Originally posted by Kirkland
Every major issue is a wedge issue. The war is a wedge issue. Medicare is a wedge issue. Taxes are a wedge issue. Hell, the stupid pledge of allegiance is a wedge issue.
Ah...I see definition so broad as to be useless. Got it.
I saw Bush's speech live, thank you. I was so hurt and upset that I vomited.
I see, so instead of actually addressing what he said, you prefer to rail on about your anecdotal reaction to the speech.
What percentage of people do you think got physically ill from those words? .0001% perhaps? Doesn't sounds like a large voting block to me.
Bush supports a "We Hate Gays" Amendment to the Constitution. That's mean and hateful, no matter how he says it.
Oh I forgot. You are one of those... "disagreement = hate" type of guys.
How? The Supreme Court of Massachusetts is doing it's job interpreting its state Constitution and overtuning laws that do not meet that muster. The Federal DOMA is not mixed into this situation at all.
I know you're a right wing fanatic who hates gays (and women), but be real. This ruling will not lead to national gay marriage. And gay marriage is not a threat to the social fabric or character of this country.
So the job of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts is to write legislation? Because that is what they have just done by declaring that civil unions cannot address their decision.
They are so bright they can take what is not written in the Mass Constitution (homosexual marriage) and use it to declare what should not be written into law. (civil unions)
As for your characterization of me. It is just as wrong as me calling you a flaming, cross dressing, lisping, limp wristed...etc. In other words wrong. You claim I "hate" people because I disagree with them. In this instance then you must be practicing a lot of hate yourself.
I've not declared I find homosexual marriage wrong. Rather I don't like rulings that are so broad as to render the law itself useless. The privacy right this ruling is based on basically makes it almost impossible to legislate any type of marriage as being wrong. Others here, likely yourself included, don't want to admit that because you want to squeeze through the one issue important to yourself. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. If the law becomes useless and meaningless, the alternatives are much worse. No one here has explained how homosexual marriage could be found legal under the privacy right while finding incestual, polygamous, and other marriage forms illegal. You can't do so and be legally or logically consistant. Either marriage is a social construct of which the majority can decide what that construct is, or it isn't and it is a free for all.
That's your opinion. I disagree.
And what do you have left? How about federalism and states rights. Let each state define for itself what marriage is or is not. If the good people of Massachusetts want to allow gay marriage, they should be allowed to do so. If the evil people of Texas don't, they should not be required to.
Oh remember disagreement = hate. So I know that you now are a left wing fanatic who hates me.
States rights don't work for civil rights issues. Look at abortion. Look at minority rights. They all eventually become federalized. I'll be very happy to look into any instances of civil rights that you believe have not become federal issues, but as far as I know, they all have.
I would prefer a civil unions route, since it would cause less backlash. As would John Kerry. But the Court is the authority here, and they say that wouldn't pass constitutional muster, so it's sadly not an option. I would hope that they would reconsider, though that's unlikely.
Well obviously these are judges have decided that the law is worthless. What I find humorous though is that you claim to support a means of addressing this that keeps homosexual seperate but equal as does Kerry. Cheney has said he would support civil unions as well. Bush has said that if painted into a corner he would support the amendment since the court would have left that as the only option available. Other then that he has only said that he would only do what is legally necessary.
Funny how you are Kerry are tolerant and kind while I'm sure Cheney and Bush are mean and hateful.
The only course of action left is to let each state decide on their own, through their own processes, what to do about this. Marriage has never been a federal issue, and the FFC clause has never been applied to marriage before, so there's no reason to warp the Constitution with right wing hate speech to prevent something that won't happen from happening.
Actually it will easily become a federal issue since it will affect intra-state relationships. Should a custody dispute turn out differently in California than in Nevada? In one state the two are legal partners and in the other, not.
What if you are vacationing and get into an auto accident. Does your partner suddenly lose the right to consent to medical care for you if you are in a different state?
Suppose your partner takes some of your assets earned together in Massachusetts and buys a house in their own name in Texas and moves there. How can you divorce him and claim the money from that house?
Sure... this won't become federalized.... please...
What Federal law has the Massachusetts Supreme Court overtuned? The Federal DOMA does not apply to this situation.
It will overturn it in its application. As I have mentioned it will federalize this issue because all homosexual couples who marry in Massachusetts will not stay nor live in that state forever. When you attempt to divorce and get your half of the assets, custody, etc. in another state, you will be asking that state to recogize your marriage in opposition to the DOMA. When the state refuses to do so. You sue.
You can see the process, even if it hasn't gone through it yet.
Or he could say that he disagrees with the court's decision regarding the merits of civil unions, and believes that such a course is still the best path to follow, and that the court should reconsider.
There is this thing, it's called a follow-up question...
and Mr. Kerry, since the court will not reconsider, what would be your course of action?