I am fucking Flat OUT Amazed....

[sarettah]

Fucker has some shrewd handlers I would guess...

He comes out hard for a Constitutional Amendment against Same Sex marriage. An issue that plays extremely well to the right and get's barely a reaction from most of the moderate left. But in there, there has to be the realization that a constitutional amendment is probably the most rigorous process within the constitution and has a very poor chance of succeeding.

According to our World Book Encyclopedia (1989 edition...lol...When the kids were in middle school) There had been at that time over 7000 constitutional amendments proposed. Of those proposed, only 33 were passed through Congress to the states for ratification and of those, only 26 had been passed.

In other words, there is no way in hell that a constitutional amendment will go through by the election. The process will barely have started. The only part of the process that will occur between now and November is the proposing of the amendment and the debating of the amendment. Both of which offer tons and tons of grandstanding photo ops and speechmaking opportunities for all the members of Congress and for the presidential candidates themselves. A perfect issue for an election year.

In addition, imho, there is no way a Constitutional ban on same sex marriage will go through. I think that ultimately people will decide that all marriage laws and such should best remain at the state and local level and that eventually you will see same-sex marriage. It is a ways off yet, but it will come.

Since there is no chance of it being anything dangerous before the election and the probable extinction of it after the election it becomes the perfect non-issue issue. He can't go wrong on it, he can stand and be as right as he wants on it knowing that there is no way he will leave any permanent damage.

Guy is shrewder than I was giving him credit for, or Cheney and company is

:yowsa:



Last edited by sarettah at Feb 24 2004, 11:46 PM

[PornoDoggy]

Why are you amazed? Shit, the announcement today was as predictable as the silence of the so-called libertarians on this issue. This is an issue of vital importance to the core base of Bush's support. This was just phase two of the campaign kickoff he started last night.

I don't think this issue will go away after the election.

Hell, I wouldn't even bet that there WON'T be a constitutional ammendment passed someday, although before the election is a pretty safe bet.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 25 2004, 12:04 AM

[Carrie]

I didn't even know there was an announcement today. Haven't had the radio or tv on.

[Meni]

Enjoy Bush Flash!!!!! (http://www.bushflash.com)

[Mike AI]

Its not like a big issue Bush was looking to carry... its being forced on him by liberal activist judges...

We have gone over 200 years without the need for and Amendment banning Gay Marriage....

[Vick]

All the way from washington
Her bread-winner begs off the bathroom floor
"we live for just these twenty years
Do we have to die for the fifty more? "


Do you remember, your president nixon?
Do you remember, the bills you have to pay
Or even yesterday

Have you been an un-american?
Just you and your idol singing falsetto ’bout
Leather, leather everywhere, and
Not a myth left from the ghetto

Well, well, well, would you carry a razor
In case, just in case of depression
Sit on your hands on a bus of survivors
Blushing at all the afro-sheilas

Ain’t that close to love?
Well, ain’t that poster love?
Well, it ain’t that barbie doll
Her heart’s been broken just like you have


You ain’t a pimp and you ain’t a hustler
A pimp’s got a cadi and a lady got a chrysler
Black’s got respect, and white’s got his soul train
Mama’s got cramps, and look at your hands ache

I heard the news today, oh boy
I got a suite and you got defeat
Ain’t there a man you can say no more?
And, ain’t there a woman I can sock on the jaw?

And, ain’t there a child I can hold without judging?
Ain’t there a pen that will write before they die?
Ain’t you proud that you’ve still got faces?
Ain’t there one damn song that can make me
Break down and cry?

All night
I want the young american
Young american, young american, I want the young american
All right
I want the young american

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 24 2004, 11:13 PM
We have gone over 200 years without the need for and Amendment banning Gay Marriage....
Exactly, so why do you need one now?

Who cares if gays get married?

[Vick]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Feb 25 2004, 02:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Feb 25 2004, 02:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Feb 24 2004, 11:13 PM
We have gone over 200 years without the need for and Amendment banning Gay Marriage....
Exactly, so why do you need one now?

Who cares if gays get married?[/b][/quote]
This may be one of the only times I agree with you

I really don't get the big deal about whom who chooses as a life partner

and it's all political grandstanding and pointed out by sarettah in this thread

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 25 2004, 02:13 AM
Its not like a big issue Bush was looking to carry... its being forced on him by liberal activist judges...

We have gone over 200 years without the need for and Amendment banning Gay Marriage....
Have you got a shortcut on your keyboard for buzzwords and phrases like "liberal activist judges"? :blink:

We have indeed gone over 200 years without the need for an ammendment banning gay marriages. Back in the good old days, we used to (at various times) imprison them, lock them up in mental institutions, etc., etc., etc.

Until very recent times the very acts involved in expressing their sexuality were illegal - and yet (liberal activst, I suppose) judges FINALLY got around to recognizing those laws as in violation of the spirit of the constitution. Just like ownership of human beings as property, and just like the wholesale denial of civil and basic human rights to persons of specific races, we don't do that any more.

