Reply With Quote
Ah ha! Oh, I'm going to respond to this in grand fashion, let me run out my blinds and close a few windows.
please explain what this means to the argument and I'll respond.
Ah ha! Oh, I'm going to respond to this in grand fashion, let me run out my blinds and close a few windows.
2cents, I don't know what ideology you align yourself with but I'm going to assume that you are conservative based upon your stance on gay marriage. If I am wrong feel free to correct me.
I agree, government has a right to promote things that are beneficial to society up to a point. They do not have a right to give segments of society special treatment based upon religion. The Republican party is notorious for using this when it suits them. The theory that government should promote beneficial aspects of life is soundly socialist, and is often used by Republicans to tear down proposals by Democrats that have merit. But then they want to turn around use that very principle to promote their value system.
The government has an obligation to provide benfits to all of society through systems such as the public education system, the public health system, and other aspects of government that everyone takes advandtadge of. However, they are most definetly not allowed to take negative action torward alternate lifestyles which are not the mainstream in this country.
Banning gay marrige while simultanously allowing and even promoting heterosexual marriage is absolutely not allowable and it is the very reason every court ruling on the subject has gone in favor of allowing sexual marriage!
Now, I take great issue with what many of you say about gay marriage to begin with, but the fact is that banning it is on very flimsy legal ground to begin with. Not only that, but Prop 2 was redundant and will simply go down as a large boondoggle that does nothing but waste Texas money. The defense of marriage act is already on the books, and Prop 2 accomplishes absolutely nothing that wasn't already written law. In a time where Texas can't find money to fund schools properly I find it absolutely disgusting that we are throwing money away to do stupid in this manner. It's flat out revolting.
It as a statement made to point out that your assertion that poverty is the result of broken homes was backwards. Poverty is the cause of broken homes, not the result.
I'm sorry my man but you're totally backwards. Here are things resposible for broken families. Drug and Alcohol Abuse, Violence, Infidelity etc.. Poverty is a byproduct of those events otherwise you're suggesting people who are poor have no choice but to be poor. Not in this country.
How is saying that poverty leads to broken homes saying people have no choie but to be poor? This is totally off the topic of the thread, but if you have any academic studies to prove your point of view on this subject I would love to see them.
Nice avatar, Spurm.
The bill passed overwhelmingly which includes a large portion of democrats. Same bill passed in Oregon which is a very liberal state. Point is even democrats are voting to protect marriage.[/quote]If I am wrong feel free to correct me.
Who determines that point? You, Me? No, the voters.I agree, government has a right to promote things that are beneficial to society up to a point
What does this have to do with gay marriage? Also, I'm not making a religious argument.They do not have a right to give segments of society special treatment based upon religion.
Using Blanket statements gets us nowhere and prevents people from having productive conversations.The Republican party is notorious for using this when it suits them.
Vice Versa, are you in favor of special taxes for tobacco companies?The theory that government should promote beneficial aspects of life is soundly socialist, and is often used by Republicans to tear down proposals by Democrats that have merit.
You should be all for this concept, so why the argument? Let's leave the partisianship out of it and try to focus on Gay Marriage.But then they want to turn around use that very principle to promote their value system.
No one is being alienated. sexuals have all the above rights.The government has an obligation to provide benfits to all of society through systems such as the public education system, the public health system, and other aspects of government that everyone takes advandtadge of. However, they are most definetly not allowed to take negative action torward alternate lifestyles which are not the mainstream in this country.
That's your opinion and it's in the minority. That's why there's a large push against judicial activism.Banning gay marrige while simultanously allowing and even promoting heterosexual marriage is absolutely not allowable and it is the very reason every court ruling on the subject has gone in favor of allowing sexual marriage!
It's a fight against judicial activism and for traditional family values. It's worth it!Now, I take great issue with what many of you say about gay marriage to begin with, but the fact is that banning it is on very flimsy legal ground to begin with. Not only that, but Prop 2 was redundant and will simply go down as a large boondoggle that does nothing but waste Texas money. The defense of marriage act is already on the books, and Prop 2 accomplishes absolutely nothing that wasn't already written law. In a time where Texas can't find money to fund schools properly I find it absolutely disgusting that we are throwing money away to do stupid in this manner. It's flat out revolting.
You should lead by example with your academic studies. People are all basically the same, I'm no better than anyone else and I'm not poor.
If I am wrong feel free to correct me.
Who determines that point? You, Me? No, the voters.
[/quote] The voters have power up to a certain point and that is what the propnents of these measurse don't seem to grasp. They can not vote to allow a law that violates the cons ution, which is the exact reason these measures keep getting shot down.
