HAHAHAHAHAHA - Bush won't push for gay marriage ban in Senate

David85

David85

Banned
Bush won't push for gay marriage ban in Senate

Sun Jan 16, 1:44 PM ET Politics - AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush (news - web sites) will not actively seek to ban gay marriage in the United States during his second term in office -- a stance certain to anger the social conservatives who helped re-elect him.

In an interview, The Washington Post daily asked Bush if he would aggressively lobby senators during his second term in office to pass an amendment outlawing marriage in all 50 states.

"I do believe it's necessary," Bush said. But he went on to imply that pursuing it in the US Senate, which must approve a constitutional amendment by 67 of its 100 votes, would be futile.

Many Senators think the Defense of Marriage Act, an existing law that allows states not to recognize gay marriages enacted in other states, is sufficient, according to Bush.

"The point is, is that Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take that admonition seriously," Bush told the Post.

Bush voiced active support for a gay marriage ban during the 2004 presidential campaign, whipping up support from social conservatives including Evangelical Christians who turned out in droves to re-elect him.

Immediately after his election victory his top political strategist said the president would "absolutely" continue his fight on the politically and socially divisive issue.

"Without the protection of that amendment, we are at the mercy of activist federal judges or activist state judges who could, without the involvement of the people, determine ... that marriage no longer consists of a union between a man and a woman," Karl Rove told Fox News.

One of the president's top advisers, White House counsellor Dan Bartlett, told US television Sunday that the president remained committed to seeking a change in the US Constitution enshrining marriage as existing solely between a man and a woman.

But Bartlett said Bush was realistic about the chances for success of accompanying legislation in the US Congress, where minority Democrats retain a significant number of seats.

"It requires 67 votes in the United States Senate for a constitutional amendment to move forward. That's a very high bar," Bartlett told CNN television.

"This does not change President Bush (news - web sites)'s view about amendment, the need for an amendment. And he'll continue to push for an amendment. But what he was speaking to was the legislative realities in the United States Senate in getting those 67 votes," Bartlett said.

"He'll continue to work to convince people and convince members of Congress that it is necessary now. He will spend political capital to do so. It is an important part of what the president believes," he added.

"He believes the institution of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman is important for our civil society," Bartlett said.
Click to expand...

I'm laughing at the fact that Bush won on this issue and is now telling the people to screw off, what an asshole politition. Just another one to add to the countless lists that doesn't follow through on what he says.

Of course the Senate won't bring this up this year, it's not an election year, so wait until next year.

Bush probably realizes he has a better chance of filling the Supreme Court with judges that already think that it's in the Constitution.
 
I agree about it being a typical politician move by not going through with what you campaigned on. That having been said, considering his stance on gay marriage was one of my major reasons to not want him reelected, I'm kinda glad it ended up this way.
 
The statement came out that as long as the DOMA was held up as Constitutional he would not push for an ammendment.

That's really not a flip flop, the issue is still the same today as if it were an ammendment. You know though that some judge somewhere is going to make this legal and then it will be a Consititutional issue. If you think that 34of Senators can vote against this ban and then win re-election you're mad.

11 states voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage in November, it's a loser issue politically and publicly. Laugh all you want but this issue is dead in the water, no politician of national stature will come out in favor of it and hope to survive.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The statement came out that as long as the DOMA was held up as Constitutional he would not push for an ammendment.

That's really not a flip flop, the issue is still the same today as if it were an ammendment. You know though that some judge somewhere is going to make this legal and then it will be a Consititutional issue. If you think that 34of Senators can vote against this ban and then win re-election you're mad.

11 states voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage in November, it's a loser issue politically and publicly. Laugh all you want but this issue is dead in the water, no politician of national stature will come out in favor of it and hope to survive.[/quote]

You know, your looking kinda cute right now PAD. Wanna get hitched?
 
Bush in his first term said that we needed the ammendment because DOMA wouldn't hold up in the courts, and it won't.

The difference now is that he will most likely appoint 3 Supreme Court Judges that are part of the Radical Right to do what Bush wants for the next 40 years.

Bush did go back on his word, but the Senate next year will still vote on it because they know it's a great champain move. Gays are treated like dirt all in the name of politics, got to love the land of the free.
 