Come to think of it, the term "liberal activist judges" was applied to members of the judiciary who found segregation illegal. Kinda fitting, IMHO>

[Carrie]

There is no law stating that gays cannot get married.
What is being fought over is the definition of the word marriage.
It has always meant "a union between a man and a woman".
So the gays aren't fighting laws, they're fighting a fucking dictionary about an historical term.

There's no law stating that I can't be a Wiccan, but I suppose since many people don't see his as a "religion", I should go raise cain in Washington and demand that it be specifically put into the Constitution that I *am* able to be Wiccan?
Pffft.

[OldJeff]

Ahhhhhhhh Fuck It

I had a bunch of thoughts, but it just doesn't matter.

W has put me in a situation where I MUST vote Democratic for president, the first time in my life I am dong so, this from someone who agreed with Rush Limbaugh 95% of the time during the Clinton years.

Bush is an idiot, a puppet of the religious right, and the worst thing to happen to the US in my lifetime.

[Almighty Colin]

Horrible use of the Constitution. Leave such issues up to the states.

Doesn't have a chance of hell of passing and Bush knows it. Rove and team are sitting in front of the computers trying to figure out how to squeeze out an electoral vote victory and making moves accordingly. One of the primary keys to a Bush victory is getting the far right to come out to vote in large numbers.

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally posted by OldJeff@Feb 25 2004, 06:25 AM
Bush is an idiot, a puppet of the religious right, and the worst thing to happen to the US in my lifetime.
Right on….couldn ‘t have said it better.

I’m dating a woman who is republican AND Catholic. I find this so amazing but our dynamic is really nice. In the beginning we debated a lot about politics. Now she’s singing a different tune. This last stance to change the Constitution took a lot of balls but in my opinion he’s a fucking coward anyhow. NEVER have I ever felt scared when someone got elected. Rarely do I rant about politics.

If he gets reelected then the US is more fucked up then I thought.

I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing private islands and new countries popping up. Lol- oh but damn the US can claim we have weapons and invade us.
:rokk:

[Almighty Colin]

It's funny to watch this stuff go around.

These are the same charges the right makes against Clinton. I seem to remember Mike AI saying the Clintons are nothing but left-pandering politicians, for example.

If Kerry gets elected, the right will probably be saying he is the worst thing to happen to this country in their lifetimes ... especially if he successfully gets any healthcare legislation through.

[Sharpie]

This one scares me. Not that it would pass - but, the audicity of someone to purpose it as a constitutional ammendment ...... it has very little to do with government. It has more to do with rights that the constitution is about protecting.

If someone wants to change something - how about "All men are created equal"
I am not a man..... - so I guess I was not created equal..... hahahahahaha

[wig]

A bunch to do about nothing.

:P

[Almighty Colin]

For the record, a recent ABC survey found that 38% of Americans favor an amendment that bans gay marriages. 58% say that states should make their own laws. 55% say that gay marriages should be illegal.

[Almighty Colin]

I'd like to ban different sex marriages. What's the point anyway?

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally posted by Sharpie@Feb 25 2004, 09:23 AM
This one scares me. Not that it would pass - but, the audicity of someone to purpose it as a constitutional ammendment ...... it has very little to do with government. It has more to do with rights that the constitution is about protecting.

If someone wants to change something - how about "All men are created equal"
I am not a man..... - so I guess I was not created equal..... hahahahahaha
And this is exactly the point IMO. It’s not because I’m a lesbian or anything else. I just think that all people should have the right to choose and that if you create a platform for one group it should go to everyone. Like Carrie pointed out it’s the terms/words we’re talking about. If anything needs to be changed it the American language and exactly how it’s defined in old documents.

This too is my point when I brought up that whole satellite invasion deal where I felt like I was tricked into it. It still pisses me off.

I don’t know what I am, spiritual, eclectic- Wicca, Tao, Zen, Kabbalah, it’s all good but let me even try to get air time to sell something. Meanwhile an idiot can sell holy water or rape people of their money. Funny how they misuse the name of G-d. Do you notice how Bush also jumped on that bandwagon to publicly announce that he was going to see Passion of the Christ? No doubt a media package was sent out to support it.


Oh damn I think I had too much java.

[OldJeff]

I do not base my assesment of Bush on this one issue.

We invaded Iraq and have nothing to show the invasion was justified.

We have the largest deficit and the largest government in history.

Individual rights are at thier lowest ever.

We are no safer than we were before 9/11 and every other day a government scare tactic is thrown to the public to feed on.

The Attorney General holds daily paryer sessions, ordered the covering of a marble breast, is quoted as saying the US has no King but Jesus, which is big news to the 49% of Americans that are not Christian, and lost an election to a corpse.

In general this administration sucks

[OldJeff]

Originally posted by Colin@Feb 25 2004, 09:38 AM
I'd like to ban different sex marriages. What's the point anyway?
The point is the surviving partner should be eligible for the same benifits a hetero sexual spouse in entitled to.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by OldJeff+Feb 25 2004, 09:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (OldJeff @ Feb 25 2004, 09:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Feb 25 2004, 09:38 AM
I'd like to ban different sex marriages. What's the point anyway?
The point is the surviving partner should be eligible for the same benifits a hetero sexual spouse in entitled to.[/b][/quote]
I said I'm in favor of banning different sex marriages, not same sex marriages. i.e. let's ban marriage altogether.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by OldJeff@Feb 25 2004, 09:45 AM
Individual rights are at thier lowest ever.


