Justice Kennedy

[aix_xpert]

JD, since you believe its none of our business and you clearly support the parents right for their children (or anyone) to be gender-neutral, how do you suppose we handle this against existing segregation policies? Does the child play on the boys or girls soccer teams? Does simply having separate boys and girls team implicate discrimination against those that are gender-less? Do you put biologically born males who identify as females on the women's teams where their natural testosterone levels give them a significant advantage? As a second question, at what point does someone have to commit to one or the other gender? Do you have to commit at all? I'm a male, can I decide I should have been a female and make the proclamation and expect everyone to bend the rules to comply or do I have to show a greater commitment to the change? Does this mean I can apply for a Women in STEM scholorship? How about attend an "all-girls school"?

Fact is, we as a society have clearly promoted segregation based on gender, and not just for athletics. We do it in the classroom. We do it in the boardroom (don't think so, go read the diversity documents published by Google and Facebook). And while I see strong support for allowing (even promoting) gender fluidity, I don't see any of the supporters willing to answer the questions above in any manner other than to bash those who believe these answers are most easily solved by applying the biological/birth gender.

 

[CowboyJD]

JD, since you believe its none of our business and you clearly support the parents right for their children (or anyone) to be gender-neutral, how do you suppose we handle this against existing segregation policies? Does the child play on the boys or girls soccer teams? Does simply having separate boys and girls team implicate discrimination against those that are gender-less? Do you put biologically born males who identify as females on the women's teams where their natural testosterone levels give them a significant advantage? As a second question, at what point does someone have to commit to one or the other gender? Do you have to commit at all? I'm a male, can I decide I should have been a female and make the proclamation and expect everyone to bend the rules to comply or do I have to show a greater commitment to the change? Does this mean I can apply for a Women in STEM scholorship? How about attend an "all-girls school"?

Fact is, we as a society have clearly promoted segregation based on gender, and not just for athletics. We do it in the classroom. We do it in the boardroom (don't think so, go read the diversity documents published by Google and Facebook). And while I see strong support for allowing (even promoting) gender fluidity, I don't see any of the supporters willing to answer the questions above in any manner other than to bash those who believe these answers are most easily solved by applying the biological/birth gender.

I'm good with separating athletic competitions on the basis of biological sex as opposed to gender identification. There are biological advantages and disadvantages to the sexes in various athletic competitions that make doing so reasonable.

I think bathrooms and gender is more of a contrived political wedge issue rather than a real issue of safety.

Scholarships and schools that are private should be able to base membership on whatever standards they choose to do so.

Title VII and Title IX (federal anti-discrimination statutes) talk about the sex of the person so I'm good with applying biological sex to those standards rather than gender.

I haven't bashed anyone anyone in this thread for their beliefs. The same cannot be said about others in this thread bashing me for my statements either.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

Good commentary on the topic:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributio...nts-your-children-are-not-social-experiments/

 

[aix_xpert]

I'm good with separating athletic competitions on the basis of biological sex as opposed to gender identification. There are biological advantages and disadvantages to the sexes in various athletic competitions that make doing so reasonable.

I think bathrooms and gender is more of a contrived political wedge issue rather than a real issue of safety.

Scholarships and schools that are private should be able to base membership on whatever standards they choose to do so.

Title VII and Title IX (federal anti-discrimination statutes) talk about the sex of the person so I'm good with applying biological sex to those standards rather than gender.

I haven't bashed anyone anyone in this thread for their beliefs. The same cannot be said about others in this thread bashing me for my statements either.

So if you are good for using biological sex for the determination of application to these public use cases, then how can you be for a family choosing 'other' or 'undefined' on the birth certificate. The biological sex has to be initially defined. Earlier in this thread, you seemed perturbed that society would dictate to a mother that that designation be made. Yet here you expect it (how else can we use biological sex for determination of the above).

As for the bashing, I apologize. That wasn't intended to you directly. Just the general malaise given to those on the right for supporting things like the bathroom bill (which I agree is contrived but I think symbolic of these questions that I've posed).

