NationStates Jolt Archive

"In his Saturday radio address, Bush cast the amendment as a defense of the stability of society and a strike back at judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation.

"In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives," Bush said. "And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people, not by the courts." -Associated Press report, June 05 2006

In an election year where the President and the Republican Party are afraid of losing their majority in Congress, it should not come as a great surprise when we see G.O.P. strategists pulling out the so-called wedge issues that excite and infuriate their conservative base. That they should do so is entirely understandable; the Republican Party has controlled Congress for well over a decade and they have locked in a hold on the Presidency until 2008. Yet despite that, they have relatively few positive accomplishments of which to speak. The economy is doing great if you are a millionaire, but the average worker struggles to make ends meet. The war in Iraq continues to slide downhill, and no end is in sight...and whatever happened to that Osama Bin Laden guy? Internationally, America's credibility and strength are at a low ebb thanks very much to the policy mistakes of this President.

Unable to claim success in foreign affairs, the Bush Administration and the Republican Party have turned to play the traditional evangelical game of whack-a-gay.

Make no mistake. They are courting the "hatred" vote and at the same time playing evangelical voters for fools. The Bush Administration seems confident that pulling out the homosexual marriage issue will immediately re-energize a disappointed Republican base. Sadly, they may well be correct.

Whether or not homosexuality is a characteristic you are born with or whether it is a choice of lifestyle is beyond the scope of this conversation (though there is a considerable amount of scientific evidence that suggests that genetics may play a role). What really matters here is that there is a very large group of people out there who discriminate...even hate...based solely on sexual orientation. That's a sad thing, since the basis of Jesus' teachings were love and respect, not hatred. I could be wrong, but I draw an important lesson from those teachings: human beings are imperfect, but they can rise above their baser instincts (like hatred) and embrace a more noble, more just existence by challenging themselves to live up to the example set by Christ. To borrow a phrase from a church commercial, "Christ never turned people away".

It's also unhealthy for our society. In a world where many nations are moving forward in the cause of human rights and dignity, the United States seems to be moving backwards. Religious extremists in this country have seized control of the levers of power, and are using them to persecute their enemies, both real and perceived. The assault has become so overwhelming that it has reached the level of the ridiculous. We do not have rational, mature discussions in the United States about gay marriage or any other issue, for that matter. Instead, a FOX News commentator comes on TV and tells the faithful about how Democrats and Iranian President Ahmadinejad "share" the same values. Such rhetorical nonsense virtually permeates our entire political system these days. The problem is that we have a lot of people who want to believe instead of think.

There is no valid, logical reason to deny gays the right to marry in this country. Doing so will not bring about the collapse of civilization, as some so-called conservative scholars allege. Other countries (like some in Europe) have granted equality of rights to gay couples, and yet they continue to exist as a modern society. Nor does the claim of "protecting the sanctity of marriage" hold much water...here in Ohio, for example, our state passed a constitutional amendment banning not only gay marriage, but also domestic partnerships, and even economic/medical benefits for same-sex couples. That goes far beyond the sanctity of marriage...it's pure and unfettered hatred of gay people. Our state sent a very clear message to homosexual people everywhere...it said, "We hate you. Don't come here, don't work here, don't pay taxes here. If you do, you will be considered a second-class citizen."

The ignorance is not the most upsetting point of all this. It's the willful destruction of people's lives. The Religious Right does not appear to particularly care about the lives of the people it is attacking. It does not appear to care about the gay teenagers who commit suicide every year, or the gay adults who suffer terrible emotional distress because they are forced to pretend that they are something that they are not. It certainly didn't care when Matthew Sheppard was pistol-whipped to death in this country...religious evangelical protestors showed up outside Sheppard's funeral waving signs that read, "God hates fags". To DO that to a dead person is perhaps the most disgraceful thing I can imagine, because the sanctity of a person after death is supposed to be absolute.