Bullshit. Not even close.

You think individual rights were better when women couldn't vote, when you had to own land to vote, when blacks and some whites were enslaved, and when children worked in factories?

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally posted by OldJeff+Feb 25 2004, 09:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (OldJeff @ Feb 25 2004, 09:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Feb 25 2004, 09:38 AM
I'd like to ban different sex marriages. What's the point anyway?
The point is the surviving partner should be eligible for the same benifits a hetero sexual spouse in entitled to.[/b][/quote]
Merely one point but a good one.

Today there are tons of documents gay couples use to legally protect them. In fact many are more secure then marriage itself. The point is equality and being recognized as such.


This is by far a huge agenda and the conservatives must be really pissing their pants right now to pull such shit out of their hat. Gay and lesbian shows hitting the mainstream and actually being hugely popular. This must really get their goat. I’m surprised Bush hasn’t created some state of fucking emergency over “Queer as Folk” or “The L Word” citing it to be pornographic and obscene. Opppsss but I better watch what I say because you never know!
:moon:

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally posted by Colin+Feb 25 2004, 09:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Feb 25 2004, 09:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -OldJeff@Feb 25 2004, 09:48 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Feb 25 2004, 09:38 AM
I'd like to ban different sex marriages. What's the point anyway?
The point is the surviving partner should be eligible for the same benifits a hetero sexual spouse in entitled to.
I said I'm in favor of banning different sex marriages, not same sex marriages. i.e. let's ban marriage altogether.[/b][/quote]
:gbounce: :gbounce: :gbounce:

Let's just change it to SLAVE CONTRACT maybe? lol

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Carrie@Feb 25 2004, 05:05 AM
There is no law stating that gays cannot get married.
What is being fought over is the definition of the word marriage.
It has always meant "a union between a man and a woman".
So the gays aren't fighting laws, they're fighting a fucking dictionary about an historical term.

There's no law stating that I can't be a Wiccan, but I suppose since many people don't see his as a "religion", I should go raise cain in Washington and demand that it be specifically put into the Constitution that I *am* able to be Wiccan?
Pffft.
Pffft indeed.

Yes, marriage has historically been defined as between a man and a woman.

Mental illness has historically been defined, until fairly recently, as demonic possession.

Again, until fairly recently, women historically could not vote, could not own property, and had very little protection of their own body under the law.

Until fairly recently, folks who practiced Wiccan were burned at the stake.

I could go on - but in cases like these, as well as countless others, the ignorant railed against extending equal protection under the law to those groups - and they probably cursed liberal activist judges in the process.

Gay people are not demanding a constitutional ammendment that "allows" them to get married. Gay people are simply asking for the same rights that others enjoy.

[LeeNoga]

Slavery was not abolished on the first round.

At least the topic is before the eye of many and its gonna take an assination of one of the Fab 5 to get the world to clammer for our rights I suppose :-)))

It will happen in my lifetime, and we will have protected rights at some point, I believe this.

[Bishop]

I think gay people should have the right to civil unions. Don't call it marriage that drives the religious people nuts. Marriage is nothing more than a civil contract.

I agree that Bush is doing the political tap dance.. drawing attention to something he can get photo ops on and keeping people minds off the lack of WMD in Iraq. He is in Charlotte today working his angles.. Who wants to bet they find Osama during the re-election campaign?

Women fought for their civil rights and eventually got them.. Blacks the same.. Gay will also be the same.. only a matter of time. I don't can't even imagine a constitutional amendment on this issue..

I have always voted Republican.. my money likes the Republican party.. but the Democrats are looking pretty Republican to me here lately with the way the current President has been spending money. I always disliked the Democrats for the 'take from the rich give to the poor' mentality.. I'm not sure what I'll do in the next election..

[DarrenAustin]

I stand up an applaud all of you for being supportive!!

Watch for an upcoming show that I start filming tomorrow when George Bush comes to Charlotte, this will be a great show and I will announce on here when it is ready to air!

Again , I applaud all of you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chodadog]

It really is a stroke of genius. The success of the ammendmant is irrelevant. The christian right is going to be out in droves come election time, and he'll be in for another 4 years.

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally posted by chodadog@Feb 25 2004, 11:14 AM
It really is a stroke of genius. The success of the ammendmant is irrelevant. The christian right is going to be out in droves come election time, and he'll be in for another 4 years.
:o

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 25 2004, 10:28 AM
Mental illness has historically been defined, until fairly recently, as demonic possession.
Fuckin' A. That's a good one. The peanut gallery applauds.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by chodadog@Feb 25 2004, 11:14 AM
It really is a stroke of genius. The success of the ammendmant is irrelevant. The christian right is going to be out in droves come election time, and he'll be in for another 4 years.
I don't think it's that simple.

