PDA

View Full Version : Democrats Completely Out of Touch with Average Americans....


revefsreleets
11-04-2009, 08:11 AM
....I've been thinking about this and have brought it up before, but yesterday really struck a chord. When Maine voted down (by POPULAR vote) the proposition that would have legalized gay marriage, they became the 31st state to put the issue to popular vote, and the 31st state to vote it down.

Even California voted this legislation down. And that was after both the uber liberal 9th circuit court based in Pelosi's San Francisco AND the California Supreme Court both ruled in FAVOR of legalized gay marriage.

The Democrats in congress have been telling us for some time that it is the will of the citizens of the US to legalize gay marriage, but that their efforts have been blocked by the evil Republicans. Of course that excuse holds no water now, and there is absolutely NOTHING stopping them from legislating gay marriage into law. So why don't they?

It's obvious that this is NOT something the citizenry of this country want. Ye we consistently see liberal Democrats attempting to subjugate the will of the people and vote this into law. Why?

Let's get something straight, too....I could literally care less one way or another. If gays want to get married, I'm fine with that, but if the law of the land says no, well, so be it. My point is NOT about personal choice, it's about the people consistently saying NO, and the liberal courts and legislature ruling against popular opinion and saying yes.

Vincent
11-04-2009, 08:44 AM
When Maine voted down (by POPULAR vote) the proposition that would have legalized gay marriage, they became the 31st state to put the issue to popular vote, and the 31st state to vote it down.

What's the mystery? White European homophobes came here, conquered the indigenous people with their disease and their homophobia (I know that's redundant), and established what is now and always has been, a homophobic nation. And I think that's born out by the fact Europe is so enlightened and well, gay. Cuz all the homophobes left and came here. Right?

The Democrats in congress have been telling us for some time that it is the will of the citizens of the US to legalize gay marriage,

Sometimes they get caught lying.

It's obvious that this is NOT something the citizenry of this country want. Yet we consistently see liberal Democrats attempting to subjugate the will of the people and vote this into law. Why?

They have to. They need to. They have been anointed to lead us out of our homophobia. That charge is on their heads. They must deliver us from homophobia. Alas, the unappreciative homophobes dash all hope of the vision of the anointed at the ballot boxes.

Let's get something straight, too....I could literally care less one way or another. If gays want to get married, I'm fine with that,

"Not that there's anything wrong with that". :chuckle:

http://students.cup.edu/sac9223/Jerry_Seinfeld.jpg

To your point Rev, yes, the donkeys are somewhat out of touch. I think 2010 will send the same message that 1994 did. Hopefully they will receive it well. :toofunny::rofl:

revefsreleets
11-04-2009, 09:24 AM
It started yesterday...two blue states turned bright red in the governors races...

The one that has to sting Obama that worst is NJ. He stumped like mad for Corzine, bu he still lost by 4 points AND lost 58% of the Independent votes.

The D's are headed for a drubbing in 2010 mid-terms...

Vincent
11-04-2009, 09:37 AM
The one that has to sting Obama that worst is NJ. He stumped like mad for Corzine,

"He's not watching returns," Gibbs said. http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1109/tuned_out_c3071f29-4d59-43b7-bd9d-60b15b03a038.html :toofunny::rofl:

My earnest hope is that he/they press their agenda. 2010 will be Armageddon for the donkeys.

And on an amusing note, corzine blew $30M of his own loot on that beat down. :flap::wave::chuckle::toofunny::rofl:

revefsreleets
11-04-2009, 10:00 AM
If Obama wasn't watching the returns (which is a flat out lie), then he's more arrogant than I thought.

These were two KEY states in his win last year. Both were heavily trending blue prior to yesterday, and, especially in Virginia where Deeds was TROUNCED, this is a HUGE set-back for the Democrats. To ignore this referendum is ridiculously short-sighted...

Dino 6 Rings
11-04-2009, 11:57 AM
I find it hilarious that the Same Liberal Leaning States that vote for the Legalization of Marijuana also Vota AGAINST Gay Marriage every time its up for a vote of the people.

Gay marriage is not a Democrat vs Repulbican Issue. Its a small very vocal minority vs the General Population issue.

SteelerEmpire
11-04-2009, 12:40 PM
I find it hilarious that the Same Liberal Leaning States that vote for the Legalization of Marijuana also Vota AGAINST Gay Marriage every time its up for a vote of the people.

Gay marriage is not a Democrat vs Repulbican Issue. Its a small very vocal minority vs the General Population issue.
--------------------
I hear you on this one. This has the same reasoning as why some stand against abortion, and then the same people are in favor of the death penalty.....

In response to the title of this thread.... this is the same group of republicans that got us into a lot of this mess.... so they really have no argument against a Democratic controlled Washington that, so far anyway, is not doing what it should either.....
I submit that BOTH parties are in a stalemate and are out of touch.... and no one is suffering for it BUT the people they represent.... not these political actors.....

Vincent
11-04-2009, 12:43 PM
I find it hilarious that the Same Liberal Leaning States that vote for the Legalization of Marijuana also Vota AGAINST Gay Marriage every time its up for a vote of the people.

Is there any linkage between Marijuana and homophobia? :chuckle:

This has the same reasoning as why some stand against abortion, and then the same people are in favor of the death penalty.

There may have been a misunderstanding here. Lemme see if I can shed some light.

Some folks get upset at the idea of killing children. It's "old fashioned", I grant you. Some of these folks also think its a good idea to do away with those that have committed capitol crimes. Again, "old fashioned" thinking. But you see the common thread.

Now, modern folks think its OK to kill their kids and let murderers and such live. After all, who are we to judge.

Does that help?

revefsreleets
11-04-2009, 01:10 PM
I'm sorry, but this IS a Democratic issue. It's in the Democrat party platform to repeal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Clinton, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman only).

Get that? The 2008 Democratic Party platform includes REPEALING DOMA.

This is straight from Obama's website:

"Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized unions.”


Again, I don't care one way or the other, but I find it interesting that this issue is continually pushed by the left and is continually shot down by the voting public...so they kick it to the courts who always seem to interpret the law differently than the average citizen has actually (continually) voted.

Vincent
11-04-2009, 01:18 PM
I'm sorry, but this IS a Democratic issue. It's in the Democrat party platform to repeal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Clinton, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman only).

Oh dear! Is it possible the donkeys did this to curry favor among a certain demographic (or is it psychographic?)? Both times? :rofl:

steelreserve
11-04-2009, 01:36 PM
I honestly don't think anyone bases their vote in a governor's race or a congressional race based on the party's stance on gay marriage, unless they're gay themselves. Too many other things with WAY more priority than that.

Let's see, what should I consider when I'm deciding who to vote for ... war, taxes, jobs, government services, the economy, health care, foreign policy? Naw, the hell with all that stuff -- I'll just vote for whoever's against the gays.

That's really the problem with the two-party system. There are like 20 major issues out there, and you get a choice between two candidates that you each agree with on like 3 or 4 of them. And then whoever wins claims everybody liked them on all 20, which isn't true at all. So either way you get about 30% efficient democratic government and 70% bullshit. Things would be SO much more interesting if they handled elections like they did in, say, Israel.

revefsreleets
11-04-2009, 01:53 PM
I disagree...this is about Independents. And if they are on the fence about a bunch of issues you never know what might push their buttons. Each issue carries weight...

Anyway, that's not what this is really about. My problem is that they (Democrats) keep pushing this as something Americans want when we clearly don't, and they lack the courage to actually attempt to legislate it, since it IS clearly against the wishes of the majority of Americans, so they use the courts as a proxy to attempt an end around on the clearly stated wishes of the populace.

I also can't help but chuckle at the blatant hypocrisy of so many legislators with a (D) behind their name blaming the GOP for "blocking" laws on gay marriage...there are no excuses now, nowhere to hide, yet...no legislation. You'd think the gays would be pretty sick of being lied to by now by the left...

I actually think Newt Gingrich is right....the GOP needs to have a bigger tent. They lost a house seat in New York because the Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava had the audacity to have an (R) behind her name AND back gay and abortion rights. She was so widely attacked by the ultra conservatives in her own party that she backed out and endorsed the Democrat, who ultimately won. The irony is she would have won...so the GOP said, in essence, it's better to have a liberal Democrat who toes the D party line in every way in office than a GOP congresswoman with a couple dissenting views.

Foolish.

Vincent
11-04-2009, 02:17 PM
I actually think Newt Gingrich is right....the GOP needs to have a bigger tent.

The irony that the man who conceived "the Contract with America" as the winning strategy in '94 is now advocating "a bigger tent" is to rich to bear.

IMHO, with conservatives outnumbering libs 2 to 1, the strategy should be a tight focused agenda that addresses the top 5 issues, and delivers in a defined period of time. That message galvanizes the 40% that are conservative, and draws sufficient independents that are disgusted with the insanity in DC. It worked in '94. It would probably resonate better today. http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Co...cal-Group.aspx Both houses would go red.

They lost a house seat in New York because the Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava had the audacity to have an (R) behind her name AND back gay and abortion rights. She was so widely attacked by the ultra conservatives in her own party that she backed out and endorsed the Democrat, who ultimately won. The irony is she would have won...so the GOP said, in essence, it's better to have a liberal Democrat who toes the D party line in every way in office than a GOP congresswoman with a couple dissenting views.

Foolish.

Agree. Cutting one's nose to spite one's face is indeed foolish. And she may be a scifuza, but dammit, she's "our scifuza".:chuckle: Sometimes you have to be pragmatic.

revefsreleets
11-04-2009, 02:23 PM
Independents are the key to the vote...and the rules are changing. Other than outspending McCain 8-1 in key battleground states, and lying about being the voice of change, what did Obama REALLY do right in '08 that won him the White House? He WON the independent vote....especially the young. Now, they are effed and don't even know it since the spendulus and the healthcare bills both sock them with the burden of all this ensuing debt, but they are too stupid and naive to care. BUT there is nothing wrong with appealing to a younger demo in trying to take back the Congress and Senate. Broadening your base a little can't hurt in that regard. The LAST thing the GOP need to do now is become exclusionary and narrow-based.

I would still MUCH rather have a moderate Republican sitting in power than a liberal Democrat.

Vincent
11-04-2009, 02:53 PM
I would still MUCH rather have a moderate Republican sitting in power than a liberal Democrat.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. :chuckle:...

...which, interestingly, is analogous.

Also interesting, the ticket that would have a sufficiently moderate elephant to attract a "big tent"... http://forums.steelersfever.com/showpost.php?p=689396&postcount=16

7SteelGal43
11-04-2009, 03:28 PM
What's the mystery? White European homophobes came here, conquered the indigenous people with their disease and their homophobia (I know that's redundant), and established what is now and always has been, a homophobic nation. And I think that's born out by the fact Europe is so enlightened and well, gay. Cuz all the homophobes left and came here. Right?



Vincent, I'm not sure it's actually homophobia - though I've heard many definitions of just what homophobia is on this board. The truth is, virtually the same percentage that are AGAINST same sex marriage actually SUPPORT same sex civil unions.

revefsreleets
11-04-2009, 03:41 PM
Powell? Eh.....

Vincent
11-04-2009, 03:41 PM
Vincent, I'm not sure it's actually homophobia - though I've heard many definitions of just what homophobia is on this board.

I haven't heard one that makes any sense.

The truth is, virtually the same percentage that are AGAINST same sex marriage actually SUPPORT same sex civil unions.

Everything I have said about marriage is in the context of "the Church's" view, and in many historical contexts. "Civil unions" should be left to the states.

N sides, this thread is supposed to be about beating on donkeys. :chuckle:

BlastFurnace
11-04-2009, 03:45 PM
Or...perhaps it is that most people in America still look at Same Sex Marriage and Homosexuality as a Sin. I do...always have...always will...and I will vote against Same Sex Marriage every single chance I get. I don't consider myself a Homophobe at all. It's a moral issue and I choose to believe what the Bible says on marriage. It should be between a Man and a Woman.

Dino 6 Rings
11-04-2009, 04:11 PM
I'm sorry, but this IS a Democratic issue. It's in the Democrat party platform to repeal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Clinton, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman only).

Get that? The 2008 Democratic Party platform includes REPEALING DOMA.

This is straight from Obama's website:

"Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized unions.”


Again, I don't care one way or the other, but I find it interesting that this issue is continually pushed by the left and is continually shot down by the voting public...so they kick it to the courts who always seem to interpret the law differently than the average citizen has actually (continually) voted.

I get your point...I was referring to it not being a partisan issue among Dem or Rep voters...not the politicians themselves. Everytime its on the ballot, it fails by vote of the people...of both sides.

Dino 6 Rings
11-04-2009, 04:14 PM
Vincent, I'm not sure it's actually homophobia - though I've heard many definitions of just what homophobia is on this board. The truth is, virtually the same percentage that are AGAINST same sex marriage actually SUPPORT same sex civil unions.

I tend to agree with this, I would argue that most people "against" same sex marriage but favor same sex unions are sick and tired of the Gay Activism that is shoved down our throats.

This is a case where the Activism actually hurts the cause in my opinion.

Preacher
11-04-2009, 05:17 PM
I tend to agree with this, I would argue that most people "against" same sex marriage but favor same sex unions are sick and tired of the Gay Activism that is shoved down our throats.

This is a case where the Activism actually hurts the cause in my opinion.

BINGO.

I voted against prop 8 in California not because I was for or against gay marriage, I didn't even weigh that issue.

For me, there was a much more dangerous issue, the overturning of the will of the people via activist courts time and time again. My vote was simple. I voted to slap down the courts.

Steelerstrength
11-04-2009, 05:30 PM
...sick and tired of the Gay Activism that is shoved down our throats.


Sorry Dino, I know it wasn't your intent, but that statement had me rolling!:sofunny:

Out of curiousity, how does their activism hurt their cause?

As many of you know I am an Independent, and enjoy seeking out information prior to making a decision. I honestly do not see how Same Sex Marriage effects anyone but the people who choose to get married. That's my :twocents:

Preacher
11-04-2009, 05:40 PM
I would still MUCH rather have a moderate Republican sitting in power than a liberal Democrat.

We had someone like her in the white house for eight years. Look what happened to our 'fiscal conservatism".

No, I prefer the GOP goes back to a fiscal conservative mindset. Problems cannot be fixed by doling out money.

IMO, what happened here, is that a CONSERVATIVE came a hair's breadth away from winning in a liberal state. That fact will do more to move the entire discussion more conservative than putting one rhino in office.

SteelCityMom
11-04-2009, 05:50 PM
Or...perhaps it is that most people in America still look at Same Sex Marriage and Homosexuality as a Sin. I do...always have...always will...and I will vote against Same Sex Marriage every single chance I get. I don't consider myself a Homophobe at all. It's a moral issue and I choose to believe what the Bible says on marriage. It should be between a Man and a Woman.


Your opinion is fine...but I don't agree with the fact that those who are religious choose to use the bible as a reference for why they are against same sex marriage. The bible also says to stone your wife to death if she's unfaithful, or stone your children if they are too insolent...and those kinds of actions will get you thrown in jail and possibly get you the death penalty today.

I'm in no way a democrat, nor do I or have I ever voted for a democrat, but all I can think of when reading some of the statements here are the civil rights that women and blacks had to fight so long for. The acts that put civil rights into motion were not very popular with the American public either...but they were necessary.

Another thing that needs to be considered as well is that not all marriages are Christian marriages. I'm getting married soon, and it's not going to be through any denomination. So, in my mind, if I can get married without God or anyone else's "righteous" approval, why shouldn't two men or two women?

Also, another thing to consider is the fact that marriages can be terminated rather easily (through divorce or annulment), which is also seen as a sin in the bible and churches, yet more than 50% percent of marriages end this way...and there is no law against it.

I guess I just don't see it as that big of a problem. There are plenty of other horrible things going on in the world that people really shouldn't be too worried about how gay couples want to express their love for each other.

SteelCityMom
11-04-2009, 06:10 PM
I tend to agree with this, I would argue that most people "against" same sex marriage but favor same sex unions are sick and tired of the Gay Activism that is shoved down our throats.

This is a case where the Activism actually hurts the cause in my opinion.

Well, IMO, it might just be that some people don't like the cause that is being presented.

Do you think that if women hadn't actively demonstrated for their rights to vote and other equalities that they suddenly would have been handed to them? Same goes for blacks. If there were no activists for their cause, do you think people would have just woken up one day and said...lets let them vote and go to school with us, etc. etc.? Probably not.

Again, there's a lot worse things that gay people could be doing than trying to figure out a way to have a legally binding relationship with one another.

GBMelBlount
11-04-2009, 06:50 PM
My earnest hope is that he/they press their agenda. 2010 will be Armageddon for the donkeys.



From day one, when it became obvious that the liberal main stream media had anointed Obama over Clinton, I stated that I felt Obama would win the election as the mainstream media would steamroll everyone in his way.

What I also said way back then, is that I thought it would be even more interesting, if Obama fell flat on his face, is to see if and how the mainstream media would try to spin things to further their liberal agenda prior to the 2010 elections.

Maybe they are disgusted too. I honestly don't know.

I have always heard that one of the best ways to convert a liberal, is to give them EXACTLY what they want.....and we are definitely getting a huge, throbbing dose of liberalism in the back end right now.

Hammer Of The GODS
11-04-2009, 08:12 PM
I'm all for gay marriage...... as long as both the chicks are hot! :chuckle:

.

BlastFurnace
11-04-2009, 09:01 PM
Your opinion is fine...but I don't agree with the fact that those who are religious choose to use the bible as a reference for why they are against same sex marriage. The bible also says to stone your wife to death if she's unfaithful, or stone your children if they are too insolent...and those kinds of actions will get you thrown in jail and possibly get you the death penalty today.

I'm in no way a democrat, nor do I or have I ever voted for a democrat, but all I can think of when reading some of the statements here are the civil rights that women and blacks had to fight so long for. The acts that put civil rights into motion were not very popular with the American public either...but they were necessary.

Another thing that needs to be considered as well is that not all marriages are Christian marriages. I'm getting married soon, and it's not going to be through any denomination. So, in my mind, if I can get married without God or anyone else's "righteous" approval, why shouldn't two men or two women?

Also, another thing to consider is the fact that marriages can be terminated rather easily (through divorce or annulment), which is also seen as a sin in the bible and churches, yet more than 50% percent of marriages end this way...and there is no law against it.

I guess I just don't see it as that big of a problem. There are plenty of other horrible things going on in the world that people really shouldn't be too worried about how gay couples want to express their love for each other.

We will have to disagree on this topic...and that is fine. The Bible is very...very clear on what it teaches on Homosexuality and that is where I stand with it. You can choose to stand where you wish.

While I agree that there are other horrible things going on here on earth, it doesn't mean that we ignore other principles that we believe are wrong.

BlastFurnace
11-04-2009, 09:04 PM
BINGO.

I voted against prop 8 in California not because I was for or against gay marriage, I didn't even weigh that issue.

For me, there was a much more dangerous issue, the overturning of the will of the people via activist courts time and time again. My vote was simple. I voted to slap down the courts.

But you have to admit, based upon your Baptist background, that the morality of the issue and what you believe the Bible says on this topic did weigh on which way you voted.

GBMelBlount
11-04-2009, 09:35 PM
Sorry Dino, I know it wasn't your intent, but that statement had me rolling!:sofunny:

Out of curiousity, how does their activism hurt their cause?

