[dreilly1]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
If you are born gay, then the civil rights angle is correct. That is what I am saying.
If it is a LIFESTYLE choice as has been tossed around so much, then it isn't ok.

I always thought that the concept of "civil rights" involved rights that you inherently held as a citizen and a human being, that the government should not take away. In this case, whether or not you have the right to marry whoever you want, regardless of gender, is what is in question.

It has nothing to do with the gay lifestyle, whatever that is. Or the straight lifestyle, for that matter.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I'm sorry be coming across as being a gay hater, but my last boss was a gay man who's advances I did not appreciate, being a STRAIGHT graphic designer. Needless to say it wasn't 'pretty', and I was fired for some made-up lie. I've come across straight bashing all too often in my career, and yes, it is irritating. I don't like being discriminated against because I am straight.

That sucks royally, I agree - and sympathise.

However, I can't help thinking how lucky we all are that you're not a straight FEMALE graphic designer who was hit upon by his HETERO male boss. I'm sure you'd be picketing wedding chapels now, protesting against straight marriage.

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
In addition to my bad experiences with strangers, my cousin who is gay attacked my mother because he's a mean SOB [she's a 4'7" itallian woman], so there is another reason I'm not too keen on the subject.

Have you any idea how many aggressive hetero males I meet on a daily basis?

I'm very happy in my straight relationship, but hetero males are not a subject I'm too keen on.

I say ban them.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Doesn't one get married to start a family?
If you are born gay, then the civil rights angle is correct. That is what I am saying.
If it is a LIFESTYLE choice as has been tossed around so much, then it isn't ok.

Isn't "LIFESTYLE choice" another word for "freedom"?

*sigh*

America. How I envy thee.

-s*

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by forkies:
re: ghost_flash

it's too bad you hold an entire group to blame for what a couple of INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE have done to you or those around you. odd,

more focusing on yourself...

Interesting. I made that story up to see what a response I would get. The only true statement was how I was raised.

How do you feel about CATHOLICS? Do you hate them all or just one or two?

[Mithras]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
We don't have any benefits, we have penalties. MARRIAGE TAX.

Incidentally, half of married couples now receive a marriage 'bonus', not a marriage penalty. But of course they're the lower-income half, so we don't hear about them... and did you know that the structure that causes the marriage penalty was originally designed to stop penalizing widows? So you're in favor of the widow tax?

The fact is, there are dozens of benefits to being married. And even if there weren't, there's still some reason why millions of people (like me) choose to get married, right? So if getting married is so bad, why don't you just abolish it altogether. Forget it. Drop it.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Incidentally, half of married couples now receive a marriage 'bonus', not a marriage penalty. But of course they're the lower-income half, so we don't hear about them... and did you know that the structure that causes the marriage penalty was originally designed to stop penalizing widows? So you're in favor of the widow tax?

The fact is, there are dozens of benefits to being married. And even if there weren't, there's still some reason why millions of people (like me) choose to get married, right? So if getting married is so bad, why don't you just abolish it altogether. Forget it. Drop it.

I don't care who gets married. Take the hook out of your mouth. I was pulling your leg, your leg! I was pulling your leg!

Benefits eh? Yeah, ok. And how long have you had that bump on your head? What is wrong with being SINGLE? Huh? Sheesh. Talk about being FREE. Whoohoo! <Homer>

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I don't care who gets married. Take the hook out of your mouth. I was pulling your leg, your leg! I was pulling your leg!

Benefits eh? Yeah, ok. And how long have you had that bump on your head? What is wrong with being SINGLE? Huh? Sheesh. Talk about being FREE. Whoohoo! <Homer>

So is there a point to your pulling legs?

I mean, what your made-up bits have done so far is clarify that arguments against gay marriage hold no water.

Was that the intended point?

-s*

[fizzlemynizzle]

terrible, terrible idea. playing with the constitution over such a purely political issue.. dangerous and wasteful.

