Well It's Democracy

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes+7 August 2004 - 09:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 7 August 2004 - 09:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@7 August 2004 - 06:26
I look forward to your cunning stunts.

---

Jpol,

Isn&#39;t this a bit over the top&#33; Get a grip man&#33;

Whoop, actually I mis-read those last 2 words. A bit of a transposition error on my part. Secretly though, I was kinda looking forward to seeing those as well. [/b][/quote]
J&#39;Pol is obviously a big fan of Leslie Neilson. :D

Although it is a groaner, it is also exemplary.

Hats off. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes+7 August 2004 - 15:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 7 August 2004 - 15:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@7 August 2004 - 06:26
I look forward to your cunning stunts.

---

A bit of a transposition error on my part. [/b][/quote]
More of a Spoonerism, however the point is well made as is your comment that both the actual words or the perceived would be gratefully received.

I agree the important thing is that everyone should have the same rights, provided that in order to receive them others rights are not erroded. Or if they are that a fair and equitable balance be struck.

The words are not important, the rights are.

As ever you bring soap to my hole.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@7 August 2004 - 12:32
As ever you bring soap to my hole.

---

Wow, all my wonderful prison memories came flooding back, after reading that.

I&#39;m definitely going to have to slide this one into casual conversation at work.

Well done.

It is quite the rare occassion that I actually get startled by a response. My initial reaction was "what the feck did he just say, has he gone daft". Then I processed it. Guess I&#39;m still a little green when it comes to clever Spoonerisms.

Spoonerism: a transposition of usually initial sounds of two or more words (as in tons of soil for sons of toil)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+7 August 2004 - 07:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 7 August 2004 - 07:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@6 August 2004 - 23:01
Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA :(

---

No.

It should suffice to note the word which follows.

That word is STATES, not PEOPLE, a concession made necessary by the fact that while people are mobile, borders are not. ;) [/b][/quote]
Here we have a debate on human rights. This should not be state level, it should be federal.
But what do we have? A president that wants to change our constitution to deny the human rights of a minority across all the USA and a pretender to the throne that wants the individual states to decide for themselves.
Either way it makes for a sad day for human rights in a country that touts it&#39;s freedoms to the world and says "look at how much better we are than you".

Make it a civil union, but make the rights that go with it identical to a "marriage" WHATEVER STATE ONE MOVES TO.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@7 August 2004 - 15:47
Spoonerism: a transposition of usually initial sounds of two or more words (as in tons of soil for sons of toil)

---

I know, I was just being more specific, sorry for any offence my pit nicking may have caused

I am sure you will get to grips with the Spoonerism thing quickly enough. You are as mean as custard when it comes to learning new things.

I&#39;m glad it tickled your bunny phone btw.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc+7 August 2004 - 10:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 7 August 2004 - 10:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 07:30
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc

---

Quote:

---

@6 August 2004 - 23:01
Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA :(

---

No.

It should suffice to note the word which follows.

That word is STATES, not PEOPLE, a concession made necessary by the fact that while people are mobile, borders are not. ;)

---

Here we have a debate on human rights. This should not be state level, it should be federal.
But what do we have? A president that wants to change our constitution to deny the human rights of a minority across all the USA and a pretender to the throne that wants the individual states to decide for themselves.
[/b][/quote]
Not quite right, vid-

Here we have not a debate, but a clusterfuck:

A President who has a felt need to put boots to the issue for once and all by Constitutuional fiat, not because of his challenger (who, in order to absent himself from the actual debate, insincerely espouses the proper idea), but because the judiciary has interjected itself into a debate in which it has no constitutional entree.

This should be decided by the states if the gay lobbies could find the right venue, but their maps have been stolen by those who favor the judicial shortcut, which leads to societal strife.

Period.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+7 August 2004 - 19:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 7 August 2004 - 19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@7 August 2004 - 10:04

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 07:30
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

@6 August 2004 - 23:01
Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA :(

---

No.