 

[CowboyJD]

So if you are good for using biological sex for the determination of application to these public use cases, then how can you be for a family choosing 'other' or 'undefined' on the birth certificate. The biological sex has to be initially defined. Earlier in this thread, you seemed perturbed that society would dictate to a mother that that designation be made. Yet here you expect it (how else can we use biological sex for determination of the above).

As for the bashing, I apologize. That wasn't intended to you directly. Just the general malaise given to those on the right for supporting things like the bathroom bill (which I agree is contrived but I think symbolic of these questions that I've posed).

How can I be for the government not having the power to mandate how I raise my child and or how I designate their sex or gender?

How can I not?

Why does the biological sex HAVE to be initially defined?

It doesn't.

If at some point a kid wants to participate in athletics or apply for a scholarship or some other benefit, they can establish they meet the standards at that time....even biological sex. If they want to stick with a claim that they are both sexless AND genderless, they don't have a sexless division for them to participate in.

Sex is biological. Gender is not. If your standards for participation in something are based upon biology, that biology is still going to be there when they apply even if gender has changed.

The notion that our government should have the power to require that parents establish an identity for their child in line with traditional notions acceptable to society is "Brave New World" kind of stuff to me.

 

[CowboyJD]

At it's core....we have one couple in Canada...that doesn't want to designate the sex of their child on the child's birth certificate.

I then ask myself what is the compelling state interest that justifies forcing that couple to do so.

I see none, and no one has given me one.

I've heard a lot of speculation of trouble it might cause in the future. I've heard a lot of talk about how it is best to raise your children with traditional notions of identity and gender and gender roles. I've heard speculation and unprovable claims that they will undoubtedly "force" hormone therapy on them in the future. I haven't heard one single compelling reason why the state should give a single damn about the birth certificate saying male, female, other, or N/A.

Absent a compelling state interest, I will always fall to the side of freedom for parents to raise their children as they see fit.

 

[CowboyJD]

Now I have a question for you @Edited for tagging wrong guy.

Is the designation of sex on the birth certificate issue REALLY about sex or is it more about gender and traditional notions of gender roles in our society?

For instance, if this couple designated their child as whatever it biologically is on the birth certificate AND then raised their child to be and act contrary....completely contrary...180 degrees...to the traditional notions of how that biological sex should act....if they raised their MALE child as a girl under traditional gender notions of what that means.

Would the government be justified in dictating the parent's decisions on THAT? In other words, if the government has the authority to dictate whether the parents declare their child a male or female, do they also have the authority to dictate that the male be raised "as a boy" (whatever the government deems THAT to mean)?

I'm interested in how far you think this government intrusion would be justified.

 

[aix_xpert]

How can I be for the government not having the power to mandate how I raise my child and or how I designate their sex or gender?

How can I not?

Why does the biological sex HAVE to be initially defined?

It doesn't.

If at some point a kid wants to participate in athletics or apply for a scholarship or some other benefit, they can establish they meet the standards at that time....even biological sex. If they want to stick with a claim that they are both sexless AND genderless, they don't have a sexless division for them to participate in.

Sex is biological. Gender is not. If your standards for participation in something are based upon biology, that biology is still going to be there when they apply even if gender has changed.

The notion that our government should have the power to require that parents establish an identity for their child in line with traditional notions acceptable to society is "Brave New World" kind of stuff to me.

I can live with the notion that you don't have to specify at birth. I can live with the separation of sex and gender. However, rulings such as the bathroom bill which clearly were written on the lines of biological sex were directly protested as being anti-LGBT. Even the NCAA and NBA protested this separation. So the college soccer team can base its membership on the biology of the individual? But the school can't align bathroom usage to biology. Who gets to decide which of today's segregation's get to use sex (biological) and which must use (desired) gender?

