"To protect the sanctity of marriage," sure. But I think we'd both agree that that's vague rhetoric. I'm simply trying to understand, specifically, what Bush wants to do, and I think what it comes down to is that he wants to prevent states from interpreting their own constitutions in a way that makes gay marriage legal. The issue of states recognizing other states' gay marriages was already dealt with by the Defense of Marriage Act. And of course he can choose to veto any federal law that wanted to make gay marriage legal. So we're left with what states, on their own, are allowed to do.
The amendment (or at least the only one I found, there may be others) states:
It also appears to outlaw civil unions. But apparently it doesn't outlaw bad grammar.
Nice analogy with toxic waste. But again, states already are not required to recognize other states' gay marriages, so the analogy doesn't apply.
Yet another nail in the coffin for Bush among the libertarian-leaning conservatives. George W. Bush: Social conservative fiscal liberal anti-states' rights international interventionist.
I think what Bush and many others want is two-fold. First he nor do many others want a legal system where a few judges at the state level can change the laws and legal dealings for the rest of the country. If the Supreme Court takes up the issue and decides it, that is something we all have to live with, but state courts deciding how the whole country must live is more unnerving.
The second issue simply has to do with traditional definitions of words and how far will people go to win an argument. Marriage has always been understood to be between a man and a woman in this society. Many tolerant people, myself included, have said that civil unions would be just fine in addressing the legal issues associated with homosexual pairing while avoiding the historical and religious baggage. However that isn't enough. People want everyone's understanding and definitions to change basically against their beliefs or will.
Suppose I wanted to argue that judges should read viability or what born means in a manner different from historical understanding in order to advance an abortion argument. I don't think that would fly too well.
This isn't about rights because pretty much everyone, be they right or left have been willing to cough up the legal rights. This is about rights going past the end of my nose. This is about telling me what words had better mean to me.
Word switching has been used very well in the past to alter attitudes and opinions about a subject. Someone discussing immigration might use "undocumented worker" instead of "illegal immigrant." However at least they don't tell you that the constitution of your state has an entirely different understanding of what illegal and immigrant mean from the commonly understood definitions.
Laws and language are important things with regard to maintaining society. When they become meaningless, people have to resort to much less enjoyable means of hashing out their arguments. (Like say wars and violence)
I prefer to not let definitions and laws be twisted past the breaking point just to win a forced understanding of a word, not even the rights because those have been offered up, but to dictate what words mean to people.
You can't be barred from getting a drivers license for being gay.
nice try.
It's not like gay people have been beating on the doors trying to get married for hundreds of years either.
traditions change.
Marriage used to be only for people of the same race too.
Gays haven't been beating on doors for years? What next, suggesting it is in vogue?
You can't be denied from getting a license for being gay. But you can for any number of other reasons including some that are completely arbitrary. Additionally they can withhold your license from you for something as mundane as a parking ticket.
So the government can deny you the right to drive to work and earn a living for a parking ticket, but we have to somehow believe they don't have the right to decide if marriage is between a man and a woman.
State recognized drivers licenses provides privileges to those who participate.
Barring people from the ability to drive excludes them from those privleges.
The state denies these rights based upon either abuse of the privilege or inability to safely operate a motor vehicle. If the government wants to codify marriage in the same way, fine.
Miss Gabor, your license to marry has been revoked.
Quote:
It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.
Nick
Which is exactly what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is doing.
As I have posted most persuasively (ha!) before, marriage is a state of mind. Whether or not the government or anyone else recognizes it, people get married. There have been gay marriages forever.
Relax. Get used to it.
And since most everybody does not object to at least recognizing the civil aspects, clearly, I think that there is a good argument that homosexuals should get the civil benefits as well.
I am a typical liberal government interventionist on many issues, but I feel that the state should get out of the marriage business. Anyone should be able to get married before their Church (as their Church deem fit) or otherwise , privately (as they deem fit). All, whether married in a Church or not, could then register a civil union as an entirely separate matter.
I think that marriage is extremly important. It is the central aspect of my own life. But it is a private matter. Why is everyone wasting so much time and mental energy on this issue? (Me included, I guess )
You've eluded to the fact that this ruling will directly effect other states. How is that possible?
It's the basis for one of your main points, but I think it's faulty. This ruling is for Massachusetts, but doesn't effect any other state. Why do you think it does?
You've eluded to the fact that this ruling will directly effect other states. How is that possible?
Terri on Fresh Air laid it out pretty clearly today. You get a license in one state (even gays from Canada are coming to MA.) and then you go sue in another state---or federal court, I forget....anyway you get the point.
This is activism, by the numbers. 2-5% of the populace shoving their lifestyle down the the majorities' throat. Oh joy.
.....marriage is a state of mind...................Relax. Get used to it.
The only reason you can make that kind statement is because you operate in the intellectual vacuum of existentialism. You live in terms of what you see on TV and understand little of history and the importance of cultures whose underpinnings answer the demands of reality and the centuries that go with them.
Janet's breast.....who cares.......gays want marriage..........who cares...........sportfuc.k across town.........who cares.
You are a dead intellect---as dead and diseased as the "culture" that promotes your ideals. Simplistic base desires destroy cultures; pandering to sexual deviants will do the same. Get used to it.
Terri on Fresh Air laid it out pretty clearly today. You get a license in one state (even gays from Canada are coming to MA.) and then you go sue in another state---or federal court, I forget....anyway you get the point.
This is activism, by the numbers. 2-5% of the populace shoving their lifestyle down the the majorities' throat. Oh joy.
Bush, trumptman and now you have all used the word 'activism' without supporting your claim. I have only heard arguments as to why it's not activism. Please explain your accusation. I think the problem is that conservatives consider any liberal judgement to be activism. In this case though, the court was specifically asked to make a ruling, and they kept within the confines of the question that was asked.
As for the idea that someone will move and sue, that's not a concern of a court. What you're asking is that the the Massachusettes Court go against their own Constitution because the Constitutions of neighboring states are potentially in conflict. That doesn't make sense.
IF the MA Constitution says gays can marry, then the court HAS to uphold that law until the Feds say no. MA doesn't give a crap what Oregon thinks.
No longer living in fear and being out is different than being in vogue.
Again, a dizzingly narrow understanding of the foundations of social order.
Cultures are traditionally dominated by active minorities. A comment such as "no longer living in fear" is almost too stupid to be commented on---unless it was a disingenuous, partisan ploy to cloud the conversation (which I could actually respect).
This is about a small minority with DEEP judicial pockets using sophistry to gain what they themselves decry. Out of one side there mouth they cry "Equal Rights" out the other they orchestrate rulings in the judiciary that place the ethics they are fighting beyond cultural expectance.
You people are throwing rocks and clubs at each other and are calling it a discussion.
You are a dead intellect---as dead and diseased as the "culture" that promotes your ideals. Simplistic base desires destroy cultures; pandering to sexual deviants will do the same. Get used to it.
This statement looks to be deserving of a banning.
Hunger destroys cultures? No. Fascism destroys cultures, just like it did the Roman Empire. Just as it will Catholicism. Just as it will many others.
The ruling isn't pandering. If the constitution supports the ruling, then you need to change the constitution.
You people are throwing rocks and clubs at each other and are calling it a discussion.
Your feverish irrational claims are becoming more and more difficult to follow. I'm all for an open discussion on this topic. I really want to understand the mind of those opposed to gay marriage. But I think your anger is clouding your ability to discuss.
IF the MA Constitution says gays can marry, then the court HAS to uphold that law until the Feds say no. MA doesn't give a crap what Oregon thinks.
....this is exactly how the game is to be played---If it gets into court in Oregon and starts getting coverage....it is EXACTLY what is needed. You don't get to where the gays have in the last 10-15 years except by the shrewd use of the media, legislature, and courts.
