2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Hillary is gutsy, she has her endorsement announced upon Kerry's victory and furthermore on Japanese TV. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Everyone wants the other side to take risks. lol

0 Replies

The idea is too look as if your taking a risk to your base with nothing really ventured so you can maintain the middle as in proposing a Constitutional Amendment on Gay Marriage........

0 Replies

My thinking is that the Clintons are (to use a retailing phrase) "old merchandise." They have not great value to the Dem party. They may get a chance to speak at the convention, as will Rev Sharpton and Mr Kuchinich, but they are no longer
real players. They will fade away.

0 Replies

Couldn't disagree with you less realjohnboy. They both draw both big crowds and big money - if Gore had of utilized the Clintons, he would have destroyed the Bush..................

A lot of Dem policy is still comming out of their camp! I will agree it takes "proper" use - but, as it stands now, Hillary will one day be President; just get ready for it!

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

The idea is too look as if your taking a risk to your base with nothing really ventured so you can maintain the middle as in proposing a Constitutional Amendment on Gay Marriage........

The Amendment is not on Gay Marriage, it is to preserve the current meaning of marriage.

0 Replies

ohhhh,, geeeee,,,, now try to convince me - duh!

0 Replies

News?
*******

"[Senator John] Kerry did not know the extent of his Jewish roots until
a year ago when a genealogist in Vienna, hired by The Boston Globe,
discovered that Kerry's paternal grandfather, Frederick Kerry, a
converted Catholic, was actually born Fritz Kohn to Jewish parents in what was Austria-Hungary, now part of the Czech Republic. Kerry, 60, has known for about 16 years that his paternal grandmother was born Jewish as Ida Lowe and converted to Catholicism."

-- Newsday.com, 1 March 2004
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usroot0301,0,2821800.story

0 Replies

Brand X, And what is the meaning of "marriage?" What is this definition trying to prove? What will result from this refined defitnition?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brand X, And what is the meaning of "marriage?" What is this definition trying to prove? What will result from this refined defitnition?

Surely you are capable of looking up the definition of marriage. There is no question whether the definition of marriage has been--both legally and linguistically--the pairing of one man and one woman. The questions today are whether we should allow that definition to evolve and what the consequences of doing so or not doing so might be.

0 Replies

Yeah, what Scrat said.

0 Replies

AFAIC, the definition of "marriage" should be revised to meet the needs of contemporary times, especially since many words in the dictionary have already been changed to meet today's needs. As for the legal aspects of "marriage," that should be changed to allow all citizens of this country to equal rights and protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Gay marriage will not lessen or infringe on the rights of heterosexual marriage - to protect families - that's the issue being broght forward by the christian right. It does nothing of the kind. Heterosexual marriage has not proven to be "sanctified" or anything else to over half of those that marry, because they end up in divorce. That's what puts children in "danger" of their life going haywire.

0 Replies

I think it was Scrat that said it, and I am paraphrasing here so bear with me...

I have the same rights to marry another man as any man in the nation. A gay man also has the same rights as I do to marry a woman.

How are our rights not equal?

0 Replies

That's right, no one is being denied marriage, you just have to marry the opposite sex, because if you don't it isn't a legal marriage or civil union as it is currently defined.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

AFAIC, the definition of "marriage" should be revised to meet the needs of contemporary times, especially since many words in the dictionary have already been changed to meet today's needs. As for the legal aspects of "marriage," that should be changed to allow all citizens of this country to equal rights and protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Gay marriage will not lessen or infringe on the rights of heterosexual marriage - to protect families - that's the issue being broght forward by the christian right. It does nothing of the kind. Heterosexual marriage has not proven to be "sanctified" or anything else to over half of those that marry, because they end up in divorce. That's what puts children in "danger" of their life going haywire.

1) Please give me an example of a word, the definition of which has changed as you describe. Thanks.

2) If your state creates a legal "civil union" open to all adults without regard to gender, and attaches all the same legal rights and constraints as are associated with marriage, your goal is accomplished. Why then is it necessary to call this union a "marriage"? The word has NOTHING to do with the legal issues associated therewith; those are codified in law, not in the letters of the word.

3) I don't think "sanctified" means what you seem to think it means.

0 Replies

Inconceivable!! Laughing

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
AFAIC, the definition of "marriage" should be revised to meet the needs of contemporary times, especially since many words in the dictionary have already been changed to meet today's needs.

1) Please give me an example of a word, the definition of which has changed as you describe. Thanks.

"marriage", would be one, heh.

Cause the dictionary definition has actually already changed:

the merriam-webster wrote:

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

There is no question whether the definition of marriage has been--both legally and linguistically--the pairing of one man and one woman. The questions today are whether we should allow that definition to evolve and what the consequences of doing so or not doing so might be.

There's a very interesting thread here about how what has been considered sine qua nons for a proper marriage have always evoluted: The more things change...

0 Replies

Thanks nimh, I checked it out. I appreciate your pointing it out to me. Cool

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I think it was Scrat that said it, and I am paraphrasing here so bear with me...

I have the same rights to marry another man as any man in the nation. A gay man also has the same rights as I do to marry a woman.

Ahh I was looking for this nugget this morning.

Scrat's logic (and yours by agreement) is quite disingenuous.

Their desired right is not to marry the same sex that you choose to marry but for them to marry whom they choose.

By the twisted logic you've touted here segregation was all about equality.

"We don't go to your schoools and you don't go to ours."

"You don't drink from our water fountain and we won't drink from yours"

Quote:

How are our rights not equal?

One group is facing opposition in to their goal of marrying the people they love, the other is not.

Saying that they are free to marry people who are of a sex they are not even attracted to and therefore being afforded equal rights is disingenuous.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know