Fantastic decision, good to see the radical religious right take a hit.

Hopefully they'll have enough sense to throw it out once again should it ever resurface.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

I love how the issue of gay marriage has made the Democrats supporters of states rights. This should mean that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and others will be supporting the states in their efforts to pass legislation on abortion.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

"We stand for institutions like marriage and family which are the foundations of our society," he said, drawing thunderous applause from the partisan crowd. "We stand for judges who strictly and faithfully interpret the law, instead of legislating from the bench."

Two words: Puh. Lease.

This vote was the American system at its best. Bush is trying to make it seem like Senate did something wrong when really what they did was simply how our system is supposed to work. Nevermind that people were calling votes political strategy, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. How can you say that its an error in the system?

And on a more general note, its one thing to have your own ideas and your own views/beliefs, but when you start saying that your way is the only way then the proverbial line has been crossed. Can I say that my left wing liberal ways are absolute truth and everyone should feel the same way I do? No. How can anyone say that? Who are we to judge what is truly right and wrong? I just dont undertand people sometimes...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok I love how the issue of gay marriage has made the Democrats supporters of states rights. This should mean that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and others will be supporting the states in their efforts to pass legislation on abortion.

My thoughts exactly actually. I also feel it's a blatant chickenshit-stance on the subject, not supporting gay marriage out right but rather twist the issue it a bit and argue such decicions should be made at state level. Feels like they are just avoiding making a direct official stance on the subject because they are afraid to loose votes.



damn those democrats and their chronic lack of spine

___________________
www.assortedtrance.com
www.facebook.com/assortedtrance
http://www.soundcloud.com/johannilsson
http://www.di.fm

quote:

Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie "We stand for institutions like marriage and family which are the foundations of our society," he said, drawing thunderous applause from the partisan crowd. "We stand for judges who strictly and faithfully interpret the law, instead of legislating from the bench." Two words: Puh. Lease.

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.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Marriage is defined as a "the legal union between a man and a women".

Merriam-Webster says:

quote:

Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union

Where did you get your definition from? A religious fundamentalist?

I really have a hard time seeing how it is possible to reach the logical conclusion that gays should not be allowed to marry, unless you take as an axiom that gays are worth less than heterosexuals, or at least that they are worthy of less.

I do agree that if the entire "debate" revolves around a merely linguistic preference for one word ("marriage") over another ("union"), then there's no reason to put much effort into the cause. But if there is some - just a little - legal difference between the two concepts, then gays should be allowed to marry IMO, and I fully sympathize with their cause.

Edit: Forgot to state that Bush is a jerk, and any defeat of his is a good defeat

Pushing my own personal feelings on the specifics aside for the moment, I simply can't believe this was ever a meaningful national issue.

Imukruok brought up the point about Dems. pushing states rights. I hope he doesn't find it too surprising that many Dems. do believe in states rights on a number of issues, esp. when it comes to social issues.

On the flip-side, I cannot possibly understand how conservatives, whom are ardent supporters of states rights, find that this issue should not be a state rights issue? Why the separation here, and what is their rationale? It's seemingly okay to ease federal restrictions on every aspect of private businesses. It's seemingly okay to allow states define the majority of laws.

But now it's seemingly WRONG for states to define what constitutes a personal issue like marriage?

Why feel so threatened?

I would personally find the arguments of "threatening the family" too damn hilarious if they weren't so sad. It's unfortunate that my Senator Brownback feels his religious beliefs are justified in his bigotry for co-sponsoring this ridiculous and bogus Amendment. His arguments are logically invalid and erroneous, and it saddens me to see that the only thing conservatives (and granted some democrats) fall back on is religious beliefs to justify their stance.

And I fail to fall for the "most Americans don't support gay marriage" argument. I find Yoepus' %s suspect, and the % range differs depending on which poll you read, but granted they all do tend to show the majority feel it should be banned.

This, however, falls into the logical fallacy of argument from majority (or population). History provides us with a number of mistakes from the majority voice, including slavery, interracial marriage, and hey even Creationism.