If DOMA is struck down then he will go for an Ammendment. I don't see anything hypocrical about that. It's a wait and see attitude that's political.

How do you define radical right? Someone that believes that the Constitution should be interpreted literally? Gays aren't treated like dirt. There are nearly 70% of the F500 companies that have same sex benefits, just about every major university does, as do numerous government bodies. How is that being treated like dirt?

Are you forced to sit in the gay section on busses, theaters, restaurants? Are there gay water fountains? Gays aren't segregated, they carry far more weight than their actual numbers represent. How else can you explain that Senators don't want to offend 5% of the American population.

Oh, and of that 5% you're looking at a significant split of gays that don't care if they have the right to marry versus those that do. So we need to re-define our society, tax laws, marriage laws, inherritence laws and estate laws to accomodate 2-3% of the pouplation that wants everything overhauled?

We've had this argument countless times, you and I, and you're not a persecuted minority. Gay is defined by behavior. You're not born into it because of who your parents are, where you were born or how you were raised in a community.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] Gay is defined by behavior. [/quote]

this is asinine. If true, there would be a lot of "gay" straight people.

Because YOU define it as such, doesn't make it so, skippy.
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] Gay is defined by behavior. [/quote]

this is asinine. If true, there would be a lot of "gay" straight people.

Because YOU define it as such, doesn't make it so, skippy.[/quote]

Well now let's not jump to hasty conclusions. I mean PAD did just tell me to drop my pants...
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']That's not asinine. How do you define gay other than someone who engages in sex with a member of the same gender?[/quote]

Well sex is a part but just a part. Like hetreosexuals. But for some reason some small minded only see the sex (and I say that as a former small minded person who saw it that way). They don't see the love/ friendship/ bonds that gay folks have for each other. I define gays as people who fall in love with an member of the same sex (and all of the "stuff" that goes along with it.) It is pretty simple. Some are only about the sex (like us straight people) but most of them are in it for falling in love.

but even if it was just sex, your point is still ridiculous. Because it would also mean that you aren't straight until you have sex with someone of the opposite sex. Surprise, you can be gay without having sex.
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']That's not asinine. How do you define gay other than someone who engages in sex with a member of the same gender?[/quote]

Well sex is a part but just a part. Like hetreosexuals. But for some reason some small minded only see the sex. They don't see the love/ friendship/ bonds that gay folks have for each other. I define gays as people who fall in love with an member of the same sex (and all of the "stuff" that goes along with it.) It is pretty simple. Some are only about the sex (like us straight people) but most of them are in it for falling in love.

but even if it was just sex, your point is still ridiculous. Because it would also mean that you aren't straight until you have sex with someone of the opposite sex. Surprise, you can be gay without having sex.[/quote]

No, gay people can't love each other cause that will jeopardize heterosexual love.
 
I enjoyed Weekend Update this week on SNL. It was a bit about the Pope and gay marriage:

"This week gay marriage was denounced by an older, single man wearing a cape."
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I enjoyed Weekend Update this week on SNL. It was a bit about the Pope and gay marriage:

"This week gay marriage was denounced by an older, single man wearing a cape."[/quote]

LOL

I'm not even going to agrue about if it should be made legal or what not, its just that Bush said before that he would pass this to stop gay marriage. Now they are saying that he will wait until DOMA is dead, if he really cared about the issue he would do this right away.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']That's not asinine. How do you define gay other than someone who engages in sex with a member of the same gender?[/quote]

Jesus Pad, everyone knows that Gay=Happy, jeesh!
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='MrBadExample']I enjoyed Weekend Update this week on SNL. It was a bit about the Pope and gay marriage:

"This week gay marriage was denounced by an older, single man wearing a cape."[/quote]

LOL

I'm not even going to agrue about if it should be made legal or what not, its just that Bush said before that he would pass this to stop gay marriage. Now they are saying that he will wait until DOMA is dead, if he really cared about the issue he would do this right away.[/quote]

And if he really cared about freedom, and the right to one's own pursuit of happiness as he stated in the debates, he would see that marriage is a religious institution and government has no business defining it in legal terms other than the the issue pertaining to property rights. Freedom of association, I believe, is covered in the constitution and for the government to supress the right of indivduals in this way is contrary to our god given, constitutionally protected rights. Let god do the hating, not the government.
 
i wish the government would ban marrige between a man and a woman, and make people marry people of the same sex if they want tax benefits. (whe you think about it, it would benefit the gov since fewer people would be getting the tax breaks)

if they are gunna fuck around with peoples sex lives, at least make it intresting.
 