....this is exactly how the game is to be played---If it gets into court in Oregon and starts getting coverage....it is EXACTLY what is needed. You don't get to where the gays have in the last 10-15 years except by the shrewd use of the media, legislature, and courts.
Don't any of you guys have acitivist backgrounds?
But it doesn't matter if it's legal. You want the courts to bend against what the Constitution supports. THAT'S a problem. If other courts follow this decision, that doesn't mean the decision is activisim. It could be activism even if no other court followed suit. It's not activism just because all 49 other states do follow suit.
The court was asked to make a judgement. They did. They didn't overreach their authority.
This is about a small minority with DEEP judicial pockets using sophistry to gain what they themselves decry.
Ah yes, it's that durned hommasexshulls with there durned agenda agin. They're in cahoots with the Jews to destroy all that's decent. David Geffen, Elton John and Rosie O'Dennell are taking names- I hope you dialed in from a safe house.
Try substituting "pork barrel politics" for "Equal Rights"
Quote:
Simplistic base desires destroy cultures; pandering to sexual deviants will do the same. Get used to it.
"Pandering to sexual devaints"?
Are you really such a stupid bigot or do you just play one on the internet?
Mods- I know I said I'd be nice, but I find this personally offensive.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe the crud could be deleted.
"To protect the sanctity of marriage," sure. But I think we'd both agree that that's vague rhetoric. I'm simply trying to understand, specifically, what Bush wants to do, and I think what it comes down to is that he wants to prevent states from interpreting their own constitutions in a way that makes gay marriage legal. The issue of states recognizing other states' gay marriages was already dealt with by the Defense of Marriage Act. And of course he can choose to veto any federal law that wanted to make gay marriage legal. So we're left with what states, on their own, are allowed to do.
The amendment (or at least the only one I found, there may be others) states:
It also appears to outlaw civil unions. But apparently it doesn't outlaw bad grammar.
Nice analogy with toxic waste. But again, states already are not required to recognize other states' gay marriages, so the analogy doesn't apply.
Yet another nail in the coffin for Bush among the libertarian-leaning conservatives. George W. Bush: Social conservative fiscal liberal anti-states' rights international interventionist.
I think what Bush and many others want is two-fold. First he nor do many others want a legal system where a few judges at the state level can change the laws and legal dealings for the rest of the country. If the Supreme Court takes up the issue and decides it, that is something we all have to live with, but state courts deciding how the whole country must live is more unnerving.
The second issue simply has to do with traditional definitions of words and how far will people go to win an argument. Marriage has always been understood to be between a man and a woman in this society. Many tolerant people, myself included, have said that civil unions would be just fine in addressing the legal issues associated with homosexual pairing while avoiding the historical and religious baggage. However that isn't enough. People want everyone's understanding and definitions to change basically against their beliefs or will.
Suppose I wanted to argue that judges should read viability or what born means in a manner different from historical understanding in order to advance an abortion argument. I don't think that would fly too well.
This isn't about rights because pretty much everyone, be they right or left have been willing to cough up the legal rights. This is about rights going past the end of my nose. This is about telling me what words had better mean to me.
Word switching has been used very well in the past to alter attitudes and opinions about a subject. Someone discussing immigration might use "undocumented worker" instead of "illegal immigrant." However at least they don't tell you that the constitution of your state has an entirely different understanding of what illegal and immigrant mean from the commonly understood definitions.
Laws and language are important things with regard to maintaining society. When they become meaningless, people have to resort to much less enjoyable means of hashing out their arguments. (Like say wars and violence)
I prefer to not let definitions and laws be twisted past the breaking point just to win a forced understanding of a word, not even the rights because those have been offered up, but to dictate what words mean to people.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
State recognized marriage provides privileges to those who participate.
Barring people from the ability to marry excludes them from those privleges.
State recognized marriage is not a religious act.
It is a state requirement to receive certain privileges.
Therefor barring someone from participating is denying them equal protection under the law.
It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.
State recognized drivers licenses provides privileges to those who participate.
Barring people from the ability to drive excludes them from those privleges.
State recognized drivers licenses is not a religious act.
It is a state requirement to receive certain privileges.
Therefor barring someone from participating is denying them equal protection under the law.
It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.
The state denies the right to drive for any number of reasons. Much like they deny the ability to marry for any number of reasons.
No one would ever suggest that being denied a drivers license is a civil rights violation.
Nick
nice try.
It's not like gay people have been beating on the doors trying to get married for hundreds of years either.
traditions change.
Marriage used to be only for people of the same race too.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
You can't be barred from getting a drivers license for being gay.
nice try.
It's not like gay people have been beating on the doors trying to get married for hundreds of years either.
traditions change.
Marriage used to be only for people of the same race too.
Gays haven't been beating on doors for years? What next, suggesting it is in vogue?
You can't be denied from getting a license for being gay. But you can for any number of other reasons including some that are completely arbitrary. Additionally they can withhold your license from you for something as mundane as a parking ticket.
So the government can deny you the right to drive to work and earn a living for a parking ticket, but we have to somehow believe they don't have the right to decide if marriage is between a man and a woman.
Hysterical....
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
State recognized drivers licenses provides privileges to those who participate.
Barring people from the ability to drive excludes them from those privleges.
The state denies these rights based upon either abuse of the privilege or inability to safely operate a motor vehicle. If the government wants to codify marriage in the same way, fine.
Miss Gabor, your license to marry has been revoked.
It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.
Nick
Which is exactly what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is doing.
Relax. Get used to it.
And since most everybody does not object to at least recognizing the civil aspects, clearly, I think that there is a good argument that homosexuals should get the civil benefits as well.
I am a typical liberal government interventionist on many issues, but I feel that the state should get out of the marriage business. Anyone should be able to get married before their Church (as their Church deem fit) or otherwise , privately (as they deem fit). All, whether married in a Church or not, could then register a civil union as an entirely separate matter.
I think that marriage is extremly important. It is the central aspect of my own life. But it is a private matter. Why is everyone wasting so much time and mental energy on this issue? (Me included, I guess
You've eluded to the fact that this ruling will directly effect other states. How is that possible?
It's the basis for one of your main points, but I think it's faulty. This ruling is for Massachusetts, but doesn't effect any other state. Why do you think it does?
Originally posted by bunge
You've eluded to the fact that this ruling will directly effect other states. How is that possible?
Terri on Fresh Air laid it out pretty clearly today. You get a license in one state (even gays from Canada are coming to MA.) and then you go sue in another state---or federal court, I forget....anyway you get the point.
This is activism, by the numbers. 2-5% of the populace shoving their lifestyle down the the majorities' throat. Oh joy.
Originally posted by Chinney
.....marriage is a state of mind...................Relax. Get used to it.
The only reason you can make that kind statement is because you operate in the intellectual vacuum of existentialism. You live in terms of what you see on TV and understand little of history and the importance of cultures whose underpinnings answer the demands of reality and the centuries that go with them.
Janet's breast.....who cares.......gays want marriage..........who cares...........sportfuc.k across town.........who cares.
You are a dead intellect---as dead and diseased as the "culture" that promotes your ideals. Simplistic base desires destroy cultures; pandering to sexual deviants will do the same. Get used to it.
Originally posted by dmz
Terri on Fresh Air laid it out pretty clearly today. You get a license in one state (even gays from Canada are coming to MA.) and then you go sue in another state---or federal court, I forget....anyway you get the point.
This is activism, by the numbers. 2-5% of the populace shoving their lifestyle down the the majorities' throat. Oh joy.