The primary backing for a ban on sexual marriage rights is a religous one. The inability to distinguish governmental marriage from marriage by a church is the reason these measures pass by the margins they do.What does this have to do with gay marriage? Also, I'm not making a religious argument.
It isn't a blanket statement. It is an observation to what Republicans are doing. And it is spot on.Using Blanket statements gets us nowhere and prevents people from having productive conversations.
Of course not. Taxes that seek to curb behavior are ridiculous.Vice Versa, are you in favor of special taxes for tobacco companies?
Do they have the rights that come along with governt acknowledged marriage? NoNo one is being alienated. sexuals have all the above rights.
It doesn't matter who is in the majority and who is in the minority when the law violates the cons ution. How is a judge doing exactly what they are supposed to do judicial activisim? They are there to interpret the law and to see if it fits and is admissible based upon higher laws of the land. When they do that and it somehow doesn't fit the voice of the people, it isn't judicial activism.That's your opinion and it's in the minority. That's why there's a large push against judicial activism.
It's a fight against judicial activism and for traditional family values. It's worth it!
People born into poverty are more likely to be poor throughout their lives than people born into wealth. Choice comes into it, but situation often influences choice.Poverty is a byproduct of those events otherwise you're suggesting people who are poor have no choice but to be poor. Not in this country.
There is no data suggesting that people raised in middle-to-upper class nontraditional homes are any less likely to succeed than those who are raised in upper-to-middle class traditional homes.
Double post
They don't violate the cons ution and only get shot down in very liberal insignificant courts.
Nope. Religious people support the ban, but again the measure also passed in Oregon.The primary backing for a ban on sexual marriage rights is a religous one.
Then I'll generalize that the Democratic party wants to turn us into a communist nation. It's stupid and it's a barrier to productive dialogue. It's what 99% of the other threads look like in this forum.It isn't a blanket statement. It is an observation to what Republicans are doing. And it is spot on.
we agree on something. The marriage act doesn't try to curb sexuality.Of course not. Taxes that seek to curb behavior are ridiculous.
[/quote]Do they have the rights that come along with government acknowledged marriage? No[/quote] Of course they do. The only question would be health care at work, but that's a private issue not a public one.
I fully support the consitution and would like a constructionist court to decide the matter.It doesn't matter who is in the majority and who is in the minority when the law violates the cons ution. How is a judge doing exactly what they are supposed to do judicial activisim? They are there to interpret the law and to see if it fits and is admissible based upon higher laws of the land. When they do that and it somehow doesn't fit the voice of the people, it isn't judicial activism.
I still think the term "judicial activism" is bogus code for "a court that ruled in a way that I didn't like," while "strict constructionist" is likewise code for "a court that ruled in a way that I like." But I digress.
Would it be your position that the guarantee of equal protection under the laws (14th Amendment, United States Cons ution) does not apply to sexuals and that government can create a fundamental right but deny it to someone just because he or she is a sexual?
It seems to me that if you say yes, you aren't "strictly construing" the Equal Protection Clause at all; instead, you're saying that it applies selectively and makes virtually no guarantee except to those who happen to be in the good graces of the political majority. That, it seems to me, is a textbook example of how "judicial activism" and "strict constructionism" are utterly useless terms.
So is divorce and it is legal.The act of sexuality is an abomination before God;
If you are so worried about a gay marriage then you have other personal problems. If a gay marriage influences you hetro marriage that much then perhaps you have issues in your own marriage and need to look in the mirror.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
The is a LEGAL issue, and people want to make it a religious issue. You can get maaired in front of a judge and religion has nothing to do with it.
I never implied that sexuality should be illegal... again, in the end people will follow their hearts.... Having said that, I would add that I don't believe all paths are righteous ones (and yes I'm en led to that belief).
Read my other posts; I'm fine with the issue and know where I stand. I was making the point that children would be more affected by this mainstream shift and would have difficulty understanding it. In a satirical way you could explain the typical "birds and the bees" concept at the appropriate age but then you would also have to explain the adendum clause that included why little Billy had two daddys and no mommy.
Yeah I know, I don't believe I directed an inflamatory statement to anyone here. Besides, that ideal is something I mentioned in an earlier post.
True, I'm not denying that either. The same freedoms that allow sexuals to pursue their lifestyle allow me to believe in my relationship with God; those are the sacred freedoms this country provides and yet people still have the audicity to mock "Christians". Some of us have actually thought about the issues at hand and don't ignorantly accept everything people tell us.
For example, I was laughing inside when Bill Maher (from his 'I'm Swiss' Standup gig) was poking fun of Bush because Bush had made a statement saying that the theories of Darwinistic Evolution and Divine Creation should both be taught in schools. Bill then proceded to make blanket statements that were way out of his league... passing them off as facts with the intent of making Bush look like an ignorant fool. Now, I don't honestly believe that Bush knows all of the particulars surrounding the theory of evolution (especially when you consider he was only a 'C' student throughout school). But if Bill Maher only knew what I do on the subject then he would realize how fundamentally flawed the theory of evolution was (I wouldn't necesarily push for him to accept divine creation as fact either but his malicious contempt towards Christians would be beyond evident at that point).
Last edited by hegamboa; 11-11-2005 at 01:04 AM.
I don't think anyone would question your belief or your right to believe that way. I think the question, though, is whether the principles of righteousness espoused in the Bible should be the guidelines by which the government in a religiously-pluralist society makes law. I think those are two entirely different questions and point to the difference between public law and private morality. At what point does it make sense for government to say that certain issues should be left to individual determinations, based on personal morals and faith?
^^ THere is no guidlines to be assesed. Secular society did not invent marriage. Religious society did. Ask any loony liberal professor, and he'll tell you that "marriage is a tool of religion used for sexual oppression".
Marriage i repeat marriage is a sacrament. A Holy sacrament, Just like Baptism.
Government shouldn't try to change the definition of marriage as well as baptism, the holy supper, the resurrection, etc.
It is not a union drafted by the enlightenment.
Secular govt and society chose to follow it's guidelines. Every thing from monogamy to it's egalitarian obligations, secularism has adopted.
Since we are a Judeo Christian value based country, Having a govt who chose to follow the secular path, try to change the meaning of a sacrament, is simply ludicrous.
That right there is the neverending dilemma that this nation always faces whenever a controversial topic arises. For me the answer is simple (I recently discovered my purpose in life after reading a "Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren - as silly as that may sound).
But to answer the question in short, Roe vs. Wade allows the states, in particular the people, to make the choice for themselves. Why wouldn't it apply to this issue? Having read some of Manny's posts he made some good points concerning the incongruences of the actual proposition. Nevertheless the people voted.
If marriage is a religious sacrament, then why do we need government to sanction it at all? I mean, we don't ask government to license baptisms or any other religious sacraments.
Aren't we confusing the religious notion of marriage (which a church can define however it wishes, regardless of the law) and the civil ins ution that government recognizes? And if those two things are distinct, why can't government define the civil ins ution however it wishes?
I don't think anyone is trying to change the religious sacrament of marriage; I think the point is that if government is going to offer benefits to those who are in that sort of relationship, should it deny the right to enter into that relationship to particular groups (who are doing completely legal things) simply because some find their relationships distasteful?
^^The reason that govt uses marriage to sanction is beyond the point. IF that's the case, just give the benefits to gay unions or what not. Dont change its meaning, or meddle with a term that is theological.
I would disagree about a vote being determinative here -- if the people voted overwhelmingly to deny specific rights to blacks or to women or to Muslims, would that be okay? I doubt you'd support that. If you wouldn't support that, I don't see how you can think that a vote (standing alone) should be enough to deny rights to sexuals.
I also don't think that Roe has much, if anything, to do with this issue. Roe, in a basic sense, deals with the structure of the Cons ution and the nature of Due Process, and not with how a particular law applies to particular groups of people. Roe doesn't say it's up to the states to decide on matters of privacy -- it says that the Cons ution structurally protects a woman's right to determine what she will do with her own body, at least until the time that the fetus she's carrying becomes viable. Cases dealing with the rights of particular groups to rely on Roe -- say, for example, married women (as in Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey) -- would be much closer to the issue at hand. Those are two very different things, in my opinion.
In this context, the legal equivalent of Roe is a decision assessing the nature and extent of a marriage right (off the top of my head, cases like Zablocki v. Redhail and Loving v. Virginia do so, IIRC). If marriage is a right protected by the Due Process Clause, then the question is whether that right can be limited to particular groups without violating the Equal Protection Clause.
That still, though, doesn't resolve the tension between personal morality and the extent to which government can or should attempt to legislate pursuant to principles of personal morality.
That's precisely the point, I think.
Assuming that you're not addressing this as some abstract issue, accepting that view would mean that you have no problem with government recognizing a union between two men or two women, just so long as government doesn't call it a "marriage."
But at that point, you're just talking semantics -- semantics that make a difference to you, but semantics nonetheless.
Again this is why I believe that people are too complicated to govern themselves... And in "my little bubble" I know that I'm accountable to a higher power. That is what governs the decisions I make on a daily basis, big decisions, small decisions... It doesnt matter, I'm accountable before God for all my actions even before I'm accountable before men (wow that is too many uses of the word before). Anyways I will always agree with the fact that judging ourselves is asking for trouble, simply because none of us are perfect, or just or without fault... so we'd all be inherently hypocritical.
Law and its diverse and many times dichotic interpretations compound the issue and make it all the more confusing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions