Again, I gotta ask, A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT? REALLY?

[Guest]

Michael Medved said years ago (paraphrased): "Fine with me. Let them have marriage. And they can have everything that comes along with it, like divorce, alimony, and property and custody disputes."

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Deuce 1]

Quote

jp, I love ya like a brother -- you know that.

Quote

"Hey you idiots, what the fuck are you thinking?!" is really not a question. It is being asked from both sides of the debate.

Ok, let's have a debate -- mono y mono.

Please tell me why this makes sense?

Q, I have tremendous faith in the United States system of government. I am not worried about the debate from either side. The system is resistant to change, so change takes time, and we don't get a lot of "fad" legislation through the Federal system. The ERA was a perfect example of that.

That said, I think our culture suffers from a lack of definition. Of good and bad, right and wrong. What is a husband, a wife, a marriage. What defines being a man, or being a woman.

I think the majority of people would like a cultural definition of what constitutes a marriage. Most people think it's Ken and Barbie, and then 2.5 babies and a nice house with a white picket fence. When I say "most" I simply mean the majority of Americans. So I think that majority is squeamish about being told that marriage is two humans promising to be responsible for one another forever.

The nuance gets lost.

I had kind of a similar exchange with Narcimund. My response to his challenge was "whatever". I enjoy great freindships with gay and lesbian cop associates. I really don't care what they are engaged in in the gay community.

Just as I hope they are not concerned what I am engaged in in the Catholic community.

I think Newsome forced the issue to divert attention from the state of the City of San Francisco. Tolerance of homosexuality is very much on the rise, and gay culture is gaining wide acceptance through media like "Queer eye for the straight guy". Another 5 years or so, and the California Constitution would have had that marriage act rescinded through the Proposition process. For exactly that reason, the Amendment process will fail.

I would just encourage people to be tolerant. And that means being tolerant of the outrage that some folks have at the concept of two men or two women marrying. Hear those folks out. Let them blow off steam.

Eventually the will run out of steam and simply state:

Whatever.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

GWB thinks he can get Congress to draft and 2/3rds of the state to ratify a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as ONLY being between a man and a woman?

38 states have already passed laws saying the same thing. So it would seem that about three-fourths of the general public already agrees with this philosophy. And that is also an indication that he could get the necessary support for ratification in a constitutional convention.

Text of Speech

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So I think that majority is squeamish about being told that marriage is two humans promising to be responsible for and to one another forever.

A great definition, deuce. But, I added another couple of words in bold that I think tends to get lost nowadays far too often, as well.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

This is not a faith issue, at all. Seperation of church and state? Bush does not sit at the right hand of god, nor is the entire country a christian. He needs to get over himself and realize he is being as extreme as those he is waging a war against, except he has the power to enact change with his pen instead of a bomb.

Guess what - he just rallied every single gay person in this country to vote for the dems in the election.

This country was once the leader in so many areas, but Bush keeps trying to take us back in time, why?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[RedassSkychic 0]

this is just ridiculous. how can an issue that so many people just don't care about be pushed as a constitutional amendment? I'm not really worried about it becoming an amendment, but i guess we'll have a democratic president next year. what a stupid move on George W.'s part.

"If toast always lands butter-side down, and cats always land on their feet, what happens if you strap toast on the back of a cat and drop it?" --Steven Wright

[Deuce 1]

I am not saying it is a faith issue. In my church the least important part of a marriage is the permission slip from the County.

I don't care.


But for everyone to say that everyone else doesn't care is simply wrong. 4 years ago over 60% of the electorate in California got off their asses and voted that marriage was between a man and a woman. That's California, the most liberal state in the union.

Again, don't attack me. I don't give a shit. But to say that this is a non-issue to the majority of Americans is incorrect.

I used to joke that the worst way to open a dialogue was with the words "Now listen, fucker". I stand by that.

The larger issue here is the concept of a mayor dictating state law. Now that thousands of gay married couples exist, and "own" their marriages, the suits will be astounding, all across the country. As the courts get clogged up, the federal government will be forced to step in to level the legal playing field one way or the other.

[billvon 2,470]

>Would you want the contract or the agreement that you entered into
> changed because someone else with a different lifestyle decided
> that it would be fun to do that?

Do you think many marriages were horribly altered when the courts began allowing interracial marriages? Are we worse off now that blacks can marry whites?

[billvon 2,470]

>would you be willing to concede that the majority of americans favor
>this concept?

The majority of americans probably _are_ againt same-sex unions. The majority of americans were against interracial marriages in the 50's. Didn't mean that it was right to outlaw them.

Here in the US, we have a bill of rights that protects the rights of the minority; it even protects the rights of a single person even if everyone else is against him. It's one of the things that makes me proud to live here, that we defend even those we disagree with because we value individual freedom very highly.

[Unstable 8]

I agree that he is wasting his time & our money, way more important issues to be focusing on....

Well, just my .02 Cents, but I agree with the guy. I don't want to be flamed, so I'll leave it there...