If anyone who numbers themselves among the Religious Right happens to read this, they ought to remember that they are not dealing with an abstraction. Gay people are all around us...it's the guy next door and the woman who works with you at your job. Many of them are wonderful people who would help you fix a flat tire, or who donate to charity. Mr. Bush is right about one thing...in our free society, people should have the right to decide how they will live their lives. But their rights shouldn't be curtailed because they are gay people. They have faces and feelings, and if you cannot overcome your hatred and/or fear of them to accept them as people, then you don't deserve to be free.

..because, as we should all know, an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.

Mr. Bush is right about one thing...in our free society, people should have the right to decide how they will live their lives. But their rights shouldn't be curtailed because they are gay people. They have faces and feelings, and if you cannot overcome your hatred and/or fear of them to accept them as people, then you don't deserve to be free.

..because, as we should all know, an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.

All of it was well-said, but I particularly applaud this.

Tricia, a heterosexual, married, liberal from Pittsburgh PA who formerly lived in Columbus, OH.

All of it was well-said, but I particularly applaud this.

Tricia, a heterosexual, married, liberal from Pittsburgh PA who formerly lived in Columbus, OH.

Thank you. It's my hope that all of us can fight these people from a position of political parity some time soon...and beat them. Freedom must be defended for everybody, or it will melt away. As for the homosexual community...they will have to fight for their rights both in court and in elections, because otherwise I suspect they will never get those rights.

I am quite optimistic that this current legislation will not pass. I agree with your post as well. I only wish people in America would see this whack-a-gay issue as just another smoke screen to the real problems and crimes being commited in Washington today.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/walker66/gasprices.gif

Next election(after the up coming one) i get the feeling that people will be asking 'Whatever happened to that gay rights thing?' instead of 'What happened to that Osama Bin Laden guy?'.

Shalrirorchia - great post!!!!

A good post I will say.

And I do oppose the FMA for I believe that this is a state issue and not a federal one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/walker66/gasprices.gif
I love you, dude. ;)

I whacked a gay today, but he was smearing hand lotion on my face and calling me obese.

I love you, dude. ;)

Aww, shucks.

just as an after thought... when you said " millions of gay teenagers who commit suicide every year...blah blah.... gay adults...blah...severe emotional stress..."


I LAUGHED.



P.S, lest I forget, when some Mathews guy died and people waved signs that said "God hates fags" well, God doesn't exist but if he did...he would sure as hell hate fags.

Just wanted to let you know that.

just as an after thought... when you said " millions of gay teenagers who commit suicide every year...blah blah.... gay adults...blah...severe emotional stress..."


I LAUGHED.



P.S, lest I forget, when some Mathews guy died and people waved signs that said "God hates fags" well, God doesn't exist but if he did...he would sure as hell hate fags.

Just wanted to let you know that.
:rolleyes: Hello to you too, Mr. Troll.

Thankfully the amendment has no chance in hell of passing, but it is a purely poltical move by Bush. Doesn't Congress and the President have something better to do right now?

just as an after thought... when you said " millions of gay teenagers who commit suicide every year...blah blah.... gay adults...blah...severe emotional stress..."


I LAUGHED.



P.S, lest I forget, when some Mathews guy died and people waved signs that said "God hates fags" well, God doesn't exist but if he did...he would sure as hell hate fags.

Just wanted to let you know that.

Why isn't there an eyebrow raise smiley when you need one?!!

Why isn't there an eyebrow raise smiley when you need one?!!


I'd rather much prefer the "Beat the fuck out of a troll" smiley for these type of posts. ;)

just as an after thought... when you said " millions of gay teenagers who commit suicide every year...blah blah.... gay adults...blah...severe emotional stress..."


I LAUGHED.



P.S, lest I forget, when some Mathews guy died and people waved signs that said "God hates fags" well, God doesn't exist but if he did...he would sure as hell hate fags.

Just wanted to let you know that.
Wow! You hate homosexuals "just because"! That's amazing! God and religion aren't involved? A bigot who can decide who to hate all on his own.

:rolleyes: Hello to you too, Mr. Troll.

Thankfully the amendment has no chance in hell of passing, but it is a purely poltical move by Bush. Doesn't Congress and the President have something better to do right now?
No. Bush has no priority beyond pulling himself out of the gutter (which he believes he can do with pure hateful demagoguery), so why would he focus on anything besides a hopeless issue where he can look like the embattled champion of the religious right?

