Divide and conquer
- Thread starter CAnnoneer
- Start date
- Status
JesseJames
Member
I do not consider most Republicans in Washington D.C. as "real" Republicans.
They are the resultant permutation of mainly the long dealings with government and big business in this country. Obviously there are many more factors but that is a major one.
The Democrats just strike me as a bunch of pandering, patronizing, socialisitic, and unrealistic lost souls.
Uhg. It's almost like watching an Abbott and Costello routine.
They are the resultant permutation of mainly the long dealings with government and big business in this country. Obviously there are many more factors but that is a major one.
The Democrats just strike me as a bunch of pandering, patronizing, socialisitic, and unrealistic lost souls.
Uhg. It's almost like watching an Abbott and Costello routine.
Zen21Tao
Member
AndyC said:
But by the same token, what right do you have to tell the married heterosexual couple how their relationship must be (re)defined.
The problem is that the gay marriage issue is a zero-sum problem. Both sides can't win. Either married couples have to except their sacred union being redefined to appease an unhappy group or gays have to except that they are not able to fit the traditional established definition and settle for a civil union.
Gays cite as their desire for marriage the same benefits that married couples have. If this is the case then why can't they be satisfied with civil unions that would give them all of the same rights without the word "marriage"?
Autolycus
Member
Marriage has always had religious implications. And just because the bible, Torah, or Koran (a of bunch books only some people followis) says their god only allows marriage between a man and a woman we non-followers must follow that rule? No I dont see what the big deal is about gay marriage? Two people want to be recognized as a couple in the eyes of the law. What is so wrong with that? I think that gays and lesbians should have the same benefits as marriage. How does it harm you if two men want to get married? Should you have that right? And if so why not them? Some people feel that a black man should not be able to marry a white woman? Is there any real difference?
And I googled up Gay marriage, AIDS, and Health Coverage. What was I supposed to find? You are saying that gays want to get married for the health benefits to pay for AIDS treatment? So basically they could cheat the insurance and healthcare system? Did you stop to think that a straight couple could do the same thing? What about a gay man marrying a stright woman just so they could cheat the system? Or a gay woman marrying a straight man so they could cheat teh system. Uh-oh we better start doing something about this.
Who cares why people get married? It seems that the majority of gays are out there protesting for their right to get married because they LOVE eachother. And until you can prove otherwise your argument holds no water.
And I googled up Gay marriage, AIDS, and Health Coverage. What was I supposed to find? You are saying that gays want to get married for the health benefits to pay for AIDS treatment? So basically they could cheat the insurance and healthcare system? Did you stop to think that a straight couple could do the same thing? What about a gay man marrying a stright woman just so they could cheat the system? Or a gay woman marrying a straight man so they could cheat teh system. Uh-oh we better start doing something about this.
Who cares why people get married? It seems that the majority of gays are out there protesting for their right to get married because they LOVE eachother. And until you can prove otherwise your argument holds no water.
tec,you can find anything you want to. a large enough sample to convince me that aids,healthcare and gay marriage are related. several articles claim the idea was never considered beforehand.you can draw your own conclusions. i have fairly drawn mine. wonder how many would go throgh with it if they find out pre-existing conditions would not be covered? if any board memers are looking forward to same-sex nuptials please register and i will try to send you a tea cup .
"Pro-Communist" works for me just as well as "anti-gun", and is probably more true in the round.
Governments (plural, Federal and State) should get out of the marriage business. Let the counties just record peoples status (no licenses) after the fact.
There's no real reason for government to care what social arrangements people make, nor to subsidize or punish behavior some uptight comissar finds "indecent" or "just plain wrong". Leave all the moral-code type stuff at the community level.
Talk about having things (ahem) "jammed down your throat" is fine, until the next President not only wants to repeal that amendment, but do the opposite. It (like abortion) is going to become a political football to further distract the masses from what really matters: the annihilation of of small, efficient, Constiutional Government that we live with today.
Cosmoline
Member
Regulation of marriage is not and has never been a valid federal role. Folks who feel otherwise are ignoring the enumerated powers and the bedrock principles of federalism. Only weak minds and zealots who are blinded by their personal views will be swayed by these tactics.
I favor a Constitutional amendment defining a Republican as someone who shrinks the government and decreases spending.
I favor a Constitutional amendment defining a Republican as someone who shrinks the government and decreases spending.
Augustwest
Member
+1
Amending the Constitution to reduce freedom is ugly.
The GOP is scared because they're looking at trouble in November's midterms. No surprise that they're acting contrary to liberty and a free society in order to exploit their base.
They deserve to get shellacked in November. Only problem is that the Democrats would benefit...
B
boofus
Guest
If Bush thinks that a half-assed attempt at passing an anti-gay amendment or ban on burning flags is going to put the GOP back in good standing with me he's a bigger idiot than the dems thought he was.
I voted for the bum twice and I'm fed up with him. The man is not doing the job that the majority of his voters hired him for and he should be impeached and replaced with someone that will. The job of the chief executive is to CARRY OUT THE NATION'S LAWS not complain that it can't be done and pander to non-taxpaying non-citizens.
The republicans should be thrown out of office. The Democrats should have their heads decorating pikes in front of the capitol. We need a third party in this country badly.
I voted for the bum twice and I'm fed up with him. The man is not doing the job that the majority of his voters hired him for and he should be impeached and replaced with someone that will. The job of the chief executive is to CARRY OUT THE NATION'S LAWS not complain that it can't be done and pander to non-taxpaying non-citizens.
The republicans should be thrown out of office. The Democrats should have their heads decorating pikes in front of the capitol. We need a third party in this country badly.
Mikee Loxxer
Member
I have pretty much had it with the Republicans. All of this gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research stuff is just a distraction to keep our minds off of real issues like illegal aliens, social security insolvency and energy issues. Our elected official think we are stupid enough to distract us with inconsequntial nonsense like an amendment to ban gay marriage. 
B
boofus
Guest
Our last fornicator-in-chief tried the same thing. He thought launching a bunch of cruise missiles into the sand would distract us from his marital and political failures.
They never seem to learn.
They never seem to learn.
This may be flame bait - but I regard this as a cyncial "Reichstag fire" ploy. With the administration's policies in disarray and shot through with many clear failures, they are trying to scapegoat a minority to divert the public and rile up their base.
I regard it as despicable politics. If that is the best the man can offer to the country while we are at war and with uncontrolled borders, it bogles the mind.
Next on the agenda - the ever popular flag burning amendment and don't forget banning the Wizard of Oz as its talking animals were tools of Satan.
Let us not forget that Bush repeatedly said he would have signed the AWB renewal. That was for the soccer moms and he knew he wouldn't have to sign it. Thus, his apologists portrayed this as brillant politics rather than cynical lies and evidence of his strong support for the RKBA.
Thus his support the gay marriage ban means that he is against it but he would support it to fool the social conservatives. Huh - is that the way Karl - the Puppet Master - Rove thinks. Who knows.
Seriously, it is a disgusting and cynical ploy at this time. Go find Bin Ladden and figure out the war and the border - or resign.
I regard it as despicable politics. If that is the best the man can offer to the country while we are at war and with uncontrolled borders, it bogles the mind.
Next on the agenda - the ever popular flag burning amendment and don't forget banning the Wizard of Oz as its talking animals were tools of Satan.
Let us not forget that Bush repeatedly said he would have signed the AWB renewal. That was for the soccer moms and he knew he wouldn't have to sign it. Thus, his apologists portrayed this as brillant politics rather than cynical lies and evidence of his strong support for the RKBA.
Thus his support the gay marriage ban means that he is against it but he would support it to fool the social conservatives. Huh - is that the way Karl - the Puppet Master - Rove thinks. Who knows.
Seriously, it is a disgusting and cynical ploy at this time. Go find Bin Ladden and figure out the war and the border - or resign.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
I believe that Virginia is having a referendum this fall on amending our Constitution to define marriage to exclude homosexual partners. We have every right to do that. Every right. Even a duty.
I believe that we also need a federal amendment to the US Constitution. How can Virginians define our society and culture if other States can force homosexual marriage upon us?
Some of y'all might not realize that up until the 1960's my State of Virginia did not allow black/white marriage and if it was performed in another State we did not recognize it here. And it wasn't just Virginia, it was about fifteen States ... so constitutionally, the US could not pass a law or amend the Constitution because there just wasn't the votes. So the SCOTUS legislated from the bench, declaring that the 14th "Amendment" meant that every State must embrace black/white marriage. Virginia protested that the 14th was a hundred years old and had never meant that before, but the SCOTUS wasn't listening.
The reason I bring this up is because the US has already stuck its nose into the State institution of marriage. And now it has gone so far that I believe that Virginia is threatened with having homosexual marriage forced upon us. The SCOTUS has recently ruled that a Texas law against homosexual acts was "unconstitutional" ... or rather they said that it must be struck down because it didn't jibe with the latest global culture. Global culture!
I am in favor of heading off the SCOTUS, in binding them ... it might be proper to amend the US Constitution to declare that no State shall be forced to accept homosexual marriages performed in other States, but if instead the proposition is to amend the US Constitution to say that no State shall marry people of the same gender, then I think that would work too ... except it doesn't seem to pass. I guess it's because I am Southern but I would have just assumed that 2/3 of both Houses and 3/4 of the States would want to define marriage to exclude matrimony between people of the same gender.
I believe that we also need a federal amendment to the US Constitution. How can Virginians define our society and culture if other States can force homosexual marriage upon us?
Some of y'all might not realize that up until the 1960's my State of Virginia did not allow black/white marriage and if it was performed in another State we did not recognize it here. And it wasn't just Virginia, it was about fifteen States ... so constitutionally, the US could not pass a law or amend the Constitution because there just wasn't the votes. So the SCOTUS legislated from the bench, declaring that the 14th "Amendment" meant that every State must embrace black/white marriage. Virginia protested that the 14th was a hundred years old and had never meant that before, but the SCOTUS wasn't listening.
