It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Gay Marriage Amendment Not Coming Soon

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Despite their victory in 12 states in the November 2nd elections, gay marriage opponent admit that it will a long time before a Constitutional amendment is passed. Some ardent supporters of the amendments feel that further court rulings in favor a gay marriage will be needed to gather further support for their cause. The bring up a multitude of cases already in or set to go to court.

 



story.news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - Opponents of gay marriage concede victory will not be swift in their attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution, even after prevailing in all 11 states where the issue was on the ballot last month.

While the Nov. 2 election also increased the ranks of amendment supporters in both houses of Congress, the gains were relatively small.

"We're going to have to see additional court cases come down" supporting gay marriage before congressional sentiment shifts dramatically, predicted Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the amendment that failed in both houses of Congress this year.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It will be interesting to see how the Republican congressional leaders respond to this. No doubt pressure from the right wing of the party is already focusing a lot of attention on moral issues. Look at the issue that was made of Arlen Specters comments on abortion by these groups. I predict a half hearted attempt to round up votes and thats it. There are far more pressing issues like Social Security to deal with. Also for now, unless a multitude of Democrats support the issue, they are unlikely to get the two thirds majority needed to even send a bill to the states. Then each state legislature would have to pass it as well. It would be a long time if ever that it passed all the states and became a law of the land. At any rate, if not accepting of marriage, what possible harm could come from allowing civil unions? You protect the sanctity of marriage, but allow same sex couples, especially those with children, the same rights of married couples.




posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   
still on this little war distraction are we?
to those that are worried about gays getting married...
get a life... pull your head out ...and realize that your American kids are dying daily from an unneeded war, drug abuse, domestic violence, abandonment, starvation, frostbite, gang violence, and even the occasional seriel killer... and Troy and Bruno next door are what bother you?... I think that qualifies as insane...

and you are more worried about what 2 guys (whom you don't even know) are doing behind closed doors.... well, let me tell ya ... I DONT CARE....
I DO care that we have so many more social ills that do matter, for us to worry about that menial homophobic crap...
until you have sent letters to our troops, marched on washington for at least one cause, and given to most charities... then shut up...you are not qualified to say what is or isn't an important issue...

to anyone that hasn't figured it out yet... this whole issue is an effort to distract and separate us while the fox is getting his fill in the hen house...
what are we not seeing while we argue over morality?
wake up!



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
What can I say, just like abortion issues, it was all propaganda to gain some votes during elections and people fell for it.

Nothing has change and nothing will change anytime soon.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Um...what you've written Lazarus is about one of the rudest, most narrow minded posts I've read in a long time.


still on this little war distraction are we?
to those that are worried about gays getting married...
get a life... pull your head out ...and realize that your American kids are dying daily from an unneeded war, drug abuse, domestic violence, abandonment, starvation, frostbite, gang violence, and even the occasional seriel killer... and Troy and Bruno next door are what bother you?... I think that qualifies as insane...


What I think you fail to realize here, is that perhaps the gays aren't the ones who are making this into an issue. They are being deprived of what SHOULD be a civil right. The fact that homosexuals cannot be legally joined is religiously motivated. Period. Religion and government do not mix. That's why we started this country in the first place. It is those who are fighting tooth and nail to deprive them of their rights, that I blame for making this into an issue.




and you are more worried about what 2 guys (whom you don't even know) are doing behind closed doors.... well, let me tell ya ... I DONT CARE....


Um...yeah, I know them. I care, even though you don't.




I DO care that we have so many more social ills that do matter, for us to worry about that menial homophobic crap...
until you have sent letters to our troops, marched on washington for at least one cause, and given to most charities... then shut up...you are not qualified to say what is or isn't an important issue...


Have you done this? 'Cuz I'm sure we all know that posting genralized, intellectually numbing statements like the above on ATS is sure going to change the world.




to anyone that hasn't figured it out yet... this whole issue is an effort to distract and separate us while the fox is getting his fill in the hen house...


Exactly!



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I for one am proud to know I am a heterosexual male who can count the number of gay friends I have as being more than the number of fingers on my hands. Alot of other men probably would say the same thing if they weren't afraid to be shunned by those they know and love. I'm not for or against a couple having a family (possibly with children) that is in or out of wedlock. I will say that wedlock is not what makes that physically possible. So in that sense I say if you do not use religion as your keeper, then is not marriage a melding of two souls? If marriage is a melding of souls, and all people have souls (sometimes they just have to search longer for its meaning) then what is the problem with two men or women getting married? Since in the United States and other countries I know there are same sex churches, it seems to me if these religious places can exist, and marriage is something that ocurrs by freedom of individual belief within them; then marriage between those of the same sex is just a normal thing that noone has the right to abolish by law.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
What can I say, just like abortion issues, it was all propaganda to gain some votes during elections and people fell for it.Nothing has change and nothing will change anytime soon.


I can't recall marg if you posted in the other ATSNN I posted about the Democratic party rethinking its position on Abortion, why not this as well?



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 12:07 AM
link   
This should be amusing.

First off, as an opponent of gay marriage, religion has NOTHING to do with my opposition...throw religion out of it.
That stated,
I hope that this issue will NEVER become an amendment to the constitution.
It really isnt nessisary.

Lazarus says,


you are more worried about what 2 guys (whom you don't even know) are doing behind closed doors.... well, let me tell ya ... I DONT CARE....
Obviously you didnt care to look deep enough at the issue either.
When Adam and Steve get to the PUBLIC courthouse and demand entitlments from society(government), this is no longer in their private bedroom now is it?
It has become a PUBLIC/cultural issue when this happens. Who's making this public? The gays themselves.

Marg says what lazarus hints at,


What can I say, just like abortion issues, it was all propaganda to gain some votes during elections and people fell for it.
Id say this was one of a "one upsmanship" play here....Who has been pushing gay marriage into the spotlight? Gays again! This tactic by Bush was mearly upping the stakes because he knew he could wake up the silent cultural majority to an issue that was/is being ram rodded thru without any serious examinations of the effects and things nessisary to impliment this issue culturally into this societies institutions.
Ghaleon says,


The fact that homosexuals cannot be legally joined is religiously motivated. Period.
Compleatly wrong! Most of the exit poll data from the election, where 11 states just passed "defense of marriage" laws that essentially ban gay marriage said that it was HEALTH CARE COSTS ISSUES that made them vote for this new law. Basically, if more people were covered under health insurance as "couples", then more payouts in more combinations would ensue....Well where do the companies recover these added costs? By passing the buck to ALL consumers...meaning higher health insurance costs for everyone, weather they approve of gay marriage or not.
Gee, mabey there ARE some non religious issues associated with this issue that havent been addressed yet eh?
here's a thread for ya11000 bennifits not given to gay couplesWith this many "linkages" thruought our legal system, bennifits and such, AND NO DISCUSSIONS about these things, how could anyone possibly say religion is the ONLY reason for this idea getting shot down?

Religion is the reason that the "feel gooders" want to distract YOU with so that you dont ask the toughter questions about ...what are the effects of doing this? how can this change be instituted? Is it even nessisary?
just be happy and close your eyes, dont ask any tough non religious questions.

Ghaloen continues blindly,


It is those who are fighting tooth and nail to deprive them of their rights, that I blame for making this into an issue.
So again you mean the gay community right? After all arent they the ones saying that the overall cultural majority doesnt have the right to 1rst amendment protections like the boy scouts have? Or for voters in california to define, thru democratic means, marriage between 1 man/1 woman....and then have their pocket mayor and judge essentially STEAL all of those votes, and violate state law to just enact gay marriages anyway. (this was thrown out by the CA supreme ct by the way which is why gay marriages stopped there....exactly because it violated other citizens rights!!) Who's violating who's rights here? Again which group is pushing this agenda into the spotlight? Dont blame the general cultural marority for defending its position against a special interest minority groups pushy agenda, blame those doing the actual pushing. I dont see the rest of society trying to oppress gays.

Ghaleon says,


They are being deprived of what SHOULD be a civil right.
PLEASE try and explain how marriage is a civil right for ANYONE gay or str8....If it IS a civil right, then arent all single, divorced, and widowed people then not getting this civil right? How can the government garuntee ANYONE a spouse? How will you determine when a persons civil right to be married is violated? Explain to us all how marriage is NESSISARY for ANY citizen to lead a productive, happy existance...Plenty of single people will be insulted by you saying they arent "equal" or capable of their pursuit of happiness because they arent married. Tread carefully.

Existance asks,


what is the problem with two men or women getting married?
What is the problem with marriage being defined as 1 man/1 woman? Why cant marriage be a special interest group entitlment based on this and other criteria, just like other S.I.G. entitlments for other "members only" groups? Again i ask, who is forcing whom to alter their group identity here?

Everyone Soo willing to bite the "nice nice" hook without asking real, deeper questions...Who has whom snowed on this issue?

[edit on 28-12-2004 by CazMedia]



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I can't recall marg if you posted in the other ATSNN I posted about the Democratic party rethinking its position on Abortion, why not this as well?


I think I posted about the same answer, is all political gain, it worked for the Republican and now the Democrats noticed that it does work very well.

Caz, I agree with you on this one, I like your post.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   
WOW, Marge, your agreeing with a post of mine?
Tis the season of giving


Could you please elaborate on which aspects of my posting you liked so that i can better understand how my position effectivly communicated my stance? This will also help me better understand your position.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I appreciate the rhetorical question. I don't think the point was that marriage can't be between a man and a woman just as much as my point was that it can't be denied between those of the same sex. To me at least I see a closed minded approach to assuming marriage has to be between sexes stated in religious text. A marriage certificate is recognized by the goverment as a legal document. As I mentioned, if it is a religious ceremony, (and no legal marriage in this country can be completed without a licensed leader of a given faith) and there are gay and lesbian churches in the world recognized as "churches" by the governments of the countries they reside in; then a same sex marriage can only logically be given the same legal rights as a marriage between man and woman. Marriage is a ceremony of love. Procreation is an instinct of animals to further their kind. Marriage is not a requirement in life to procreate. We are intelligent animals, (ok, we're getting there). This is another reason why marriage does not have to be between opposite sexes. Humanity is the subject here, not the way of things that accept change only when it is suitable for a face value within. That sounds harsh but it is the reality of accepting "the new normal" when you weren't used to thinking of it as normal.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
to ghaleon;
""What I think you fail to realize here, is that perhaps the gays aren't the ones who are making this into an issue. They are being deprived of what SHOULD be a civil right. The fact that homosexuals cannot be legally joined is religiously motivated. Period. Religion and government do not mix. That's why we started this country in the first place. It is those who are fighting tooth and nail to deprive them of their rights, that I blame for making this into an issue. ""


I, for one, dont think I am shallow because I am against gay marriage. But what I quoted from your post, I believe is somewhat a catch 22 type thing. You say that religion should not play a part in our government, but marriage IS a religious matter. Marriage is a religious institution, and should be regulated by the religion itself, if religion is to be eliminated from the scenario, then how can a religious thing such as marriage be a citizens right ? I agree that the government should eliminate all marriage incentives, so that all will have equality when it comes to taxes and programs. The need for gay marriage will be eliminated, and civil unions will go back to being the same thing as a marriage, argument will be over. I am a straight (single) male, and I think it is unfair that I get taxed more than married couples, especially when married couples have each other to split the bills with, and singles bare all the financial burden alone- how is that fair and what sense does that make? I am also not homophobic, I dont care what other people do in their bedrooms, but marriage IS a religious rite, and as far as I know all religions forbid homosexuality (even if some churches allow it simply for drawing more members to pass the donation plate to) and if the argument is that religion should play no part in government, then how can a religious rite be faught for as a civil right under government policy? Polygamy IS accepted and even encouraged by many religions (even some Christian ones), yet it is illegal under the laws of this government, if they pass a law giving the rights for anyone to be married, they will then have to allow polygamy under the same statute-especially when it could already be argued that we already should have the right marry multiple spouses, since we are supposed to be free to practice any religion. Further more, sick folks may want to start marrying their pets, and why then should they be denied that right, just because it is unpopular amongst other people?
I personally wish America had the right to vote on every law, or amendment, or policy-and may the popular vote win AND represent the majority. I am sick of minority (and before that word is twisted, I dont mean racial minority) ideals getting shoved down my throat or thrown in my face everytime a few people think that life is unfair. Guess what, life is unfair, to everyone on this planet in one form or another, and those who cry about the cruel majority of the world, are guilty,and allowed to be guilty of prejudices that they claim to be victims of!



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Existance,
Before i detail my position, lets shoot down the obvious fallicies in yours.
you say,


no legal marriage in this country can be completed without a licensed leader of a given faith
Incorrect, a justice of the peace, county clerk of the court, judge, and even official captain of a seagoing vessle can preform this ceremony, without ANY religious trappings whatsoever. Religious trappinggs are at the discreation of the people getting married to have or not and to what extent.

you continue,


Marriage is a ceremony of love
Laughable in the extreme!!! First of all, prove "LOVE". Then try and convince me that people dont marry for reasons other than love, such as money, power, for citizenship status, obligation, or other self centered
reasons...in the past, arrainged marriages were done to solidify peace or fealty between two "peoples", or as payment for something. Marriage for love is the ideal, but certantly NOT the rule.

Existance states correctly,


Marriage is not a requirement in life to procreate.
No its not..Marriage is a construct by man created to solidify the family unit, primarilly to provide a stable environment for the ofspring to develope "properly" within the cultural values.
You say,


Humanity is the subject here, not the way of things that accept change only when it is suitable for a face value within.
When studying "humanity" the sciences of anthropology and sociology are at the forefront. A basic tennant of social science is that of "cultural identity"....That means the way in which different societies define themselves, both for their own identity (to pass along to children a common heritage) and to define their culture to other societies.

A given culture has the right to define itself in its laws, cultural practices, and basic values, even if this means that the society doen NOT include some idea/practice that others have. This holds MORE true for "enlightened" societies such as a democracy than it does a dictatorship.
(as using democratic means to come to a "cultural identity" is far more equitable to more citizens than monarchy, dictatorship, or other forms of government.)

This brings us back to your first statement,


I appreciate the rhetorical question. I don't think the point was that marriage can't be between a man and a woman just as much as my point was that it can't be denied between those of the same sex.
The question isnt rhetorical, its based on a societies right to adopt/reject ANY ideology is sees fit to. The fact that a culture defines marriage and establishes set criteria for who qualifies for this entitlment (or any entitlment)
Lets look at marriage, not everyone can marry unless THEY MEET THE ESTABLISHED CRITERIA, including;
age.....not being too close a relative (eewww)..... mental capasity..... being sober at time of marriage.....not already being married to another..... blood tests..... pre marriage councilling...... obtaining (paying for) a marriage license..... waiting period once licensed..... expiration time once licensed..... need for wittnesses..... needs to be performed by a judge, justice, court clerk or clergy....citizenship situation....and now, increasingly be between 1 man/1 woman. (note: not all requirments in all areas as laws very from state to state)

Marriage is a special intrest group entitlment, based on criteria established by the society sanctioning it. It can and is an exclusive entitlment, not a right for any citizen.

Because we in the states have the 1rst amendment right to gather into groups as we choose, without persecution from others that dont expouse the groups core beliefs, we have the right to EXCLUDE. Now one will try and push "but this is the government, not private group." yet this is irrelavent as the "group" of government here is a representative democracy...where the governments power is "by the people. for the people". As the US Declaration of Independance says,


Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That means me, you and every citizen in this society...WE as a group of citizens, tell our government what to do and concent to the powers WE give it to govern. Heck the Declaration itself is EXCLUSIONARY in that it says, we are different from you, and heres why..and what were doing about it. This whole country was founded on distinguishing the "US" group from the "THEM" group. This is how cultures are defined.

As harsh as that sounds, it is the reality of accepting that cultural values exist for a reason...to provide common heritage that the masses can use to identify themselves and to others, as well as pass down to "our posterity".

This is really basic sociology at work here and is not exclusive to democracy, or our culture, and is the basic way in which humanity has used for centuries to define cultures/values.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia.
I hope that this issue will NEVER become an amendment to the constitution.
It really isnt nessisary.


I agree very much with you, it should never be an issue and the constitution should be left alone.



It has become a PUBLIC/cultural issue when this happens. Who's making this public? The gays themselves.


That is true it is public, gays wants to bring the issue to their problems, but at the same time they are putting themselves at the mercy of opposition groups that will take their cause and make it look like a dirty gay agenda.



Id say this was one of a "one upsmanship" play here....Who has been pushing gay marriage into the spotlight? Gays again! This tactic by Bush was mearly upping the stakes because he knew he could wake up the silent cultural majority to an issue that was/is being ram rodded thru without any serious examinations of the effects and things nessisary to impliment this issue culturally into this societies institutions.


I agree with you our country is still not ready for a major change to our cultural and moral values and not presidential candidate will come out straight in his views of the issue. Too many unconfortable people with the world "gay" by itself, but should we blame them? perhaps pushing the issue is not the right tactic.



The fact that homosexuals cannot be legally joined is religiously motivated. Period.


I agree with you again, cultural and moral issues again, And they are working very well in the mind of most conservative americans. I don't blame them.


I got the feeling that without getting into the issue of "legalizing" gay marriage, the other issues as life partners benefits and rights can very much be work out, but is not happening to much effort on "we want to get married" than on "we want to be recognized" and get the same benefits. I think the second one is already been done gays are not a close door subject anymore they need to work now on the benefits issues because they are the ones that has brough it out as one of the reasons of their problems. Right?



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Some reason my mind tells me of sodom and gomora .. what happened ?



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   


CazMedia Wrote:
When Adam and Steve get to the PUBLIC courthouse and demand entitlments from society(government), this is no longer in their private bedroom now is it?


They're only demanding priveleges that same-sex couples enjoy. In order for this to be an equal society one of two things must take place: Either everyone receives benefits, or noone recieves benefits. I'm not going to claim that I know which would be better for society, but I think that for the "right" thing to take place, it should be one of the two.



CazMedia Wrote:
Compleatly wrong! Most of the exit poll data from the election, where 11 states just passed "defense of marriage" laws that essentially ban gay marriage said that it was HEALTH CARE COSTS ISSUES that made them vote for this new law. Basically, if more people were covered under health insurance as "couples", then more payouts in more combinations would ensue....Well where do the companies recover these added costs? By passing the buck to ALL consumers...meaning higher health insurance costs for everyone, weather they approve of gay marriage or not.


Um, I was under the impression that the reason that medical, and health insurance is so high was a combination of all the malpractice lawsuits, and the cost of med school. My bad. You can give a "good" reason for anything, and still have an ulterior motive. I'm not buying that.
Okay. We can't afford to give everyone the same rights, so we'll just umm...oh, you! Over there! You look like a "traditional wholesome couple". You can have these benefits! Sorry, baad homosexuals..."
That's messed up. It's like saying there's not enough food on the table for everyone, so half of the family goes hungry. Now THAT'S patriotism. You know what happens when my squad is in the field, and we don't have enough food? (I'm a soldier) We deal with it, and even though we're not full when we're done, we've still gotten a meal that we're all equally priveleged to, even though some outrank the others.
And besides, if I'd voted against gay unions, I'd much rather be called a thrifty spender, than a fascist biggot any day of the week!




CazMedia Wrote:
After all arent they the ones saying that the overall cultural majority doesnt have the right to 1rst amendment protections like the boy scouts have?


I'm not really sure what you're talking about, but here's what the 1st amendment has to say:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Well, hmm...what's this I hear about all these laws being passed that prevent same-sex marriages, yet they explicitly state that a man, and a woman can. Please find me some secular teachings on the negative moral implications of a same-sex couple. (Preferably from a noted, and respected author, or philospher). All I can think of is non-secular sources that have a real problem with it. I think there's a connection here somewhere...



CazMedia Wrote:
Again which group is pushing this agenda into the spotlight? Dont blame the general cultural marority for defending its position against a special interest minority groups pushy agenda, blame those doing the actual pushing. I dont see the rest of society trying to oppress gays.


Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? If those "other" kids in the neighborhood would just be allowed into the same clubhouse, there wouldn't be much pushing from either side, would there?




CazMedia Wrote:
PLEASE try and explain how marriage is a civil right for ANYONE gay or str8....


It's not a civil right, and quite frankly, I don't understand why there are any laws whatsoever written on this subject, other than the dividing of posessions upon divorce, and who gets the kids...(Most gay couples aren't going to have to worry about the kid thing, other than fostering.) I see no valid secular arguments against the union of two men, or two women.




Ghaleon4 (myself) wrote:
They are being deprived of what SHOULD be a civil right.


What I meant by that:
Civil rights has a lot to do with equality. Without equality, civil rights are not being practiced. So, if straight couples enjoy some breaks, gay people should enjoy some breaks. If straight people don't get a break, then gay people probably wouldn't be upset. What I stated had nothing to do with the absurd idea that finding your mate was a guaranteed civil right. Nice try though.




What is the problem with marriage being defined as 1 man/1 woman? Why cant marriage be a special interest group entitlment based on this and other criteria, just like other S.I.G. entitlments for other "members only" groups? Again i ask, who is forcing whom to alter their group identity here?


I seriously think you lost track of your argument when you wrote this.
The gay community certainly isn't asking the straight community to change their identity. The gay people would like to change their OWN status, and place in society with regards to the respect that they receive, and the priveleges that are bestowed.

In general, you're just not a very nice, or accepting person, are you Mr. CazMedia?




[edit on 6-1-2005 by Ghaleon4]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Ghaleon4 takes things out of context,
My point about Adam and Steve is that anyone saying gay marriage is acceptable because what these 2 are doing is in the privacy of their bedroom is LYING to support that contention. As you said,


They're only demanding priveleges that same-sex couples enjoy.
No problem there, but demanding from WHOM? From the society, meaning the PUBLIC! This is why trying to prop up the argument by saying "its private" is crap....i didnt see the culture trying to pry into these guys bedrooms, i see the 2 guys pushing their bedroom into the public view. Yes they have the right to ask, but society has the right to say no thanks. Asking for entitlments from society makes society involved...period.

Ghaleon states a dreamy ideal,


Either everyone receives benefits, or noone recieves benefits.
In a perfect world this is a great IDEA, yet how is this workable or practical? If this is a given for society, then i want food stamps because its only fair the government supply me (who can pay for my food) with an entitlment other people have. (just because they make less income than i do, i get discriminated against???)
The same with paying taxes, i shouldnt have to pay more than others because of income based discriminatory criteria.
Id also like my social security checks NOW instead of waiting until i meet the qualifying requirments to get this entitlment.....

How do you propose to eliminate all criteria required to determine who has access to all entitlments here, to make everyone equal? Who will pay for the huge increase in payouts for all these entitlments suddenly becomming available to everyone? Doesnt this smack of communisim?