It should suffice to note the word which follows.

That word is STATES, not PEOPLE, a concession made necessary by the fact that while people are mobile, borders are not. ;)

---

Here we have a debate on human rights. This should not be state level, it should be federal.
But what do we have? A president that wants to change our constitution to deny the human rights of a minority across all the USA and a pretender to the throne that wants the individual states to decide for themselves.

---

Not quite right, vid-

Here we have not a debate, but a clusterfuck:

A President who has a felt need to put boots to the issue for once and all by Constitutuional fiat, not because of his challenger (who, in order to absent himself from the actual debate, insincerely espouses the proper idea), but because the judiciary has interjected itself into a debate in which it has no constitutional entree.

This should be decided by the states if the gay lobbies could find the right venue, but their maps have been stolen by those who favor the judicial shortcut, which leads to societal strife.

Period. [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s what I was going to say :blink:

Leave that feckin pig alone, too much lipstick mate. Way too much lipstick.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 12:30
Not quite right, vid-

Here we have not a debate, but a clusterfuck:

A President who has a felt need to put boots to the issue for once and all by Constitutuional fiat, not because of his challenger (who, in order to absent himself from the actual debate, insincerely espouses the proper idea), but because the judiciary has interjected itself into a debate in which it has no constitutional entree.

This should be decided by the states if the gay lobbies could find the right venue, but their maps have been stolen by those who favor the judicial shortcut, which leads to societal strife.

Period.

---

How is it a "clusterfuck"?

Who says Kerry is forcing bush to do anything.
The fact is bush wishes to change the constitution to deny equal human rights. period. And i care not if you have a distaste for the minority that he wishes to deny the rights of, it is still unjust. The constitution is there to protect rights not take them away. I wonder if you would support Bush&#39;s actions if he wanted to make the change that gay "civil unions/marriage" be regognised.
You are not being forced to marry another man and giving gay unions full equal rights recognised IN ALL STATES will not diminish your rights one bit.
Kerry knows what a political hotbed this is and chooses to cower away from the issue and take the easy road by just saying let each state decide.
You don&#39;t like the idea of a judge making a ruling in favor of a group that you dissaprove of...so what...human rights are supposed to be just, not popular. That said why should it be the case that in the land of the free a judge had to make this ruling in the first place? doesn&#39;t that worry you?

I stand for freedom .... human rights and equality for all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc+7 August 2004 - 15:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 7 August 2004 - 15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@7 August 2004 - 12:30
Not quite right, vid-

Here we have not a debate, but a clusterfuck:

A President who has a felt need to put boots to the issue for once and all by Constitutuional fiat, not because of his challenger (who, in order to absent himself from the actual debate, insincerely espouses the proper idea), but because the judiciary has interjected itself into a debate in which it has no constitutional entree.

This should be decided by the states if the gay lobbies could find the right venue, but their maps have been stolen by those who favor the judicial shortcut, which leads to societal strife.

Period.

---

How is it a "clusterfuck"?

[/b][/quote]
Did you read my post?

I did NOT say Bush was brandishing an amendment because of Kerry (who wants no part of the debate, believe me), but because he wants the legislature to get it&#39;s head out of it&#39;s ass long enough to re-read the Constitution and act appropriately on the question-the legislature has pussed out on the issue so far, and doesn&#39;t even have the nerve to challenge the court&#39;s intrusion into Congressional purview.

Bush is merely trying to urge the legislature to step up to the plate and do it&#39;s duty.

I don&#39;t know how much clearer I can make this.

Why are you trying so hard to paint me as the bad guy here?

I&#39;m not even expressing an opinion, I&#39;m just saying the Constitution ought to be observed.

You have a problem with the Constitution?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 20:37
I&#39;m not even expressing an opinion, I&#39;m just saying the Constitution ought to be observed.

You have a problem with the Constitution?