Bush, trumptman and now you have all used the word 'activism' without supporting your claim. I have only heard arguments as to why it's not activism. Please explain your accusation. I think the problem is that conservatives consider any liberal judgement to be activism. In this case though, the court was specifically asked to make a ruling, and they kept within the confines of the question that was asked.
As for the idea that someone will move and sue, that's not a concern of a court. What you're asking is that the the Massachusettes Court go against their own Constitution because the Constitutions of neighboring states are potentially in conflict. That doesn't make sense.
IF the MA Constitution says gays can marry, then the court HAS to uphold that law until the Feds say no. MA doesn't give a crap what Oregon thinks.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
No longer living in fear and being out is different than being in vogue.
Again, a dizzingly narrow understanding of the foundations of social order.
Cultures are traditionally dominated by active minorities. A comment such as "no longer living in fear" is almost too stupid to be commented on---unless it was a disingenuous, partisan ploy to cloud the conversation (which I could actually respect).
This is about a small minority with DEEP judicial pockets using sophistry to gain what they themselves decry. Out of one side there mouth they cry "Equal Rights" out the other they orchestrate rulings in the judiciary that place the ethics they are fighting beyond cultural expectance.
You people are throwing rocks and clubs at each other and are calling it a discussion.
Originally posted by dmz
You are a dead intellect---as dead and diseased as the "culture" that promotes your ideals. Simplistic base desires destroy cultures; pandering to sexual deviants will do the same. Get used to it.
This statement looks to be deserving of a banning.
Hunger destroys cultures? No. Fascism destroys cultures, just like it did the Roman Empire. Just as it will Catholicism. Just as it will many others.
The ruling isn't pandering. If the constitution supports the ruling, then you need to change the constitution.
Originally posted by dmz
You people are throwing rocks and clubs at each other and are calling it a discussion.
Your feverish irrational claims are becoming more and more difficult to follow. I'm all for an open discussion on this topic. I really want to understand the mind of those opposed to gay marriage. But I think your anger is clouding your ability to discuss.
Originally posted by bunge
IF the MA Constitution says gays can marry, then the court HAS to uphold that law until the Feds say no. MA doesn't give a crap what Oregon thinks.
....this is exactly how the game is to be played---If it gets into court in Oregon and starts getting coverage....it is EXACTLY what is needed. You don't get to where the gays have in the last 10-15 years except by the shrewd use of the media, legislature, and courts.
Don't any of you guys have acitivist backgrounds?
Originally posted by bunge
No. Fascism destroys cultures
Tell that to the Chinese. (and King Fahd).
Originally posted by dmz
....this is exactly how the game is to be played---If it gets into court in Oregon and starts getting coverage....it is EXACTLY what is needed. You don't get to where the gays have in the last 10-15 years except by the shrewd use of the media, legislature, and courts.
Don't any of you guys have acitivist backgrounds?
But it doesn't matter if it's legal. You want the courts to bend against what the Constitution supports. THAT'S a problem. If other courts follow this decision, that doesn't mean the decision is activisim. It could be activism even if no other court followed suit. It's not activism just because all 49 other states do follow suit.
The court was asked to make a judgement. They did. They didn't overreach their authority.
Originally posted by dmz
Tell that to the Chinese. (and King Fahd).
Are you insinuating that the historical culture of the Chinese hasn't been lost and/or destroyed?
Originally posted by dmz
This is about a small minority with DEEP judicial pockets using sophistry to gain what they themselves decry.
Ah yes, it's that durned hommasexshulls with there durned agenda agin. They're in cahoots with the Jews to destroy all that's decent. David Geffen, Elton John and Rosie O'Dennell are taking names- I hope you dialed in from a safe house.
Try substituting "pork barrel politics" for "Equal Rights"
Quote:
Simplistic base desires destroy cultures; pandering to sexual deviants will do the same. Get used to it.
"Pandering to sexual devaints"?
Are you really such a stupid bigot or do you just play one on the internet?
Mods- I know I said I'd be nice, but I find this personally offensive.