[quote name='punqsux']i wish the government would ban marrige between a man and a woman, and make people marry people of the same sex if they want tax benefits.[/quote]



HAHAHAHA

Love that idea. :)

My favorite is the the federal buget something a few months ago came out and said that if gay marriage was legal in evey state that the governemnt would make a billion dollars a year because of the HUGE gay marriages that would happen. :)
 
Hell, if you want to argue the merits of gay marriage on the economic activity that would occur in the first year with couples getting married I'm right there with you. The economic windfall to numerous sectors of the economy and the taxes that result in such activity would be enormous.

Again, right on. If I were a true libertarian and believed in unbridled capitalism that reason alone would get me behind it immediately.

I will never deny the economic impact gay couples have. My brother lives in a nice loft/condo in Chicago and most of his neighbors are gay couples. They have better than average spending power, aren't bad neighbors and he doesn't have to worry about his wife staring at guys in the building. They're also just about all professionals.

On that basis, again, I have no problem with gay people per se. It's just that I choose to be for completely transparent and equal civil unions as opposed to calling it marriage.
 
[quote name='punqsux']i wish the government would ban marrige between a man and a woman, and make people marry people of the same sex if they want tax benefits. (whe you think about it, it would benefit the gov since fewer people would be getting the tax breaks)

if they are gunna shaq-fu around with peoples sex lives, at least make it intresting.[/quote]

nope, it wouldn't work becuase fewer of them would be pro-creating, thereby producing less future taxpayers.

I will never deny the economic impact gay couples have. My brother lives in a nice loft/condo in Chicago and most of his neighbors are gay couples. They have better than average spending power, aren't bad neighbors and he doesn't have to worry about his wife staring at guys in the building. They're also just about all professionals.
Click to expand...

PAD's right, and they redecorate every 6 months - just think of the econimic windfall !
Actually, I hope this isn't gayist or homosexualist, but I have found that gay couples maintain their properties much better on average than straight couples, not to mention the quality of furnishings they purchase. We should be promoting gay marriage, just think of how much they'd start spending on weddings, dresses, banquet halls, catering- the service industry would burst ! ().
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
We should be promoting gay marriage, just think of how much they'd start spending on weddings, dresses, banquet halls, catering- the service industry would burst ! ().[/quote]

As Jack from will and Grace said it...

"Twenty thousand dollars if we get married! My dress will at least cost fifteen thousand!"

:)
 
Yes but PAD the problem with "civil unions" is the fact they will never be completely equal. I don't really car what's it is called as long as I get equal rights, the problem is in this country it has to be called "marriage" to get all the rights.

In several European countries they have "civil unions" but they are the same thing as marriage. One country, I forgot which, calls it "gay marriage", not marriage. It's really dumb but it's the same thing.

Another problem with having civil unions instead of marriages, even if gay coubles get the same rights is that in the USA seperate but equal is not legal.
 
lol. You guys are morons llook if he did ban gay mariage you would bash him and when he isnt then you bash him again see you guys are just stupid liberals. Also I don't think gay marriage is on top of the presidents agenda, things like social security, the war in Iraq, and domestic isues are.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='punqsux']i wish the government would ban marrige between a man and a woman, and make people marry people of the same sex if they want tax benefits. (whe you think about it, it would benefit the gov since fewer people would be getting the tax breaks)

if they are gunna shaq-fu around with peoples sex lives, at least make it intresting.[/quote]

nope, it wouldn't work becuase fewer of them would be pro-creating, thereby producing less future taxpayers.

I will never deny the economic impact gay couples have. My brother lives in a nice loft/condo in Chicago and most of his neighbors are gay couples. They have better than average spending power, aren't bad neighbors and he doesn't have to worry about his wife staring at guys in the building. They're also just about all professionals.
Click to expand...

