Bush And The Constitution

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 19:58
Oddly, I imagine that the very same folks who are most vocal about the "sanctity" of the Constitution when it comes to upholding their rights ( yes, I'm referring to gun owners), have absolutely no qualms about adding a whole new section to this, "the most perfect",document.

bit assuming to say gun owners are anti-gays.............

[lynx]

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 18:58
No Child Left Behind My Ass

A quote from Michael Jackson?

[vidcc]

The next time Bush gives one of his justifying speeches about fighting for freedom you can shout out hypocrite at the top of your voice.
As Americans we should be fighting for the freedom of ALL Americans even if we don't agree with their views. If you feel that gay people shouldn't be joined as a couple and share the same rights as hetrosexual people then you have the freedom to have that view, but not the freedom to stop their freedoms.
Wanting to add something like this to the constitution smacks of oppression to me and is anti everything the USA is supposed to stand for.... Freedom,Liberty and justice FOR ALL.
As a hetrosexual, happily married father of 3 with one on the way i don't understand why someone wants to sleep with the same sex....but i don't judge them and i will fight for their right to do so.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Agrajag@24 February 2004 - 19:54
From Website

Dateline: 12/20/99

The Decision

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled today (December 20, 1999) that gay and lesbian couples must be granted the same benefits and protections given married couples of the opposite sex. The ruling has been described as the first of its kind in the nation.

Gay rights activist Scott Miller notes, "A huge victory in the state of Vermont goes a long way towards removing our second-class status as citizens."

He continues, "To mark this momentous occasion, I would like to see every national gay organization schedule their next convention in Vermont. Giving this state an influx of gay dollars is the least we could do!"

I can't say that I disagree with him. Any state that supports fundamental fairness is all right in my book.

The case that is bringing the smiles is Baker v. State, where three Vermont (two men and four women) couples were suing for freedom to marry.

In its landmark decision, the Vermont Supreme Court today ruled in favor of three same-sex couples who challenged the constitutionality of Vermont's marriage laws.

Writing for the Court, Justice Amestoy declared, "The extension of the Common Benefits Clause to acknowledge plaintiffs as Vermonters who seek nothing more, nor less, than legal protection and security for their avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship is simply, when all is said and done, a recognition of our common humanity."

The decision made no bones about the benefits marriage confers, "We hold that the state is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law."

The Court concluded that statutory benefits and protections of marriage must be extended to same-sex couples. The Court directed the legislature to remedy the discrimination. The court said the Legislature will determine whether such benefits will come through formal marriage or a system of domestic partnerships.

Under either method, the result must offer equal protections to same-sex couples as currently afforded to heterosexual married couples. The decision was unanimous.

The Plaintiffs

Holly Puterbaugh and Lois Farnham, one of the plaintiff couples, cheered the Court's ruling, noting, "We'll be celebrating our 27th anniversary together in October. We look forward to the time when we can finally make it official." Stan Baker and Peter Harrigan of Shelburne, and Nina Beck and Stacy Jolles of South Burlington, joined Farnham and Puterbaugh in challenging the State of Vermont's refusal to grant them civil marriage licenses.

Susan Murray, co-counsel for the Plaintiffs from the Middlebury law firm Langrock Sperry & Wool, stated: "It's really a win-win situation for everyone. The Court's decision will provide added security and protection to same-sex couples and their families without taking anything away from anyone else."

"This is a legal and cultural milestone," added Mary Bonauto, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, and Civil Rights Director at New England-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. "The Court recognized that same-sex couples need and deserve the same legal rights and protections other people take for granted. The Court's decision paves the way for more secure families and stronger communities."

It appears that The Pres now wishes to change your Constitution in order to outlaw Gay marriages. It would seem that he has no desire for individual states to make their own decisions in this matter. See my earlier post re the fourteenth amendment.

Uh yeah if it's federal law then yes it supercedes state law.
Yeah that's right ok.

[vegasguy]

Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are human beings, isnt marriage a bond between two people? Who cares if its the same sex. Homosexuals has been around since the begining of time, by shutting homosexuals out its comparing to the racial discrimination of blacks in the slavery days. They were denied their human rights and this damn country is doing the same.

VOTE FOR CLINTON! Uh, I mean KERRY!

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 15:12
Talk about a minority..."the homosexual Islamic activist"...
As Jon Stewart said, a voting bloc as large as the "retarded death row Texans for Bush".

or "Hobo Mayor."

[atiVidia]

Originally posted by vegasguy@25 February 2004 - 01:57
Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are human beings, isnt marriage a bond between two people?  Who cares if its the same sex.  Homosexuals has been around since the begining of time, by shutting homosexuals out its comparing to the racial discrimination of blacks in the slavery days.  They were denied their human rights and this damn country is doing the same.

VOTE FOR CLINTON!  Uh, I mean KERRY!

a marriage has and still is defined as:

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

it is usually NOT legal to have same-sex marriage

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage


in my opinion: homosexuality is a disease. such laws and amendments are a cure to this wretched disease! homosexuality is usually a genetic thing. thus, it should have been abolished by not allowing lesbian couples to have sperm.


it could also be a hormonal thing, in which case the hormone inbalance can be cured.



homosexual, like HIV and AIDS, should be researched and cured. it is destroying the society. by cured, i mean an actual cure, not genocide.

[vegasguy]

Hi,

homosexuals is not caused by genentic, that is the misperception that millions of people have. Studies show that a child raise by same-sex couple has a greater chance to be hit by a toliet seat from a airplane.

Homosexuality is caused by the person enivornment, in which they grew up in.

I gotta go to work, ill have to find my sources later on, to prove my point.

[j2k4]

A sedan and a motorcycle can both be defined as transportation insofar as they are capable of conveying a body from point A to point B.

However, only one might be appropriately termed a car.

Gays are human.

Straights are human.

But:

Gays are "homosexual".

Straights are "heterosexual".

Are these terms/references to be done away with, too?

If civil union somehow isn't good enough (even though that term has all the legal connotations of a marriage), why don't gays coin a term they can all agree on?

For all of you who ask, What's the big deal?", why shouldn't it suffice to say that those who, for whatever reason, wish to keep the term marriage as it is, currently and legally, just want it to remain that way?

If you are gay, and a "civil union" (or whatever term you care to affix to it), fills the bill as to legalities, what could possibly be wrong with coming up with something else?

Not to stereotype, but shouldn't this be a welcome opportunity for gays to put their renowned creativity to use?

Why "MARRIAGE?"

[vidcc]

Originally posted by vegasguy@25 February 2004 - 10:54
Homosexuality is caused by the person enivornment, in which they grew up in.

so how does that work with homosexuals that grew up in a hetrosexual family?..nearly all of them