If I were you I would check out the State Constitution of Alaska just in case there is a similar possible loophole. I am not saying there is, but if there is it is possible for legal challenges to follow.
Like the preposterous "loophole" four of the seven Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court dreamed up? They acknowledged that the only definition marriage had ever had in Massachusetts law was "the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife." They acknowledged that the definition derived from the common law. Yet, in their words, they ""refined the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean 'the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.'" That's just a devious way of saying that they ignored the common law and Massachusetts law, and took it upon themselves to redefine a basic legal term. In the process, they undermined the reasoning behind consanguinity restrictions to marriage. By their definition, there is no reasonable argument to exclude a brother and sister, an aunt and nephew, a father and daughter, or any other two legally responsible people from their "right" to marry each other.
quote:And you appear to be wanting your definition of marriage to be the only true one in every other state besides Alaska, without debate discussion or agument.
I don't know what Jonny wants, but I want to be sure that nobody presumes to redefine basic, centuries-old legal concepts by judicial fiat.
quote:Can you also not see that going for the amend the Constitution route is the same as "we lost the legal argument, but we're gonna do it our way anyway."?
What a crock! Nobody "lost the legal argument" concerning what marriage is (its definition). Even the Massachusetts Supreme Court acknowledged that, but then they presumed to redefine it. If the Supreme Constitutional Power (the PEOPLE) choose to prevent other judges from doing the same sort of thing, it is their RIGHT to do so.
Edited by Guest
If the Constitution is amended in this way it will be only the second time after Prohibition, that it has been done to remove freedoms and civil rights.
You may be repeating something you've read, but this is another crock. The 18th Amendment didn't remove ANY civil rights, and neither would this one. It would simply codify, in a way that a judge couldn't touch, a definition that has been recognized for centuries by the common law, the laws of every State, and the laws of the USA. The reason would be to prevent judges from redefining a basic legal institution. It would be the FIRST time that such a thing was done, because this is the first time that a court has presumed to "refine" a centuries-old common-law definition.
If such an amendment passes, only THE PEOPLE, rather than a few judges, can change the definition of marriage. That is as it should be, though I would prefer that presumptuous judges would not force the matter.
If such an amendment passes, only THE PEOPLE, rather than a few judges, can change the definition of marriage. That is as it should be, though I would prefer that presumptuous judges would not force the matter.
Yeah...
[This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on February 22, 2004 at 2:06.]
Now I don't have the exact quote here but I do remember reading an article explaining the two judges' rulings in the San Francisio marriage issue.
In a summary they both stated that the concern of equal rights for gays was more of a concern than the voting right. So they made decisions based upon which "right" was most imortant.
Let me restate that: I believe their rulings had to do with "equal rights" versus "voting rights".
I think that equal rights for gays would not be the proper interpretation, it would be a ruling toward any minority who felt their "equal rights" were being violated.
Hey MJ, I am just reporting what I read. I am not sure what the trip you are on regarding your cats. I have 4 cats myself and think you are just using this as an excuse for not at least reading what someone else has said about the issue. What do your cats have to do with it?? Don't use them as an excuse for not knowing how to answer the question. That is pretty silly.
When you have a daughter that comes to you and tells you that they are gay, then talk to me. Until then, take your stupid cats and talk to someone else. If you compare cats to human, then you nyhave a real problem.
I think same sex marriages are wrong,,,,but who I am to voice an oppinion,,, no one! But I do think,,, the longer its debated here , the more opinions are gona stay tha same, I hope all you that voice yer opinions show up at the polls come November 2, 2004. That is where we will really see tha future of tha demise or proliferation of this lifestyle, at least while we are alive to witness it in this day and time! No wonder kido's in schools are shooting at each other nowadays.....they don't even know who is mom and who is pop,,,they have to make a choice.....is it gona be george or georgette? Sam or Samantha,,,,,,,I can remember a day that that the pheonics of the name didn't matter near as much as the heart and soul of the person standing in front of it! Perhaps its time for those wif heart and soul to stand up and be heard, DOWN WITH GAYS & LESBIANS!!!!!!
to legalize everything one may thinks needs to be equal with rights, I think some need to educate themselves concerning the implications this would bring society as a whole .
The problems that surround this issue are not as easy as being homosexual or being hetrosexual , we are a Country built on something other than feelings we need to have an order of things and a standard that the entire world looks to as a standard.
One thing I have noticed in CA lately...(no right or wrong aspect is suggested here by me)...is that you cannot take for granted what will happen and the outcome.
The recent 'recall' comes to mind.