As many of you know I am an Independent, and enjoy seeking out information prior to making a decision. I honestly do not see how Same Sex Marriage effects anyone but the people who choose to get married. That's my :twocents:

How does "activism" hurt their cause? Have you ever seen pictures or videos of a gay parade?

If you have, you know that is an embarrassing question, even for an intellectual and open minded "independent" such as you claim to be. :chuckle:

I can't stand liberals who try to pass themselves off as open-minded, intellectual and enlightened independents thinking that people will give their decisions more validity by thinking it was reached through open-mindedness and carefully weighing information in an unbiased manner. :doh:

The one thing I respect about tony is that he will come in the front door and say that he is what he is and stand his ground and fight.......

If you have ever made any clear and definitive statements supporting conservative beliefs (without waffling or hedging) and I missed it, I apologize in advance. It's just that I've seen so many closet liberals who try to pass themselves off as "independents", that's all.

....oh, and thank you for the help with my diet & workouts. :drink:

SteelersinCA
11-05-2009, 12:21 AM
Or...perhaps it is that most people in America still look at Same Sex Marriage and Homosexuality as a Sin. I do...always have...always will...and I will vote against Same Sex Marriage every single chance I get. I don't consider myself a Homophobe at all. It's a moral issue and I choose to believe what the Bible says on marriage. It should be between a Man and a Woman.

This right here is the kind of hypocrisy I hate. Not necessarily you, because I haven't heard you do it, but the same people that argue this are the same people trying to use the Constitution and majority votes to ban same sex marriage. It doesn't work like that. YOUR religion has no place in the laws of the Union. Take out RELIGION and why should gays not be married? If you want the Constitution followed, then OK, gay marriage should be legal. Simple.

SteelersinCA
11-05-2009, 12:29 AM
It constantly amazes me that people think just because the majority votes something one way, that is the way the laws should be written. Do you understand how our government was set up? Do you understand the system of checks and balances? There is not one single (and I challenge ANYONE, liberal or conservative, to find me one) valid, non-religion based, LEGAL reason why same sex marriage should not be allowed.

It's going to happen when the right case comes up the court system, I have a feeling Prop 8 in CA may be it. The majority didn't want slavery to end, they didn't want women to vote, they didn't want non segregated schools, etc. Are we really relying on the majority to make intelligent decisions for us? Didn't the majority elect Bush? The 2nd time at least, Didn't the majority elect Obama? You guys quarrel over what the majority did every single day, but then you fall back on their votes like that should be the law of the Land. Irony much?:dancing::twocents::stirthepot:

Let me also say, personally, morally, I am against gay marriage, I think it is wrong. However, I believe it should be legal in the US because that's what the Constitution demands. My personal religious beliefs should not have anything to do with how equality is distributed among the citizenry.

Steelerstrength
11-05-2009, 01:09 AM
How does "activism" hurt their cause? Have you ever seen pictures or videos of a gay parade?

If you have, you know that is an embarrassing question, even for an intellectual and open minded "independent" such as you claim to be. :chuckle:

I can't stand liberals who try to pass themselves off as open-minded, intellectual and enlightened independents thinking that people will give their decisions more validity by thinking it was reached through open-mindedness and carefully weighing information in an unbiased manner. :doh:

The one thing I respect about tony is that he will come in the front door and say that he is what he is and stand his ground and fight.......

If you have ever made any clear and definitive statements supporting conservative beliefs (without waffling or hedging) and I missed it, I apologize in advance. It's just that I've seen so many closet liberals who try to pass themselves off as "independents", that's all.

....oh, and thank you for the help with my diet & workouts. :drink:

I have seen gays who take things too far (flamers) when professing their sexual preference. I have also seen many more straight men make complete asses of themselves trying to profess theirs! And, they don't even require a parade to display the behavior. You've made your point of being intolerant of said gay behavior, but the condescending tone speaks deeper of your feelings on the matter. Simply put, I obviously don't share your perspective which is why I chose to ask a question about a different viewpoint, rather than put it down.

When speaking of my thought process, and how I come to decision making, I have not posted enough information for you to go off like an ass, GB! If you inquire about any subject I'm happy to respond and to provide you with the information you seek, which would surely aid in your judgement of exactly who you think I am.

I am a registered Independent, and always vote for who I believe to be the best qualified, and for or against issues that call to my methodology regarding due diligence. I do not fit into your judgement category by making "...definitive statements supporting conservative beliefs..." because I have not made any on this site. I'm also not asking anyone to proclaim my decisions to be of more validity. My written opinions on this site are always intended to be an extension of my thoughts on the subject matter, and in no way, shape, or form, attempt to annoint them with the profound influence that you despise so.

My world is not Black & White, nor do I have the need to be angry at someone with an opposing perspective on life. But, I will become angry and have been known to fight (sometimes for just the sheer joy of it) when someone who does not know me well talks shit directed at me, rather than the subject matter! You crossed the line and that was not very cool or friendly.


I'll throw you a bone, I've been actively searching for the right pistol to go shooting at the range with my brothers, especially my Jar-Head older brother! I bought a 2009 Ford F-150 Platinum because I support Ford for not taking the money! Even though I bought my wife a Prius because she really wanted one for her birthday, I hate the greenies who give me dirty looks when I'm driving my 2007, 563 Horsepower Black Corvette Z06!

MasterOfPuppets
11-05-2009, 01:54 AM
Democrats Completely Out of Touch with Average Americans...

thats odd....here i was thinkin ALL politicians were out of touch with average americans...:doh:

wardislord
11-05-2009, 02:22 AM
Your opinion is fine...but I don't agree with the fact that those who are religious choose to use the bible as a reference for why they are against same sex marriage. The bible also says to stone your wife to death if she's unfaithful, or stone your children if they are too insolent...and those kinds of actions will get you thrown in jail and possibly get you the death penalty today.

I'm in no way a democrat, nor do I or have I ever voted for a democrat, but all I can think of when reading some of the statements here are the civil rights that women and blacks had to fight so long for. The acts that put civil rights into motion were not very popular with the American public either...but they were necessary.

Another thing that needs to be considered as well is that not all marriages are Christian marriages. I'm getting married soon, and it's not going to be through any denomination. So, in my mind, if I can get married without God or anyone else's "righteous" approval, why shouldn't two men or two women?

Also, another thing to consider is the fact that marriages can be terminated rather easily (through divorce or annulment), which is also seen as a sin in the bible and churches, yet more than 50% percent of marriages end this way...and there is no law against it.

I guess I just don't see it as that big of a problem. There are plenty of other horrible things going on in the world that people really shouldn't be too worried about how gay couples want to express their love for each other.

i love the way you worded this response, thank you so much for posting it! hopefully one day america will ACTUALLY have LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL!

the fourteenth amendment clearly states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". based on this statement i believe it is clear that denying homosexuals the right to the legal contract of marriage is unconstitutional. hopefully one day the people of our nation will be able too look past their ideological and religious differences and allow ALL people to live equally and in happiness. :hug:

Preacher
11-05-2009, 03:38 AM
But you have to admit, based upon your Baptist background, that the morality of the issue and what you believe the Bible says on this topic did weigh on which way you voted.

Actually, I don't know. Had it been about two people able to decide if the can, together, have the right of survivorship on homes, insurance, visit each other in the hospital, SS benefits, etc., Then I probably would have voted for those rights.

If it was for bringing about civil unions for everyone, I would have voted for it.

However, this was simply, about the courts establishing law.

So I didn't even go to that discussion in my mind about what the law actually says.

GBMelBlount
11-05-2009, 06:07 AM
Steelerstrength
I have seen gays who take things too far (flamers) when professing their sexual preference. I have also seen many more straight men make complete asses of themselves trying to profess theirs! And, they don't even require a parade to display the behavior. You've made your point of being intolerant of said gay behavior, but the condescending tone speaks deeper of your feelings on the matter. Simply put, I obviously don't share your perspective which is why I chose to ask a question about a different viewpoint, rather than put it down.

No condescension here D. I just enjoy mixing it up, that's all. I have no problem with people who are gay D, but was speaking towards their activist behavior being extremely bad for their cause imo.

Steelerstrength
I do not fit into your judgement category by making "...definitive statements supporting conservative beliefs..." because I have not made any on this site.

Exactly my point. You have inserted yourself into political threads and tactfully stated your opinion, ALWAYS stressing that you are an “independent”as though you have objectively and carefully weighed the evidence....so again, I am sure you can understand my point.......

Just try to be a little more fair and balanced in your open-mindedness, that's all. :sofunny:

Steelerstrength
But, I will become angry and have been known to fight (sometimes for just the sheer joy of it) when someone who does not know me well talks shit directed at me, rather than the subject matter!

Thanks for the shot across the bow “D”!

Anger? Sounds more like a deep seated rage. :chuckle:

I guess we got the real answer we were looking for Revs, despite the insistence otherwise....... :wink02:

Steelerstrength
I'll throw you a bone, I've been actively searching for the right pistol to go shooting at the range....

Thanks for the bone D, I guess that proves you are an open-minded independent! :chuckle: :drink:

BlastFurnace
11-05-2009, 06:22 AM
This right here is the kind of hypocrisy I hate. Not necessarily you, because I haven't heard you do it, but the same people that argue this are the same people trying to use the Constitution and majority votes to ban same sex marriage. It doesn't work like that. YOUR religion has no place in the laws of the Union. Take out RELIGION and why should gays not be married? If you want the Constitution followed, then OK, gay marriage should be legal. Simple.

Why is it hyprocrisy? Am I not allowed to vote on what I believe is morally right? Or...do I have to cave in to special interest groups just because society says it's correct. I believe that marriage is between a Man and a Woman...plain and simple. Every other kind of marriage...according to what I read in the Bible...is sin. Therefore, I won't vote for it. I don't understand why this is hyprocrisy. You vote the way you see is right, and so will I. It's becoming obvious though that more people believe it is wrong than people who don't....regardless what the media wants us to believe.

revefsreleets
11-05-2009, 07:47 AM
It constantly amazes me that people think just because the majority votes something one way, that is the way the laws should be written. Do you understand how our government was set up? Do you understand the system of checks and balances? There is not one single (and I challenge ANYONE, liberal or conservative, to find me one) valid, non-religion based, LEGAL reason why same sex marriage should not be allowed.

It's going to happen when the right case comes up the court system, I have a feeling Prop 8 in CA may be it. The majority didn't want slavery to end, they didn't want women to vote, they didn't want non segregated schools, etc. Are we really relying on the majority to make intelligent decisions for us? Didn't the majority elect Bush? The 2nd time at least, Didn't the majority elect Obama? You guys quarrel over what the majority did every single day, but then you fall back on their votes like that should be the law of the Land. Irony much?:dancing::twocents::stirthepot:

Let me also say, personally, morally, I am against gay marriage, I think it is wrong. However, I believe it should be legal in the US because that's what the Constitution demands. My personal religious beliefs should not have anything to do with how equality is distributed among the citizenry.

But it's the gays that keep PUSHING for these referendum votes! That's part of my point.

Let's review:
-We have gay people wanting the legislature to act, which they won't, because this is a HOT BUTTON issue that could actually cost them their seats (and that is, after all, the MOST important issue to any sitting Senator or Congressperson).
-A legislature that makes excuses and blames the other party for failure to act, when in fact it's the aforementioned reasons that they CAN'T act...so they...
-Toss it to the liberal courts to actually make rulings which are out of touch with what the majority wants AND ruling against anything Congress actually has the balls to do anything about.

You want one reason why same-sex marriage isn't legal? That's it! The people won't vote it in, nor will their representative government legislate it in, so, there ya go...

I also don't buy for a SECOND that this is about discrimination. I live with my girlfriend and I, too, am denied all the benefits that married people enjoy. My choice is to marry her or be denied all the rights and privileges included in marriage. If the law of the land states that marriage is ONLY between men and women, then they aren't technically being discriminated against at all, because their choice is the same as mine: Marry someone of the same sex or do without the benefits.

Vincent
11-05-2009, 08:34 AM
Speaking of "out of touch", and in this case it's with reality, "speaker" pelosi views Tuesday as a great victory for the donkeys...

"From our perspective, we won last night," the California Democrat told reporters during a Wednesday photo op. "We had one race that we were engaged in, it was in northern New York, it was a race where a Republican has held the seat since the Civil War. And we won that seat. So, from our standpoint, no, a candidate was victorious who supports health care reform, and his remarks last night said this was a victory for health care reform and other initiatives for the American people."

"From our standpoint, we picked up votes last night," a cheerful Pelosi said, "one in California and one in New York."

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Pelosi_dismisses_impact_of_New_Jersey_Virginia.htm l

Put another way..."See, what all you idiots missed is that we only ran in one race". The video is of a barking at the moon delusional loon. The expression on the face to her right is priceless..."let me the @#$% ouda here!".

revefsreleets
11-05-2009, 09:16 AM
Actually, they lost two full states, and they HEAVILY backed Corzine in NJ. It was a crushing defeat, but in a World gone mad, black is white and up is down, and defeat is victory.

Even James Carville conceded it was a costly loss for the D's...and playing Ostrich won't change that. But this DOES bring back to the fore what I stated earlier: The GOP would have been better served with a moderate Republican in NY with Dede Scazzafava, who, despite being for abortion and gay rights, also is opposed to gun control, cap and trade, and was a supporter of keeping the Bush tax cuts.

Even after withdrawing she siphoned off 7,000+ votes, and the Conservative candidate LOST to the liberal Democrat by 5,000 votes.

I still maintain that a moderate Republican is ALWAYS better than a liberal Democrat...the race in New York was badly bungled by the GOP and they need to learn form the lesson in future races...

gameface75
11-05-2009, 09:50 AM
I thought this was a football forum,What the hell does this crap have to do with Steelers Football.

revefsreleets
11-05-2009, 10:07 AM
I thought this was a football forum,What the hell does this crap have to do with Steelers Football.

Oh, my reading comprehension challenged friend, let me help you out here...

Locker Room (http://forums.steelersfever.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8) (2 Viewing)
Talk about anything unrelated to the other forums. Please keep it clean! The rules still apply.

BlastFurnace
11-05-2009, 10:13 AM
I thought this was a football forum,What the hell does this crap have to do with Steelers Football.

There is a Steelers only Forum and a Football Only Forum. This is the Locker Room...where any topic can be discussed. You're just in the wrong forum now.

SteelCityMom
11-05-2009, 10:47 AM
But it's the gays that keep PUSHING for these referendum votes! That's part of my point.

Let's review:
-We have gay people wanting the legislature to act, which they won't, because this is a HOT BUTTON issue that could actually cost them their seats (and that is, after all, the MOST important issue to any sitting Senator or Congressperson).
-A legislature that makes excuses and blames the other party for failure to act, when in fact it's the aforementioned reasons that they CAN'T act...so they...
-Toss it to the liberal courts to actually make rulings which are out of touch with what the majority wants AND ruling against anything Congress actually has the balls to do anything about.

You want one reason why same-sex marriage isn't legal? That's it! The people won't vote it in, nor will their representative government legislate it in, so, there ya go...

I can see where you're coming from with this statement....just don't agree with it is all. I wish it wasn't a democratic or republican issue (I wish that with a lot of issues though lol), but it is and that's bothersome.

I also don't buy for a SECOND that this is about discrimination. I live with my girlfriend and I, too, am denied all the benefits that married people enjoy. My choice is to marry her or be denied all the rights and privileges included in marriage. If the law of the land states that marriage is ONLY between men and women, then they aren't technically being discriminated against at all, because their choice is the same as mine: Marry someone of the same sex or do without the benefits.

I think this is just flat out wrong. You have the choice of marrying your girlfriend or not because it is legal. If you want those benefits, and you want to express your love that way, there's nothing standing in your way.

You make it sound like gay people have some sort of choice in who they love...they don't. So why should they be denied the same benefits that straight people enjoy, who also don't have a choice in what gender they love. I'm sure you didn't choose to be with women just so one day you could get the benefits of marriage lol. At least I hope that's not the reason you or most people claim to be straight (though I know it's been done like that in the past).

Why should someone have to compromise who they are to please the religious majority? That to me sounds like something that would inherently be unconstitutional.

revefsreleets
11-05-2009, 11:04 AM
Regardless of which side SAYS they support it (the truth is neither do, nor do the American people), nothing is getting done...there's really nothing that can even be disagreed with because it's simply a matter of laying out exactly what is (or is not occurring). The gays can't get gay marriage legislated (fact), so they resort to getting the issue put on the ballot (fact) for popular vote, which has been now voted down 31 straight times (fact), and the only port in this storm thye've been able to find is the courts (fact), more specifically the more liberal courts to withhold gay marriage.

As to the second point, well, that is a little more subjective...however, the law of the land is that marriage is only legally recognized between a man and a woman (and it is the law, see: DOMA). Now if it was against the law to be involved in gay relationships, or against the law to be gay, then there would be discrimination, but there is not. It's simply not possible, given the structure of the law as it now stands, for two people of the same sex to be married because the law of the land, which supersedes all, states so...

This really isn't complicated. There are only a couple different ways to change the laws, and neither is happening. The truth is, if the Democrats want to MAKE this one of the planks on their platform, they need to legislatively change the law, but they will not because they want to protect their seats. In essence, they are courting the gay vote, but doing absolutely nothing to deserve it. This is hypocrisy of the highest order...

SteelCityMom
11-05-2009, 11:16 AM
Regardless of which side SAYS they support it (the truth is neither do, nor do the American people), nothing is getting done...there's really nothing that can even be disagreed with because it's simply a matter of laying out exactly what is (or is not occurring). The gays can't get gay marriage legislated (fact), so they resort to getting the issue put on the ballot (fact) for popular vote, which has been now voted down 31 straight times (fact), and the only port in this storm thye've been able to find is the courts (fact), more specifically the more liberal courts to withhold gay marriage.

As to the second point, well, that is a little more subjective...however, the law of the land is that marriage is only legally recognized between a man and a woman (and it is the law, see: DOMA). Now if it was against the law to be involved in gay relationships, or against the law to be gay, then there would be discrimination, but there is not. It's simply not possible, given the structure of the law as it now stands, for two people of the same sex to be married because the law of the land, which supersedes all, states so...

This really isn't complicated. There are only a couple different ways to change the laws, and neither is happening. The truth is, if the Democrats want to MAKE this one of the planks on their platform, they need to legislatively change the law, but they will not because they want to protect their seats. In essence, they are courting the gay vote, but doing absolutely nothing to deserve it. This is hypocrisy of the highest order...

No, I agree...the democrats are nothing but frontrunners. At least republicans are a little more honest about it (or about as honest as a politician can get lol). I just don't agree with the law is all. There are ways for them to get around it though.

In the United States gays and lesbians can legally marry in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. On January 1, 2010, New Hampshire will recognize gay marriage.

New York, California, Rhode Island, New Mexico and Washington, DC recognize marriages by same-sex couples legally performed elsewhere.

California
With the passage of Prop 8, gay and lesbian couples who were married between June and November 2008 are still legally married, but no new legal marriages can be performed in California.

There are many rights given to gay couples (with civil unions) in Wisconsin, Washington, Nevada, Oregon, Maine, New York and DC...so I doubt it will be long before these stated offer full rights.

I suspect that it won't be very long before more states are added to this list, and it will turn into a domino effect, much like the medical marijuana laws have. I just don't think it should be that difficult for something so simple and something that doesn't hurt anyone at all to be legal.

revefsreleets
11-05-2009, 11:31 AM
But this is done through either state (small "s") legislation or the Courts, and NOT through the State (i.e. US government).