As we have clearly seen, the history shows that the majority is not always right. And BTW, those same polls show that the younger generations feel gays should be allowed those marriage rights, so I guess Conservatives will have to contend with the "majority" issue sooner or later.

But as I said, it's sad that this became such an issue. Don't we have much bigger fish to fry?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Where did you get your definition from? A religious fundamentalist? I really have a hard time seeing how it is possible to reach the logical conclusion that gays should not be allowed to marry, unless you take as an axiom that gays are worth less than heterosexuals, or at least that they are worthy of less. I do agree that if the entire "debate" revolves around a merely linguistic preference for one word ("marriage") over another ("union"), then there's no reason to put much effort into the cause. But if there is some - just a little - legal difference between the two concepts, then gays should be allowed to marry IMO, and I fully sympathize with their cause. Edit: Forgot to state that Bush is a jerk, and any defeat of his is a good defeat

Thank you, I completely agree and thats what Im saying.

If you want to make this into a debate about words then fine. Call it a union. What we who support "Gay marriage/union" really want are the same rights for homosexual men and women that heterosexual men and women have the privelage of. Who are you to say that someone should not be entitled to everything that comes along with a marriage simply because of their sexuality, WHICH, by the way, you cant even prove is a choice? Even if it IS a choice, THIS IS AMERICA. Remember freedom? If you sit there and say homosexuals should not be able to marry/unionize/whatever then youre saying you dont think they should have the same freedoms as everyone else.

___________________

oh yeah... bush has a stellar record for protecting state's rights

As Republicans gain power, enthusiasm for states' rights wanes

quote:

WASHINGTON -- Traditionally the champions of small government and states’ rights, President Bush and his allies in Congress have aggressively pursued policies that expand the powers of Washington in the schoolroom, the courthouse, the home and the doctor’s office. Sometimes over the objections of states -- and often at the behest of business -- Republicans have passed or are promoting legislation and regulations that make Washington the final arbiter on environmental standards, class-action lawsuits, medical malpractice cases and Internet taxes. The extent to which this administration has subordinated states’ rights in carrying out its political agenda is “somewhat breathtaking,” said Michael Greve, who heads the Federalism Project at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Federal power has always been associated with Democrats, creators of the New Deal and supporters of the 1937 Supreme Court decision that gave Congress, with its authority to regulate interstate commerce, wide berth in entering areas that normally are the prerogative of states When Newt Gingrich led Republicans to a majority in the House in 1995, he stressed that “we are committed to getting power back to the states, we are committed to breaking out of the logjam of federal bureaucrats controlling how we try to help the poor. But Gingrich’s commitments often came with a catch requiring states to fall in line with federal policy: Some of the money available under the massive 1996 welfare law, for instance, was tied to states starting abstinence-only education programs, and states seeking money for new prisons under a big crime bill had to show that criminals were serving 85 percent of their sentences. George W. Bush, the former governor of Texas, ran as a strong states’ rights advocate until the Florida election dispute, when it was Al Gore arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court that the Florida state supreme court should have the final say on a recount. Bush insisted that the highest federal court step in. Bush has since significantly increased the federal government’s reach with two of his biggest legislative achievements. The “No Child Left Behind” education act inserts federal testing requirements and progress reports in an area that has always been under state and local control. The “Patriot Act,” a result of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, has given federal law enforcement greater authority to supersede states where necessary in investigations and prosecutions of criminal activity. The education act, said Greve, was “really a big, big marker in many ways, and a big, big turnaround.” Republicans have recognized the dilemma of being both proactive legislators and pro-states’ righters. “I am essentially a states’ rights person... I believe the federal government often usurps a lot of states’ rights,” Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said this year in attempting to explain why his proposal to limit federal highway money to states that provide illegal aliens with drivers’ licenses is a federal rather than a state issue. David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, which advocates limited government and individual liberties, said there are inevitable tensions when conservatives try to use federal power to override the actions of more liberal state governments. But he said there’s also been a ’hubristic” streak in the Bush administration, “an attitude that we know what the policy should be, for instance, for accountability in schools.” Backed by the business community and after failing in 2003, Republicans in Congress this year will again be pushing bills to move class-action lawsuits from state to federal courts, where damage awards to plaintiffs are less generous, and put federal ceilings on what state juries can award in medical malpractice cases. GOP lawmakers, with support from some Democrats, also are trying, over the objection of some states, to impose a permanent moratorium on Internet access taxes after succeeding at supplanting some tougher state laws with anti-spam legislation last year. In addition, Republicans are trying to give the Securities and Exchange Commission and federal banking regulators ultimate authority over banking fraud and investor rights, angering state officials who say it will undercut their anti-fraud campaigns. The National Association of Attorneys General, in a letter to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said the OCC’s proposed rule that might exempt national banks from state consumer protection laws was “a radical restructuring of federal-state relationships in the area of banking.” Bush also signed a bill that, while increasing protections for people’s financial information, was criticized by consumer groups for pre-empting tougher state privacy laws. Congress has used federal controls over highway money to compel states to adopt a national standard for drunken driving. The interstate commerce clause also was the basis of a new law restricting private ownership of lions and tigers. Fourteen states have filed suit to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing new rules allowing coal-burning electric plants to make upgrades without installing more pollution controls. Republicans also have extended the federal reach in areas important to social conservatives: Bush in 2001 restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and this year signed a bill that for the first time makes it a federal crime to perform a certain type of abortion. Federal officials are also taking legal action against medical marijuana laws in California and Oregon’s assisted suicide law. Cato’s Boaz said the next big fight will be over GOP attempts to stop state moves to sanction gay marriages. “Some conservatives are saying we need one national policy, but that would be an unprecedented federal intrusion into marriage law that has always been controlled by the states,” he said.