PAD's right, and they redecorate every 6 months - just think of the econimic windfall !
Actually, I hope this isn't gayist or homosexualist, but I have found that gay couples maintain their properties much better on average than straight couples, not to mention the quality of furnishings they purchase. We should be promoting gay marriage, just think of how much they'd start spending on weddings, dresses, banquet halls, catering- the service industry would burst ! ().[/quote]

Wow, way to pick up on the stereotype pushed by Hollywood that most gay men are flamboyant Homosexuals who are obssessed with decorating.
Sorry I just find it retarded 99.9% of the time Hollywood perpetuates the gay man as being flamboyant.
Anyway, on the subject of marriage, Stossel had it right. Just change "Marriage" to "Civil Unions" in terms of the government and leave "Marriage" up to the Church and I usually don't agree with Stossel at ALL.
PAD being gay is not simply a behavior. Gay people are born that way for the most part in truth. If truth be told in some ways being gay is worse than being Black or anything else because you're always a deviant, something will always make you fundamentally different than your common man or woman and for gay men or certain one's rather their gender is even questioned.
 
[quote name='MrFriday18']lol. You guys are morons llook if he did ban gay mariage you would bash him and when he isnt then you bash him again see you guys are just stupid liberals. Also I don't think gay marriage is on top of the presidents agenda, things like social security, the war in Iraq, and domestic isues are.[/quote]

It is on the top of his list, it's what he ran on. He ran on "Gay are going to kill you" and "Iraqis are going to kill you". If you had any god damn clue what you are talking about you would know that.

And if he did ban it yes I would be bashing him, but I'm bashing him now because it's going to get passed anyways, and Bush went against his word.
 
lol, you don't know what you are talking about david your a fucking idiot. Bush never said "Gays are going to kill you" also either of the candidates were pro gay marriage and the President rarely even brought up the subject. David I think your so touchy because your a faget.
 
[quote name='MrFriday18']lol, you don't know what you are talking about david your a shaq-fuing idiot. Bush never said "Gays are going to kill you" also either of the candidates were pro gay marriage and the President rarely even brought up the subject. David I think your so touchy because your a faget.[/quote]

That was mature, and intelligent. :roll:
No, Bush didn't say that gays would kill you, but that doesn't mean you have to be vulgar. Would you mind calming down so that you don't give the image of all conservatives being stupid?


Anyway, I'm a G. W. Bush supporter and I voted for him (in case you didn't know already). But I was against the amendment, not because I think that gays should have marriage - because I don't, but because it's a state's rights issue. It would never stand. The Supreme Court would have a case before it in two seconds and the amendment would be gone. I think that's why he isn't going after it. He let the people know that he is for it in principle, but it's just a stupid idea. Why waste the taxpayers' money even more than the government does already, you know?

Don't get me wrong about me not wanting gay marriage to be legal/institutionalized though. I have friends and even relatives who are gay. And I have had very open conversations about politics and such with just about all of them. And neither of us hold back our feelings because we know that even though our views may be different, we still care about each other. I just don't believe it is the right way to go. But the people of individual states should decide that. We need to bring the power of the Federal Government down a bit as it is. Why give them more powers that are reserved for the states?

P.S. Those of you who said that marriage is a religious issue, not governmental, just to clear things up. Any ecclestiastical authority has to have authority from the state in order to perfrom marriages. And religion itself is a state matter. The Framers did not want a State (National) Religion. So the Constitution afforded that authority to the individual states. There were some states that even affected a State Religion. And a few of them lasted for quite a long time before they decided to stop the practice individually.

P.P.S. Oh and I don't think that being gay is merely an act, Pittsburgh. It is a preference. And while I personally don't believe that one is born with that preference, I do know that it is something that a lot of people have a hard time dealing with. Sure, some people may wake up and say, "I'm going to be gay!" But I don't think that is the majority. I think that most people have events and decisions in their life that leads them in that direction (and usually at a young age). Whatever the case may be (born or learned), I don't think anyone should be so quick to judge.