This is part of the Democratic Party platform...a national political party. They used the excuse that the GOP blocked them from passing laws making it legal for gays to marry. That was a lie. I don't care one way or the other, but am thinking if I was gay and wanted to get married, I'd be pretty pissed that "My party" had done exactly nothing for me...

Also, referring back to the title of the thread, the only reason I can see this being in the platform is to appeal to the gay voting bloc...they pay lip service, but do nothing, because legislating gay marriage is out of step with what the wishes of the average citizen in this Country, and legislating against their constituents wishes on a hot button issue is the quickest way to commit political suicide....

SteelCityMom
11-05-2009, 11:39 AM
But this is done through either state (small "s") legislation or the Courts, and NOT through the State (i.e. US government).

This is part of the Democratic Party platform...a national political party. They used the excuse that the GOP blocked them from passing laws making it legal for gays to marry. That was a lie. I don't care one way or the other, but am thinking if I was gay and wanted to get married, i'd be pretty pissed that "My party" had done exactly nothing for me...

Yes, and I fully agree with you on this.

And after reading a bit more into it, the thing that kind of ticks me off more about it, is that even if a gay couple has a legally binding civil union or marriage (legal to the state of course, not to the US Gov't), and one partner gives the other partner legal or financial rights in their will (living or otherwise), those rights can be overruled by the courts and can cost the couple thousands of dollars in legal fees to get in the first place. Why spend all that money if a US court can overturn it anyway?

This is part of what I think is unconstitutional about it. Straight couples who get married are afforded these rights without question.

Everything else you've had to say I agree with though, and is part of the reason why I despise the democratic party (moreso than republicans lol). It's a lot of doublespeak just to get votes.

NJarhead
11-05-2009, 04:41 PM
I thought this was a football forum,What the hell does this crap have to do with Steelers Football.

Oh, my reading comprehension challenged friend, let me help you out here...

Locker Room (http://forums.steelersfever.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8) (2 Viewing)
Talk about anything unrelated to the other forums. Please keep it clean! The rules still apply.

There is a Steelers only Forum and a Football Only Forum. This is the Locker Room...where any topic can be discussed. You're just in the wrong forum now.

Still, too often it seems like there aren't enough football discussions compared to all of these political discussions.

Don't get me wrong, talk all the politics you want. Personally, I like to be free of all the BS when I come here.

That being said, I'd like to congratulate my home state of New Jersey on electing a new Governor and thank all of those who voted for him. :drink:

Now, if you need me I'll be in the Steelers' section :chuckle:

:tt03:

BlastFurnace
11-05-2009, 05:09 PM
Frankly, no you don't. You don't get to use the Will of the People to impose your "morality" on the rest of us, nor to restrict somebody else's freedom merely because their behavior offends your sensibilities. That's just mob rule.
I hate it when self-proclaimed conservatives start in on this "let's use the government to control people" kick...

Wrong. As a Veteran, I served this country so that everyone can vote any way they choose based upon their own beliefs and principles. I choose to believe what the Bible says on this topic. It's a poliital and a moral issue for me. If I believe something is morally wrong, I believe I need to vote against it politically. I don't separate the two. Everyone in this country has the freedom to vote the way they choose. The American people are speaking loud and clear on this topic. It's not hipocrisy, Homophobic, or narrow mindedness. If you don't like that some vote based upon Religious beliefs, morals and principles...that's too bad...because obviously people still do...even though the media and special interests groups try to dictate to us what we should believe.

cubanstogie
11-05-2009, 05:20 PM
Frankly, no you don't. You don't get to use the Will of the People to impose your "morality" on the rest of us, nor to restrict somebody else's freedom merely because their behavior offends your sensibilities. That's just mob rule.
I hate it when self-proclaimed conservatives start in on this "let's use the government to control people" kick...

typical liberal bs, its voted down 31 for 31 yet they still keep whining. Its husband and wife for a reason, just like its mom and dad for a reason. Do you want to change the labeling on that as well. Talk about sore losers you libs are. If you want to change the country so bad then move to Europe, then you don't have to impose your ideology on law abiding, hard working, tax paying citizens who want to raise their family in a safe and sane environment.

cubanstogie
11-05-2009, 05:47 PM
I never called myself a conservative. Its about moral beliefs not politics for me and obviously the majority of citizens in the USA don't want gay marriage. I am sorry if you can't accept that, but the facts have been proven 31 times. Actually more due to California voting on it every election they can try to force it down our throats. I just find it hilarious that I am a close minded bigot for not wanting gay marriage and a racist for not liking anything about Obama, which includes his wife. Sour grapes comes to mind.

Preacher
11-05-2009, 06:04 PM
Frankly, no you don't. You don't get to use the Will of the People to impose your "morality" on the rest of us, nor to restrict somebody else's freedom merely because their behavior offends your sensibilities. That's just mob rule.
I hate it when self-proclaimed conservatives start in on this "let's use the government to control people" kick...

As a citizen of this nation, I have as much right to vote and speak on what I consider morality as you do.

Person A: Homosexuality is moral- 1 vote.
Person B: Homosexuality is immoral - 1 vote.

When the judges overrule that process, then the people get to make changes to the constitution which invalidate the judges decisions.

If you don't like that, then campaign harder for your side, or remove my right to vote as a Christian.

Preacher
11-05-2009, 06:25 PM
CS,
You're not going to make any headway so long as your replies are missing the word "Constitution".

Preacher,

No you don't. Neither of us do. Our government exists to protect our freedom, not enforce "morality".
Rights are not subject to popular vote. Never have been, never will be.

Sorry, you have a very categorized view of law which doesn't not play in reality.

A vote on prostitution will come from whether I think it is good to have in the community. That "good" is a moral view.

The same is true for gambling.

The same is true for drinking (Dry counties in the south).

The same is true for mandatory sentences.

The same is true for taxes (is it moral to take money from one and give it to another--is it moral to allow people to suffer when other have so much.

The same is true for school bonds (do we have a moral obligation to educate children).

Laws are the public agreement of standardized cultural norms and values. Do not murder is a law, because of a moral point of view. If we did not consider it immoral, we would allow murder. If we did not consider cheating immoral, we would allow fraud.

You can fight all you want to "distance" yourself from morals by calling them whatever you want, but at the end of the day, you are trying to force your moral code on just as many people by the way you vote as any other person.

You have taken a MORAL view that Homosexuality is the equivelent of heterosexuality, and thus, want to establish rights. Many others have taken the position that it is immoral and thus, not to the level of rights because the human that is a homosexual still has the right to marry the opposite sex, just like anyone else.

You are forcing a moral position, and labeling it rights.

You are justifying by categorizing one from the other.

cubanstogie
11-05-2009, 07:02 PM
CS,
You're not going to make any headway so long as your replies are missing the word "Constitution".

Preacher,

No you don't. Neither of us do. Our government exists to protect our freedom, not enforce "morality".
Rights are not subject to popular vote. Never have been, never will be.

My replies don't need the word. I don't believe gays should call their union a marriage. Marriage is a term that has already been taken. Gays can find their own term, for example Castro contract would be appropriate, I am sure they can find something fitting. I still haven't found in the constitution the article which states men can marry men. Let me know what page.

BlastFurnace
11-05-2009, 07:11 PM
BF & CS,
I see your lips moving, but all I hear is "yammeryammeryammer". :blah:

This is a representative republic, not a democracy, and you two calling yourselves "conservatives" really oughtta know the difference between the two.
You want to argue the government's role in all of this, you need to start with a Constitutional argument.

Oh, spare me. As a war veteran *myself*, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and defend FREEDOM.
/ "Liberals" like government control.

If you served our country....thanks for serving....but we will have disagree on this issue.

cubanstogie
11-05-2009, 08:57 PM
Preacher,

That's about as good a liberal description of conservatism as any, I suppose.

While I disagree with you on many of the examples you provide of examples of legislating morality, and I disagree with you on other examples even being examples, I have no wish to use the government to provide for or force morality upon anyone.
Their role is to safeguard your freedom, provide basic infrastructure, provide for the common defense, and that's *it*.

It occurs to me that a lot of the contention is over the word used; "marriage". Personally, I'd be just as happy if the word was dropped altogether in legislative matters. "Marriage" is an institution of faith, and the government's involvement in it cheapens that faith. Nobody is elected God in this country, and we would all be better served to keep that difference clearly in mind.
Call it whatever you like. Castro-contract, butt-trothal... I don't really care. But when two consenting adults enter into a contract to share their rights and responsibilities, it is the government's job to regulate the contract, not pass judgement on which is "sanctified".

the government isn't passing judgement, the people are the ones that have spoke loud and clear, even in CA. Is nothing sacred anymore. You are too blind to see, these kinds of things are killing this country. I am sure you want to legalize pot, and then what? Meth, heroine. Should we be allowed to marry multiple people.

Leftoverhard
11-05-2009, 09:35 PM
........I could literally care less one way or another. If gays want to get married, I'm fine with that, but if the law of the land says no, well, so be it. My point is NOT about personal choice, it's about the people consistently saying NO, and the liberal courts and legislature ruling against popular opinion and saying yes.

Ah, popular vote. If MLK and the people who fought for civil rights in the 60's would've put the civil rights of blacks up for a "popular" vote, what do you think the outcome of that would be?

rev - let me ask you this - why do you feel so strongly about this to "care less" about it? I, on the hand, care very much about it. I am sad about it. It disgusts me in fact. The right wing nuts in this country have really been on one lately, and it's ugly.

If these same people could vote on what to do with all these gay heathens, they would undoubtedly decide to get rid of them one way or another. Would you so staunchly support "popular" opinion then?

BlastFurnace
11-05-2009, 09:44 PM
All well and good. I don't expect people to agree with me merely because I served in war, and I don't look kindly upon those who use their service as a battering-ram in disagreements. It's a bullshit argument.

You don't have to act kindly to anything. That's your right. I wasn't using that as a battering ram. I'm just proud that I served and I served for a purpose and I have no problem saying that. Many men and women have served and some have died serving our country to keep our freedoms...and that includes voting based upon what we believe as individuals.

cubanstogie
11-05-2009, 10:48 PM
Ah, popular vote. If MLK and the people who fought for civil rights in the 60's would've put the civil rights of blacks up for a "popular" vote, what do you think the outcome of that would be?

rev - let me ask you this - why do you feel so strongly about this to "care less" about it? I, on the hand, care very much about it. I am sad about it. It disgusts me in fact. The right wing nuts in this country have really been on one lately, and it's ugly.

If these same people could vote on what to do with all these gay heathens, they would undoubtedly decide to get rid of them one way or another. Would you so staunchly support "popular" opinion then?

apples to oranges, don't be so dramatic. no one is saying they can't play butt darts, they just can't call it marriage. No one is saying get rid of gays. Talk about irrational. They people have spoke. Get some thicker skin.

GBMelBlount
11-05-2009, 10:56 PM
Leftoverhard
Ah, popular vote. If MLK and the people who fought for civil rights in the 60's would've put the civil rights of blacks up for a "popular" vote, what do you think the outcome of that would be?


Interesting point.

leftoverhard
rev - let me ask you this - why do you feel so strongly about this to "care less" about it?

I, on the hand, care very much about it. I am sad about it. It disgusts me in fact. The right wing nuts in this country have really been on one lately, and it's ugly.

Huh? Right wing nut ? You made a decent point why go overboard here? :chuckle:
What are you talking about?


If these same people could vote on what to do with all these gay heathens, they would undoubtedly decide to get rid of them one way or another. Would you so staunchly support "popular" opinion then?

"They would undoubtedly decide to get rid of them?"
Seriously, you deserve a "time out" for that statement. Go to your corner. What in the world are you talking about? Did you drink a pint of vodka between your first paragraph and last? :chuckle:

MasterOfPuppets
11-05-2009, 11:33 PM
those silly fruitcakes just don't realize how good they got by NOT having someone start the "marriage nagging"....i had to dump a perfectly good piece of tail because of that stupid piece of paper...:shake02:

tony hipchest
11-05-2009, 11:56 PM
....i had to dump a perfectly good piece of tail because of that stupid piece of paper...:shake02:

me too.

well... it wasnt so much the piece of paper as it was her intrusive husband. :sofunny:

MasterOfPuppets
11-06-2009, 12:02 AM
me too.

well... it wasnt so much the piece of paper as it was her intrusive husband. :sofunny:

lol...don't ya hate that ? :doh:
i think they should do marriage like a drivers liscence.... gotta renew every 5 years... if you don't renew your back to single...it would cut the divorce rate down and put lawyers outta business...:thumbsup:

tony hipchest
11-06-2009, 12:07 AM
...either that or a lickher license. :flap:

btw this thread is stupid and was started for all the wrong reasons. :chuckle:

MasterOfPuppets
11-06-2009, 12:09 AM
...either that or a lickher license. :flap:
:thumbsup: ....you get an expiration date tattoed behind your wifes ear ....:sofunny:

Leftoverhard
11-06-2009, 12:41 AM
Huh? Right wing nut ? You made a decent point why go overboard here? :chuckle:
What are you talking about?

GBMel - I have absolutely no problem admitting that you're right - that was uncalled for. I just read one too many Vincent and Cuban Stogie posts and got carried away - not my usual style. And a pint of vodka - yeah I'll blame it on that.


"They would undoubtedly decide to get rid of them?"
Seriously, you deserve a "time out" for that statement. Go to your corner. What in the world are you talking about? Did you drink a pint of vodka between your first paragraph and last? :chuckle:

I happened to drink 2, thank you very much. :sofunny:

SteelCityMom
11-06-2009, 02:29 AM
apples to oranges, don't be so dramatic. no one is saying they can't play butt darts, they just can't call it marriage. No one is saying get rid of gays. Talk about irrational. They people have spoke. Get some thicker skin.

Here's where the problem really lies on the whole issue...and it's really very easy to break down.

Gays can be gays like blacks can be blacks and women can be women (with the two latter having to fight for equal rights such as voting and being able to hold office and such).

One thing that separates a gay couple with a "civil union" and a straight couple with a marriage is federal (and some state) recognition. Where this becomes a problem is that lets say a gay couple enters into a civil union. Perfectly legal by the state they live in, but it is still not recognized on a federal level. Lets say they both go ahead and get wills leaving their entire estates to the other. You'd think this would be all they would need right? Since in a typical marriage, your partner is your executor when you die or if you are so incapacitated that you cannot make a decision about your care (save that you don't have a living will), your partner makes them for you. This is not so with gay couples. If a family member wants to go to court and have one partner of the gay couples "rights" taken away, a court will do it for them, since their union is not recognized on a federal level. Kind of messed up isn't it.

Basically what this is saying is, you can be gay, and play house like straight people, but you're not going to get treated the same way straight people do when you need it the most.

And there is a law for this in the constitution. Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


This is not a matter of moral or immoral, and this should not be a matter left up to the people to vote on. Just like being black or being a woman should not have meant that they needed votes to gain the same rights that white males enjoyed. There is nothing that they are trying to do that is illegal or harming others and so there should be no law set into place on a state or federal level that separates them from anybody else.

SteelCityMom
11-06-2009, 02:39 AM
the government isn't passing judgement, the people are the ones that have spoke loud and clear, even in CA. Is nothing sacred anymore. You are too blind to see, these kinds of things are killing this country. I am sure you want to legalize pot, and then what? Meth, heroine. Should we be allowed to marry multiple people.

Funny you should bring up legalizing pot and the people speaking loud and clear [on moral issues like gay marriage].

California needs no explanation on the publics view of marijuana laws I would think.

Maine, on the same day they voted down gay marriage, voted heavily in favor of not only extending their medical marijuana laws, but allowing state-regulated dispensaries to grow the drug and sell it to patients. The vote came weeks after the Obama administration announced it would not prosecute patients and distributors who are in “clear and unambiguous” compliance with state laws. Maine will be the third state, after New Mexico and Rhode Island, to allow tightly regulated, nonprofit marijuana dispensaries. They also also expanded the list of medical conditions for which a patient can use the drug.

I guess their moral compasses must have been off kilter on that day lol.

Who knows though...maybe gay people will have better luck with the whole marriage thing if we let them, since straight people can't seem to get it right at least half the time. They can't do much worse, can they?

Preacher
11-06-2009, 04:34 AM
Preacher,

That's about as good a liberal description of conservatism as any, I suppose.

While I disagree with you on many of the examples you provide of examples of legislating morality, and I disagree with you on other examples even being examples, I have no wish to use the government to provide for or force morality upon anyone.
Their role is to safeguard your freedom, provide basic infrastructure, provide for the common defense, and that's *it*.

It occurs to me that a lot of the contention is over the word used; "marriage". Personally, I'd be just as happy if the word was dropped altogether in legislative matters. "Marriage" is an institution of faith, and the government's involvement in it cheapens that faith. Nobody is elected God in this country, and we would all be better served to keep that difference clearly in mind.
Call it whatever you like. Castro-contract, butt-trothal... I don't really care. But when two consenting adults enter into a contract to share their rights and responsibilities, it is the government's job to regulate the contract, not pass judgement on which is "sanctified".

So do you agree then, that the federal govt. should not provide health care, social services, federal laws outside of the constitution, medicare, social security, funding for scientific research into non-military programs, money for education, farm aid, EPA, or a whole host of other things that have nothing to do with my freedom, basic infrastructure, or common defense?

Funny thing is, the STATE and LOCAL govts. are the ones dealing with the issues of gay marriage, murder, rape, incest, bribery, stealing, cars breaking the speed limit, ducks crossing the road, etc. I think you have confused the issue here.

LOCAL GOVT. holds local norms via law. Morals are part and parcel to law. You just want to force your morality on me, without me having a say. That, I refuse to do.

revefsreleets
11-06-2009, 09:32 AM
Once AGAIN, Representative Republic is an important point, and one I addressed.

The representatives of the people are NOT legislating gay marriage into law. The Democratic platform contains a plank specifically addressing this, yet, although the D's control both houses, have yet to act. It seems we are off on a tangent here and need reeled back in.

The people consistently vote NO on this issue, 31 out of 31 times.
The Congress WON'T legislate to change the law.

So we have a simple majority AND the elected representatives failing to legislate in favor of gay marriage. The moral arguments may be interesting and all, but they are largely irrelevant. This issue is simple. The legislative branch has done nothing, and public referendum's have resulted in 31 straight defeats. ONLY a select few liberal courts have upheld this (on the Federal level), so WHY is this still such a contentious issue? It's clear that the people DON'T want this as law, the representatives in Congress agree, and yet we are barraged with this issue at every turn.

The Democrats are, in classic fashion, trying to have it both ways. FAIL.

GBMelBlount
11-06-2009, 10:13 AM
GBMelBlount

Huh? Right wing nut ? You made a decent point why go overboard here?
What are you talking about?


Leftoverhard

GBMel - I have absolutely no problem admitting that you're right - that was uncalled for. I just read one too many Vincent and Cuban Stogie posts and got carried away - not my usual style. And a pint of vodka - yeah I'll blame it on that.

Are you trying to imply that Vincent & Stogie are better at irritating people than I am?

Ouch. That really hurt. :chuckle:

Leftoverhard
11-06-2009, 12:07 PM
Are you trying to imply that Vincent & Stogie are better at irritating people than I am?


You don't even place in that race - you've certainly boiled my blood a few times - but you always seem to be coming from a good place and can recognize a "pint of vodka" when you see one. :hatsoff:

SteelCityMom
11-06-2009, 12:12 PM
Once AGAIN, Representative Republic is an important point, and one I addressed.

