Well It's Democracy

[j2k4]

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

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'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'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'd drop it like the political hot potato it is.

He is "rock-solid" behind it because he knows it won't go anywhere!

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'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.

[hobbes]

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.

[Biggles]

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.




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.

[j2k4]

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

Oh, well-if that's all it is, then fine-Marry away!

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

You people are asking "Why not?"

All I'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.

[hobbes]

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.




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'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'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.

[J'Pol]

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's eye we have a country which is taking positive steps to discriminate against a section of it's people. Led by a President who is willing to lie to all of it'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'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.

[Biggles]

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.




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?

[j2k4]

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.

[hobbes]

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'>

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




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.

[hobbes]

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.