I'm frankly suprised that he's going for it in election season. A far safer move would have been to wait until he got re-elected, and then endorsed this amendment. At best, it's leaving it open for civil unions to be legalized on a state-by-state basis. Looks like this will be one of the hot-button issues in the upcoming election. Veddy interesting. [ 02-24-2004: Message edited by: Karnaj ]
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
although I tend to feel that this should be a non issue. The federal and state goverenments need to keep their noses out of private affairs.
quote:
Somthor got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
I'll disagree I think there are enough people out there who will vote for him becuse of this than against.although I tend to feel that this should be a non issue. The federal and state goverenments need to keep their noses out of private affairs.
Yeah, but are the people who'd vote for him because of this issue convert voters?
That is the singulare dumbest move...
quote:
diadem had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
stupid. and a waste of resources.
maybe but I thinkits a excellent smoke and mirrors to draw attention from other topics he rather us not spend time dewlling on.
like Iraq, WMD, economy, jobs, etc etc etc
quote:
Verily, Somthor doth proclaim:
maybe but I thinkits a excellent smoke and mirrors to draw attention from other topics he rather us not spend time dewlling on.like Iraq, WMD, economy, jobs, etc etc etc
oddly... I agree.
quote:
Somthor's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
maybe but I thinkits a excellent smoke and mirrors to draw attention from other topics he rather us not spend time dewlling on.like Iraq, WMD, economy, jobs, etc etc etc
which as a voter it makes me pissed that resources are being spent on that instead of other domestic issues like helping the economy.
I can't see this as anything more than an incredibly bad publicity stunt. It's never going to pass, and before you know it liberals will have their first-ever label for Bush that's nearly legitimate: intolerant.
Then before you know it there's a Democrat in office and in a couple years we'll be living in a COMMUNIST STATE. Cut to a decade later and we're in shambles, just like every communist state before us.
I know this is unscientific.. but this is taken from a cnn.com poll
quote:
Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to ban same-sex marriages?
Yes 43% 115112 votes
No 57% 155432 votes
What happened to majority rules with minority rights? First the patriot act, now this. Have we forgotten the basic ideas of our founding documents?
[ 02-24-2004: Message edited by: diadem ]
edit: speaking of which.. there's a bit of reading I should do that i haven't read since grade school except for a joke of a politics class in college (easiest a ever) :/
quote:
diadem had this to say about John Romero:
What in the fuck?!I know this is unscientific.. but this is taken from a cnn.com poll
What happened to majority rules with minority rights? First the patriot act, now this. Have we forgotten the basic ideas of our founding documents?
So you're for the banning of gay marriage?
[ 02-24-2004: Message edited by: Razor ]
quote:
Razor wrote this stupid crap:
oops... meant to hit a new topic...
better than hitting new topic and thinking you are hitting reply
quote:
Maradon the Dumbleton probably says this to all the girls:
Then before you know it there's a Democrat in office and in a couple years we'll be living in a COMMUNIST STATE. Cut to a decade later and we're in shambles, just like every communist state before us.
Yeah, those 8 years under Clinton were pure hell.
oh well
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Somthor:
clinton is the reason I'm not a US customs agent today. I had a internship all set up which would have led to employment on graduation, but clinton got elected and did away with all the jobs. no internshipoh well
How many jobs have you had?
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
When you've done something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
OMG STEALING FROM FUTURAMA?!?!
When you get into the Heartland or Bible belt you will find a lot of oposition to Gay Marriage.
Bush is a Republican, Conservatives in general are against Gay Marriages, therefore it makes sense for Bush to back this.
Do I think it should be an ammendment? Hmm I really dont' know. Probalby not. however I don't completely dissagree with the idea either.
Another thing I would like to point out. The US is NOT based on Majority Rule. We are a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. There is a very important difference. In a Democratic Republic the people vote for the rulers and THEY make the decisions. In a Democracy we would all vote for every law. Our Congress, Senate, and president do thier best to lead us with the information they have. And thier job is to do what they feel is best for the country as a whole. Not to do what is popular
Parties like the Libratarians forget this. And this is why they will never win major National elections.
Taxes are not popular, but until somone comes up with a better way, they are staying around. The War in Iraq ws not "popular" (although many did support it), however the end result was well worth it.