---

i agree. the constitution should be observed and this unjust action be righted...grant equal rights... not change it to deny them and states should observe the USA constitution above their own local constitutions

The idea is is that the judicial branch has no right to erase and rewrite state laws and constitutions; Thats why we have a legislature.

For the non-Americans, could someone please explain the whole marriage / constitution thing.

Is there something in your constitution which specifically precludes same sex marriages. Or is it implied by discussing the marriage of man and woman (or vice versa).

It may help us in the developing world to understand the problems you are having.

J&#39;Pol-

The U.S. Constitution currently contains no language such as a DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

Bush&#39;s original idea was to threaten to amend the document (this is not done lightly) in order that the individual state legislatures might address the issue via referendum, as is Constitutionally correct, their Right, and indeed their obligation.

The legislators, in turn, are loathe to voice an opinion or cast a vote which could bear so heavily on their re-elections (it is a visceral issue, no?), and so do nothing.

The Judiciary, on the other hand, feels no such pressure (appointed for life, not subject to ornery voters), and so by fiat decided to "solve" the problem for a society seething for/with debate.

There are two problems:

1) The Supreme Court (in this case, the Massachusetts Supreme Court) steps out of it&#39;s own Constitutionally defined arena, and into the legislature&#39;s.

2) Society is not afforded the opportunity to have it&#39;s debate and address the issue in the polling place; it continues to seethe, much as it does over the abortion issue.

The Constitution provides for the states to handle precisely such issue via referendum, but, due to the real possiblity of non-uniform result (the likelihood of which is one of the underpinnings of the document), people like vid wish to flout the Constitution by improperly and illegally trumping State&#39;s Rights with a Supreme Court vote, because of the nature of the question.

The Federal Constitution isn&#39;t the organ for determining quality of life issues; the State Constitutions are.

To have it any other way would require?

You guessed it: A Constitutional Amendment&#33;

You&#39;ll never know how much I hate typing such a post upon awakening-I haven&#39;t even had a cuppa, yet. :angry:

I fail to see how you can argue that a fundamental issue such as a person&#39;s rights should fall to individual states to implement. If the issue is one of rights, they apply universally and as such should be taken up at a Federal level, otherwise they are not rights but options.

It seems to me that it must be first decided at a Federal level whether these are rights, and it is usual for the Judiciary (probably the Supreme Court in the US) to determine such issues by examining current laws and constitutions. Interpretation of the laws is their function. If they interpret a law in a way which was not the intention of the legislature, it is the legislature which is at fault for not being more explicit.

Once the Judiciary has made such a determination, then if it has decided they are rights there is nothing for the individual states to discuss, the Federal legislature also need do nothing with regard to those rights (unless it feels there is a need to remove them) but it will have to do something in respect of other legislation in order to enact those rights.

On the other hand, if the judicial system determines that they are not rights, it is then that individual states can decide whether they wish to allow the options available to them.

The judiciary has attempted to make law relative to the question of gay union.

The making of law is the exclusive province of the legislature.

The function of the judiciary is to determine the Constitutionality of such law as the legislature formulates and enacts.

No government body may make law in place of the legislature.

The legislature is currently loathe to address the situation, owing to it&#39;s potential impact on re-election.

Bush is attempting to remedy this legislative impasse.

BTW, lynx-the Constitution grants the States the Right to make such law; it is not for us to debate the wisdom of the founders, but if this issue is decided any other way than by the states, and is not supplemented by an amendment(&#33;) to pave the way for that decision, the issue will not have been legally decided and will not go away.

That&#39;s it for me; this is turning into a real headache.

I doubt very much that the judiciary has attempted to make law, they (probably more than the legislature) would be only too aware of the folly of that course of action. What is more likely is that those who disagree with the ruling of the judiciary are trying to argue that this is what is happening. It may well be that the originators of the laws did not foresee the possible interpretation now being put on the laws, I imagine they were made quite some time ago and possibly at a time when homosexuality itself was illegal in which case the subject of same-sex civil union could not be an issue.