If you think for a second, that this country or the world for that matter, isnt full of "lines in the sand" drawn between people for various reasons, both privately and socially (by the government), in order to determine who gets an entitlment, then i question what planet you live on. There can be NO dispute that some forms of legal "discrimination" based on various criteria for different entitlments arent being used. BIG DEAL. Everyone is NOT entitled to everything, almost every culture on the planet has similar rules to determine who gets what and when.

Ghaleon again pulls out of context,
On the exit poll data i cited, you are trying to twist what the voters said...they didnt say insurance/medical costs were ONLY high because of this issue, only that adding more reasons to jack up the costs was not appealing, also this is not the ONLY reason many of these voters voted for defense of marriage laws to be passed, just the most often cited reason.
You can say there is an ulterior motive for any stated reason given, yet that doesnt mean there IS one.

ghaleon says, (using demonizing rhetoric),

Okay. We can't afford to give everyone the same rights, so we'll just umm...oh, you! Over there! You look like a "traditional wholesome couple". You can have these benefits! Sorry, baad homosexuals..."
Again not only out of context as citing the most common reason given opposing the issue was not judgmental declaring homo's "bad", but also you try and paint those voters with a slanderous brush, by implying that they are "bad" for declining to accept gay marriage institutionally into the culture using democracy to determine this outcome.
Pathetic!

What form of governance other than democracy do you suggest we the people should be using to use as a socital framework to decide on cultural issues? I suppose throwing out the constitution would be ok eh? lets just allow a minority group (pick any not just gays) to steal all the voters rights by throwing out the vote tally, and let our pocket mayor and judge just institute our policy onto the majority of the society that has expressed "NO" to our agenda. (OH YEAH WE'RE TALKIONG ABOUT WHAT WAS ATTEMPTED IN CALIFORNIA ARENT WE!?!) PS the courts ruled the gay marriages thrown out in CA because they violated citizens rights and the mayor/judge overstepped their power to have attempted it.
Who's rights are really being violated here?

Also, i respect the members of the armed forces,
BUT
You are no longer private citizens once you enlist, you are all the same..you have volunteered to join this "group" accepting the removal of certain rights you had as a private citizen...
Noone can force equal acceptance onto any private citizen...we dont have to "get along" like you must under millitary mandate. You compare apples and oranges here.

ON 1RST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS;
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble" Take close notice of this part...it has been decided (using the gays vs the scouts case and other case history) that a group of citizens cant be forced to accept someone into their group if the person does not have the same values as the group they want into...Why is marriage any less of a group because they define it as 1man/1woman? If people peacably determine this is the definition of marriage, using established democratic means to do so...why is this "wrong"? Its not, in fact its PROTECTED. Government is NOT removed from being under any of the bill of rights...notice religion has NOTHING to do with this argument.

Ghaleon requests secular reasons for a society having the right to cultural identity determinations (ON ANY ISSUE)
Try studying the social sciences of anthropology and sociology, how about democratic principals?
Try this thread where many links by poster gradyphilpot has cited links you seek...politics.abovetopsecret.com...'

Notice AT NO TIME have i ever used any religious referance to support my position. (tho i reccognize that they are concerns that people love to push aside) I have also never condemed gays by calling them nasty names of said they were less human etc. It is not nessisary nor tasteful to do so.
How about this thread politics.abovetopsecret.com...'which begins to discuss 11,000 things that are affected by gay marriage, that noone ever talks about? with this many "linkages" to things, and NO examinations of how things can be resolved, why would just passing gay marriage into law be a smart thing? Didnt mommy ever say "look before you leap"?
But ohh yeah if it feels good, do it, dont ask the tough questions.
Ignorance is not denied by taking action before the rammifications are even discussed let alone plans for implimentation worked out.