[forkies]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Interesting. I made that story up to see what a response I would get. The only true statement was how I was raised.

brilliant plan...

i think GWB had the same plan regarding WMD & Iraq, no?

How do you feel about CATHOLICS?

hate the practice, not the practitioner

(joking, of course -- people are people, i hate them all individually)

[Xeo]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
If it is a LIFESTYLE choice as has been tossed around so much, then it isn't ok.

If you truly believe it is "tossed around" as a "LIFESTYLE choice" then you've been talking to too many religious zealots. Every homosexual person on this board can tell you it wasn't his or her choice but rather something they simply had to accept as part of themselves.

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
How do you feel about CATHOLICS? Do you hate them all or just one or two?

Well, I was beat up by 4 Catholic school girls for my lunch money so obviously I hate them all.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Well, I was beat up by 4 Catholic school girls for my lunch money so obviously I hate them all.

Well, I can't speak for the other 3, but I am sorry about that. I was pretty unhappy at home at the time. I know that isn't an excuse, but I hope you can forgive me.

Would you like to join me and my life-partner for a drink sometime?



[the previous parody brought to you by Americans Against Apocalyptic and Reactionary Presidents]

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
For Bush to make it a campaign platform is not only electioneering and using a wedge issue to drive up votes from the religious right...

Who brought up this "wedge issue". It sure as hell wasn't Bush. Was he handing out marriage licenses in violation of state law in San Fran? Was he the fouth and deciding judge in the Massachusetts case?

And why wasn't this a "wedge issue" with Clinton and the Defense of Marriage Act? I didn't see you whining and bitching about a "wedge issue" then.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Amending the constitution over this- bad idea. It won't pass, but people are right- from Bush's angle it's a voting ploy. However it's a ploy that will appeal not only to the 'far right', but to a much broader range of people than the left that blames things on the 'far right' would like to believe or admit.

Kerry recently played it safe by citing the Clinton passed "Defense of Marriage Act" as the 'law of the land'.

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Don't blame Bush or the 'far right' for that one. Blame the fact that (however wrongly) that's still what a safe majority of the US wants as the definition of marriage, as Kerry was obviously playing to for votes as well.

This is one of those issues that the left has a cake walk on, and the right sets itself up for a smacking. The left can sit back, and be opposed to gay marriage as steadfastly as anyone else (ala Kerry) yet all they have to do in this case is come out against the idea of amending the constitution and they can spin that as being 'supportive'. But at the end of the day, just being opposed to the constitutional amendment, does not automatically translate to being in support of gay marriage in any meaningful way. Both sides are using the issue as a ploy- it�s just that the left has the far easier sell- opposition or �take no action support� that masquerades as *actual* support.

I've asked this question before, and I'll ask it again: in which nations in the world is gay marriage legal now? (Full, equal with straight couples marriage, not some 'lite' version). If it already isn't, why isn't this a top burner issue in every democratic nation on earth right now?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Who brought up this "wedge issue". It sure as hell wasn't Bush. Was he handing out marriage licenses in violation of state law in San Fran? Was he the fouth and deciding judge in the Massachusetts case?

And why wasn't this a "wedge issue" with Clinton and the Defense of Marriage Act? I didn't see you whining and bitching about a "wedge issue" then.

You didn't know me back then. If you had, you would have seen me whining and bitching about that, and about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that I thought was a whimpering backpedal from his campaign promise to allow gays in the military.

You seem to assume that I was into blind hero worship of Clinton, which was not the case. He did things I didn't like, and I was just as vocal at the time. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that the things Bush is doing is exponentially more damaging to the country, so I am whining exponentially louder.

any other flat out false assumptions about me personally in an ad hominem you wish to float?

[finboy]

I'll come back to my standard criticism here:

It's OK for the Federal govt. to tell states what they can and cannot do with abortion (how many times have we heard that "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land"?), but it's NOT OK for the Federal govt. to rule on gay marriage -- it should be determined by the state.

