on anyone's family. We now see that marriage is more than that. It is an agreement with society. We should listen to the Minnesota Family Council when it tells us that marriage is about being public, which explains why marriages are public ceremonies. Never did we realize that it is exactly because of this societal agreement that the entire world is looking at you in shame and disappointment instead of minding its own business.

From the bottom of our hearts, we ask that you please accept our apology.

Thank you.
John Medeiros
Minneapolis MN

http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/9094634.html
 veevee
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 89
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/23/2011 8:12:59 AM
Marriage was around before xtians - what say do they have in it exactly?
They don't define its boundaries - they didn't invent it.
The bible itself talks about marriage - that proves that it was around before xtianity (if you are a believer in the bible).

It has benefits in our modern age, as starters...
In our modern times it is a way to get health coverage when only one part of the couple works. It can be used to sign legal paperwork in unison and promissory debts and meld tax returns. It also gives them higher standing when wills are read or non-existent. Marriage says I am connected to this person and share responsibility with them. Doesn't bother me one bit if the people are the same sex.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 90
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/23/2011 10:38:46 AM
Personally I'm puzzled that the opposition to this comes from the right. I just sense cognitive dissonance here on this issue. If you want to have less intrusion into personal lives, then this seems to be a really strong example of that. I just don't see this lasting.

Heaven forfend that I might accuse politicians of cynicism, but as the electorate moves to supporting this, I'm pretty sure the Republican party will start running candidates strongly in favour of gay marriage.
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 91
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/23/2011 12:20:37 PM

Personally I'm puzzled that the opposition to this comes from the right. I just sense cognitive dissonance here on this issue. If you want to have less intrusion into personal lives, then this seems to be a really strong example of that. I just don't see this lasting.


I'm not sure why your puzzled hard core conservatives usually the ultra religious are against homosexuals in general.I don't have to tell you this they pick and choose whats moral and what they consider immoral.

Heaven forfend that I might accuse politicians of cynicism, but as the electorate moves to supporting this, I'm pretty sure the Republican party will start running candidates strongly in favour of gay marriage.


While I have no problem with gay marriage Do you honestly believe a republican candidate would win? Running on that issue?
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 92
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/23/2011 3:05:18 PM
The opposition from the right....
is due to all those repressed conservative pervs worrying
they will just be too tempted to join The Village People if it was publicly OK to do so.

They need all the laws and shame they can muster
to keep themselves in the closet.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 93
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/23/2011 10:42:56 PM
There is a difference between opposing same-sex marriage, for whatever reason, and supporting the right of a majority in a state to oppose it. I'm pretty much indifferent as to whether my state legalizes it or not. But I very strongly oppose any federal effort to force all 50 states to legalize it.

Soi-disant liberals, as they sit sipping Chardonnay in their salons in Georgetown or Cambridge or San Francisco, believe their personal morality floats in a rarified atmosphere far above the "morality" of that embarrassing Bible-thumping hoi polloi in flyover country. This desperately fashionable elite has its acolytes in the backwoods to the north. Being yahoos themselves, but desperate to hide this embarrassing truth, these would-be cosmopolitans ape the worldly, oh-so-chic views of this progressive vanguard.

It outrages this elite and the bumpkins who carry water for it that "just folks"--those benighted mouthbreathers in Idaho or Texas or Iowa--would dare refuse to recognize any right they demand for one of their pet grievance groups. So, liberals that they are, they resolve to make these primitives do as their betters say--or else! But once again, that stupid Constitution is in the way.

With all due respect to that enlightened elite--whose morals I'm sure are much finer than my own--I don't believe there is any constitutional authority for the U.S. to prevent states from refusing to authorize same-sex marriage. I say that knowing exactly where several members of the Supreme Court think that authority lies. Eight years ago, in a decision that struck down a Texas sodomy law, they gave a preview of the argument they would probably use if the Court ever decides the issue of same-sex marriage.

Here it is in a nutshell. Every state law, at the least, has to be rationally related to some legitimate government purpose. If not, it violates the 14th Amendment by depriving people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law--in other words, unfairly. The idea is that a state government just has no legitimate interest in keeping Jonathan and Trevor, or Eunice and Zelda, from getting hitched to each other. The Supreme Court justices would be taking it upon themselves to declare that a majority of the state legislature had acted arbitrarily.

State marriage laws don't just discriminate against couples of the same sex, of course. They also prevent 13-year-olds, and first cousins, and brothers and sisters, and fathers and daughters, and more than two people, and people who are already married from getting married. But although it serves a legitimate purpose to prevent those kinds of marriage, the argument goes, it doesn't serve any to prevent homosexuals from marrying each other.

But what's the difference? If sodomy's OK, then why isn't incest or bigamy or polygamy? We can't have any of that nasty old discrimination, now, can we?
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 94
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/23/2011 11:39:49 PM
I say who cares. Are two gay people getting married going to affect me personally? No. I really don't care. I like how people say it ruins the sanctity of marriage when gay people get married. If i had a dime for every time i heard that. What ruins the sanctity of marriage is when people get married for the wrong reasons like marrying someone just for their money, that's what ruins the sanctity of marriage.
 Viper1E
Joined: 11/30/2011
Msg: 95
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 6:46:56 AM
Who brought this oldie back?

Anyway, a friend reading over my shoulder pointed something out that I TOTALLY missed. If this is really all about "rights" and government's ability (or lack thereof) to regulate "rights".

What do driving a car, flying aircraft, and marriage have in common?

They all require a license.

I don't think I'll bother renewing my medical cert next year. I have a RIGHT to fly!

And when I think about all that money I've spent at the DMV over the years.. sad.. After all, I have a RIGHT to drive.

Every coin does have two sides after all..

vvvvvvvv

Not according to gays. Marriage is a "right"!
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 96
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 6:49:41 AM

Anyway, a friend reading over my shoulder pointed something out that I TOTALLY missed. If this is really all about "right" and government's ability (or lack thereof) to regulate "rights".

You do not have rights, you have privileges and your government can taken those away at anytime.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 97
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 8:14:18 AM
You do not have rights, you have privileges and your government can taken those away at anytime.


David Williams - The Right of Self Determination - Remedy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PFzoQtGbAoo
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 98
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 8:46:23 AM

David Williams - The Right of Self Determination - Remedy

Thanks for the link, on a related note:

George Carlin -Rights and Privileges

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8
 Viper1E
Joined: 11/30/2011
Msg: 99
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 9:06:00 AM
Don't tell me, tell it to the homosexuals.

They the ones claiming marriage is a "right"..
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 100
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 9:08:56 AM
by Rob Hay


What if I told you, you did not live in a country, nor do you have a true name, a true birth date and you did not have to file taxes or follow any laws? As many of you scoff, stop for a moment and examine these facts.

If you look at the definitions of your Country/State/Province/City etc. you will find in the Constitution or the Interpretations Act that they are not legally defined as being on the earth. Canada, for example,is defined as the land under the water according to the Interpretations Act section 35(1), "Canada", for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada;

( I urge you to do research into the word includes for the purposes of law. Legalese meanings are often very different and in the case of "includes" this applies. Look it up in Blacks Law dictionary then you will see - includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada; means something very different. Buckle your seat bealt Dorthy Kansas is going bye bye! )

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/Statutes/I-21-RSC-1985.html

Nowhere in any act will you find any mention of the earth. To further this, Canada is a Corporation registered on the Security Exchange Commission in Washington D.C. Here is the link:

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000230098&owner=i
nclude&count=40#Canada

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/230098/000119312511346739/d271862dsb.htm

Simply put, we live on a planet we call earth and not in Countries. In fact Countries are not land under the real system of law, they are imaginary Seas, upon which Admiralty Law applies and the NAMES you use are imaginary ships floating on the Sea, where Piracy reigns as the system of Commerce, between your and all the other imaginary ships.

But because you are not imaginary, they have to give you a play piece in the game. This is called a PERSON and its attributes are a NAME and BIRTH DATE. The Game is rigged from the start. The pirates simply set up laws and wait for you to break one so that they can plunder your wealth and freedom.

A name is an imaginary thing you are given, typically when you were born. However, a name is simply hearsay; you do not know what your true name is, no one does. The other attribute of a person, a Birth Date, is hearsay because no one can say when exactly the Universe was created and making use of an event such as Jesus' Death, hence A.D., is only hearsay. Further Jesus was Crucified and died in the spring during Passover so the Calendar should actually start its new year in the spring.

What they have done is to overlay an imaginary world over the earth and make you believe that it is real, when in fact it is simply fiction. So if you do not exist in their imaginary world, how is it that you must follow their laws and pay taxes? You are not responsible for paying taxes and following their laws and their laws even say so! Again using Canada for example:

The BNA Act Section 2 dealt with the Succession of the Queen heirs ruling over Canada. It was removed from the Act in 1897. When Queen Victoria died in 1901, all executive power seized in Canada as per Section 9 states all executive power is vested in the Queen. It is reported that two days after the Queen died the Bankers in The City of London, claimed salvage rights on the ship adrift at sea called Canada.

The UK Parliament did nothing to stop them. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 32 states that the application of the Charter only applies to Government and Section 52 of the Constitutional Act 1982, states that all laws in Canada must be compared against the Charter or they have no force or effect. Thus all laws in Canada only apply to the Government, I am paraphrasing this for brevity, look it up! This is because the Bankers own Canada and the Queen has nothing to do with Canada as there was no succession of power put into the Constitution.

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html

This is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of Canada. For the USA, the Constitution there starts off with, "We the People..." Pick up any law dictionary and see if it defines people as human beings, persons or men and women created by God. It doesn't. It is so ambiguous it is ridiculous.

All laws only apply to PERSONS. If you open the King James Bible and look in Genesis Chapter 1, you will see very clearly that God did not create us as persons. None of the US State Constitutions define any State as being on the earth and neither does the USA Constitution describe the USA being on the earth. It is all imaginary.

Now for those of you who still think that law applies to you , take a look at the address of the court house and the documents that come from the court house.

You will notice that especially in Canada that they change the province name to a two letter abbreviation and in all cases they leave Canada off the address.

Look up the Address for the Supreme Court of Canada; they left Canada out of the address.

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/contact/index-eng.asp

This is because the Courts are the Bankers Courts and not the People's courts. The laws have no executive power behind them from the people. Executive power means the ability to enforce and make law. So yes, since Queen Victoria died, all laws made since in Canada have no executive power or state authority behind them.

So you want out? Well read my book, The Extortion System of the Ruling Elite

http://www.freedomfiles.org/extortion.pdf

There is a solution.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage