NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm ashamed. My country has joined with Iran to vote against giving UN consultative status to gay rights groups. That status would have given those gay rights NGOs the ability to participate in UN discussions and influence UN policy.

That's just great. We're acting like Iran now instead of standing up for freedom.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/d765b4038d44bd4ef1a0c8d2fb6a79fe.htm

That's just great. We're acting like Iran now instead of standing up for freedom.


Got some bad news for you, but this country hasn't been standing up for freedom since the 1950s. We've been on a downhill slope towards theocracy ever since the death of the secular humanist movement during WWII.

Meh. It's the U.N., remember.

Doesn't surprise me. The US and Iran are probably the two most Homophobe countries in the world.

Let's look at it from a different (positive) point of view:

THE US AND IRAN ARE WORKING TOGETHER IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS!!!

Meh. It's the U.N., remember.
No, it's the US acting like Iran. We're supposed to be better than them.

No, it's the US acting like Iran. We're supposed to be better than them.

Bah.. that's the pessimist's view.. the way I see it, we're siding with Russia and China, an emerging superpower and a former superpower with nuclear missiles we'd rather not have sold off to the highest bidder. It's strategy. :)

No, it's the US acting like Iran. We're supposed to be better than them.

Oh bull pucky.

Oh bull pucky.


What? You're NOT supposed to be better than Iran?

What? You're NOT supposed to be better than Iran?

Oh we are better than them. Just because of this One issue doesn't make it the opposite.

In voting against the applications to the NGO committee, the U.S. was joined by Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe.

Heh, joined by wonderful paragons of human rights, no?

I don't know whether to be surprised at Cuba or not. But i've never liked Castro anyway.

Oh we are better than them. Just because of this One issue doesn't make it the opposite.


Oh.

So - as long as you're better than them most of the time, occassionally sinking to the same level for spurious reasons is just hunky-dory. An abberation. Just a "whoopsie...heh..heh...sorry, musta been readin' my scripture of choice a bit too much this morning" kinda thing..

Just curious, but how may times a year is this permitted before you admit that it's wrong?

Just curious, but how may times a year is this permitted before you admit that it's wrong?

Silly Silliopolous (heh). America is never wrong.

Oh.

So - as long as you're better than them most of the time, occassionally sinking to the same level for spurious reasons is just hunky-dory. An abberation. Just a "whoopsie...heh..heh...sorry, musta been readin' my scripture of choice a bit too much this morning" kinda thing..

Just curious, but how may times a year is this permitted before you admit that it's wrong?

Its the UN! I do not care. They have lost most of my respect.

Its the UN! I do not care. They have lost most of my respect.

...and still, somehow, life goes on...:)

The U.N.'s place is as multinational peacekeeper, even if it's something the organization does horribly... my tax dollar shouldn't be paying bureaucrats to try and micro-manage the social policies of third-world countries.. the U.N. isn't going to stop Mugabe from denouncing homos for whatever reason he likes to do it, whether they allow gay activists to speak or not.. no one's going to follow through with (those wonderfully effective) sanctions, because the people there are starving as it is...

U.S. was joined by Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe.
Jesus H God its like a new axis of evil.*moves finger over big red button*

Its the UN! I do not care. They have lost most of my respect.
Who cares if it's the UN? The point is that the US has aligned itself along the same moral axis as Iran.

Who cares if it's the UN? The point is that the US has aligned itself along the same moral axis as Iran.

I'll repeat.

I do not care.

Jesus H God its like a new axis of evil.*moves finger over big red button*

Like the old axis of evil but much bigger targets for our nukes.:)

*hides in nuclear bunker gibbering quietly*

Who cares if it's the UN? The point is that the US has aligned itself along the same moral axis as Iran.

The U.S. delegation voted the same way, but not necessarily for the same moral reasons. I guess it's not as shocking to compare our vote to Russia's or Senegal's? :p

The U.S. delegation voted the same way, but not necessarily for the same moral reasons. I guess it's not as shocking to compare our vote to Russia's or Senegal's? :p
Well, let's face it; China, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Pakistan, Russia and Senegal are hardly bastions of human rights and tolerance.

Just noticed something!

The United States didn't give a reason.

Also, it isn't even on the UN website. Go figure. I wanted to read what the resolution stated. Alwell.

Like the old axis of evil but much bigger targets for our nukes.:)

*hides in nuclear bunker gibbering quietly*

*climbs on to nuke* Oh oh can we add Vananatu. Those sneeky evil bastards.They have to be up to somthing.We have no evidence so they must be hiding it really really well.*Climbs back off nuke as the plutonium is burning my bits*

Well, let's face it; China, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Pakistan, Russia and Senegal are hardly bastions of human rights and tolerance.

Voting with those countries against endorsing certain advocacy groups to the U.N. isn't a rubber stamp in favor of their social policies, in any event.. I'm sure a search of recent votes would turn up many similar votes.

Just noticed something!

The United States didn't give a reason.

The article didn't need to mention that... guilt by association doesn't work very well when you try and clarify the situation by contacting the delegation.. :p

I think this is terrible, but I have to point out that the fact that Iran agrees means NOTHING. If I believe in God and so does Osama Bin Laden, am I just like him?

The US is wrong on this issue regardless of who agrees with them or doesn't. However, it doesn't make them 'just like' the countries that happen to agree. It's politics. These kinds of silly groupings is exactly why racism and homophobia are such problems.

"What you wear the same size shoe as Hitler? You freaking Nazi!"

Thank you Mr. Bolton. You've put us in the same voting block as these tinpot dictatorships and theocracies.

I think this is terrible, but I have to point out that the fact that Iran agrees means NOTHING. If I believe in God and so does Osama Bin Laden, am I just like him?

The US is wrong on this issue regardless of who agrees with them or doesn't. However, it doesn't make them 'just like' the countries that happen to agree. It's politics. These kinds of silly groupings is exactly why racism and homophobia are such problems.

"What you wear the same size shoe as Hitler? You freaking Nazi!"

I couldn't agree more with this post.

I think this is terrible, but I have to point out that the fact that Iran agrees means NOTHING. If I believe in God and so does Osama Bin Laden, am I just like him?

No, but you are both theists, and that's not "nothing" in common.

The US is wrong on this issue regardless of who agrees with them or doesn't. However, it doesn't make them 'just like' the countries that happen to agree.

"What you wear the same size shoe as Hitler? You freaking Nazi!"

It's a bit more than shoe size. Shoe size has nothing to do with anything except feet. In this case however, religious moral authoritarianism of the West and the East have joined hands against TEH GAY, almost certainly for religious reasons. That should be a bit more disturbing than sharing a shoe size with Hitler, and more relevant.

No, but you are both theists, and that's not "nothing" in common.

It doesn't make a comparison of the two of us apt, which is what the OP is going for.

It's a bit more than shoe size. Shoe size has nothing to do with anything except feet. In this case however, religious moral authoritarianism of the West and the East have joined hands against TEH GAY, almost certainly for religious reasons. That should be a bit more disturbing than sharing a shoe size with Hitler, and more relevant.
If Iran hadn't voted with them, would it be any less concerning? It has nothing to do with Iran and everything to do with an embarassing choice by the US (although without knowing the reasoning or more details, that's speculation). The OP is simply adding in the spectre of Iran to skew the debate. Iran has nothing to do with the quality of the decision by the US.

That's just great. We're acting like Iran now instead of standing up for freedom.


"Now"? And you're actually surprised? It's not the first time the US has sided with Iran and/or Saudi Arabia to oppose civil rights. I vaguely recall them voting together against abortion rights or something, but I'd have to check.


I'll repeat.

I do not care.


And you think we care about you not caring... why, exactly?

Just noticed something!

The United States didn't give a reason.

Also, it isn't even on the UN website. Go figure. I wanted to read what the resolution stated. Alwell.


It is a good thing that you "don't care" about the UN given that you don't even understand the difference between a hearing on an application for consultative status and a resolution. And the article is fairly clear that the US did not state a reason but first abstained from a vote to give these groups a hearing - which resulted in them being denied such, and then voted to dismiss their applications out of hand.

But no, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/) does not have yesterday's minutes posted.

Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/25/iran12536.htm) does have a letter to Condi Rice asking for clarification on this vote though to support the story.

It doesn't make a comparison of the two of us apt, which is what the OP is going for.

Oh, I don't know. A comparison is handy for illustrative purposes.

If Iran hadn't voted with them, would it be any less concerning?

No.

It has nothing to do with Iran and everything to do with an embarassing choice by the US (although without knowing the reasoning or more details, that's speculation). The OP is simply adding in the spectre of Iran to skew the debate. Iran has nothing to do with the quality of the decision by the US.

No, but part of how it is so "embarassing" is that, supposedly morally superior, progressive US is voting on the same way on a moral issue as supposedly backwards, theocratic and inferior Iran. It not only comments on this particular issue (which doesn't need the comparison, true) but on the issue of US-Iran sabre rattling in which the US claims to hold the moral high ground. I think it's a valid issue in that light.

Oh, I don't know. A comparison is handy for illustrative purposes.



No.



No, but part of how it is so "embarassing" is that, supposedly morally superior, progressive US is voting on the same way on a moral issue as supposedly backwards, theocratic and inferior Iran. It not only comments on this particular issue (which doesn't need the comparison, true) but on the issue of US-Iran sabre rattling in which the US claims to hold the moral high ground. I think it's a valid issue in that light.