Forty years from now, people will think of gay rights the same way they now think of civil rights for minority races: as a given. The Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Bushes of today will finally be recorded in history as the ignorant bigots they are.

Why isn't there an eyebrow raise smiley when you need one?!!

More to the point, where is Teal'c when you need him? The raised eyebrow and occasional slamming the door in someone's face could be handy here. :)

More to the point, where is Teal'c when you need him? The raised eyebrow and occasional slamming the door in someone's face could be handy here. :)

NERD!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/walker66/gasprices.gif
Sadly this is more truth than joke.

Silence your anger and emotion. Consider the source.

Ignore them.

Shun them! You can do it! Without saying a word!

just as an after thought... when you said " millions of gay teenagers who commit suicide every year...blah blah.... gay adults...blah...severe emotional stress..."


I LAUGHED.



P.S, lest I forget, when some Mathews guy died and people waved signs that said "God hates fags" well, God doesn't exist but if he did...he would sure as hell hate fags.

Just wanted to let you know that.

Don't be a dick. First off, I did not say "millions of gay teenagers". In fact, I did not cite any number. Here is that part of my original post for your viewing convenience:

"It does not appear to care about the gay teenagers who commit suicide every year, or the gay adults who suffer terrible emotional distress because they are forced to pretend that they are something that they are not."

Second....you did not get the spelling of "righteous" correct.

If you are going to come in and flame my posts, at least learn to spell. It will be a difficult conversation on the issue if you cannot even communicate effectively.

I'd hit a gay ;) .

Silence your anger and emotion. Consider the source.

Ignore them.

Shun them! You can do it! Without saying a word!
But if there isn't a good troll feeding, where do I get my entertainment?

More to the point, where is Teal'c when you need him? The raised eyebrow and occasional slamming the door in someone's face could be handy here. :)
Stargate is teh pwnage. :fluffle:

just as an after thought... when you said " millions of gay teenagers who commit suicide every year...blah blah.... gay adults...blah...severe emotional stress..."


I LAUGHED.



P.S, lest I forget, when some Mathews guy died and people waved signs that said "God hates fags" well, God doesn't exist but if he did...he would sure as hell hate fags.

Just wanted to let you know that.
AHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAH You mispelled 'Righteous'!! Your own nation name!!! Hahahhahhahaha!!!

LOLS WHAT A NUB

More to the point, where is Teal'c when you need him? The raised eyebrow and occasional slamming the door in someone's face could be handy here. :)

Great show, but more to the point, great post by the OP. Here here!

The scariest thing about this whole defense of marriage act thing is the precedent it would set if a piece of discrimination was ammended into the constitution. If it stayed, or even if it didn't, people could point to it as precedent, and it will make the constitution open game for that sort of thing.

I'd hit a gay ;) .
With what part of your body? ;)

AHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAH You mispelled 'Righteous'!! Your own nation name!!! Hahahhahhahaha!!!

LOLS WHAT A NUB

yeah, my teacher misspelled it. He wasn't sure and I didn't have a dictionary handy, so I just typed it like that. how did he ever get his english doctorate?!

Oh and, the part about the "millions of gay teeangers" well I didn't really remember what you posted I was so wrapped up in my hatred. I am...sorry.

"In his Saturday radio address, Bush cast the amendment as a defense of the stability of society and a strike back at judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation.

"In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives," Bush said. "And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people, not by the courts." -Associated Press report, June 05 2006

In an election year where the President and the Republican Party are afraid of losing their majority in Congress, it should not come as a great surprise when we see G.O.P. strategists pulling out the so-called wedge issues that excite and infuriate their conservative base. That they should do so is entirely understandable; the Republican Party has controlled Congress for well over a decade and they have locked in a hold on the Presidency until 2008. Yet despite that, they have relatively few positive accomplishments of which to speak. The economy is doing great if you are a millionaire, but the average worker struggles to make ends meet. The war in Iraq continues to slide downhill, and no end is in sight...and whatever happened to that Osama Bin Laden guy? Internationally, America's credibility and strength are at a low ebb thanks very much to the policy mistakes of this President.