 

[CowboyJD]

I can live with the notion that you don't have to specify at birth. I can live with the separation of sex and gender. However, rulings such as the bathroom bill which clearly were written on the lines of biological sex were directly protested as being anti-LGBT. Even the NCAA and NBA protested this separation. So the college soccer team can base its membership on the biology of the individual? But the school can't align bathroom usage to biology. Who gets to decide which of today's segregation's get to use sex (biological) and which must use (desired) gender?

Those are "process" questions. And tough ones. Who gets to decide will ultimately likely be decided through litigation and/or market pressure (protests, NCAA/NBA boycotts, etc.). That or society will change, be less divisive, and some fairly broad consensus will be reached (yea...sure on that, right? ).

I have no problem with individuals protesting them as anti-LGBT. Strictly speaking, they kind of are (at least when it comes to transgender persons) when they go with sex over gender. There are winners and losers with just about any legislation.

I also have no problem with business or associations like the NCAA and NBA using market power they have to attempt to enact the result they desire.

As I said earlier, the bathroom issue to me is a "solution" looking for a problem. Going into the "wrong" bathroom and peeping on someone of the opposite sex is already a crime. Going into a bathroom to molest a child is already a crime. Hell, going into the "right" bathroom and peeping on someone for sexual gratification is already a crime. If I was "king of the world" (scary thought, I know), my solution to the bathroom issue would be coed common areas for sinks, washing hands, and single, unisex/unigender full privacy stalls.

I know I tagged the wrong guy, but this question was intended to be directed at you.

Now I have a question for you @editted for tagging wrong guy.

Is the designation of sex on the birth certificate issue REALLY about sex or is it more about gender and traditional notions of gender roles in our society?

For instance, if this couple designated their child as whatever it biologically is on the birth certificate AND then raised their child to be and act contrary....completely contrary...180 degrees...to the traditional notions of how that biological sex should act....if they raised their MALE child as a girl under traditional gender notions of what that means.

Would the government be justified in dictating the parent's decisions on THAT? In other words, if the government has the authority to dictate whether the parents declare their child a male or female, do they also have the authority to dictate that the male be raised "as a boy" (whatever the government deems THAT to mean)?

I'm interested in how far you think this government intrusion would be justified.

Maybe not for you, but IMO for many it is more about enforcing gender stereotypes than it is concern about the children/bathroom safety/etc. Hell, there are people in this very thread saying that the government should be able to prohibit someone raising their child "gender neutral".

 

[cableok]

At it's core....we have one couple in Canada...that doesn't want to designate the sex of their child on the child's birth certificate.

I then ask myself what is the compelling state interest that justifies forcing that couple to do so.
I see none, and no one has given me one.
Absent a compelling state interest, I will always fall to the side of freedom for parents to raise their children as they see fit.

Decent question. Identification purposes would be the answer I would choose.
But it does create interesting additional questions. Can a Caucasian parent list their child as African-American? Could a parent list their blue-eyed child as having brown eye?

 

[AC_Exotic]

Decent question. Identification purposes would be the answer I would choose.
But it does create interesting additional questions. Can a Caucasian parent list their child as African-American? Could a parent list their blue-eyed child as having brown eye?

Of course!

But that's only because we live in the dumbest times in the history of humanity.

 

[CowboyJD]

Decent question. Identification purposes would be the answer I would choose.
But it does create interesting additional questions. Can a Caucasian parent list their child as African-American? Could a parent list their blue-eyed child as having brown eye?

The bigger question for me would be what is the compelling state interest for obtaining all that information in the first place.

What "Identification purposes" would the state have a compelling need for with a newborn? For that matter, is identification purposes generally a compelling state interest even for adults that aren't seeking some license or benefit from the government? I can certainly agree it is for when the police attempt to verify that someone holding a license is the same person, etc. Identification for criminal justice purposes includes biometrics like fingerprints that can't aren't subject to interpretation.

 

[JimmyBob]

I'm damned glad there weren't any of these whatchamacallits in the Fox at closing time; or maybe I was just lucky that I missed 'em.

 

[cowboy-curt]

The bigger question for me would be what is the compelling state interest for obtaining all that information in the first place.

What "Identification purposes" would the state have a compelling need for with a newborn? For that matter, is identification purposes generally a compelling state interest even for adults that aren't seeking some license or benefit from the government? I can certainly agree it is for when the police attempt to verify that someone holding a license is the same person, etc. Identification for criminal justice purposes includes biometrics like fingerprints that can't aren't subject to interpretation.

what is the state interest?

In the USA you are issued a SS # when you fill out identification forms including both SS forms and state issued birth forms.

So what is their interest?
They probably want to know the hell is living in their state/country and who their citizens are.
As far as these forms being submitted at birth..they also want to protect the children living within this country as there are alot of shitty parents out there who need to be told what to do when they're being the idiots that they are or are on drugs.

There is also rights and privileges given to parents when they have children, like tax exemptions/credits and other government programs that various family utilize. All of which require some basic identification of the child/person like their biological sex.

As far as the gender ID crap being discussed..

How does someone marking 'unidentified' OR identifying as the opposite biological gender based on their chromosomes benefit anyone other than the parent(s)?

 

[CowboyJD]

what is the state interest?

In the USA you are issued a SS # when you fill out identification forms including both SS forms and state issued birth forms.

So what is their interest?
They probably want to know the hell is living in their state/country and who their citizens are.
As far as these forms being submitted at birth..they also want to protect the children living within this country as there are alot of shitty parents out there who need to be told what to do when they're being the idiots that they are or are on drugs.

There is also rights and privileges given to parents when they have children, like tax exemptions/credits and other government programs that various family utilize. All of which require some basic identification of the child/person like their biological sex.

As far as the gender ID crap being discussed..

How does someone marking 'unidentified' OR identifying as the opposite biological gender based on their chromosomes benefit anyone other than the parent(s)?

Tax exemptions/credits "require" biological sex? Social security require biological sex? Biological sex is required before the state can can protect children?

I don't think you've really thought this through fully.

You are much more trusting in the government and comfortable with them controlling your life than I am.

Clearly.

 

[aix_xpert]

Tax exemptions/credits "require" biological sex? Social security require biological sex? Biological sex is required before the state can can protect children?

I don't think you've really thought this through fully.

You are much more trusting in the government and comfortable with them controlling your life than I am.

Clearly.

Are we arguing whether the government needs this data? Or whether its appropriate given that the government has already made the decision that it needs this data, that we can choose to ignore that requirement by submitting false or bogus information? Because I agree with the first, but the method for eliminating this ask is not to do the second, which is what you are supporting in agreeing that choosing 'unknown or undetermined' is acceptable.

 

[CowboyJD]

Are we arguing whether the government needs this data? Or whether its appropriate given that the government has already made the decision that it needs this data, that we can choose to ignore that requirement by submitting false or bogus information? Because I agree with the first, but the method for eliminating this ask is not to do the second, which is what you are supporting in agreeing that choosing 'unknown or undetermined' is acceptable.

The Canadian couple in question sued the government for the right to not designate the sex of their child.

So no, they did not submit false or bogus information. They challenged the state's authority to force them to designate male or female in a proper forum for doing so.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Well, I would think the government tracking individual data perhaps started in enlisting men of fighting age? I would also guess that our government today, has a need to know how many of its citizens are of fighting age and to be able to develop a defense strategy and support system around those statistics?

The basic purpose of our government is to protect its citizens, in exchange the citizens must be willing to defend the homeland and identify themselves and pay taxes to pay for their self defense.

If we are to the point of our government knowing our age and biological sex as some big huge problem, we might as well hand over our country to ISIS now and just not waste our time anymore. Or, how about seeking citizenship in another country and see if you can go anonymously.

People that have something to hide make me very suspicious. If you do not want anyone to know your age or biological sex, just wear a rob from head to toe and cover yourself up completely and GTFO Facebook, at least go all out and do it right. Some countries are already close to doing this, join them.

We are so enlightened today that we make things far too complex, things are not more complicated today. We have more knowledge than ever before but just far less common sense.

If we were not so "advanced" today we would all be farming for food like we once we did every day of our lives, and would not have the time to think up a thesis on some of these "issues".

I am beginning to understand better how idle time leads to the work of the devil. I guess we can hire CNN to tell us who is who in this brave new world with meaningless birth certificates, there has to be money made by someone in this brave new world. And CNN can tell us not only who is who, but the reality we should all believe.

In the brave new world Lee Harvey Oswald will be Sara Lee Oswald, the truth will be better hidden.

 

[Medic007]

I'm not getting where it's any big deal if parents feel they would like to let their children choose their gender later in life. It seems we're speaking of a small minority. But honestly, who cares if they ever choose? Doesn't affect me or anyone else I know one bit. It's not like we can discriminate based on sex and this deprives us of that opportunity.

I think we should be more worried about raising our kids to understand that you shouldn't hate someone or feel violent toward them for having a different view on politics. For all this country has been through in regards to race, sex, religion, abortion views, slavery, etc, one would think we'd be better prepared to handle adversity in politics. Instead, we're actively seeking to return to medieval times. The thought of violence for superficial partisan politics worries me a hell of a lot more than what someone's birth certificate says or doesn't.

 

[CowboyJD]

I'm not getting where it's any big deal if parents feel they would like to let their children choose their gender later in life. It seems we're speaking of a small minority. But honestly, who cares if they ever choose? Doesn't affect me or anyone else I know one bit. It's not like we can discriminate based on sex and this deprives us of that opportunity.

I think we should be more worried about raising our kids to understand that you shouldn't hate someone or feel violent toward them for having a different view on politics. For all this country has been through in regards to race, sex, religion, abortion views, slavery, etc, one would think we'd be better prepared to handle adversity in politics. Instead, we're actively seeking to return to medieval times. The thought of violence for superficial partisan politics worries me a hell of a lot more than what someone's birth certificate says or doesn't.

 

[CowboyJD]

Well, I would think the government tracking individual data perhaps started in enlisting men of fighting age? I would also guess that our government today, has a need to know how many of its citizens are of fighting age and to be able to develop a defense strategy and support system around those statistics?

The basic purpose of our government is to protect its citizens, in exchange the citizens must be willing to defend the homeland and identify themselves and pay taxes to pay for their self defense.

If we are to the point of our government knowing our age and biological sex as some big huge problem, we might as well hand over our country to ISIS now and just not waste our time anymore. Or, how about seeking citizenship in another country and see if you can go anonymously.

People that have something to hide make me very suspicious. If you do not want anyone to know your age or biological sex, just wear a rob from head to toe and cover yourself up completely and GTFO Facebook, at least go all out and do it right. Some countries are already close to doing this, join them.

We are so enlightened today that we make things far too complex, things are not more complicated today. We have more knowledge than ever before but just far less common sense.

If we were not so "advanced" today we would all be farming for food like we once we did every day of our lives, and would not have the time to think up a thesis on some of these "issues".

I am beginning to understand better how idle time leads to the work of the devil. I guess we can hire CNN to tell us who is who in this brave new world with meaningless birth certificates, there has to be money made by someone in this brave new world. And CNN can tell us not only who is who, but the reality we should all believe.

In the brave new world Lee Harvey Oswald will be Sara Lee Oswald, the truth will be better hidden.

We are from the government, and we are here to "help".

Papers, "please"....

 

[OKSTATE1]

We are from the government, and we are here to "help".

Papers, "please"....

I want ICE shipping out those who do not have "papers" or are felons.

 

[Medic007]

We are from the government, and we are here to "help".

Papers, "please"....

No shit. If anyone believes they are a fan of the federal government having any identifying information about them, I encourage them to seek out the opportunity to be required under penalty of law to complete the American Community Survey. They don't take "no I'm not doing it" or no response as an appropriate response. Despite me being selected "anonymously," they sure knew who the hell I was and how to contact me. They eventually got my responses but only under duress and answering "with the best information I had available at the time."

 

[Ostatedchi]

No shit. If anyone believes they are a fan of the federal government having any identifying information about them, I encourage them to seek out the opportunity to be required under penalty of law to complete the American Community Survey. They don't take "no I'm not doing it" or no response as an appropriate response. Despite me being selected "anonymously," they sure knew who the hell I was and how to contact me. They eventually got my responses but only under duress and answering "with the best information I had available at the time."

I once nicked the census man.

 

[CowboyJD]

I want ICE shipping out those who do not have "papers" or are felons.

Got any problem with registering your firearms with the Feds?

For identification purposes only, of course.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Got any problem with registering your firearms with the Feds?

For identification purposes only, of course.

No, it is the law. I have 7guns, all registered.

 

[CowboyJD]

No, it is the law. I have 7guns, all registered.

Cite the federal law that requires registration of all firearms with the Feds, please.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

No, it is the law. I have 7guns, all registered.

 

[CowboyJD]

No, it is the law. I have 7guns, all registered.

So all you have are machine guns, short barrel shotguns and rifles, and silencers?

Because those are all that are registered under federal law.

 

[CowboyJD]

He is VERY VERY VERY trusting of the federal government.

 

[squeak]

I don't agree with this parent, but the well-being of that child is not my responsibility.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

I'm not getting where it's any big deal if parents feel they would like to let their children choose their gender later in life. It seems we're speaking of a small minority. But honestly, who cares if they ever choose? Doesn't affect me or anyone else I know one bit. It's not like we can discriminate based on sex and this deprives us of that opportunity.

I think we should be more worried about raising our kids to understand that you shouldn't hate someone or feel violent toward them for having a different view on politics. For all this country has been through in regards to race, sex, religion, abortion views, slavery, etc, one would think we'd be better prepared to handle adversity in politics. Instead, we're actively seeking to return to medieval times. The thought of violence for superficial partisan politics worries me a hell of a lot more than what someone's birth certificate says or doesn't.

 

[CowboyJD]

I don't think he was talking about you.

Pretty sure you're okay to still hate on.

 

[Cordellhall83]

We are from the government, and we are here to "help".

Papers, "please"....

But what box would we check on those papers? Male or Female? I've just realized all forms across the world will need a N/A box.

 

[CowboyJD]

But what box would we check on those papers? Male or Female? I've just realized all forms across the world will need a N/A box.

Or....you know....no box at all.

 

[Cordellhall83]

But but but the form would be incomplete then!

 

[OKSTATE1]

So all you have are machine guns, short barrel shotguns and rifles, and silencers?

Because those are all that are registered under federal law.

I went thru the background checks, etc....I have my conceal to carry. Frankly, if the day comes to the Feds or States going door to door to get guns we all have 2 choices:

1. Give them up
2. Fight in the civil war that is waging outside our door and lay down my life for my constitutional rights.

I would prefer to not have to register them, but if it is law I will follow the law. If I want to try to change laws I will do it at the ballot box and not be rioting and requesting the President to be assassinated or impeached.

Prior to Obama I had zero guns....he did more to put more guns in the hands of well mannered citizens like myself than he could have imagined. I do believe civilians need to be armed to protect against an overzealous military. Whether guns are registered or not will not stop another civil war if it comes to that.

I am not trusting of our government at all, but I do believe in following our laws, I believe we should enforce them, equally to all people. I think our laws should be enforced with no emotion, if it is a bad law, change it, the accountability belongs on those who break our laws, not on the heart strings of those without the fortitude to enforce them.

I would love for someone to tell me how the U.S. government having accurate information from a birth certificate is a big deal? This has nothing to do with trusting the government, the government can get it if they want it for the wrong reasons. So, IMO, just silly to make a big deal out of it. As a people, we freely put much more about ourselves in the public domain.

My dad fought in WWII and my Uncle died in WWII, they had to identify themselves at birth honestly and register. I am proud to have an accurate birth certificate that reflects my birth in this country. I fail to see how the government having this info puts me at more risk than if they do not.

I would be perfectly happy making the Federal Government only responsible for national defense, trade agreements, managing foreign policy, etc.... Allow the states the right to determine how people within those states want to live. I would be ok with some states allowing marriage of LGBT's and some not, etc...The west and east coasts want to live much differently than middle America, why not allow more freedom of choice? If you can not impact change where you live, go live somewhere else.

Federal government way too big, I want less Federal Government and oversight. I want super strong national defense, super secure borders, and great vetting of people let in to this country. I want full accountability for all citizens, I wish somehow we could enforce accountability on MSM without trashing First Amendment rights. I think it is stupid in OK cannabis is not legalized, but if I dislike the law that much in OK I can move to Colorado. I am personally against abortion, but I have no problem with each state deciding this issue. Many issues to figure out to allow more state control, perhaps too complicated and that ship has sailed.

I believe in following the law, do not like it, try to change it at the ballot box, if you can not and it is a huge issue to you, move to another state that has your belief system.

 

[CowboyJD]

But but but the form would be incomplete then!

 

[CowboyJD]

I went thru the background checks, etc....I have my conceal to carry. Frankly, if the day comes to the Feds or States going door to door to get guns we all have 2 choices:

1. Give them up
2. Fight in the civil war that is waging outside our door and lay down my life for my constitutional rights.

I would prefer to not have to register them, but if it is law I will follow the law. If I want to try to change laws I will do it at the ballot box and not be rioting and requesting the President to be assassinated or impeached.

Prior to Obama I had zero guns....he did more to put more guns in the hands of well mannered citizens like myself than he could have imagined. I do believe civilians need to be armed to protect against an overzealous military. Whether guns are registered or not will not stop another civil war if it comes to that.

I am not trusting of our government at all, but I do believe in following our laws, I believe we should enforce them, equally to all people. I think our laws should be enforced with no emotion, if it is a bad law, change it, the accountability belongs on those who break our laws, not on the heart strings of those without the fortitude to enforce them.

I would love for someone to tell me how the U.S. government having accurate information from a birth certificate is a big deal? This has nothing to do with trusting the government, the government can get it if they want it for the wrong reasons. So, IMO, just silly to make a big deal out of it. As a people, we freely put much more about ourselves in the public domain.

My dad fought in WWII and my Uncle died in WWII, they had to identify themselves at birth honestly and register. I am proud to have an accurate birth certificate that reflects my birth in this country. I fail to see how the government having this info puts me at more risk than if they do not.

I would be perfectly happy making the Federal Government only responsible for national defense, trade agreements, managing foreign policy, etc.... Allow the states the right to determine how people within those states want to live. I would be ok with some states allowing marriage of LGBT's and some not, etc...The west and east coasts want to live much differently than middle America, why not allow more freedom of choice? If you can not impact change where you live, go live somewhere else.

Federal government way too big, I want less Federal Government and oversight. I want super strong national defense, super secure borders, and great vetting of people let in to this country. I want full accountability for all citizens, I wish somehow we could enforce accountability on MSM without trashing First Amendment rights. I think it is stupid in OK cannabis is not legalized, but if I dislike the law that much in OK I can move to Colorado. I am personally against abortion, but I have no problem with each state deciding this issue. Many issues to figure out to allow more state control, perhaps too complicated and that ship has sailed.

I believe in following the law, do not like it, try to change it at the ballot box, if you can not and it is a huge issue to you, move to another state that has your belief system.

Wait a minute...

I didn't ask for a dissertation. I just thought you had registered all your guns because that was the law and asked what law that was.

No, it is the law. I have 7guns, all registered.

Was that not true?

 

[OKSTATE1]

Wait a minute...

I didn't ask for a dissertation. I just thought you had registered all your guns because that was the law and asked what law that was.



Was that not true?

Well, you answered your own question, you changed your original post, you went from cite the law to you actually quoting the law. And my response was in my dissertation.