Can "Redskin" name survive the current climate?

[Woodson Bible & Guns]

We FLED England in no small part due to the oppression of the church. Marriage as it exists today is a vestige of that oppression - we all agree the government shouldn't be in our bedrooms right? Why should it be at our altars then?

Any government has a vested interest in the perpetuation of the culture and people it represents. Which is why all human societies since the beginning of time have set aside heterosexual marriage as something special. In the simplest of terms - the society that does not will quickly be overrun by those that do, in much the same vein as every country has an army - their own or someone else's. Does it matter if the next generation of Americans where born in Armadillo or in Mogadishu? Not to the Masters Of the Universe, apparently. They may, in fact, prefer the Mogadishans on the expectation of being more pliable and better inclined to go along with a client-patron system.

 

[Dodger12]

Do they mean conservatives default to liberty only when it fits the religious/social establishment model?

In the preamble to our Constitution it says "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity" and we have the SCOTUS on record declaring marriage a "basic human right." Is marriage not then, one of the "blessings of liberty?"

Therein lies the question....is marriage a basic human right? Marriage was defined by law and now we seem to have expanded that law. If it's a basic human right, then who are you or I to say that someone can't can't marry two wives or marry his daughter or marry a child or marry an animal? Are we going to deny those marriages because they offend our moral compass? And who gets to define that moral compass? The law set parameters on marriage and now we've knocked them down. It's a very slippery slope.

 

[jnday]

Of course, suits can be filed, that doesn't mean they automatically succeed.

But, I'll take this legal slippery slope argument to its Genesis with this:

King George III, 239 years ago today: "You dumb sons of bitches, you have NO idea what you're doing. You are starting out on a slippery slope that will wind up with women voting, slaves freed and voting and marrying your white women, and all kinds of other bad consequences. I am sending ships and troops to stop this nonsense, to save you from yourselves. WE are your government, you have NO right to self determine! And we are going to get busy killing you ALL if necessary, burning your towns and cities, occupying them, to maintain traditions that have been common law for thousands of years!"

I'll boil this down for you..

We have Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Geo. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan on record saying, "conservatives default to liberty" in so many words give or take. Okay then...

Do they mean conservatives default to liberty only when it fits the religious/social establishment model?

We FLED England in no small part due to the oppression of the church. Marriage as it exists today is a vestige of that oppression - we all agree the government shouldn't be in our bedrooms right? Why should it be at our altars then?

I know I'm not going to see what I want - government totally out of marriage. I'll grant that. But when we actually and truly default to liberty on this issue, we must ask ourselves, "who is being wronged or hurt, whose rights are being violated, by allowing same sex marriage? Who is being hurt by expanding the definition of "marriage" to include same sex couples?"

Anyone? Of course not.

Marriage is a atrophied tentacle of the old world church-driven government, and one that has a 50% or better failure rate. It's not sacrosanct.

In the preamble to our Constitution it says "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity" and we have the SCOTUS on record declaring marriage a "basic human right." Is marriage not then, one of the "blessings of liberty?"

Liberty says, "It's Adam and Eve, AND Adam and Steve."

The slippery slope argument forgets that everything is case by case - the unintended consequences don't automatically just happen. Opponents of freeing the slaves argued the same thing. Opponents of black civil rights argued the same thing. Opponents of women's suffrage argued the same thing. And so on.

For tens of thousands of years, mankind had the long standing tradition of governing himself with kings, despots and tyrants, and thievery and oppression. Then BOOM! 239 years ago a different, new way was tried, a much more liberal way. Did it start a "slippery slope?" There's still kings, despots and tyrants, and thievery and oppression. And the new way? It's still the new way and it is still EVOLVING.

The slippery slope if it exists started with the Boston Tea Party - and freedom continues to spread. We stopped enslaving blacks, saw that women have the right to VOTE they fought so hard for, de-criminalized homosexual acts, made oppression a crime, we can't cherry pick the actual beginning of the slippery slope, if it exists.

You're ON the slippery slope if it exists, and always been on it, you just occasionally don't like some of its dips and turns. Liberty.... Is the slippery slope.

One question , and it sums up my argument. How much liberty and freedom do we really have when decisions are took out of the hands of the people and it is turned over to judges and politicians? Are you willing to say that it is a good thing when decisions are taken out of the people's hands? Issues should be voted on at state levels and not decided at the corrupt federal level. I have made the point before that the people of each state should have the ability to vote on such things as marriage. I despise the fact that the morals and beliefs of states like CA and New York should be forced on people that object to it on religious grounds or they just so happen disagree for their own personal reasons. The Civil War was fought for state's rights and that political battle is continuing today. An old WW2- Korean War vet said it best, " never in the hell would I have fought and served this country if I knew that it would turn out like this". Some of these younger guys are not old enough to see the changes and the decline of this country . I have seen quite a bit of the decline in my 48 years. As every great empire has found out, rising to the top and staying there are two different things. Staying on top is much harder.

 

[Doomsday]

One question , and it sums up my argument. How much liberty and freedom do we really have when decisions are took out of the hands of the people and it is turned over to judges and politicians? Are you willing to say that it is a good thing when decisions are taken out of the people's hands? Issues should be voted on at state levels and not decided at the corrupt federal level.

You're going to have to amend the Constitution then, to get anything close to this.

Let's say Texas suddenly decides women can't vote for example, and passes such a law. The people of the state decided they didn't want women voting. We have RIGHT OF REDRESS to take this to federal court. Our founders and framers gave us this right, and gave us the Supreme Court as the arbiter for constitutional law. It's part of the checks and balances. It's IN the Constitution. And YES, it is a good thing.

The Civil War was fought for state's rights and that political battle is continuing today.

This is a pretty tired old canard that disappears when one reads some quotes from the secession papers from just a few of the Confederate States.

• Georgia: A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state.
  
  
• Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
  
  
• Texas: In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
  
  
• Virginia: and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.
  
  
• South Carolina: The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

While it is true there were several issues involved, it is also abundantly clear that slavery was the primary issue. Because back then, slavery WAS the currency and the economy of the South. Putting it all under the convenient umbrella of "state's rights" doesn't fly. Because the States do not now nor ever had, the "right" to violate the US Constitution.

 

[peplaw06]

Slavery was not the biggest issue that the rebels were fighting for.

That's not what the Southern states said when they seceded.

 

[Woodson Bible & Guns]

Aaaand... of course caving in to the mental cases is a-ok, because it will never lead to new, ever more bizarre demands from the SJWs on the DNC/MSM and academia circuits:

Prof: Minnesota's State Flag Is Racist Too | The Daily Caller

At a glance, Minnesota’s flag seems pretty bland. Like many states, it simply has its state seal on a blue field. Said seal shows a pioneer working his fields, while a Native American rides southward in the background. But Judith Harrington, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, published an argument shortly before the July 4th holiday complaining that the flag creates a racist contrast between peaceful whites and supposedly violent American Indians.

“The contrast in the images of the figures is interesting,” writes Harrington. “The image of the pioneer, a peaceful man who has laid down his gun and is plowing his field, is juxtaposed with the image of the Indian, who may still want to fight (his spear is at the ready) but who seems to be riding away.”

Harrington then gets deep into the picture’s subtext, saying that the simple seal appears to justify conquest and genocide.

No warlike injuns for you, raciss! Braves gotta go too.

 

[Doomsday]

Therein lies the question....is marriage a basic human right? Marriage was defined by law and now we seem to have expanded that law. If it's a basic human right, then who are you or I to say that someone can't can't marry two wives or marry his daughter or marry a child or marry an animal? Are we going to deny those marriages because they offend our moral compass? And who gets to define that moral compass? The law set parameters on marriage and now we've knocked them down. It's a very slippery slope.

It does not automatically follow that suddenly we'll allow polygamy, insest and hebephilia. If such laws are challenged it is still up to the courts to decide these issues. This ruling is not a blanket precedent.

The founders and framers gave us the judicial branch and the Supreme Court for these very reasons.

 

[Doomsday]

Meanwhile....

Federal judge orders cancellation of Redskins™ trademark registrations - The Washington Post

The Washington Redskins lost their biggest legal and public relations battle yet in the war over their name after a federal judge in Northern Virginia on Wednesday ordered the cancellation of the NFL team’s federal trademark registrations, which have been opposed for decades by many Native Americans who feel the moniker disparages their race.

The cancellation doesn’t go into effect until the Redskins have exhausted the appeals process in the federal court system. But even if the Redskins ultimately take the case to the Supreme Court and lose, the team can still use “Redskins” and seek trademark protections under state law. The team has argued, however, that a cancellation of its trademarks could taint its brand and remove legal benefits that would protect against copycat entrepreneurs.

U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee’s decision affirmed an earlier ruling by the federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Last year, the appeal board declared in a 2-to-1 vote that the team’s moniker is offensive to Native Americans and therefore ineligible under the Lanham Act for status in the federal trademark registry. The appeal board had been petitioned by five Native American activists, including Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo Nation member from Arizona who is well known for leading protests against the team outside stadiums wherever it plays.

The Redskins tried to overturn the appeal board’s ruling in August by suing Blackhorse and the four other Native American activists in federal court in Alexandria, Va. The team argued that the Lanham Act conflicted with its First Amendment rights. It also contended that Blackhorse didn’t prove that enough Native Americans opposed the name at the time the team registered its trademarks in 1967, 1974, 1978 and 1990.

A Washington Redskins spokesman said the team is reviewing the decision and considering its legal options.

Jesse Witten, one of the attorneys for the Native Americans, celebrated the judge’s ruling.

“This is a huge victory. Getting this ruling from a U.S. District judge is a watershed event,” Witten said, adding that he doesn’t expect the war to be over anytime soon. “The team has been fighting this case so hard and leaving no stone unturned and scorching every square inch of earth that it’s hard to imagine they will not appeal.”

The Redskins have been waging a legal war to defend their federal trademark registrations for more than two decades. The fight began in 1992, when a group of Native Americans led by Suzan Shown Harjo filed a petition with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to strip the team’s name of its registrations. Seven years later, the panel ruled in Harjo’s favor.

But the Redskins appealed in federal court, winning on the grounds that Harjo and the other Native Americans didn’t produce enough evidence showing the name was insulting and that they waited too long after turning 18 years old — legally adults — to claim the name is offensive.

Before that case was lost, Blackhorse and four other young Native Americans from Florida, Utah and Oklahoma had filed their own petition with the trademark appeal board in August 2006.

 

[Top Cat 14/4/1]

It does not automatically follow that suddenly we'll allow polygamy, insest and hebephilia. If such laws are challenged it is still up to the courts to decide these issues. This ruling is not a blanket precedent.

Maybe not automatically but given the recent reasoning and shear invention demonstrated by the SC one would probably not lose a bet going with at least Polyamory and incest.

 

[Woodson Bible & Guns]

What reasons could there possibly be against gay incest marriages? It's not like they are gonna drop retards.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Meanwhile....

Federal judge orders cancellation of Redskins™ trademark registrations - The Washington Post

ordered the cancellation of the NFL team’s federal trademark registrations, which have been opposed for decades by many Native Americans who feel the moniker disparages their race.

Am I the only person who thought of the Boston Tea Party when I read this?

 

[Doomsday]

Official town seal/logo - WHITESboro

 

[Top Cat 14/4/1]

What reasons could there possibly be against gay incest marriages? It's not like they are gonna drop retards.

Not together Dude.

 

[Woodson Bible & Guns]

I'm sure there's a point. Of course, if not together is fine, then there's no reason to ban incestuous straight couples from marrying either.

 

[DezIrvin]

You could have said that about the Redskins some years ago. Once SJWs get one victory, there will be an avalanche of demands and shrill calls for political correctness, backed by the DNC/MSM and Designated Victim Group grievance mongers. A sexist, hetero-normative, genocidal label like "Cowboy"? Why do you hate women, people with fluid gender identities and Native Americans? Really.

The Great Redskins Name Debate of … 1972? - The Washington Post

The Redskins name issue, in fact, drew quite a bit of press in 1972, when the team president, part-owner and point man on this was Edward Bennett Williams, and when many ethnic advocacy groups were in their infancy. That means the protests have been going on for at least 42 years — or longer than the team existed before the protests. The name, in other words, has been an issue for more than half the team’s existence.

 

[DezIrvin]

You need a history lesson. Most of the Rebels that fought didn't own a slave. Slavery was not the biggest issue that the rebels were fighting for. The political battles that are being fought today, mirrored the politics that was involved in the rebel's cause. Putting the slavery thing aside, look at the results. Anybody that takes a serious look at the current state of this country can not tell me that people would receive better government from a state level due to the fact that each state knows what's in the best interest of the people living in each state. The government in my state knows it's residents much better than a government in Washington DC. Using gay marriage as an example, why in the hell should my state have to allow gay marriages if a large percentage of it's people disagree with it. As for the name "Redskins", polls have shown that most a Native Americans are not offended by the term and have no problem with the name being used. The term "Redskins" was used to honor Native Americans until this PC craze started taking hold with the gutless Americans that fear offending anybody. If a few people are offended , so what ? They can get over it. I am not offended by the terms "white boy", "kracker" or even "blue eyed Devils". If words can hurt these PC , gutless pussys, they are not real men anyway. It doesn't surprise me though. I will use the black community as an example. In my lifetime, they have been called n*****s, negros, colored, black , and now African Anericans. If they don't know what they want to be called, how in the hell should I know?

its amazing how uninformed some people are

“Ninety-eight percent of Texas Confederate soldiers never owned a slave.” | Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog

" Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population."

 

[VTA]

Official town seal/logo - WHITESboro

View attachment 2954

Holy shit, that's rich. Dey rasslin'.

 

[Top Cat 14/4/1]

I'm sure there's a point. Of course, if not together is fine, then there's no reason to ban incestuous straight couples from marrying either.

Nope, none that can stand up to the reasoning as applied by the Supreme Court. The same can ultimately be said by pretty much any variation of marriage custom you care to name.