I'm all for gay marriage, only their hot lesbos!

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Merriam-Webster says: Where did you get your definition from? A religious fundamentalist?

Yea exactly

Open up any pre-90's dictionary and read the definition of the word marriage.

Then consider the following argument:

Since almost all marriage laws were written prior to the 90s, the definition of the term marriage is what it was when the laws were written. Not what it has been politically correctedly adapted to mean today.

Unless you disagree that we should try and interpurt the laws in the initial spirit they were written, you would agree that from a legal stand point gay marriage is illegal.

quote:

I really have a hard time seeing how it is possible to reach the logical conclusion that gays should not be allowed to marry, unless you take as an axiom that gays are worth less than heterosexuals, or at least that they are worthy of less.

Why worth less? Gays are different. They've told us this, and I accept that - I have no issue with it. But being different fundamentally means we can not be equal. Gays from their fundamental nature can not marry - by the traditional definition marriage is between a man and a women. That's ok. Because I can not marry myself either (which I'd love to do!) nor can a man chose to have a child. Our differing sexualities place physicial limitations on us which have often been extended to become legalistic limitations.

quote:

I do agree that if the entire "debate" revolves around a merely linguistic preference for one word ("marriage") over another ("union"), then there's no reason to put much effort into the cause. But if there is some - just a little - legal difference between the two concepts, then gays should be allowed to marry IMO, and I fully sympathize with their cause.

Perhaps for me it is a linguistic concern as you say. I do not think there is any more benfit to a marriage than a union aside from religious conotations. I am not against gay couples, or gays making a commitment to living as a couple and enjoying any advantages or disadvatnages of being a couple. If marriage gives any benifits over a union I would believe it would dervive from the fundamental purpose of marriage - a stable structure for raising children - and would apply mainly with child benifits.

If it is beyond that realm, I will agree with you and say that all benifits enjoyed by marriage should be shared by a union as well (aside from any child benifits stated earlier).

My biggest opposition to terming it gay 'marriage' is the historical significance of the term. Throughout all our history - with many a homoerotic tales and society - gays don't marry one another, I'd just hate to break a trend for no reason.

Gays should try and respect hetrosexual norms, such as marriage, just as hetrosexuals have come to respect homosexuals.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.