I disagree with your interpretation of the role of the judiciary, although what you describe is a (small) part of it&#39;s function. I am sure the legal profession would disagree too, they make their best money on cases where the legislature has not left things cut and dried. But it is right that the legislature do not always tidy everything up, they cannot possibly consider every possible case and if they attempted to do so no laws would ever be passed. If they could then every option would have been covered and there would be no need for the judiciary.

If the legislature is loathe to address the situation it may be as you say because of re-election concerns, alternatively it may be because it thinks that the ruling of the judiciary is just fine and sees no need to intervene.

I&#39;m not sure of the heirarchy of US laws, but I was under the impression that if the Federal Supreme Court made a ruling then it would be binding on an individual state&#39;s Supreme Court. Otherwise what is the point of having a Federal Supreme Court? Similarly doesn&#39;t the Constitution of the United States outrank the Constitution of an individual state? If not, why have it, it is useless.

And any amendment is only necessary if the current constitution does not address the issue. Bush is threatening to introduce the Defense of Marriage Act. The question is whether such an act would be constitutional, and that falls back to the judiciary and I&#39;m pretty sure they&#39;ve indicated they believe it would not be.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 August 2004 - 06:33
For the non-Americans, could someone please explain the whole marriage / constitution thing.

Is there something in your constitution which specifically precludes same sex marriages. Or is it implied by discussing the marriage of man and woman (or vice versa).

It may help us in the developing world to understand the problems you are having.

---

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America and keep away from the pooper, you sickos.


Guess I should have done my homework, the answer is right there. I see no point in discussing this further as the lines have been drawn.

BTW, how many of you can sing the pre-amble above from those old "Schoolhouse Rock" cartoons.

Coming soon: "Me, I just a bill, just a bill up on Capitol hill......" and "Conjunction junction what&#39;s your function? Hookin&#39; up words and makin&#39; "clauses"".

Jeez j2, you make Bush out to be a scholar or sumpin.
You are aware that prior to becoming President, Bush was foursquare AGAINST a Constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage.
Hopping on the bandwagon now seems to me to be little more than a political move pandering to the religious right wing constituancy he so desperately needs to claim another term.
Even if such an amendment were to clear the Congress ( and, embarrassingly enough for the Republicans, it didn&#39;t even come close) it would take YEARS for the required 36 states to ratify it.
That would be years during which another minority would be deprived of benefits and legal standing.
At the end of this interminable process I think the Amendment would fail anyway.
Times are &#39;achangin and this diversionary tactic can&#39;t stop them.

Thank you chaps.

I suppose the question really is whether or not marriage, or the civil advantages it endows, is a basic human right.

I myself have a tendency towards equality of treatment. As such it seems right to me that same sex unions (whatever we wish to call them) should have the same rights as traditional married couples. It would also seem to me that it should be the same for all of the states.

However when one thinks about it, that would depend on how other matters are dealt with. For example I believe you have federal taxes and state taxes, so any tax breaks would be decided on (at least partly) by the individual State.

I think the bottom line is that, if marriage is considered a basic human right, then it should be the same treatment for the whole of the USA. However if the argument purely relates to things like tax, pensions etc then is should be down to the individual States to decide as they do with other related issues.

If the latter is the case then I believe that gay couples should be treated equally to traditional couples, within the state itself. However that is more likely to happen in some places than in others.

Surely then it would be a matter for federal government to decide that all couples would be treated equally. Then for state government to decide exactly what that treatment will be.

I have been once again overtaken by posters with less distractions than i. :lol:

J2 you say that "people like me".."wish to flout the Constitution by improperly and illegally trumping State&#39;s Rights with a Supreme Court vote, because of the nature of the question."

That&#39;s bull. I am not supporting gay rights..i am supporting HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY...the nature of the question is irrelivent. I am able to do this even though i find the homosexual act repulsive.