I still think the comparison only serves to detract from the discussion. As long as we use such hyperbole, we make this an issue about spectres rather than a very real and very concerning problem. Hyperbole only serves to make reasonable people look like extremists.

Did the comparison between slaughterhouses and Nazi concentration camps serve to help the cause it was created for or did it just make the supporters look like a bunch of nutjobs and steal the discussion from the real issue to the issue of the comparison? The answer is the latter, obviously.

It's not who else voted against it that bothers me, Its that America is voting to deny these organisations the right to free speech by giving them consultatie status. I know that the UN probably wouldn't be able to do anything about these breaches of gay rights anyway but the principle still stands: America is unwilling to give these people rights that others have.

Oh the irony.... its quite sweet. :p

"Grrr... evil Iran, EVIL Iran..."
"You wanna vote with us on this gay thingy?.."
"Yeah, sure no biggie"

*30 secs later*
"Grrr... evil Iran..EVIL Iran..."

Grumble.

While I am horrendously disappointed, this does bring an interesting idea to mind. Iran-US Reality T.V.

George Bush and the U.S. Senate are placed on an island with Ahmedinejad and his imams. Israels leaders can join in for fun.

Chaos ensues.

It is a good thing that you "don't care" about the UN given that you don't even understand the difference between a hearing on an application for consultative status and a resolution. And the article is fairly clear that the US did not state a reason but first abstained from a vote to give these groups a hearing - which resulted in them being denied such, and then voted to dismiss their applications out of hand.

But no, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/) does not have yesterday's minutes posted.

Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/25/iran12536.htm) does have a letter to Condi Rice asking for clarification on this vote though to support the story.

I want the minutes. I don't care about the letter. I want to see the minutes. That's more important than a letter to the Secretary of State. I got what they said but i want to hear what the US said. That means the minutes would be more important than a letter.

Got some bad news for you, but this country hasn't been standing up for freedom since the 1950s. We've been on a downhill slope towards theocracy ever since the death of the secular humanist movement during WWII.
While I agree with you, I think the real turning point was much earlier. I place it at circa 1917.

WWI was easily the most ridiculous conflict in human history, and IMO our involvement in it was the real turning point.

Clearly, anti-gay civil rights groups are sympathizing with terrorists.

Clearly, anti-gay civil rights groups are sympathizing with terrorists.
Good point. We should freeze their assets and wiretap their members' phone lines. Rev. Phelps, please report to Guantanamo bay immediately.

Clearly, anti-gay civil rights groups are sympathizing with terrorists.

Godwin's Law has already been enacted on this thread...

Good point. We should freeze their assets and wiretap their members' phone lines. Rev. Phelps, please report to Guantanamo bay immediately.


If one of them has access to weapons, they should be held as enemy combatants!

While I agree with you, I think the real turning point was much earlier. I place it at circa 1917.

WWI was easily the most ridiculous conflict in human history, and IMO our involvement in it was the real turning point.

Yeah I'm gonna have to give you that one. Didn't even think about the way socialilsts and dissidents began to get rounded up and "hidden away" during the 20s.

We need another secular humanist President. I think it's time.

Contrary to popular beliefs on this forum, homosexuals are not a oppressed minority in the United States. In Iran it is a crime to be homosexual and punishable by death. In the United States they are guaranteed all their civil liberties, with exception of a right to marry which is starting to change. Since all of you seem to be speculating about the motivation behind not voting in favor, none of you can logically assume that the US in any shape or form is being hypocritical.

Could it also be possible that the United States doesnt need the UN to protect it's own citizens?

Contrary to popular beliefs on this forum, homosexuals are not a oppressed minority in the United States. In Iran it is a crime to be homosexual and punishable by death. In the United States they are guaranteed all their civil liberties, with exception of a right to marry which is starting to change.

You sure about that? I know of at least 18 states that have made it illegal for gays to marry and two more states are looking into or is putting it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.

You sure about that? I know of at least 18 states that have made it illegal for gays to marry and two more states are looking into or is putting it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.

I fail to see how not being able to marry is the same as opression. There are far bigger problems in the world that we should be concerned with first.

I fail to see how not being able to marry is the same as opression. There are far bigger problems in the world that we should be concerned with first.

I agree 100%

So Mustache Man (http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:gImgQhiajU62HM:www.rfi.fr/images/063/john_bolton_afp220.jpg) does have some good ideas for the UN.

That's just great. We're acting like Iran now instead of standing up for freedom.

"Now"?


Get used to it DCD.

You sure about that? I know of at least 18 states that have made it illegal for gays to marry and two more states are looking into or is putting it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.


Sharia, inshallah!

Sharia, inshallah!

And that means what in English?

And that means what in English?
I don't speak a word of Arabic, but I understand. I would've thought a potential soldier out of a "military family" like you would know.

Sharia is Islamic Law.
Inshallah means "god willing".

I don't speak a word of Arabic, but I understand. I would've thought a potential soldier out of a "military family" like you would know.

Sharia is Islamic Law.
Inshallah means "god willing".

*yawns*

I knew what Sharia is I didn't know what the 2nd part was.

The U.N.'s place is as multinational peacekeeper, even if it's something the organization does horribly... my tax dollar shouldn't be paying bureaucrats to try and micro-manage the social policies of third-world countries...
Well, now i'm itching to see your protest of the World Bank and the IMF.

The US and Iran also see eye-to-eye on not funding UN-based family planning and women's rights groups.

I fail to see how not being able to marry is the same as opression. There are far bigger problems in the world that we should be concerned with first.

Yes, nothing concerning about denying civil rights. It's just a little civil right, isn't it?

Ridiculous. Human rights violations say we don't believe that some rights should be afforded a person simply by being human and it's a concern every time it happens.

I agree 100%

So if you were told getting married was illegal for you, you wouldn't be concerned? If you were told that your partner cannot make medical decisions for you when you're incapacitated, no worries, right? If you're spouse doesn't get your retirement benefits, no problems. I mean, who cares, you know. If your spouse isn't covered by your insurance, nothing to worry about that, is there? Ridiculous. You think it's not a big deal because you're rights aren't being infringed. You don't mind if we take equal rights away from you, right? Or are you only willing to ignore the rights of others?

Oh for the love of ....

Ok ... you people want to know what Qur'an says about gays?

NOTHING

That's right ... nothing.

The shariah about homosexuality is come of men who feel ... well ... threatened .... probably because they're gay themselves and don't want to admit it.

Qur'an says NOTHING.
Jesus said NOTHING.
Torah only admonishes men who sleep with young boys.

I submit to you that the US and Iran see eye to eye because somewhere at a party, George Bush and Mohammad Khatami got a little too close for comfort .... maybe got a little drunk and made out a little ....

I submit to you that the US and Iran see eye to eye because somewhere at a party, George Bush and Mohammad Khatami got a little too close for comfort .... maybe got a little drunk and made out a little ....

They've become their fathers!

Oh for the love of ....

Ok ... you people want to know what Qur'an says about gays?

NOTHING

That's right ... nothing.

The shariah about homosexuality is come of men who feel ... well ... threatened .... probably because they're gay themselves and don't want to admit it.

Qur'an says NOTHING.
Jesus said NOTHING.
Torah only admonishes men who sleep with young boys.

I submit to you that the US and Iran see eye to eye because somewhere at a party, George Bush and Mohammad Khatami got a little too close for comfort .... maybe got a little drunk and made out a little ....

You got this part right, "Oh for the love of ...."

The Qur'an certainly says something against drinking, and yet, in that other thread... Perhaps you simply advocate for what you want to do yourself. We can simply look at Islamic history and tradition to answer the question of what they think of homosexual behavior and activities. I suspect you weren't raised Muslim, even if you are one now.

Oh, look, someone missed the point. There is a difference between religious actions and political actions disguised as religious actions.

I suspect you weren't raised Muslim, even if you are one now.

You clearly do not understand the term "Muslim".

Nobody is raised Muslim. Nobody. If a child is made to embrace Islam, then they aren't Muslim. If someone puts a sword to your neck and says, "Recite Shahadah!", then you aren't Muslim.

There is only one way to be Muslim. If you do not recognize that, then you need to study Allah's message more.

WWI was easily the most ridiculous conflict in human history, and IMO our involvement in it was the real turning point.

Australia lost mroe men than you did and it was our troops that broke the hindenburg line with Monash using armour groups with infantry in support to smash through the german lines.

As for the real issue here.

Heh heh heh, the US just sided with the AXIS OF EVIL!!! BUM BUM BUUUUUM!

"we must find the evil doers" QUICK DUBYA LOOK IN THE MIRROR!

"we must find the evil doers" QUICK DUBYA LOOK IN THE MIRROR!

"Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the evilest-do'er of them all"?

Maybe it has to so with the fact that they have been linked to NAMBLA, and up until 1994, NAMBLA was a member of it?

GEE, could it be that they believe in the same age of consent as NAMBLA? They think it's ok for men to screw little boys! But NOOOOOO, they're gay, they can't be evil, and if you think so, you're a homophobe, right?

HERE'S (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030105.html) a linky.

Maybe it has to so with the fact that they have been linked to NAMBLA, and up until 1994, NAMBLA was a member of it?

GEE, could it be that they believe in the same age of consent as NAMBLA? They think it's ok for men to screw little boys! But NOOOOOO, they're gay, they can't be evil, and if you think so, you're a homophobe, right?