Both cases are, supposedly, human rights issues.

The Left can't have it both ways; they need to pick one. If you agree with states' rights on one side, you should probably try to agree on the other to be consistent.

I think we need to do whatever the Democrat candidate for president says we should do, or maybe what he said we should do before this latest controversy arose. Let's ask Kerry & Edwards what THEY think -- I bet they're against gay marriage too. Funny, that.

[Axo1ot1]

i animated an egg this one time...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by finboy:
I'll come back to my standard criticism here:

It's OK for the Federal govt. to tell states what they can and cannot do with abortion (how many times have we heard that "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land"?), but it's NOT OK for the Federal govt. to rule on gay marriage -- it should be determined by the state.

Both cases are, supposedly, human rights issues.

The Left can't have it both ways; they need to pick one. If you agree with states' rights on one side, you should probably try to agree on the other to be consistent.

Have you noticed that the exact same logical fallacy applies to the right supporting this amendment? I agree with you. You can't have it both ways. If states should be allowed to go their own way with abortion, then Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. You have no argument from me there. But it is uttely inconsistant to take the position that Roe was wrong and abortion should be decided at the state level and then turn around and override federalism in marriage law with a constitutional amendment.

So, no pointing out inconsistencies unless you are willing to be consistent yourself.

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by finboy:
I'll come back to my standard criticism here:

It's OK for the Federal govt. to tell states what they can and cannot do with abortion (how many times have we heard that "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land"?), but it's NOT OK for the Federal govt. to rule on gay marriage -- it should be determined by the state.

Both cases are, supposedly, human rights issues.

Roe v. Wade was a decision based on the Supreme Court's interpetation of the US Constitution. The gay marriage ban amendment seeks to outlaw the practice through modification of the constitution. Fundamental difference. Again, playing with the constitution to further political agendas is dangerous. Enforcing a christian morality code through the constitution is dangerous - look what happened when that was attempted during Prohibition. A Constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion or legalize gay marriage is just as dangerous. It's out of scope of what the Constitution's intent is and it weakens it as a whole. Let the gay marriage issue go to the supreme court for their legal interpetation rather than over their heads.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Hat tip Andrew Sullivan.



This pretty much sums it up except, for the backwards e which I suppose is meant to imply Bush is dumb. Bush's problem here isn't stupidity, it's cynicism and desperation.

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Have you noticed that the exact same logical fallacy applies to the right supporting this amendment? I agree with you. You can't have it both ways. If states should be allowed to go their own way with abortion, then Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. You have no argument from me there. But it is uttely inconsistant to take the position that Roe was wrong and abortion should be decided at the state level and then turn around and override federalism in marriage law with a constitutional amendment.

So, no pointing out inconsistencies unless you are willing to be consistent yourself.

Civil rights are done at the national level, too, and folks seem to like it that way.

I agree Simey, there's enough hypocrisy to go around with the national parties, but I have yet to see people on either side acknowledge it. I certainly don't see EITHER PARTY in Congress jumping in to pass a new version of the Civil Rights act that guarantees someone's cohabitation rights based upon their sexuality or gender identification.

Again, I'm ALL FOR gay marriage. And gay divorce. And gay child support. And gay custody battles. I feel that gay folks should have to put up with all of the same pressures and bullsh*t that we breeders have to deal with -- "when are you going to settle down, etc."

As for the "it's the Constitution" crowd, it won't BE the Constitution if it's ruled unConstitutional, assuming some travesty like this amendment thing could ever pass. It couldn't, and it won't. And Roe v. Wade works just as well as an amendment right up until it's overturned (which won't happen, either).

[BRussell]

So do you think it would be a good idea to have a constitutional amendment on abortion? Perhaps just restating Roe? I guess I have mixed feelings, because although I think it's a troubling decision and I'd rather see it legislated, I suppose you could level some of the same arguments about not wanting a social issue such as that in the constitution.

[dreilly1]

The Onion puts things in perspective yet again...

[chris v]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Amending the constitution over this- bad idea. It won't pass, but people are right- from Bush's angle it's a voting ploy. However it's a ploy that will appeal not only to the 'far right', but to a much broader range of people than the left that blames things on the 'far right' would like to believe or admit.

Kerry recently played it safe by citing the Clinton passed "Defense of Marriage Act" as the 'law of the land'.



Don't blame Bush or the 'far right' for that one. Blame the fact that (however wrongly) that's still what a safe majority of the US wants as the definition of marriage, as Kerry was obviously playing to for votes as well.

This is one of those issues that the left has a cake walk on, and the right sets itself up for a smacking. The left can sit back, and be opposed to gay marriage as steadfastly as anyone else (ala Kerry) yet all they have to do in this case is come out against the idea of amending the constitution and they can spin that as being 'supportive'. But at the end of the day, just being opposed to the constitutional amendment, does not automatically translate to being in support of gay marriage in any meaningful way. Both sides are using the issue as a ploy- it�s just that the left has the far easier sell- opposition or �take no action support� that masquerades as *actual* support.

As a putative Democrat, nee Green, I have to say that, unfortunately, you're all too right. I wish (I know-- wish in one hand...) the Democrats would grow some goddamn spine.

CV

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by finboy:
Civil rights are done at the national level, too, and folks seem to like it that way.

I agree Simey, there's enough hypocrisy to go around with the national parties, but I have yet to see people on either side acknowledge it. I certainly don't see EITHER PARTY in Congress jumping in to pass a new version of the Civil Rights act that guarantees someone's cohabitation rights based upon their sexuality or gender identification.

Again, I'm ALL FOR gay marriage. And gay divorce. And gay child support. And gay custody battles. I feel that gay folks should have to put up with all of the same pressures and bullsh*t that we breeders have to deal with -- "when are you going to settle down, etc."

As for the "it's the Constitution" crowd, it won't BE the Constitution if it's ruled unConstitutional, assuming some travesty like this amendment thing could ever pass. It couldn't, and it won't. And Roe v. Wade works just as well as an amendment right up until it's overturned (which won't happen, either).

Roe doesn't work the same way as a constitutional amendment because it can always be overturned by a subsequent vote by a court whose members are (in the great scheme of things) always changing. That actually almost happened (and in my opinion should have happend) in Casey. It was only because Justice O'Connor flip flopped at the last minute that the issue wasn't returned to the states -- where it belongs.

Roe is a poorly reasoned case that should not be. But that doesn't excuse attempting to write a whole class of people out of the Constitution. The Constitution exists as a unifying higher document that we mythologically all swear allegiance to. We may disagree about what it means, and what it's implications are. But that is part of the design because it was deliberately written loosely to allow for such vigorous debate. That's the very reason it has survived so long. This amendment is designed to destroy that debate and once and for all tell a class of people "you are not full citizens." It's designed to once and for all remove the most important aspect of what it is to be an American. That's the right to persuade your fellow citizens, and reach accomodation with them.

There is only one example where this country turned to serious violence, and that was also when the Constitution was used to exclude a class of people from the body politic. I feel the same way about this amendment. It's not just a mistake, its an abomination.

[chris v]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
The Onion puts things in perspective yet again...

I haven't had a real belly laugh in too many days. Thanks.

CV

[BRussell]

I thought this was interesting.



Independents are most in favor states dealing with the issue. Democrats and Republicans are more similar to each other than the independents.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I thought this was interesting.



Independents are most in favor states dealing with the issue. Democrats and Republicans are more similar to each other than the independents.

similar to each other? the dominant choice is reversed for each party....maybe look at that bar chart again, eh?
If anything, it shows (as much as any poll could show, they're all inherently inaccurate) that republicans are 22 percent points ahead in favor of an amendment, whereas Democrats are two points behind in favor of an amendment. Democrats are closely divided.