=========Shaun ==========

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

>Would you want the contract or the agreement that you entered into
> changed because someone else with a different lifestyle decided
> that it would be fun to do that?

Do you think many marriages were horribly altered when the courts began allowing interracial marriages? Are we worse off now that blacks can marry whites?

No, because it doesn't change the DEFINITION of the word.
Look it up in Websters, look it up in ANY dictionary.
I don't see what the problem is - l;eave the WORD marriage alone.
Use one called "Civil Union", or make up a whole new one.
I am all for the protection of the same rights through the gov't, i.e. Social Security bennies, and medicare, retirement, the same as with a married couple, but the DEFINITION of marriage does not support the changes. You cannot just go changing the definitions of words to suit a certain lifestyle, or political Correct warm and fuzzy feeling.

Here is an example:

Bill - Male - Form of WILLIAM. (Means)resolute guardian

But under the changes that you are ok with since we can alter the definition of any word we chose -
Bill - Non gender specific - Form of William. (Means) Bright Pink Soft Fuzzy Flower

Example 2:

Shit: Now will mean to pat on the head lightly as in showing affection.
I SHIT you not.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

But for everyone to say that everyone else doesn't care is simply wrong. 4 years ago over 60% of the electorate in California got off their asses and voted that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Actually, 60% of the electorate (qualified voting body) didn't vote that way. 60% of the people who gave a shit voted that way. The people that didn't care, probably didn't vote. What was the actual percentage of the electorate that voted?

[quade 3]

Quote

38 states have already passed laws saying the same thing. So it would seem that about three-fourths of the general public already agrees with this philosophy. And that is also an indication that he could get the necessary support for ratification in a constitutional convention.

(lawrocket, jump in here anytime and correct my layman's understanding of the system.)

We are fortunate to live in a country where we are protected in the rapidity of change our legislature can bring to bear on us. We have several layers of insulation: the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The legislature creates bills signed into law by the executive and are interpreted by the justices. Further, we have what actually IS our country, our Constitution.

GWB has recently attacked an entire branch of our government, the judicial.

Quote

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

He can't seem to get his way through the normal process, so he has decided to go around it, by calling for a fundamental change to our country's most precious document -- The Constitution of the United States of America.

To me, this is outrageous.

Outrageous in that by changing this document he advocates taking away taking away one more right of all of the states.

While 38 states may have already passed laws concerning this, I don't think those 38 states represent the views of three-fourths of the general public or even the required 2/3rds to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Let me explain.

How many VOTES are required to pass a law is all of those 38 states? Simple majority? 2/3rds? Combination depending on which state is probably more like it. So, if a state passed the law by simple majority of say 51%, that state might not get the amount of support to pass a Constitutional Amendment -- and hopefully it won't.

I think GWB has made so many errors in pushing this forward today I can't even begin to list them all.

I really didn't want to be an "ABB". Really, I didn't.

I wanted a President I could be proud of.

GWB is not that man -- certainly not today.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,470]

>No, because it doesn't change the DEFINITION of the word.

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1:
A .The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
B. The state of being married; wedlock.
C. A common-law marriage.
D. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

2: A wedding.

3: A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).

4: Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

>Bill - Male - Form of WILLIAM. (Means)resolute guardian

I did't know that! Strangely, my life didn't just change, though, even though my name has just been redefined. It's just a name. (BTW bill also means request for payment, proposed law, the front of a hat, and the external rigid mouth parts on certain avians.)

>Bill - Non gender specific - Form of William. (Means) Bright Pink Soft Fuzzy Flower

I think that would change my life as much as the first thing did.

In any case, it would not change my marriage one iota to have marriage defined to be a pinochle term, or to be defined as a union between any two people. That being said, if Bush was pushing to legalize same-sex unions while making it clear that the term "marriage" would be reserved for a man and a woman, I'd be fine with that. It's the rights that the name confers, rather than the name itself, that's the issue.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

>Would you want the contract or the agreement that you entered into
> changed because someone else with a different lifestyle decided
> that it would be fun to do that?

Do you think many marriages were horribly altered when the courts began allowing interracial marriages? Are we worse off now that blacks can marry whites?

No, because it doesn't change the DEFINITION of the word.
Look it up in Websters, look it up in ANY dictionary.
I don't see what the problem is - l;eave the WORD marriage alone.
Use one called "Civil Union", or make up a whole new one.
I am all for the protection of the same rights through the gov't, i.e. Social Security bennies, and medicare, retirement, the same as with a married couple, but the DEFINITION of marriage does not support the changes. You cannot just go changing the definitions of words to suit a certain lifestyle, or political Correct warm and fuzzy feeling.

Here is an example:

Bill - Male - Form of WILLIAM. (Means)resolute guardian

But under the changes that you are ok with since we can alter the definition of any word we chose -
Bill - Non gender specific - Form of William. (Means) Bright Pink Soft Fuzzy Flower

Example 2:

Shit: Now will mean to pat on the head lightly as in showing affection.
I SHIT you not.

You argument is one of semantics. This is about changing the paradigm.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

>would you be willing to concede that the majority of americans favor
>this concept?