Unable to claim success in foreign affairs, the Bush Administration and the Republican Party have turned to play the traditional evangelical game of whack-a-gay.

Make no mistake. They are courting the "hatred" vote and at the same time playing evangelical voters for fools. The Bush Administration seems confident that pulling out the homosexual marriage issue will immediately re-energize a disappointed Republican base. Sadly, they may well be correct.

Whether or not homosexuality is a characteristic you are born with or whether it is a choice of lifestyle is beyond the scope of this conversation (though there is a considerable amount of scientific evidence that suggests that genetics may play a role). What really matters here is that there is a very large group of people out there who discriminate...even hate...based solely on sexual orientation. That's a sad thing, since the basis of Jesus' teachings were love and respect, not hatred. I could be wrong, but I draw an important lesson from those teachings: human beings are imperfect, but they can rise above their baser instincts (like hatred) and embrace a more noble, more just existence by challenging themselves to live up to the example set by Christ. To borrow a phrase from a church commercial, "Christ never turned people away".

It's also unhealthy for our society. In a world where many nations are moving forward in the cause of human rights and dignity, the United States seems to be moving backwards. Religious extremists in this country have seized control of the levers of power, and are using them to persecute their enemies, both real and perceived. The assault has become so overwhelming that it has reached the level of the ridiculous. We do not have rational, mature discussions in the United States about gay marriage or any other issue, for that matter. Instead, a FOX News commentator comes on TV and tells the faithful about how Democrats and Iranian President Ahmadinejad "share" the same values. Such rhetorical nonsense virtually permeates our entire political system these days. The problem is that we have a lot of people who want to believe instead of think.

There is no valid, logical reason to deny gays the right to marry in this country. Doing so will not bring about the collapse of civilization, as some so-called conservative scholars allege. Other countries (like some in Europe) have granted equality of rights to gay couples, and yet they continue to exist as a modern society. Nor does the claim of "protecting the sanctity of marriage" hold much water...here in Ohio, for example, our state passed a constitutional amendment banning not only gay marriage, but also domestic partnerships, and even economic/medical benefits for same-sex couples. That goes far beyond the sanctity of marriage...it's pure and unfettered hatred of gay people. Our state sent a very clear message to homosexual people everywhere...it said, "We hate you. Don't come here, don't work here, don't pay taxes here. If you do, you will be considered a second-class citizen."

The ignorance is not the most upsetting point of all this. It's the willful destruction of people's lives. The Religious Right does not appear to particularly care about the lives of the people it is attacking. It does not appear to care about the gay teenagers who commit suicide every year, or the gay adults who suffer terrible emotional distress because they are forced to pretend that they are something that they are not. It certainly didn't care when Matthew Sheppard was pistol-whipped to death in this country...religious evangelical protestors showed up outside Sheppard's funeral waving signs that read, "God hates fags". To DO that to a dead person is perhaps the most disgraceful thing I can imagine, because the sanctity of a person after death is supposed to be absolute.

If anyone who numbers themselves among the Religious Right happens to read this, they ought to remember that they are not dealing with an abstraction. Gay people are all around us...it's the guy next door and the woman who works with you at your job. Many of them are wonderful people who would help you fix a flat tire, or who donate to charity. Mr. Bush is right about one thing...in our free society, people should have the right to decide how they will live their lives. But their rights shouldn't be curtailed because they are gay people. They have faces and feelings, and if you cannot overcome your hatred and/or fear of them to accept them as people, then you don't deserve to be free.

..because, as we should all know, an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.
I salute you, good sir. You show real sense, where few Americans do. Fuck, even most Democrats are getting up all on this issue and not realizing it's a smoke screen. Hell, EVERYONE in the U.S. isn't seeing it for the smoke screen it is. This is one of the many times I curse the fact that I'm only nineteen and as of yet cannot do a damned thing about this.

I salute you, good sir. You show real sense, where few Americans do. Fuck, even most Democrats are getting up all on this issue and not realizing it's a smoke screen. Hell, EVERYONE in the U.S. isn't seeing it for the smoke screen it is. This is one of the many times I curse the fact that I'm only nineteen and as of yet cannot do a damned thing about this.

...you can vote. You can speak out. It may not be much, but it's something. Especially if many people start doing these little somethings. Then it becomes a big something. *nods sagely*

...you can vote. You can speak out. It may not be much, but it's something. Especially if many people start doing these little somethings. Then it becomes a big something. *nods sagely*
I know, I know. I do vote. I vote in every damned thing I can vote in that matters. As for speaking out...I do that occasionally. The problem is, thanks to being nineteen, I am not taken seriously by many people regardless of what I have to say. Those who know me take me seriously, but random people in a crowd? Nah.

I do plan on going into politics, though, after college. Then I'll be able to do some real good.

Gay marriage is banned in a few states. Power of the people I guess. Don't think CA will have one anytime soon, or MA...

Gay marriage is banned in a few states. Power of the people I guess. Don't think CA will have one anytime soon, or MA...

CA already banned it via a popular vote. Guess what? The courts decided to overturn said popular vote.

CA already banned it via a popular vote. Guess what? The courts decided to overturn said popular vote.
Is that a good thing in your mind or a bad thing, out of curiosity?

CA already banned it via a popular vote. Guess what? The courts decided to overturn said popular vote.
Good to know that equality is not up to a popularity contest.

CA already banned it via a popular vote. Guess what? The courts decided to overturn said popular vote.
Go courts!

Is that a good thing in your mind or a bad thing, out of curiosity?

A good thing that the courts overturned it or a bad thing. Is that what you are asking?

Good to know that equality is not up to a popularity contest.

Indeed. The population has no more right to deny equality to gays than it does to deny equality to Blacks or Jews or anyone else.

<snip>

..because, as we should all know, an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.
Beautiful OP, beautifully expressed. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

A good thing that the courts overturned it or a bad thing. Is that what you are asking?
Yes, that is what I'm asking. For that matter, why do you view it as you do, I shall add to the question.

Yes, that is what I'm asking. For that matter, why do you view it as you do, I shall add to the question.

1) No I do not believe it was right for the courts to overturn the law for the voting was done in accordance with the California Constitution.

2) Welcome to democracy even though we are legally not a democracy. The Will of the People.

The Will of the People.
Sounds more like mob rule.

Yes, that is what I'm asking. For that matter, why do you view it as you do, I shall add to the question.

It is a good thing that the courts decided to overturn a bad thing. Just because the people say "let's deny one group equal rights" doesn't make it right, and the courts are working to fix that. On issues of equality, might does NOT equal right, and equal rights issues should NOT be put up to a vote... they should just be applied equally across the boards, which is what the courts are doing.

Sounds more like mob rule.

Tyranny of the majority seems more accurate to me.

CA already banned it via a popular vote. Guess what? The courts decided to overturn said popular vote.
The morality of banning gay marriage aside, you stated earlier in this post that the issue should be left to the states. Ordinarily, I would agree.

However, SCOTUS has shown a fondness in the past century for turning state issues into federal ones; i.e. abortion, environmental law, eminent domain, etc.

Article IV, Section 1, of the US Constitution states that:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

This "full faith and credit" clause has been interpreted to mean that any law recognized by one state, must also be recognized by another state. So, if I get married in NY, TX has to recognize my marriage. Ergo, if a gay marriage is accepted under the law in MA, GA has to recognize it, or so many legal scholars believe. That is why many believe that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) will be overturned, and that a constitutional amendment is necessary.

Good to know that equality is not up to a popularity contest.
Yeah, democracy and that silly majority rule thing ...;)

Tyranny of the majority seems more accurate to me.
Pretty much what I meant to say, yes.

1) No I do not believe it was right for the courts to overturn the law for the voting was done in accordance with the California Constitution.

2) Welcome to democracy even though we are legally not a democracy. The Will of the People.