I edited to add: but yet, I'm still unhappy that there is that much support in all parties for the amendment -- there shouldn't be any at all.

also, the wording of the question should be taken into account. the choice is not between whether gays should or shouldn't be allowed to be married, but whether the determinant jurisdiction for that question is federal or state. That could muddy the waters a bit if one intends to inappropriately use it to try to make a point about attitudes about marriage itself.


This is one of the things that are wrong with polls: the analysis can be skewed, even if the data is accurate.

For example, one could be AGAINST gay marriage and want the states to decide, just as easily as one could be FOR gay marriage but want the state to decide.

[Big Booger]

I've never been offended by a gay. Them giving me compliments is like getting them from the ladies. The more the merrier.

Religious fundamentalists and conservatives are complete pain the butt of a human right's activist though. They really need to think about their own marriages and sex lives instead of being perverts and obsessed about those of others.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
similar to each other? the dominant choice is reversed for each party....maybe look at that bar chart again, eh?
If anything, it shows (as much as any poll could show, they're all inherently inaccurate) that republicans are 22 percent points ahead in favor of an amendment, whereas Democrats are two points behind in favor of an amendment. Democrats are closely divided

I read it correctly. I just found it interesting that independents are the only ones against the amendment; Republicans are for it and Democrats are evenly split. It's interesting to me because the independents are usually the most sought-after voters.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I read it correctly. I just found it interesting that independents are the only ones against the amendment; Republicans are for it and Democrats are evenly split. It's interesting to me because the independents are usually the most sought-after voters.

errr....scratches head. Those two things are still not similar...*shrugs*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
errr....scratches head. Those two things are still not similar...*shrugs*

The problem is no group is entirely for it or against it. Republicans are for it by a fairly sizable, but not completely overwhelming majority. 36% against is quite a lot of support for leaving the Constitution alone given that Republicans as a whole aren't noted for being gay friendly. Democrats are narrowly against the amendment, and independents are against it by about the same percentage as Republicans favor it. To me, that means the whole thing is up in the air.

However, we've got to remember that this isn't something that will be decided by the public directly. Constitutional Amendments aren't decided by referendums. They are decided by our elected representatives in the states and in Congress. It's those noses you have to count, not the public's and if they think this is popular, it could pass regardless of the actual popular sentiment.

The track record isn't good. Lots of Democratic-controlled legislatures as well as Republican passed defense of marriage acts and lots of Democrats in Congress voted for the federal act. On the other hand, lots of people who might not favor gay rights still might be squeamish about taking the step of amending the Constitution. I don't know how that will play out. But I do know that the man in the street doesn't have a direct say on this, at least, not unless the election comes first.

However, you made a very important point earlier. The poll questions have so far been uniformly simplistic. People answer differently depending on how the question is worded. Those polls therefore need to correctly reflect the import of the amendment in question. I'm worried that our representatives are going to be swayed by sloppy opinion polls with skewed numbers.

[BRussell]

No they're not similar to each other in an absolute sense (God forbid I say Dems and Repubs are similar in any way!), but what I said is that they are more similar to each other than to the independents. I guess it was a poor way of stating it, and looking at the numbers, you're right, it's probably not mathematically correct. But what I meant is that the independents are the only ones clearly against the amendment. Usually I would think of the independents as being moderates, and therefore in between the Dems and Repubs. Even if you don't like the word 'similar' in there, isn't that sort of interesting, politically and electorally?

The reason I find it interesting is that although I believe Bush will do well with social conservatives, I think he may lose the libertarian-leaning moderate voters, people who probably tend to vote Republican in large numbers. Part of the reason I think that is because of the alternative being "left up to the states."

BTW, other polls I've seen since then don't show this pattern, so maybe it was a fluke.

