|
Bush's Reaction To Gay Marriage Ban's Defeat (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| prolikewhoa |
| 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.
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... |
i agree completely! the only opposition to gay marriage stems from two things: religion and homophobia.
pt. one: the united states were not meant to be a theocracy. even though we have "one nation, under god" in the pledge, and "in god we trust" on our currency, (two things i wish would change) separation of church and state has always been an american ideal. bringing in religious beliefs into a system of government where many different people of varying beliefs coexist is just wrong.
pt. two: being gay, or marrying someone of the same sex effects no one but the two people involved. the only homophobic argument i've ever heard for a gay marriage ban is "i don't want to see that ." remind me when it's appeasing to see ANY couple make out in public? it can be kinda trashy. not all gay people go around parading their sexuality, contrary to what some people may think. if two people love eachother, they should be together. gay marriage in NO WAY effects any one but the two being wed.
on a funnier note- i saw fahrenheit 9/11 a few weeks ago, and met a guy wearing a shirt that said "will someone please just blow bush so we can impeach him?"
made me rofl.
bush is a monkey. i hope he chokes on another TV dinner. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by prolikewhoa
i agree completely! the only opposition to gay marriage stems from two things: religion and homophobia.
pt. one: the united states were not meant to be a theocracy. even though we have "one nation, under god" in the pledge, and "in god we trust" on our currency, (two things i wish would change) separation of church and state has always been an american ideal. bringing in religious beliefs into a system of government where many different people of varying beliefs coexist is just wrong.
pt. two: being gay, or marrying someone of the same sex effects no one but the two people involved. the only homophobic argument i've ever heard for a gay marriage ban is "i don't want to see that ." remind me when it's appeasing to see ANY couple make out in public? it can be kinda trashy. not all gay people go around parading their sexuality, contrary to what some people may think. if two people love eachother, they should be together. gay marriage in NO WAY effects any one but the two being wed.
on a funnier note- i saw fahrenheit 9/11 a few weeks ago, and met a guy wearing a shirt that said "will someone please just blow bush so we can impeach him?"
made me rofl.
bush is a monkey. i hope he chokes on another TV dinner. |
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. |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
| 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. |
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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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. |
Whoops ... misread your arguemnt ;) |
|
|
| Rodrico |
| 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. |
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. |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
| 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. |
*claps* well said. |
|
|
| Rodrico |
| 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. |
Yeah the same sanctity that lets the Fox network marry midgets on TV for entertainment value. |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rodrico
Yeah the same sanctity that lets the Fox network marry midgets on TV for entertainment value. |
a la "who wants to marry my dad?" |
|
|
| Rodrico |
| The worst part about posting at nighttime, is the waiting for response in the morning from the opposition...damn political forum. |
|
|
| ::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. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
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: Itīs easy to become accustomed to discrimination if you donīt 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 |
|
|
|
| Shakka |
| 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. |
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! |
|
|
|
|