The representatives of the people are NOT legislating gay marriage into law. The Democratic platform contains a plank specifically addressing this, yet, although the D's control both houses, have yet to act. It seems we are off on a tangent here and need reeled back in.

The people consistently vote NO on this issue, 31 out of 31 times.
The Congress WON'T legislate to change the law.

So we have a simple majority AND the elected representatives failing to legislate in favor of gay marriage. The moral arguments may be interesting and all, but they are largely irrelevant. This issue is simple. The legislative branch has done nothing, and public referendum's have resulted in 31 straight defeats. ONLY a select few liberal courts have upheld this (on the Federal level), so WHY is this still such a contentious issue? It's clear that the people DON'T want this as law, the representatives in Congress agree, and yet we are barraged with this issue at every turn.

The Democrats are, in classic fashion, trying to have it both ways. FAIL.

While I still agree with you that the Dems are handling this horribly, this is an issue that is simply not going to go away, no matter how many times it's voted down by the people. Women's civil rights and black civil rights movements didn't just go away because they were unpopular, and neither will this. Not sure where the mystery is here. I know many people want the issue to go away and just want it swept under the rug, but it's not going to be plain and simple.

revefsreleets
11-06-2009, 12:27 PM
While I still agree with you that the Dems are handling this horribly, this is an issue that is simply not going to go away, no matter how many times it's voted down by the people. Women's civil rights and black civil rights movements didn't just go away because they were unpopular, and neither will this. Not sure where the mystery is here. I know many people want the issue to go away and just want it swept under the rug, but it's not going to be plain and simple.

I'd just like to see them hop off the fence.

Most of this post was dealing with re-answering questions I'd already answered once or twice or three times before...people really need to read the entire thread before they chime (not directed at you but some other Johnny-come-latelys)....

BlastFurnace
11-06-2009, 12:57 PM
Not sure where the mystery is here. I know many people want the issue to go away and just want it swept under the rug, but it's not going to be plain and simple.

The difference is the way people view this. It's not a sin to be black or a woman. Many people, including myself, view Homosexuality as a sin and will not vote for anything that supports that lifestyle. Like it or not, that is probably a big reason why it's been turned down 31 out of 31 times and will continue to be.

SteelCityMom
11-06-2009, 01:01 PM
The difference is the way people view this. It's not a sin to be black or a woman. Many people, including myself, view Homosexuality as a sin and will not vote for anything that supports that lifestyle. Like it or not, that is probably a big reason why it's been turned down 31 out of 31 times and will continue to be.

Right, and I understand that. Which is why I don't even think it should be left up to the people to decide, because most people are voting based off of religious beliefs.

If there's no law against being gay (like there's no law against being black or being a woman), there shouldn't need to be a law to allow gays to live like straights do, plain and simple. It's part of their constitutional rights to be able to pursue their own happiness. It's not like them being gay and wanting to have all the benefits that married people have is harming anyone.


Besides, there are lots of things that are considered sins that aren't against the law. Drinking (of age), cheating on your spouse, lying (unless it's on the stand), masturbation (in some religions) etc. etc. that aren't illegal. These are personal things though that don't need to be dealt with in law books. People just make their own personal decisions based on their beliefs. If you think it's a sin to get drunk, you don't get drunk. That doesn't mean you can stop others from getting drunk though.

SteelCityMom
11-06-2009, 01:04 PM
I'd just like to see them hop off the fence.

Most of this post was dealing with re-answering questions I'd already answered once or twice or three times before...people really need to read the entire thread before they chime (not directed at you but some other Johnny-come-latelys)....

Oh I would like to see them stop fencing as well, but I doubt it will happen. The gay community fighting for their right to marry won't go away though was my point. Why they keep trusting dems to do right by them is beyond me. They just need to go into the courts and get things done themselves.

revefsreleets
11-06-2009, 01:32 PM
Oh I would like to see them stop fencing as well, but I doubt it will happen. The gay community fighting for their right to marry won't go away though was my point. Why they keep trusting dems to do right by them is beyond me. They just need to go into the courts and get things done themselves.

I have a BIG problem with that...it is NOT the courts job to legislate.

DOMA is the law of the land. One man, one woman. Until that is voted away, be it through popular vote or legislative action, it is the supreme law of the land and CANNOT be overturned.

But it isn't being voted out because it has failed 31 out of 31 times.

And the Democrats lack the cojones to actually keep their word and vote it down.

THAT is my point!

Opinion has nothing to do with it. The law is the law, and the courts can only interpret one man and one woman as one man and one woman. Anything else is far beyond their purview...

And, i will once more bring this around to the point of the thread. IF the Democrats legislate DOMA out, they will be doing so against the will of the people in 31 states who have voted against this 31 straight times.

Which is exactly why they won't.

Dino 6 Rings
11-06-2009, 05:03 PM
Well, IMO, it might just be that some people don't like the cause that is being presented.

Do you think that if women hadn't actively demonstrated for their rights to vote and other equalities that they suddenly would have been handed to them? Same goes for blacks. If there were no activists for their cause, do you think people would have just woken up one day and said...lets let them vote and go to school with us, etc. etc.? Probably not.

Again, there's a lot worse things that gay people could be doing than trying to figure out a way to have a legally binding relationship with one another.

Really want to know?

Gay Activism is about attacking and destroying Christian and especially the Catholic Church.

Time and time again, they have been offered, seriously offered, Civil Unions, that would be Equal in every way to a Traditional Marriage in the Eyes of the Law...but they refused it every time? Why? Because they want the WORD Marriage so they can FORCE Churches to MARRY Them against the will of the Church's Doctrine. THAT is the ACTIVISM that is the Driving Force behind the Entire Movement.

This has NOTHING to do with Equal Rights, for the Record, they Already Have Equal Rights the same as Minorities and Women when it comes to voting and having their voice heard. What they want, what they really truly want is to have the Federal Government Force Churches to Accept them as Equal in the Eyes of God. And that is Never Going To happen.

They need to just accept an Equal Civil Union and drop the word Marriage and I bet it passes in every single state. That would allow for Visiting in the Hospital, Living wills, Wills, Real Estate partnerships, Tax Breaks, the same as any Straight Couple. Just without One Word. Marriage.

Dino 6 Rings
11-06-2009, 05:04 PM
Well, IMO, it might just be that some people don't like the cause that is being presented.

Do you think that if women hadn't actively demonstrated for their rights to vote and other equalities that they suddenly would have been handed to them? Same goes for blacks. If there were no activists for their cause, do you think people would have just woken up one day and said...lets let them vote and go to school with us, etc. etc.? Probably not.

Again, there's a lot worse things that gay people could be doing than trying to figure out a way to have a legally binding relationship with one another.

Really want to know?

Gay Activism is about attacking and destroying Christian and especially the Catholic Church.

Time and time again, they have been offered, seriously offered, Civil Unions, that would be Equal in every way to a Traditional Marriage in the Eyes of the Law...but they refused it every time? Why? Because they want the WORD Marriage so they can FORCE Churches to MARRY Them against the will of the Church's Doctrine. THAT is the ACTIVISM that is the Driving Force behind the Entire Movement.

This has NOTHING to do with Equal Rights, for the Record, they Already Have Equal Rights the same as Minorities and Women when it comes to voting and having their voice heard. What they want, what they really truly want is to have the Federal Government Force Churches to Accept them as Equal in the Eyes of God. And that is Never Going To happen.

They need to just accept an Equal Civil Union and drop the word Marriage and I bet it passes in every single state. That would allow for Visiting in the Hospital, Living wills, Wills, Real Estate partnerships, Tax Breaks, the same as any Straight Couple. Just without One Word. Marriage.

Dino 6 Rings
11-06-2009, 05:07 PM
You can't get fired any more for being gay. Hate crime legislation punishes people for their Thoughts if they attack you for being gay. You can't be denied entry into a Public Establishment or Government Owned Property for being gay.

You can eat wherever you want. You can hold hands in the park, you can kiss, just don't be crude about it because No One is allowed to be crude in public. You can date and visit any bar, club, museum, play, sporting event or whatever you want.

You don't have to sit in the back if you are gay.

You don't have to apologize for being gay.

You are supported and even celebrated in Music and Movies and in Hollywood if you are Gay.

What Rights exactly do you Not Have that every other person in the US has besides one freaking Word? Marriage?

What really do they want? To be accepted in the Eyes of God by being accepted by the Churches that have Cast Them Out as Sinners per their own Doctrine.

Dino 6 Rings
11-06-2009, 05:09 PM
For the record.

Be Gay, I don't care. Just don't do in public anything a married or dating straight couple wouldn't do in public. I don't really care what you do, who you love, who you are with. It has zero effect on me.

But I will not Tolerate the Nonsense that comes out of the Activism of the Gay Community without shouting back at them and calling them out for hating themselves for losing touch with whatever God it is they want to accept them.

Preacher
11-06-2009, 05:12 PM
Really want to know?

Gay Activism is about attacking and destroying Christian and especially the Catholic Church.

Time and time again, they have been offered, seriously offered, Civil Unions, that would be Equal in every way to a Traditional Marriage in the Eyes of the Law...but they refused it every time? Why? Because they want the WORD Marriage so they can FORCE Churches to MARRY Them against the will of the Church's Doctrine. THAT is the ACTIVISM that is the Driving Force behind the Entire Movement.

This has NOTHING to do with Equal Rights, for the Record, they Already Have Equal Rights the same as Minorities and Women when it comes to voting and having their voice heard. What they want, what they really truly want is to have the Federal Government Force Churches to Accept them as Equal in the Eyes of God. And that is Never Going To happen.

They need to just accept an Equal Civil Union and drop the word Marriage and I bet it passes in every single state. That would allow for Visiting in the Hospital, Living wills, Wills, Real Estate partnerships, Tax Breaks, the same as any Straight Couple. Just without One Word. Marriage.

There is actually a number of things they don't have.... but you hit the nail on the head, civil unions will give them all those rights.

I have said it a million times. The government should only hand out certificates of civil union. That is a social contract without any religious implications. Marriage, because of the society and culture which this nation was built, has ALWAYS had a religious overtone to it and as such, is a violation of separation of church and state.

It should ONLY be the religious institutions that are allowed to perform their religious acts, and it should be the state that accepts a civil union of two people, and never should the two entities meet.

If a church wants to marriage a gay couple, that is the church's business. Of course, in my denomination, the church would be removed from fellowship, as it should be.

SteelCityMom
11-06-2009, 05:22 PM
You can't get fired any more for being gay. Hate crime legislation punishes people for their Thoughts if they attack you for being gay. You can't be denied entry into a Public Establishment or Government Owned Property for being gay.

You can eat wherever you want. You can hold hands in the park, you can kiss, just don't be crude about it because No One is allowed to be crude in public. You can date and visit any bar, club, museum, play, sporting event or whatever you want.

You don't have to sit in the back if you are gay.

You don't have to apologize for being gay.

You are supported and even celebrated in Music and Movies and in Hollywood if you are Gay.

What Rights exactly do you Not Have that every other person in the US has besides one freaking Word? Marriage?

What really do they want? To be accepted in the Eyes of God by being accepted by the Churches that have Cast Them Out as Sinners per their own Doctrine.

I guess you haven't read any of my other posts. There are rights that straight couples have that gay couples with civil unions don't have. I'm not going to repeat myself by posting my point about the rights they don't share again.

Also, it's not about the word marriage and it's not about being accepted in the eyes of God. Not all marriages are performed in a church or sanctioned by any particular religion.

SteelCityMom
11-06-2009, 05:24 PM
It should ONLY be the religious institutions that are allowed to perform their religious acts, and it should be the state that accepts a civil union of two people, and never should the two entities meet.


I agree with this completely. BUT, since people (like myself) can get non-denominational marriages, I don't see a problem with same-sex couples getting non-denominational marriages either. Not sure why it has to be a different word for them with limited rights.

SteelCityMom
11-06-2009, 05:32 PM
I have a BIG problem with that...it is NOT the courts job to legislate.

DOMA is the law of the land. One man, one woman. Until that is voted away, be it through popular vote or legislative action, it is the supreme law of the land and CANNOT be overturned.

But it isn't being voted out because it has failed 31 out of 31 times.

And the Democrats lack the cojones to actually keep their word and vote it down.

THAT is my point!

Opinion has nothing to do with it. The law is the law, and the courts can only interpret one man and one woman as one man and one woman. Anything else is far beyond their purview...

And, i will once more bring this around to the point of the thread. IF the Democrats legislate DOMA out, they will be doing so against the will of the people in 31 states who have voted against this 31 straight times.

Which is exactly why they won't.

Part of the courts role in America is to overturn unconstitutional laws passed by the House, Senate, Congress and the President. It's part of what's called checks and balances.

There is a very legitimate argument that DOMA violates many parts of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court, which hasn't yet taken the case to repeal DOMA, has the full power to overturn it. It doesn't necessarily need to be voted down by anyone.

Last I heard, the Respect for Marriage Act (supported by former U.S. Representative Bob Barr (R), original sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, and former President Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996) is being referred to the House Judiciary Committee. I have not heard anything recent about this Act, so I'm not 100% sure on the status of it. This Act would effectively repeal DOMA as well.

Leftoverhard
11-06-2009, 07:16 PM
Right, and I understand that. Which is why I don't even think it should be left up to the people to decide, because most people are voting based off of religious beliefs.

If there's no law against being gay (like there's no law against being black or being a woman), there shouldn't need to be a law to allow gays to live like straights do, plain and simple. It's part of their constitutional rights to be able to pursue their own happiness. It's not like them being gay and wanting to have all the benefits that married people have is harming anyone.


Besides, there are lots of things that are considered sins that aren't against the law. Drinking (of age), cheating on your spouse, lying (unless it's on the stand), masturbation (in some religions) etc. etc. that aren't illegal. These are personal things though that don't need to be dealt with in law books. People just make their own personal decisions based on their beliefs. If you think it's a sin to get drunk, you don't get drunk. That doesn't mean you can stop others from getting drunk though.

Stop being so rational and making such good points. Someone might actually have to agree with you.

Leftoverhard
11-06-2009, 07:35 PM
What they want, what they really truly want is to have the Federal Government Force Churches to Accept them as Equal in the Eyes of God. And that is Never Going To happen.

This isn't about "forcing" churches to do anything and you know that.

On the other hand, this whole Eyes of God business is pretty strange.
Why should someone care what the Eyes of God focus on (other than themselves, if they believe in God)anyway? I thought it was a personal relationship. I've never understood the concept of a person caring at all what a God thinks of anyone else other than the person having the relationship with the God.

cubanstogie
11-06-2009, 08:50 PM
Stop being so rational and making such good points. Someone might actually have to agree with you.

Rational is not letting the people decide That makes zero sense. Someone might agree with her your right, someone who uses no logic. If you don't want the people to decide, you are free to move to China or Russia.

tony hipchest
11-06-2009, 09:01 PM
I also don't buy for a SECOND that this is about discrimination. I live with my girlfriend and I, too, am denied all the benefits that married people enjoy. My choice is to marry her or be denied all the rights and privileges included in marriage. If the law of the land states that marriage is ONLY between men and women, then they aren't technically being discriminated against at all, because their choice is the same as mine: Marry someone of the same sex or do without the benefits.
yeah, but you live in that shithole known as ohio. :chuckle:

in some states there is "common law marriage". while you rip democrats for being totally out of touch with reality, bill richardson provided for every state workers "life partner" to have health benefits that are provided for all "married" workers.

and it wasnt discriminatory and limited to gays. in your case, if you provide proof to the state that you and your girlfriend were committed "life partners" (assuming you or her worked a state job) you would be included on the state paid health coverage plan.

for instance, if you provided a work "change of status form" and 2 years of w-2's sent to her address, youu would be considered a "life partner" and thus been covered.

if you provide evidence that you are paying the bills at her address for an extended period of time, then you can be covered.

so on and so forth...

cubanstogie
11-06-2009, 09:08 PM
Right, and I understand that. Which is why I don't even think it should be left up to the people to decide, because most people are voting based off of religious beliefs.

If there's no law against being gay (like there's no law against being black or being a woman), there shouldn't need to be a law to allow gays to live like straights do, plain and simple. It's part of their constitutional rights to be able to pursue their own happiness. It's not like them being gay and wanting to have all the benefits that married people have is harming anyone.


Besides, there are lots of things that are considered sins that aren't against the law. Drinking (of age), cheating on your spouse, lying (unless it's on the stand), masturbation (in some religions) etc. etc. that aren't illegal. These are personal things though that don't need to be dealt with in law books. People just make their own personal decisions based on their beliefs. If you think it's a sin to get drunk, you don't get drunk. That doesn't mean you can stop others from getting drunk though.

So whom may I ask do you suppose should decide. Gavin Newsome, Nancy Pelosi, or on of the Clinton sisters. You want to give more power to the government? Oh, only when its a liberal administration. People make decisions based on religion , education, life experience and the way they were brought up. Religion is an important part of life for many people, there is absolutely nothing wrong with voting based upon your religious beliefs. It is no different than voting on beliefs acquired through education, past experience and common sense.

cubanstogie
11-06-2009, 09:10 PM
yeah, but you live in that shithole known as ohio.

in some states there is "common law marriage". while you rip democrats for being totally out of touch with reality, bill richardson provided for every state workers "life partner" to have health benefits that are provided for all "married" workers.

and it wasnt discriminatory and limited to gays. in your case, if you provide proof to the state that you and your girlfriend were committed "life partners" (assuming you or her worked a state job) you would be included on the state paid health coverage plan.

for instance, if you provided a work "change of status form" and 2 years of w-2's sent to her address, youu would be considered a "life partner" and thus been covered.

if you provide evidence that you are paying the bills at her address for an extended period of time, then you can be covered.

so on and so forth...

Richardson, isn't he a crook or something.

tony hipchest
11-06-2009, 09:17 PM
Richardson, isn't he a crook or something.didnt your state put pelosi into office?

is a freaking califruitian really gonna start knocking new mexico politics? LMAO!

:rofl:

cubanstogie
11-06-2009, 09:23 PM
didnt your state put pelosi into office?

is a freaking califruitian really gonna start knocking new mexico politics? LMAO!

:rofl:

just proves you can't choose your neighbors. I would have thought you would be happy with California politicians. They seem to have the same views you do, from what I have read on this board.

tony hipchest
11-06-2009, 09:31 PM
just proves you can't choose your neighbors. I would have thought you would be happy with California politicians. They seem to have the same views you do, from what I have read on this board. and i wouldve never thought you knew how to actually read. :huh:

call us both amazed.

(isnt conan the governator still the ruler of your westward country?)

like alaska, secession is still an option... :laughing:

i''l take my democratic governor over your pretend governor anyday.

SteelCityMom
11-06-2009, 10:18 PM
Rational is not letting the people decide That makes zero sense. Someone might agree with her your right, someone who uses no logic. If you don't want the people to decide, you are free to move to China or Russia.

So it's irrational to want the 14th amendment to be upheld for ALL citizens? It shouldn't be left up to a vote as to who the constitution covers and who it doesn't lol. Trust me, I looked into both sides of the same sex marriage argument, and made a very logical choice as to which side of the fence I sit on.

SteelCityMom
11-06-2009, 10:28 PM
So whom may I ask do you suppose should decide. Gavin Newsome, Nancy Pelosi, or on of the Clinton sisters. You want to give more power to the government? Oh, only when its a liberal administration. People make decisions based on religion , education, life experience and the way they were brought up. Religion is an important part of life for many people, there is absolutely nothing wrong with voting based upon your religious beliefs. It is no different than voting on beliefs acquired through education, past experience and common sense.