[chris v]

Rosie O'Donnell is calling for civil disobedience.

Here's the pertinent part of this article, which proves that it's not just about financial convenience, it's about equal protection under the law:

O'Donnell said she decided to marry Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct Rosie magazine.

"We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."

It's obvious on the face of it that these people were denied civil rights because of their sexual orientation. To codify that in to the constitution is abhorrent.

CV

[chris v]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

However, you made a very important point earlier. The poll questions have so far been uniformly simplistic. People answer differently depending on how the question is worded. Those polls therefore need to correctly reflect the import of the amendment in question. I'm worried that our representatives are going to be swayed by sloppy opinion polls with skewed numbers.

You can see how the results here (A miniscule sample, I know, but still instructive) vary more against an amendment, possibly because of the wording. I think once people start to think about what this really means in the true legal sense, we'll see support gradually slip. I don't think anyway, that we'll see a 2/3's majority in both houses, AND 38 state legislatures bring it to pass. At least, I'll be out in the streets doing my level best to see that they don't. I'll be my legal 100 feet from the polling place, clipboard in hand, on Tuesday, march 9th.

CV

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by chris v:
You can see how the results here (A miniscule sample, I know, but still instructive) vary more against an amendment, possibly because of the wording. I think once people start to think about what this really means in the true legal sense, we'll see support gradually slip. I don't think anyway, that we'll see a 2/3's majority in both houses, AND 38 state legislatures bring it to pass. At least, I'll be out in the streets doing my level best to see that they don't. I'll be my legal 100 feet from the polling place, clipboard in hand, on Tuesday, march 9th.

CV

March 9th?

[chris v]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
March 9th?

Texas Primaries.

CV

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by chris v:
Texas Primaries.

CV

OK.

[DBursey]

What became of Bush's plan to ban same-species marriage?



It came down to this or a neutering ...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by DBursey:
What became of Bush's plan to ban same-species marriage?



It came down to this or a neutering ...

really can't decide yet whether that's darn cute or vaguely disturbing. Perhaps I'll go for both!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Andrew Sullivan just linked to OxBlog, who is doing a running tally of Senators. It's not looking too great for the amendment. So far he has tallied 33 against and 28 for. 5 Republicans are in the against column, including John McCain.

Grounds for a little optimism, although remember what I said about how Congress can be bypassed if the states call for a constitutional convention.

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


There is only one example where this country turned to serious violence, and that was also when the Constitution was used to exclude a class of people from the body politic. I feel the same way about this amendment. It's not just a mistake, its an abomination.

I agree, an abomination. And it will never get through.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well, I can't speak for the other 3, but I am sorry about that. I was pretty unhappy at home at the time. I know that isn't an excuse, but I hope you can forgive me.

So we meet again after all these years. I still fit in my catholic school girl outfit... do you?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Hat tip Andrew Sullivan.



This pretty much sums it up except, for the backwards e which I suppose is meant to imply Bush is dumb. Bush's problem here isn't stupidity, it's cynicism and desperation.

Well, that is his handwriting.

IMHO, it's an abomination to actually restrict liberties in the constitution for religious purposes, which is really what this is.


I personally feel the same way about flag burning. Just like I'm not gay... I wouldn't burn a flag. But I won't take someone else's right to burn a flag either. If we passed such an ammendment, as discussed many times in the past... does the flag still stand for freedom? IMHO, it doesn't.

I'm not gay. But I would never infringe on a homosexuals rights just because I'm not gay.

I'm not a woman either. But I still think women should have the right to vote.

I'm not african american. But I still believe they diserve equal rights.

How is this different?


I strongly believe in the Consitution. I don't believe in 99% of politics, I know it's mostly a hoax by the self appointed elete in society... but I still believe in the Consitution. According to the Constitution. All men were created equal. As a result, our laws have been structured to ensure all people, regardless of variation are given the same freedoms.

I can't in good faith, back such an ammendment, since it violates the very principles in which any American prides their country. To remove freedom from America, turns it into the very thing America claims makes it better than others (wrongfully so in many cases IMHO, but that's another topic).


As a Christian, I couldn't back such an ammendment either. Unless the entire bible is a hoax, and the teachings of Jesus are extremely distorted... Jesus would never persecute, or infringe on a sinner's choices. Jesus preached forgivness and tolerance.

As a Christian, I would be going against the very core of my faith, the teachings of Jesus.

So on my personal ethics/morals. I could find no justification for such an ammendment. I'd be violating my personal, and religious beliefs by doing so. Something I'm not willing to do.

Just my $0.02

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by finboy:
I agree, an abomination. And it will never get through.

Thanks. And I hope you are right.

[jimcpherson]

As Americans everyone should be entitled to the same rights, laws and freedoms as everyone else. This country is founded on the principles of non-discrimintaion and equality for all. Being straight or being Christian is not required. If I here one more minister carrying on about how being gay is a sin and how gay people have made the choice to be gay/sinners I'm gonna puke. A gay person can no more decide to be straight as a striaght person can decide they're gonna be gay. I'll take one Bill of Rights with my order of fries and a coke, please. And what's with the whole moral high ground thing, you know, preserving the sanctity of marriage? America's respect for marriage goes about as far as Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire and My Big Fat Fiance. So please, President Bush, don't give me your sanctimonious crap about marriage being the foundation of our society. Not in a society with divorce rates like our. I'll take a loving, caring gay couple any day over a cheating, adulterous heterosexual couple in the battle for who's doing more good for society. And please, President Bush, don't be the first president to right bias back into the Constitution. And remember folks, if it wasn't for a few "activist" judges down south 30 years ago we still might have public bathrooms for whites only and blacks riding on the back of the bus. And how many of you are willing to say that that would be a good thing?

[chris v]

Heh. Note how sanctity and sanctimonious seem to have the same root word.

CV

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by jimcpherson:
And remember folks, if it wasn't for a few "activist" judges down south 30 years ago we still might have public bathrooms for whites only and blacks riding on the back of the bus. And how many of you are willing to say that that would be a good thing?

and how many of those who support the amendment, actually pride themselves with living in a country which is supposed to be the hallmark of freedom and racial equality...it's enough to make 'ya wanna puke.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by jimcpherson:
And remember folks, if it wasn't for a few "activist" judges down south 30 years ago we still might have public bathrooms for whites only and blacks riding on the back of the bus. And how many of you are willing to say that that would be a good thing?

Yep.

Women wouldn't have any the right to vote either.

But if Bush had his way. He wouldn't have to share a restroom with Colin Powell. And his wife wouldn't be voting for him.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Yep.

Women wouldn't have any the right to vote either.

What are you talking about? Women didn't ge the vote through the courts, they got the vote through a constitutional amendment. Likewise 18 year olds.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What are you talking about? Women didn't ge the vote through the courts, they got the vote through a constitutional amendment. Likewise 18 year olds.

Actually, they indrectly did.

Several states had womans sufferage laws in place before the amendment:
http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/...ticle_66.shtml

Thanks to judges upholding the laws on a state by state basis, it became possible for such an amendment to be considered.

It wouldn't have happened if each state's law was rejected.

It was because of "Activist Judges" that fueled it.

Suprisingly... that whole process seems quite similar to how this seems to be headed.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What are you talking about? Women didn't ge the vote through the courts, they got the vote through a constitutional amendment. Likewise 18 year olds.

NJ is one of the states that spends the most on education, yielding mediocre educated students. New Jersey spent the most per student ($10,787) and ranked 26th nationwide. Unfortunately they never administered the NAEP in 2002 so we don't really know how students in 8th grade are doing, but we do know SAT and ACT scores. http://www.alec.org/meSWFiles/pdf/20...0Education.pdf