marriage ammendment

[Impenitent]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112314,00.html

it looks like bush is making the gay marriage ammendment a big issue this year... this will of course play well with bush's base and the vast majority of citizens...

will the democRATS embrase the gay marriage rulings that their judges in taxachusetts and the activist mayor of san fran is passing out? do the democRATS have the courage of their gay marriage convictions? (not that they have any courage of any stripe)

how fast and far away from the gay marriage issue will the democRATS run?

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112314,00.html

it looks like bush is making the gay marriage ammendment a big issue this year...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

From an Instant Message chat:
----------------------------------
OnryAnRkst: Howdy
FRiverguy: hi there

OnryAnRkst: Are you going to get married before Bush makes it unconstitutional?
FRiverguy: if we ever got married it would be for purely for "HA HA we gottcha" reasons. the whole concept seems a bit oppressive to me

OnryAnRkst: I mean, how can anyone take the constitution seriously anymore?
FRiverguy: lmao; yeah individual liberty ha! it's as good as prohibition

OnryAnRkst: The founding document of the republic, the charter for a defense pact, a union of states to protect rights of the people . . .and they want it to say "You can only get married if you're one man and one woman"?
FRiverguy: well, they wouldn't allow Utah in until they 'banned' polygamy

OnryAnRkst: Why not include an amendment to keep "illegal" Mexicans out of the country? Or killer bees?
FRiverguy: LOL! i'm all for the Killer Bee amendment

OnryAnRkst: Me too.
FRiverguy: lmao

OnryAnRkst: And ban black widow spiders -- How about no two unmarried men can sit next to each other in the movies unless accompanied by a hot babe?
FRiverguy: that's the only way the union will be preserved.

OnryAnRkst: Let's also change it to let foreign born guys named Schwartzenegger be president.
FRiverguy: bin Laden, too. and given bin Laden's strict "moral code", he could theoretically win the republican nomination

FRiverguy: lol i'm IMing with another friend who, after i told him your Killer Bee idea, said "let's also ammend the constitution to make it unlawful for the temperature to go under 40 degrees F "
---------------------------------------------
How can anyone take the constitution seriously anymore, when the president's official policy is to stuff it with frivolous crap?

--Jackney Sneeb

[Kyran]

America is not a theocracy. This amendment is not constitutional. The constitution limits the government, not people.

With that said, let me be clear that I believe marriage is a function of religion. It is not necessary to the role of the state. My recommendation is that marriage be deregulated and delegislated.

[mooseboy84]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112314,00.html

it looks like bush is making the gay marriage ammendment a big issue this year... this will of course play well with bush's base and the vast majority of citizens...

will the democRATS embrase the gay marriage rulings that their judges in taxachusetts and the activist mayor of san fran is passing out? do the democRATS have the courage of their gay marriage convictions? (not that they have any courage of any stripe)

how fast and far away from the gay marriage issue will the democRATS run?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

i think you have this question backwards, how far will karl rove and bush run with this? every other thing hes done has failed, so end the end he goes back to good ol prejudice and discrimination in an attempt to get votes.

the question is why is this an issue in the first place? gay marriage is a non issue. it wont make your taxes change, it wont affect your neighborhood schools, and it certainly has no impact on americans dying 2 or 3 a day over seas.

[Haik]

And since it isn't really going to influence anything related to the economy/politics in general, why in the hell are they making such a big deal out of this? It's rediculous that there'd even be a law against it in the first place seeing as how thats grossly unconstitutional. It seems that people will follow some parts of the constitution to an amazingly anal extent, and then completely ignore other parts that they might not benefit from.

[tman_ndsu08]

Dems and repubs are no better than each other...your psuedo-pride is laughable.

It's none of your business who gets married in the first place. To top it off, marriage is a government institution when they, in fact, have no right to institutionalize it in the first place.

If you truely want to get married in the first place (in the religious sense) then you should only need to go to a church.

[Poetic_Justice]

well said tman, well said.

If I might add, can anyone tell me why the government has a right to dictate what our language means?

[Edge]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
America is not a theocracy. This amendment is not constitutional. The constitution limits the government, not people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The amendment is constitutional. By definition. Any amendment becomes part of the constitution, and is therefore constitutional.

FWIW: The argument is that limiting government's authority to recognize and perform marriage to one man and one woman is in fact a limit on government. Feel free to disagree, I think most of the arguments on both sides are semantics anyway.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)

With that said, let me be clear that I believe marriage is a function of religion. It is not necessary to the role of the state. My recommendation is that marriage be deregulated and delegislated.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

We can agree on this. The only reason that this is an issue is that the government interferes so much with liberty and with what should be private associations.

Having said that, given the breadth of governmental influence, and the political activism that currently inhabits the judicial branch, the amendment will pass, probably within the next two to three years. If for not other reason than the states that will see this as one of their rare opportunities to oppose the ever encroaching tide of federalism.

[tman_ndsu08]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
well said tman, well said.

If I might add, can anyone tell me why the government has a right to dictate what our language means?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Not sure what your point is...but they don't haev a right to do anything especially exist.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: Kyran America is not a theocracy. This amendment is not constitutional. The constitution limits the government, not people.

Neither is it a "democracy". Thus "the will of the people" does not define the law. The thing to do is pass legislation relieving any state from any obligation to recognize or accept gay "marriage" in other states. Maine does not have to extend to "married" gays the rights of married people when such gays come for a visit from MA, supposing that ME would so legislate.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Kyran America is not a theocracy. This amendment is not constitutional. The constitution limits the government, not people.

Quote by: Haik It's rediculous that there'd even be a law against it in the first place seeing as how thats grossly unconstitutional.

Just so you (and everyone else knows), that's the POINT of a Constitutional Amendment - to make something that might have been formerly unconstitutional legal. Once this Amendment is in there, it is by definition Constitutional.

[Sonart]

.

democRATS! Get it? Democ-RATS! Nyuk, nyuk. And TAXachusetts!! {SLAPS KNEE} Gawd I just love really witty political humor.

Are things really going that badly for the Republicans, Impenitent, that you had to dig down this far in the 'Vital Issues' barrel to find something most Americans disagree with the most liberal Democrats on?

.

[Zhavric]

I could just picture the Republicans at the wheel of the Titanic.

Lookout: "Captain Republican, there's an iceberg dead ahead!"
Captain: "Maybe we should turn th..."
First Mate: "SIR! There's two men holding hands on the poop deck!"
Captain:" WHAT!? There will be no queers on my boat."

*CRASH!*

...later...

Republican passenger1: "Dear, don't you think we should be heading for a lifeboat? All this water keeps flooding into the boat."

Republican passenger2: "Well, there's really nothing we can do for this water coming on board so I think we should welcome it. Yeah. Let's grant the water amnesty."

... elsewhere in the engine room...

Sailor: "Sir, I found this passenger who's a brilliant engineer. He says that he knows a way that we can plug the holes in the hull and stop the water from coming in."

Republican Chief (standing in 4 feet of rising water): "Is he pro-life?"

Sailor: "WHAT!?"

Chief: "Is he a baby-killer, Sailor?"

Sailor: "I don't know, sir."

Chief (now in 5 feet of rising water): "Well go find out... and don't you dare bring him back in here if he hasn't accepted Jesus Christ as his lord & savior!"




-----------------------


It's good to know that no matter how bad things get we can always count on some Republican supporters to be completely memetically manipulated into caring about retarded wedge issues over actual problems. I commend your consistancy.

Carry on.

[RickSp]

It speaks volumes that the president wants a constitutional amendment which limits the rights of individuals. The "Bill of Rights" for which the president hows so much contempt, limited the power of the government not its citizens. This odious proposal will fail. It is just red meat tossed out to Bush's rabid fundie base. Nevertheless, even proposing it shows Bush's disregard for the basic individual rights of all Americans.

[Samildanach]

Well, it doesn't seem to be limiting it much at the moment. as far as I can see the government is winning and the individuals are losing.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: RickSp It speaks volumes that the president wants a constitutional amendment which limits the rights of individuals. The "Bill of Rights" for which the president hows so much contempt, limited the power of the government not its citizens. This odious proposal will fail. It is just red meat tossed out to Bush's rabid fundie base. Nevertheless, even proposing it shows Bush's disregard for the basic individual rights of all Americans.

He wants no such thing. He wants our right to govern ourselves by principle to be respected, and there is no "right" to corrupt the definition of "marriage" as places like MA have done. Destroying marriage as you want is no damage to anyone's "rights", as the people in question are just as welcome to marry as ordinary folks. Every young dude is welcome to run out and find a gal to marry him, regardless that he..."likes" whatever he does.

But all of this can be done legislatively, as there is the Constitution no accommodation of your desired perversion of "marriage", and all we need is clear language saying that no state need honor any other state's degenerate definition of "marriage". Marriage is one he plus one she, and there is neither need nor space for compromise.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Saint Vern He wants no such thing. He wants our right to govern ourselves by principle to be respected, and there is no "right" to corrupt the definition of "marriage" as places like MA have done. Destroying marriage as you want is no damage to anyone's "rights", as the people in question are just as welcome to marry as ordinary folks. Every young dude is welcome to run out and find a gal to marry him, regardless that he..."likes" whatever he does..

So basically Vern, you just want to force your narrow religious perspectives on others in clear violation of the intentions of the Founding Fathers. The first line of the First Amendment of the Constitution begins "congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion." I know you bible thumpers would like to repeal that Amendment as well. You want to go back to the days of the Puritans or whichever particular sect you happen to consider holy.

The anti-gay "pro-family" folks remind me of those who made almost the identical argument about "preserving the sanctity of marriage" before Loving vs Virginia. Not much has changed.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: RickSp So basically, Vern, you just want to force your narrow religious perspectives on others in clear violation of the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

I will give you credit for unwillingly claiming that I am either "narrow" or "religious"--of course you know I am neither--and wait for you to change your attitude and ask something in a friendly tone. Think you can do it?

(By the way: The Founders were mostly christians. Not a deist among them, though Jefferson sorta lost his mind later in life.)

[Jack]

The Founders were mostly christians. Not a deist among them

You really don't know history, do you?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Isherwood You really don't know history, do you?

I think he makes it up as he goes along. Perhaps he is talking about some other "Founding Fathers."