And if all of us here on NS got together and voted not to let you post any more, that would be the will of the people... would that be ok with you, or would you ask the mods (aka our local court system) to enforce the rules that allow you to post here even if we all didn't want to let you?

The point is that equal rights may not be POPULAR, but they are part of the basic system of laws upon which we were founded. That being the case, the POPULAR vote should not be used as a way to circumvent equality.

1) No I do not believe it was right for the courts to overturn the law for the voting was done in accordance with the California Constitution.

2) Welcome to democracy even though we are legally not a democracy. The Will of the People.

Democracy is a nuanced concept that is open to various interpretations yet our form of liberal democracy, enshrines a number of values including constitutional government, respect for civil liberties and individual rights, political representation and equality and the inviolability of the rule of law.

It is not simply the tyranny of the majority, it is not simply the right of the 51% to have the other 49% killed, it is not simply two wolves and one sheep deciding what to eat for dinner and it most certainly is not a majority telling a minority which rights it is appropriate for them to have.

Yeah, democracy and that silly majority rule thing ...;)
No kidding thank god the founding fauthers were smart enough to make sure we are not a pure democracy

And if all of us here on NS got together and voted not to let you post any more, that would be the will of the people... would that be ok with you, or would you ask the mods (aka our local court system) to enforce the rules that allow you to post here even if we all didn't want to let you?

The point is that equal rights may not be POPULAR, but they are part of the basic system of laws upon which we were founded. That being the case, the POPULAR vote should not be used as a way to circumvent equality.
Unless said popular vote is completely within the framework of the laws of the nation in question.

Unfortunately, the Constitution, and the Equal Rights Amendment, does not address sexual preference as a protected class under the law. Thus, state laws passed in that area, unless they conflict with that state's constitution, are perfectly within the law, and should not be overturned without a good, legal reason.

Unless said popular vote is completely within the framework of the laws of the nation in question.

Unfortunately, the Constitution, and the Equal Rights Amendment, does not address sexual preference as a protected class under the law. Thus, state laws passed in that area, unless they conflict with that state's constitution, are perfectly within the law, and should not be overturned without a good, legal reason.
For that matter where does it state race as a protected class? (maybe I missed something)

No kidding thank god the founding fauthers were smart enough to make sure we are not a pure democracy
Pure enough where majority makes a difference in:
1. Referendums.
2. Governor recalls.
3. Presidential elections, with a few, I will grant you, notable exceptions - there have been very few cases of elector defections.

Unless you would prefer to stop voting and be ruled by a judicial oligarchy?

Pure enough where majority makes a difference in:
1. Referendums.
2. Governor recalls.
3. Presidential elections, with a few, I will grant you, notable exceptions - there have been very few cases of elector defections.

Unless you would prefer to stop voting and be ruled by a judicial oligarchy?
No I prefer to make sure that popularity does not effect the rights or the equality of a countrys citizens ... after that its up for a vote

For that matter where does it state race as a protected class? (maybe I missed something)
Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

and
Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Sex taken to mean gender here.

"In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives, -Bush

Wow now if that isn't hypocritical then I don't know what is

No I prefer to make sure that popularity does not effect the rights or the equality of a countrys citizens ... after that its up for a vote
I believe I am overtaxed. I believe the estate tax is double taxation, and immoral. But that's not the majority opinion in the US Congress. My rights are being trampled. Therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to vote on that. Let's let the judges decide?

I whacked a gay last night, in bed. It spat at me...

... okay, sorry for that! But WOW am I glad that I live in Holland, where this was dealt with a long time ago. And now Belgium and Spain have made marriage laws gender-neutral and most other countries have a legal framework for 'marriage except in name' domestic partnership open for same-sex couples.

To be perfectly honest, Bush's speech wasn't a news item. It's not even a 'dog bites man' story. It's a pathetic attempt to call out the troops at the mid-term elections so that the Democrats won't win one or both of the Houses in Congress especially since the Senate won't provide the 2/3 voting majority needed to get the amendment to the States.