While I think CA might be the best place to air or flesh out this issue, it cannot afford (presently) to address a revision like this.
I think the gay marriage issue can be best served when CA is on it's feet, and the best representation is available for both sides rather than using it where it can be exploited as part of a political arsinal that may polarize both sides all the more.
It's too hot a debate, even when there is less political upheaval.
I think if people could relax for a time about this matter, we could better focus on stabilization issues and all it concerns would be better served.
There are important issues and justices to be thought of within CA that effect everyone except maybe the very wealthy.
And again, I'll say, we are biting off more then we can chew...as this is a more universal issue.
You are right - California may not be the best place to play this out and I agree it needs a lot of debate in our society.
I am not sure that I agree with what they are doing in California. In other words, just because I accept my daughter as gay, doesn't mean I am going to teach her to be unlawful and to flaunt the law of the land in other's faces.
I am not into that flamboyount, throw it in your face type of thing. But obviously, as her mother, I have her best interests at heart. I want her to be able to grow up in a fair and balanced society. That is all I am saying. If a person hasn't walked in another's shoes I am not sure why they sit back self-righteously and judge anyone else. That is why I am so glad to be out of TWI. No true love or unconditional love for people.
Littlehawk says:
Perhaps its time for those wif heart and soul to stand up and be heard, DOWN WITH GAYS & LESBIANS!!!!!!
Perhaps it is time for self righteous christians to sit down and be quiet and try to understand others. If you have no sin in your own life, then you can cast the first stone. Your attitude about "DOWN WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS" is one that I would not even address because it just shows the cattle mentality. Follow the herd.
I think maybe GT has a good point, because this isn't a "states rights" issue... it's gotta be a national thing... (yes, I came to this conclusion after watching Bill Mahr with Sen George Allen)... Allen pointed out the predicament of "what if folks get married in San Francisco (or New Mexico, or Massachusetts) and then the couple move to Colorado (or Nebraska, or Georgia)? Are they still married? It then becomes "the folks in California (where they may be ready for this issue) having their opinions and beliefs forced upon the folks of whatever state the couple moves to, whether that state's folks are ready for it or not.
At some point it should be addressed nationally.
(and you know how I feel)
Yea or Nay, it's gotta be a national thing, not local... but then again, maybe this is the way "national things" get started.
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
to legalize everything one may thinks needs to be equal with rights, I think some need to educate themselves concerning the implications this would bring society as a whole"
So are you saying that it is absurd that a minority of people (who think they need to be equal - as you put it) in our country are asking for "equal rights" and this is bad.
Sounds to me that this is what America is all about. I have noticed that this whole issue has secular and religious implications that would definately change our society. But maybe it can be a change for the best or maybe not. I don't pretend to know all of the implications, but I am willing to be open minded and debate it on a national level. Laura Bush even said that in a recent interview. She didn't just shut it out and go with her conservative party line.
I agree with those who believe one state shouldn't shove it down the throat of another state.
There is a movement being led by Alan Keyes which says Congress has the authority and responsibility to rein in the courts. Too often judges are MAKING law rather than interpreting it.
On one of these threads I said the gay rights was out for special rights. Part of what I meant was the so-called hate crimes laws.
This law metes out extra punishment for those who attack certain groups.
This is a reaction to the Matthew Shephard case much in the same way the Patriot Act, followed Sept. 11.
These laws are reactionary and misguided. All they do is impugn the rights of most Americans.
Mind you, I am not advocating violence, but why should one victim be more special than another? All crime is heinous.
We could probably address many issues for gay couples without rewriting our moral codes. Property rights, visitation and health insurance can be handled in the legislative and private sectors. We don't need these judicial directives to get it done.
It's really easy to see how bigoted some of the people are around here. I mean seriously, first it's "DOWN WITH GAYS!" and next it could be "KILL THE N***ERS!" or who knows what other ridiculous things.
Why do so many Americans, particularly Christians, want to force others to comform to their beliefs? I mean, I can understand if it's something like affirmative action or the sex education in schools. What I can't understand is how allowing private individuals to do something that only affects them causes such hatred and bitterness.
Nobody owns the definition of the word "marriage" yet we all do as individuals as far as what it means to us. You have the right to refuse to refer to gay couples as married, just as they should have the right to refer to themselves as married.
I think that most of the right-wing people are projecting their own faults onto the homosexual community. It's not the gays that are causing the downfall of society. It's hatred, fear, blaming others, and superstition. There are far more divorced heterosexual people than there are gay people, so why not start rallying against divorce instead? They are the ones having kids and breaking up their homes which can sometimes ruin the kids' lives.
