Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Kerry's stand on gay marriage may mirror his gun stands!

Discussion in 'Legal' started by I'mSpartacus!, Feb 11, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I'mSpartacus!

    I'mSpartacus! Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Location:
    West Coast
  2. Malone LaVeigh

    Malone LaVeigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,136
    Location:
    Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
    The Repugs are going to beat the gay marriage issue like a drum in this election. Biggoted ______.




    (Edited by Don Gwinn to save Art's Grammaw the trouble.)
     
  3. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    I hope people keep this on the high road. I will not vote for Kerry for my own reasons. However, I will not vote for Bush, either.

    A) He supported, and pushed for, the USA PATRIOT act, a misnamed piece of legislation that for the most part renders the US Constitution null and void at the president's whim.

    B) He supported the assault weapons ban, and stated that he would sign it if a renewal hits his desk.

    C) He supports bigoted, and hateful constitutional amendments that would put discrimination into the constitution for the first time...ever.

    For these reasons, I cannot vote for Bush. Would be a moot point here anyway if I wanted to: Oregon has not voted for a GOP candidate for a long time for President.

    Both parties are pure evil.
     
  4. tiberius

    tiberius Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,125
    Location:
    UK temporarily
    So being designated as 3/5 of a person (blacks) and having no vote (women and blacks) is NOT discrimination???
     
  5. Mulliga

    Mulliga Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,251
    Location:
    Gainesville, Florida
    Sigh. Worst...Election...Ever.
     
  6. ojibweindian

    ojibweindian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,300
    Location:
    Union Grove, Alabama
    Kerry flops around on issues like a shad on a #5 hook.
     
  7. lee n. field

    lee n. field Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,730
    What was the last good one? Coolege vs. whoever?
     
  8. clubsoda22

    clubsoda22 member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    SE PA
    read the sig.
     
  9. Obiwan

    Obiwan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,158
    Location:
    Illinois
    Kerry mirrors his own stands...on everyhting.

    The man is like a weathervane:barf:
     
  10. OF

    OF Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,988
    I really don't think I understand this whole gay marriage issue. What is the deal? How would gay marriage' be different from civil unions. or 'civil marriage' if you prefer? I just don't see the issue. If I understand correctly, the proposed amendment (and I'm not sure where I stand on this) would guarantee that same-sex couples could enter into civil marriage/unions with the full rights that a married couple couple has, just without the name 'marriage'.

    Someone has to explain this to me, it makes no sense.

    - Gabe
     
  11. BerettaNut92

    BerettaNut92 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,724
    Protecting the sanctity of marriage? How about prohibiting cohabitation?
     
  12. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    42,968
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    This whole deal--and not just Kerry--seems to be one of sloppy language. Semantics. Dictionaries...

    "Marriage" has historically meant the union of a man and a woman, and built into it is procreation. (That's "children", for folks from West Bugtussle.)

    Hokay. For those of the same sex, "Civil Union" would codify the legal and economic aspects common to a "real marriage". Me, I have no problem with that. Not my business about somebody's property rights as regards health insurance or retirement benefits or anything else. Seems to me it gets into the realm of "equal protection under the law".

    $0.02,

    Art
     
  13. OF

    OF Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,988
    I guess I'm asking: what are proponents of gay marriage petitioning for? The term 'marriage' to be applied to same-sex two-person unions? But isn't that no more than an attempt to co-opt a traditional heterosexual religious institution? What right do they have to that term? I understand fighting for the right to be recognized with respect to the state, but is that injustice not satisfied through 'civil marriage' or 'civil unions' that guarantee full rights as anyone has with respect to the state?

    Isn't 'marriage' more of a religious term, really? Isn't the problem then that a term with religious meaning (marriage) is bound-up within the state's statutes regarding what are really just civil unions as far as the state is concerned? As far as the state is concerned, it's all "civil unions" when you get right down to it...? What does it matter what the state terms that union: marriage, civil union, whatever. Can't this just be solved by making changes so that wherever a statute says 'marriage' you change it to 'marriage or civil marriage'? Or something like that? Like replacing 'he' with 'he or she'.

    If "marriage" is really a religious term, isn't this then by definition a religious issue...in which case they're going to have to take this one up with someone other than the legislature...

    - Gabe

    PS: Mods: if someone freaks out on this thread, do us a favor and edit the post, PM the bad guy, but leave us our sandbox....please.
     
  14. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Fascist-Fornia
    Got news for you all, King George has just carefully staked out the position that he is in favor of an amendment stating that "marriage" is for men and women only, but he is not outlawing civil unions between gays. he's trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth just like Kerry, but Bush is taking heat from the "Christian hate Club" that normally back him 100% because he didn't completely condemn gay unions. Funny thing is, it didn't work anyway. Some of the gay and lesbian leaders last night were calling it a transparent ploy to get the gay vote and they don't believe he will make good on it. So, he pissed off the right wingers and the left wingers didn't take the bait. Not a good day at the poll machine.
     
  15. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Fascist-Fornia
    The term also has legal connotations. gays want to be sure that they won't be sent to the back of the bus with laws that differentiate between actual marriage and "legal unions"... and those laws will come flying out of legislatures across this land if legal unions for gays are recognized. If they are allowed to have actual marriages, the lawmakers won't have a foothold to discriminate with legally.
     
  16. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Fascist-Fornia
    How about a little indignation for adultery?

    Clinton got dragged through the wringer for a dalliance with an intern, Kerry is now being accused..... yet all I heard was deathly silence when the champion of our morality, Newt Gingrich, admitted he had been nailing his over the desk for a while and even dumped his long time wife (and mother of his kids) for her.

    Can we all spell:

    HYPOCRITES?:barf:
     
  17. ojibweindian

    ojibweindian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,300
    Location:
    Union Grove, Alabama
    I believe that Gingrich was relieved of his duties as Speaker of the House, and shortly thereafter retired from service.

    The Liberals did not do the same for Clinton.

    So who's the HYPOCRITE?
     
  18. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    The issue here is of the LEGAL incidents of such marriages. Marriage is not judeo-christian or hebrew in origin. It's existed across many religions.

    What do these groups want? They want the LEGAL protections of CIVIL (not religious) marriage. CIVIL is the important part. No church would be forced to marry same sex couples in this country (A bogus claim by so called "Family Research Institute"). If there were any claim to do by anyone, I would rather forcibly shout that down as a first amendment violation.

    We try for civil unions, and what do we get it?

    The same groups who oppose same sex marriage doing the exact same thing to us, citing false studies from Paul Cameron, saying that we're evil, that we're bringing Sodom and Gomorrah back.

    Don't blame gay rights groups for us pushing for marriage, blame the FRC and right wing money maker scare groups who said that civil unions were absolutely unacceptable many years ago.
     
  19. Thumper

    Thumper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,904
    Location:
    Rosenberg, Texas
    Well...I don't know how to characterize your statement...perhaps an accidental little white prevarication?

    Republicans demanded, and got, Gengrich's resignation. You don't think we're all idiots here, do you?
     
  20. Sean Smith

    Sean Smith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,922
    This is all really quite stupid.

    Marriage has become a government entitlement program... get a legal marraige, get free goodies and extra priveliges from Uncle Sucker. Gay people want their fair share of these goodies and extra priveliges, but since they are predicated on taking part in a 4,000 year old man-woman ritual, they can't play.

    Government, when you get right down to it, has no buisness being involved in some man-woman religious ritual that dates back to when our ancestors were still dancing around fires chanting "ooga-booga" to make the rain god come back from over the mountain. And that certainly is a silly basis for stealing (via disproportionate taxes) from the people that aren't part of the buy-a-woman-for-jewelry club.

    Hence, the gays have a point: an entitlement program was created for one group of people on a stupid basis, so excluding them from it IS discrimination. The right answer, of course, is to remove all government involvement in marraige, and all the de facto welfare swag that goes with it. Then marraige is just a matter of finding some priest/witch/whatever to do the ritual for you, and let God sort it out.
     
  21. OF

    OF Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,988
    I can live with that.

    - Gabe
     
  22. nualle

    nualle Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    189
    Location:
    en route back to MPLS, MN
    Gabe: Some religious organizations (churches, synagogues, etc.) have been doing marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples for years. No problem.

    No church (etc.) that doesn't want to do them has to now, nor will ever have to. Every church retains the right to refuse to perform any ceremony it doesn't want to do. If Thus-n-such Church doesn't want to marry its female member to a male nonmember—for any or no reason—that's it's choice and its business. Same for gay marriage. Still no problem.

    The problem arises with legal/civil marriage. We insist our marriages be called marriages because if they are called anything else, that amounts to reinstitutionalizing separate-but-equal into law. We've already been down that road and seen that separate is not equal. Some bigots will always use the difference to justify denying people equal legal/civil/public/secular treatment.


    Edited to add: I'd be fine with the State getting out of marriage altogether. But that seems a much bigger and less likely societal change.
     
  23. Malone LaVeigh

    Malone LaVeigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,136
    Location:
    Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
    If that's the case, then the government has nothing to do with it. Straight, gay, or doberman pinschers.
    No, but some people are making me wonder. Gingrich's resignation had nothing to do with dumping his wife as she lay in her hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery. He fell on his sword after leading the Repugs to a disasterous defeat in the '98 midterm elections. You could look it up.

    The thing that bothers me the most about this issue is that the voices I hear speaking out against gay marriage are voices of fear. All this talk of having to defend marriage. I think if you are secure in your own sexuality, it shouldn't bother you what anyone else does.
     
  24. Thumper

    Thumper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,904
    Location:
    Rosenberg, Texas
    Um Malone, the hyperlink to which you just referred me supports my position, not bountyhunter's. Did you even read the link?

    Even more to refute bountyhunter's strange claim:

    I appreciate the link, though :D
     
  25. wingnutx

    wingnutx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,047
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Sounds good to me.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page