The real question is whether the Kerry campaign can get Democrats to show up on election day. There are more Democrats than Republicans. They just usually don't vote as much.

It's early.

[Almighty Colin]

I'm leaning toward Kerry right now but it has nothing to do with this issue.

[Vick]

What if an Presidental election was held .....

.... and no over turned out

Fuck all these "Rock the vote" and other registration campaigns

I'm up for a national disgust and apathy campaign

No Votes, No President


From the backstreets there's a rumbling
A smell of Anarachy

[Mike AI]

It is amazin reading this....

The US is a nation of LAWS. Right now STATES DO DETERMINE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE!!! It is not a Federal Issue!! The definition of marriage in all states deals wth a contract between a MAN and a WOMAN!

It is not States Legislatures who are changing laws, its a few JUDGES!! We cannot have a few people in power as judges just creating the law as they see fit. ( What happens if Right wing religious right get judges in and start creating their own laws?)

It is just like the Judge in Alabama who did not want to take the 10 Commandments down - evnetually he was forced out of office, because we are a nation of laws - not of idividuals who can do what they want.

You want to have gay marriages - go to your state and get the law changed!! ( I know they tried in Hawaii or someplace, and people were worried about the full faith and credit clause)

Of course this will not happen, because the majority of Americans are against gay marriages. I doubt it would even pass in California...

We cannot have judges just making up law - they have the least amount of contact with the people. This is why we have legislatures. To PASS and changes laws. Judges are to merely rule on the laws that are passed.

Activist judges of any stripe are dangerous!! This is the big issue, not whether gays can marry or not.

[JR]

i dont understand this. as i understood things, Bush was "proposing an amendment" - why is it not his responsibility? i think i am missing something because i don't understand the connection to judges and his proposal.


i really think Bush needs to go now.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by JR@Feb 25 2004, 12:38 PM
i dont understand this. as i understood things, Bush was "proposing an amendment" - why is it not his responsibility? i think i am missing something because i don't understand the connection to judges and his proposal.


i really think Bush needs to go now.


JR a President cannot propose an Amendment, only someone in Congress can do it. Bush can merely support it through the bully pulpit.

I could careless about gays getting married... I think they deserve to be just as unhappy as straight people.

As I posted earlier activist Judges are what I have a problem with. We have 3 branches of gov't for this reason. The tyranny of judges creating laws need to stop. All the liberals are fine with it, but when shoe would get on the other foot, they would be the first to orginize some million profesional protestor march.

[Almighty Colin]

So, Mike. You're saying leave it up to the States as it is now and leave it out of the Constitutional Amendment?

That's what I say.

I'd even be in favor of an amendment guaranteeing the rights to same-sex marriages which I think is keeping in the spirit of the Bill of Rights and the other amendments. I do recognize that the majority opinion is against it which must be considered and I always try and appreciate that. This is not much of an issue for me.

For example ,though I disagree with the pro-life folks I completely understand where they are coming from and can appreciate how important of an issue it is to them. The definition of when life begins in a is arbitrary. Do I know better than they? No.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 25 2004, 12:46 PM
I could careless about gays getting married... I think they deserve to be just as unhappy as straight people.
Haha.

Ban marriage!

[Vick]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 25 2004, 12:46 PM
I could careless about gays getting married... I think they deserve to be just as unhappy as straight people.


PEARL!

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Vick+Feb 25 2004, 01:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Feb 25 2004, 01:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Feb 25 2004, 12:46 PM
I could careless about gays getting married... I think they deserve to be just as unhappy as straight people.


PEARL![/b][/quote]
Hehe - 2nd that!

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Peaches+Feb 25 2004, 12:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Feb 25 2004, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Vick@Feb 25 2004, 01:55 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Feb 25 2004, 12:46 PM
I could careless about gays getting married... I think they deserve to be just as unhappy as straight people.


PEARL!
Hehe - 2nd that![/b][/quote]
Here here.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 25 2004, 12:32 PM
It is amazin reading this....

The US is a nation of LAWS. Right now STATES DO DETERMINE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE!!! It is not a Federal Issue!! The definition of marriage in all states deals wth a contract between a MAN and a WOMAN!

It is not States Legislatures who are changing laws, its a few JUDGES!! We cannot have a few people in power as judges just creating the law as they see fit. ( What happens if Right wing religious right get judges in and start creating their own laws?)

It is just like the Judge in Alabama who did not want to take the 10 Commandments down - evnetually he was forced out of office, because we are a nation of laws - not of idividuals who can do what they want.

You want to have gay marriages - go to your state and get the law changed!! ( I know they tried in Hawaii or someplace, and people were worried about the full faith and credit clause)

Of course this will not happen, because the majority of Americans are against gay marriages. I doubt it would even pass in California...

We cannot have judges just making up law - they have the least amount of contact with the people. This is why we have legislatures. To PASS and changes laws. Judges are to merely rule on the laws that are passed.

Activist judges of any stripe are dangerous!! This is the big issue, not whether gays can marry or not.
Yours is the typical rhetoric of reaction. Substitute the word "black" for "gay", replace the word "marriage" with "integration" or with "equal rights", and your post could have been a stereotypical letter to the editor in the 1950s through the 1970s. The blather about states rights and the braying regarding "liberalactivistjudges" is EXACTLY the same.

Over the past 30 years the laws against sodomy and the others used to restrict the actions of two consenting adults have been overturned. A panel of judges in Massachusetts has determined that there is no basis in law to deny same-sex couples the rights that so-called normal couples have. Nobody is "attacking" the rule of law - you're just whining because the rulings don't seem to be going your way.

These things happen - just like Brown vs Board of Education caused changes in other areas. This is not evil-doers and "liberalactivistjudges" imposing their will on the people - this is just part of the natural process of a society maturing changing.

Welcome to the 21st Century. Deal with it.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 25 2004, 02:17 PM
This is not evil-doers and "liberalactivistjudges" imposing their will on the people - this is just part of the natural process of a society maturing changing.
(Question for PD based on this statment but everyone else too)

Do you believe that society is "progressing"? If so, what is the final goal?

It could be that "our" current ideals of "equality" are nothing more than current cultural trends. On the other hand, maybe there is such a thing as Progress but if so what dictates that this is so.

[PornoDoggy]

Yes, I do.

In my lifetime (I'm breathing down on 51) I've seen major changes in the way society regards people.

I recall listening to the "grownups" on my Mom's side of the family fret about JFK "turning America over to the Pope", yet last election's inclusion of Lieberman as a candidate caused barely a ripple.

I'm old enough to recall the Mike AI/Carrie/et al of an earlier generation rant about the "liberalactivistjudges" who decided that seperate but equal was a crock of shit and that American citizenship wasn't a racial classification.

The academic distinction between "cultural norms" and "progress" seems to be an artificial (or academic, which is often the same thing :) one.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 25 2004, 02:55 PM
Yes, I do.

In my lifetime (I'm breathing down on 51) I've seen major changes in the way society regards people.

I recall listening to the "grownups" on my Mom's side of the family fret about JFK "turning America over to the Pope", yet last election's inclusion of Lieberman as a candidate caused barely a ripple.

I'm old enough to recall the Mike AI/Carrie/et al of an earlier generation rant about the "liberalactivistjudges" who decided that seperate but equal was a crock of shit and that American citizenship wasn't a racial classification.

The academic distinction between "cultural norms" and "progress" seems to be an artificial (or academic, which is often the same thing :) one.


PD gay marriage is not about civil rights.... there is no lynching of gays going on in the streets of America.

This is simply social engineering coming from activist judges. This is the only way the liberal agenda can see the light of day. If liberals come straight out and put their agendas in the form of legislation it rarely ever passes.

PD you may be happy now, but those who love by judicial fiat, will also die by it. What happens when judges who don't share your views start creating and making their own laws? It goes both ways.

If we as a society, as a Nation want to change the laws to allow gay marriage, then it should be a legislative issue - there should be debates, and lets have a vote. Judges should not force it down the countries throat by "finding" rights in the Constitition.

It is just like Roe Vs Wade. I am for abortion, I think its none of the Gov'ts business, but the Roe vs Wade ruling is a legal joke.

PD if the US is ready for gay marriage - then get your local represenatives to push it.... We all know this would fail, because the majority of this Country is not ready for gay marriage.

[Vick]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 25 2004, 03:03 PM
We all know this would fail, because the majority of this Country is not ready for gay marriage.
Well according to statistics (those damnable statistics)

Half of the country isn't ready for marriage as they end up divorced


Including me

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Vick+Feb 25 2004, 03:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Feb 25 2004, 03:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Feb 25 2004, 03:03 PM
We all know this would fail, because the majority of this Country is not ready for gay marriage.
Well according to statistics (those damnable statistics)

Half of the country isn't ready for marriage as they end up divorced


Including me[/b][/quote]


Very true Vick. Maybe marriage is a little to easy to get into, and a little to easy to get out of.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 25 2004, 02:55 PM
Yes, I do.

In my lifetime (I'm breathing down on 51) I've seen major changes in the way society regards people.

I recall listening to the "grownups" on my Mom's side of the family fret about JFK "turning America over to the Pope", yet last election's inclusion of Lieberman as a candidate caused barely a ripple.

I'm old enough to recall the Mike AI/Carrie/et al of an earlier generation rant about the "liberalactivistjudges" who decided that seperate but equal was a crock of shit and that American citizenship wasn't a racial classification.

The academic distinction between "cultural norms" and "progress" seems to be an artificial (or academic, which is often the same thing :) one.
For some reason much of mankind's circle of empathy seems to get larger and larger even to the point of extending it to animals. Maybe some day we won't kill insects either. Maybe one day we'll have "People for the Ethical Treatment of Viruses".

But why?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Feb 25 2004, 03:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Feb 25 2004, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Feb 25 2004, 02:55 PM
Yes, I do.

In my lifetime (I'm breathing down on 51) I've seen major changes in the way society regards people.

I recall listening to the "grownups" on my Mom's side of the family fret about JFK "turning America over to the Pope", yet last election's inclusion of Lieberman as a candidate caused barely a ripple.

I'm old enough to recall the Mike AI/Carrie/et al of an earlier generation rant about the "liberalactivistjudges" who decided that seperate but equal was a crock of shit and that American citizenship wasn't a racial classification.

The academic distinction between "cultural norms" and "progress" seems to be an artificial (or academic, which is often the same thing :) one.


PD gay marriage is not about civil rights.... there is no lynching of gays going on in the streets of America.

This is simply social engineering coming from activist judges. This is the only way the liberal agenda can see the light of day. If liberals come straight out and put their agendas in the form of legislation it rarely ever passes.

PD you may be happy now, but those who love by judicial fiat, will also die by it. What happens when judges who don't share your views start creating and making their own laws? It goes both ways.

If we as a society, as a Nation want to change the laws to allow gay marriage, then it should be a legislative issue - there should be debates, and lets have a vote. Judges should not force it down the countries throat by "finding" rights in the Constitition.

It is just like Roe Vs Wade. I am for abortion, I think its none of the Gov'ts business, but the Roe vs Wade ruling is a legal joke.

PD if the US is ready for gay marriage - then get your local represenatives to push it.... We all know this would fail, because the majority of this Country is not ready for gay marriage.[/b][/quote]
I see ... since it's rare that someone is killed for being gay, there isn't a problem. Merely denying people the same rights as others have is, apparently, no bid deal.

Of course it's a civil rights issue, Mike - what else can you describe it as?

Whe Steve and Edie get married, there are certain rights and privledges that they obtain. What reason under the law can you offer (besides "most people don't do it that way") to deny Steve and Eddie, or Stevie and Edie, those same rights?

What you call "finding" rights in the constitution I consider stripping away the bigotry and ignorance of the past. I point again to Brown v Board of Education - the "country" was not "ready" for that.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin@Feb 25 2004, 03:25 PM
For some reason much of mankind's circle of empathy seems to get larger and larger even to the point of extending it to animals. Maybe some day we won't kill insects either. Maybe one day we'll have "People for the Ethical Treatment of Viruses".

But why?
I don't have a clue if there ever will be a "People for the Ethical Treatment of Viruses", or why people would go there - but nothing would suprise me.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Feb 25 2004, 03:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Feb 25 2004, 03:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Feb 25 2004, 03:25 PM
For some reason much of mankind's circle of empathy seems to get larger and larger even to the point of extending it to animals. Maybe some day we won't kill insects either. Maybe one day we'll have "People for the Ethical Treatment of Viruses".

But why?
I don't have a clue if there ever will be a "People for the Ethical Treatment of Viruses", or why people would go there - but nothing would suprise me.[/b][/quote]


PD they choose their civil rights by choosing to want to marry the same sex. If there is no societal norms, then there will be chaos. Where do we stop extending these "civil rights"? Should Mormons be able to have 10 wives? What about if someone wanted to marry a 12 year old? Farm animals?

And this is just dealing with marriage. What about everyone else's "rights".

It is funny how libs are. The 2nd Amendment clearly states the right to bear arms ( and there is tons of supporting material from our founders that explains this) yet they want to outlaw people possessing firearms. Yet liberal judges find all kinds of rights in the Constitution for abortion and now gay marriage.... Interesting how that works.

[Cassie]

Originally posted by Vick+Feb 25 2004, 04:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Feb 25 2004, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Feb 25 2004, 03:03 PM
We all know this would fail, because the majority of this Country is not ready for gay marriage.
Well according to statistics (those damnable statistics)

Half of the country isn't ready for marriage as they end up divorced


Including me[/b][/quote]
this has to be the best statement i have read thusfar!

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 25 2004, 03:46 PM
PD they choose their civil rights by choosing to want to marry the same sex. If there is no societal norms, then there will be chaos. Where do we stop extending these "civil rights"? Should Mormons be able to have 10 wives? What about if someone wanted to marry a 12 year old? Farm animals?

And this is just dealing with marriage. What about everyone else's "rights".

It is funny how libs are. The 2nd Amendment clearly states the right to bear arms ( and there is tons of supporting material from our founders that explains this) yet they want to outlaw people possessing firearms. Yet liberal judges find all kinds of rights in the Constitution for abortion and now gay marriage.... Interesting how that works.
It's funny how reactionaries are. When in doubt, bring up guns.

Mikey, guns, farm animals and 12 year olds aren't a part of this discussion.

The question about Mormons is an interesting and relevant one - not sure how I feel about that. Gotta give credit where credit is due - you actually put a real point in there.

I'm still waiting for some fucking reason (beyond bigotry and superstition) that extending marital priveldges to same-sex couples will somehow lead to the chaos of "no societal norms."

The same arguement was applied to giving women the vote and own property. The same arguement was applied to extending full rights of citizenship to people of
color.

Whether you like it or not, societal norms change. I say again - deal with it.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 25 2004, 04:11 PM

[aeon]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 25 2004, 07:28 AM
Until fairly recently, folks who practiced Wiccan were burned at the stake.
You might learn what a history book is...the fucktards that today call themselves "wiccans" weren't around back then. "Wicca" is a 20th century creation...there's nothing ancient about it - cept the bastardization, borrowing and reinterpretation of theologies that existed long before it. Gerald Gardner was a total nutjob.

Very few people who even actually practiced anything remotely occultish were actually burned...burning wiccans is a beautiful idea tho.

I'm gonna go service mark "burning times charcoal" and just hope...

best of luck -
aeon

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by aeon+Feb 25 2004, 04:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ Feb 25 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Feb 25 2004, 07:28 AM
Until fairly recently, folks who practiced Wiccan were burned at the stake.
You might learn what a history book is...the fucktards that today call themselves "wiccans" weren't around back then. "Wicca" is a 20th century creation...there's nothing ancient about it - cept the bastardization, borrowing and reinterpretation of theologies that existed long before it. Gerald Gardner was a total nutjob.

Very few people who even actually practiced anything remotely occultish were actually burned...burning wiccans is a beautiful idea tho.

I'm gonna go service mark "burning times charcoal" and just hope...

best of luck -
aeon[/b][/quote]


:okthumb:

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Colin@Feb 25 2004, 04:25 PM
Maybe some day we won't kill insects either.
I have a friend who opened a Montessori school. When she went to train as a teacher, she swatted at a fly. Her instructors were none too pleased and explained that even insects were God's creatures. :rolleyes:

[Diamond Jim]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 25 2004, 04:10 PM
It's funny how reactionaries are. When in doubt, bring up guns.
It's funny how reactionaries-to-reactionaries are. When you don't have an answer, say it's not part of the discussion.

Personally, I think that people who would limit the rights of gays to marry are as morally objectionable as those who think the "poor" are entitled to the wealth of other individuals simply because they squeezed their way out of the womb....

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Peaches+Feb 25 2004, 05:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Feb 25 2004, 05:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Feb 25 2004, 04:25 PM
Maybe some day we won't kill insects either.
I have a friend who opened a Montessori school. When she went to train as a teacher, she swatted at a fly. Her instructors were none too pleased and explained that even insects were God's creatures. :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]
I don't believe in God nor do I kill insects. I couldn't harm a fly.

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Colin@Feb 25 2004, 07:54 PM
I don't believe in God nor do I kill insects. I couldn't harm a fly.
Don't come to my house during mosquito season - the murdering that ensues will appall you. :D

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Feb 25 2004, 05:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Feb 25 2004, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Feb 25 2004, 04:10 PM
It's funny how reactionaries are. When in doubt, bring up guns.
It's funny how reactionaries-to-reactionaries are. When you don't have an answer, say it's not part of the discussion.

Personally, I think that people who would limit the rights of gays to marry are as morally objectionable as those who think the "poor" are entitled to the wealth of other individuals simply because they squeezed their way out of the womb....[/b][/quote]
As I think has been pretty well documented, I'm not afraid to discuss guns, or welfare - or, if you prefer the buzzword, "redistribution of wealth."

However, I'm hard pressed to understand how anyone can legitimately connect either of those issues to the issue of gay marriage.

I do believe in God (or sumthin), but I kill every fucking insect that, like, crowds my space, man.

[Diamond Jim]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 25 2004, 08:11 PM
However, I'm hard pressed to understand how anyone can legitimately connect either of those issues to the issue of gay marriage.
The issue has the same root...some fucking asshole wants to tell someone else what to do with their life (substitute life for : money, body, or other personal property as needed) when it's none of their fucking business...

Consistency....learn it, love it, live it..

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Feb 25 2004, 09:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Feb 25 2004, 09:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Feb 25 2004, 08:11 PM
However, I'm hard pressed to understand how anyone can legitimately connect either of those issues to the issue of gay marriage.
The issue has the same root...some fucking asshole wants to tell someone else what to do with their life (substitute life for : money, body, or other personal property as needed) when it's none of their fucking business...

Consistency....learn it, love it, live it..[/b][/quote]

DJ glad your house still has water.... because you are on fire!

[sarettah]

Hmmm... seems that we need to have an amendment limiting the judiciary power.

But, at one point, I believe the Supreme Court ruled that they were the Supreme authority on all matters constitutional and they would probably tell everyone that it was unconstitutional to limit their power/authority... :blink:

But we neither need, or should desire a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage... It should be left where it is, at the state level. Who knows, at some point maybe there will be a "gay state" kind of like Utah is the mormon state.

:yowsa:

[VooMan]

Originally posted by Peaches+Feb 25 2004, 05:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Feb 25 2004, 05:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Feb 25 2004, 04:25 PM
Maybe some day we won't kill insects either.
I have a friend who opened a Montessori school. When she went to train as a teacher, she swatted at a fly. Her instructors were none too pleased and explained that even insects were God's creatures. :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]
HAHAHAHA Peaches, I have been there before...

I went to a Montessori school, and this kid in my class kept picking on me. One time he held my arms behind my back and I slammed him in the face with the back of my head. Hard... it was ugly... I was 9. :ph34r:

Anyway, the principal called my father and told him that his son "engaged in fisticuffs," to which my father replied: "My son told me all about it. Mrs. ****, this is Brooklyn, not Bombay. I tought my son to defend himself and that's what he did."

Great school, but a little on the passive side.

[RawAlex]

Okay, here's my (insert rude polical leaning term here) take on this issue:

The US government should pass a law that changes the word "Marriage" to the words "civil union between two persons" in every law on the books.

"Marriages" could then still be a religeous act, a sort of superset of a civil union (IE: you can be both married and civil unioned, or just civil unioned... marriage by itself would be an empty legal term). As a result and by default, all "spousal" policies would end up applying to anyone who is "civil unioned".

It seperates the issue of equal treatment of all people from the religeous issue of the preservation of the instituion of marriage.

just my humble opinion.

Alex

[chodadog]

Originally posted by Dianna Vesta+Feb 25 2004, 08:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dianna Vesta @ Feb 25 2004, 08:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--chodadog@Feb 25 2004, 11:14 AM
It really is a stroke of genius. The success of the ammendmant is irrelevant. The christian right is going to be out in droves come election time, and he'll be in for another 4 years.
:o[/b][/quote]
Just to be clear: I don't support the idea of banning gay marriages at all. I just think that politically, what he's done (or what he's been advised to do, more likely) is brilliant.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Peaches+Feb 25 2004, 07:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Feb 25 2004, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Feb 25 2004, 07:54 PM
I don't believe in God nor do I kill insects. I couldn't harm a fly.
Don't come to my house during mosquito season - the murdering that ensues will appall you. :D[/b][/quote]
That's self-defense. I do make exceptions.

[Almighty Colin]

February 26, 2004. Alex, I agree with you.

[chodadog]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Feb 25 2004, 09:10 PM
Okay, here's my (insert rude polical leaning term here) take on this issue:

The US government should pass a law that changes the word "Marriage" to the words "civil union between two persons" in every law on the books.

"Marriages" could then still be a religeous act, a sort of superset of a civil union (IE: you can be both married and civil unioned, or just civil unioned... marriage by itself would be an empty legal term). As a result and by default, all "spousal" policies would end up applying to anyone who is "civil unioned".

It seperates the issue of equal treatment of all people from the religeous issue of the preservation of the instituion of marriage.

just my humble opinion.

Alex
I agree with this suggestion.

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally posted by Peaches+Feb 25 2004, 07:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Feb 25 2004, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Feb 25 2004, 07:54 PM
I don't believe in God nor do I kill insects. I couldn't harm a fly.
Don't come to my house during mosquito season - the murdering that ensues will appall you. :D[/b][/quote]
lol- oh damn Peaches I'm half asleep, read that and almost choked on my coffee!

I don't eat animals, couldn't hurt one but I'm with you on that one. It's a southern thang.

[Almighty Colin]

September 10, 1996. The Senate passed the "Defense of Marriage Act" which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages. It passed 85-14 and was signed by President Clinton.

It's amazing how consistent administrations are. Again, it's my contention that the two primary parties in the US are more similar than dissimilar. It's no wonder I never end up voting.

Republicans and Democrats are no friends of libertarians. That's for sure.

[Peaches]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Feb 26 2004, 01:10 AM
Okay, here's my (insert rude polical leaning term here) take on this issue:

The US government should pass a law that changes the word "Marriage" to the words "civil union between two persons" in every law on the books.

"Marriages" could then still be a religeous act, a sort of superset of a civil union (IE: you can be both married and civil unioned, or just civil unioned... marriage by itself would be an empty legal term). As a result and by default, all "spousal" policies would end up applying to anyone who is "civil unioned".

It seperates the issue of equal treatment of all people from the religeous issue of the preservation of the instituion of marriage.

just my humble opinion.

Alex
Excellent!!! :)

[OldJeff]

Someone needs to bash Alex in this thread....He's Canadian for christ's sake.

Alex, you're ugly and have shitty taste in clothes. - there I feel better.

Abosultely perfect assesment of the issue however. :okthumb:



Last edited by OldJeff at Feb 26 2004, 09:29 AM

[Diamond Jim]

Originally posted by Colin@Feb 26 2004, 08:50 AM
It's amazing how consistent administrations are. Again, it's my contention that the two primary parties in the US are more similar than dissimilar. It's no wonder I never end up voting.

Republicans and Democrats are no friends of libertarians. That's for sure.
Exactly....there is NO difference...they are simply both sides of the same coin...

[JR]

Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Feb 26 2004, 11:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Feb 26 2004, 11:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Feb 26 2004, 08:50 AM
It's amazing how consistent administrations are. Again, it's my contention that the two primary parties in the US are more similar than dissimilar. It's no wonder I never end up voting.

Republicans and Democrats are no friends of libertarians. That's for sure.
Exactly....there is NO difference...they are simply both sides of the same coin...[/b][/quote]
but .. but .. but .. they each say they are worlds apart, they are 100% right and that the other is trying to ruin the country.