[yakkiebah]

Transcript: Karl Rove on 'FOX News Sunday'

WALLACE: All right. Let's talk about the president's second term and what he needs to do to satisfy and to build on the coalition of voters that gave him victory on Tuesday.

First of all, the social conservatives, the values voters, I know one of their top concerns is the definition of marriage. Given the fact that gay bans � bans on gay marriage were on the ballot in 11 states and passed in all 11, aren't the states handling this? Do you still need an amendment to the federal Constitution?

ROVE: Yes, because without the protection of that amendment, we are at the mercy of activist federal judges or activist state judges who could, without the involvement of the people, determine, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court did, that marriage no longer consists of a union between a man and a woman.

WALLACE: So the president intends to go ahead and push for the constitutional amendment?

ROVE: Absolutely

Congratulations!

[Luca Rescigno]

I like how the Republicans are all worried about "activist judges" when the first thing on their agenda will be to appoint a bunch of new Supreme Court justices who will ban abortion and gay marriage for them. It works both ways, asshats.

[OldManMac]

This isn't the end of gay marriages. The process of amending the Constitution takes years to achieve, and has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. It will never even make it out of Congress. Rove and his puppet Bush are just pandering to the religious right (which is neither), because they know it won't pass.

[spatterson]

Ignore - Sorry

[spatterson]

Ignore - Sorry

[spatterson]

Setting the human rights movement back years. Ideological views forced on millions in a country where freedom was what we were built on.

[OSX Abuser]

This country has gone down the moral downhill since we allowed blacks to marry white people, let alone allowing women the right to vote.

Nowhere does the Constitution state women have the right to Vote.

/Sarcasm/

[djohnson]

Originally posted by spatterson:
Setting the human rights movement back years. Ideological views forced on millions in a country where freedom was what we were built on.

HA HA HA Human rights? Such as abortion aka killing babies?

The way I see it, if the majority of the people want something, such as defining marriage as a man and a woman, so be it! I see nothing wrong morally with such an action.

I wonder how long until other states pass such action?

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by djohnson:
The way I see it, if the majority of the people want something, such as defining marriage as a man and a woman, so be it! I see nothing wrong morally with such an action.

So if the majority wanted marriage to be defined as between people of the same race, that would be fine?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by djohnson:
HA HA HA Human rights? Such as abortion aka killing babies?

The way I see it, if the majority of the people want something, such as defining marriage as a man and a woman, so be it! I see nothing wrong morally with such an action.

I wonder how long until other states pass such action?

The fallacy that quantity equals right. It was only three years ago that Alabama finally dropped its ban on interracial marriage, despite it having been ruled illegel by the Supreme Court in 1967. People used to think that was morally wrong too.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by djohnson:
HA HA HA Human rights? Such as abortion aka killing babies?

The way I see it, if the majority of the people want something, such as defining marriage as a man and a woman, so be it! I see nothing wrong morally with such an action.

I wonder how long until other states pass such action?

Some decisions shouldn't be left up to the retarded masses.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Some decisions shouldn't be left up to the retarded masses.

Are you including yourself as part of the retarded masses?

[shmerek]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Are you including yourself as part of the retarded masses?

nope

[djohnson]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
So if the majority wanted marriage to be defined as between people of the same race, that would be fine?

If you mean the human race, then sure. I wouldn't want any people trying to marry their dogs... I fail to follow the logic is saying dark colored skinned people are any different than fair colored people. The both are human to me.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by djohnson:
If you mean the human race, then sure. I wouldn't want any people trying to marry their dogs... I fail to follow the logic is saying dark colored skinned people are any different than fair colored people. The both are human to me.

As opposed to queers.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by shmerek:
nope

So your ideals should be impressed upon the large majority of people?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
As opposed to queers.

Are you trying to say being queer, as you put it, the same as being of a different "race"?

[shmerek]

Originally posted by djohnson:
So your ideals should be impressed upon the large majority of people?

No, I think matters on human rights should not be decided by public opinion.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Are you trying to say being queer, as you put it, the same as being of a different "race"?

No, I'm saying that I fail to follow the logic saying dark colored skinned people are any different than fair colored people. The both are human to me.

You just clarified that queers AREN'T human to you.

Thank you, and have a nice life.

-s*

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by KarlG:
This isn't the end of gay marriages.

You'd better believe it.

The process of amending the Constitution takes years to achieve, and has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

All we need is a few more states to join the 11 who banned it this past week. The people have spoken and are sick of the gay agenda.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
You'd better believe it.



All we need is a few more states to join the 11 who banned it this past week. The people have spoken and are sick of the gay agenda.

Ya we need to get rid of all them faggots and lesbos

[OldManMac]

Why don't you tell me what you think the gay agenda is?

[shmerek]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Why don't you tell me what you think the gay agenda is?

