The W
Views: 139049423
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
11.12.18 1027
The W - Current Events & Politics - Well, there goes the Gay vote (Page 2)
This thread has 12 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.70
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(1548 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (52 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2779 days
Last activity: 1234 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    The ERA is, what, two states away from being ratified? It generally enjoys support with somehwere around 70-80% of the country. Opposition to Gay Marriage runs around 50-60%, but support for an actual Constitutional Amendment is much lower.
ERA died, it had a seven year clause. And besides, most people now realize how bad of an idea the ERA actually was...



The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions. For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts.
- President George W. Bush

OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 45 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.27
    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
    Bush (in the USA Today article I linked to) also does NOT propose a ban on civil unions.


The wording of the proposed Gays-Are-Yucky Amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.


Um, yes he does.

    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
    As for "anti-gay-wedding folks", there is plenty of evidence to support the notion that a majority of people ARE against gay marriages.


In 1958, a survey indicated that 94% of whites were against interracial marriages.

Sometimes the majority of people are wrong.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 18 hours
ICQ:  
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.65
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    The wording of the proposed Gays-Are-Yucky Amendment:

    Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.


    Um, yes he does.
Hmmm. .. But what if I use THIS emphasis?
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.




CRZ
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2779 days
Last activity: 1234 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Basically, the implication of the amendment is to disallow the use of the Full Faith and Credit Clause for the purpose of gay marriage. States can do their own thing.

Of course the mainstream media hasn't mentioned this.

(edited by Grimis on 25.2.04 1641)


The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions. For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts.
- President George W. Bush

Reverend J Shaft
Toulouse








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 78 days
Last activity: 1 day
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.36
    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      The wording of the proposed Gays-Are-Yucky Amendment:

      Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.


      Um, yes he does.
    Hmmm. .. But what if I use THIS emphasis?
    Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.



Exactly what I was thinking when I read it. So....

Um, no he doesn't. (Besides, I'll consider USA Today the more reliable source, if you don't mind)

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
      As for "anti-gay-wedding folks", there is plenty of evidence to support the notion that a majority of people ARE against gay marriages.


    In 1958, a survey indicated that 94% of whites were against interracial marriages.

    Sometimes the majority of people are wrong.



I wasn't making a judgment on the morality of gay marriage, I was showing that a majority of people indeed did oppose gay marriage. I don't have any opinion on whether gay marriage is right or wrong. I just know that what happened in California was illegal.


(edited by CRZ on 25.2.04 1420)
ThreepMe
Morcilla








Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 5211 days
Last activity: 4870 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.17
    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
    I just know that what happened in California was illegal


How about we let the California Judical system decide if it actually IS illegal.

The mayor of SF is basing his claim on another aspect of California State Law.

Taken from this artice

"San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, decided to give out the licenses starting Feb. 12. He maintains he is following a higher law, "the state constitution, which explicitly outlaws discrimination of any kind," spokesman Peter Ragone said. "We believe the city's actions are both lawful and a recognition of the love that many couples share."

So let's not act like we KNOW something IS illegal. That's why we have judges.

(edited by ThreepMe on 25.2.04 1449)


"Are you kidding me? A soda with MY name on it? Now more than ever, SODAS RULE!" - Edge to Christian Smackdown Sept 7th 2000
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 412 days
Last activity: 314 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.78
AWA, I am sure he believes what he is doing, however, he has little to do with the process. The amendment was already floating around congress. This is a case where he can beat his chest, spout morality and really wont have to do anything else. By the time this could happen, I doubt he will even be President even if re-elected.

You know how I feel about gay marriage being legalized, but I think the government should stay out of it and leave it to the states. IMO, marriage is a religous, not civil institution, and your marriage liscense is really just a civil union from a legal standpoint.



Perception is reality
AWArulz
Scrapple








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 4 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.58
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    All this pontificating about how Dubya's just following the law and bowing to the will of the people would play a whole lot better if there hadn't been such a fucking stink over how HE was elected to public office.

    Sorry. I know that's a dead issue and we're not supposed to bring it up any more, but it bears mentioning here.


Number 1 - why do you care?

Number 2 - we have a process. The votes said Bush won. The Dems took it to court. The President's lawyers responded and everybody paid the lawyers for awhile. At the end, the judges agreed with the original results. Nobody changed the rules, unless you count the Dems, who moves to have to have absentee ballots from overseas military post office boxes disavowed on some technicality (and because the great majority of military votes were got Dubya).



Rasslin' republicans - visit it soon
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 2259 days
Last activity: 2259 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.54
Well, I could see the need for a Constitutional Ammendment. IF the trend of judges making rulings based on the "Constitutionality" of the issue continues. I mean, if the Constitution specifically states one thing, a judge cannot possibly interpret it another way. Right?

Of course, this goes for any situation. Think Income Tax here, people.



Fashion Reporter Extraordinaire

Fear not the future. For that is where your dreams will come true.

PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 4340 days
Last activity: 4182 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
      Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
      I just know that what happened in California was illegal


    How about we let the California Judical system decide if it actually IS illegal.

    The mayor of SF is basing his claim on another aspect of California State Law.

    Taken from this artice

    "San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, decided to give out the licenses starting Feb. 12. He maintains he is following a higher law, "the state constitution, which explicitly outlaws discrimination of any kind," spokesman Peter Ragone said. "We believe the city's actions are both lawful and a recognition of the love that many couples share."

    So let's not act like we KNOW something IS illegal. That's why we have judges.

    (edited by ThreepMe on 25.2.04 1449)


Actually, it is illegal. California, like other states, has a Defense of Marriage act. Google found me this link: http://www.marriagewatch.org/media/prop22.htm

I'm sure it can find you many others.

So, until someone decides to challenge the CA DOMA, and a court throws it out, Mr. Newsom is in direct violation of the will of the people, as embodied in the law. Seperation of powers does not afford the mayor the right to interpret the constitution and render these kinds of decisions.



In Theo We Trust
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Outside of Boston

Since last post: 239 days
Last activity: 5 days
ICQ:  
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.56
You wanted the best, you got... Out of Context Quote of the Week. "EMBRACE THE PENIS! LOVE THE PENIS! THE PENIS IS YOUR BEST FRIEND! Be..... the penis." (DEAN)
Palp: Maybe this will be the challenge for DOMA. I mean, who else can challenge it, really? Don't see priests or justices of the peace lining up to hold same-sex marriages. Seems pretty cut and dry if they do go that route.

* DOMA defines marriage as man/woman
* CA constitution outlaws discrimination
* Mayor authorizes same-sex marriages, violating DOMA, but DOMA's discriminatory = legal gay marriage.



DEAN's Nuggets of Wisdom:

"A-Train could wear a Vampirella outfit and I would toast a load to it."
AWArulz
Scrapple








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 4 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.58
    Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuy
    Well, I could see the need for a Constitutional Ammendment. IF the trend of judges making rulings based on the "Constitutionality" of the issue continues. I mean, if the Constitution specifically states one thing, a judge cannot possibly interpret it another way. Right?

    Of course, this goes for any situation. Think Income Tax here, people.


SHG, you have exactly defined the situation. Constitutionality can be interpreted at times, and that has been done in the past, which has led to amendments.

Literally hundreds of cases relate to each amendment (except the Bill, of course), which drove the legislature to enact an amendment, which must be ratified by the seval states within 7 yrs. This one is no different.

For example, the 16th amendment (the one you cite) was a direct consequence of judicial decisions.

The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property, the Court declared, was a ``direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained the collection of a
similar tax during the Civil War, the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue.



Rasslin' republicans - visit it soon
Reverend J Shaft
Toulouse








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 78 days
Last activity: 1 day
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.36
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
      Originally posted by ThreepMe
        Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
        I just know that what happened in California was illegal


      How about we let the California Judical system decide if it actually IS illegal.

      The mayor of SF is basing his claim on another aspect of California State Law.

      Taken from this artice

      "San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, decided to give out the licenses starting Feb. 12. He maintains he is following a higher law, "the state constitution, which explicitly outlaws discrimination of any kind," spokesman Peter Ragone said. "We believe the city's actions are both lawful and a recognition of the love that many couples share."

      So let's not act like we KNOW something IS illegal. That's why we have judges.

      (edited by ThreepMe on 25.2.04 1449)


    Actually, it is illegal. California, like other states, has a Defense of Marriage act. Google found me this link: http://www.marriagewatch.org/ media/prop22.htm

    I'm sure it can find you many others.

    So, until someone decides to challenge the CA DOMA, and a court throws it out, Mr. Newsom is in direct violation of the will of the people, as embodied in the law. Seperation of powers does not afford the mayor the right to interpret the constitution and render these kinds of decisions.