David and RVB, feel free to comment on what I have said. I like to understand other viewpoints as much as possible.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']Anyway, I'm a G. W. Bush supporter and I voted for him (in case you didn't know already). But I was against the amendment, not because I think that gays should have marriage - because I don't, but because it's a state's rights issue. It would never stand. The Supreme Court would have a case before it in two seconds and the amendment would be gone.[/quote]
Actually, they couldn't overturn it. The Supreme Court's power is to decide if laws are constitutional or not. If its in the Constitution (which an amendment is) it is, by definition, constitutional, and the Supreme Court can't touch it. This is the entire reason that the extreme right wants a constitutional amendment - they know that any lesser laws (including state laws) are ultimately going to be found to be unconstitutional because they're discriminatory. By writing the discrimination directly into the Constitution, they can guarantee it'll be a good long time before it can be overturned, since it would require another amendment to happen.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='MorPhiend']Anyway, I'm a G. W. Bush supporter and I voted for him (in case you didn't know already). But I was against the amendment, not because I think that gays should have marriage - because I don't, but because it's a state's rights issue. It would never stand. The Supreme Court would have a case before it in two seconds and the amendment would be gone.[/quote]
Actually, they couldn't overturn it. The Supreme Court's power is to decide if laws are constitutional or not. If its in the Constitution (which an amendment is) it is, by definition, constitutional, and the Supreme Court can't touch it. This is the entire reason that the extreme right wants a constitutional amendment - they know that any lesser laws (including state laws) are ultimately going to be found to be unconstitutional because they're discriminatory. By writing the discrimination directly into the Constitution, they can guarantee it'll be a good long time before it can be overturned, since it would require another amendment to happen.[/quote]

Good point. It would likely get repealed some time in the future though... Also, I find it funny how all Constitutional amendments give people rights and this ill-conceived proposed new amendment would take rights away... Honestly I don't see why the government or anyone else cares if gay people can marry. It wouldn't be hurting anyone - in fact it would help thousands of people in this country without really affecting anyone in a negative way. People need to mind their own business.
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='Drocket'][quote name='MorPhiend']Anyway, I'm a G. W. Bush supporter and I voted for him (in case you didn't know already). But I was against the amendment, not because I think that gays should have marriage - because I don't, but because it's a state's rights issue. It would never stand. The Supreme Court would have a case before it in two seconds and the amendment would be gone.[/quote]
Actually, they couldn't overturn it. The Supreme Court's power is to decide if laws are constitutional or not. If its in the Constitution (which an amendment is) it is, by definition, constitutional, and the Supreme Court can't touch it. This is the entire reason that the extreme right wants a constitutional amendment - they know that any lesser laws (including state laws) are ultimately going to be found to be unconstitutional because they're discriminatory. By writing the discrimination directly into the Constitution, they can guarantee it'll be a good long time before it can be overturned, since it would require another amendment to happen.[/quote]

Good point. It would likely get repealed some time in the future though... Also, I find it funny how all Constitutional amendments give people rights and this ill-conceived proposed new amendment would take rights away... Honestly I don't see why the government or anyone else cares if gay people can marry. It wouldn't be hurting anyone - in fact it would help thousands of people in this country without really affecting anyone in a negative way. People need to mind their own business.[/quote]

Actually, the Supreme Court could do something. If an amendment is made that conflicts with another part of the Constitution, they certainly will do something, too. And such an amendment would interfere with reserved powers. It's not what is the exact words of such an amendment that is unconstitutional, but rather, the fact that it has to do with something concerning states rights. But I guess you may be right, who knows.

And javeryh, I think that it has something to do with the rights of those who value the institution of marriage. Kind of like how some states have made it illegal to smoke in public areas, not because they are taking the rights of smokers away, but rather, the smokers for decades have impeded the rights of others who don't want second-hand smoke, yet have to go to work and be about their everyday lives. I think this is the same. A shallow look only sees those who appear to be being oppressed, but the real thing is about what has been reguarded as a holy institution for thousands of years. Note that many are not against gay rights, just gays being endowed with the title of marriage.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']And javeryh, I think that it has something to do with the rights of those who value the institution of marriage. Kind of like how some states have made it illegal to smoke in public areas, not because they are taking the rights of smokers away, but rather, the smokers for decades have impeded the rights of others who don't want second-hand smoke, yet have to go to work and be about their everyday lives. I think this is the same. A shallow look only sees those who appear to be being oppressed, but the real thing is about what has been reguarded as a holy institution for thousands of years. Note that many are not against gay rights, just gays being endowed with the title of marriage.[/quote]

yeah but I don't want to inhale second hand smoke. It physically bothers me. Whether gays can marry or not has no effect on me (or anyone else) whatsoever. It doesn't make ANY sense not to allow gay marriage. I have yet to hear one compelling arguement against it... and by compelling I mean something other than "it's been this way forever" or "I'm morally against it" or "it's unnatural" blah blah blah. I'm talking about a real, tangible reason not to allow it. Is there one? 50% of marriages end in divorce anyway - yeah, marriage is sacred :roll:
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']A shallow look only sees those who appear to be being oppressed, but the real thing is about what has been reguarded as a holy institution for thousands of years. Note that many are not against gay rights, just gays being endowed with the title of marriage.[/quote]

Believing that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe was also a holy institution for years. Also, so was predjudice against jews...
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']A shallow look only sees those who appear to be being oppressed, but the real thing is about what has been reguarded as a holy institution for thousands of years. Note that many are not against gay rights, just gays being endowed with the title of marriage.[/quote]

What other side am I missing? If I walk down the street smoking a cigarette, you're inhaling it whether you want to or not. No one is affected if two guys or women marry. They are allowed to be gay/lesbian anyway, giving them a title does not affect you in any way unless you know about it. Either way you're still going to see them, they'll still be holding hands, kissing etc., even possibly in public. Even then, it's only effect is moral outrage, nothing is actually being done to you. You can still get married, get divorced, and do whatever else you do. Nothing changes as far as you're concerned. Also, as far as holy institution go, that should have no effect on government policies. Its religious status should not even enter into the conversation.
 
[quote name='punqsux']i wish the government would ban marrige between a man and a woman, and make people marry people of the same sex if they want tax benefits. (whe you think about it, it would benefit the gov since fewer people would be getting the tax breaks)

if they are gunna shaq-fu around with peoples sex lives, at least make it intresting.[/quote]

haha interesting point punq
 
Camoor, your comparison doesn't stand. You are talking of a political position held by tyrannical leaders of a government weilding religion. Marriage is something that is based on religion and religions are centered around it as well. And as for the jews, prejudice has come via the "christians" and muslims. The muslims, because they have disputed the land of their forefathers for centuries (and it goes both ways here). So called "Christians" because they understand not their own "faith." Christ was a Jew. He asked his Father for the tresspassers to be forgiven. Never did his teachings teach people to hate anyone. In fact, he said:

"43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
"44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matt 5:43-44)

Those are not fundamentals of Christianity, just mere hypocrisy.

Also, I think that a lot of you are missing my point. The Federal Government has nothing to do with this issue. But States are reserved the power to regulate religion, whether you want to believe it or not. And this is an issue that should be decided from state to state. And affecting what the government defines as a definition of marriage does affect me. Marriage is a religious matter and making it other than what God made it does affect me. What doesn't affect me is what people do in private. But changing the institution is attempting to change my beliefs.


EDIT: I have to go to class, I'll reply to your replies later tonight.
 
And this is an issue that should be decided from state to state. And affecting what the government defines as a definition of marriage does affect me. Marriage is a religious matter and making it other than what God made it does affect me. What doesn't affect me is what people do in private. But changing the institution is attempting to change my beliefs.
Click to expand...

If the government regulates something then your religious beliefs should have no say in the matter. Churches are not being forced to obey. Your beliefs are infringing on my beliefs in this, I am not a part of your church yet I am being forced to follow certain laws simply because YOUR religion forbids it, and has influenced OUR government to do the same.

And as for the jews, prejudice has come via the "christians" and muslims. The muslims, because they have disputed the land of their forefathers for centuries (and it goes both ways here). So called "Christians" because they understand not their own "faith."
Click to expand...

Not to get off topic, but I love how any thing wrong that christians have done is simply because they do not understand their religion, but this is never used as an excuse for other religions.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']

And as for the jews, prejudice has come via the "christians" and muslims. The muslims, because they have disputed the land of their forefathers for centuries (and it goes both ways here). So called "Christians" because they understand not their own "faith."
Click to expand...

Not to get off topic, but I love how any thing wrong that christians have done is simply because they do not understand their religion, but this is never used as an excuse for other religions.[/quote]

Sure it is...In fact I'd say just about every religion uses that excuse at some point. Not just religion either, it's pretty much the basic scapegoat for all walks of life.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']Actually, the Supreme Court could do something. If an amendment is made that conflicts with another part of the Constitution, they certainly will do something, too. And such an amendment would interfere with reserved powers. It's not what is the exact words of such an amendment that is unconstitutional, but rather, the fact that it has to do with something concerning states rights. [/quote]

Amendments are like white-out for the Constitution. If an amendment conflicts with something that's come before, the original section of the document is simply overridden and is ignored. That's the entire point of an amendment.

An example of this is slavery. At one point, it was consider a 'state right' to decide if slavery should be permitted in that state. An amendment was passed making slavery illegal - voila, its no longer a state issue, its a federal issue.

State Rights don't actually mean anything anymore anyway. The federal government has long since taken over every major decision. State laws regularly get overriden by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional, and Congress regularly passes laws on matters that they aren't directly granted powers for in the Constitution. Drug laws and bans on automatic weapons spring to mind there.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23']

And as for the jews, prejudice has come via the "christians" and muslims. The muslims, because they have disputed the land of their forefathers for centuries (and it goes both ways here). So called "Christians" because they understand not their own "faith."
Click to expand...

Not to get off topic, but I love how any thing wrong that christians have done is simply because they do not understand their religion, but this is never used as an excuse for other religions.[/quote]

Sure it is...In fact I'd say just about every religion uses that excuse at some point. Not just religion either, it's pretty much the basic scapegoat for all walks of life.[/quote]

I should have clarified, I wasn't referring to how members of other religions view their own, I was referring to how members of one religion (in this case christians) view others.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23']

And as for the jews, prejudice has come via the "christians" and muslims. The muslims, because they have disputed the land of their forefathers for centuries (and it goes both ways here). So called "Christians" because they understand not their own "faith."
Click to expand...

Not to get off topic, but I love how any thing wrong that christians have done is simply because they do not understand their religion, but this is never used as an excuse for other religions.[/quote]

Sure it is...In fact I'd say just about every religion uses that excuse at some point. Not just religion either, it's pretty much the basic scapegoat for all walks of life.[/quote]

I should have clarified, I wasn't referring to how members of other religions view their own, I was referring to how members of one religion (in this case christians) view others.[/quote]

Well, most rational people (including myself) don't blame Islam, and the good that it brings, for the far out ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism. And I don't blame Christianity for evil men who want to pervert the name of God. But, to each their own, I guess.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
And this is an issue that should be decided from state to state. And affecting what the government defines as a definition of marriage does affect me. Marriage is a religious matter and making it other than what God made it does affect me. What doesn't affect me is what people do in private. But changing the institution is attempting to change my beliefs.
Click to expand...

If the government regulates something then your religious beliefs should have no say in the matter. Churches are not being forced to obey. Your beliefs are infringing on my beliefs in this, I am not a part of your church yet I am being forced to follow certain laws simply because YOUR religion forbids it, and has influenced OUR government to do the same.
[/quote]
I'm not talking about my religion. Religion in general looks down on it. The same religions and Judeo-Christian values that were used to build this country and constitution. Like I said, such a change, by changing something built by values I hold, would be like unto changing my values for me.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='MorPhiend']Actually, the Supreme Court could do something. If an amendment is made that conflicts with another part of the Constitution, they certainly will do something, too. And such an amendment would interfere with reserved powers. It's not what is the exact words of such an amendment that is unconstitutional, but rather, the fact that it has to do with something concerning states rights. [/quote]

Amendments are like white-out for the Constitution. If an amendment conflicts with something that's come before, the original section of the document is simply overridden and is ignored. That's the entire point of an amendment.

An example of this is slavery. At one point, it was consider a 'state right' to decide if slavery should be permitted in that state. An amendment was passed making slavery illegal - voila, its no longer a state issue, its a federal issue.

State Rights don't actually mean anything anymore anyway. The federal government has long since taken over every major decision. State laws regularly get overriden by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional, and Congress regularly passes laws on matters that they aren't directly granted powers for in the Constitution. Drug laws and bans on automatic weapons spring to mind there.[/quote]

Like I said, you may be right on that point (not that it is right, but that it might happen). I just hope that it doesn't happen that way, although I did think about slavery after I posted. Although, one could argue that slavery would be an exception because it was taking one's freedom away. That is something less likely to be argued in favor of a gay marriage ban...

And you're right, it is hard for the states to keep authority these days.



Sorry about the triple post...
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']Camoor, your comparison doesn't stand. You are talking of a political position held by tyrannical leaders of a government weilding religion. Marriage is something that is based on religion and religions are centered around it as well.[/quote]

I could care less what anyone's religion holds to be "true", this is America. Marriage carries real-world financial and legal implications in America today. If the government wants to view all marriages as "civil unions" and give them all (gay and straight) the same rights, then I'm fine with that.

I just don't like that the US government is using a magic book written 2000+ years ago in a desert far, far away to determine whether certain financial and legal rights should be given to couples of a minority sexual orientation. To me, that's not what America is about.
 
I'm not talking about my religion. Religion in general looks down on it. The same religions and Judeo-Christian values that were used to build this country and constitution. Like I said, such a change, by changing something built by values I hold, would be like unto changing my values for me.
Click to expand...


I think the role of christianity is overstated in the founding of this nation. Look how few of the 10 commandments have any legal status, and consider how most of the founding fathers were deists. But religion is religion, be it yours or someone elses, and there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. Religious matters are deciding who I can and cannot marry, not legal and civil rights issues, but religion. I don't care if every religion opposed it, it's religion and when that is the reasoning used in creating laws, then that law has no place in the u.s. Obviously religion will affect people opinion, but it should not be used as the actual reason to oppose or support a law. Also, if your religious values are so weak that they change based on secular laws, then you need to do some serious re-evaluating of your beliefs.
 
First, there is no such thing as 'gay' rights, nor are there 'married' rights. Only individual rights exist, not those of certain groups one over another. Rights begin with one's own life and freedom and are not greater than anyone else's based upon sexual preference, marital status, or any other criteria. But, having just now reiterated his desire to push for a marriage protection ammendment, Bush has paved the way for legal descrimination and deprivation of some indivuals rights over others to their own life and freedom.

Oh well, flip-flopping isn't just a democratic thing....
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
I'm not talking about my religion. Religion in general looks down on it. The same religions and Judeo-Christian values that were used to build this country and constitution. Like I said, such a change, by changing something built by values I hold, would be like unto changing my values for me.
Click to expand...


I think the role of christianity is overstated in the founding of this nation. Look how few of the 10 commandments have any legal status, and consider how most of the founding fathers were deists. But religion is religion, be it yours or someone elses, and there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. Religious matters are deciding who I can and cannot marry, not legal and civil rights issues, but religion. I don't care if every religion opposed it, it's religion and when that is the reasoning used in creating laws, then that law has no place in the u.s. Obviously religion will affect people opinion, but it should not be used as the actual reason to oppose or support a law. Also, if your religious values are so weak that they change based on secular laws, then you need to do some serious re-evaluating of your beliefs.[/quote]

First of all, I don't see any of the Framers as being "deists." Could you expound upon that? But you are right in that the constitution sets up a separation of church and state. But that is the constitution of the federal government. It also reserves the regulation of religion as a state power, which is what I've been trying to say the whole time, but it seems you are misunderstanding me. The federal government is supposed to avoid unnecessary entanglement in religion (establishment clause). But it reserves those powers to the individual states.

And I hope you were joking about that last sentence. I think it's pretty clear what I meant. I was saying that it is like someone trying to change my religious views, not that I am tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. There is quite a difference.


P.S. Thanks for everyone discussing this calmly so far (well except for that Friday guy). I think everyone has had quite good input.

BTW, is there a topic on the State of the Union yet? *goes and checks*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top