HERE'S (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030105.html) a linky.
Whoa!
You FINALLY provide a link!
Michael Jackson is certainly making some interesting news, while we're on this topic ... i heard something funny about him on Paul Harvey.

You clearly do not understand the term "Muslim".

Nobody is raised Muslim. Nobody.

I can name more than a few parents and children that might disagree with that assessment.

If a child is made to embrace Islam, then they aren't Muslim.

If a child is raised to practice, respect and embrace Islam, they will most remain or become Muslim as adults.

If someone puts a sword to your neck and says, "Recite Shahadah!", then you aren't Muslim.

We agree here.

There is only one way to be Muslim. If you do not recognize that, then you need to study Allah's message more.

There is more than one sect that might disagree with this assessment, no matter how much we would wish it to be true.

Whoa!
You FINALLY provide a link!
Michael Jackson is certainly making some interesting news, while we're on this topic ... i heard something funny about him on Paul Harvey.
What the hell are you talking about? Nothing of value to add?

QUICK DUBYA LOOK IN THE MIRROR!
Don't you mean,
"QUICK, DUBYA, LOOK AT THAT HANGING CAMERA!"

*gotta love The Daily Show*

What the hell are you talking about? Nothing of value to add?
As adding goes, i'm about to make a little detour in my regular routine, and post a compendium of your QUITE common feigned obliviousness to the intent of others. It's really quite disingenuous. Either that or you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

Well, some might find some value in that assessment, but not all the votes are in.

So what do you think i meant? :rolleyes:

I can name more than a few parents and children that might disagree with that assessment.

Please do. I love this brand of argument. "I COULD support my point, but I don't feel like it. Instead I'll make some vague references to people 'I know' that support my argument."

If a child is raised to practice, respect and embrace Islam, they will most remain or become Muslim as adults.

Most likely? They can't remain Muslim. They have to become Muslim first, then they can remain Muslim. 'most likely'!='are'. That's like saying we can call babies 'adults' because they will 'most likely' become adults.

There is more than one sect that might disagree with this assessment, no matter how much we would wish it to be true.

More than one sect or most? A few sects really doesn't make the point, now does it? Particularly when we're not actually discussing those sects. His point was and still is that there are not religious supports for their actions. Their actions (Iran's) are political disguised as religious and we would do well to remember the difference.

*yawns*

I knew what Sharia is I didn't know what the 2nd part was.


I've never met someone from the military who didnt know what 'inshallah' means.

The US and Iran also see eye-to-eye on not funding UN-based family planning and women's rights groups.


World sharia! Inshallah!

Well, Not Suprised At The Iran Vote, But This Makes Me Even More P.O. At The Fact That AMERICA, The Nation Which Supports Freedom, Is Taking Away MORE Rights Just Because Someone Has A Different Sexual Orientation Then Them. Seriously, We Need A Gay President. And What's Up With Us Working With Iran When We Are Only Months Away From Invading Them?

Well, Not Suprised At The Iran Vote, But This Makes Me Even More P.O. At The Fact That AMERICA, The Nation Which Supports Freedom, Is Taking Away MORE Rights Just Because Someone Has A Different Sexual Orientation Then Them. Seriously, We Need A Gay President. And What's Up With Us Working With Iran When We Are Only Months Away From Invading Them?


We had a gay president during the civil war.

And you have to stop capitalizing every word, its not the way we write in english.

Either capitalize normally, or write in all caps.

We had a gay president during the civil war.

And you have to stop capitalizing every word, its not the way we write in english.

Either capitalize normally, or write in all caps.

We Did? Who Was It? And I Will NOT Stop Capitalizing All My Words!

And I Will NOT Stop Capitalizing All My Words!
Damn jolt delays

We had a gay president during the civil war.

Actually no we didn't. Who are you talking about?

I'm ashamed. My country has joined with Iran to vote against giving UN consultative status to gay rights groups. That status would have given those gay rights NGOs the ability to participate in UN discussions and influence UN policy.

That's just great. We're acting like Iran now instead of standing up for freedom.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/d765b4038d44bd4ef1a0c8d2fb6a79fe.htm


I think they should have their basic human rights, so if they are taking those away, then that's wrong. As for them debating the UN... :rolleyes: Please. They'll get over it. If they are so unhappy with the way America is treating them, we have two open borders to the north and south. Nothing is keeping them here. Besides, they would be legally allowed to marry in Canada.

That's the thing about the US. Majority rules. I hate when the minority gets all upset about that. Sorry, but the Majority said this. Just because the Majority doesn't want somethign the Minority wants, it does NOT mean we are on a down hill slide from protecting freedoms, or that we are heading to a theocracy, blah blah. That's just the way that the vocal minority disguises their temper tantrums.

I think they should have their basic human rights, so if they are taking those away, then that's wrong. As for them debating the UN... :rolleyes: Please. They'll get over it. If they are so unhappy with the way America is treating them, we have two open borders to the north and south. Nothing is keeping them here. Besides, they would be legally allowed to marry in Canada.

That's the thing about the US. Majority rules. I hate when the minority gets all upset about that. Sorry, but the Majority said this. Just because the Majority doesn't want somethign the Minority wants, it does NOT mean we are on a down hill slide from protecting freedoms, or that we are heading to a theocracy, blah blah. That's just the way that the vocal minority disguises their temper tantrums.

Yeah, that's great. Why pretend to believe in equality? If people want equal treatment they can leave. Here we believe in mistreating people and not allowing them certain rights that other groups take for granted./sarcasm

Majority does not rule in the US. Otherwise there would be no first amendment. It wouldn't be necessary because the majority would always have support for their beliefs and religions, etc. Freedom for all, not just the majority. That's what the founders wanted and that's what the US Constitution is designed to protect. You're ignorance of this fact does not change it.

Actually no we didn't. Who are you talking about?
Corny, it's pretty clear in the post.

We had a gay president during the civil war.
He's obviously referring to the president during the Civil War.
And it is my estimation he's referring to the info they gave on the History Channel special on Lincoln.

Majority does not rule in the US.
The painful thing is that the majority doesn't even get its foot in the door where it counts ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

Corny, it's pretty clear in the post.

He's obviously referring to the president during the Civil War.
And it is my estimation he's referring to the info they gave on the History Channel special on Lincoln.

Well since I didn't see it.... and on another history channel program (one on the Presidents that I have) they were talking about another president who was gay and it wasn't Mr. Lincoln.

I will take a look through the Lincoln biography I have though.

Well since I didn't see it.... and on another history channel program (one on the Presidents that I have) they were talking about another president who was gay and it wasn't Mr. Lincoln.

I will take a look through the Lincoln biography I have though.
Well, i saw that part. I think there's some letters about the issue you can peruse. Maybe i'll link 'em in an edit later.

Well, i saw that part. I think there's some letters about the issue you can peruse. Maybe i'll link 'em in an edit later.

I would actually appreciate it :)

I would actually appreciate it :)
So far, The Straight Dope dabbles but doesn't go very far ...
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040402.html

This site does good with it, on Tripp's review ...
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/9079.html

And it's on the point list from their site ...
http://www.historychannel.com/lincoln/didyouknow.html

I've noted most reference involving Tripp's research.

Now i never knew the guy but it sure didn't seem so good for him for a good portion of his life ....

So far, The Straight Dope dabbles but doesn't go very far ...
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040402.html

This site does good with it, on Tripp's review ...
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/9079.html

And it's on the point list from their site ...
http://www.historychannel.com/lincoln/didyouknow.html

I've noted most reference involving Tripp's research.

Now i never knew the guy but it sure didn't seem so good for him for a good portion of his life ....

Thanks! I'll take a look at this. Hopefully it is accurate.

Thanks! I'll take a look at this. Hopefully it is accurate.
No problem.
Since a lot of it focuses on Tripp's research, though, it's gonna sound pretty similar (and so far involves the same two other people) for most of what you find.

No problem.
Since a lot of it focuses on Tripp's research, though, it's gonna sound pretty similar (and so far involves the same two other people) for most of what you find.

Don't take this the way its going to sound but that has me worried about the research. I will still look at it because I do love history but if only 2 people are doing this and no other historian has picked up on it.....

It is either the find of the century or something afoot, or both. LOL

All 3 links were very interesting. We'll have to wait and see just how accurate this can be. Though to quote one article: we may never really know (straight Dope)

Don't take this the way its going to sound but that has me worried about the research. I will still look at it because I do love history but if only 2 people are doing this and no other historian has picked up on it.....

It is either the find of the century or something afoot, or both. LOL
Probably both. It's good to be a skeptic. It makes you more sincere an investigator. I personally don't feel particularly smarter or more biased one way or the other by the idea of him being gay/bisexual, and i'm not even particularly convinced as such anyway. As i'd said, i never knew him personally, and it really should have little to do with his leading ability.

I just found an interesting review of Tripp's book ...

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/carpenter/carpenter63.html

....

The occasion for this excited chatter was the recent publication of C.A. Tripp's The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. Tripp, now deceased, claims that Lincoln was predominantly homosexual. Indeed, he precisely rates Lincoln a “5” on the famous Kinsey scale that ranges from “0” (entirely heterosexual) to “6” (entirely homosexual). I avoided reading reviews of the book, not wanting to prejudice myself either way. I wanted to see whether it could rise or fall on its own. Now I've read it. There is no need to consult learned Lincoln scholars or to track down important sources and facts Tripp omitted. The book collapses under its own light weight.