Thanks for the reference Palpatine.

And this is why I think Bush is introducing the amendment. There still seems to be a bit of confusion and/or concern among state politicians as to whether or not it's legal.

So how about we let the people of AMERICA decide if this should be legal or not since this doesn't seem to be a California issue only?

P.S. At least I know who gives me the 0 ratings now. These are fun!!
JoshMann
Andouille








Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 3802 days
Last activity: 3799 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.39
    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
    So how about we let the people of AMERICA decide if this should be legal or not since this doesn't seem to be a California issue only?



Sorry to play 5th grade social studies teacher, but the general populous doesn't vote on amendments...The U.S. Congress and state houses/delegates (depending on the state) do.

(edited by Blanket Jackson on 26.2.04 0856)


"Americas top dog is a big, slobbering, barking dog named Josh" [AP]
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2779 days
Last activity: 1234 days
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
    Sorry to play 5th grade social studies teacher, but the general populous doesn't vote on amendments...The U.S. Congress and state houses/delegates (depending on the state) do.
In a circuitous sense, they do because they vote for their state legislatures.

But also in a more direct sense, some states have the opportunity to elect delegates to a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of considering the amendment, which is a more direct decision of the people.



The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions. For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts.
- President George W. Bush

JoshMann
Andouille








Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 3802 days
Last activity: 3799 days
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.39
I know, but it's not like HE implied, as in we could all walk to a ballot and punch a vote for or against it.

You know as well as I do Grim, in thess cases it's not let the PEOPLE decide as he said, but the republic. Even in the case of electing or assigning delegates.



"Americas top dog is a big, slobbering, barking dog named Josh" [AP]
Reverend J Shaft
Toulouse








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 78 days
Last activity: 1 day
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.36
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
      Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
      So how about we let the people of AMERICA decide if this should be legal or not since this doesn't seem to be a California issue only?



    Sorry to play 5th grade social studies teacher, but the general populous doesn't vote on amendments...The U.S. Congress and state houses/delegates (depending on the state) do.

    (edited by Blanket Jackson on 26.2.04 0856)


What I meant was that it wasn't just a regional issue. Fine, let's let the ELECTED members of Congress who represent the PEOPLE of the U.S. decide on the amendment. Sheesh, talk about not seeing the forest for the trees...
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2779 days
Last activity: 1234 days
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
    You know as well as I do Grim, in thess cases it's not let the PEOPLE decide as he said, but the republic. Even in the case of electing or assigning delegates.
Exactly. Long live the Republic...er, whatever is left of it.



The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions. For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts.
- President George W. Bush

DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 412 days
Last activity: 314 days
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.78
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
      You know as well as I do Grim, in thess cases it's not let the PEOPLE decide as he said, but the republic. Even in the case of electing or assigning delegates.
    Exactly. Long live the Republic...er, whatever is left of it.


Okay, I know its sarcasm but I get really tired of it coming from both sides. The republic is alive and well, it works pretty well. The first true democracy survuves in spite of us. We have survived much worse than things as they are now.



Perception is reality
JoshMann
Andouille








Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 3802 days
Last activity: 3799 days
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.40
    Originally posted by DrDirt
      Originally posted by Grimis
        Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
        You know as well as I do Grim, in thess cases it's not let the PEOPLE decide as he said, but the republic. Even in the case of electing or assigning delegates.
      Exactly. Long live the Republic...er, whatever is left of it.


    Okay, I know its sarcasm but I get really tired of it coming from both sides. The republic is alive and well, it works pretty well. The first true democracy survuves in spite of us. We have survived much worse than things as they are now.


Agreed, but that said my father's Dale Gribble impression gets sharper with each passing year if you catch my drift.



"Americas top dog is a big, slobbering, barking dog named Josh" [AP]
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.70
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: California may see the monster again
Next thread: Clinton Library Outsources to Scotland
Previous thread: Bush/Kerry Skull & Bones connection
(1548 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
(If you've missed one, all in this series can be found at http://wienerboard.com/gacotd.php) GEROLD LEE GORMAN(D) Occupation: Jedi Knight (profiles.yahoo.com) Marital Status: Single - no kidding, really? REAL Occupation:
- CRZ, CA GCOTD: GORMAN (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Well, there goes the Gay vote (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2018 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.12 seconds.