Thank you giddyup, you summed it up perfectly. There are laws that prevent underage and such. Why is there no amendment necessay? Isn't the law enough? What in the world are you people afraid of! These are american citizens with less rights than most and yet that isn't enough for you. Pass usless constutional amendments against them. This will be the only example ( I believe) in the Texas constitiution where certain people are thrown into a group, labled, and specifical denied rights, that they don't have to begin with!
LOL. Wow this ignorance is disturbing. Using gasoline prices and stock market indices to gauge the economy is absurd. Just ignorant. The stock market has been proven to be uncorrelated with general economic performance. Interest rates have just come off historic lows, but again, interest rates do not measure a country's economy, either. Try using a relevant metric like GDP growth and job growth. GDP is growing and jobs are being created. You lose. Your isolated quotes about people complaining about the environment do not exactly prove that Bush is the worst environmental president ever. Please compare and contrast Bush with all the other historic presidents. Then come back to me. Thanks in advance. By the way - it's spelled "site", not sight.
you didn't read a thing. Jobs fell. market doesn't mean a thing!? wow! when the market falls it nothing? I .... this lets me know everything i need to know about you.
I was only secondarily meaning to support your position! I'm all for civil union "rights" for gay couples, i.e. equal status as spouses (pension and health benefits et al). I really meant to take the wind out of your sails for all the hate that you apply to the opposition. I'm not sure that most of it is motivated by hate-- some for sure but not most probably. Heck, even some gay people are not disturbed by their inability to marry-- some for sure but not most probably.
What I don't understand is the concept of Christians who won't accept the concept of a compromise status that preserves the ability of people to get things like healthcare. That is the most unchristian thing in the world. Can you imagine Jesus denying healthcare to the prostitutes or any others? That is an indefensible Christian position for anybody who's actually read a bible recently. I know an incredibly large number of lesbians for obscure reasons, and they all begin to freak out whenever religion is discussed in even the most neutral terms. Whether it is actually hatred or not, based on the lessons of their lives, all Christians are actively persecuting them, and it is safe to say that any time something that is done that is perceived as "against the community" they assume it is because they've experienced it so regularly. The main reason that the gay and lesbian community is so annoyingly in your face on issues like this is because they've experienced first hand that people will twist and turn the rules as much as they can to treat them as lesser people while "treating them equally". "Treat them equally" often translates as provide them the same "degree of protection as the majority receives" (i.e. none) when they are subjected to vastly greater levels of discrimination. That is not equality. The people who scream about 'constitutional rights' when it comes to this remind me of southerners yammering about 'states rights' in the civil war. How many people who make this argument have ever cared a rats @ss about constitutional law until it happened to apply to an issue that they believed in? They don't care about constitutional law. Its simply an easy way to rationalize their hatred without having to admit the hatred for what it is. I don't care to say whether individual cases of opposition are actually from hatred or not, but I guarantee you that more people are motivated by hatred than will even admit to themselves. They ooze it from their pores.
I don't hear it across the board, but there are specific republicans who very much just refuse to face the truth. They dont actually come out against environmentalism, they just say the data is uncertan, when they've never actually seen the raw data and wouldn't know how to interpret it if they did. This story from NPR (both real audio and transcript forms) has a number of good examples of the type of denial that is the problem. The following bit caught my attention, because I watch the program in question all the time and the guy (Larry Kudlow) whom they site is very much guilty of what they say.
Always a mistake to peek at posts by people on my ignore list. Especially to read their bigotry toward gays and lesbians. giddy: You're not on my ignore list (obviously). Sub black for gay to understand why people use the word hate to describe this particular bigotry. To those of you complaining we don't need an amendment because we already have a law: You shoot way too low -- offensively low, in fact, though I know you don't mean to. Of course we don't need an amendment against murder (for instance) because everybody knows it is wrong. Bigots want one against equal rights for gays because fewer and fewer people believe equal rights for all people is wrong. That's not going to happen with murder (for example) but it will definitely happen with gay rights. Those bigots are right to want an amendment. It's about the only thing that will slow acceptance of equal rights regardless of sexual orientation. The same kinds of bigots pulled the same kind of crap with black people. It won't work for long. It will eventually fail. And those bigots in power and the bigots here that earned their place on my ignore list specifically because of their bigotry will be recognized for the small, hateful bigots they are. It's a matter of time. Unfortunately, for those who suffer under this particular bigotry, the fact that it will be corrected soon is little comfort. They've been suffering from this bigotry, hate and discrimination for a very, very long time. It's time to change it NOW.
Maybe this should've been your first hint: When I was a small girl, white folks used to talk about "protecting the institution of marriage" as well. What they meant was if people of my color tried to marry people of Mr. Chisum's color, you'd often find the people of my color hanging from a tree. That's what the white folks did back then to "protect marriage." Fifty years ago, white folks thought inter-racial marriages were a "threat to the institution of marriage." or In my first term, one of my colleagues walked up and down this aisle muttering about how Nigras should be back in the field picking cotton instead of picking out committees.
Or perhaps this might have helped: I had to ride to school on the back of the bus. I had to quench my thirst from filthy coloreds-only drinking fountains. I had to enter restaurants from the kitchen door. I was banned from entering most public accommodations, even from serving on a jury. But maybe we are asking too much and TJ is too stupid? Only he can say. bigtexx, You are so tough. I want to have your love children.
To be the devil's advocate, the people against claim that there is a fundimental difference in that one is supposedly a "lifestyle choice" while the other is something you are born with. Of course the biological evidence is that it's hard-coded in your brain, but that's a distinction that is claimed. Also regarding the issue of ammendment vs. law, I know of at least two justices on the supreme court who would generally overturn any law that deals with gay rights on a federal level on the ground that the constitution doesn't specifically empower them to make that a right. They would argue that any ammendment to the constitution blocking specific marage rights is superfluous, (see the arguement around the Bill of Rights and Alexander Hamelton's federalist papers as well) because the Constitution only gives rights that are specifically enumerated in the text. Of course, there are plenty who feel otherwise as well.
His credibility is on the line? Hmm. I remember when Bigtexxx called ME out on Republican Environmental Policy.. Bush, specifically.. saying that I was "laughably wrong" and that he "eagerly awaited my response". Yet when I posted the facts, you disappeared. You seem to do this in cycles with people who haven't gotten a taste of your aggitative style. My advice to you, losttexan, don't waste your time. There are plenty of other members on this BBS who will actually provide some depth into the conversation rather than just responding with one word spat-backs and nitpicks to egg on a pissing contest. (I normally don't address people specifically on this board, but this just pushed me over the edge I guess.)
Ottomaton: The reason state supreme courts have allowed for gay marriage is that the Constitution states that we should all be treated equally. State supreme courts have viewed laws against gay marriage (and laws against gay anything) as un-Constitutional specifically because they violate the basic nature of equal rights. That's why the bigots in the White House have called them activists and have actually embarked on the ironically activist step of trying to amend the Constitution -- really in order that it no longer requires treating everyone equally, or only requires that for straight people. The nature v. nurture argument is fun and interesting but it has no place in this debate. This debate is about whether or not everyone should have the same rights. Some people (the radical religious right, TJ, his brother, probably his dad and mom) say no; the trend of the American people say yes, we should all have the same rights. THIS. WILL. HAPPEN. And when it does, those who opposed it will be akin to John Birchers at best and KKK at worst. Whatever the case, they will be among the most embarassingly backwards people America has to offer. They're pushing it now because it has a short term gain (racism did too), but they are on the wrong side of the trend and history will surely prove them to be the hateful bigots they are. It might take a year, it might take five, it might take twenty, but it is coming.
Donald this is really a treat. You were unable to respond to my request to back up your claims. Forevermore your credibilty has been tarnished. Donald Most = 0 credibility. LOL you're just sore because Rice owns UH in football, basketball and baseball this year.
The irony of this speech is that the Republicans used this issue to make progress in the black community. I would suspect that most black voters are older Christian Conservatives. On Bill Maher's last show he had the Lt. Gov. of Maryland on, a black republican named Micheal Steele. Steele said he campaigned in Ohio for Bush on this issue and he credits Bush carrying Ohio to this issue.
Wow, a new low even for you, open racism. Why don't you just start calling people n** and such? It doesn't take a lot of cojones to do that type of thing over the internet, I'm sure you could manage it if you tried.
Can someone post some info about this ammendment. It sounds like one preventing gay marriage but it sounds like it goes much further if it is also preventing homosexuals from health care.
From what I read, I think she may have been eating a delicious turkey sandwich sometime in the early afternoon on August 28th, 1974.
Good lord. Why in the world did you guys have to quote texxx and trader? Seeing such bigotry and ignorance ruins my day. The Rockets better win tonight.
In that case, as per your usual, you did not read a word of the speech since she clearly states her race and creates a logical and intelligent analogy to a time when she was discriminated against just as gays are now. I guess by this point your idiotic rantings shouldn't surprise me.
