posted on July 25, 2004 01:51:11 PM new
What do you mean by pleasing the left? Questioning things is what we're all born to do to seek the truth. How else should it be done?
posted on July 25, 2004 02:30:52 PM new
Marriage should not be a political issue. It is a religious issue and for those who are not religious, it is a personal issue. But, considering we have neocons running this country, it should be renamed a relitical issue since it seems religion and politics are the being fused together.
Next thing you know, I'll be told I cannot marry my boyfriend because he's sterile and cannot have children and marriage is for procreation. Or, the black man down the street cannot marry his white girlfriend because I'm sure somewhere in the bible it says that the races shouldn't mix (or at least that is how someone will interpret something written in the bible). Heck it's okay for Mary Sue to marry her second cousin Billy Bob, but heck no gays shouldn't marry. It's immoral. God, this issue is getting old. And, why twelve, must you constantly bring up gay issues? You are obsessed.
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on July 25, 2004 03:20:36 PM new
The state of Oregon passed a bill enabling assisted suicide... The Religious Right Protested the Federal Government intervened.
How many states have passed Medical Marijuana? How many of the legal growers/distributors have been prosecuted federally.
Om and on.
The Bill of Rights was specifically drafted to protect the rights of the individual. They do not grant life liberty and the pursuit of happiness unless 51% of population at large object.
posted on July 25, 2004 05:52:02 PM newwhy twelve, must you constantly bring up gay issues? You are obsessed.
The same reasons people bring up President Bush... they think he is wrong... I think homosexuality is wrong... Not obessed but will not let this deviancy slip through without a fight...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Homosexuality is a choice that can be corrected...
posted on July 25, 2004 06:28:12 PM new
NTS: There is no pleasing the FAR LEFT on most any 'issue' that comes up. Religion, gays, homeland security, social security, you name it, they'll argue it.
That's right we'll argue it, just like the far right will argue for what they believe in. What is wrong with that?
Do you agree with every issue that is presented?
I for one am glad that I have the opportunity to express my opinions. I don't want to be in the middle just to pacify what the majority want. If you want to be just another cow in the line that is headed to the slaughter house just so you don't cause an argument that is fine by me.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on August 1, 2004 06:07:27 AM new
The right is setting a precendent that may come back to bite them in the butt.
Unforeseen side effect of gay marriage
Published August 1, 2004
I don't know if gay marriage will have all the bad effects predicted by conservatives, but it's already having one they didn't foresee: driving them stark, raving mad. They've set out to prove they can devise one remedy after another that not only is unnecessary but also worse than the problem it's supposed to fix.
Their discombobulation began when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down the state's ban on gay unions and ordered the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Never mind that the ruling had no effect beyond the Bay State. From the reaction, you'd think same-sex marriage was going to be mandatory for all. The call went out that something, anything, had to be done.
First, critics of the decision offered a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions anywhere in America. Despite being endorsed by President Bush, it blew up on the launch pad. Constitutional amendments need 67 votes to pass the Senate, and this one attracted only 48 supporters.
So conservatives promptly came up with another idea. If you can't amend the Constitution, you can make it irrelevant. They propose to do this by taking the whole issue away from federal judges. In July, the House of Representatives approved the Marriage Protection Act, which effectively bars any federal court, including the Supreme Court, from hearing challenges to laws against same-sex unions.
Why is it needed? "This legislation ensures the people and the states will have a say in marriage policy," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner. It may come as news that conservatives want the states to have a say in marriage policy. The constitutional amendment, after all, would have done exactly the opposite--forbidding any state from legalizing gay marriage.
In fact, federal law already protects the right of the states to do whatever they darn well please. In 1996, Republicans were worried that Hawaii was going to allow same-sex marriage and, conceivably, force other states to accept gay unions transacted there. So, over the howls of gay-rights groups, they pushed through the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages and assuring each state the power to do likewise.
Back then, DOMA was championed as a way to protect traditional marriage as well as democracy. Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) described it as "a pre-emptive measure to make sure that a handful of judges in a single state cannot impose a radical social agenda upon the entire nation." But now, having failed to get their constitutional amendment nullifying DOMA, conservatives want to make sure supporters of same-sex marriage can't persuade the Supreme Court to issue a decision nullifying DOMA.
Barring judicial review of a category of laws is not exactly a conservative notion. Courts have taken responsibility for deciding the constitutionality of laws since the early years of the republic, a role set out for them in the Federalist Papers.
Stripping them of that power is a drastic step. Conservatives say we need to keep hyperactive judges from shoving gay marriage down all our throats. But who says they're going to?
The Constitution long has been understood to protect state power over marriage--even in the dark days when Southern states refused to accept interracial marriages from elsewhere. DOMA reaffirms the point by stipulating that states are free to treat gay weddings as the equivalent of Monopoly money.
Of course, it's theoretically possible that the Rehnquist Supreme Court, dominated by Republican appointees, suddenly will discover a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But worrying about that is like worrying that Al Sharpton will take a vow of silence. The Marriage Protection Act amounts to a pre-emptive strike based on a preposterous fear.
It would do serious collateral damage, though. The bill would set a precedent that sooner or later will bite conservatives on the bottom. Liberals could bar courts from using the 2nd Amendment to strike down gun control measures, or from invoking the 5th Amendment's protection of property rights to block environmental regulations.
Once we start down this road, says University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, "there's no place to stop." Court-stripping, he predicts, would become "an irresistible tool" whenever Congress gets the urge to pass a constitutionally dubious measure. This is worse than a zero-sum game. It's more like the old vision of nuclear war: Mutual Assured Destruction.
To react to one state's legalization of gay marriage by mutilating the Constitution or wrecking the separation of powers is the equivalent of elephants stampeding at the sight of a mouse. It's more sensible just to tolerate the little critter.
