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.

 

SOCIAL: Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
donguillermo


If the Democrats TRULY supported Gay rights they would be For Gay marrage not trying to straddle the fence and court BOTH sets of voters

I do not see any of us crying about not being taken seriousily, we are the third largest and the fastest growing party in America not just the "lunitic fringe" as you called us.

I think you will be supprised this election, we may not win, hell we probebly wont but I bet we get a good portion of the vote.

Its a start

[edit on 4-8-2004 by Amuk]




posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
donguillermo


If the Democrats TRULY supported Gay rights they would be For Gay marrage not trying to straddle the fence and court BOTH sets of voters


You see, the Libertarians have a luxury the Democrats don't have. The Libertarians don't have to worry about winning the election. Kerry cannot afford to take a position that would alienate a significant percentage of swing voters. Coming out in favor of legalizing gay marriage would be political suicide for Kerry. He opposes the constitutional amendment and supports civil unions for gays. That is as far as he can go in the current political climate.



I do not see any of us crying about not being taken seriousily, we are the third largest and the fastest growing party in America not just the "lunitic fringe" as you called us.


It seems to me I have heard complaints in the past about the Libertarian candidate not being able to participate in the Presidential debates? Am I wrong? If I am right, I would characterize that as complaining about not being taken seriously. By the way I used the word "complaints" not "crying". Please try to be more accurate in your paraphrase. Also, you should not be bringing in remarks such as "lunatic fringe" which I have made in other political forums. I am not allowed to make that type of remark in this forum.


I think you will be supprised this election, we may not win,


No, you will not win. Hope springs eternal.


hell we probebly wont but I bet we get a good portion of the vote.


Not probably won't, definitely won't. What would you consider a good portion of the vote? I bet the Libertarian candidate won't get 5% of the vote. Would you consider less than 5% to be a good portion?

By the way, if the Libertarian Party ever amounts to anything, it will be infiltrated by large numbers of left-wing libertarians like myself. Your laissez-faire, free market capitalism, small government philosophy will be out the window.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
So in other words Kerry changes his position to whatever will get him the vote, correct?

Its good to know he is a man of such strong princables



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I believe in god.....BUT Jesus Also said judge not les thou be judged so I will put it this way.....Let them Have there Marriages at this point the only people they are hurting in the end is themselves......Much like Criminals that Get away from earthly justice.....If these people are Wrong well I guess on they day of there deaths the Good lord will let um know the hard way
how wrong they were. Its not our place to judge these people lets stop enforcing our Morality on them for those who are Christan we have informed them we feel it is wrong as Christians that all we can do.**force has never worked**look at the Crusades.Let the MAN/Deity who job it is to judge , judge and just let it go.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Don Guillermo

I think youd be surprised don. The libertarian party is gaining much steam. People are starting to figure out that more government will not solve their problems. Many are starting to realize that the two main parties are not serving their needs, for each advocate a bigger and stronger federal government.

Don't be fooled in to thinking that the Libertarians will play the politics of your party and the Republicans either. While both the major parties may decide it is necessary to sway back and forth year-to-year with their platform, the Libertarians hold a strong resolve.

You want to know why Libertarians are not being included in the debates, its because they dont play by the rules. They don't play your game of politics.

And if you ever think the Libertarians will reverse their platform and manipulate the voter you are surely mistaken. Those waters will not become muddy, those waters will always run clear with the same message.

And if the party ever does change its platform, it does not mean the Libertarians are gone, it means they have changed their name...

Try as you might to coerce us in the "a third party is a wasted vote" rhetoric, your attempts will always be futile.

But back to the topic everyone!

The choice is in their hands not the government's.

[edit on 4-8-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Jamuhn, only 2 days in and we have a Centrist leaning towards a party? Guess we better take a closer look at the them.
Must be something there.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Jamuhn, only 2 days in and we have a Centrist leaning towards a party? Guess we better take a closer look at the them.
Must be something there.



Thats the issue its not the democrats against the republicans, who can tell the difference these days?

The Libertarians offer the ONLY real difference



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Jamuhn, only 2 days in and we have a Centrist leaning towards a party? Guess we better take a closer look at the them.
Must be something there.


See, this is a problem with the centrist team. Jamuhn is referring to the Libertarians as "us". Why is he claiming to be a centrist? Others on the team actually have conservative, right-wing views, and should be on the Republican/Conservative team.

This is part of a phenomenon on ATS which I have previously noted. A lot of ATS posters claim to be centrists, moderates, independents, non-partisan, etc. Most of these posters are actually very conservative. I guess they think claiming to be a centrist or moderate will make them more credible.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   
WOW, I can't believe you just said that DON GUILLERMO. Maybe you should re-read my post, i said "us" once, here it is.


And if the party ever does change its platform, it does not mean the Libertarians are gone, it means they have changed their name...

Try as you might to coerce *LOOK HERE* us in the "a third party is a wasted vote" rhetoric, your attempts will always be futile.


Us as in reference to not a major party. I even specifically reference the libertarians as "their."


A lot of ATS posters claim to be centrists, moderates, independents, non-partisan, etc. Most of these posters are actually very conservative. I guess they think claiming to be a centrist or moderate will make them more credible.


Should I even respond to this? I'll say one thing, HAVING AN AVATAR OF HILLARY CLINTON DOES NOT MAKE YOU CREDIBLE, THE ISSUES AND REASONING MAKE YOU CREDIBLE.



Jamuhn, only 2 days in and we have a Centrist leaning towards a party? Guess we better take a closer look at the them. Must be something there.


Don't get me wrong, I find faults in the Libertarian ideology as well. But I'll defend any third party from such unfounded criticism. The rationale that popularity determines merits?, give me a break don.

So, lets stick to the issues once again.

Gay marriage should not be banned by the federal government, only by the states.

[edit on 4-8-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
So far in this forum I have found 1 topic that the Rep. support to be to my liking, a couple from the Dem. and more than 1 from the Lib. It's early though. DG, if you are going to quote me to make a point I would also suggest you answer when a question is asked by me, something I haven't done in this forum.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Jamuhn says




Jamuhn, only 2 days in and we have a Centrist leaning towards a party? Guess we better take a closer look at the them. Must be something there.


Don't get me wrong, I find faults in the Libertarian ideology as well. But I'll defend any third party from such unfounded criticism. The rationale that popularity determines merits?, give me a break don.


You are quoting intrepid here, not me. Please don't reply to me when you are quoting another poster.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
So far in this forum I have found 1 topic that the Rep. support to be to my liking, a couple from the Dem. and more than 1 from the Lib. It's early though. DG, if you are going to quote me to make a point I would also suggest you answer when a question is asked by me, something I haven't done in this forum.


HUH? What question of yours did I fail to answer? I have no idea what you are talking about.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
LOL, do you just pick out what you want to write about me? Read the rest of my post and you will see that the first 2/3 refer specifically to you and your statements.


All in all, I find it quote amusing that you are still responding to me and am flattered as well.

I've already said all I had to say about this, and if you have any more comments, U2U me instead of putting it on this board. Or just reread what I already wrote.


We could even allow gay marriage to be determined at the local level, that would be the best IMO.

[edit on 4-8-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
If I may digress for a moment donguillermo...

The Republican Platform supports the Ammendment to make marriage an institution between a man and a women. Their approach to this issue is not driven by votes, but by the convictions of the party base.


Originally posted by donguillermo
You see, the Libertarians have a luxury the Democrats don't have. The Libertarians don't have to worry about winning the election. Kerry cannot afford to take a position that would alienate a significant percentage of swing voters. Coming out in favor of legalizing gay marriage would be political suicide for Kerry. He opposes the constitutional amendment and supports civil unions for gays. That is as far as he can go in the current political climate.


Are you stating here that the Democratic Party's position on this issue is driven soley by the quest to earn more votes in November? Is it your contention that the Party actually favors full marriage rights for same sex couples?

If so, please explain why this inconsistancy should not be exploited by the opposition parties. Could a reasonable person assume from this that, if elected, the new adminitration would support "gay' marriage in any form?



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
This is akin to Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the matter - let the states tell them no.

And it merely postpones the inevitable. What happens when gay couples seek marriages out of their respective states and then demand that their home state recognize their union? One way or another this is going to be decided on a federal level and the Democrats are going to have to deal with the fall-out from their "hands off" approach.

It's too bad that Kerry, who has always been supportive of gay rights, won't take the lead in a simple matter of civil rights.


Your 100% correct. The issue will eventually become federal because of conflicting stances amongst the states. John Kerry hopes to avoid the issue because he does not want to alienate, catholics which typically will vote democrat.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   
You can note it but you can't really fault him for it, it's politics. Just realize that neither party is going to get behind the gay issue.



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
If I may digress for a moment donguillermo...

The Republican Platform supports the Ammendment to make marriage an institution between a man and a women. Their approach to this issue is not driven by votes, but by the convictions of the party base.


Excuse me, Bush's drive for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is not driven by votes??? Do I look like I just got off the turnip truck? You don't think Bush's pushing this issue is motivated by a desire to solidify his conservative base, and use it as a wedge issue to split off religious voters who otherwise might vote for Kerry? Maybe you don't, but I have heard a lot of talking heads and political pundits who think Bush's position is a calculated, cynical move.


Are you stating here that the Democratic Party's position on this issue is driven soley by the quest to earn more votes in November?


No, I am not stating that. I am not privy to discussions of Democratic political decision makers, so I don't know what drives their positions.



Is it your contention that the Party actually favors full marriage rights for same sex couples?


No, that is not my contention. My contention is that it would be political suicide for Kerry to adopt that position.


If so, please explain why this inconsistancy should not be exploited by the opposition parties. Could a reasonable person assume from this that, if elected, the new adminitration would support "gay' marriage in any form?


There is no inconsistency to be exploited, as far as I can see. No, I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that the new Democratic administration would support gay marriage in any form.



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   


Is it your contention that the Party actually favors full marriage rights for same sex couples?


No, that is not my contention. My contention is that it would be political suicide for Kerry to adopt that position.


Then you are saying that the Democratic Party platform does not support same sex marriage. Why then do they not support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman? Recent court cases have shown this is the only way to stop individual states from allowing these marriages t continue.



If so, please explain why this inconsistancy should not be exploited by the opposition parties. Could a reasonable person assume from this that, if elected, the new adminitration would support "gay' marriage in any form?


There is no inconsistency to be exploited, as far as I can see. No, I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that the new Democratic administration would support gay marriage in any form.


If the Democratic Party platform does not support this Amendment, and this Amendment is the only way to stop the practice of same sex marriage, it would indeed be reasonable to assume the Democratic Party does support same sex marriage in some form. You cannot logically come to any other conclusion.

As far as your contention that this is a "wedge" issue, one man's wedge may be the make or break issue to another.



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I think whats happening is that the Democratic party simply doesn't want to go strongly one way or another until Kerry wins the election (if he does). In general the two major parties seem to wait until one of their own is in office before doing anything ambitious.



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
You are just wasting your time running a Presidential candidate, and your complaints about not being taken seriously just make people laugh.





This is off topic but I must respond to this

Our poll here show Badnarik with 22% of the vote

There must be a large "Lunitic Fringe" Here

Here is the link to this topic

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now back to the issues



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join