LOL...no, this isn't about giving more power to the government. And don't confuse me with a liberal or a democrat...or even a republican. I'm a registered libertarian. That means I want even less government involvement than republicans do.

I understand religion is an important part of life for many people, and I really could care less about that. You can be as religious as you want to be, and apply to YOUR personal life any way you want to. When you start infringing on the rights of others is when I have a problem.

I'm in no way trying to make a personal attack on you with my statements. I'm just saying it is unconstitutional to not afford gay couples the same legal benefits that straight couples enjoy. Nobody is saying that certain churches are going to have to marry them, that's up to the churches to decide.

And did you ever stop to think that a Satanist couple can be married but a gay couple can't? There's no law against it, yet I'm pretty sure that being a Satanist would be seen as a sin by every church I could think of (except for the Church of Satan). Why do you think that is? Maybe it's because religion is not supposed to be mixed with the laws of the US. I'm willing to bet that many Christians would vote no on Satanists being allowed to have the title and benefits of a marriage if they could. But there's a reason that would never be put up to a vote, even though it deals with religious beliefs and moral opinions.

I understand why you would vote the way you would, but you have to understand that a persons constitutional rights should not have to be voted on by the masses.

I feel like I need to make it known that I don't disagree with the States deciding their own laws on this matter for themselves, and I feel this on a number of different issues. What I'm more focused on is it being recognized on a federal level. As it stands now there are states that allow same sex marriages, these marriages are not recognized on a federal level and will not be recognized as legal in states that have bans. This is the major problem that I have.

Preacher
11-07-2009, 02:35 AM
The Constitution. That's the way it works; we all get together, decide what the government can and cannot do, and we write it down.
We have already done this, and an amendment is still an option. But as it stands now, the rules say that the government has no role in this debate.

Nope.

The FEDERAL govt. has no role in this debate. The local and state govt. has a LARGE role in this debate. After all the Constitution is a FEDERAL GOVT. Document.

Not a state govt. document.

SteelCityMom
11-07-2009, 10:51 AM
Yup. It was incorporated via the 14th Amendment, meaning that your State and local governments can't violate anyone's rights either.

No, Preach is correct. The States have the right to make their own constitutions and laws and these should not be violated by the Federal gov't. The problem is though, that even in the States where things like same sex marriage and medicinal marijuana are legal, the laws are not recognized and upheld on a federal level. The federal gov't has mingled too much into the affairs of the State. DOMA is a federal act that is unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that a State that doesn't have an amendment like the 14th amendment can't make and pass a law similar to DOMA and enforce it on a State level.

However, most states have very similar constitutions to the federal constitution, and I'm willing to bet that most every state could make a case that their laws against same sex marriages are unconstitutional.

Steelboy84
11-07-2009, 11:56 AM
We had someone like her in the white house for eight years. Look what happened to our 'fiscal conservatism".

No, I prefer the GOP goes back to a fiscal conservative mindset. Problems cannot be fixed by doling out money.

IMO, what happened here, is that a CONSERVATIVE came a hair's breadth away from winning in a liberal state. That fact will do more to move the entire discussion more conservative than putting one rhino in office.

"Look what happened to our 'fiscal conservatism".

$11 trillion in national debt, over a $1 trillion budget deficit, and an $800 billion bailout of banks in 2008.

"Fiscal conservatism" got washed down the river by Mr. Bush.

SteelCityMom
11-07-2009, 12:01 PM
SCM,
The States were stripped of their power to legislate marriage rights with the first case on the basis of 14th Amendment minority status. The second majority opinion extends that protection specifically to gays and lesbians.
In order for any discriminatory law to be Constitutional, it must

USSC majority opinion, Romer v Evans.

The "traditional marriage" crowd cannot meet this simple test.

Now, we can get into all sorts of disputes about our opinions of how things should be, but the way things are is this: The 14th Amendment is in our Constitution and thus every bit as valid as the rest of it.
The Federal government does have the power to override the States wherever they seek to restrict individual liberty, and the States ratified that.

-Constitution, amended

Right, in this case you are correct (and excellent research). I was thinking on more of a broader scale and wasn't taking into consideration the complete wording of the 14th amendment. Like I said as well, pretty much every state has an amendment with similar wording as the 14th amendment in it and there could be constitutional cases made on both a state and federal level concerning same sex marriage.

Another case that deserves mention here is Loving vs. Virginia which was a supreme court case that ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. This was also a ruling based mainly off of the 14th amendment. I suspect we'll eventually see something similar with same sex marriages.

cubanstogie
11-07-2009, 02:30 PM
you guys can quote and interpret things anyway you want. Bottom line people don't want gay marriage. Just like the majority want the pledge of allegiance in school. Some freak Michael Newdow tried to use case law, the constitution and any other article he could get his greasy liberal hands on to try and get that stopped. The majority spoke, same as gay marriage. We all have the same rights. marriage is already fragile and a joke for most people. Why belittle it even more. I am pretty sure the saying goes " I now pronounce you man and wife" for a reason. Its a never ending battle with u libs trying to destroy all that is sacred. Lets take in god we trust off currency, lets change marriage, lets ruin the pledge of allegiance . Hey what about the star spangled banner. And last but not least Christmas. Xmas is offensive to all non christians. Even though the majority of Americans are christians lets phfuk up that for people too. Hey lets take their money too and give it to people who don't want to work. The list could go on forever. I couldn't even begin to see how you could justify any of it, except "misery loves company"

SteelCityMom
11-07-2009, 02:53 PM
you guys can quote and interpret things anyway you want. Bottom line people don't want gay marriage. Just like the majority want the pledge of allegiance in school. Some freak Michael Newdow tried to use case law, the constitution and any other article he could get his greasy liberal hands on to try and get that stopped. The majority spoke, same as gay marriage. We all have the same rights. marriage is already fragile and a joke for most people. Why belittle it even more. I am pretty sure the saying goes " I now pronounce you man and wife" for a reason. Its a never ending battle with u libs trying to destroy all that is sacred. Lets take in god we trust off currency, lets change marriage, lets ruin the pledge of allegiance . Hey what about the star spangled banner. And last but not least Christmas. Xmas is offensive to all non christians. Even though the majority of Americans are christians lets phfuk up that for people too. Hey lets take their money too and give it to people who don't want to work. The list could go on forever. I couldn't even begin to see how you could justify any of it, except "misery loves company"

Wow. Talk about going overboard. Are you just incapable of rational debate, or does it always anger you this much when people disagree with you?

The smartest thing you may have said in this little rant though was that we all have the same rights. Or does that just mean straight folks to you?

And quit trying to deflect this debate by calling everyone who is in favor of allowing same sex marriage "u libs". That would be just as demeaning if I were constantly using personal attacks like "u bible thumpers". It's unnecessary.

You're honestly the only one who comes off as miserable in this whole discussion. I'm sorry that not everybody in the country is Christian and that not everybody wants religion mixed with their laws. You may just have to deal with that though.

I can tell you right now, that it probably won't make much of a difference in a Supreme Court ruling what the Christian populous wants when it concerns the written laws of the constitution.

I'm pretty much done with this though, as this is becoming like talking to a brick wall. I'm very sorry you couldn't handle this rationally.

BlastFurnace
11-07-2009, 03:46 PM
you guys can quote and interpret things anyway you want. Bottom line people don't want gay marriage. Just like the majority want the pledge of allegiance in school. Some freak Michael Newdow tried to use case law, the constitution and any other article he could get his greasy liberal hands on to try and get that stopped. The majority spoke, same as gay marriage. We all have the same rights. marriage is already fragile and a joke for most people. Why belittle it even more. I am pretty sure the saying goes " I now pronounce you man and wife" for a reason. Its a never ending battle with u libs trying to destroy all that is sacred. Lets take in god we trust off currency, lets change marriage, lets ruin the pledge of allegiance . Hey what about the star spangled banner. And last but not least Christmas. Xmas is offensive to all non christians. Even though the majority of Americans are christians lets phfuk up that for people too. Hey lets take their money too and give it to people who don't want to work. The list could go on forever. I couldn't even begin to see how you could justify any of it, except "misery loves company"

:applaudit::applaudit::applaudit::applaudit::appla udit::applaudit:

Beautiful!

BlastFurnace
11-07-2009, 03:50 PM
Wow. Talk about going overboard. Are you just incapable of rational debate, or does it always anger you this much when people disagree with you?

The smartest thing you may have said in this little rant though was that we all have the same rights. Or does that just mean straight folks to you?

And quit trying to deflect this debate by calling everyone who is in favor of allowing same sex marriage "u libs". That would be just as demeaning if I were constantly using personal attacks like "u bible thumpers". It's unnecessary.

You're honestly the only one who comes off as miserable in this whole discussion. I'm sorry that not everybody in the country is Christian and that not everybody wants religion mixed with their laws. You may just have to deal with that though.

I can tell you right now, that it probably won't make much of a difference in a Supreme Court ruling what the Christian populous wants when it concerns the written laws of the constitution.

I'm pretty much done with this though, as this is becoming like talking to a brick wall. I'm very sorry you couldn't handle this rationally.

Actually, what he wrote is what a lot of people feel. Unfortunately, intolerance from the media and people like the media intimidates most people from speaking out. People act like it's only the Republicans that display intolerance, but it's the other side that displays just as much...if not more. The American people don't want these things put into law. They have voted on it.

SteelCityMom
11-07-2009, 04:02 PM
Actually, what he wrote is what a lot of people feel. Unfortunately, intolerance from the media and people like the media intimidates most people from speaking out. People act like it's only the Republicans that display intolerance, but it's the other side that displays just as much...if not more. The American people don't want these things put into law. They have voted on it.

I understand his frustration, and actually agree with a lot of his points that he began to rant about, but they have no place in this particular discussion. Trust me, I'm no fan of the media and dems (for the most part).

The point that has begun to be discussed here is if the people actually have any right to vote on something that is already covered by the 14th amendment. For this to happen, they would have to make a separate amendment to the constitution to overrule certain articles in the 14th amendment. That's just how it works. That's how the Supreme Court will eventually see it (I would think).

I already posted some information on the Loving vs. Virginia Supreme Court case which was a case that used the 14th amendment to overrule states laws on interracial marriages. There was no vote by the masses on this, just a correct Supreme Court ruling on an amendment that was ratified by the states. I don't know why this is such a hard concept to understand.

I enjoy a rational debate. I do not enjoy it when people get argumentative and begin deflecting and belittling when someone does not agree with them completely.

GoSlash27
11-07-2009, 04:29 PM
The point that has begun to be discussed here is if the people actually have any right to vote on something that is already covered by the 14th amendment. For this to happen, they would have to make a separate amendment to the constitution to overrule certain articles in the 14th amendment. That's just how it works. That's how the Supreme Court will eventually see it (I would think).
Thank you, SCM. Well- put.
I'll go a little farther and say that anybody can support the Constitution when it goes their way. It's a little harder to support the Constitution when it overrules what you'd like. Anybody who wants to think of themselves as "conservative" should commit to obeyinging the Constitution 100% of the time, like it or not.

Preacher
11-07-2009, 04:35 PM
Likewise, you can rant and pound your fist all you want, but what the "people want" does not figure into this.

And that is why we have--

Health care
enviromentalism
Guns Laws
Seizing of farm lands (by the epa)
tax increases
bailouts
etc. etc.

shoved down our throat. Because some people think that the govt. is no longer about what the people want, its about what those who govern think it should be.

That is arrogance beyond pale.

BlastFurnace
11-07-2009, 04:37 PM
And that is why we have--

Health care
enviromentalism
Guns Laws
ceasing of farm lands (from epa)
tax increases
bailouts
etc. etc.

shoved down our throat. Because some people think that the govt. is no longer about what the people want, its about what those who govern think it should be.

That is arrogance beyond pale.

:applaudit::applaudit::applaudit:

BlastFurnace
11-07-2009, 04:38 PM
Likewise, you can rant and pound your fist all you want, but what the "people want" does not figure into this.

It sure does figure into this. That's why it's been turned down 31 out of 31 times. The people don't want it.

GoSlash27
11-07-2009, 04:47 PM
And that is why we have--

Health care
enviromentalism
Guns Laws
ceasing of farm lands (from epa)
tax increases
bailouts
etc. etc.

shoved down our throat. Because some people think that the govt. is no longer about what the people want, its about what those who govern think it should be.

That is arrogance beyond pale.
All due respect, but bull$h!t. The reason we get all that crap shoved down our throats is because ultimately liberals don't respect the Constitution any more than the so-called "conservatives" do.

Preach, how are you gonna make any case for containing this sort of stuff while trying to subvert the clear mandate of the Constitution at the same time??

You can't. People dismiss you as a partisan hypocrite.
I'm tryin' to make the case against all of this blatantly unconstitutional legislation, but this is not the sort of argument that carries any weight when it's proponents don't practice what they...uhh...preach... :noidea:

Preacher
11-07-2009, 05:01 PM
All due respect, but bull$h!t. The reason we get all that crap shoved down our throats is because ultimately liberals don't respect the Constitution any more than the so-called "conservatives" do.

Preach, how are you gonna make any case for containing this sort of stuff while trying to subvert the clear mandate of the Constitution at the same time??

You can't. People dismiss you as a partisan hypocrite.
I'm tryin' to make the case against all of this blatantly unconstitutional legislation, but this is not the sort of argument that carries any weight when it's proponents don't practice what they...uhh...preach... :noidea:

Very simple. You don't legislate from teh bench. If you want a law passed, let the STATES pass the laws, which are then held up to a consitutional standard. If rights are being taken away, they are only taken away by due process.

In the case of "gay rights" there are no rights taken away, since a gay person has the same right as anyone else, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, there is no consitutional issue. Want that changed? Then there is two ways to do it. 1. Create a constitutional amendent or 2. put it to a state vote.

My list illustrates perfectly the problem. When you (general) have a government that says WE think it should be this way... you open yourself up for all types of problems.

That is EXACTLY what happened in California. The GOVERNMENT, via the court system, said it should be THIS WAY (gay marriage). THe people rose up and slapped the govt. down, saying NO it shouldn't. That is EXACTLY how it should work.

Now, it will take a constitutional amendment to change the constitution. Again, that is EXACTLY how it should be.

GoSlash27
11-07-2009, 05:29 PM
Very simple. You don't legislate from teh bench. If you want a law passed, let the STATES pass the laws, which are then held up to a consitutional standard.
I'm sure you're aware of the self- contradiction in that statement. Who, exactly, is to "hold" these laws "up to a Constitutional standard"?
There is a mighty big difference between legislating from the bench and adhering with strict construction.
In the case of "gay rights" there are no rights taken away, since a gay person has the same right as anyone else, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, there is no consitutional issue.
Referring to Loving v Virginia again (they already slapped down this argument)
Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages.

Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose.

cubanstogie
11-07-2009, 05:47 PM
Likewise, you can rant and pound your fist all you want, but what the "people want" does not figure into this.
you're in denial. The people have spoke 31 times. It has and does figure into that.

SteelCityMom
11-07-2009, 06:13 PM
I'm sure you're aware of the self- contradiction in that statement. Who, exactly, is to "hold" these laws "up to a Constitutional standard"?
There is a mighty big difference between legislating from the bench and adhering with strict construction.

Constitution? We don't neeeeed no steeeenking Constitution!

Remember? The people have spoken 31 out of 31 times. This obviously means the Constitution is null and void (even though there's no amendment to counter the 14th amendment).

/sarcasm

cubanstogie
11-07-2009, 06:24 PM
Wow. Talk about going overboard. Are you just incapable of rational debate, or does it always anger you this much when people disagree with you?

The smartest thing you may have said in this little rant though was that we all have the same rights. Or does that just mean straight folks to you?

And quit trying to deflect this debate by calling everyone who is in favor of allowing same sex marriage "u libs". That would be just as demeaning if I were constantly using personal attacks like "u bible thumpers". It's unnecessary.

You're honestly the only one who comes off as miserable in this whole discussion. I'm sorry that not everybody in the country is Christian and that not everybody wants religion mixed with their laws. You may just have to deal with that though.

I can tell you right now, that it probably won't make much of a difference in a Supreme Court ruling what the Christian populous wants when it concerns the written laws of the constitution.

I'm pretty much done with this though, as this is becoming like talking to a brick wall. I'm very sorry you couldn't handle this rationally.

your definition of irrational is quite different than mine obviously. Doesn't that fact that the majority of people have voted against it speak volumes. You seem to choose to ignore that. My opinion has nothing to do with religion. Unlike most religions I don't think it is a sin to be gay. I have a good friend who is gay, although I rarely talk to him anymore because I have a wife and daughter and the only time he calls me is to ask for a sponser for some Aids run or bike run. Our lives have taken different paths. I have no problem having him and his partner over for dinner and even explaining to my 6 year old daughter about their relationship. I do have a problem calling it a marriage, and what legalizing it could do.(snow ball effect). I don't like things forced down my throat. Such as the atheists trying to ruin Xmas for all, due to them not believing, or the pledge of allegiance kicked out of school because of the minority. If you don't like it, don't say or don't celebrate but don't force on people who enjoy the little bit of tradition we have left in this country.

SteelCityMom
11-07-2009, 06:36 PM
your definition of irrational is quite different than mine obviously.

I guess so lol.

Doesn't that fact that the majority of people have voted against it speak volumes. You seem to choose to ignore that.

I have not chosen to ignore that. I've heard it every time it's been mentioned. I'm just saying it's meaningless. Listen, there's already been a proposed amendment that has failed to be pushed through 4 or 5 different times, called the Federal Marriage Amendment. It would effectively ban gays from having the right to be married, and would limit marriage to one man and one woman. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the support of two thirds of each house of Congress, and ratification by three fourths of the states (currently thirty-eight). The 14th amendment needs to be upheld until it is struck down by another amendment. You have chosen to ignore this.

Such as the atheists trying to ruin Xmas for all, due to them not believing, or the pledge of allegiance kicked out of school because of the minority. If you don't like it, don't say or don't celebrate but don't force on people who enjoy the little bit of tradition we have left in this country.

This has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but if it makes you feel any better, I'm an atheist and I agree with you on this. I could care less whether Christmas is called Christmas, Xmas or Baby Jesus Day...I honestly just saw Xmas as somewhat of a shortening of the word, more used for writing convenience than anything else. Heck, my mom puts her Christmas decorations into boxes marked "Xmas stuff", and she was raised Presbyterian.

GoSlash27
11-07-2009, 07:21 PM
Doesn't that fact that the majority of people have voted against it speak volumes.
No. No it doesn't.
It's not that I'm ignoring that fact, it's just that (as SCM said) it's irrelevant.
A majority of Americans supported slavery. That doesn't make it right. What makes it *right* is that it conforms to the original intent of the Constitution.
Everything that our government must conform to the Constitution first and majority opinion second.
That's the way representative republics work. Otherwise, we're dealing with 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. :noidea:

revefsreleets
11-07-2009, 08:53 PM
I'm not sure I understand.

"Marriage is one man and one woman" is open to interpretation?

Really?

RunWillieRun
11-07-2009, 10:14 PM
Demoncrats in the House just passed the Health Care bill. They needed 218 votes. They got 220. With such a huge majority and it just squeaked by tells you how absurd this whole thing is.

Just pray this bullshit never gets through the Senate and every member of Congress who votes for this thing gets voted (or run) out of office ASAP.

This is the kind of crap that happens when these damn liberals are in charge.

Preacher
11-08-2009, 12:22 AM
I'm sure you're aware of the self- contradiction in that statement. Who, exactly, is to "hold" these laws "up to a Constitutional standard"?
There is a mighty big difference between legislating from the bench and adhering with strict construction.

Referring to Loving v Virginia again (they already slapped down this argument)

I have NO clue what inter-racial marriage has to do with homosexual marriage.

One is deciding based solely on skin color who one can and cannot marry. The other is changing the 7000 year old definition of marriage, which the good people of Maine and 30+ other states of chosen not to do.

You can try all you want. But you are not going to prove that gay marriage= interracial marriage.

It is simple. Inter-racial marriage, the parts still fit. This reality still sits at the core of the issue marriage... and is the core of our law whether you like it or not.

Preacher
11-08-2009, 12:26 AM
No. No it doesn't.
It's not that I'm ignoring that fact, it's just that (as SCM said) it's irrelevant.
A majority of Americans supported slavery. That doesn't make it right. What makes it *right* is that it conforms to the original intent of the Constitution.
Everything that our government must conform to the Constitution first and majority opinion second.
That's the way representative republics work. Otherwise, we're dealing with 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. :noidea:

What you are not understanding, is that you think it is YOU who gets to decide what are "rights" by the way YOU interpret the constitution, and anyone who disagrees with this, is wrong. Here's a fact. Others see the same constitution and read it differently.

So why is it that your view is better than theirs? More right?

Obviously, 30 plus states have determined your view is wrong. It is not a right.

Honestly, the problem is this nation is we have too many lawyers in the Supreme court and not enough people trained in hermeneutics.

GoSlash27
11-08-2009, 07:57 AM
One is deciding based solely on skin color who one can and cannot marry. The other is changing the 7000 year old definition of marriage, which the good people of Maine and 30+ other states of chosen not to do.

You can try all you want. But you are not going to prove that gay marriage= interracial marriage.
I have already proven it upstream.

So why is it that your view is better than theirs? More right?
Yup. All the facts are on my side, which is why you're attacking me instead of attacking the argument.

Obviously, 30 plus states have determined your view is wrong. It is not a right.
Circular logic. For the thousandth time: rights are not subject to popular opinion. The only opinions that matter are those of the people who ratified the applicable amendments and the nine Supreme Court justices.

SteelCityMom
11-08-2009, 09:57 AM
I have NO clue what inter-racial marriage has to do with homosexual marriage.

One is deciding based solely on skin color who one can and cannot marry. The other is changing the 7000 year old definition of marriage, which the good people of Maine and 30+ other states of chosen not to do.

You can try all you want. But you are not going to prove that gay marriage= interracial marriage.

It is simple. Inter-racial marriage, the parts still fit. This reality still sits at the core of the issue marriage... and is the core of our law whether you like it or not.

The reason that the court case that allowed interracial marriage across all states is relevant is because states were voting on and making their own laws concerning interracial marriages. The Supreme Court decided (in an unpopular 9-0 decision) that this was in violation of the 14th amendment, since people of all colors are considered citizens of the US (just like gays are considered citizens of the US) and therefore should be protected under the same laws as white folks. If you don't see the parallels, I don't know what to tell you.

You also need to remember that 31 states deciding they don't want same sex marriage is essentially meaningless. It would take 38 states (minimum) to ratify the amendment that would effectively say that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is the only way to truly nullify the 14th amendment. If I had a crystal ball it would tell me that within the next 10 years (maybe 15 at the most), the Supreme Court will see it the same way.

Unless someone shows me some proof that gays are somehow not considered US citizens, then they need to be held to the same substantive due process rights that the 14th amendment gives them.

It's not right that we (as a nation) would allow gay couples to be who they are, and even allow them to adopt children (which they have proven to be very capable parents), and then strip away their rights as parents and spouses in difficult situations (i.e. deciding who takes care of their child in case of emergency or tragedy, hospital visitation rights, who takes care of their spouses debts after a death, etc. etc...things that straight couples don't have to worry about).

cubanstogie
11-08-2009, 04:07 PM
The reason that the court case that allowed interracial marriage across all states is relevant is because states were voting on and making their own laws concerning interracial marriages. The Supreme Court decided (in an unpopular 9-0 decision) that this was in violation of the 14th amendment, since people of all colors are considered citizens of the US (just like gays are considered citizens of the US) and therefore should be protected under the same laws as white folks. If you don't see the parallels, I don't know what to tell you.

You also need to remember that 31 states deciding they don't want same sex marriage is essentially meaningless. It would take 38 states (minimum) to ratify the amendment that would effectively say that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is the only way to truly nullify the 14th amendment. If I had a crystal ball it would tell me that within the next 10 years (maybe 15 at the most), the Supreme Court will see it the same way.

Unless someone shows me some proof that gays are somehow not considered US citizens, then they need to be held to the same substantive due process rights that the 14th amendment gives them.

It's not right that we (as a nation) would allow gay couples to be who they are, and even allow them to adopt children (which they have proven to be very capable parents), and then strip away their rights as parents and spouses in difficult situations (i.e. deciding who takes care of their child in case of emergency or tragedy, hospital visitation rights, who takes care of their spouses debts after a death, etc. etc...things that straight couples don't have to worry about).

You really don't think you are comparing apples to oranges here? Come on interracial marriage to gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and woman. It doesn't specify race. It does specify gender though. Why has this been on the ballot 31 times if the people aren't allowed to make the decision. That sounds like an awful lot of wasted money to me. Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't see it your away, or they would be allowing it.

tony hipchest
11-08-2009, 04:50 PM
Honestly, the problem is this nation is we have too many lawyers in the Supreme court and not enough people trained in hermeneutics.
preacher brings up a good point. what about all the hermaphrodites and trans genderds. they didnt chose to be so. dont they pay taxes as well?

what about the chick with dicks or men with tits?

SteelCityMom
11-08-2009, 05:03 PM
You really don't think you are comparing apples to oranges here? Come on interracial marriage to gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and woman. It doesn't specify race. It does specify gender though. Why has this been on the ballot 31 times if the people aren't allowed to make the decision. That sounds like an awful lot of wasted money to me. Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't see it your away, or they would be allowing it.

The issue hasn't even been brought to the Supreme Court YET. So nobody knows which way they'll see it at this point. That's why I keep saying "I'm willing to bet the Supreme Court will see it the same way they saw Loving vs. Virginia". Most states at the time had to be forced to allow interracial marriage.

And no, I don't think I'm comparing apples to oranges...unless you're trying to tell me that homosexuals aren't considered US citizens and shouldn't be covered under the 14th amendment.

It has been allowed to be on the ballot 31 times because there has been no Supreme Court decision on whether it should be allowed to be on states ballots or not. The amendment that would effectively say that once and for all marriage is between one man and one woman has been shot down all 4 times it has been proposed, so that tells me that the federal government is not ready to carve into stone that they are ready to strike down parts of the 14th amendment. It might end up being nothing but a waste of the states money if the Supreme Court rules against DOMA and in favor of the 14th amendment...because all those ballots will have been for nothing.

DOMA isn't an amendment, and can be easily struck down by the Supreme Court, when and if they take the case...and I'm of the thinking that they should, and probably will take a case of this nature in the near future. In respect to other civil rights movements, the gay rights movement is relatively young, but it will eventually end up in a Supreme Court case.

Listen, I'm not going to argue this anymore. I've made my points...and they are largely being ignored, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. We're going to have to just agree to disagree on this and see what the future eventually brings.

GoSlash27
11-08-2009, 05:11 PM
Preacher,

I have said it a million times. The government should only hand out certificates of civil union. That is a social contract without any religious implications. Marriage, because of the society and culture which this nation was built, has ALWAYS had a religious overtone to it and as such, is a violation of separation of church and state.

It should ONLY be the religious institutions that are allowed to perform their religious acts, and it should be the state that accepts a civil union of two people, and never should the two entities meet.

If a church wants to marriage a gay couple, that is the church's business. Of course, in my denomination, the church would be removed from fellowship, as it should be.

See... that's exactly what I'm saying. I agree 100%

SteelCityMom
11-08-2009, 05:25 PM
Preacher,


See... that's exactly what I'm saying. I agree 100%

Yes, I agreed with this as well, but only if they give people with civil unions the same legal rights as people with marriages. That's ultimately what I want to see changed. If they won't change it though, then same sex couples are just going to keep pushing for marriage.

GoSlash27
11-08-2009, 05:38 PM
Again, agreed. The sticking point is over the word, not the policy. This whole debate could be laid to rest and we could move on to more pressing issues if we could simply remove the word "marriage" and it's religious connotations from the picture.

cubanstogie
11-08-2009, 05:45 PM
The issue hasn't even been brought to the Supreme Court YET. So nobody knows which way they'll see it at this point. That's why I keep saying "I'm willing to bet the Supreme Court will see it the same way they saw Loving vs. Virginia". Most states at the time had to be forced to allow interracial marriage.

And no, I don't think I'm comparing apples to oranges...unless you're trying to tell me that homosexuals aren't considered US citizens and shouldn't be covered under the 14th amendment.

It has been allowed to be on the ballot 31 times because there has been no Supreme Court decision on whether it should be allowed to be on states ballots or not. The amendment that would effectively say that once and for all marriage is between one man and one woman has been shot down all 4 times it has been proposed, so that tells me that the federal government is not ready to carve into stone that they are ready to strike down parts of the 14th amendment. It might end up being nothing but a waste of the states money if the Supreme Court rules against DOMA and in favor of the 14th amendment...because all those ballots will have been for nothing.

DOMA isn't an amendment, and can be easily struck down by the Supreme Court, when and if they take the case...and I'm of the thinking that they should, and probably will take a case of this nature in the near future. In respect to other civil rights movements, the gay rights movement is relatively young, but it will eventually end up in a Supreme Court case.

Listen, I'm not going to argue this anymore. I've made my points...and they are largely being ignored, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. We're going to have to just agree to disagree on this and see what the future eventually brings.
I guess I am just a simpleton, the people voted and because some don't like the outcome lawsuits are the next resort. A lot of propositions were voted in I don't like here in CA, such as minors able to have abortion without parental notification. I have to accept that, I hate it but I am not out trying to change it. To top it off, people against gay marriages are labeled bigots and homophobes.

Preacher
11-08-2009, 05:50 PM
It's not right that we (as a nation) would allow gay couples to be who they are, and even allow them to adopt children (which they have proven to be very capable parents), and then strip away their rights as parents and spouses in difficult situations (i.e. deciding who takes care of their child in case of emergency or tragedy, hospital visitation rights, who takes care of their spouses debts after a death, etc. etc...things that straight couples don't have to worry about).

That is normal when law supersedes common sense. In the same way, It is illegal for a woman to drink and hurt a child in pregnancy. It is illegal for a man to murder a baby, but if the woman chooses to abort the exact same child at the exact same time, it is a choice?

THat is just as "not right" as a nation.

And as to the amendment, it specifically changed the definition of a black person to being fully human instead of 2/3rds human by estabilshing rights.

There is no amendment which had redefined marriage as an entity between anything other than a man and woman.

If people want that change, then they need to push a constitutional amendment to do so.

GBMelBlount
11-08-2009, 06:35 PM
A lot of propositions were voted in I don't like here in CA, such as minors able to have abortion without parental notification.

Yep, nothing like a government that usurps a parents authority over their own children.......as though the government feels they are the rightful parents of our children.........seems awfully arrogant.....and scary.

We pay (taxes) for our children to have abortion's without us having the right to know. That is sickening.

Ooooops, sorry Tony, didn't mean to get off track. :sofunny:

SteelCityMom
11-08-2009, 06:56 PM
That is normal when law supersedes common sense. In the same way, It is illegal for a woman to drink and hurt a child in pregnancy. It is illegal for a man to murder a baby, but if the woman chooses to abort the exact same child at the exact same time, it is a choice?

THat is just as "not right" as a nation.

And as to the amendment, it specifically changed the definition of a black person to being fully human instead of 2/3rds human by estabilshing rights.

There is no amendment which had redefined marriage as an entity between anything other than a man and woman.

If people want that change, then they need to push a constitutional amendment to do so.

I agree, there are a lot of things that are not right. I just don't like that as a nation, we're saying it's ok for homosexuals to play house, but not have the same benefits. If everyone wants to call it civil union, fine, but at least give them the same legal and parental rights as married couples.

I know what the 14th amendments initial purpose was, it was part of Reconstruction, but there's nothing in it that defines it was meant just for blacks. It says all people born in the US are US citizens and therefore are granted equal rights (in short).

There is also no amendment that defines marriage as just between one man and one woman. The amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman has been shot down 4 out of 4 times, so there has been a push to try and change that.

SteelCityMom
11-08-2009, 07:03 PM
I guess I am just a simpleton, the people voted and because some don't like the outcome lawsuits are the next resort. A lot of propositions were voted in I don't like here in CA, such as minors able to have abortion without parental notification. I have to accept that, I hate it but I am not out trying to change it. To top it off, people against gay marriages are labeled bigots and homophobes.

I'm in no way saying you are a simpleton, and never thought that. And yes, lawsuits are the next resort...if they feel their rights are being violated. I'm not one who's big on lawsuit happy people either, but this is a case where I think it may be justified and I trust that the Supreme Court could and would make the right decision. If they decide against it, then there's not a whole lot anybody can do beyond that point...outside of trying again some years down the road.

And if you hate a law that was passed in your state you absolutely should go out and try to change it, it's your right as an American. Being complacent is a horrible thing, and it's part of what has driven our society into the proverbial "sh*&ter" to begin with.

I also don't think you're a homophobe. I know some people who are against same sex marriage are, but I completely understand the stance you are taking. Please don't think I've labeled you as such.

Preacher
11-08-2009, 07:26 PM
I agree, there are a lot of things that are not right. I just don't like that as a nation, we're saying it's ok for homosexuals to play house, but not have the same benefits. If everyone wants to call it civil union, fine, but at least give them the same legal and parental rights as married couples.
Now here is an interesting conundrum. WE didn't say it was ok for them to play house. For the most part, courts legilsated those laws into existence. Now, why should we go on and complete what the courts illegally started (legislating from the bench?) That goes back to my original statement as to why I voted against Prop 8 here. Because I saw it as a vote to smack down the court system.


I know what the 14th amendments initial purpose was, it was part of Reconstruction, but there's nothing in it that defines it was meant just for blacks. It says all people born in the US are US citizens and therefore are granted equal rights (in short).
Yep. ANd every person has a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. That is the definition of marriage which existed since time out of mind.


There is also no amendment that defines marriage as just between one man and one woman. The amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman has been shot down 4 out of 4 times, so there has been a push to try and change that.

[/QUOTE]
Stare decisis at the local and state level establishes that very thing... as does federal ruling on all types of issues, which are all based on the understanding of marriage as an institution between man and woman.

What you are arguing in short, is the equivalent of an eighteen year old stating, "No, I am not a man, I consider myself a mammal, not a man. THerefore, I am not going to sign up for selective service." Why in the world would that person get to change the definition of man? WHy in the world do OTHER people get to change the definition of marriage that has been established in western (mideastern) culture for 7000 years?

Either we stick with the definitions that we have, or we get to change all definitions. We don't get to change just some definitions because we want to.

Civil Union? Sure. But there is NO reason why a state should be able to reject it either, because every man has the same right, to marry a woman. Every woman has the same right, to marry a man. Every man has the same restriction, he cannot marry another man. Every woman has the same restriction, she cannot marry another woman. There is no violation of rights there.

It is simply an issue left up to a vote, and 31 states have voted no.

Sad thing is, had they voted to change all laws to civil unions, most states would probably have voted the other way, so a lot of this is the obstinance of the gay and lesbian community. It is about "rights" its about forcing others to believe the same thing they believe in.

MasterOfPuppets
11-08-2009, 08:11 PM
so if they do recognize fruitcake marriage nationwide, how will this change policy in the military ? i mean your gonna have married gays in the military so they would have to accomodate them with housing and benefits the same as any other married couple...:noidea:

SteelCityMom
11-08-2009, 10:49 PM
Now here is an interesting conundrum. WE didn't say it was ok for them to play house. For the most part, courts legilsated those laws into existence. Now, why should we go on and complete what the courts illegally started (legislating from the bench?) That goes back to my original statement as to why I voted against Prop 8 here. Because I saw it as a vote to smack down the court system.

I'm sorry, but you can't just take the courts out of the legislative process. We have a court system in this country for a reason and part of that is to protect peoples rights. If you don't like the way the courts are ruling, then work to have people who think the way you do voted onto the bench. I'm going to assume that you are telling me that you don't think homosexuals should be allowed to enter into legal relationships and be able to raise a family like straight couples can. This would essentially be depriving them of their 14th amendment rights and in a way, making them second class citizens.





Stare decisis at the local and state level establishes that very thing... as does federal ruling on all types of issues, which are all based on the understanding of marriage as an institution between man and woman.

What you are arguing in short, is the equivalent of an eighteen year old stating, "No, I am not a man, I consider myself a mammal, not a man. THerefore, I am not going to sign up for selective service." Why in the world would that person get to change the definition of man? WHy in the world do OTHER people get to change the definition of marriage that has been established in western (mideastern) culture for 7000 years?

Either we stick with the definitions that we have, or we get to change all definitions. We don't get to change just some definitions because we want to.

Civil Union? Sure. But there is NO reason why a state should be able to reject it either, because every man has the same right, to marry a woman. Every woman has the same right, to marry a man. Every man has the same restriction, he cannot marry another man. Every woman has the same restriction, she cannot marry another woman. There is no violation of rights there.

It is simply an issue left up to a vote, and 31 states have voted no.

Sad thing is, had they voted to change all laws to civil unions, most states would probably have voted the other way, so a lot of this is the obstinance of the gay and lesbian community. It is about "rights" its about forcing others to believe the same thing they believe in.

I'm not trying to get anyone to change the definition of marriage lol. AGAIN, I don't care what they want to call legal unions between gay couples. I would just like to see them get the same legal family rights that straight couples enjoy from marriage. I'm very much of the opinion that the Supreme Court will see it this way also one day. I know not everybody is going to be 100% happy with whatever decisions are made about this issue in the future, but you would think there would be some kind of compromise that can be made.

SteelCityMom
11-08-2009, 10:52 PM
so if they do recognize fruitcake marriage nationwide, how will this change policy in the military ? i mean your gonna have married gays in the military so they would have to accomodate them with housing and benefits the same as any other married couple...:noidea:

So? Even if it's not called a marriage, but a civil union, shouldn't these couples get the same benefits that straight couples get? They're still entering into a legally binding contract, which, in the eyes of the courts, is all a marriage is anyway.

MasterOfPuppets
11-08-2009, 10:59 PM
So? Even if it's not called a marriage, but a civil union, shouldn't these couples get the same benefits that straight couples get? They're still entering into a legally binding contract, which, in the eyes of the courts, is all a marriage is anyway.
well considering you aren't allowed to be openly gay in the military, don't you think they (the military) would have to change thier policies as well ?

SteelCityMom
11-08-2009, 11:04 PM
well considering you aren't allowed to be openly gay in the military, don't you think they (the military) would have to change thier policies as well ?

IMO, it needs changed anyway. The US is the last Western, rich, and industrialized nation that forbids gays from serving openly in the military.