I believe that the laws we have which protect from discrimination are adequate and were used properly in the rulings. The rulings being the finding that a law that exists has been broken. The courts are there to make rulings on the laws. A certain party in government didn&#39;t like the ruling and made an attempt to change the laws...this failed...and rightly so i.m.o.
My original post was making the point that although it&#39;s democracy it&#39;s not what the USA tells everyone it stands for when it spouts the virtues of freedom.


you stated earlier that you made no opinion so to clear it up for us lets see where you do stand on the issue. yes or no answers please.

1. Do you think that equality is a right in the USA?

2. Homosexuals should have the right to a "union" that grants them the same rights as hetrosexual marriages ?

3. should a specific amendment to the constitution be put in place to ban gay "unions".

Edit: here are my answers.

1. yes

2. yes

3. no

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@8 August 2004 - 11:28

you stated earlier that you made no opinion so to clear it up for us lets see where you do stand on the issue. yes or no answers please.

1. Do you think that equality is a right in the USA?

2. Homosexuals should have the right to a "union" that grants them the same rights as hetrosexual marriages ?

3.&nbsp; should a specific amendment to the constitution be put in place to ban gay "unions".

Edit: here are my answers.

1. yes

2. yes

3. no

---

I&#39;ll do this backwards.

3) No. It isn&#39;t necessary.

2) Yes. I see no harm.

1) Herein lies the bugaboo.

In the abstract, who could say no?

The fact is that equality cannot be legislated; equality can only exist as an aim, or a provision of opportunity.

An imperfect example would be access for the handicapped; we build wheelchair ramps so certain people can access certain buildings or facilities.

Does this make them "equal" to "fully-abled" persons?

Certainly not in any fuller sense of the word.

I am struck also by the notion that access the the term "marriage" seems to signify the key to turning that particular trick, when [I]everything else is being offered, and on a silver platter to boot.

To posit that the deal is untenable absent the term is preposterous.

It is perhaps true that equality cannot be legislated.

However inequality certainly can. Apartheid being the classic example.

I think that is the point old bean. The creation of laws which support inequality, rather than failing to create laws which prevent it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@8 August 2004 - 11:05
Jeez j2, you make Bush out to be a scholar or sumpin.
You are aware that prior to becoming President, Bush was foursquare AGAINST a Constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage.
Hopping on the bandwagon now seems to me to be little more than a political move pandering to the religious right wing constituancy he so desperately needs to claim another term.
Even if such an amendment were to clear the Congress ( and, embarrassingly enough for the Republicans, it didn&#39;t even come close) it would take YEARS for the required 36 states to ratify it.
That would be years during which another minority would be deprived of benefits and legal standing.
At the end of this interminable process I think the Amendment would fail anyway.
Times are &#39;achangin and this diversionary tactic can&#39;t stop them.

---

As I have said many times, in many places:

Bush is executing a tactical maneuver; the amendment will never come to pass, and he and everyone else (including me, but excluding you, apparently) knows it.

It&#39;s an election year, for crissakes-this isn&#39;t your first one&#33; :huh:

Jpol has hit on the point very well and i applaud the post...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 August 2004 - 15:36
It is perhaps true that equality cannot be legislated.

However inequality certainly can. Apartheid being the classic example.

I think that is the point old bean. The creation of laws which support inequality, rather than failing to create laws which prevent it.

---

This post is as intellectually pleasing to the mind as a damn fine hat is to the head.

http://www.costumeuniverse.com/prods..._hat_GC143.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 August 2004 - 12:36
It is perhaps true that equality cannot be legislated.

However inequality certainly can. Apartheid being the classic example.

I think that is the point old bean. The creation of laws which support inequality, rather than failing to create laws which prevent it.

---

Bush isn&#39;t creating any law, and there will be no amendment.