Don't you know? It is world domination. We all must kneel before our gay overlords

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
No, I'm saying that I fail to follow the logic saying dark colored skinned people are any different than fair colored people. The both are human to me.

You just clarified that queers AREN'T human to you.

Thank you, and have a nice life.

-s*

Ok you have a nice life too! BTW being gay is different than being born with dark skin or light skin.

[CreepingDeth]

Let's give a round of applause.

I'm split on wether it should be left up to the states, or end all this by a national ban.

Oh well, at least 11 states have a ban.

[OldManMac]

Why are so many so afraid of such a small percentage of the population? It's amazing how so many people let such a small group control their emotions and feelings.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Why are so many so afraid of such a small percentage of the population? It's amazing how so many people let such a small group control their emotions and feelings.

Because it changes the definition of a marriage, one that has been held for a millennia.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
I like how the Republicans are all worried about "activist judges" when the first thing on their agenda will be to appoint a bunch of new Supreme Court justices who will ban abortion and gay marriage for them. It works both ways, asshats.

no, actually it doesn't ....

US Government 101... for you radical liberals (or Godless Communists, which ever applies):

The "right to an abortion" doesn't appear anywhere in my copy of the US Constitution (do a word search, if you don't believe me: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html ), nor does the right to Marry.

By it's definition, the premise of a "conservative" court is that it STICKS to a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the USA, whereas "liberal" jurists will "read into it" rights that simply don't exist.... like privacy.

Sure, we can have our congress and the various states legislate laws to protect those above "privileges" but they are by no means "Rights" like those found in the Constitution... 1st... Separation of Church & State / Free Speech.
2nd .. right to bear arms
3rd .. soldiers shall not occupy private property..

etc.. here.

http://www.superkids.com/aweb/pages/...n/amndmnts.htm

[dgs212]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Because it changes the definition of a marriage, one that has been held for a millennia.

Who gives a sh*t?

Let's say, for arguement's sake that allowing gay marriages does in fact change the definition of marriage. So what? Nothing can ever change?

Really, though, this is a non-issue. It's a distraction.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by OSX Abuser:
This country has gone down the moral downhill since we allowed blacks to marry white people, let alone allowing women the right to vote.

Nowhere does the Constitution state women have the right to Vote.

/Sarcasm/

quite tasteless actually..

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by dgs212:
Who gives a sh*t?

Let's say, for arguement's sake that allowing gay marriages does in fact change the definition of marriage. So what? Nothing can ever change?

Really, though, this is a non-issue. It's a distraction.

actually it does you uneducated idiot... it's called tax code... I and you subsidize every married couple with the tax code ... this is for the OBVIOUS reasons that most marriages yield future tax payers to pay your and my retirements and social benefits.

think before you type.

There is also the moral argument, but I cannot convince you of that obviously.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Why don't you tell me what you think the gay agenda is?

moral equality with non gay life style.... that is their agenda.

I happen to disagree. I believe in the churches teaching to love the sinner and hate the sin. Same applies to unwed men and women living together and other types of "lifestyle" choices.

[NYCFarmboy]

Bush Advances the "Gay" Agenda

pretty whacked site if you ask me, but gives a interesting perspective.

http://www.familypolicy.net/features/bush-gays.shtml

Those on the extreme left hate Bush just as much as those on the extreme Right.


yes Bush is wrong on gay marriage, but he does at least now support civil unions.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
actually it does you uneducated idiot... it's called tax code... I and you subsidize every married couple with the tax code ... this is for the OBVIOUS reasons that most marriages yield future tax payers to pay your and my retirements and social benefits.

think before you type.

There is also the moral argument, but I cannot convince you of that obviously.

If you're really opposed to subsidizing marriages, why not eliminate tax breaks for married couples altogether? I suspect that this "tax break" argument is a convenient front for your moral opposition, which is fine. If you're morally opposed, then you're morally opposed. At least have the nuts to admit it.

Additionally, as far as who is educated and who is uneducated, I suggest you examine the grammar of our two posts and then get back to me.

[dgs212]

Oops. Sorry. I reread your post. You're not opposed to subsidizing marriages with tax breaks. You're only opposed to subsidizing marriages that cannot produce future tax payers.

Shouldn't you then only give tax breaks to couples who have children? What if a man and woman get married but they are infertile or choose not to have children? No tax break, right?

I don't have any statistics handy, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the number of childless couples (either by choice or by biological hapenstance) is comparable or greater to the number of possible gay couples in America. Anyone care to do some research on this one?

Personally, I think taxes are usurious, so the point is moot for me.

[OldManMac]

Seems some people don't really want to debate, as it's easier to call people names. That way, you don't have to research anything; you just listen to what someone tells you to say, and if your opponent goes beyond what you were told to say, you just call them a name.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Seems some people don't really want to debate, as it's easier to call people names. That way, you don't have to research anything; you just listen to what someone tells you to say, and if your opponent goes beyond what you were told to say, you just call them a name.

anytime someone calls you a derogatory name you have won the argument.

[ThinkInsane]

Could you guys, for once, have a civil debate without the name calling and other assorted ********?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
anytime someone calls you a derogatory name you have won the argument.

Your sig has an organ in it, where is that organ situated, do you play organ?

[cpt kangarooski]

UnixMac--

The "right to an abortion" doesn't appear anywhere in my copy of the US Constitution (do a word search, if you don't believe me: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html ), nor does the right to Marry.

By it's definition, the premise of a "conservative" court is that it STICKS to a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the USA, whereas "liberal" jurists will "read into it" rights that simply don't exist.... like privacy.

Sure, we can have our congress and the various states legislate laws to protect those above "privileges" but they are by no means "Rights" like those found in the Constitution... 1st... Separation of Church & State / Free Speech.
2nd .. right to bear arms
3rd .. soldiers shall not occupy private property..

etc.. here.

http://www.superkids.com/aweb/pages/...n/amndmnts.htm

Leaving aside your confusion of rights as opposed to guarantees of not infringing upon rights, nowhere in the constitution is the government prevented from prohibiting people from listening to things.

Therefore, are you saying that, for example, it would not be contrary to the first amendment for the government to not interfere with people's speech, but to prohibit people from listening to speech not approved for listening to, by means of, e.g. putting people in jail for such listening?

See, that's the kind of nonsense that being too literal gets you. The first amendment would make no sense whatsoever if it were read that literally, since what good is free speech if there is no one around to hear it? The framers have to have presaged every single attempt to work around it and explicitly dealt with it.

Thus, any reasonable person would probably say that there is an implied guarantee of a right to listen in the penumbra of the first amendment. Having done that, it's not difficult to see how privacy can be found as well. Unless you'd prefer to have the government be able to step in and dictate virtually every facet of your life merely because they felt like it.

[Buckaroo]

This last election, the news talks about 11 states passed new laws restricting marriage between a man and a woman. I believe California already enacted a similar law.

How many more states does the US need before they have enough to amend the constitution.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
This last election, the news talks about 11 states passed new laws restricting marriage between a man and a woman. I believe California already enacted a similar law.

How many more states does the US need before they have enough to amend the constitution.

I'm not a constitutional scholar any any means, but I believe that it would have to be passed by the House and the Senate. All fifty sates could pass it, and that wouldn't have any effect on it becoming an amendment.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Your sig has an organ in it, where is that organ situated, do you play organ?

That organ is located in Indiana. It is a Rodgers 550 3 manual Analog Organ built in 1971 very similar to the model Virgil Fox toured with in the 70's.

I have one here in NYC as well, yes I play, not professionally...well not yet

[OldManMac]

2/3 of both houses of Congress have to approve an amendment to the Constitution, and then 3/4 of the states' legislatures have to approve the amendment as well, and then it becomes part of the Constitution. The states that already have marriage bans in their Constitutions would still have pass a federal ban, so their legislators would still have to vote on a federal amendment. The gay marriage ban will not pass at the federal level, despite Bush's tough talk, because of the 2/3 majority needed. Even if it were to pass, many states' legislatures are reluctant to tinker with the federal Constitution, and it can take years for the states to ratify an amendment.

Bush is no doubt going to try again, but he's doing this mainly to appease his far right friends. A 2/3 vote in both houses is extremely difficult to get, on any issue, and especially considering that some Republicans will vote with the Democrats. This issue isn't as clear cut as some would like to think.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Move to Canada, I don't see what the US offers that Canada can't provide.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Move to Canada, I don't see what the US offers that Canada can't provide.

A decent military and money that's worth something.

[spauldingg]

Bill of Rights Amendment IX (9)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[jbartone]

I read through the text of some of the gay marriage ballot propositions. It seems quite a few of them seemed to ban the concept of civil unions.

[cpt kangarooski]

ThinkInsane--

I'm not a constitutional scholar any any means, but I believe that it would have to be passed by the House and the Senate. All fifty sates could pass it, and that wouldn't have any effect on it becoming an amendment.

I believe your disclaimer. Amendments can be passed if passed by 2/3ds of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states, OR if a convention is called by 2/3ds of the states and passed by 3/4 of the states.

Of course, there's still the issue of whether an amendment would be constitutional or not even after passage.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
[B]I believe your disclaimer. Amendments can be passed if passed by 2/3ds of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states, OR if a convention is called by 2/3ds of the states and passed by 3/4 of the states.

The odd thing is that the latter method has never been tried, and apparently isn't being tried now.

Anyway, I don't think there is the political momentum to amend the federal constitution at this point. People will keep talking about it just like they keep talking about an abortion amendment and a flag burning amendment. But I don't see it getting further than that right now.