1) My decision is a personal one 2) Yes I support the amendment. If judges think they can start rewriting our laws, God help us. Sadly, activist judges have driven us to these measures in order to put a stop to their madness. Sam, are you Catholic? How does this issue square with your religious beliefs?
1. Elaborate. How do gay marriages affect you? 2. If that is the problem then you should support a different consitiutional amendment revoking judicial review. Why do you feel that the constitution should say that gay americans shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexual americans? BTW, I don't really consider myself catholic, but even if I did, I wouldn't have the faintest problem with it at all. Again,Does it bother me if gay people want to get married or affect my life at all? Not one bit. Do you think I care what the pope or whoever else thinks about this issue? Nope.
IOW, you are a bigot and prefer to keep the specifics of your bigotry to yourself. So, since judges have started to find that discriminating against a significant percentage of our population is against the constitution, social conservatives find it necessary to codify their bigotry as an amendment to the Constitution. They want their discrimination to be on the same level with amendments that gave rights to women, African-Americans, gun owners, free speech, and freedom of religion.
When a judge rules an exisiting law unconstitutional, how is that rewriting a law? Isn't that the role of the judiciary?
While a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, it seems more Americans are OPPOSED to this amendment (which is what we're really talking about) than favor it - 48 to 41 %. What happened to the old conservative mantra of "state's rights"? http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2204_03_gay-marriage-update-2_2-24_pr.pdf
wait a second, andy. i am on your side, at least in part, in this argument. but you need to stop characterizing everyone who disagrees with you as an idiot or a bigot. it chills real debate, and makes these boards very unpleasant. those are personal call-outs that are entirely unnecessary. you do that over and over and over again. people can arrive at conclusions contrary to yours without bad intent...or without being an idiot.
wow, wellstone, probably the most proudly, unapologetically, liberal senator at the time, voted to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. what's the word dems? was he a bigot?
a problem arises when other states have to abide by the decisions of states that decide to recognize gay marriage. the DMA was supposed to address this issue, but it's supposed that the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution will render the DMA unconstitutional. I personally believe that any state should be allowed to recognize gay marriages should they choose to do so. however, the reverse should also be the case. i'm not sure how you achieve that end tho. local llaws apply in other areas, like the drinking age, or whether to ban drink at all in the case of dry counties. why not marriage as well?
Exclusive "Interview" with John Kerry http://www.alphecca.com/archives/alarc022804.html#d -- As with all giant news gathering organizations, Alphecca has swarms of reporters out in the field covering the 2004 elections. Our man Brice caught up with Senator John Kerry at a recent campaign event. Brice: Thanks for taking a few moments to talk with us, Senator Kerry. Kerry: My pleasure Brice. You probably didn't know this but I served in Viet Nam. One of my men was named Brice. I think he was gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that mind you as long as they don't try to get married or something. Brice: Yes well- Kerry: Did you serve in Viet Nam? Or "Nam" as we patriotic Democrats called it? Brice: I was born in 1981. Kerry: Yes but did you serve there? Brice: Senator Kerry, President Bush has criticized your voting record on Defense spending. Specifically, he's said that you have voted against almost every weapons system our troops are now using to win the war on terror including the B-2 Stealth bomber, the B-1, the F-15 and F-16 fighters, the M1 Abrams tank, the Apache helicopter and the Patriot missile. Kerry: Is he saying that I'm unpatriotic? Since when do Republicans who haven't served in Viet Nam have the right to question my military service? I'd like to debate him about service in Viet Nam. I served, you know. Brice: I don't think he questioned your service record; he questioned your voting record in the Senate. Kerry: It's the same thing! Look, I've been taking swings at Bush for a year now and that's fair game because he didn't serve in Viet Nam. But when he starts questioning my voting record, well, that's just beyond the pale and veers into personal attack politics. Brice: Senator Kerry, you voted for NAFTA in 1993 and you also voted for the current administration's trade agreements with Chile and Singapore -- much to the dismay of many Democrats at the time. Yet you now accuse President Bush of favoring free trade because you think it hurts American jobs. Kerry: Let me tell you something Brice -- We all had jobs to do in Viet Nam. And the only trade we knew was a candybar for a pack of cigarettes or some hooche. I'd be happy to debate my war service with President Bush. Brice: Your point being? Kerry: I've got medals all over the place. Brice: If you're referring to your Silver Star or Purple Hearts, I thought you threw yours away during an anti-war protest? Kerry: Naaah... I threw away some other guy's medals. Brice: As the front runner in the Democratic primaries, have you given any thought yet to a vice-presidential running mate? Kerry: Brice, there are so many good choices out there who have -- like me -- served in Viet Nam. Sen. Kerry on picking a running mate. Brice: Senator Kerry, you voted for and supported the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to wage war in Iraq. Kerry: Yes, but I didn't actually think he'd do it. I know something about war you know. I served in Viet Nam. Do you know what it's like, hiking for miles and miles through the hot steamy jungles of Viet Nam? Never knowing if your next step would be on a land-mine? Getting bitten by mosquitos the size of John Edwards... Brice: So, Senator, you voted for the authorization to wage a war that you're against? Kerry: Yes, and from now on, I think I'd like to be called Lieutenant Kerry. Brice: Some of your critics have said that you flip-flop on the issues such as voting for the Patriot Act and Bush's education bill but now knocking those programs in stump-speeches. Kerry: -Who? I don't flip-flop on anything. Do you know who I am? Let me tell you something Brice, I tend not to dwell on it or talk about it much but I served in Viet Nam and we had no time to flip-flop on anything. Anyone who says otherwise -- well, I'll be happy to debate them on my military service record. See those guys over there? That's my chorus of war veterans. They'll tell you I don't flip-flop. I was fighting for our country, our constitution, and our Bill of Rights. Brice: Speaking of which, you're record shows you've voted for every single gun-control bill that has ever come your way. Yet you claim you support the Second Amendment. Kerry: I do support the Second Amendment. I just don't think people should have guns. We had guns in Viet Nam you know. If someone wants a gun, join the Army. Brice: You've gone on record as being opposed to gay marriages. Kerry: That's right. I'm for all the people but we didn't have any same-sex marriages in Viet Nam. Brice: Today, President Bush said he's in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. You'll support him on that? Kerry: If he's for it, I'm against it. That's the Terry McAuliffe equation. Brice: Isn't that a flip-flop? Kerry: Do you know who I am? Brice: Never mind. How do you feel about Ralph Nader entering the presidential race? Kerry: Let me just say this, Brice, I believe in democracy and the right of the people to vote for whom they want to. We've seen what happened in Florida in 2000 when people were dis-enfranchised and dis-respected and didn't have their chads counted more than six or seven times. Every vote counts. There will be no coercion. The people should be heard. That's what I fought for in Viet Nam. Brice: So you would welcome Nader on the November ballot? Kerry: **** no! That freak cost Al Gore Florida. He could deprive some people of voting for me. Brice: I notice that you sometimes curse on camera and also in your interview with Rolling Stone Magazine. Kerry: Let me tell you something, when I was in Viet Nam, we cursed a lot. We cursed the food, the Viet Cong, the bugs, the-- Do you know how much trouble I had fitting my hair into the helmut? Brice: Do you think the average American is looking for a leader who utters curses in public? Kerry: Hell yes. Brice: You've been on the campaign trail almost non-stop for months. Some say much of your support is simply folks who loathe Bush. Do you find people at the various stops excited about your policies? Kerry: Brice, as soon as they hear that I fought in Viet Nam, you can almost see their eyes light-up. A supporter gasps in astonishment upon learning from Kerry that he's a Viet Nam War veteran. Brice: Could you perhaps tell us about some of the policy initiatives of a Kerry administration? Kerry: Um, what? Brice: You know, what are your plans for stimulating job growth, fixing Social Security, protecting America's borders, Medicare, education, the nation's infra-structure-- Kerry: I fought in the Viet Nam war. That's my platform. Brice: I've listened to your speeches, watched your TV commercials, surfed your web site. Don't you think you might need to actually offer some substance? Some ideas? Kerry: Hey, you can view my entire service record on my web site! Brice: Well, thank you. You're dismissed, Lieutenant.
Once again, Max, I only call it like I see it. I don't remember ever calling you a bigot or an idiot (and if I have, I wholeheartedly apologize). t_j, however, has earned that tag with his intolerance and defense of a Constitutional amendment allowing discrimination against a significant portion of this country. I don't have any problems with people whose views are opposite mine on topics (you are NOT an idiot and we are far, FAR apart on a couple of issues), unless those views are blatantly bigoted and/or idiotic. I would challenge you to show me a post of mine where I outed a bigot or idiot and was wrong. If any of you feel like you have been wrongly labeled by me as a bigot or idiot, I apologize. However, if anyone spews bigoted or idiotic crap, realize that I will call you on it every single time. Bigots have enacted and supported all of the worst institutions and policies in the history of this country (slavery, segregation, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, opposition to universal sufferage, etc.) and the idiots have enabled the bigots to do these things through their lack of analysis and willingness to follow without question. If t_j had (ever) put forth a rational argument, we might have had a real debate. His bigotry ended the real debate, not my calling him on his bigotry.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/index.html http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0605.html http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/immigration/ http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/medicare.html http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/ http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_0730b.html I guess that some people really find navigating the Internet difficult.
Pretty funny "interview", basso. W actually had a pretty good line a couple of days ago (no idea how badly he mangled the delivery): "The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions: for tax cuts and against them; for NAFTA and against NAFTA; for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act; in favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts."
It was very funny, but very badly delivered. He started doing that really annoying snicker thing he does when he thinks he's about to say something witty.
yeah i saw it- thought it was pretty funny, and the audience, republican governors, ate it up. also said he stands by his man, dick cheney, which probably still won't quiet the speculation about a new VP.
i'll have to look for it, but there was an analysis, on slate i think, from one of clinton's speech writers, that thought W's performance was great, this should've been the SOTU speech, etc.
Uniter? This is what is happpening all over the country. The political discourse over things mundane and profound is poisoning the sanctuary of family and personal relationships. From the get-go, this maladministration has been tearing down our community and trying to sell it to us as a positive. What does it say about Bush that he has to resort to this type of stuff. Reminds of a previous election where the incumbent President seemed to only visit flag companies and lobby for an Amendment to stop flag burning. I guess the apple does not fall far from the tree. ----------- Max and all Christians: These two verses are the ones most commonly cited as the clear and irrefutable truth that the bible stands against homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination." Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death." First, in the original Aramaic and in the context of the times, these passages were meant to condemn non-Christian fertility rituals and no value is passed on homosexuality. No Christian Scholar for the first several hundred years of the faith interpreted either verse to mean homosexuality. It's a recent interpretation and it is wrong. Second, there are many things in Leviticus that good Christians no longer abide by... for instance, do we really think a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and 66 days after giving birth to a girl? Do we still carry out animal sacrifices according to the rules delineated in Leviticus? Do we refrain from mixing different breeds of cattle? and so on... Leviticus 26:14-16: "If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up." Even if you think the current translation is correct and buy into the interpretation of that translation that cast gays in a bad light, you can't argue for that interpretation without supporting all of the other stuff in the Book and that is impossible to do. (Though I would be in favor of an amendment based on the passage in Leviticus that prohibits tattoos.) Third, Jesus only ever quoted one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus used Leviticus to teach love. (And he never, ever said anything about sexual orientation.) Contrast this with the teachings of those who use Leviticus to condemn. Finally, ask yourselves these question... If the life of Christ began 28 years ago instead of 2,000+, where would Christ go today to make the same points he made with the Lepers of his time? Where would he go to use a physical ailment to portray spiritual weakness? Who would he embrace to show his love absolutely includes all?
For those of you who are for an amendment, please tell me if you're in favor of a Constitutional amendment outlawing adultery. Thanks.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he appreciated Bush's "moral leadership" on the issue, but expressed caution about moving too quickly toward a constitutional solution, and never directly supported one. "This is so important we're not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this," Delay said. "We are going to look at our options and we are going to be deliberative about what solutions we may suggest." Just wanted to repeat this. It means that Bush is to the right of Delay on the Amendment and that nobody wants to really vote on it. It could rip the congressional Republicans as well as Dems apart. The GOP Cong. leaders probably realize that they can't pass it and any failed attempt will piss off the base towards them. This is purely a manuever for the benefit of the President and not for the country or even his own party. Sadly, it is not an isolated incident.