Societies change. Perhaps this is a good thing - this ammendment.
We in this country think that we can be and do absolutely anything we want and that is the not the case. Maybe it's the land of opportunity, but it's not the opportunity for anarchy!
The ammendment will test the nations sentiments on each side now. If this idea of same sex marriage was presented even 50 years ago, most likely it would have been discussed behind doors if at all.
This would be a good test for the standards we as a nation want to uphold (well the best test we can provide at the moment) and once it is National Law, every state has the same standard.
quote: Why do so many Americans, particularly Christians, want to force others to comform to their beliefs?
Now. I am going to take a different tack with you. I am usually combative with you, but I have had a change of heart. But I do want to explain to you the answer to the "sound bite" that I snipped out of your post. Please accept this offering in the spirit in which I give it, for I mean not to flame you at all. Ok?
The reason so many Americans, particularly Christians want others to conform to their beliefs is because they actually
quote:
believe that the thing (in this case "that homosexuality is wrong and that it invites the Devil to destroy our society-don't get derailed by the parenthetical clause) that they are against, will hurtall of us even including you as an American Citizen.
To you, this belief may be pure foolishness, but to Christian people it is not foolishness. To them, it is the truth.
And so, the real question is; "What is right?"
The gay people believe that their lifestyle is just fine and ok with the Almighty, or they simply do not believe in the Almighty within the Christian parameters, or they don't believe in God at all.
Look. I am not trying to rumble with you. I'm getting kinda tired of doing that. But the beliefs of Christian people are just as sacred to them as are the beliefs of gay people and of let's say Muslim people, and we know how comitted they are.
So, in answer to your question:
quote: Why do so many Americans, particularly Christians, want to force others to comform to their beliefs?
I can only tell you this: It is because of what they believe. And there is nothing you or I can do about their beliefs, other than vote.
So what to do? Well, I don't know, really. I, personally am one of those Christians with biblical beliefs. You on the other hand are not. So, Whaddarewegonnado? Hate eachother? Well, that wouldn't be right...
I guess we gotta respect each others beliefs, whether they be gay beliefs, liberal beliefs, Muslim beliefs, or Christian beliefs, or atheist beliefs, or a miriad of "whatever beliefs" and try not to be too caustic when we "rumble" in debate, and when we go to the polls, vote for that or whoever best represents our beliefs.
Sorry for the "over-italitization" of the word beliefs, but really, it is essential to the point I wanted to make.
Peace young brother. I hope that we all can come to agreement some sweet day. Peace bruh! :)-->
Jonny Lingo
[This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on February 24, 2004 at 23:48.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 5
68
Feb 7
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chwester
Go Jonny--go go go, Jonny is good
Proud to be an American
www.northpoint.org
www.anncoulter.org
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Chwester, I was so excited to see that you posted....Hadn't seen you for a while. However, I was a little disappointed by your post...
:P-->
If you do not tell the truth about yourself you can not tell it about other people.
virginia woolfe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chwester
Hi Vickles. Hope you are doing well.
Which of my posts disappointed you? The previous one in this column?
Proud to be an American
www.northpoint.org
www.anncoulter.org
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
If such an amendment passes, only THE PEOPLE, rather than a few judges, can change the definition of marriage. That is as it should be, though I would prefer that presumptuous judges would not force the matter.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Long Gone said;
If such an amendment passes, only THE PEOPLE, rather than a few judges, can change the definition of marriage. That is as it should be, though I would prefer that presumptuous judges would not force the matter.
Yeah...
[This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on February 22, 2004 at 2:06.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Now I don't have the exact quote here but I do remember reading an article explaining the two judges' rulings in the San Francisio marriage issue.
In a summary they both stated that the concern of equal rights for gays was more of a concern than the voting right. So they made decisions based upon which "right" was most imortant.
Equal rights or voting rights?
Just some food for thought.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Let me restate that: I believe their rulings had to do with "equal rights" versus "voting rights".
I think that equal rights for gays would not be the proper interpretation, it would be a ruling toward any minority who felt their "equal rights" were being violated.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
If it is about equal rights and not the people voice then I for sure want my cats to vote !
they have feelings and rights and in fact laws have been writtien if you abuse them it is a felony charge agaisnt the state!
lets go to the judges and let them decide, we have a large cat population here and I know I can get one elected. haha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I'm away for a couple of days at friends and have my cancer checkup Tuesday. Will respond to various points raised shortly after then.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Good Luck on it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Hey MJ, I am just reporting what I read. I am not sure what the trip you are on regarding your cats. I have 4 cats myself and think you are just using this as an excuse for not at least reading what someone else has said about the issue. What do your cats have to do with it?? Don't use them as an excuse for not knowing how to answer the question. That is pretty silly.
When you have a daughter that comes to you and tells you that they are gay, then talk to me. Until then, take your stupid cats and talk to someone else. If you compare cats to human, then you nyhave a real problem.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Littlehawk
I think same sex marriages are wrong,,,,but who I am to voice an oppinion,,, no one! But I do think,,, the longer its debated here , the more opinions are gona stay tha same, I hope all you that voice yer opinions show up at the polls come November 2, 2004. That is where we will really see tha future of tha demise or proliferation of this lifestyle, at least while we are alive to witness it in this day and time! No wonder kido's in schools are shooting at each other nowadays.....they don't even know who is mom and who is pop,,,they have to make a choice.....is it gona be george or georgette? Sam or Samantha,,,,,,,I can remember a day that that the pheonics of the name didn't matter near as much as the heart and soul of the person standing in front of it! Perhaps its time for those wif heart and soul to stand up and be heard, DOWN WITH GAYS & LESBIANS!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
it is absurd. that is my point
to legalize everything one may thinks needs to be equal with rights, I think some need to educate themselves concerning the implications this would bring society as a whole .
The problems that surround this issue are not as easy as being homosexual or being hetrosexual , we are a Country built on something other than feelings we need to have an order of things and a standard that the entire world looks to as a standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ginger Tea
You make a good point.
One thing I have noticed in CA lately...(no right or wrong aspect is suggested here by me)...is that you cannot take for granted what will happen and the outcome.
The recent 'recall' comes to mind.
While I think CA might be the best place to air or flesh out this issue, it cannot afford (presently) to address a revision like this.
I think the gay marriage issue can be best served when CA is on it's feet, and the best representation is available for both sides rather than using it where it can be exploited as part of a political arsinal that may polarize both sides all the more.
It's too hot a debate, even when there is less political upheaval.
I think if people could relax for a time about this matter, we could better focus on stabilization issues and all it concerns would be better served.
There are important issues and justices to be thought of within CA that effect everyone except maybe the very wealthy.
And again, I'll say, we are biting off more then we can chew...as this is a more universal issue.
Waiting to see how this one unravels...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Ginger Tea,
You are right - California may not be the best place to play this out and I agree it needs a lot of debate in our society.
I am not sure that I agree with what they are doing in California. In other words, just because I accept my daughter as gay, doesn't mean I am going to teach her to be unlawful and to flaunt the law of the land in other's faces.
I am not into that flamboyount, throw it in your face type of thing. But obviously, as her mother, I have her best interests at heart. I want her to be able to grow up in a fair and balanced society. That is all I am saying. If a person hasn't walked in another's shoes I am not sure why they sit back self-righteously and judge anyone else. That is why I am so glad to be out of TWI. No true love or unconditional love for people.
Littlehawk says:
Perhaps its time for those wif heart and soul to stand up and be heard, DOWN WITH GAYS & LESBIANS!!!!!!
Perhaps it is time for self righteous christians to sit down and be quiet and try to understand others. If you have no sin in your own life, then you can cast the first stone. Your attitude about "DOWN WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS" is one that I would not even address because it just shows the cattle mentality. Follow the herd.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I think maybe GT has a good point, because this isn't a "states rights" issue... it's gotta be a national thing... (yes, I came to this conclusion after watching Bill Mahr with Sen George Allen)... Allen pointed out the predicament of "what if folks get married in San Francisco (or New Mexico, or Massachusetts) and then the couple move to Colorado (or Nebraska, or Georgia)? Are they still married? It then becomes "the folks in California (where they may be ready for this issue) having their opinions and beliefs forced upon the folks of whatever state the couple moves to, whether that state's folks are ready for it or not.
At some point it should be addressed nationally.
(and you know how I feel)
Yea or Nay, it's gotta be a national thing, not local... but then again, maybe this is the way "national things" get started.
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
"it is absurd. that is my point
to legalize everything one may thinks needs to be equal with rights, I think some need to educate themselves concerning the implications this would bring society as a whole"
So are you saying that it is absurd that a minority of people (who think they need to be equal - as you put it) in our country are asking for "equal rights" and this is bad.
Sounds to me that this is what America is all about. I have noticed that this whole issue has secular and religious implications that would definately change our society. But maybe it can be a change for the best or maybe not. I don't pretend to know all of the implications, but I am willing to be open minded and debate it on a national level. Laura Bush even said that in a recent interview. She didn't just shut it out and go with her conservative party line.
I agree with those who believe one state shouldn't shove it down the throat of another state.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
PRESIDENT BUSH PROPOSES AN AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BANNING GAY MARRIAGES.
This should get interesting.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
There is a movement being led by Alan Keyes which says Congress has the authority and responsibility to rein in the courts. Too often judges are MAKING law rather than interpreting it.
On one of these threads I said the gay rights was out for special rights. Part of what I meant was the so-called hate crimes laws.
This law metes out extra punishment for those who attack certain groups.
This is a reaction to the Matthew Shephard case much in the same way the Patriot Act, followed Sept. 11.
These laws are reactionary and misguided. All they do is impugn the rights of most Americans.
Mind you, I am not advocating violence, but why should one victim be more special than another? All crime is heinous.
We could probably address many issues for gay couples without rewriting our moral codes. Property rights, visitation and health insurance can be handled in the legislative and private sectors. We don't need these judicial directives to get it done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
It's really easy to see how bigoted some of the people are around here. I mean seriously, first it's "DOWN WITH GAYS!" and next it could be "KILL THE N***ERS!" or who knows what other ridiculous things.
Why do so many Americans, particularly Christians, want to force others to comform to their beliefs? I mean, I can understand if it's something like affirmative action or the sex education in schools. What I can't understand is how allowing private individuals to do something that only affects them causes such hatred and bitterness.
Nobody owns the definition of the word "marriage" yet we all do as individuals as far as what it means to us. You have the right to refuse to refer to gay couples as married, just as they should have the right to refer to themselves as married.
I think that most of the right-wing people are projecting their own faults onto the homosexual community. It's not the gays that are causing the downfall of society. It's hatred, fear, blaming others, and superstition. There are far more divorced heterosexual people than there are gay people, so why not start rallying against divorce instead? They are the ones having kids and breaking up their homes which can sometimes ruin the kids' lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
AMEN Mr. Mosh
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Societies change. Perhaps this is a good thing - this ammendment.
We in this country think that we can be and do absolutely anything we want and that is the not the case. Maybe it's the land of opportunity, but it's not the opportunity for anarchy!
The ammendment will test the nations sentiments on each side now. If this idea of same sex marriage was presented even 50 years ago, most likely it would have been discussed behind doors if at all.
This would be a good test for the standards we as a nation want to uphold (well the best test we can provide at the moment) and once it is National Law, every state has the same standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Mr. P-Mosh-
You said:
Now. I am going to take a different tack with you. I am usually combative with you, but I have had a change of heart. But I do want to explain to you the answer to the "sound bite" that I snipped out of your post. Please accept this offering in the spirit in which I give it, for I mean not to flame you at all. Ok?
The reason so many Americans, particularly Christians want others to conform to their beliefs is because they actually
believe that the thing (in this case "that homosexuality is wrong and that it invites the Devil to destroy our society-don't get derailed by the parenthetical clause) that they are against, will hurtall of us even including you as an American Citizen.To you, this belief may be pure foolishness, but to Christian people it is not foolishness. To them, it is the truth.
And so, the real question is; "What is right?"
The gay people believe that their lifestyle is just fine and ok with the Almighty, or they simply do not believe in the Almighty within the Christian parameters, or they don't believe in God at all.
Look. I am not trying to rumble with you. I'm getting kinda tired of doing that. But the beliefs of Christian people are just as sacred to them as are the beliefs of gay people and of let's say Muslim people, and we know how comitted they are.
So, in answer to your question:
I can only tell you this: It is because of what they believe. And there is nothing you or I can do about their beliefs, other than vote.
So what to do? Well, I don't know, really. I, personally am one of those Christians with biblical beliefs. You on the other hand are not. So, Whaddarewegonnado? Hate eachother? Well, that wouldn't be right...
I guess we gotta respect each others beliefs, whether they be gay beliefs, liberal beliefs, Muslim beliefs, or Christian beliefs, or atheist beliefs, or a miriad of "whatever beliefs" and try not to be too caustic when we "rumble" in debate, and when we go to the polls, vote for that or whoever best represents our beliefs.
Sorry for the "over-italitization" of the word beliefs, but really, it is essential to the point I wanted to make.
Peace young brother. I hope that we all can come to agreement some sweet day. Peace bruh!
:)-->
Jonny Lingo
[This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on February 24, 2004 at 23:48.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.