I believe I am overtaxed. I believe the estate tax is double taxation, and immoral. But that's not the majority opinion in the US Congress. My rights are being trampled. Therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to vote on that. Let's let the judges decide?
There is a big difference. Anti-gay laws remove the freedom of gays to practice important parts of their lives. The estate tax merely removes an amount of money. Admittedly it's not all that fantastic either and I do agree that it should be removed, but you are drawing a false comparison.

There is a big difference. Anti-gay laws remove the freedom of gays to practice important parts of their lives. The estate tax merely removes an amount of money. Admittedly it's not all that fantastic either and I do agree that it should be removed, but you are drawing a false comparison.
The estate tax removes the freedom of my heirs to spend the money I left them as they choose.

The estate tax removes a big part of what is important to a lot of people: a legacy, to be meted out how and to whom they choose.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The point is, there is significant disagreement on what exactly a person's "rights" are. And the guide the Founding Fathers set up for this country in such cases is the Constitution. An imperfect document of law from the beginning, I will grant you, but the only one we have. To not follow it because you or I just don't like it goes against the entire concept of democracy, republicanism, call it what you will - but rule of the people, by laws established by the people, not the twisting of those laws to your or my particular value system.

The estate tax removes the freedom of my heirs to spend the money I left them as they choose.

The estate tax removes a big part of what is important to a lot of people: a legacy, to be meted out how and to whom they choose.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The point is, there is significant disagreement on what exactly a person's "rights" are. And the guide the Founding Fathers set up for this country in such cases is the Constitution. An imperfect document of law from the beginning, I will grant you, but the only one we have. To not follow it because you or I just don't like it goes against the entire concept of democracy, republicanism, call it what you will - but rule of the people, by laws established by the people, not the twisting of those laws to your or my particular value system.
Aye. But what is the Constitution but a living, breathing document? Only fools who wish to see things remain unchanged would say it is otherwise. It has been amended time and again. Why could it not be amended to allow gay marriage?

1) No I do not believe it was right for the courts to overturn the law for the voting was done in accordance with the California Constitution.
Just because the people vote for it does not make it constitutional. That was the point where the CA vote was overturned.

If 51% of the people voted to make Clinton king for life next election, it doesn't mean anything as it too is unconstitutional.

Now if CA had bothered to write an amendment, you might have something, but CA just likes elections.

Next election(after the up coming one) i get the feeling that people will be asking 'Whatever happened to that gay rights thing?' instead of 'What happened to that Osama Bin Laden guy?'.
They asked that after 2004, at least around here, Bush didn't save them from the Evil: Gay,Jewish, Molepeople, Islamic, Leftist (Choose one) Shadow Government you know.

2004: OMG ONLY WE CAN SAVE YOU FROM THE EVIL GEYS!
2006: EVIL GAYS ARE COMMING WE WILL PROTECT YOU! *Note: We will also help the rich opress the poor and continue to fight dead end wars.

Yeah, democracy and that silly majority rule thing ...;)

A person's right to equality under law should not be subject to majority rule. The majority has the right to disempower an oppressive minority, but it lacks the right to oppress one that is not harming it.

just as an after thought... when you said " millions of gay teenagers who commit suicide every year...blah blah.... gay adults...blah...severe emotional stress..."
I LAUGHED.
P.S, lest I forget, when some Mathews guy died and people waved signs that said "God hates fags" well, God doesn't exist but if he did...he would sure as hell hate fags.
Just wanted to let you know that.

I have several ravenous badgers here, trained to forcibly sodomize and then eat evil rednecks alive, and I was wondering how much shipping and handling would be to have them delivered to that sorry sonofa--:headbang:

(RR) - - - :sniper:

The morality of banning gay marriage aside, you stated earlier in this post that the issue should be left to the states. Ordinarily, I would agree.

However, SCOTUS has shown a fondness in the past century for turning state issues into federal ones; i.e. abortion, environmental law, eminent domain, etc.

Article IV, Section 1, of the US Constitution states that:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

This "full faith and credit" clause has been interpreted to mean that any law recognized by one state, must also be recognized by another state. So, if I get married in NY, TX has to recognize my marriage. Ergo, if a gay marriage is accepted under the law in MA, GA has to recognize it, or so many legal scholars believe. That is why many believe that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) will be overturned, and that a constitutional amendment is necessary.

