TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush's Reaction To Gay Marriage Ban's Defeat
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider The solution is quite simple. Gays should not be allowed to marry, and the state should not recognize any marriages. Any other set of circumstances is simply hypocritical absurdity. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by prolikewhoa lol i love it when people use the argument of the "sanctity of marriage" so britney spears can get a marriage annulled in 55 hours, 50% of marriages in the U.S. can result in divorce, but the "blessed union" is only for straight people. hmmmmkay. explain that one to me, conservatives. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rainbow_marble this whole 'gay marriage' issue is utter non-sense. gays CAN get married! just not to each other. if they want to be together, it's called union. there should be NO issue, but for some reason you socialists insist they need their marriage. the majority of america sees it this way, yet the socialists dont. if it were up to me i'd ban marriage for people who support gay marriage to shut you idiots up. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Rodrico It's a good thing we live in a democracy to keep backwater yokels like you away from any real authoritive positions. Marriage is just a man-made word used for a ritual of permanent monogamy with a partner. Nothing more. It isn't a sacred gift of some God, or is it only defined by man or woman, these are only religious out-looks of what their marriages are defined by. If the gays wish to be married by the state, not the church, then let them. I haven't really kept myself up to date with American policies on this subject, as to what are the current laws are stating I mean, but this is my take on it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by prolikewhoa agreed. lol i love it when people use the argument of the "sanctity of marriage" so britney spears can get a marriage annulled in 55 hours, 50% of marriages in the U.S. can result in divorce, but the "blessed union" is only for straight people. hmmmmkay. explain that one to me, conservatives. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Rodrico Yeah the same sanctity that lets the Fox network marry midgets on TV for entertainment value. |
The worst part about posting at nighttime, is the waiting for response in the morning from the opposition...damn political forum.
ahh, one day it wont matter. gays will be getting married, kids will be legally smoking pot, and ultimatly the liberals will win out one day.
In an interesting sidenote, Yale Law School is suing Uncle Sam for discriminationatory practices on campus, and then pressuring to withhold federal funds from the school unless it discriminates based on sexual orientation:
| quote: |
| Yale Law Sues Uncle Sam The Department of Defense discriminates against gays, but has forced Yale Law to let them recruit on campus. Now faculty and students are fighting back. by Dan Levine - July 22, 2004 Law student Adam Sofen: It�s easy to become accustomed to discrimination if you don�t fight it. In the background is Rebecca Tinio. Hello, Yale Law School? This is the Department of Defense. You won't let our military recruiters interview your students, like law firms do during career recruitment events. Kindly let our people into your events, or we'll withhold $300 million in funding from the entire university. You say we discriminate against gays and lesbians? Doesn't matter. That exchange actually took place. Hello, Yale Political Science Department? This is the Department of Homeland Security. One of your professors held a lecture entitled "American Neo-Fascism and George W. Bush." Kindly fire him, or we'll withhold $300 million from the entire university. That exchange has never happened. But when it comes to free speech rights, many academics and students fear the second scenario could easily flow from the first. In their view, the government's strong-arming Yale Law School into abandoning its anti-discrimination policy sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of thought. To participate in events run by the school's Career Development Office -- like interview sessions -- law firms must certify that they do not discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation, among other characteristics. Since the military does dismiss people for being openly gay, Yale Law School had in recent years denied military recruiters from its official sessions. But two years ago, the school decided to allow recruiters into those events ... after the Department of Defense threatened to cut off all federal funding to the entire university -- not just the law school. In response to the government's actions, one group of law school professors and another group of students have each filed separate lawsuits against the Department of Defense. The cases are proceeding along parallel lines in court, with all sides waiting to see if Judge Janet Hall of the U.S. District Court in Bridgeport will throw them out, schedule a trial, or rule that the professors and students should prevail as a matter of law -- without a trial. The cases are important, law student Adam Sofen says, because if an exception is made for the military in this case, then more and more employers who discriminate may be allowed to recruit at Yale. "Over time, it would be seen as uneventful that some employers discriminate," Sofen says. "It is very easy to become accustomed to discrimination if you do nothing to fight it." In the mid-1990s, Congress passed what came to be known as the "Solomon Amendment." That law gave the government power to withhold federal funding from any university department that banned military recruiters from campus. But in 2000, the Defense Department decided that it would deny funds to the entire university if only one of its departments denied access to military recruiters, the students' legal complaint says. The DOD didn't decide to play hardball until December 2001, and faced with jeopardizing $300 million for the university, the law school eventually relented. Yale is not alone. Other law schools are challenging the DOD on its use of the Solomon Amendment, including the University of Pennsylvania. Yale's administration has been supportive of the legal actions challenging the government, Sofen says. A Department of Justice spokesman declined to comment on the case. But even though the immediate issue is discrimination, some see broad free speech rights at stake. The American Association of University Professors filed an amicus brief in the Yale cases, arguing that law school's anti-discrimination policy is an expression of pedagogy distinctly different from military policy. By threatening the law school to change its policy, the DOD is actually suppressing the school's First Amendment right to run itself differently than the military. "American universities would face grave consequences if the government were permitted to use its funding in the way it has here," the brief says. "In 2002, the federal government provided approximately $87 billion in funding to universities and colleges across the country. It is not difficult to imagine that members of the faculties at these institutions often take positions in conflict with official government policy. "Under the government's view of the First Amendment in this case," the brief continues, "it would be constitutionally permissible for the government to withdraw all federal funds to a university unless a particular faculty member or group of professors agreed to cease communicating a message that the government disliked. Such governmental power over university faculties would have far-reaching and devastating consequences for research and education." http://hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/N...t?oid=oid:74996 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: ahh, one day it wont matter. gays will be getting married, kids will be legally smoking pot, and ultimatly the liberals will win out one day. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka So these are the 2 most important issues to you? This is what it's about and these are the preferred outcomes? Stoned children and marriages incapable of reproduction? Sign me up! I want to be a winner too! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hey man, not so fast you darn wannabe. Every newcomer has to go through the same tree-huggin', acid-induced, anti-war protesting, Burkenstock-wearin' ritual, just so we can flush out those old, decrepid, Bible-carryin' conservative spies that try to infiltrate our hippie networks. So just hop in line like everyone else, mellow out, smoke a little doob, hug your fellow hippie next to ya, and we'll get to ya as soon as possible. You dig, man? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider The solution is quite simple. Gays should not be allowed to marry, and the state should not recognize any marriages. Any other set of circumstances is simply hypocritical absurdity. |
| quote: |
| Senate marriage ban amendment rejected - Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau Thursday, June 8, 2006 Washington -- The Senate easily defeated for the second time in two years a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, a measure that opponents dismissed as an attempt by Republicans to excite conservatives increasingly disenchanted with President Bush and the GOP-led Congress. Supporters countered that few issues are more urgent than protecting the bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman from a rewriting by the courts. Social conservatives expressed delight at Bush's ringing endorsement of the Marriage Protection Amendment on Monday despite his inattention to the issue since he last endorsed it prior to his re-election in 2004. URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...08/MARRIAGE.TMP |
Yeah, gay marriage ruined my marriage 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by prolikewhoa the only opposition to gay marriage stems from two things: religion and homophobia. |
Wow, I completely forgot about this issue ever since the 2004 elections. What a remarkable "coincidence" that it has suddenly resurfaced in the year of 2006 ... just in time for the congressional elections!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Marriage is defined as a "the legal union between a man and a women". Unless you have some activist judge who redefines the term 'marriage' (which you do) to mean something else than "man and women", gay marriage should technically be illegal. My stance on this issue has been well state in the past. I am against Gay-Marriage. I am not against Gay-Unions. And I, much like many Americans are not against Gay Marriage for religious regions. Its not a 'religious right' issue. 80-90% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage. So although you may disagree with Bush and Republicans on this issue. You must still admit to the validity of the claim - that activist judges have redefined the word marriage to allow for gays to do it. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.