There are shards of evidence that Tripp adduces suggestively to support his claim: a vengeful poem Lincoln wrote in which there are a few lines about two boys who marry each other (penned after two male acquaintances excluded Lincoln from their real weddings); the “perfect thighs” comment from a friend of Lincoln (which, for Tripp, by itself “strongly suggests” they had femoral intercourse!); Lincoln's sometimes awkward relations with women; and so on. None of this amounts to much.

Tripp sometimes anachronistically projects onto Lincoln stereotypes of modern urban gay men (e.g., Lincoln avoided “team sports”). Even proof of Lincoln's heterosexual capacity, such as his ability to consummate his marriage to Mary Todd, with whom he had four sons, is in Tripp's hands evidence that he was a “top.”

These embarrassments aside, Tripp's case comes down to three main points. In ascending order of persuasiveness, they are: Lincoln matured early; as president, he slept with his bodyguard; and as a young lawyer, he slept with a roommate.

Lincoln probably reached puberty at age 10, about three years earlier than the average. “This is significant,” claims Tripp, because the earlier males reach puberty the more likely they are to have homosexual experiences. It's a very weak argument. The gap in homosexual experience between early- and late-maturing males is initially large but decreases over time, becoming negligible by age 30. More importantly, Tripp cites no support for a correlation between early puberty and homosexual orientation. Early-maturing males, like other males, are overwhelmingly heterosexual.

For an eight-month period in 1862-63 Lincoln may have slept occasionally in the same bed at the White House with a personal bodyguard, army captain David Derickson (a father of nine children). The evidence that they slept together is fairly thin, consisting of contemporaneous gossip and unsubstantiated passages in two obscure histories. Even if they did sleep together, it would not be surprising to find the president's personal bodyguard in his bedroom at the lowest point in the Union's fortunes in the Civil War, in a city full of rebel sympathizers and potential assassins.

It's similarly unsurprising to learn that the president's bodyguard accompanied him to church, cabinet meetings, battlefields, and the theater. Yet Tripp treats these outings as if they were dates. Lincoln also told Derickson stories of his early life and shared battle reports with him, again unsurprising for two men who necessarily spent much time together. Yet Tripp likens these conversations to “pillow talk.” Such over-interpretation of scanty evidence mars the whole book.

The strongest evidence for Lincoln's homosexuality is his close friendship with Joshua Speed. When Lincoln was a struggling lawyer, the men shared a bed for four years. Lincoln also wrote letters to Speed that, to modern ears, sound unusually tender. This much is familiar ground, and Tripp adds very little to it.

Tripp claims that he, as a homosexual, has detected the hidden romantic significance of the surviving letters, something missed by earlier scholars eager to downplay it. Yet the letters, which Tripp helpfully appends, deal mostly with politics, business, the men's marriages, and similar fare. They are written in the florid style of nineteenth-century correspondence, full of expressions of devotion and anxieties for reunion, but for this gay reader there is nothing very suggestive about them. For Tripp, however, the lack of overt homoeroticism is itself evidence of a “cover up” by the lovers.

As Tripp concedes, it was common in Lincoln's time for men to sleep together in places like boardinghouses and inns. However, four years does seem suspiciously long. Perhaps this too is a modern reaction, according to which all male-male intimacy carries the whiff of homosexuality. If the men's lengthy cohabitation would have raised eyebrows at the time, it is odd that both men freely acknowledged it to friends, even while going to elaborate lengths to “cover up” their relationship in private letters to one another.
...
----------

So again, the mention of "private letters" ... but they're not so easy to find.

Until I see those letters, it is better to remain a skeptic until more proof comes along than what I am reading now. Right now all I'm seeing is weak arguements.

I can see the point he's trying to make but it is still weak. Especially since they acknowledged to friends of what was happening. If he really was gay, he wouldn't have. Not at that time.

Oh we are better than them. Just because of this One issue doesn't make it the opposite.


"Yeah, one theocracy to another, I think God hates fags!"

What a bunch of tripe. Terrible that our country brought this man into power. Awful, just awful.

Until I see those letters, it is better to remain a skeptic until more proof comes along than what I am reading now. Right now all I'm seeing is weak arguements.

I can see the point he's trying to make but it is still weak. Especially since they acknowledged to friends of what was happening. If he really was gay, he wouldn't have. Not at that time.
Here's a little more....
and i'm using Google currently ...

http://www.lincolnbicentennial.gov/press/stories/Michael_F._Bishop_reviews_Tripp

The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln is laced with references to the work of Alfred Kinsey, Tripp's colleague in the 1940s and '50s. As Tripp relates, Kinsey discovered a correlation between the early onset of puberty in boys and a greater incidence of homosexual activity. Seizing upon a vague description of the young Lincoln as tall and gangly, Tripp concludes that Lincoln entered puberty at age nine -- four years earlier than average -- and that his sexual precocity must have taken homosexual form. Such dizzying leaps of logic are characteristic of Tripp's work.

To take another example, Tripp is struck by the fact that Lincoln, as a young state legislator, shared a bed for four years with his best friend, Joshua Speed. When Speed moved home to Kentucky in 1841 and Lincoln's engagement to Mary Todd came temporarily to an end, Lincoln suffered an emotional crisis. The two men subsequently exchanged a series of letters, some of which Lincoln ended with "Yours forever." All of this leads Tripp to conclude that Lincoln and Speed conducted a passionate homosexual affair. But 19th-century notions of privacy were vastly different from our own, and mattresses were in short supply. During two of their four years as bedmates, Lincoln and Speed shared the room with two other young men, both of them decidedly heterosexual.

As for the affectionate letter-ending flourish that Tripp trumpets as proof of his case, the historian Michael Burlingame points out in a dissenting afterword that Lincoln closed many a letter with the same tribute. The letters themselves are not exactly spicy; one of Lincoln's missives to Speed contains an impersonal account of a murder trial, hardly the stuff of romance. Tripp, however, is not deterred, arguing that "it is precisely this kind of impersonal recounting of some irrelevant bit of news that is often resorted to by distraught lovers who are contending with some strain, and who thus choose to recount details from a neutral territory as they wait out a storm that swirls about them." This makes a mockery of the historical method. Tripp could make a grocery list sound suspicious.

Tripp also suggests that Lincoln had a male lover during his presidency: Capt. David V. Derickson, the commanding officer of the Army company assigned to protect the Lincoln family while they resided at a summer retreat outside Washington. A few months after the two men met and became friends, Virginia Woodbury Fox, the wife of the assistant secretary of the Navy, wrote to a friend: "Tish says, 'there is a Bucktail soldier here devoted to the President, drives with him, and when Mrs. L. is not home, sleeps with him.' What stuff!" A regimental history written three decades later echoed these observations, adding also that Derickson made "use of his Excellency's night-shirt!" The morning they met, Derickson accompanied Lincoln back to the White House, and they shared pleasantries along the way. Tripp depicts this initial conversation as "an almost classical seduction scene" that left Lincoln "wound up if not revved up." Such overheated speculation succeeds only in damaging Tripp's case.

Nor is this part of that case new; the Derickson story has been known for decades, though many may encounter it in Tripp's book for the first time. Tripp's insinuations are contradicted by much of the other evidence: Lincoln was the father of four and Derickson the father of nine, attesting to their abundant heterosexual activity. Moreover, after eight months, the president granted his friend a transfer at the latter's request. As Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald (who has publicly quarreled with Tripp's thesis) has observed, the "friendly, not sexual" nature of their relationship "is suggested by the ease with which their association was ended when Derickson returned" to his native Pennsylvania. The two men never saw each other again.

For all that, modern readers may well find that the thought of a president with a famously difficult marriage sharing his bed with another man makes them wonder, leaving them unable to dismiss Tripp's claims entirely. And there is no doubt that Lincoln was usually more comfortable with men than with women. "He was not very fond of girls," observed Sarah Lincoln about her late stepson. From an early age, Lincoln was an inexhaustible teller of ribald stories -- but never in mixed company. Indeed, his wit and eloquence often turned into awkward stammering in the company of available women. Tripp finds all this rather telling, but others will not; discomfort in feminine company is an affliction suffered by men of all sexual persuasions.

That brings us to Mary Todd Lincoln. Whether Lincoln's troubled marriage was evidence of his homosexuality is highly debatable; whether his marriage was troubled is not. Tripp's account of this less than perfect union is a portrait of unrelieved misery. Tripp might have leavened his criticism of Mary with some sympathy for her own suffering, but one cannot deny that Lincoln was deprived of emotional and intellectual sustenance at home. His domestic life may have been hellish, but this is hardly a fate restricted to homosexuals.

To make matters worse, Tripp is extremely selective in his use of evidence. He relies heavily upon the research of William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner and biographer, who conducted countless interviews with friends and associates of Lincoln and tried to present the human side of the martyred saint. When Herndon is useful to Tripp, the latter cites him approvingly. But Tripp pays no heed to Herndon when Lincoln's old friend fails to buttress Tripp's case. After all, how could Herndon have failed to observe Lincoln's homosexuality, either through his research or personally? (He was one of the men who shared that room in Springfield with Speed and Lincoln.) Tripp explains this away by concluding that Herndon was afflicted with "heterosexual bias" stemming from his idyllic marriage. But Herndon was not silent on the subject of Lincoln's sexuality; many of Herndon's interview subjects told of Lincoln's "strong passions" for women, and one reported that only Lincoln's "Conscience Kept him from seduction." This contradictory evidence appears in Burlingame's dissent; Tripp ignores it entirely.
--

This is getting weirder. You know, I never could get my mind around this issue. To me, it should be a non-issue.

All 3 links were very interesting. We'll have to wait and see just how accurate this can be. Though to quote one article: we may never really know (straight Dope)
I don't think i'll ever really know. I'm okay with that thoough, like i said, it won't change my POV on him. I think the only thing that did was the issue of habeus corpus :(
Well, that and seeing him W/O a beard .... :eek:

This is getting weirder. You know, I never could get my mind around this issue. To me, it should be a non-issue.
It mightn't be if it weren't for Tripp's book. That is what the search results seem to be telling me.
There was even a symposium for review of Tripp's book ...

http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/summer2005/symposium.html

As many of the other results ... not too favourable.

I don't think i'll ever really know. I'm okay with that thoough, like i said, it won't change my POV on him. I think the only thing that did was the issue of habeus corpus :(

An impeachable offense :D

Well, that and seeing him W/O a beard .... :eek:

:eek:

An impeachable offense :D



:eek:
You know i've never argued against that. The writings at the time reflected his course of action as one of accountability though to save the union, so why exactly wasn't he brought up on it? Pardon from the next guy?

You know i've never argued against that. The writings at the time reflected his course of action as one of accountability though to save the union, so why exactly wasn't he brought up on it? Pardon from the next guy?

I have absolutely no clue whatsoever.

You know i've never argued against that. The writings at the time reflected his course of action as one of accountability though to save the union, so why exactly wasn't he brought up on it? Pardon from the next guy?

Probably because he was shot before the war ended, so a pardon from his successor would have been rather pointless. Unless you're talking about someone or something else here, in which case I apologize for bringing that up.

Probably because he was shot before the war ended, so a pardon from his successor would have been rather pointless. Unless you're talking about someone or something else here, in which case I apologize for bringing that up.
No, that's fair (and admittedly not what i first thought), just that more to the point the issue didn't get brought up while the action was going on ...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/young-andrew7.html


Many of Lincoln’s defenders concede the unconstitutionality of his suspension of habeas corpus, but argue that, although the suspension was dictatorial, Lincoln was a “good dictator.” James G. Randall even called Lincoln a “benevolent dictator,” a phrase many would consider an oxymoron. However, it is easy for those who never suffered the effects of Lincoln’s “benevolent” dictatorship to defend him. John Merryman, who was arrested in his home without probable cause, would disagree with Randall’s analysis. So would Francis Key Howard, who spent two years in military prison at Fort McHenry and wrote a book about his experience there called The American Bastille. [xx] Moreover, what is the Constitution worth if one man (the president), under a pretext of his choosing, can decide to ignore it?

After Taney issued his Merryman opinion, which President Lincoln ignored, the Lincoln administration increased its usurpation of judicial and congressional powers. Lincoln, incensed by Taney’s defense of civil liberties, issued a warrant for his arrest. Several sources corroborate this controversial warrant. First, the private papers of Lincoln’s former law partner, Ward Hill Laman (who was a Federal Marshal at the time) contain a reference to the warrant, saying “After due consideration the administration decided upon the arrest of the chief justice.” Second, Taney warned friends that he may be arrested, including George Brown, the future mayor of Baltimore. Fortunately, no one could find a marshal who was willing to arrest an 84-year-old judge. [xxi]

Lincoln’s attempt to arrest Taney helps prove Taney’s accusation that Lincoln was willing to usurp judicial authority and endanger American liberty. Lincoln not only ignored an order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; he even tried to have the judge arrested. If Lincoln had succeeded in arresting Taney, he would have virtually destroyed the separation of powers upon which this nation was founded. How can the judiciary maintain its independence if the president can have the Chief Justice arrested for merely issuing an opinion with which he disagrees?

Donald and Randall’s analysis also supports Taney’s opinion. If Lincoln decided to suspend habeas corpus simply because he feared that he could gain few treason convictions, he viewed the Constitution as an obstacle to be sidestepped, not a foundation for preserving liberty. Furthermore, his belief that he would attain few convictions supports Taney’s claims. After declaring that the military lacked probable cause in the Merryman case, Taney concluded that the government probably lacked evidence for many of its other arrests and encouraged other judges to demand writs of habeas corpus. [xxii] Lincoln’s cynicism helps show that Taney was correct.

President Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus lacked both moral and constitutional justification. It confined thousands in military prisons for opposing war and voided years of jurisprudence. The Constitution never gives the president the right to suspend habeas corpus, nor can that right be inferred from the commander-in-chief clause or the president’s duty to faithfully execute the laws. Lincoln’s suspension was not only illegal; it was also dangerous, threatening the separation of powers that prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Moreover, his actions inspired future presidents to ignore the Constitution during times of crisis. Especially today, with the post-9/11 crackdown on civil liberties, Americans would be wise to reread Ex parte Merryman.


--
I guess i'm looking for answers that aren't going to be very specific, given how much time has passed ... unless i want partisan answers :(

Probably because he was shot before the war ended, so a pardon from his successor would have been rather pointless. Unless you're talking about someone or something else here, in which case I apologize for bringing that up.

Impeachment could've taken place well before he was assassinated. They had 4 years to do it! Well 3.

No, that's fair (and admittedly not what i first thought), just that more to the point the issue didn't get brought up while the action was going on ...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/young-andrew7.html


Many of Lincoln’s defenders concede the unconstitutionality of his suspension of habeas corpus, but argue that, although the suspension was dictatorial, Lincoln was a “good dictator.” James G. Randall even called Lincoln a “benevolent dictator,” a phrase many would consider an oxymoron. However, it is easy for those who never suffered the effects of Lincoln’s “benevolent” dictatorship to defend him. John Merryman, who was arrested in his home without probable cause, would disagree with Randall’s analysis. So would Francis Key Howard, who spent two years in military prison at Fort McHenry and wrote a book about his experience there called The American Bastille. [xx] Moreover, what is the Constitution worth if one man (the president), under a pretext of his choosing, can decide to ignore it?

After Taney issued his Merryman opinion, which President Lincoln ignored, the Lincoln administration increased its usurpation of judicial and congressional powers. Lincoln, incensed by Taney’s defense of civil liberties, issued a warrant for his arrest. Several sources corroborate this controversial warrant. First, the private papers of Lincoln’s former law partner, Ward Hill Laman (who was a Federal Marshal at the time) contain a reference to the warrant, saying “After due consideration the administration decided upon the arrest of the chief justice.” Second, Taney warned friends that he may be arrested, including George Brown, the future mayor of Baltimore. Fortunately, no one could find a marshal who was willing to arrest an 84-year-old judge. [xxi]

Lincoln’s attempt to arrest Taney helps prove Taney’s accusation that Lincoln was willing to usurp judicial authority and endanger American liberty. Lincoln not only ignored an order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; he even tried to have the judge arrested. If Lincoln had succeeded in arresting Taney, he would have virtually destroyed the separation of powers upon which this nation was founded. How can the judiciary maintain its independence if the president can have the Chief Justice arrested for merely issuing an opinion with which he disagrees?

Donald and Randall’s analysis also supports Taney’s opinion. If Lincoln decided to suspend habeas corpus simply because he feared that he could gain few treason convictions, he viewed the Constitution as an obstacle to be sidestepped, not a foundation for preserving liberty. Furthermore, his belief that he would attain few convictions supports Taney’s claims. After declaring that the military lacked probable cause in the Merryman case, Taney concluded that the government probably lacked evidence for many of its other arrests and encouraged other judges to demand writs of habeas corpus. [xxii] Lincoln’s cynicism helps show that Taney was correct.

President Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus lacked both moral and constitutional justification. It confined thousands in military prisons for opposing war and voided years of jurisprudence. The Constitution never gives the president the right to suspend habeas corpus, nor can that right be inferred from the commander-in-chief clause or the president’s duty to faithfully execute the laws. Lincoln’s suspension was not only illegal; it was also dangerous, threatening the separation of powers that prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Moreover, his actions inspired future presidents to ignore the Constitution during times of crisis. Especially today, with the post-9/11 crackdown on civil liberties, Americans would be wise to reread Ex parte Merryman.


--
I guess i'm looking for answers that aren't going to be very specific, given how much time has passed ... unless i want partisan answers :(

I could give you one but I won't. Don't get me wrong, I still like Lincoln however, he should've been impeached on this. I think the only thing that saved him was the Civil War and that the country was endangered.

That is the only explaination I can give.

I could give you one but I won't. Don't get me wrong, I still like Lincoln however, he should've been impeached on this. I think the only thing that saved him was the Civil War and that the country was endangered.

That is the only explaination I can give.
I've got pretty much the same conclusion. As i'd said, i'm only likely to get the partisan angle at this point ... i may have to dig quite a while to find some statements/letters as to why Congress didn't take action at the time, especially with
Lincoln’s attempt to arrest Taney helps prove Taney’s accusation that Lincoln was willing to usurp judicial authority and endanger American liberty. Lincoln not only ignored an order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; he even tried to have the judge arrested.

Why doesnt the U.N. do something productive for a change instead of just trolling about America and how we are (GASP) socially conservative! The U.N. has two emerging rougue nuclear powers to worry about, a massive Chinese world power that denys over 1/6 of the population on earth most of their rights, and on top ALL that, a democraticly elected terrorist group in the middle east (Palestine. Yet these still have time to do crap like this and say, omg....Iran slaughters gays, America doesnt want to change its predominatly conservative society for a tiny portion of its population, THEY ARE SEEING EYE TO EYE!

Another reason why Bush was right in invading Iraq without U.N. approval.

* Bush: "Heh, gentlemen, I'm here to discuss with you a serious matter, we beleive Iraq his hiding WMDs and poses a serious threat to world peace, we are preparing to invade. We also ne...

U.N.: "Hey! Mr. President, we are BUSY right now discussing ways we can compare 1st world American soceity to POS African nations...Now if youll excuse us, we need to go be a bunch of left wing bueracrats..."*

Why doesnt the U.N. do something productive for a change instead of just trolling about America and how we are (GASP) socially conservative! The U.N. has two emerging rougue nuclear powers to worry about, a massive Chinese world power that denys over 1/6 of the population on earth most of their rights, and on top ALL that, a democraticly elected terrorist group in the middle east (Palestine. Yet these still have time to do crap like this and say, omg....Iran slaughters gays, America doesnt want to change its predominatly conservative society for a tiny portion of its population, THEY ARE SEEING EYE TO EYE!

Another reason why Bush was right in invading Iraq without U.N. approval.

* Bush: "Heh, gentlemen, I'm here to discuss with you a serious matter, we beleive Iraq his hiding WMDs and poses a serious threat to world peace, we are preparing to invade. We also ne...

U.N.: "Hey! Mr. President, we are BUSY right now discussing ways we can compare 1st world American soceity to POS African nations...Now if youll excuse us, we need to go be a bunch of left wing bueracrats..."*
Bah.
Suffice it to say that people who work on NON-ISOLATIONIST endeavours get a lot of BS from the aggressive, singular and highly-nationalistic agencies for the very reason of the polarity of their difference.
That, and where's those WMD's you're ranting about? This has been SEVERELY disproven by me and several other posters.

Bah.
Suffice it to say that people who work on NON-ISOLATIONIST endeavours get a lot of BS from the aggressive, singular and highly-nationalistic agencies for the very reason of the polarity of their difference.
That, and where's those WMD's you're ranting about? This has been SEVERELY disproven by me and several other posters.

Iran, Lebanon...no idea but the fact is we arnt exactly winning any popularity contests in the middle east and I can think of a couple million people, a couple thousand groups, and a few government who would gladly take up arms against America (in this case hold any weapons that Iraq was working on) There was alot of time between when we announced that Iraq was working on WMPs, and when we invaded....Not exactly hard to move them out. Or there could have been no WMD's and the intel was wrong. My point is that we have no idea, but the first ideas I gave seem much more likely. Also...this whole WMD thing was just an example of U.N. incompetance...you still sort of ingnored the purpose of my thread.

I've got pretty much the same conclusion. As i'd said, i'm only likely to get the partisan angle at this point ... i may have to dig quite a while to find some statements/letters as to why Congress didn't take action at the time, especially with
Lincoln’s attempt to arrest Taney helps prove Taney’s accusation that Lincoln was willing to usurp judicial authority and endanger American liberty. Lincoln not only ignored an order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; he even tried to have the judge arrested.

To be fair, the President can ignore the Supreme Court since the Court has no authority to enforce their own rulings.

Iran, Lebanon...no idea but the fact is we arnt exactly winning any popularity contests in the middle east and I can think of a couple million people, a couple thousand groups, and a few government who would gladly take up arms against America (in this case hold any weapons that Iraq was working on) There was alot of time between when we announced that Iraq was working on WMPs, and when we invaded....Not exactly hard to move them out. Or there could have been no WMD's and the intel was wrong. My point is that we have no idea, but the first ideas I gave seem much more likely. Also...this whole WMD thing was just an example of U.N. incompetance...you still sort of ingnored the purpose of my thread.
Well, a few things .....
I don't think we're *EVER* gonna win much popularity in the Middle East. I'm not particularly convinced it can be done. I do know that the "might makes right" and "they only respect force" thing isn't quite on track.
As for moving the WMD's, it would seem you're completely neglecting what the ground investigators had to say from '91 on, PLUS air surveillance, neither of which corroborate the idea that they moved any significant amount of anything. Or the fact that the missile components weren't all there ... or that the best missiles they had only had a range of around 111 miles ... and the fact that a lot of the intel wasn't wrong at all, and that only a slim margin of possibility was used as the proponents, for which this far along most have been proven for what they are, bullsh*t.
It's not that we have no idea, it's that the people whose business it is to know were ignored by the people who wanted to invade.
Try the Butler Report
The Duelfer Report *BOTH of them, early AND late*
The Downing Street Memo series
and
The BND Report.
So far i haven't missed the point at all. You were declaring it the fault of the UN for the issue with the WMD, and frankly that's not even CLOSE to right.
Unless your only purpose in this post was to prop a weak partisan distraction.

Well, a few things .....
I don't think we're *EVER* gonna win much popularity in the Middle East. I'm not particularly convinced it can be done. I do know that the "might makes right" and "they only respect force" thing isn't quite on track.
As for moving the WMD's, it would seem you're completely neglecting what the ground investigators had to say from '91 on, PLUS air surveillance, neither of which corroborate the idea that they moved any significant amount of anything. Or the fact that the missile components weren't all there ... or that the best missiles they had only had a range of around 111 miles ... and the fact that a lot of the intel wasn't wrong at all, and that only a slim margin of possibility was used as the proponents, for which this far along most have been proven for what they are, bullsh*t.
It's not that we have no idea, it's that the people whose business it is to know were ignored by the people who wanted to invade.
Try the Butler Report
The Duelfer Report *BOTH of them, early AND late*
The Downing Street Memo series
and
The BND Report.
So far i haven't missed the point at all. You were declaring it the fault of the UN for the issue with the WMD, and frankly that's not even CLOSE to right.
Unless your only purpose in this post was to prop a weak partisan distraction.

Or you can try Hussein's number 2 Air Force General who says that they were flown to Syria. :D

To be fair, the President can ignore the Supreme Court since the Court has no authority to enforce their own rulings.
What you're saying is that inherently the division of powers only works in conjunction, then, else they are substantially oppositional to each other in potential?
That means that as long as people elect a president, they aren't actually reflecting even the nature of the republic anymore, just another filler of the dictator's position.
Further, since it's the SWORN DUTY of the President to uphold the Constitution, where does that put the "president" in regards to enforcing their rulings?
WTF is the Supreme Court for then other than upholding the legality of constitutional issues?

America doesnt want to change its predominatly conservative society for a tiny portion of its population.
If rights depend on the size of the population, fine, but stop pretending like you believe our society is free or should be.

Or you can try Hussein's number 2 Air Force General who says that they were flown to Syria. :D
link?
Is this like the "they buried their airplanes" scenario?
Besides, the guy's probably offering a distraction. Syria and Iraq aren't really the best of friends, historically. I think that's been covered here.
Not that i'm a fan of Syria - by its own merits, the so-called "War on *noun*Terror" would actually have substance if we dealt with them a little differently.

EDIT: Ain't turning up Milhouse, Corny. So far, only blogsplats. No substance .. however, since we're on the issue ....

*ahem*

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1150

(3/23/03), when military officials told the media of a "chemical facility" found in the southern town of Najaf. "Bob, as you know, there's a lot of talk right now about a chemical cache that has been found at a chemical facility," MSNBC anchor Forrest Sawyer told White House correspondent Bob Kur. "I underscore, we do not know what the chemicals are, but it sure has gotten spread around fast."

It sure had. Over on Fox News Channel (3/23/03), the headline banners were already rolling: "HUGE CHEMICAL WEAPONS FACTORY FOUND IN SO IRAQ.... REPORTS: 30 IRAQIS SURRENDER AT CHEM WEAPONS PLANT.... COAL TROOPS HOLDING IRAQI IN CHARGE OF CHEM WEAPONS." The Jerusalem Post, whose embedded reporter helped break the story along with a Fox correspondent, announced in a front-page headline (3/24/03), "U.S. Troops Capture First Chemical Plant."

The next day (10/24/03), a Fox correspondent in Qatar quietly issued an update to the story: The "chemical weapons facility discovered by coalition forces did not appear to be an active chemical weapons facility." Further testing was required. In fact, U.S. officials had admitted that morning that the site contained no chemicals at all and had been abandoned long ago (Dow Jones wire, 3/24/03).
...
NPR reporter John Burnett (4/7/03) recounted the big news he'd learned from a "top military official": "the first solid confirmed existence of chemical weapons by the Iraqi army." According to Burnett, an army unit near Baghdad had discovered "20 BM-21 medium-range rockets with warheads containing sarin nerve gas and mustard gas."

When NPR Morning Edition anchor Susan Stamberg asked Burnett, "So this is really a major discovery, isn't it?" he assented: "If it turns out to be true, the commander told us this morning this would be a smoking gun. This would vindicate the administration's claims that the Iraqis had chemicals all along." Of course, it turned out not to be true. A Pentagon official, Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told reporters the next day (4/8/03) that he had "seen nothing in official reports that would corroborate that."

On April 26, ABC World News Tonight blared an "exclusive" report: "U.S. troops discover chemical agents, missiles and what could be a mobile laboratory in Iraq." Correspondent David Wright explained that the Army soldiers had found "14 55-gallon drums, at least a dozen missiles and 150 gas masks" testing positive for chemical weapons, including a nerve agent and a blistering agent. He added that an Army lieutenant "says the tests have an accuracy of 98 percent."

Perhaps somewhat self-consciously, ABC followed Wright's report with a short segment about previous weapons claims that turned out to be false alarms. But the network continued to pump the story the next day, with anchor Carole Simpson introducing it as the lead segment on World News Sunday (4/27/03): "For the second day in a row, some of the preliminary tests have come back positive for chemical agents."

But when the U.S. Mobile Exploration Team (MET Bravo) arrived on the scene to conduct its own tests, it "tentatively concluded that there are no chemical weapons at a site where American troops said they had found chemical agents and mobile labs," the New York Times reported the next day (4/28/03). A member of the team told the Times simply: "The earlier reports were wrong."

(and on a personal note:)

According to Rush Limbaugh's website (4/7/03), "We're discovering WMDs all over Iraq.... You know it killed NPR to report that the 101st Airborne found a stockpile of up to 20 rockets tipped with sarin and mustard gas.... Our troops have found dozens of barrels of chemicals in an agricultural facility 30 miles northwest of Baghdad."

"The discovery of these weapons of mass destruction doesn't surprise me," Limbaugh explained on his radio show (4/7/03). "The only part of it that surprises me is that we discovered them in Iraq." If U.S. forces were to look in Syria, he proposed, they would probably find an additional "huge cache" of smuggled weaponry.

On April 11, a Fox News report, still posted to the network's website as late as July,

announced: "Weapons-Grade Plutonium Possibly Found at Iraqi Nuke Complex." Sourced to an embedded reporter from the right-wing Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the story was soon debunked by U.S. officials (AP, 4/15/03).

Fox didn't mention that the "massive" underground facility "discovered" beneath a military compound had actually been subject to continuous on-site U.N. monitoring for years.

What you're saying is that inherently the division of powers only works in conjunction, then, else they are substantially oppositional to each other in potential?
That means that as long as people elect a president, they aren't actually reflecting even the nature of the republic anymore, just another filler of the dictator's position.
Further, since it's the SWORN DUTY of the President to uphold the Constitution, where does that put the "president" in regards to enforcing their rulings?
WTF is the Supreme Court for then other than upholding the legality of constitutional issues?

I do not know to be honest. But who has to enforce those Supreme Court decisions? The Government. What if the Supreme court told the government you have to do this thing instead of what the government wanted. What can the court do to make sure that it is enforced?

or that the best missiles they had only had a range of around 111 miles.

How far is Israel from Iraq?

So far i haven't missed the point at all. You were declaring it the fault of the UN for the issue with the WMD, and frankly that's not even CLOSE to right.
Unless your only purpose in this post was to prop a weak partisan distraction.[/QUOTE]

No I wasnt...that was satire at the bottom...I was just saying that the U.N. has WAY more important thing to do than bicker over if not recognizing gay relationships as normal relationships and publicy whipping and executing gays are alike. My point is...get over it, the U.S. is a conservative country...there are so many other things going on in the world that require U.N. attention that it seems almost laughable that they are actually spending time on something like this.

Forget the WMD/U.N. that was just joke and not the real reason/main point of my post.

link?
Is this like the "they buried their airplanes" scenario?
Besides, the guy's probably offering a distraction. Syria and Iraq aren't really the best of friends, historically. I think that's been covered here.
Not that i'm a fan of Syria - by its own merits, the so-called "War on *noun*Terror" would actually have substance if we dealt with them a little differently.

http://www.nysun.com/article/24480

Ok I lied. It was a retired General of Israeli Defense Force, Lieutenant General Yaalon, former Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense force.

My bad.

Oh and I know you need to subscribe for the link. I'll try to find the whole story.

How far is Israel from Iraq?
Honestly it should be Israel's issue .....

So far i haven't missed the point at all. You were declaring it the fault of the UN for the issue with the WMD, and frankly that's not even CLOSE to right.
Unless your only purpose in this post was to prop a weak partisan distraction.[/QUOTE]

No I wasnt...that was satire at the bottom...I was just saying that the U.N. has WAY more important thing to do than bicker over if not recognizing gay relationships as normal relationships and publicy whipping and executing gays are alike. My point is...get over it, the U.S. is a conservative country...there are so many other things going on in the world that require U.N. attention that it seems almost laughable that they are actually spending time on something like this.

Forget the WMD/U.N. that was just joke and not the real reason/main point of my post.[/QUOTE]

Okay. My apologies then for belaboring it.

http://www.nysun.com/article/24480

Ok I lied. It was a retired General of Israeli Defense Force, Lieutenant General Yaalon, former Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense force.

My bad.

Oh and I know you need to subscribe for the link. I'll try to find the whole story.
Thanks for the fingerwork. *bows*

If rights depend on the size of the population, fine, but stop pretending like you believe our society is free or should be.

Of course or soceity is free. Gays are not slaves or serfs....there IS Universal emancipation in America in case you havnt noticed. Recognizing a union that the majority of a country beleives is either a) a sin b) not something they want in their society c) not normal or d) all of the above is not the same as holding people as slaves. Gays are still free and are considered equal. The union of gay marriage is the only thing thats not allowed, which is not part of the person. Not to mention that God says no to gay marriage and the majority of the population still beleive in God (atleast in America it does). Are you really telling me that you want to over turn the majority of the peoples beleifs for a small group of people. What ever happend to respecting peoples beleifs and views? These are a large majority of the countries beleifs and views, yet you guys arnt respecting them at all, now are you?

Of course or soceity is free. Gays are not slaves or serfs....there IS Universal emancipation in America in case you havnt noticed. Recognizing a union that the majority of a country beleives is either a) a sin b) not something they want in their society c) not normal or d) all of the above is not the same as holding people as slaves. Gays are still free and are considered equal. The union of gay marriage is the only thing thats not allowed, which is not part of the person. Not to mention that God says no to gay marriage and the majority of the population still beleive in God (atleast in America it does). Are you really telling me that you want to over turn the majority of the peoples beleifs for a small group of people. What ever happend to respecting peoples beleifs and views? These are a large majority of the countries beleifs and views, yet you guys arnt respecting them at all, now are you?

So freedom means having your rights approved by the majority? Forgive me if I believe that freedom means offering rights to ALL people regardless of whether the majority thinks they're 'icky'. Free and considered equal? BS. You are permitted to marry someone you love (to the law it is viewed as a contract between two consenting adults), gays are not. You are permitted to be protected under the law equally, unless of course you are gay, in which case equal protection under the law is not afforded you. At one time, freedom for slaves was something that people consider either a)sin (read Levitical rules on slaves from other countries) b) not something they want in their society c) not normal d) all of the above. Your argument can just as easily be applied to any civil right the majority wishes to stomp all over. Were blacks considered equal when they were 'free' to sit at the back of the bus? How about when they had to use seperate drinking fountains?

Freedom that is granted based on a vote is no freedom at all because all that it takes for your freedom to be removed is a change in demographics.

So freedom means having your rights approved by the majority? Forgive me if I believe that freedom means offering rights to ALL people regardless of whether the majority thinks they're 'icky'. Free and considered equal? BS. You are permitted to marry someone you love (to the law it is viewed as a contract between two consenting adults), gays are not. You are permitted to be protected under the law equally, unless of course you are gay, in which case equal protection under the law is not afforded you. At one time, freedom for slaves was something that people consider either a)sin (read Levitical rules on slaves from other countries) b) not something they want in their society c) not normal d) all of the above. Your argument can just as easily be applied to any civil right the majority wishes to stomp all over. Were blacks considered equal when they were 'free' to sit at the back of the bus? How about when they had to use seperate drinking fountains?

Freedom that is granted based on a vote is no freedom at all because all that it takes for your freedom to be removed is a change in demographics.

Why should it be limited to two people? You're being just as "discriminatory" as the people that don't want gay marriage.

So freedom means having your rights approved by the majority? Forgive me if I believe that freedom means offering rights to ALL people regardless of whether the majority thinks they're 'icky'. Free and considered equal? BS. You are permitted to marry someone you love (to the law it is viewed as a contract between two consenting adults), gays are not. You are permitted to be protected under the law equally, unless of course you are gay, in which case equal protection under the law is not afforded you. At one time, freedom for slaves was something that people consider either a)sin (read Levitical rules on slaves from other countries) b) not something they want in their society c) not normal d) all of the above. Your argument can just as easily be applied to any civil right the majority wishes to stomp all over. Were blacks considered equal when they were 'free' to sit at the back of the bus? How about when they had to use seperate drinking fountains?

Freedom that is granted based on a vote is no freedom at all because all that it takes for your freedom to be removed is a change in demographics.

Are you seriously comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage. Blacks were killed, made slaves, lynched, not allowed to vote, held away from voting, segregated, given terrible education, not allowed jobs, very poor, etc...I could go on all day.

Gays, in comparison, are normal people who are allowed every right except the right to have a gay union to which God, the highest authority of all, condems.

This is not the gay rights movement, dont try to compare gays to blacks and how they suffered. Gays are normal equal citizens that can marry the same way everyone else can.

This is American society, and we do not accept this way of life. There are plenty of countries gays can move to where they DO.

Corny, it's pretty clear in the post.

He's obviously referring to the president during the Civil War.
And it is my estimation he's referring to the info they gave on the History Channel special on Lincoln.


If I had addressed that to corneliu I would obviously have been more direct in saying Lincoln.

I didnt see the history channel special, but they wouldnt be the first to bring this to light.

You sure about that? I know of at least 18 states that have made it illegal for gays to marry and two more states are looking into or is putting it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.
It is important to note that gay marriage isnt being made illegal in the US, rather they always have been under all 50 state's individual laws which traditionally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. While several state have attempted to reinforce these marriage law with anti-gay legislation they have all failed, except in Texas... but then again is that even suprising?

On the other hand there are currently atleast 7 states who already have or are likely to overturn bans on gay marriage including Vermount, Conneticut, Massachusets, California, Nebraska, Maryland, and New York.

Here's a interesting map of the world indicating different regions' views on homosexuality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Laws_on_homosexuality.PNG

If I had addressed that to corneliu I would obviously have been more direct in saying Lincoln.

I didnt see the history channel special, but they wouldnt be the first to bring this to light.
Righto. *bows*
Well, most of the posts i've provided do pretty much the same as the special did, W/O the soundtrack ....

Are you seriously comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage. Blacks were killed, made slaves, lynched, not allowed to vote, held away from voting, segregated, given terrible education, not allowed jobs, very poor, etc...I could go on all day.

Yes, I am. If you were taking away any of those attrocities I would treat the very idea that black people not get equal protection under the law as attrocious. At one point, interracial marriage was forbidden and that idea was attrocious in and of itself. Gay marriage is VERY comparable to interracial marriage. Both are a violation of civil rights and a violation of the freedoms we claim to hold so dear. Interracial marriage was very much an issue of civil rights.

Gays, in comparison, are normal people who are allowed every right except the right to have a gay union to which God, the highest authority of all, condems.

Ah, I see, so you don't believe in freedom of religion, either. Also, you are completely wrong about that condemnation. I recommend an education and a place to make that argument if you think you can. I sincerely doubt you'll be able to provide an argument found in the Bible of such condemnation.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=465638

This is not the gay rights movement, dont try to compare gays to blacks and how they suffered. Gays are normal equal citizens that can marry the same way everyone else can.
No, they can't. Everyone else can marry based on love. Gay men and women cannot, despite your claims. You make the same argument that people made about interracial marriage (black people can marry just like everyone else, people of the same race).

It is important to note that gay marriage isnt being made illegal in the US, rather they always have been under all 50 state's individual laws which traditionally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. While several state have attempted to reinforce these marriage law with anti-gay legislation they have all failed, except in Texas... but then again is that even suprising?

On the other hand there are currently atleast 7 states who already have or are likely to overturn bans on gay marriage including Vermount, Conneticut, Massachusets, California, Nebraska, Maryland, and New York.

Here's a interesting map of the world indicating different regions' views on homosexuality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Laws_on_homosexuality.PNG

Yes, except because of the DOMA by Clinton, that 'type' of marriage is treated differently than any other type of marriage which falls under Article IV of the constitution. Clinton and congress violated the constitution when they passed the act and states that define marriage as between a man and a woman are, also.

its likely that lincoln was given a pass on his habeas corpus unconstitutionality because of the sheer chaos of the civil war, a massive treasonous revolt that shook the foundations of the country.

The US has not faced a threat nearly so dire, with the possible exception of soviet nuclear missiles, since.

It is important to note that gay marriage isnt being made illegal in the US, rather they always have been under all 50 state's individual laws which traditionally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. While several state have attempted to reinforce these marriage law with anti-gay legislation they have all failed, except in Texas... but then again is that even suprising?

On the other hand there are currently atleast 7 states who already have or are likely to overturn bans on gay marriage including Vermount, Conneticut, Massachusets, California, Nebraska, Maryland, and New York.

Here's a interesting map of the world indicating different regions' views on homosexuality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Laws_on_homosexuality.PNG

Ah but people have been trying to get the federal government make it illegal, and I hope to God they suceed. Also, your wrong about the states that have outlawed gay marriage, there are many more. Seventeen states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage[18], confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Twenty-seven states have legal statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.
That was taken from Wiki...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage#North_America_2

Also, as to your map. Go most of the world except Spain, low countries, and Canada.

I do not know to be honest. But who has to enforce those Supreme Court decisions? The Government. What if the Supreme court told the government you have to do this thing instead of what the government wanted. What can the court do to make sure that it is enforced?

Well, there's a bit of historical ref for authority ...

http://www.ericdigests.org/2002-2/court.htm

During the ratification struggle, James Madison, in "Federalist 51," emphasized the necessity of providing for "auxiliary precautions" to limit governmental power. The judicial branch was designed in part to exercise such precautions on the legislative and executive branches. At the same time, the framers placed checks on the judiciary in order to ensure that no single branch would dominate the others.
The judiciary was the least discussed branch of government at the Constitutional Convention, and Alexander Hamilton in "Federalist 78" later referred to the Supreme Court as the "least dangerous" branch of the proposed national government because it possessed neither the power of "the purse" (legislative power) nor that of "the sword" (executive power). The debates surrounding the Court's creation reveal a broad consensus that the federal judiciary shall have jurisdiction in all cases pertaining to the Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties. The delegates provided for the Supreme Court to have original jurisdiction only in cases involving "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party." In all other cases under its authority, the Court was granted "appellate jurisdiction" (Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution). In addition, the convention delegates agreed that Congress would be empowered to establish inferior courts (Casto 1995, 14).

The Philadelphia delegates granted the President power to make judicial appointments and required the Senate's approval for such appointments. Supreme Court justices were to be appointed for lifetime tenure "during good behavior" to create an independent judiciary that would act to preserve a limited government and the rule of law.

After ratification of the Constitution and subsequent implementation of the new government, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 to establish and organize the federal judiciary. This federal statute established two lower levels of federal courts: 13 federal district courts at the lowest level and three circuit courts at the next level to hear appeals from the district courts. The Supreme Court was affirmed as the highest court of appeals in the federal system. The Judiciary Act of 1789 also provided in its Section 25 that the federal judiciary would have the power of judicial review over actions of state governments. Thus, acts of state governments could be nullified if they violated the United States Constitution or federal laws and treaties that conformed to it.
...
In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville observed in his classic commentary "Democracy in America" that the Supreme Court's power to declare particular actions of legislative or executive officials unconstitutional was a powerful "barrier against the tyranny of political assemblies." And so it has been from his time to our own era. However, the Court's power to secure justice would be meaningless without public understanding and support of its constitutional responsibilities and purposes. The Court's "power is enormous," said Tocqueville, "but it is the power of public opinion. [The justices] would be impotent against popular neglect or contempt of the law."

To maintain the important balance of power among the three branches of government and enable the Supreme Court to play its proper role in a constitutional government, responsible citizens must be vigilant about the enforcement of laws that protect their rights. Citizens must be cognizant of what their rights are, how the Court has acted to protect them, and why they must be engaged politically and civically to support the Constitution and its just enforcement.

-
Site also mentions ...
Cornell Legal Information Institute:

Cornell's site contains all of the U. S. Supreme Court opinions since May 1990 and 600 opinions on major cases throughout the Court's history. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct>
------
Also,

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf
...middle of the first and second pages

and

Article III of The Constitution ....

Ah but people have been trying to get the federal government make it illegal, and I hope to God they suceed. Also, your wrong about the states that have outlawed gay marriage, there are many more. Seventeen states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage[18], confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Twenty-seven states have legal statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.
That was taken from Wiki...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage#North_America_2

Also, as to your map. Go most of the world except Spain, low countries, and Canada.


Pretty sad state of affairs when we side with iran, syria, &c &c instead of spain, canada and the low countries.

its likely that lincoln was given a pass on his habeas corpus unconstitutionality because of the sheer chaos of the civil war, a massive treasonous revolt that shook the foundations of the country.

The US has not faced a threat nearly so dire, with the possible exception of soviet nuclear missiles, since.
That is probably the case.
*nods*

Pretty sad state of affairs when we side with iran, syria, &c &c instead of spain, canada and the low countries.

We are not siding with them, its just that Isalm is an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity and Judaism, so it would be obvious that we would all agree over something like this, being as America is a conservative predominatly Christian country. I would expect that we "side" with Israel on this too, is that bad?

We are not siding with them, its just that Isalm is an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity and Judaism, so it would be obvious that we would all agree over something like this, being as America is a conservative predominatly Christian country. I would expect that we "side" with Israel on this too, is that bad?

I see selective "freedom" of religion reigns again. How wonderful the idea of freedom must be in your world?

I see selective "freedom" of religion reigns again. How wonderful the idea of freedom must be in your world?

What are you complaining about....There was nothing that could possibly be debatable in that, except whether or not we would be "siding" with Israel on this...

What are you complaining about....There was nothing that could possibly be debatable in that, except whether or not we would be "siding" with Israel on this...

Nothing 'debatable' about the idea that we should accept the particularly popular 'religious' beliefs of the US should set policy regardless of whether they STOMP all over civil rights? I disagree. I find it to be a big problem. I'm not shocked you don't . You believe civil rights are a matter of vote. As a person that believes in ACTUAL freedom and not just freedom for the majority, I find the concenpt of voting on civil rights simply ridiculous.