You forgot one minor detail and that is the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed during the Clinton Administration (and signed by billy boy himself) that states that a state who does not recognize gay marriage does not have to acknowledge a marriage done in a state that allows it.

I still oppose the FMA.

And if all of us here on NS got together and voted not to let you post any more, that would be the will of the people... would that be ok with you, or would you ask the mods (aka our local court system) to enforce the rules that allow you to post here even if we all didn't want to let you?

The point is that equal rights may not be POPULAR, but they are part of the basic system of laws upon which we were founded. That being the case, the POPULAR vote should not be used as a way to circumvent equality.

It is a free forum and only they can prevent someone from posting. But if ya want to try it, go ahead. If it works, I will have alot of free time on my hands.

Unless said popular vote is completely within the framework of the laws of the nation in question.

Unfortunately, the Constitution, and the Equal Rights Amendment, does not address sexual preference as a protected class under the law. Thus, state laws passed in that area, unless they conflict with that state's constitution, are perfectly within the law, and should not be overturned without a good, legal reason.

Selginius, you need to re-read your constitution. WE do not have an Equal Rights Amendment. It never got ratified.

1) No I do not believe it was right for the courts to overturn the law for the voting was done in accordance with the California Constitution.

2) Welcome to democracy even though we are legally not a democracy. The Will of the People.

Equality shouldnt be the will of the people. And its also funny how the same people who were all "states rights" during integration are now "oh no this is a federal issue."

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercize thereof. If a church, a legitimate religion, wants to give same sex marriages, they should be allowed. Thats why it was declared unconstitutional.

Just because the people vote for it does not make it constitutional. That was the point where the CA vote was overturned.

It was a Referendum done in accordance with California law. So yes, it was an amendment to ban Gay Marriage in the state of California.

If 51% of the people voted to make Clinton king for life next election, it doesn't mean anything as it too is unconstitutional.

That would be different.

Now if CA had bothered to write an amendment, you might have something, but CA just likes elections.

It was an amendment :rolleyes:

I'd hit a gay ;) .
I wouldn't mind being hit by a gay ;D

That would be different.

Uh, no, it wouldnt.

Uh, no, it wouldnt.

uh yea it would.

Democracy is not the same thing as liberty. Democracy is, of all the governments we know how to construct, probably the best government when it comes to delivering freedom to the people. But it can act in ways that deter freedom instead of promote it.

What a lot of conservatives around me seem to be saying at this point is that "if a majority of the American people want it, then it should be so". I disagree. Just because a majority of people want something done doesn't make that thing moral or ethical. That is WHY we have a court system. The justice system is the last refuge of a minority when the majority turns against it. It is the responsibility of the state and federal courts to weigh the will of the majority versus the rights of the minority or individual. Indeed, Founding-Father Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. ... As little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."

Jefferson was referring to a concept called "tyranny of the majority". He was essentially insisting that the people of the United States should take it upon themselves to understand the guiding principles of a free and democratic society. The three branches of the government are set up to try and prevent the will of any one majority from overtaking the entire government.

I don't blame the gay lobby for going to the courts. They have a lot of enemies who are not necessarily loyal to the United States and its' principles...they are instead loyal to their own religious ideology. The courts are the only obvious venue through which homosexual people have a chance to fight back against a majority that, while dwindling, is still more than powerful enough to persecute them. What angers conservatives is that these courts are, on occasion, striking down laws. Instead of looking at why the courts are doing this, many people on the Right are more inclined to scream "activist judges!" and to attempt to override the justice system using raw political power. This is a threat to our democracy and our freedom, because the attacks being launched from one branch to the other are, in my opinion, eroding the integrity of our legal system.

1) No I do not believe it was right for the courts to overturn the law for the voting was done in accordance with the California Constitution.

2) Welcome to democracy even though we are legally not a democracy. The Will of the People.

If you can show me how a democracy that votes against equality is not undermining both itself and the central moral principle behind it, then I will concede the point to you.