Edit: I actually just looked into this, because I wasn't sure of the status of the bill, but the bill to change this policy is expected to be passed in 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Readiness_Enhancement_Act

Preacher
11-08-2009, 11:07 PM
I'm sorry, but you can't just take the courts out of the legislative process. We have a court system in this country for a reason and part of that is to protect peoples rights. If you don't like the way the courts are ruling, then work to have people who think the way you do voted onto the bench. I'm going to assume that you are telling me that you don't think homosexuals should be allowed to enter into legal relationships and be able to raise a family like straight couples can. This would essentially be depriving them of their 14th amendment rights and in a way, making them second class citizens.
it does no such thing. I do not have the right to enter into a legal relationship with a guy either, so there is no specific violation of right here.

Furthermore, the courts NEED To be taken out of the legislative process, as the constitution you continue to reference does not give the courts legislative rights. The courts grabbed that right illegally in the early 1800's, and it has, sadly, never been challenged. It was that same "legislative courts" that legislated from the bench to give us such horrible things as separate but equal.. and abortion as legal via a right found in the "penumbra" of the constitution.



I'm not trying to get anyone to change the definition of marriage lol. AGAIN, I don't care what they want to call legal unions between gay couples. I would just like to see them get the same legal family rights that straight couples enjoy from marriage. I'm very much of the opinion that the Supreme Court will see it this way also one day. I know not everybody is going to be 100% happy with whatever decisions are made about this issue in the future, but you would think there would be some kind of compromise that can be made.

Why would there be compromise on an issue where some people see it as morally wrong, and others see it as a viable lifestyle?

Personally, as I have said before, I think it should be civil unions... and they should be allowed via vote. Not the court system.

Why? Because we are not voting on civil rights.

SteelCityMom
11-08-2009, 11:22 PM
it does no such thing. I do not have the right to enter into a legal relationship with a guy either, so there is no specific violation of right here.

I see it as a violation of rights because a gay person doesn't choose to be gay, just like a black person doesn't choose to be black, or a woman doesn't choose to be a woman. They just are. And they are also US citizens, which means they should be able to enter into the same kinds of contracts (which is all marriage is to the US legal system) that every other US citizen is able to enter into.

Furthermore, the courts NEED To be taken out of the legislative process, as the constitution you continue to reference does not give the courts legislative rights. The courts grabbed that right illegally in the early 1800's, and it has, sadly, never been challenged. It was that same "legislative courts" that legislated from the bench to give us such horrible things as separate but equal.. and abortion as legal via a right found in the "penumbra" of the constitution.

I agree with you to an extent, but I also see the courts system as a necessary part of our government in that they are one of the last measures in interpreting and keeping our civil rights, among their other legal purposes.


Why would there be compromise on an issue where some people see it as morally wrong, and others see it as a viable lifestyle?

That's just my opinion. It's because I'm a little more easy going and will sometimes take a compromise if I can. I realize that not everybody is going to be pleased 100% of the time, and I'm ok with that, but I truly think there are ways that everybody can get a little bit of what they want in certain situations.

There are things that Christians and Catholics do that I don't agree with and find morally wrong (for my moral standards), but I don't try to legislate against it because it is their right to believe what they want...as long as it doesn't directly affect my life. I feel this way about the same sex marriage/civil union issue. I'm just not seeing how it impedes anybody elses right to live their life the way they want to.

Personally, as I have said before, I think it should be civil unions... and they should be allowed via vote. Not the court system.

Why? Because we are not voting on civil rights.

Have to disagree with you on this again, and for the same reason as I mentioned before. I do think it's a civil rights issue. I doubt there's anything I'm going to say that would make you agree with me. I'll be happy to allow the Supreme Court to interpret the 14th amendment on this issue though.

Preacher
11-09-2009, 03:12 AM
Have to disagree with you on this again, and for the same reason as I mentioned before. I do think it's a civil rights issue. I doubt there's anything I'm going to say that would make you agree with me. I'll be happy to allow the Supreme Court to interpret the 14th amendment on this issue though.

If we were to allow gay marriage for the sake of civil rights, then what gives the govt. the right to stop incestual marriage between of age siblings? Can't use the reproduction argument, as it will open up doors into the same argument for gay marriage. Can't use societal standard arguments, because it opens up the door to legislation of morality. Can't use "Nature" argument, because that same nature argument again, can be used to argue against homosexuality.

So are you willing to allow of age sibling incestuous marriage? (and yes, that IS an issue, I HAVE seen in Kentucky where half brother-sister were not allowed to get married because of it.

The same question also exists for Polygamy. If three people want to enter into a marriage agreement with each other, why should their rights be denied? There is absolutely no argument against polygamy I can think of, that would not also be able to be used against homosexuality. Yet, polygamy is still disallowed.

I say these things because at the core, what has happened is that we have decided to make homosexuality a morally ok thing, but still choose to make those other things morally reprehensible. Thus, laws are constructed and kept to band the latter two, but the courts are trying to allow the first, again, all based on a moral code of liberal ideology.

GoSlash27
11-09-2009, 06:07 AM
If we were to allow gay marriage for the sake of civil rights, then what gives the govt. the right to stop incestual marriage between of age siblings?
Who would marry them? How many people actually want to do that? And really, what's the harm if they did?
You know, the story behind the incest laws is pretty interesting. You should look it up sometime.

If three people want to enter into a marriage agreement with each other, why should their rights be denied?
That's an excellent question. The 3 above apply. Aside from the paperwork issues, I can't think of any reason why that should be forbidden if the 3 (or however many) people agree.

Godfather
11-09-2009, 07:18 AM
If we were to allow gay marriage for the sake of civil rights, then what gives the govt. the right to stop incestual marriage between of age siblings? Can't use the reproduction argument, as it will open up doors into the same argument for gay marriage. Can't use societal standard arguments, because it opens up the door to legislation of morality. Can't use "Nature" argument, because that same nature argument again, can be used to argue against homosexuality.

So are you willing to allow of age sibling incestuous marriage? (and yes, that IS an issue, I HAVE seen in Kentucky where half brother-sister were not allowed to get married because of it.

The same question also exists for Polygamy. If three people want to enter into a marriage agreement with each other, why should their rights be denied? There is absolutely no argument against polygamy I can think of, that would not also be able to be used against homosexuality. Yet, polygamy is still disallowed.

I say these things because at the core, what has happened is that we have decided to make homosexuality a morally ok thing, but still choose to make those other things morally reprehensible. Thus, laws are constructed and kept to band the latter two, but the courts are trying to allow the first, again, all based on a moral code of liberal ideology.

The slippery slope fallacy cuts both ways.

If we can deny two women a marriage because some people find it offensive, why can't we say no to an interracial couple? That also offends some people. Why can't we say no to a divorced person wanting to remarry? That's an even more fundamental violation of marriage than two men or two women because marriage is supposed to be a life commitment. Why can't the government say no to an interfaith marriage?

revefsreleets
11-09-2009, 08:43 AM
The slippery slope fallacy cuts both ways.

If we can deny two women a marriage because some people find it offensive, why can't we say no to an interracial couple? That also offends some people. Why can't we say no to a divorced person wanting to remarry? That's an even more fundamental violation of marriage than two men or two women because marriage is supposed to be a life commitment. Why can't the government say no to an interfaith marriage?

That's just the point (and we seem to have once again gone WILDLY off course here).

They can.

We legislate a few different ways. Through state laws. Through State laws. And through referendum votes.

The courts have no real say in this as long as basic rights are NOT being violated. They are NOT in existence to legislate, merely interpret and rule. Also, I keep hearing how the Federal Government has no right to overturn state law. Where did that nonsense come from? The Federal Government is the supreme law of the land when there are conflicting laws passed by individual states.

I'm going to simplify this back down to the original origins of this thread.

-The people have voted against gay marriage 31 times out of 31 times.
-The US legislature has NOT legislated gay marriage into law.
-Some states allow gay marriage, most don't (hence the "conflicting laws" from above.-
-The current LAW is DOMA Here is what DOMA states (since I haven't seen this here yet):

No state needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as amarriage even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

-The Senate voted for this 85-14
-House 342-67
-Clinton signed this into law in 1996
-This is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
-The 9th circuit court (In Pelosi's San Francisco) has overturned DOMA
-There have been several challenges appealed to the US Supreme Court. They have declined to review any of the cases.

The main thrust of this thread was about the Democrats pushing an agenda that most of America doesn't want. They don't want it when it's put to their popular votes, and they don't want through their representative vote. That is clear. The courts have no right to legislate, and no rights are being violated, so that is pretty much that....

cubanstogie
11-09-2009, 09:15 AM
Who would marry them? How many people actually want to do that? And really, what's the harm if they did?
You know, the story behind the incest laws is pretty interesting. You should look it up sometime.


That's an excellent question. The 3 above apply. Aside from the paperwork issues, I can't think of any reason why that should be forbidden if the 3 (or however many) people agree.

Its troubling that you don't have a problem with those examples.

SteelCityMom
11-09-2009, 09:18 AM
If we were to allow gay marriage for the sake of civil rights, then what gives the govt. the right to stop incestual marriage between of age siblings? Can't use the reproduction argument, as it will open up doors into the same argument for gay marriage. Can't use societal standard arguments, because it opens up the door to legislation of morality. Can't use "Nature" argument, because that same nature argument again, can be used to argue against homosexuality.

So are you willing to allow of age sibling incestuous marriage? (and yes, that IS an issue, I HAVE seen in Kentucky where half brother-sister were not allowed to get married because of it.

The same question also exists for Polygamy. If three people want to enter into a marriage agreement with each other, why should their rights be denied? There is absolutely no argument against polygamy I can think of, that would not also be able to be used against homosexuality. Yet, polygamy is still disallowed.

I say these things because at the core, what has happened is that we have decided to make homosexuality a morally ok thing, but still choose to make those other things morally reprehensible. Thus, laws are constructed and kept to band the latter two, but the courts are trying to allow the first, again, all based on a moral code of liberal ideology.

There is one element of incestual relationships you are forgetting to mention though...the fact that there are proven health defects of children born into incestual relationships. That's the main reason (in my opinion) that it should and will remain illegal. You can't say the same about homosexual relationships. They are not harming anyone, whether you think it's morally wrong or not.

As far as polygamy goes, they might as well make it legal because, despite the laws, polygamy is rarely prosecuted unless in conjunction with another crime such as child abuse. And it's also just a matter of opinion of whether it is morally reprehensible or not. Polygamy being a crime is a rather new idea in the history of humanity, and there are a lot of states that see it as nothing more than a misdemeanor.

The practice of informal polygamy among fundamentalist groups presents interesting legal issues. It has been considered difficult to prosecute polygamists for bigamy, in large part because they are rarely formally married under state laws. Without evidence that suspected offenders have multiple formal or common-law marriages, these groups are merely subject to the laws against adultery or unlawful cohabitation — laws which are not commonly enforced because they also criminalize other behavior that is otherwise socially sanctioned. However, some "Fundamentalist" polygamists marry women prior to the age of consent, or commit fraud to obtain welfare and other public assistance, this is when they will be heavily prosecuted.

In 1953, the state of Arizona investigated and raided a group of 385 people in the polygamist-practicing colony of Hildale and Colorado City, straddling the Utah-Arizona border. All the men were arrested and the children were placed with foster families. A judge eventually ruled this action illegal, and everyone returned to their community, which now numbers about 10,000.


I also have to mention again, what is morally reprehensible to some, may not be to others. As I said before, most of the nation sees is as morally wrong to be a Satanist, yet it is not illegal and they can be married, just like Christians can. Polygamy is also, for the most part, a religious belief, and unless they are harming children or scamming the gov't, I see no reason for it to be considered illegal either.

SteelCityMom
11-09-2009, 09:42 AM
That's just the point (and we seem to have once again gone WILDLY off course here).

They can.

We legislate a few different ways. Through state laws. Through State laws. And through referendum votes.

The courts have no real say in this as long as basic rights are NOT being violated. They are NOT in existence to legislate, merely interpret and rule. Also, I keep hearing how the Federal Government has no right to overturn state law. Where did that nonsense come from? The Federal Government is the supreme law of the land when there are conflicting laws passed by individual states.

I'm going to simplify this back down to the original origins of this thread.

-The people have voted against gay marriage 31 times out of 31 times.
-The US legislature has NOT legislated gay marriage into law.
-Some states allow gay marriage, most don't (hence the "conflicting laws" from above.-
-The current LAW is DOMA Here is what DOMA states (since I haven't seen this here yet):

No state needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as amarriage even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

-The Senate voted for this 85-14
-House 342-67
-Clinton signed this into law in 1996
-This is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
-The 9th circuit court (In Pelosi's San Francisco) has overturned DOMA
-There have been several challenges appealed to the US Supreme Court. They have declined to review any of the cases.

The main thrust of this thread was about the Democrats pushing an agenda that most of America doesn't want. They don't want it when it's put to their popular votes, and they don't want through their representative vote. That is clear. The courts have no right to legislate, and no rights are being violated, so that is pretty much that....

I've pretty much agreed with you on this the whole time. I know DOMA is considered the law of the land right now, and will be unless it is overturned by either the Respect for Marriage Act, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (which does not address the DOMA provision allowing states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but instead questions the DOMA provision that prevents the federal government from providing certain federal rights) or by a ruling in the Supreme Court that says DOMA violates the 14th amendment. The only thing I disagree with you on is that there are rights being violated.

I know the conversation has gone beyond the original intent of the thread, I think it has just become a sharing of opinions on if the laws are correct or not. At least that's what it has been for me lol.

revefsreleets
11-09-2009, 10:23 AM
I don't understand what right is being violated? The law states that marriage is something that's impossible for gay people, due to the "one man, one woman" qualification.

A man can't be discriminated against by claiming that he's a woman, and vice-versa, so this becomes a mutually exclusive situation. As long as the law is the way it is, this isn't discrimination because the qualifications make gay marriage an impossibility under the law. It's like trying to say "I'm a human, and I cannot fly on my own, but I WANT to fly, so I feel I'm being discriminated against by birds who CAN fly own their own."

SteelCityMom
11-09-2009, 10:45 AM
I don't understand what right is being violated? The law states that marriage is something that's impossible for gay people, due to the "one man, one woman" qualification.

A man can't be discriminated against by claiming that he's a woman, and vice-versa, so this becomes a mutually exclusive situation. As long as the law is the way it is, this isn't discrimination because the qualifications make gay marriage an impossibility under the law. It's like trying to say "I'm a human, and I cannot fly on my own, but I WANT to fly, so I feel I'm being discriminated against by birds who CAN fly own their own."

As I've stated before, the reason the law is in question is because DOMA is not an amendment to the constitution. It can be found to be in violation of the 14th amendment and can be overturned. The amendment that would essentially say that marriage is between one man and one woman has been shot down 4 out of the 4 times it has been proposed.

I understand that at this time it is the law of the land, but it is of my opinion, and many others, that this law is unconstitutional and in violation of the rights that are covered in the 14th amendment. This is the point I've been trying to get across this whole time. Civil rights for women, blacks, interracial marriages, etc. etc. were basically a matter of opinion amongst various groups of people. Some didn't see voting for blacks and women, or marriage for interracial couples as a civil right covered by the constitution, others did and eventually the Supreme Court made rulings that they were. I can see this happening eventually with same sex marriage/civil union rights as well.

SteelersinCA
11-09-2009, 02:50 PM
Once the right to marriage is defined as a fundamental right by the Federal government, then gays will have the exact same rights as a hetero couple. Conversely, EVEN IF ALL 50 STATES PASS LAWS ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE, the federal government is under no obligation to recognize that and grant the federal benefits civil unions lack.

You can go back and forth about people voting, representative republic, morality and anything else you can dream up, but what it comes down to is whether marriage is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. DOMA advocates should argue it is not, however the more the government becomes entangled in it, the more likely it is to become one.

People should never be allowed to "vote" on the rights of another. This isn't a question of should gays be allowed to marry, it is a question of whether marriage is a right. Once it is decided to be one, there isn't a vote or piece of legislation in the world that will stop gays from enjoying that right.

GoSlash27
11-09-2009, 11:01 PM
Its troubling that you don't have a problem with those examples.
Yeah, I'm told I have that effect on people. :chuckle:

What troubles me is that here in the "land of the free" we have so many people that can't seem to mind their own business.

cubanstogie
11-09-2009, 11:03 PM
Yeah, I'm told I have that effect on people. :chuckle:

What troubles me is that here in the "land of the free" we have so many people that can't seem to mind their own business.

If you don't want your twisted opinions questioned you probably shouldn't be on a forum.

GoSlash27
11-09-2009, 11:07 PM
I don't recall ever fussing about anybody questioning my opinions. :popcorn:
Likewise, if you can't come up with a rational argument of your own, you should probably find a new hobby, 'cuz political debate obviously ain't your forte'.

cubanstogie
11-09-2009, 11:19 PM
I don't recall ever fussing about anybody questioning my opinions. :popcorn:
Likewise, if you can't come up with a rational argument of your own, you should probably find a new hobby, 'cuz political debate obviously ain't your forte'.

talking about polygamy and marrying your sibling doesn't fall under political debate in my book. Since your the one who mentioned it It would seem your the one who would need to rationalize it, not me.

Preacher
11-10-2009, 12:36 AM
There is one element of incestual relationships you are forgetting to mention though...the fact that there are proven health defects of children born into incestual relationships. That's the main reason (in my opinion) that it should and will remain illegal. You can't say the same about homosexual relationships. They are not harming anyone, whether you think it's morally wrong or not.

As far as polygamy goes, they might as well make it legal because, despite the laws, polygamy is rarely prosecuted unless in conjunction with another crime such as child abuse. And it's also just a matter of opinion of whether it is morally reprehensible or not. Polygamy being a crime is a rather new idea in the history of humanity, and there are a lot of states that see it as nothing more than a misdemeanor.

The practice of informal polygamy among fundamentalist groups presents interesting legal issues. It has been considered difficult to prosecute polygamists for bigamy, in large part because they are rarely formally married under state laws. Without evidence that suspected offenders have multiple formal or common-law marriages, these groups are merely subject to the laws against adultery or unlawful cohabitation — laws which are not commonly enforced because they also criminalize other behavior that is otherwise socially sanctioned. However, some "Fundamentalist" polygamists marry women prior to the age of consent, or commit fraud to obtain welfare and other public assistance, this is when they will be heavily prosecuted.

In 1953, the state of Arizona investigated and raided a group of 385 people in the polygamist-practicing colony of Hildale and Colorado City, straddling the Utah-Arizona border. All the men were arrested and the children were placed with foster families. A judge eventually ruled this action illegal, and everyone returned to their community, which now numbers about 10,000.


I also have to mention again, what is morally reprehensible to some, may not be to others. As I said before, most of the nation sees is as morally wrong to be a Satanist, yet it is not illegal and they can be married, just like Christians can. Polygamy is also, for the most part, a religious belief, and unless they are harming children or scamming the gov't, I see no reason for it to be considered illegal either.

The entire problem with the argument regarding incest is that . . . it is based on biology. There is a greater biological chance of the child not being right. Now, if you are bringing biology into the debate, what does biology teach about the natural union between humans? Biology teaches male and female only, since that is the way to have a chance of producing children.

either biology is rejected as a reason for both cases, or accepted as a reason in both cases, you can't keep it for one and deny it for the other.

Thus GF, I am not arguing slippery slope. Rather, I am pointing out the fact that those who are calling for "rights" for gay people to marry really are not calling for equal rights (since they should be extended to incest and polygamy based on their arguments). They instead are calling for others to agree with them that Gay marriage is at least moral enough to be acceptable.