The difficulty is that the gay lobby has decided it wishes this right, and desires it be etched in stone, right bloody now&#33;

I&#39;m sure they will be accorded these rights in time, but I do not favor riding roughshod over the Constitution in order to indulge them and save the wait, you see?

Could I be any clearer on this? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@8 August 2004 - 16:30
Bush isn&#39;t creating any law, and there will be no amendment.

The difficulty is that the gay lobby has decided it wishes this right, and desires it be etched in stone, right bloody now&#33;

I&#39;m sure they will be accorded these rights in time, but I do not favor riding roughshod over the Constitution in order to indulge them and save the wait, you see?

Could I be any clearer on this? :huh:

---

How is recognising basic human rights to be compared with "indulgance".

Gays should never have been barred from a legally recognized union and, in fact, there is nothing in the constituition that makes it illegal in the first place.

It is the "indulgance" of the church by our government that strikes me.

It is like stating that freeing the slaves was a political indulgance. It was a situation that should NEVER have occurred in the first place.



edit- fixed a bizarre typo

if they get the same tax breaks and so on, will divorce be as diffficult and looked upon the same as it is for straight couples. so it isn&#39;t exploited to give gay couples a tax break for the sake of a tax break?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+8 August 2004 - 19:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 8 August 2004 - 19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@8 August 2004 - 12:36
It is perhaps true that equality cannot be legislated.

However inequality certainly can. Apartheid being the classic example.

I think that is the point old bean. The creation of laws which support inequality, rather than failing to create laws which prevent it.

---

Bush isn&#39;t creating any law, and there will be no amendment.

The difficulty is that the gay lobby has decided it wishes this right, and desires it be etched in stone, right bloody now&#33;

I&#39;m sure they will be accorded these rights in time, but I do not favor riding roughshod over the Constitution in order to indulge them and save the wait, you see?

Could I be any clearer on this? :huh: [/b][/quote]
I take this from the post which opened this thread

Quote:

---

Missouri voters solidly endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a decision that was closely watched by national groups on both sides of the battle.

---

Now you may say that amending constitutions, state or federal is not creating legislation. Other than that patently specious argument, I really don&#39;t understand where you are coming from.

Positive action is being taken to discriminate against a group of people. I can&#39;t really make it any clearer than that. Or am I missing something.

Hobbes was quicker than i in the post.

MicroScreen2
same rights, same playing field, so same rules with divorce.
We are not arguing for anything different for anyone and we are not approving of a lifestyle, we are arguing for equality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 August 2004 - 14:05
I take this from the post which opened this thread

Quote:

---

Missouri voters solidly endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a decision that was closely watched by national groups on both sides of the battle.

---

Now you may say that amending constitutions, state or federal is not creating legislation. Other than that patently specious argument, I really don&#39;t understand where you are coming from.

---

What is going on in Missouri (regardless of which side of the argument is taken) is, like it or not, constitutionally correct, the Mass. Supreme court&#39;s decision is not.

I have said that Bush is taking his stance in order to force the issue, one way or the other.

If Bush suddenly and magically had a clear path to his "proposed" amendment he&#39;d drop it like the political hot potato it is.

He is "rock-solid" behind it because he knows it won&#39;t go anywhere&#33;

Throw out the word "marriage" for a moment; gays want a nationally legislated right to a civil and legal bond, no matter what it is called, correct?

The Constitution says such questions are to be decided at the state level, and, believe it or not, it is not my fault that this is the case.

I do favor state&#39;s rights, and fie on me if I deem that issue to be of greater importance than the gay-union issue, ESPECIALLY when there is a viable proposal (gay unions) within reach.

All this bullshit over the fact of their coveting the term marriage.

People are being denied freedom simply because of the church and you talk about constituitional correctness.

This is some sort of logical disconnect, to me. It is a bigoted imposition of the Church upon our Government, get it out, it should never have been there.

The Constituition grants freedom, and does not deny them, because some Religion gets favoritism by the Government.

Separation of Church and State.

Why do people need to vote on something that has never been illegal and is a human right and NOT a matter of public opinion.

This is not an issue that need to be voted on.

Indeed, if there is a legal move to define marriage in some sort of quasi-religious way will it outlaw divorce (willfully removing the bread from thousands of lawyers mouths) and will it return women to being the property of their husbands?

The direction and extent needs to be clear.


:ph34r:

Although I tend to agree with J2, this is going nowhere in a hurry and it is merely throwing sops to those who are unlikely to vote for anyone other than Bush anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@8 August 2004 - 15:13
...constituitional correctness...

---

Oh, well-if that&#39;s all it is, then fine-Marry away&#33;

Find for me please any references I have made to religion?

You people are asking "Why not?"

All I&#39;m doing is giving what you ask for.

Besides which, if you are afraid to give the people voice, what are you all but people?

If their voice differs from yours, are they to be silenced?

If they are somehow more bigoted than you, are they to be silenced?

If they are religious, and their religion informs their opinion, are they to be silenced?

Damned intolerant attitude, if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@8 August 2004 - 18:20
Indeed, if there is a legal move to define marriage in some sort of quasi-religious way will it outlaw divorce (willfully removing the bread from thousands of lawyers mouths) and will it return women to being the property of their husbands?

The direction and extent needs to be clear.


:ph34r:

Although I tend to agree with J2, this is going nowhere in a hurry and it is merely throwing sops to those who are unlikely to vote for anyone other than Bush anyway.

---

Nobody on this thread cares about "going anywhere", just establishing equal rights for the citizens of our country.

I have not mentioned word one about Bush or politics. I look at this from a philosophical perspective, not a political one.

If we had forbidden Scottish Americans from buying food because the Christian Church didn&#39;t approve, then realised that the Church should not be involved in civil rights and that this practise was a clear cut violation of civil rights, wouldn&#39;t it be absurd to say that a vote would be needed to allow the Scottish to buy food and equally absurd that it be a decision made by the individual States.


To J2, you are free to voice your opinions. No problems there. But they are tainted by a religion that should have no say in our Government and its ability to sanctify civil unions and it never should.

Quite frankly, we are not telling you to be silent, we are just telling you that you may be wrong on this one, from the stand point of a free society.

j2

The fact that you think this is political machinations does not really make a lot of difference in my view. All it means is that your President is being duplicitous and misleading his people in order to get re-elected.

So in the world&#39;s eye we have a country which is taking positive steps to discriminate against a section of it&#39;s people. Led by a President who is willing to lie to all of it&#39;s people, in order to further his career.

This a country with a proud tradition of not only accepting huddled masses, but welcoming them.

I&#39;m sorry but it reflects badly on you. It also sounds just a tad "Nuremberg", sorry we are persecuting people, but rules is rules dontcha know.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes+8 August 2004 - 20:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 8 August 2004 - 20:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@8 August 2004 - 18:20
Indeed, if there is a legal move to define marriage in some sort of quasi-religious way will it outlaw divorce (willfully removing the bread from thousands of lawyers mouths) and will it return women to being the property of their husbands?

The direction and extent needs to be clear.


:ph34r:

Although I tend to agree with J2, this is going nowhere in a hurry and it is merely throwing sops to those who are unlikely to vote for anyone other than Bush anyway.

---

Nobody on this thread cares about "going anywhere", just establishing equal rights for the citizens of our country.

I have not mentioned word one about Bush or politics. I look at this from a philosophical perspective, not a political one.

If we had forbidden Scottish Americans from buying food because the Christian Church didn&#39;t approve, then realised that the Church should not be involved in civil rights and that this practise was a clear cut violation of civil rights, wouldn&#39;t it be absurd to say that a vote would be needed to allow the Scottish to buy food and equally absurd that it be a decision made by the individual States. [/b][/quote]
Every road goes somewhere and as Bugs Bunny noted very few of them are Alberque.

Looking from the outside as it were, politics and vote catching seem to be the driving force here. I believe a great many unions or weddings have already taken place showing that the mechanism is in place. It is the negative "stop it" campaign and why the current Administration has got on board that is, in part at least, the issue.

If re-elected will Bush really give this issue much time and space?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@8 August 2004 - 15:33

To J2, you are free to voice your opinions. No problems there. But they are tainted by a religion that should have no say in our Government and its ability to sanctify civil unions and it never should.

Quite frankly, we are not telling you to be silent, we are just telling you that you may be wrong on this one, from the stand point of a free society.

---

I&#39;m not giving voice to the opinion that offends you, and I wasn&#39;t objecting that you were trying to silence me, Hobbes.

I haven&#39;t once attempted to interject religion into this thread, and I don&#39;t think my interpretation of the Constitution indicates this.

Basically, I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re on about.

I feel like the broad at the license bureau who must inform you with regret that your license won&#39;t be mailed for a month.

I didn&#39;t write the Constitution, I just read it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles+8 August 2004 - 18:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles &#064; 8 August 2004 - 18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@8 August 2004 - 20:33
<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles

---

Quote:

---

@8 August 2004 - 18:20
Indeed, if there is a legal move to define marriage in some sort of quasi-religious way will it outlaw divorce (willfully removing the bread from thousands of lawyers mouths) and will it return women to being the property of their husbands?

The direction and extent needs to be clear.


:ph34r:

Although I tend to agree with J2, this is going nowhere in a hurry and it is merely throwing sops to those who are unlikely to vote for anyone other than Bush anyway.

---

Nobody on this thread cares about "going anywhere", just establishing equal rights for the citizens of our country.

I have not mentioned word one about Bush or politics. I look at this from a philosophical perspective, not a political one.

If we had forbidden Scottish Americans from buying food because the Christian Church didn&#39;t approve, then realised that the Church should not be involved in civil rights and that this practise was a clear cut violation of civil rights, wouldn&#39;t it be absurd to say that a vote would be needed to allow the Scottish to buy food and equally absurd that it be a decision made by the individual States.

---

Every road goes somewhere and as Bugs Bunny noted very few of them are Alberque.

Looking from the outside as it were, politics and vote catching seem to be the driving force here. I believe a great many unions or weddings have already taken place showing that the mechanism is in place. It is the negative "stop it" campaign and why the current Administration has got on board that is, in part at least, the issue.

If re-elected will Bush really give this issue much time and space?[/b][/quote]
No Biggles,

There are no (zero)civil unions that grant even a hint of the same priviledges that "marriage" grants.

That is the point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+8 August 2004 - 18:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 8 August 2004 - 18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@8 August 2004 - 15:33

To J2, you are free to voice your opinions. No problems there. But they are tainted by a religion that should have no say in our Government and its ability to sanctify civil unions and it never should.

Quite frankly, we are not telling you to be silent, we are just telling you that you may be wrong on this one, from the stand point of a free society.

---

I&#39;m not giving voice to the opinion that offends you, and I wasn&#39;t objecting that you were trying to silence me, Hobbes.

I haven&#39;t once attempted to interject religion into this thread, and I don&#39;t think my interpretation of the Constitution indicates this.

Basically, I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re on about.

I feel like the broad at the license bureau who must inform you with regret that your license won&#39;t be mailed for a month.

I didn&#39;t write the Constitution, I just read it. [/b][/quote]
Show me where in the Constituition it states that gay people cannot be married. That was decided by Christians, not the Constitution.

Lots of freedoms enjoyed under our Constituition are things we may not agree with, but that is something we must accept if we truly care about having a free society.

What I am "on about" is that a subset of our population is being controlled by a popularity contest and their civil rights are being ignored.

Why, the penetrance of Religion upon our Government.

You may not have mentioned it, but I will. Why, because it is the key to why this an issue at all.