Ghaleon retorically asks,


If those "other" kids in the neighborhood would just be allowed into the same clubhouse, there wouldn't be much pushing from either side, would there?
Perhaps not (not a guarentee), however, why is this nessisary? what criteria is used to determine who gets in now? Any discussion as to how this can be done, will everyone fit without collapsing the structure or at the same time? Why force the clubhouse to do so when not everyone even wants to be inside? There are enough BASIC questions here, without having to go into minutia, to see that the issue has not been examined enough to just impliment inclusion to the clubhouse, reguardless of the desires or intent of either side.

ON MARRIAGE AS A "RIGHT";
No you didnt say anything about how making marriage a right was going have effects whatsoever..again i say putting the cart before the horse.
My point is, IF marriage is defined as a "right" then the questions i posed and more, WILL be asked to see how this "right" can be worked with as a tangible "thing". (enforcable)
Again the "feel gooders" have you soo hypnotized into calling people disagreeing, "bigot homophobes", and blaming religion, that you cant ask other pertinent questions?
Rub 2 brain cells together, let the thought go from one to another and start to look BEYOND the emotive and into the practical.

Ghaleon obviously NOT reading what has been written questions whos lost here,


The gay community certainly isn't asking the straight community to change their identity.
Bullpucky!! Demonizing people of faith in an attempt to get them to change their views thru blackmail is what?
Telling the +11 states that have determined thru democratic means that marriage is defined as a man/woman they are homophobic bigots is what? Theft of democracy in a failed attempt to push their agenda is CA was what?
How many more devicive, vindictive, self centered, contempt for society actions do you need to see before you understand who is doing what to whom here?
Where is society pushing itself onto the gay community? I dont qualify defending the cultural values from pushy attacks against it as an assault on gays...its the other way around.

As a soldier, you better brush up on what the difference between an offensive and defensive posture is if you cant see this point. Try reading Karl Von Klauswitz "on war"....it could save your life soldier. (Its required at west point)

Ghaleon closes with this doozie,


In general, you're just not a very nice, or accepting person, are you Mr. CazMedia?
Is this yet another demonizing tactic?

As you dont know me, you really AGAIN dont have enough of the full examination to make this assesment logically.
However,
Please show me where i am FORCED to be a nice or accepting person.
Yet another example of pushing ones values onto another person if you ask me.
Equality is a bitch isnt it...is cuts BOTH ways.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 03:38 AM
link   
To those that think the amendment will be done, the Jews that own half the country will not allow it. Can anyone guide me as to the history of the institution of marriage ? I mean, how did the institution of marriage come about ? Perhaps, answers lie there.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Dixon,
Thanks for trying to drag an already contensious issue further into the mud instead of helping to deny ignorance.

When you can provide some evidence of your allegations about who owns what percent of the country (unless your in israel) then I and others will give you more more credit that the aparent (should i say transparent) BIAS that you have expressed.

If you want to know about the institution of marriage and its history
1)OPEN INTERNET EXPLORER
2)TYPE "GOOGLE" INTO YOUR BROWSER BAR, PRESS ENTER
3)TYPE "MARRIAGE HISTORY" INTO THE GOOGLE SEARCH BAR AND PRESS ENTER.
4)READ AND LEARN FROM THE RESULTS.

I hope i was as helpful to you, as you were to this thread.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 05:30 AM
link   
This issue is not "ripe" enough for a constitutional amendment. Only if activist, liberal courts start forcing conservative States to recognize gay marriages performed by liberal States and the Supreme Court upholds this will a constitutional amendment really be necessary to protect the rights of the States.

If it is required, something simple that is not inheritantly discriminatory could be fashioned, like this:

Proposed Amendment:

1) The Constitution of the United States shall not be construed to require the government of the United States, the govenment of any State or any other entity to recognize a marriage or other civil union executed by another State or any government not in accordance with their own governing laws.

2) Congress shall have the power to enforce this article with appropriate legislation.

[edit on 1/7/2005 by djohnsto77]

[edit on 1/7/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Oh, All Knowing And All Seeing And All Must Be Right, truly the Chief Diplomat.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join