The reason I bring this up is because the US has already stuck its nose into the State institution of marriage. And now it has gone so far that I believe that Virginia is threatened with having homosexual marriage forced upon us. The SCOTUS has recently ruled that a Texas law against homosexual acts was "unconstitutional" ... or rather they said that it must be struck down because it didn't jibe with the latest global culture. Global culture!
I am in favor of heading off the SCOTUS, in binding them ... it might be proper to amend the US Constitution to declare that no State shall be forced to accept homosexual marriages performed in other States, but if instead the proposition is to amend the US Constitution to say that no State shall marry people of the same gender, then I think that would work too ... except it doesn't seem to pass. I guess it's because I am Southern but I would have just assumed that 2/3 of both Houses and 3/4 of the States would want to define marriage to exclude matrimony between people of the same gender.
wheelgunslinger
Member
I'm not sure what my/our government is doing legislating marital status.
how's a bout we put something like The Deficit™, Ending our Fubar Mission™, and paying attention to our other real problems like the shrinking and imperiled 2A, SSI, and the Deficit™ on the short list? I'd like that. Can we pander to my special interests now? Please?
If I need an old book and an Ancient God to wave around for validity, I have a copy of the Norse Sagas I can use, and I'm pretty sure Thor would back me up on this.
how's a bout we put something like The Deficit™, Ending our Fubar Mission™, and paying attention to our other real problems like the shrinking and imperiled 2A, SSI, and the Deficit™ on the short list? I'd like that. Can we pander to my special interests now? Please?
If I need an old book and an Ancient God to wave around for validity, I have a copy of the Norse Sagas I can use, and I'm pretty sure Thor would back me up on this.
The SCOTUS acted in many cases against state laws as federal legislation was blocked by racists in the Congress. They applied the Constitution, quite correctly, to get rid of the racist crap in marriage, education, etc.
What a shame, we have a series of checks and balances. Actually discussing the merits of gay marriage shall lead to flame war and a lockdown given the rules.
The question is whether this push by the President was a cynical ploy. The answer is : Of course!!
What a shame, we have a series of checks and balances. Actually discussing the merits of gay marriage shall lead to flame war and a lockdown given the rules.
The question is whether this push by the President was a cynical ploy. The answer is : Of course!!
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
They did not "apply" the Constitution, they circumvented it.
It is *NOT* a "check and balance" to legislate from the Bench. The check and balance is the separation of legislative and judicial powers. SHEESH!!
I guess states not allowing folks to vote or banning the legal sanctions of marriage based on race was quite OK.
You are not making sense. The Constitution gave these folks protection. Racist states denied it. Racists blocked legislation to enforce giving folks these rights. They passed local legislation to take away rights. Thus, the Supreme Court acted.
It is not legislating from the bench to guarantee basic rights. Legislating from the bench is a code word for folks who want to deprive Americans of basic rights at the whim of bigoted state legislatures.
Sheesh.
You are not making sense. The Constitution gave these folks protection. Racist states denied it. Racists blocked legislation to enforce giving folks these rights. They passed local legislation to take away rights. Thus, the Supreme Court acted.
It is not legislating from the bench to guarantee basic rights. Legislating from the bench is a code word for folks who want to deprive Americans of basic rights at the whim of bigoted state legislatures.
Sheesh.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
If by "OK" you mean "constitutional" then yes it was "OK".
You are not making sense to me either. When did the Constitution give protection to black/white marriage? I thought it left the institution of marriage to each State. And where does the Constitution say that if racists block legislation then the SCOTUS should legislate from the bench?
Of course it is legislating from the bench. The States did not delegate juridiction over our basic rights to the US. And even if they did then we should still have rule of law and not rule of SCOTUS. Laws are constented to and that is free government; legislation from the bench is not a code word, it is a perversion of our form of government, and it amounts to legislation without representation.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Hugh is correct. In fact, the Founders feared the central government. Far from being hopeful that the central government would prevent local and State governments from abusing rights, it was expected that the most likely source of rights violation would come FROM an out of control Federal Government, and that the States, supported by their citizens, would constitute a firm bulwark against any such possibility.
MrTuffPaws
Member
You win. lol
MrTuffPaws
Member
Can we all just have civil unions? I mean everyone. Then if you want a marriage, head on down the your local favorite church, pass what ever tests they have for you, and get married.
The GOVERNMENT, EITHER STATE OR FEDERALS, should have nothing to do with the religious concept of marriage. You want to give tax breaks to those with kids, fine, give them a civil union and let the churches worry about who is going to hell.
The GOVERNMENT, EITHER STATE OR FEDERALS, should have nothing to do with the religious concept of marriage. You want to give tax breaks to those with kids, fine, give them a civil union and let the churches worry about who is going to hell.
- Status