The majority of americans probably _are_ againt same-sex unions. The majority of americans were against interracial marriages in the 50's. Didn't mean that it was right to outlaw them.

Here in the US, we have a bill of rights that protects the rights of the minority; it even protects the rights of a single person even if everyone else is against him. It's one of the things that makes me proud to live here, that we defend even those we disagree with because we value individual freedom very highly.

Well said Bill.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Hey Turtle -

Give me a Yes or No answer: Does every citizen in this country deserve equal rights?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Would you want the contract or the agreement that you entered into
> changed because someone else with a different lifestyle decided
> that it would be fun to do that?

Do you think many marriages were horribly altered when the courts began allowing interracial marriages? Are we worse off now that blacks can marry whites?

No, because it doesn't change the DEFINITION of the word.
Look it up in Websters, look it up in ANY dictionary.
I don't see what the problem is - l;eave the WORD marriage alone.
Use one called "Civil Union", or make up a whole new one.
I am all for the protection of the same rights through the gov't, i.e. Social Security bennies, and medicare, retirement, the same as with a married couple, but the DEFINITION of marriage does not support the changes. You cannot just go changing the definitions of words to suit a certain lifestyle, or political Correct warm and fuzzy feeling.

Here is an example:

Bill - Male - Form of WILLIAM. (Means)resolute guardian

But under the changes that you are ok with since we can alter the definition of any word we chose -
Bill - Non gender specific - Form of William. (Means) Bright Pink Soft Fuzzy Flower

Example 2:

Shit: Now will mean to pat on the head lightly as in showing affection.
I SHIT you not.

You argument is one of semantics. This is about changing the paradigm.

Says who - wher in his argument does he say that?(Bush)

He just doesn't give alternatives.

That said, i am wondering how much policy his "Preacher" or "Reverend" or what ever the head of his particular church is influencing him.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Kennedy 0]

quade

If 38 states have laws prohibiting this union stuff, and two to three have laws allowing, eventually it's going to come before the supreme court on an equal protection case [i.e. one state is recognizing their 'rights' and the other isn't]

So you have two options if you're president. You can sit idly by while the federal government gets involved without you, or you can support an amendment that (A) get's you in well with you political base and (B) is supported by more than 2/3 of the states. ps - it'll be even harder to get the amendment if it goes to the SC and they rule against your side. How is that not good politics? Remember, presidents aren't leaders anymore, they're politicians.

---

John

It's strangely similar to the Right To Carry issues coming out all over the place. 30 something states have RTC, 10 or so have discretionary issue, and the rest don't allow it at all.

One circuit court has said there is an individual right to keep and bear arms granted by the constitution, another has said there isn't. Too bad Bush isn't pushing for an amendment defining "keep and bear arms" as "keep and bear arms." Oh wait....

---

to both of you

I find it funny how people are saying "it's none of your business if they don't hurt anyone" to one issue, but they're saying "they might hurt someone" to the other. Things that make you go "Hmmmm..."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Hey Turtle -

Give me a Yes or No answer: Does every citizen in this country deserve equal rights?

NO!
Criminals: Felons, murderers, and such do not.
It it a right to be able to be married?
I have never seen that in the bill of rights.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok...yes or no answer to this than?

Does every citizen deserve equal protection under the law?

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Quote

We'll see where the majority sides with this one. If the amendment passes, would you be willing to concede that the majority of americans favor this concept?

A society is not judged by how it treats the majority of its members, but rather by how it treats the minority.

In some instances, the majority opinion is simply wrong.

Excellent point look at the 19th Amnd it barely made it by two votes.

[billvon 2,470]

>It it a right to be able to be married?

All rights not explicitly reserved to the federal, state or local governments belong to the people, at least in our system of government. That means if it's not illegal, you have a right to do it. And I think most people would consider getting married part of their "pursuit of happiness," which _is_ explicitly protected in our government's founding documents.

[Deuce 1]

Well, PhillyKeverino, I just happened to manage the elections division of my county and have those figures to hand.

The Election was the March Presidential primary of 2000. In that election there were 21,220,772 people who were eligible to vote. Of those 14,631,805 were registered to vote. On Election Day, 7,528,043 voted.

4,618,673 voted for the definition of marriage
2,909,370 voted against defining marriage
353,956 people left that contest blank.

Damn I'm good.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>It it a right to be able to be married?

All rights not explicitly reserved to the federal, state or local governments belong to the people, at least in our system of government. That means if it's not illegal, you have a right to do it. And I think most people would consider getting married part of their "pursuit of happiness," which _is_ explicitly protected in our government's founding documents.

Well, the states disagree, and the federal government has so extended their power that they don't even need to mention the elastic clause anymore. They can get theirhands in everything thanks to their assumed role in interstate commerce, and their rules and regs concerning state interaction [recognition of licenses, etc]

Hence it become a federal issue. And the only way to make it stick at the federal level is to let to supreme court make new law for it [see Roe v Wade for recent example] or to take it into a new amendment.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*