You don't become President to be popular. You do it to get things done. And part of the job is having every person in the country second guessing you. But people like you and me dont' have all the info. We dont' get the National security Briefings, we don't see the satilite photos that show a camp where terrorist may be training. We don't deal with the saily shit that people in goverment have to go through.
Look at pictures of any president from the begining of thier term and compare it with a picture after they leave office. They haven't aged 4 or 8 years. These people look like hell warmed over. And it is because of the stress of this job. They know what they are doing far better than we do. And while I may not always agree with them either I willnever deny that it takes a hell of an iron will to do that job. And this goes for the ones I hated to Clinton, Carter, etc.
People look up some info on the net and think they know the whole story. Well there is a saying. "I belive 1/4 of what I hear and 1/2 of what I see." That is something you should live by. Because unless you know the whole story you can't say who is right or wrong.
quote:
Azizza Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Parties like the Libratarians forget this.
I'm a Libra :D
.png)
quote:
There was much rejoicing when DJ Darius said this:
I'm a Libra
LOL Smartass 
quote:
Azizza thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:Look at pictures of any president from the begining of thier term and compare it with a picture after they leave office. They haven't aged 4 or 8 years. These people look like hell warmed over. And it is because of the stress of this job.
Its a good thing Bush was taking those month long vacations, then. Too bad 9/11 put an end to that.
For the record, I agreed with a lot of what you said in that post. However, just because we are not privy to every piece of information that the President has, doesn't mean we should cease dissension in this country. And that really only applys to matters of security. In matters such as gay marriage, the President doesn't know anything we don't.
quote:
Zair had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Its a good thing Bush was taking those month long vacations, then. Too bad 9/11 put an end to that.For the record, I agreed with a lot of what you said in that post. However, just because we are not privy to every piece of information that the President has, doesn't mean we should cease dissension in this country. And that really only applys to matters of security. In matters such as gay marriage, the President doesn't know anything we don't.
Oh I agree in general. We should continue to question. However My point was that he (or she when a woman wins) is probably right more often than we are. [ 02-25-2004: Message edited by: Azizza ]
Leaving aside the question of whether Gay marriage is right or wrong, a constitutional ammendment is *NOT* where that should be decided. Look at the amendments. Each and every one is either a statement on government structure and ability, or a declaration of a fundamental human right and/or equality. The only exception to this? The former 18th amendment, prohibition. And that one worked out oh so well, didn't it? Constitutional amendments are *not* the place to ban activities!
Even if one is against gay marriages, one must admit that it is a bit of a grey area, as no one is actually endangered by them; it's a matter of principle and preservation of an institution. Grey areas do *not* belong in the constitution, only the absolute firmest points of the people's rights belong there.
This is simply a blantant attempt to supercede the power of the judiciary branch of government; "If they say banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, then we'll put it in the constitution!" The system of checks and balances exists for a reason. If someone wants to change what's unconstitutional and what isn't, you do it the old-fashioned way; get your party elected repeatedly over many, many years, and slowly appoint judges that agree with you as the older ones die off. The judiciary branch is *meant* to be nearly impossible to change; that way, a quick political fad or movement can't change the landscape of our country.
Fight it in the legislature, fight it in the courts. But don't fight it in the constitution. [ 02-25-2004: Message edited by: Chalesm ]
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
quote:
Trillee said this about your mom:
Ok.. I wanna know where it says it's unconstitutional.
It's been ruled so under equal protection in some states iirc.
This issue of gay marriages highlights a fundamental flaw in US society. We lack the ability to discuss issues on a philosophical level. How many people know what philosophy is? Much less taken a course in philosophy? (I mean in the general population.) I see so many flaws on both sides of the issues, it makes my brain spin.
While marriage does have its basis in religion, I think that religious documents fail to articulate of the goals and structure of marriage and therefore, those who debate the issue from a religious standpoint cannot debate this topic successfully. My favorite (that's a sarcasm) argument to date is one where a pastor on Larry King Live was trying to use the bible as the "word of god" therefore the bible is the ultimate authority. There are so many different versions of the bible and not everyone subscribes to the "word of god" so that argument goes out the window.
So now we have gay people wanting to get married to show their love for their chosen partner (not my thinking, just my impression from news broadcasts). Isn't this a fundamental problem with marriages between heterosexuals as well?
We have heterosexuals who get married because why? For the love and romance of being married. To avoid the risk of picking up sexually transmitted diseases from having sex with random partners. To affirm their lifelong committment to one other person. To live a longer life. Ad infinitum.
An underlying question is under what circumstances or environment do we want children to be raised. The idea of marriage is a "fundamental institution" of society. It's where children are born and raised and learn about how to be a citizen in any society. Children learn the basic rules of morality and laws from parents and older siblings and family members. Children learn how to behave as a male or female and how to behave in relation to people of different genders and authority levels. Or at least that's were our primary learning and socializing is supposed to occur. If we don't get this from our family, are we supposed to depend on teachers and educational institutions for this learning? Then again, those sources have been so dumbed down that we can't depend on them for childhood learning experiences.
*Flame away
I think this issue is on a few different levels. One level is what the gays want to do and why. They want to be able to get married so they feel they have equal rights like normal heterosexuals do. They want to be able to show their feelings are that strong that there isn't anything that is going to make them faulter. But also there is the problem of finances. Marriage will do all sorts of different things for taxes, insurance, loans and pretty much anything that deals with money. It usually makes it cheaper as well. Why should we be elitest bastards and hord that for ourselves?
On another level, the President is too religious. I think he draws most of his anti homosexual feelings from his religion, and his up bringing. There are far to many flaws in any religion to really base laws around them. They never really work out too well. Theocracies used to be big when our country wasn't a country yet. Look how well that worked out for the good people of Salem. They were killed because of blind belief in their religion.
On a personal note, I do think that gay marriage should be allowed. I don't see why it's anyone elses buisness to tell others what they can and cannot do in their relationships. Getting married is not extream, and should be a right for everyone, regarless of orientation.
Ona final note, I think it's funny that Bush is slapping Dick in the face like this. If you recall, Dick has a lesbian daughter, which I think is why Bush hasn't really spoken up until now.
From a less biased standpoint of seeing things coming, if Bush does win this next election, he'll think it's his Gød-given right to do whatever the hell he wants. Setting aside my own opinions on issues like the Iraq vendetta and the Patriot Act, he has poised himself to ride into office on a proposal to change the foundation of this country for the sake of his own party's moral beliefs. A constitutional amendment of this nature would equate, as far as morality, to a constitutional ban on abortion or birth control (or both). It's a morally and socially divided issue, and any attempt to dictate an absolute solution will result in disaster. Some people still don't believe he won the last election. If he wins this one based on so radical a proposal, we'll likely find ourselves staring into the mouth of the abyss.
quote:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
It may be a mistake politically, and I understand the arguments regarding the moral implications of such an amendment, but what he's actually proposing to do is to suggest that 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate (or 2/3 of the States, or 34 states) propose an amendment, and 3/4 of the State legislatures (38 states), all elected representatives of the people) ratify an amendment. If they don't, it does not pass, just like the failed Equal Rights Amendment in the past (which never seems to get raised in these discussions). They are all free to vote it down, and we are all free to call our elected representatives and lobby for our viewpoint, like any other law (although with a mich higher burden to pass it).
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
quote:
We were all impressed when Star Collective wrote:
I still think we should just give everyone "civil unions" and move marriage into a purely personal sphere.
This is the best idea in regards to this subject I have yet heard.
[ 02-25-2004: Message edited by: ^_^ Zeke kekeke lala~~ ]
Edit: typo
quote:
^_^ Zeke kekeke lala~~ had this to say about Duck Tales:
The thing is though how many of the churches would allow it anyway? After all, religions tend to be against homosexuality in general and it's in their cynagogues (SP?) and such that the weddings occur.
Edit: typo
Ever heard of a justice of the peace? Or a judge? They can perform weddings, so they certainly could perform civil unions.
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
quote:
Star Collective had this to say about Robocop:
I still think we should just give everyone "civil unions" and move marriage into a purely personal sphere.
Yes, this is probably the best way to go politically.
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
quote:
The propaganda machine of Gydyon's junta released this statement:
Ever heard of a justice of the peace? Or a judge? They can perform weddings, so they certainly could perform civil unions.
Do you know the difference between the two? I mean, is the license the same for both, or do you specifically have to apply for a civil union?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
I really don't see anything coming of this. [ 02-25-2004: Message edited by: Suddar ]