That is where I disagree.

augustashark
11-10-2009, 12:36 AM
I see it as a violation of rights because a gay person doesn't choose to be gay, just like a black person doesn't choose to be black, or a woman doesn't choose to be a woman. They just are. And they are also US citizens, which means they should be able to enter into the same kinds of contracts (which is all marriage is to the US legal system) that every other US citizen is able to enter into.


I disagree, there is not a definitive answer one way or another on if people are born gay or not. It's your right to believe that they are and it is others rights to believe they are not.

More to the point of your post above is that even if it was proven that people are born gay, it is in no way associated with someone being black or being a woman. I can walk down the street and see 20 gay people and I could never tell they were gay, but I could tell you 99.9% of the time if a person is black or a female. For many years gay people have tried to align themselves with african americans and women when speaking of civil rights. I for one think its very poor analogy at best and disrespectful at worst.

GoSlash27
11-10-2009, 06:11 AM
talking about polygamy and marrying your sibling doesn't fall under political debate in my book. Since your the one who mentioned it It would seem your the one who would need to rationalize it, not me.
Uhh... actually Preacher brought it up in the course of the discussion, and you have yet to post a counter argument beyond "Eww. You're twisted".
Do you *have* a counter argument?

SteelCityMom
11-10-2009, 10:17 AM
The entire problem with the argument regarding incest is that . . . it is based on biology. There is a greater biological chance of the child not being right. Now, if you are bringing biology into the debate, what does biology teach about the natural union between humans? Biology teaches male and female only, since that is the way to have a chance of producing children.

either biology is rejected as a reason for both cases, or accepted as a reason in both cases, you can't keep it for one and deny it for the other.

Thus GF, I am not arguing slippery slope. Rather, I am pointing out the fact that those who are calling for "rights" for gay people to marry really are not calling for equal rights (since they should be extended to incest and polygamy based on their arguments). They instead are calling for others to agree with them that Gay marriage is at least moral enough to be acceptable.

That is where I disagree.

I wasn't using biology as an excuse. I was merely pointing out that being homosexual harms no one, incestual relationships do because there is a very high risk of having children with birth defects.

Again, the moral issue is one that differs across the board. Like I've said, what's morally wrong for some may not be for others. I'm sure you'd agree that being a Satanist is widely thought of as morally wrong, but they are allowed to marry. There needs to be some kind of consistency if you're going to bring morals into the argument.

And before anyone brings up murder or pedophiles or incest, let me again say that being gay harms no one. Whether you think it's right or not, they are not hurting anyone. Apply your own morals to your own life and let others live theirs.

SteelCityMom
11-10-2009, 10:26 AM
I disagree, there is not a definitive answer one way or another on if people are born gay or not. It's your right to believe that they are and it is others rights to believe they are not.

That's fine if you disagree. I'm just going off of studies that have been done and the fact that I've known gay people who have tried their hardest to not be gay, and it just doesn't work. They are who they are, and in my opinion, are not harming anyone and should not have to compromise that for anyone.

More to the point of your post above is that even if it was proven that people are born gay, it is in no way associated with someone being black or being a woman. I can walk down the street and see 20 gay people and I could never tell they were gay, but I could tell you 99.9% of the time if a person is black or a female. For many years gay people have tried to align themselves with african americans and women when speaking of civil rights. I for one think its very poor analogy at best and disrespectful at worst.

So just because you cannot tell they are gay from looking at them means they should not be covered under the same rights that everybody else is under the constitution? They've had to fight for the some of the same rights as blacks and women have. I guess you could say though, that they were a little bit luckier since the civil rights fights for blacks and women somewhat paved the way for their own fights.

augustashark
11-11-2009, 01:30 AM
So just because you cannot tell they are gay from looking at them means they should not be covered under the same rights that everybody else is under the constitution? They've had to fight for the some of the same rights as blacks and women have. I guess you could say though, that they were a little bit luckier since the civil rights fights for blacks and women somewhat paved the way for their own fights.

No that is not what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say is that a black person or a woman can be discriminated against by appearence only where a gay person can not. AA's and women were discriminated against because of the way they looked not for their lifestyles.

GoSlash27
11-11-2009, 05:51 AM
Augusta,
No that is not what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say is that a black person or a woman can be discriminated against by appearence only where a gay person can not. AA's and women were discriminated against because of the way they looked not for their lifestyles.
Both groups were discriminated against because they were perceived as a threat to the society. This is the same irrational fear that drives the current reluctance to treat gays as our equals today.

revefsreleets
11-11-2009, 09:03 AM
Augusta,

Both groups were discriminated against because they were perceived as a threat to the society. This is the same irrational fear that drives the current reluctance to treat gays as our equals today.

That is patently false. The issue is gay marriage. It's not even civil unions, it is gay marriage. Civil Unions protect the rights of gays. Marriage is not a right. One may not marry whomever one wants.

The law of the land, both through popular and representative vote, is that marriage is "one man and one woman". You may rhetorically argue what the reasoning behind the existence of the law is, but fear is NOT why gays cannot get married. They can't get married because two men or two women can never be, and will never be, one man and one woman.

GoSlash27
11-11-2009, 04:11 PM
That is patently false. The issue is gay marriage. It's not even civil unions, it is gay marriage. Civil Unions protect the rights of gays. Marriage is not a right. One may not marry whomever one wants.
As has already been covered upstream, the problem is with the word. You no doubt *think* that the legal rights and responsibilities are equivalent between civil union and marriage, but in reality they're not even close.
If you can agree (as Preacher has) to extend equal protection under the law without using the word "marriage", we've got us a deal.

SteelersinCA
11-11-2009, 10:13 PM
As has already been covered upstream, the problem is with the word. You no doubt *think* that the legal rights and responsibilities are equivalent between civil union and marriage, but in reality they're not even close.
If you can agree (as Preacher has) to extend equal protection under the law without using the word "marriage", we've got us a deal.

Or, alternatively, we can drop the word marriage from everything since it's not a right and just have everyone be a civil union. Civil union vs marriage is sort of the whole separate but equal thing and it won't fly. That's not even in the realm of possibilities. Marriage will either be determined to be a right by the courts, thus making DOMA irrelevant, or marriage will not be determined to be a right and the discrimination will continue.

The reason why the courts are taking it up is because that is the vehicle to take it up. If someone passes a law, the main recourse is to challenge its constitutional validity in court. If the conservatives stopped passing anti-gay legislation, there would be nothing to challenge. They have brought this on themselves as much as the gay rights proponents.

GoSlash27
11-11-2009, 10:36 PM
Or, alternatively, we can drop the word marriage from everything since it's not a right and just have everyone be a civil union.
This is agreeable IMO. Government shouldn't be involved in "marriage" in the first place. "Marriage" is an institution of faith, and we should accordingly leave such matters up to the church.
The government's role is to simply regulate the contract for civil union that arises.
Nobody will ever use the government to force any church to adopt any position one way or the other on what constitutes "sanctity", which is just as it should be.
Could we all live with that?

SteelersinCA
11-11-2009, 11:07 PM
Could you live with "marriages" not getting the federal benefits that are restricted from civil unions?

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-12-2009, 05:05 AM
I agree that the government should stay out of religion, of which marriage is an integral part.

Like previously mentioned a Civil Union and marriage should be equal in the eyes of the law. The government has no place telling us who we (as consenting adults) can and cannot share our lives with.

Preacher
11-14-2009, 10:53 AM
As has already been covered upstream, the problem is with the word. You no doubt *think* that the legal rights and responsibilities are equivalent between civil union and marriage, but in reality they're not even close.
If you can agree (as Preacher has) to extend equal protection under the law without using the word "marriage", we've got us a deal.

I agree that the government should stay out of religion, of which marriage is an integral part.

.

Exactly.... and that is the basis of my entire argument which GS has referred to. I, personally do not think that a gay person has the ability to uphold their role in the institution called marriage. Not because I hate them, not because I fear them, not because I dislike them, none of that. It is simply because I believe marriage is a covenant agreement between man, woman, and God.

Putting marriages back in the church and stopping the state from interfering in that religious element is very important. It also allows the state to recognize whatever they want.

The issue here that no one has thought of however, is that with civil unions, not only homosexuals could by in a CU, but also corporations, since they are identified as a legal entity unto themselves. There would have to be something specific in the law to recognize only human beings as being involved in CU's.

GoSlash27
11-14-2009, 12:26 PM
The issue here that no one has thought of however, is that with civil unions, not only homosexuals could by in a CU, but also corporations, since they are identified as a legal entity unto themselves. There would have to be something specific in the law to recognize only human beings as being involved in CU's.
I'd marry Microsoft. I ain't 'shamed... :chuckle:

theplatypus
11-15-2009, 07:06 AM
I'd marry Microsoft. I ain't 'shamed... :chuckle:

The divorce settlement would be awesome. :chuckle:

GoSlash27
11-15-2009, 07:50 AM
So now that we've come to some sort of consensus on this issue, I'd like to get back to the point of the OP, which is that the Democratic party is out of step with the will of the American people.
I wholeheartedly agree, but would add that the Republicans are the same exact way.

The problem IMO is in the structure of the parties themselves. Most mainstream Americans refuse to become active in the party organizations, conceding the structure to people who are involved merely for personal gain and influence.
That creates a culture that promotes corruption and influence peddling, and the politicians become so used to working within this system that they almost can't help becoming what they are.

If we want to change this, it's not enough to simply 'throw the bums out' because they'll just be replaced by a fresh set of bums. It's not enough to replace the party in power with the minority party, because the new boss really is the same as the old boss. Average Americans have to roll up their sleeves and get involved.

tony hipchest
11-17-2009, 06:58 PM
If we want to change this, it's not enough to simply 'throw the bums out' because they'll just be replaced by a fresh set of bums. It's not enough to replace the party in power with the minority party, because the new boss really is the same as the old boss. Average Americans have to roll up their sleeves and get involved.totally agree, but it will never happen. unfortunately, that is much too difficult as it takes actual effort and dedication to a cause.

most people would rather just sit around and bitch about it every day on a messageboard, actually believing they are making a contribution. :noidea:

Preacher
11-17-2009, 07:16 PM
totally agree, but it will never happen. unfortunately, that is much too difficult as it takes actual effort and dedication to a cause.

most people would rather just sit around and bitch about it every day on a messageboard, actually believing they are making a contribution. :noidea:

Yep... or walk in the streets and yell real loud.

IMO, until the "Gotcha" Politics stop, we will never get people in office that we can actually trust to do the job right.

Thank you American Press and Nixon administration, who equally share the blame.

Think about it for a second, Bush 41 was the last pre-Nixon politician to be president. Since him, it has been a different breed... GOP and DEM. I haven't really been happy with any of them, and don't see any on the horizon either.

GoSlash27
11-17-2009, 11:13 PM
Thank you American Press and Nixon administration, who equally share the blame.
As always, it's We the People who are to blame for the situation. We've got the government we deserve.
Bush 41 was the last pre-Nixon politician to be president. Since him, it has been a different breed... GOP and DEM. I haven't really been happy with any of them, and don't see any on the horizon either.
If you find one of the good ones, you need to donate and volunteer on their behalf. Don't merely vote.
If you can't find the good ones, you need to consider *being* one of the good ones.
Nothing like running for office to learn how screwed-up the parties really are.

revefsreleets
11-18-2009, 09:50 AM
most people would rather just sit around and bitch about it every day on a messageboard, actually believing they are making a contribution. :noidea:

Insinuating that you never do this?

Having healthy and spirited discourse over contentious issues IS making a contribution. Part of the problem is that the more diverse and varied means of communication we develop, it seems the more polarized and LESS communicative we actually become...

Bng_Hevn
11-18-2009, 11:18 AM
I'm sorry, but this IS a Democratic issue. It's in the Democrat party platform to repeal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Clinton, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman only).

Get that? The 2008 Democratic Party platform includes REPEALING DOMA.

This is straight from Obama's website:

"Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized unions.”


Again, I don't care one way or the other, but I find it interesting that this issue is continually pushed by the left and is continually shot down by the voting public...so they kick it to the courts who always seem to interpret the law differently than the average citizen has actually (continually) voted.

Gay marriage itself is not the issue, who gives a rat's arse if they want to get married. I understand that religious zealots would disagree, but personally it doesn't matter to me one iota.

I believe the issue is the benefits of being married. Meaning, if a homosexual male has AIDS or HIV and doesn't have health coverage, they can "marry" their mate who DOES have coverage thus increasing rates of healthcare. I think that's correct.

My rates for myself and family are astronomical anyway, don't see it affecting the overall cost, not really. But as I understand it, that is the big thorn about gay marriages.

xfl2001fan
11-18-2009, 01:26 PM
Gay marriage itself is not the issue, who gives a rat's arse if they want to get married. I understand that religious zealots would disagree, but personally it doesn't matter to me one iota.
Gay Marriage is an issue (overall) so long as there are enough people who want to make it an issue (on both sides of the fence). A large number of people I know are like you and I where it doesn't matter if they get married/civil union or not. It's not for me. But I'm not judging. Just because it is irrelevant for you doesn' t make it irrelevant for everyone else.


I believe the issue is the benefits of being married. Meaning, if a homosexual male has AIDS or HIV and doesn't have health coverage, they can "marry" their mate who DOES have coverage thus increasing rates of healthcare. I think that's correct.
It goes far beyond having health coverage issues. This particular section of your post makes you look extremely ignorant to the underlying issue at hand. The homosexual community (as a whole) feels like they are being discriminated against when they're not allowed to be married or join in a Civil Union. There are benefits to being married that they are missing out on. Tax relief as well as any number of programs for any number of special causes allowed for married folks...let alone some issues with adoption for those who wish to raise a family. It is discrimination.



My rates for myself and family are astronomical anyway, don't see it affecting the overall cost, not really. But as I understand it, that is the big thorn about gay marriages.Your rates are high...but what if you paid the "single" rate for you...your wife and each of your kids? Your rates are higher for a reason...

As stated above, it goes far beyond just health coverage.

Godfather
11-18-2009, 09:49 PM
As always, it's We the People who are to blame for the situation. We've got the government we deserve.

If you find one of the good ones, you need to donate and volunteer on their behalf. Don't merely vote.
If you can't find the good ones, you need to consider *being* one of the good ones.
Nothing like running for office to learn how screwed-up the parties really are.

There's a throw the bums out movement called Get Out Of Our House. They're just getting off the ground but you can check out their website.

They need to move in the direction of being a bundling organization.

GoSlash27
11-19-2009, 06:34 AM
Having healthy and spirited discourse over contentious issues IS making a contribution. Part of the problem is that the more diverse and varied means of communication we develop, it seems the more polarized and LESS communicative we actually become...
Well, it is somewhat of a contribution, and one that comes easily for most of us. But it's right down at the bottom of the list of things people can do to contribute. A few people may become convinced that change is necessary, but it does nothing to bring the change about.

revefsreleets
11-19-2009, 12:12 PM
Political discourse can certainly be a "gateway"...perhaps some people take up an interest from some of the things they read here and go on to get a lot more involved in more tangible ways?

GoSlash27
11-19-2009, 04:13 PM
.perhaps some people take up an interest from some of the things they read here and go on to get a lot more involved in more tangible ways?
That's the hope, but in reality everybody's just hoping that their complaints will inspire somebody else to actually do something about it.
Those people that you imagine taking a more active role are imagining you as the one who's concerned enough to take action. They're not doing anything except agreeing and you're not doing anything except complaining. End result, no gain.

Preacher
11-19-2009, 06:14 PM
As always, it's We the People who are to blame for the situation. We've got the government we deserve.

If you find one of the good ones, you need to donate and volunteer on their behalf. Don't merely vote.
If you can't find the good ones, you need to consider *being* one of the good ones.
Nothing like running for office to learn how screwed-up the parties really are.

Sorry, I quite disagree.

We had the government we deserved quite a few years ago. Then, two things happened. 1. A presidency arose that was too far-reaching, and starting breaking rules in a very disturbing way. 2. The press took down that presidency, and since then, has crowned themselves the "protectors of freedom."

Since the press is definitely biased-especially in the last election http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

And with the hatchet jobs they do on people they don't like... (Do I even have to post something here to prove that?)

Why in the WORLD would I want to run for office? They would dig into my background until they could find SOMETHING to destroy me with, regardless of how it would be twisted... including going to all my former churches and asking for audio recordings, so that they could find something.

The American press is completely out of control. They now play "Kingmaker" and frankly, I am sick of it.

No one who actually cares about his or her self, their family, and has decency about them wants to go into politics.

GoSlash27
11-19-2009, 06:46 PM
Why in the WORLD would I want to run for office? They would dig into my background until they could find SOMETHING to destroy me with, regardless of how it would be twisted... including going to all my former churches and asking for audio recordings, so that they could find something.

The American press is completely out of control. They now play "Kingmaker" and frankly, I am sick of it.

No one who actually cares about his or her self, their family, and has decency about them wants to go into politics.

That is the way things are, and I agree to a certain extent. But despite the attacks from all directions, we still manage to get the occasional decent person elected.
And besides, there is plenty to do for anybody who's interested but doesn't want to be in the spotlight. Join a central committee and start shaking things up. Volunteer for the campaign of someone you believe in.
It's either try or give up. And if you're gonna give up, then there's really no sense in complaining. And face it; the people who founded this country risked a lot more than just their reputation.

Godfather
11-19-2009, 08:39 PM
Sorry, I quite disagree.

We had the government we deserved quite a few years ago. Then, two things happened. 1. A presidency arose that was too far-reaching, and starting breaking rules in a very disturbing way. 2. The press took down that presidency, and since then, has crowned themselves the "protectors of freedom."

Since the press is definitely biased-especially in the last election http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

And with the hatchet jobs they do on people they don't like... (Do I even have to post something here to prove that?)

Why in the WORLD would I want to run for office? They would dig into my background until they could find SOMETHING to destroy me with, regardless of how it would be twisted... including going to all my former churches and asking for audio recordings, so that they could find something.

The American press is completely out of control. They now play "Kingmaker" and frankly, I am sick of it.

No one who actually cares about his or her self, their family, and has decency about them wants to go into politics.

That part has always been the case. What's disturbing is the new trend of making something up if there aren't any real skeletons. So even if you're a Boy Scout your name still gets dragged through the mud.

SteelCityMom
11-19-2009, 09:57 PM
Sorry, I quite disagree.

We had the government we deserved quite a few years ago. Then, two things happened. 1. A presidency arose that was too far-reaching, and starting breaking rules in a very disturbing way. 2. The press took down that presidency, and since then, has crowned themselves the "protectors of freedom."

Since the press is definitely biased-especially in the last election http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

And with the hatchet jobs they do on people they don't like... (Do I even have to post something here to prove that?)

Why in the WORLD would I want to run for office? They would dig into my background until they could find SOMETHING to destroy me with, regardless of how it would be twisted... including going to all my former churches and asking for audio recordings, so that they could find something.

The American press is completely out of control. They now play "Kingmaker" and frankly, I am sick of it.

No one who actually cares about his or her self, their family, and has decency about them wants to go into politics.

Well that again falls on the American people who buy into whatever the press print everyday. Nobody's forcing our hands here and honestly, their just people doing a job and getting paid for it. They are not to be blamed.

To cite one of my favorite speeches from a movie (V for Vendetta...and it's scary how easily you can fill in the obvious blanks in this speech):

"Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot."

Leftoverhard
11-20-2009, 01:37 PM
AA's and women were discriminated against because of the way they looked not for their lifestyles.

Were? :noidea: