quote:

---

“I BELIEVE MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other, and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that,” the president said in a wide-ranging news conference at the White House Rose Garden.
Bush also urged, however, that America remain a “welcoming country” not polarized on the issue of homosexuality.
“I am mindful that we’re all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they’ve got a log in their own,” the president said. “I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts.”
“On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage,” he added.

---

I believe marriage to be a bond between two people who want to prove their love for each other, not between their gender.


 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*bash bash bash bash snicker bash bash*
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I was saddened to hear about the strings he attached to the African AIDS money -- that it not be used for birth control or birth control instruction, for example.


 

---

Posted by Sarcasm (Member # 4653) on :
 
Yeah, if you want to preserve marriage as a union between a man and a woman, it means that you are afraid of gay people.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
What else could it mean? Why should the law distinguish between the two?

Edit: The law, not the church. In other words, why should't homosexual couples have common-law marriage rights?

[ July 31, 2003, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
See, I view this:

>> “I am mindful that we’re all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they’ve got a log in their own,” the president said. “I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts.”

“On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage,” he added. <<

...as a contradiction in terms.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
It won't happen. I bet that Bush is just saying this for his conservative audience. Passing a federal law to define marriage is not going to happen during his Presidency.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Unfortunately, I'm not sure I could construct a logical argument without basing it almost entirely on my religious beliefs. Such an argument won't have any merit with someone who doesn't share my beliefs, so I don't think I'll waste my time.

In other words, I just wanted to shoot off my sarcastic one-liner without contributing anything to the conversation.

But I will say this: People throw around terms like "homophobic" and "bigoted" too often. There is a difference between believing that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, and having actual fear of or hatred towards homosexuals. I don't fear or hate homosexuals.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I should hope not. Maybe he feels threatened because we Canadians are now specifically allowing homosexual marriage after the recent Supreme Court decision.

My view is that there's no reason for heterosexuals to care one way or the other about the legality of homosexual marriage. It simply does not affect people who are heterosexual. Thus there is no reason to oppose it.

So I don't.

Edit:

I see what you're saying, Jon Boy, but the religious sanctity of marriage must remain separate from its legal definition. That's the way both your country and mine are supposed to work.

[ July 31, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
That seems like flawed reasoning to me, Twinky. I'm sure there are lots of laws that don't affect me, but that doesn't mean that I can't or shouldn't oppose them.

But I think I'm going to stay out of this argument until I feel like I can construct a more logical argument.

[ July 31, 2003, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 

---

Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
 
twinky,

What do you mean?

The President merely said that while he understands that compassion for all sinners is a must for Christians, he also believes that as a Christian he should oppose sin.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
Don't start, twinky, because Jacare will jump in here and dump his "no society makes laws without a basis in religion" argument on the thread, and it'll be all over from there.

This is really ridiculous, though. The only reason such a law would need to be passed, even from a conservative point of view, is because the will of the people is steadily turning towards equality for homosexuals and they would like to stop it for their religious constituency. That seems rather undemocratic to me. In more ways than one, I suppose.

[ July 31, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
I for one disagree that it doesn't affect heterosexuals. Or are you saying that tax structures and insurance and social security and pension benefits are not a part of the equation, or that I as a heterosexual taxpayer would not be affected indirectly by any of those things? (Note, I'm not lining up on either side of this fence right now -- I'll see where it goes first -- but I have to disagree with your claim.)

--Pop
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> That seems like flawed reasoning to me, Twinky. I'm sure there are lots of laws that don't affect me, but that doesn't mean that I can't or shouldn't oppose them. << (Jon Boy)

Yeah, that's the best counter-argument to my position, really. But I don't mean for it to be taken as a reason to be applied to opposition of all laws; rather, I view it as a sort of "strike" against those who do actively oppose this one.

For instance, President Bush.

>> The President merely said that while he understands that compassion for all sinners is a must for Christians, he also believes that as a Christian he should oppose sin. << (Potemkyn)

I disagree. I don't think that's what he said at all.

>> “I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts.” <<

>> “On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage.” <<

Yes, it does mean that. If you don't grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone else, you're hardly "welcoming" them. Either the two statements contradict one another, or Bush does not believe that homosexuals can have good hearts.

When you use religious language in political statements you can land yourself in all kinds of trouble.

Edit:

>> Or are you saying that tax structures and insurance and social security and pension benefits are not a part of the equation, or that I as a heterosexual taxpayer would not be affected indirectly by any of those things? (Note, I'm not lining up on either side of this fence right now -- I'll see where it goes first -- but I have to disagree with your claim.) << (Pop)

I was wondering when someone would point this out. But no, the heterosexual's taxes won't change as a result of allowing homosexual marriage. Why would they? Homosexuals pay taxes too. The difference is that they would be eligible for marriage-specific tax exemptions, spousal benefits, and so forth. How much revenue this costs the government will depend on how many homosexuals there are and how many of them choose to get married. I suspect, but obviously don't know and can't confirm, that the revenue drop will barely be noticeable.

What it costs companies in terms of benefits, however, is another matter. Currently, employing a homosexual in a long-term relationship is cheaper than employing a married heterosexual. So why do companies employ married heterosexuals at all?

In terms of company benefits, yes, it costs them more, but only because the benefits are currently biased towards heterosexuals.

[ July 31, 2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
What many anti-gay-Marriage people want is a law saying, "Marriage is only between 1 man and 1 woman."

Many people are fine with homosexual life styles as long as they don't use the term "married". President Bush does not say this. He seems to be equating homosexuality with sin, "I am mindful that we are all sinners..." but a minor sin as compared to other, unnamed things. That is where the gay bashing/homophobia tags come from.

I want to move beyond that, back to this idea that "Marriage" is for 1 man and 1 woman. What do we do with any couple that vow to spend their lives together, supporting each other, caring and working together to create something better than two indivduals, regardless of the sex of those two individuals?

Lets call it a Social Union. A Social Union is a state recognized marriage-like combining of two people into one greater social cell that has all the same rights and legal benefits, and responsibilities, as a married couple.

Fine. Then I will quit calling myself married, and just say I am Unionized.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Great idea! Does that mean single people are scabs?
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 

quote:

---

It won't happen. I bet that Bush is just saying this for his conservative audience. Passing a federal law to define marriage is not going to happen during his Presidency.

---

That's what I thought too, Caleb, when I heard it on the radio this morning. Far right conservatives aren't all that thrilled with Bush, from what I understand. It looked to me like a plea to show he's on their side.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> Great idea! Does that mean single people are scabs? <<

Bwahahhaha!
 

---

Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
 
Didn't Clinton already make a law about marriage being only between a man and a woman?
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I find it absolutely repugnant that the President of the US would refer to religious reasons for any policy decision affecting the entire country.

Frankly, he's supposed to be thinking beyond the confines of his own biases,whatever they happen to be.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

If you don't grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone else, you're hardly "welcoming" them.

---

quote:

---

I find it absolutely repugnant that the President of the US would refer to religious reasons for any policy decision affecting the entire country.

---

quote:

---

Frankly, he's supposed to be thinking beyond the confines of his own biases,whatever they happen to be.

---

quote:

---

The issue is over the legal rights and responsibilities entailed by marriage, not the title of marriage. He's making it about the title of marriage, which is a way of redirecting the problem so he doesn't have to deal with the real issues.

---

quote:

---

Didn't Clinton already make a law about marriage being only between a man and a woman?

---

Yes and No. In 1996, with a democratic congress, the congress inacted the defense of Marriage Act. This act allowed any state to define marriage and not accept homo-sexual marriages done in other states. shortly there after more than 2/3 of the states redefined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The current argument is that this act is not constitutional. Until the a suit is brought before the Supreme Court and is ruled unconstitutional, it is law. So currently it is legal for a state not to honor a marriage based on sexual orientation.

Bush, was trying to get this out and dealt with before the election. He was saying this is what I believe and what I will try to do. What are you as a Democrat, going to stand for? It's a calling out, so to speak.

I believe that it will become a argued point during the next election and will be the death nail in the Democratic platform. They will lose the religous black vote as well as the catholic.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Nah-- the religious black vote is more concerned with maintaining Affirmative Action than with homosexuality. And most Catholics don't give a whit about it either.

No change. This is a non-issue, as far as the next election is concerned. The next election is going to be all about defense and the economy.

IMO.
 

---

Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
 
Instead of asking "why not gay marriage", shouldn't we be asking "why is marriage a part of the law at all" and "is there a similar compelling reason to include a new version of marriage today"?

I think that we should have to defend adding something to the law ... rather than having to defend NOT adding something to the law.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
fugu responded as I would have.

Geoff, does American law currently stipulate that marriage be between men and women, or is it simply interpreted that way?

Here in Canada, the laws were not gender-specific -- hence the Supreme Court decision allowing homosexual marriage, because there's no law against it here.

[ July 31, 2003, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
With the Vatican coming out today and basically saying that any good Catholic would not support gay marriage it will not be a non issue. It is the hot topic of today. It may die out prior to the election. But I bet you will see it during the primaries.

As far as the Religious Black vote, It will depend on whether the protestant leaders voice their reservations.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The Vatican has also said that no good Catholic will support abortion or birth control, which is why the American Catholic church borders on apostasy.
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
twinky- marriage is a State Law issue and not a Federal Law issue. Most states do define marriage as a legal union between (1) man and (1) woman.
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
True, Tom.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
First of all, let me say that I am very much in favor of homosexual people getting married. I think it will reduce much of the promiscuity and general emotional dishonesty that I perceive happens in the (especially male) homosexual community. Just my opinion.

Of course, this opinion flies right in the face of my (LDS) religious belief system. I really need to think about that.

But first, a few thoughts.

If you don't grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone else, you're hardly "welcoming" them.

Such an "all or nothing" approach might be counter-productive.

Calling people "homophobic" and "bigoted" is not going to facilitate the discussion and compromise that will be necessary as a society to work through these issues.

Now, let me try to explain how those against homosexual marriage may view things, given the fact that I am in favor of it, and therefore may not be the best spokesman for that side.

1. Marriage was instituted by God. Governments may regulate it, but God started it.

2. Family life was also instituted by God.

3. His preference would be the following: Mom and Dad, happily married bring children into the world, tenderly nurture them, and teach them about Him. Together, this family arranges and designs its life in a way that draws them closer to God and to eachother.

4. Sometimes through death, or divorce, or any number of tragedies, sometimes #3 just isn't going to happen. In that case, we do our best to make sure that people are properly nurtured and cared for and again drawn closer to God.

5. Other forms of "union" or "marriage" (especially the homosexual variety) will cheapen the overall attitude of society toward the divinely-ordained structure of marriage and family life. It won't necessarily affect any given marriage or family. But, an overall cavelier attitude of society toward the divinely instituted family structure will make this appropriate structure much more difficult to obtain or maintain.

6. After all is said and done, homosexual ACTS are a sin. People can feel free to engage in sin as they see fit. But I am a member of this society, and I don't want my society to outright condone the acts of people who are living in sin and who boldly flaut the laws of God.

7. I most certainly do not approve of anyone who would physically, emotionally, verbally, or otherwise attack a homosexual person. I would try to protect them to the best of my ability, if I were to be aware of such behavior.

Let the Rocks fly (at me).
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Don't worry, I'm not accusing Bush of homophobia. I just think he's wrong.

Marriage can't come from God if God doesn't exist. Since humanity as a whole does not (and IMO cannot, me being an agnostic) know whether or not Got exists, we ought to run our nations as if God does not exist. God should not figure into legal thinking. Ever.
 

---

Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
 
Twinky and others:

Of course there are strings on foreign medical aid now, don't you know that Bush re-instated the infamous Mexico City Agreement? Bush is dangling money on a hook of his own morality to the world.

[ July 31, 2003, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
The great majority of people in the world BELIEVE God exists.

Only the weirdos think he doesn't.

What kind of warped society are you proposing, that doesn't take the morals of its majority into consideration when forming laws, twinky?

Oh, right. Canadian.


 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 


Yes, and I love Canada to death.

A great many people disagree about the rules that God puts forward. So I should amend my statement to include that.
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
When you elect someone do you elect a man or his belief system also?

Those who say that tha man should act in the best interest of society outside religous beliefs are making a statement of belief themselves. When you elect a human to represent you you elect his beliefs or lake there-of. That is why we vote for people who appear to have the same beliefs as ourselves. So I would vote for someone who holds his religous beliefs in high regard, and is unwilling to bend. Twinky will vote for someone who put science and what you can see above an emotional outburst.

That is why the US is a representitive government.

[ July 31, 2003, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Head Ditch Digger ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Scott: that only works if you include Islam as believers in God (which I do, but I suspect many people would not). Otherwise only 33% of the world believes in God (that is, is Christian).
 

---

Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
 
HDD, you can't get a perfect match, and I can guarantee you that the majority of America does not think birth control is evil, that is why the National Legislature has shot it down nearly every time in bill form.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
God should not figure into legal thinking. Ever.

I couldn't disagree more.

I am a member of this society. I believe in God. I have just as much right as anyone else to have my attitudes and opinions considered in the formulation of laws and policies of my society.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
HDD: no, we do not. We have a set of laws which govern which beliefs a politician is allowed to impose on other people. Most notable among these is the Consitution, which makes it explicitly clear that, no matter what lawmakers may believe/desire personally, certain things are not allowed.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I think it's perfectly reasonable for God to have input into the legal process. Of course, I expect him to show up in person if he wants it done.

Heck, I'd settle for a high degree of agreement among his believers as to what he thinks.
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
No there is no such thing as a perfect match. That is why there are such things as re-call and terms. If the person is not they way they seem, you get rid of them. But you are going to vote based on electing someone who is similar to your beliefs whether they be religous or secular. or both.
 

---

Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
 

quote:

---

A great many people disagree about the rules that God puts forward.

---

The irony of this statement kills me. Sorry. I really don't mean to be rude. If I offend anyone, I'll apologize and edit this post.

Fugu, I think Scott was talking in a much broader sense, meaning that the majority of the world believes in a supreme being of one sort or another, not just the Judeo-Christian God.

[ July 31, 2003, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Snarky ]
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
fugu, I limitly agree. Religion is a base for which people make judgements as to how they will vote. If you do not want someone to use his or her religion as a base then do not vote for them.

You are right that a politician cannot force me to believe the way they do, but they can base their judgements on their religous beliefs. They have the same right as you do to act in a way that is legal and in concordance with their religous views.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh, and since when did God start marriage? Marriage is practiced in many cultures which don't believe in God (that is, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God) and never did.

Family life instituted by God? Bull-sh*t. Modern family life in the US draws extremely heavily on both classical (roman and greek) pre christian practices and german pre-christian practices.

Sorry if I sound insulting, but you can't make such blatantly unsupported statements and expect them to stand unchallenged.

WRT endorsing any form of homosexual marriage being an endorsement of sin, the law endorses divorce, yet I don't hear you protesting that (Jesus was pretty clear on that being a great evil, even as he barely mentioned homosexuality).

WRT not allowing homosexual marriage because it violates the Christian order of things, argue for it all you like, but it will not become any more Constitutional. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I fully endorse politicians basing their judgements on their religious views. They just don't get to make any laws based solely on their religious views; they have to back it up. See the aforecited quotation from the Constitution.

edit to clarify: by making laws based on religious views, I mean making laws that model a specific practice based on a particular interpretation of a religious belief.

I'm okay with general moral sentiments carrying through.

Which is one reason I'm somewhat okay with (though I'd much rather it not be so) politicians not wanting homosexual people to marry as a violation of the morality of marriage. I just expect them to keep that prejudice out of the decision of whether or not to give homosexual partners a legal status similar to marriage, but not marriage.

[ July 31, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> The irony of this statement kills me. Sorry. <<

I'm not offended.

(Or did you already edit?)
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
>>>even as he barely mentioned homosexuality

Never, that we know about.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
fugu is making my case much better than I have in this thread.
 

---

Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
 
I just edited to fix some poor wording. I meant that if you were offended that I was laughing at what you said, I'd change it.

quote:

---

Oh, and since when did God start marriage?

---

quote:

---

Family life instituted by God?

---

quote:

---

WRT endorsing any form of homosexual marriage being an endorsement of sin, the law endorses divorce, yet I don't hear you protesting that (Jesus was pretty clear on that being a great evil, even as he barely mentioned homosexuality).

---

Isn't this a straw man argument? Or maybe something else. I sometimes having problems keeping logical fallacies straight. This isn't a discussion about divorce.
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
With the subject at hand, fugu, I agree that the current law that says a state does not have to honor a gay marriage will be found unconstitutional. They know this, that is why there is a push to make it an admendment. But untill the Supreme Court has a suit hit them they cannot deem it constitutional. With the current rate, advocates have about six years to get the admendment passed. I don't think it will. But our history is wrought with laws based on beliefs. Some see it as logic, now, but at that time it was very controversial with beliefs both ways.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Isn't America as clear on separation of church and state as we are in Canada?

Given that the only arguments against homosexual marriage are based on religion, doesn't that imply that they aren't valid when discussing the constitutionality of homosexual marriage?

Edit: the whole reason for church and state, at least here, is so that people who don't agree on the laws that God laid down can at least agree on the laws that the government lays down. The latter are easier to agree on because you can vote on them

[ July 31, 2003, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'm attacking his logical consistency. If he says his argument is good when applied to one thing, but not when applied to another, then clearly he does not believe his own argument. This is a method of persuasion more than counterargument.

Perhaps God did create mankind. However, a good number of Christians (possibly even the majority) endorse the view that the creation account depicted in Genesis is allegorical, and thus arguing that all marriage descended from that isn't necessarily applicable even among Christians. Particular Catholics.

And if the argument is instead that since God created everything, he clearly created marriage even as it arose in non-Christian cultures, then clearly God created rape as well. Yet I do not see you supporting that. This is an argument of a similar type to that above (and does not apply if your argument was of the first type I discussed).
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Not only that, but when every bit of scientific evidence on the subject ever uncovered fails to support Genesis, and the vast majority supports a very different account, I find arguments that we base our laws off of it akin to suggesting we make it illegal to argue with the Bible.

[ July 31, 2003, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
 

quote:

---

Isn't America as clear on separation of church and state as we are in Canada?

---

quote:

---

And if the argument is instead that since God created everything, he clearly created marriage even as it arose in non-Christian cultures, then clearly God created rape as well. Yet I do not see you supporting that. This is an argument of a similar type to that above (and does not apply if your argument was of the first type I discussed).

---

I never even said that God created everything; you're putting words in my mouth.

[ July 31, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Snarky ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Actually, I don't know of anyone who thinks Genesis 1&2 are allegorical. Metaphorical, yes, allegorical, no.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> Apparently not. Some people believe it only means that there cannot be an official state religion, while others believe it to mean that religion must stay out government. << (Jon Boy)

Ah. Up north here there simply is no mention of religion in political circles. Those with religious beliefs (i.e., most people) still make political and legal arguments, not religious ones.

Even those damn Albertans.

Edit:

>> Actually, I don't know of anyone who thinks Genesis 1&2 are allegorical. Metaphorical, yes, allegorical, no. << (dkw)

I know someone, but he isn't religious.

>> I never even said that God created everything; you're putting words in my mouth. << (Jon Boy)

That's why he said "if."

[ July 31, 2003, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Nonono, I was anticipating two possible arguments you might make for your "when God created it" statement.

One was that the account in Genesis (well, at least one of them) is literally true, and therefore all marriage and family life is descended from that state. I found this one most likely.

The other was that you were going to argue that God created everything, so clearly he created marriage.

I did not mean you believed one or the other, I meant if you believed one or the other I had a counterargument.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
DKW: I meant allegory in the more general sense, which is nearly synonymous with metaphor. Metaphor is likely a better word for it.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Isn't America as clear on separation of church and state as we are in Canada?

Well, I don't really know how you Trudeau-loving, Godless Canadians think, but (just kidding).....

Down here, we don't always agree on the meaning, and the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in our constitution.

Our constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

In my mind, that says government has to leave religions alone. Period.

Also in my mind, it says that people can bring their religious or any other belief in to any discussion they want to, political or otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Pardon me. This took a while. If you've made simlar points you probably made them better than I.

1. Marriage was instituted by God. Governments may regulate it, but God started it.

If you believe in God then you believe everything was instituted by God. If you don't believe in God then nothing was instituted by God. Marriage is no different than a celery stick in this matter, or Race. The argument that man can not intervene in what God has ordained helped keep women in the kitchen, men in slavery, and genetically enhanced food off of the shelves.

2. Family life was also instituted by God.

See above.

3. His preference would be the following: Mom and Dad, happily married bring children into the world, tenderly nurture them, and teach them about Him. Together, this family arranges and designs its life in a way that draws them closer to God and to eachother.

How do you know what his preference is? LDS early founders, and old testament accounts show more of many Mom's and Dad, where the Mom's pull resources to raise and nurture the kids. Other people, from Wiccan's to Native Cultures have different, more community based families. Up until fifty years ago a wide arrangements of uncles, aunts, grand parents and others made up the family unit. In Indian culture they believe presently what you are stating, but that it is also their belief that the parents have a responsibility of arranging the marriage of thier children, and then can stay with the oldest until they die.

Your view of what God percieves as a perfect family is based more on your culture and your experience than on any divine revelation.

4. Sometimes through death, or divorce, or any number of tragedies, sometimes #3 just isn't going to happen. In that case, we do our best to make sure that people are properly nurtured and cared for and again drawn closer to God.

If the main reason to outlaw gay marriages is because they will not lead to bringing a person closer to God, should we also outlaw Athiest marriages? Communist Marriages? What of marriages that are sanctioned by a different, hence false, view of God?

More specifically, if Tom and June are raising little Billy and Jane to be aethiests, do we have the right to remove them from that house and put them in a good religious home?

5. Other forms of "union" or "marriage" (especially the homosexual variety) will cheapen the overall attitude of society toward the divinely-ordained structure of marriage and family life. It won't necessarily affect any given marriage or family. But, an overall cavelier attitude of society toward the divinely instituted family structure will make this appropriate structure much more difficult to obtain or maintain.

Divorce cheapens the idea of marriage much more thoroughly than homosexual unions. Should we move it illegalize them? No. They serve a need to remove bad unions.

Basically, your religion is defining (without strong biblical support) what is and isn't "appropriate structure".

If we are allowed to fear anarchy enough to stop Homosexual unions because they are not "appropriate structure" what happens when someone else brings up other laws which may lead to "innappropriate structures" as in inter-racial marriage, divorce, single motherhood or police involvement in Domestic Disputes?

6. After all is said and done, homosexual ACTS are a sin. People can feel free to engage in sin as they see fit. But I am a member of this society, and I don't want my society to outright condone the acts of people who are living in sin and who boldly flaut the laws of God.

Other sins that the government condones, depending on your religion: Eating Pork (Pork Subsidies), Eating Beef (Beef Subsidies), Birth Control (FDA regulation of Birth Control medicines), Breaking the Sabbath (Many government agencies work 24/7 including on Sundays), The Drinking of Alcohol (FDA), etc. etc.

Besides, many biblical scholars argue that Homosexuality is not a sin. Instead the sin is either sleeping around wantonly, selling your body for sex, or older men training young boys into sex (as the Greeks did during biblical times). Homosexual marriages stop those sins.

7. I most certainly do not approve of anyone who would physically, emotionally, verbally, or otherwise attack a homosexual person. I would try to protect them to the best of my ability, if I were to be aware of such behavior.

That's just what President Bush was saying. "The act is wrong but the people are good."

But how about these real scenarios: The person you are in love with and have been sharing your home with for twenty years goes into the hospital emergency room. Since you are not "officially" family, you are not allowed to go in there and be with him, or to find out his status. Instead the doctors call the next of kin, his father who disowned him and hasn't spoken to him since the truth came out about his orientation.

He has been taking care of the home for a year. Your income has supported you both easily, but you are unable to include him in your healthcare because you are not married. The bills from this hospital stay drive you to bankruptcy.

Your love dies. The home the two of you have purchased after twenty years of saving and working must be sold. He left it to you in his will, but since you are not married there is a tremendous inheritance tax on it.

There are ways that people get hurt, sinners as you see them, that have nothing to do with sticks and stones. This overtight definition of marriage will hurt people, homosexual people, more cruelly than any verbal attack any fool could throw at them. You said you would do what you could to stop someone from being attacked. Will you honor that promise by standing up and trying to stop this ban on homosexual marriages?
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
Can it not be said of homosexuals that they "believe" in homosexual marriage, and that their belief system constitutes a "religion"? Would their actions toward marriage therefore be protected under the "or prohibit the free excercise thereof" clause?

See, it's fine and dandy to believe whatever you want to believe about them. But to force your morality on them is not only "unamerican", it's immoral.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I don't believe that all of Genesis is literally true, though I do believe that God created Adam and Even, married them, and commanded them to have a family.

quote:

---

Even those damn Albertans.

---

quote:

---

If you believe in God then you believe everything was instituted by God.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even those damn Albertans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what's with the hostility towards Albertans?

---

Alberta was settled the way Idaho and Southern Utah was - by settlers under direction of Brigham Young. Alberta more closely resembles Southern Idaho in demographics and politics than Ontario.

I think twinky was tweeking you.

Maybe not a good idea.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 

quote:

---

Not true. Many things have been instituted by people.

---

quote:

---

Caleb: Don't we basically force our morality on everyone? You can't just say, "I have different beliefs, so I can do whatever I want." Society creates limits of acceptable behavior, and everyone has to follow those.

---

Yes, well, society does have certain rights and obligations. Powers, one might say.

But the first ammendment of the Constitution bars the government (the organization which represents society) from making laws respecting religion. That's why the US can't tell you that you can only eat fish on Friday. Or that you have to give up your electricity. Or that you have to be in church on Sunday.

UNLESS there was a compelling non-religious reason for restricting Friday meals to fish. Same with all the others.

Thus, Congress can tell you that you HAVE to pay your taxes no matter what you believe. It cannot tell you, however, that you HAVE to follow the Judeo-Christian method of family/marriage.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> So what's with the hostility towards Albertans? I don't know a whole lot about Canadian politics, but I've seen this sentiment pop up a few times. I'm quite curious because most of the Canadians I know are Albertan. << (Jon Boy)

>> I think twinky was tweeking you. <<

kat is wise.

There certainly is quite a bit of anti-Albertan sentiment in various parts of Canada. As a born and bred Nova Scotian, it's more or less my obligation to be anti-Alberta simply because Albertans are anti-Atlantic Canada.

Now, as to the reasons:

Alberta is one of Canada's richest provinces. They're so rich that they don't even have a provincial sales tax (unlike every single other province in Canada). The East Coast provinces are universally poor and thus get much more money, relatively speaking, from the Federal Government (Equalization Payments, they're called). Albertans resent having their money pay for propping up the poorer provinces.

This is largely because Alberta is overwhelmingly conservative (Another black mark against them ).

Alberta's Premier, Ralph Klein (who has been Premier for as long as anyone can remember ) is a notourious drunkard (though now he's sworn off and is cleaning up his act a bit). One wonders why they keep electing him, especially when he's being chauffeured around in his government car and gets out, drunk off his ass, to shout "get a job" at homeless people on the streets of Calgary.

Yes, he has done this.

Alberta has violated Canada's constitution by trying to allow private hosptitals to open. They were smacked down pretty hard by the Federal Government, and rightly so. Private hospitals aren't allowed in this country, Premier Klein must have suddenly forgotten that or something.

Basically, Alberta as a whole is much more like an American state than any of the other provinces, and has a tendency to forget that this isn't America.

Edit: BTW, I also have Albertan friends. Most of them share my (dim) view of Alberta. But the Alberta-East Coast trash talk is (mostly) just that, at least in my circle of friends.

[ July 31, 2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
And here's something else that really gets my goat.

For all you folks who think it's perfectly acceptable for Congress to make laws discriminating against non-majority beliefs, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU WANT CONGRESS MAKING LAWS FROM A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW?

You agree with it THIS TIME. Allowing the government to force-place this morality is alright because it falls neatly in line with your belief system. But if you allow it, you establish a dangerous precedent. What if the NEXT religiously inspired Congressional action is perfectly fine with Methodists, but abbherent to Latter Day Saints? People don't agree on religion, that's why we don't call the Bible the Supreme Law of the Land.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I knew you were just teasing me, Twinky; I just didn't know enough about Alberta to fully get the joke. Thanks for enlightening me.

[ July 31, 2003, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
If you believe in God then you believe everything was instituted by God.

Really? I don't believe that "because God created everything, He created marriage."

I just believe that, among His many acts, He gave us the institution of marriage. He has defined how He wants marriage and family to be "in a perfect world."

Nice straw-man attempt, though.

Your view of what God percieves as a perfect family is based more on your culture and your experience than on any divine revelation.

Perhaps. But it is nevertheless based upon divine revelation.

If the main reason to outlaw gay marriages is because they will not lead to bringing a person closer to God

The main reason for not allowing gay marriages is because God has defined what marriage is, and it is not between two men or two women.

Divorce cheapens the idea of marriage much more thoroughly than homosexual unions.

I disagree. As bad as divorce is, allowing homosexual marriage would be worse. Divorce is an established fact, but gay marriages are not, and can still be prevented.

If we are allowed to fear anarchy enough to stop Homosexual unions because they are not "appropriate structure"

Perhaps instead of saying "inappropriate structure" we should say "structure not in accordance with divine will."

Besides, many biblical scholars argue that Homosexuality is not a sin.

Yes. But those scholars would be wrong, no matter how many degrees they have.

Homosexuality itself is not a sin, but homosexual ACTS are.

Homosexual marriages stop those sins.

No they don't; any more than heterosexual marriages prevent adultery.

But how about these real scenarios: The person you are in love with and have been sharing your home with for twenty years goes into the hospital emergency room. Since you are not "officially" family, you are not allowed to go in there and be with him, or to find out his status.

If they have been together for 20 years, why don't they have a legal document drawn up giving their partner such authority? It is easily done.

Nice false melodramatic attempt, though. Such things rarely happen today. I have visited many people in hospitals, and no one ever challenges my presence.

He has been taking care of the home for a year. Your income has supported you both easily, but you are unable to include him in your healthcare because you are not married. The bills from this hospital stay drive you to bankruptcy.

Please. Most companies allow same-sex partners to be on the insurance policy. I am not at all opposed to that, BTW.

And how can his bills drive you to bankruptcy? If his parents signed him in, and you aren't allowed to be around, how can you possibly be on the hook at all?

Again, nice Donahue attempt.

Your love dies. The home the two of you have purchased after twenty years of saving and working must be sold. He left it to you in his will, but since you are not married there is a tremendous inheritance tax on it.

Again, why aren't you doing appropriate estate planning? He can deed a portion of it over to you tax-free every year.

If both of your names are on the deed, it doesn't even need to be probated in some states.

There are ways that people get hurt, sinners as you see them, that have nothing to do with sticks and stones.

And there are ways to avoid those hurts, if the two are truly dedicated to eachother for 20 years as you say.

This overtight definition of marriage will hurt people, homosexual people, more cruelly than any verbal attack any fool could throw at them.

For this hurt, I am sorry. I don't make the rules; God does. He has said that homosexual acts are sins and that marriage is instituted between men and women.

You said you would do what you could to stop someone from being attacked. Will you honor that promise by standing up and trying to stop this ban on homosexual marriages?

No. But I probably won't say much about it publicly.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Basically, Alberta as a whole is much more like an American state than any of the other provinces, and has a tendency to forget that this isn't America.

Have they ever thought about seceeding?

We need a couple extra conservative senators.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

I just didn't know enough about Albert to fully get the joke.

---

Well, Albert was a German prince who married his cousin, Queen Victoria. It looks like a love match - at least on her part. He just sort hung on the fringes of politics, though, because of his German background. All of the other reindeer wouldn't let him join in their governmental games.

http://athena.english.vt.edu/~jmooney/3044biosp-z/princealbert.html

*rereads Jon Boy's post* Wait... never mind.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
There are a lot of "I beleives" in your statement. There were a lot of "I believes" in mine. We beleive differently.

There are people who believe that a marriage not performed by a Priest in a Catholic Church are not real marriages. There are people who believe that marriages not perfomed by a Rabbi in true the Hebrew, are not real marriages. There are people who believe that marriages made without parental permision, no matter what age of the bride and groom, are not real marriages. There are a few people in Beverley Hills that say that marriages in which you don't spend at least $100,000 are not real marriages.

My marriage met none of those criteria, so to them I am living in as much sin as two men or two women who live together.

Where do we draw the line?
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Why is no one denouncing this hypothetical law that the president is pushing for as an usurpation of state's rights? As HDD already mentioned, there's already a law on the books which says it is a state right. If the situation was reversed and there was a liberal president proposing legislation that would force all states to recognize homosexual marriage, you can be DAMN sure that state's rights would be brought up. Why not now?
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
kat, you stole those words right from my mouth.

Further proof, as though it was necessary, that great minds think alike and fools seldom differ.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Kat and Twinky:
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
Thank you Storm. The only right that the feds can impose is the definition of the constitution that states that all states must reconize the rights and licences given to individuals in other states. This is what Ultra-conservatives want to change. They want the state to have the right to disregard the license of gay marriage given to a couple from another state. The Federal government cannot enact a law that forces a state to give a license for gay marriage. They can only, through a admendment, give the right to states to NOT honor the license of gay marriage of other states.

It is a State right.

[ July 31, 2003, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Head Ditch Digger ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Wow. That was easy.

*makes subtle, but mystical, gesture with fingers*

HDD, you want to give me 50 bucks, don't you?


 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I see no reason why homosexuals cannot be given license to marry, as long as that marriage does not affect society.


 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
Storm, Don't now you've gone too far.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 

quote:

---

Down here, we don't always agree on the meaning, and the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in our constitution.
Our constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
In my mind, that says government has to leave religions alone. Period.

---

quote:

---

"No magic attaches to a particular verbalization of an underlying concept. The concept at issue here is more accurately expressed in Madison's phrase 'separation between Religion and Government,' or in the popular maxim that 'religion is a private matter.'" (Church, State, and Freedom, pp. 118-119).
(T)he phrase "Bill of Rights" has become a convenient term to designate the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments; yet it would be the height of captiousness to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles. "

---

quote:

---

Don't start, twinky, because Jacare will jump in here and dump his "no society makes laws without a basis in religion" argument on the thread, and it'll be all over from there.

---

quote:

---

Also in my mind, it says that people can bring their religious or any other belief in to any discussion they want to, political or otherwise

---

quote:

---

You're confusing my position. The argument is that no society makes laws without a basis in morals, and morals are simply a code of allowable behavior agreed upon by the majority of the people in a community.

---

quote:

---

IMHO, the U.S. constitution prevents government from medling in churches' affairs. It does not prevent those with a religious viewpoint from attempting to have that viewpoint expressed somehow in the laws of their society.

---

Sweet William.
IMHO, is that in my holy opinion or humble?

Although I am not enough of a scholar to defend it, seperation of church and state does go beyond keeping government out of churches, it also keeps religion out of government.
It goes both ways.

[edit:I do agree that those with religious viewpoints can attempt to express them via laws.
But if it's strictly religious it should be struck down as unconstitional.]

[ July 31, 2003, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
Morbo-is that why they start congress with a prayer? Or all our money has "in God we Trust?"

[ July 31, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Head Ditch Digger ]
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Storm, you are correct. I don't understand why Bush is asking for a "law." Clearly, such a law on a federal level (IMHO) is unconstitutional. If he were truly serious about the thing, he would call for a constitutional ammendment.

Also, Sweet William, while you did a good job making fun of Dan's #7 point

Sorry, that was sort of mean, but some of the points were just a tad over the top. Let's just please get over the drama and quit trying to overstate the case here.

all of those things and more can be major problems for homosexual couples denied a legal civil union.

Yes, but my point was that they were handleable legally.

The scenario stated that the ill partner was taken care of at home for a year.

My bad. I mis-read. I thought he had said that the partner had taken care of the home for a year, as in a stay-at-home spouse. Sorry for my mistake.

I doubt if half of the employers in America offer it.

Like I said, I am in favor of it. Morally, I think it is good. Also, it will help the company to increase employee loyalty, and reduce absenteeism, so it is a wise fiscal move as well.

The legal preventives you mentioned are true, but most people, straight or gay, don't think of them until it's too late.

That is unfortunate. However, it is not necessarily good for our society to authorize same-sex marriages just because a certain group of people may not properly plan for their future.

I mean, they've been together for 20 years. Did they expect that the "evil father" (another dramatic device, IMHO) would suddenly change and allow them in the hospital room? Did they think that they would never get sick and go to the hospital?
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
IMHO, is that in my holy opinion or humble?

I am the last person on earth that anyone should refer to as "holy." Hillarious opinion maybe?

...seperation of church and state does go beyond keeping government out of churches, it also keeps religion out of government.
It goes both ways.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. If I am a member of this society, and I have a religious viewpoint, I am perfectly justified in seeking to have my viewpoint reflected in the laws of my society.

How can you stop that? I mean really, how?

Just saw your edit

Could you please give an example (besides same-sex marriage) of something that would be purely religious and therefore unconstitutional?

If an idea is good for society, even if the underpinnings of that idea are purely religious, is that idea not still good for society?

[ July 31, 2003, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
True, the scenario was worst case and somewhat over the top.

HDD, there are some discrepencies.
And atheists (I am not an atheist) have been trying to change what you mentioned for generations.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Sweet, I added a short edit to address that above.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Also I said I could not support it. It's more of an uninformed opinion.
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
Exactly, The athiest have been trying to force their opinions and views on religion on everyone else.

"Seperation of church and state," is realitively new. It is simply an opinion of how the constitution reads. It is not Constitutional and the definition can change with a change of justices, who are the ones who judge the constitutionality of anything.

Edit to clarify, that the current rulings would indicate that the courts are inclined to define this as complete seperation and that is constitutional until another suit is brought before the courts and the definition is changed or upheld.

[ July 31, 2003, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Head Ditch Digger ]
 

---

Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
 
Sweet William.

Which church do you go to?

If you're going to sell us your God, tell us which one is giving you, "Divine Revelations" on this subject.

Thank you.

<T>
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
HDD: strange, and here I thought all the Supreme Court justices were Christian. And now I learn that the majority are atheist. What a sad fool I was.
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
Fugu that is not what I said.

Oh, I can see my problem, The first part was meant tongue in cheek. I will fix it, sorry. I was saying that the current definition is complete seperation. That can change.
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
Fixed it.

Again sorry if I offended anyone, it was not meant as a slight, just a joke.
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
It is my opinion that Church and State need to be seperate. I agree with no one impossing their religous beliefs on my children in a public school setting.

I just do not think that it is possible for anyone to dislocate themselves from their religous beliefs as a base for judgement.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 

quote:

---

The athiest have been trying to force their opinions and views on religion on everyone else. "seperation of church and state," is realitively new.

---

quote:

---

Religious Right activists have tried for decades to make light of Jefferson's "wall of separation" response to the Danbury Baptists, attempting to dismiss it as a hastily written note designed to win the favor of a political constituency. But a glance at the history surrounding the letter shows they are simply wrong.

As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.

Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state.

---

quote:

---

If he were truly serious about the thing, he would call for a constitutional ammendment.

---

Yeah, and that's what most social conservatives that I've heard discuss the matter are shooting for. I'm sure Bush will clarify himself real soon.

/flameon

*pounds head on desk*

So, this would make the second time that social conservatives have screwed with the constitution to make it fit their agenda. Super.

Social conservatives on this board, do you really for true think that this issue calls for a constitutional amendment? Is this going to be like just before prohibition where something like 80% of the country was already dry, but that wasn't enough, you had to make sure everyone was in lock step with your desires?

The situation is pretty much the same here. Marriage between gay people isn't going to be widely accepted any time soon. Currently, there are only, what, two states in the union that allow anything like *civil unions* between gay people. Does this situation really call for a constitutional amendment? Why even talk about state's rights when you ignore them at your convenience and muscle through legislation to make everyone else jump to your tune?

Orson talks about 'letting the people decide'. Let the states try out ideas in the national laboratory and then if the idea has merit, it will take root. You liberals with your pocket judges! Don't force your will down our throat because that's unconstitutional!

You know what, it's pretty clear to me that some social conservatives really don't give a rat's ass about the constitution accept as a tool for them to make sure that nothing ever changes. Yeah, it might be 'constitutional' to push an amendment through, but so are state's rights. So is individual freedom and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What is the constitution for? Is it to express the will of the people
such that the ideals of the constitution are expressed in the best way possible, or is it to just express the will of the people no matter what?

Pushing an amendment like this one through will just underline to the rest of us the fact that state's rights are a joke to you except when it's convenient, because when it looks like the states might actually, Bob forbid, do something you disagree with, you'll just swoop in and make them dance to your tune anyway.

I know I am not writing this post in as diplomatic a way as it could be written, and I'm sorry for that, but these thoughts have been kind of festering inside me for a long time.

/flameoff

ps

SweetWilliam, I know you didn't say one way or another how you felt about a constitutional amendment. I just used your post as a springboard to vent. Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
Morbo it still is realitivly ne compared to the age of the earth.

I never was good at history. Does not change that the supreme court can re-define the 1st admendment.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
pps

The above post was addressed to those social conservatives who support a constitutional amendment on this issue. I recognize that not all social conservatives do.
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
I never thought I would see the day I agreed with Storm and Morbo.

*Looks outside for Hellfire and brimestone*
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
lol
You're a good egg, HDD.
Reading all those crazy Jack Chick comics gives me the impression most christians are like that.
Not true, certainly not at HR.

Good comeback with "the age of the earth."

[ July 31, 2003, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
The funny thing is that I was talking with Pat this morning and I was telling him how I never post on a political thread. I geuss I blew that.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
*makes covert gesture at HDD*

These are not the droids you're looking for.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 

quote:

---

So is individual freedom and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

---

quote:

---

Actually, the last three are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. That is unfortunate, but very important to remember.

---

quote:

---

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

---

 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Immortal words.

I am becoming too cynical.
As I read them I noticed that it is a justifaction for rebellion, yet Washington, D.C was designed so a civilian population in revolt could not barricade major streets (inter alia Paris in the French Revolution, only in the recent past when D.C was designed) to impede Gov't troop movements.
And that one of the paramters of the US Interstate Highway System was that all bridges take the weight of tanks on flatbed semis, to insure rapid internal troop movements.
Oh, well. Any government that hadn't planned about possible rebellion probably wouldn't have lasted 200+ years.

[ July 31, 2003, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
 

---

Posted by Etan Moonstar (Member # 4352) on :
 
Is the proposed amendment going to outright ban gay marriages nationwide, or is it going to grant states whose citizens have voted to disallow gay marriages the constitutional right to not recognize gay marriages performed in states whose citizens have chosen to allow them? It is just as wrong for one or two states to force gay marriages upon the other 48 or 49 (essentially allowing a single state to create a "federal" law supporting gay marriages) as it is to create a nationwide ban on gay marriages--moreso, actually, as the latter situation would involve the input of more states than the first situation would. I would like to see the second option as a constitutional amendment, and then leave the question of whether or not to legalize gay marriages up to each state.
 

---

Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
 
EM, that is the whole point that Storm and I have been saying. Though I believe that they are trying to take power away from the States. So hopefully they go for the second or none at all. Either is better then removal of state rights.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
How about powers not expressly reserved for the Fed or the States be granted to the PEOPLE, like the Constitution says? Let them choose, individually, who they may or may not marry.

[ August 01, 2003, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Um, Thor, I think:

I am LDS. I thought I had mentioned it in passing during my first post.

I wasn't ignoring you; I just got really busy last night and didn't have time to log on.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Now ask Thor which church he belongs to.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Don't respond to that question from Thor. His favorite debate tactic is to respond to a point scored against him by attacking your religion/beliefs/mother.

[ August 01, 2003, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
Ooh, Ad Hom the Ad Hom. *takes note*
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I know it is, Caleb. It's meant, actually. I'm not trying to score points in a debate; I'm trying to get him to knock it off.

Maybe if his tactics are transparent, he'll stop using them.

[ August 01, 2003, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Caleb- The proper response to keep the chain going would have been:

"That's the type of response I'd expect from a spoiled Mormon girl."


 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
You're so sweet to me, Frisco.

[ August 01, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Sarcasm (Member # 4653) on :
 
Ooh, sarcastic responses win arguments. *takes note*
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
What you can't see in that smilie is that she actually slipped her tongue in my ear.

Chivalry's not dead, but maybe it's in a coma.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*grin* This isn't an argument. I just thoroughly shocked my spoiled Mormon girl sensibilities with my first response to Frisco, so I thought I'd go to the other extreme.

Is this from what I wrote? That's okay. Thor's countered one too many revealing questions with a slam on my religion. He's not doing it anymore.

[ August 01, 2003, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Sarcasm (Member # 4653) on :
 
I was referring to Caleb's post.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Oh.

Uh, sorry. *whistles*
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Heh. I wish I could've seen the unedited response. I was hoping the chain would've continued. I think an Ad Hom thread would be pretty funny.

You didn't think I was serious, did you, kat?
 

---

Posted by Sarcasm (Member # 4653) on :
 
It's quite alright, Kat.

Oh, and Frisco: Stay away from my sister!
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Frisco: No, of course not.

*hugs brother*
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
I think what we all need is a little 5:00 Friday action. Give it ten more minutes and all will be well. (Unless, of course, you're an oversensitive Mormon located in Mormonia--Utah--in which case you pour souls still have another hour to go.)

So there!
 

---

Posted by Sarcasm (Member # 4653) on :
 
Its proper name is Udaho.

So what about the oversensitive non-Mormons living outside of Utah? Or the oversensitive non-Mormons living in Utah? Or oversensitive Mormons living outside of Utah? You're neglecting a lot of people, Caleb.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
I can only point and laugh at so many. Especially when I only have ONE minute left before getting off work for the weekend.

Udaho residents Mormon and otherwise:


 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

How about powers not expressly reserved for the Fed or the States be granted to the PEOPLE, like the Constitution says? Let them choose, individually, who they may or may not marry.

---