Educated bigots? I'm trying to think of an example. Help me out, Karzak...
D'artagnan wrote:Educated bigots? I'm trying to think of an example. Help me out, Karzak...
That Abraham Lincoln guy maybe?
Well, if we're gonna be broad-minded about this, who among us has no biases?
D'artagnan wrote:Well, if we're gonna be broad-minded about this, who among us has no biases?
I have a unias, unless we count each cheek seperately, then it's a bias!
This is a loser and Bush knows it. He's playing the choir -- literally.
Red (and other members of the left) I am about to shock you...I am 100% totally opposed to ANY amendment that tries to ban marriage,on ANY level.
And,if such an amendment does come up for ratification by the states,I WILL OPPOSE IT.
Having said that,I cant help but wonder exactly how John-John will vote on it.I do believe it is a non-issue,but the two Johns have both stated their opposition to gay marriage and I do wonder if they will vote either way,or just abstain altogether.
It will be interesting to hear their defense if they vote,because they will alienate voters,no matter what their vote is.
If they don't vote at all,then they don't have the courage of their convictions,if they vote no then they don't care about gays,if they vote yes then they have been lying about their beliefs.
The true "rock and a hard spot".
So,while I will do everything in my power to oppose such an amendment,in purely political terms pushing it is good strategy for the Bush camp.
Either way it goes,Kerry loses.
I don't think Kerry/Edwards lose if they vote against it. They've both said it should be an issue decided by the states (Lynne Cheney has said the same). If they do duck the vote, it would be a VERY bad strategy.
D'artagnan wrote:I don't think Kerry/Edwards lose if they vote against it. They've both said it should be an issue decided by the states (Lynne Cheney has said the same). If they do duck the vote, it would be a VERY bad strategy.
I think they would lose in the sense that while both of them claim to not support it,by voting against it they would be on record as such.
I would think that would alienate the gay rights groups that are seen as supporting them now.
That is a large voter group,or so I understand.
I agree,it is a state issue,and one the federal govt has no say in.
The amendment is already oppossed by half the Senate -- it needs three quarters to pass. This is Bush grandstanding for the religious right and he knows it. If Kerry makes it an issue, he should stress what he has stated that the states should be responsible for any laws against or for gay marriage. Those making laws against it will be tested in court and it will find its way to the USSC.
The problem with the states haveing control of it is that they don't, SCOTUS overrules them, so the only way to put it back into state hands is with an amendment.
It would be smart to have an amendment that intead of outlawing perverted marriages, simply says the states do have authority to define marriage within their state, and also give states the authority not to recognize marriges from another state.
Karzak said..."simply says the states do have authority to define marriage within their state, and also give states the authority not to recognize marriges from another state."
Thats the first thing you have said(and probably the last) that I agree with.
mysteryman wrote:
(and probably the last) that I agree with.
Why put yourself down like that, there is hope that you will get smarter as you get older.
Again moot points -- the amendment will never get passed the legislatures. It doesn't have enough votes. Your rattling on about a non-issue and I hope Kerry doesn't do the same. You can hear the loose cogs in Bush's brain everytime he rattles on about the subject.
Marriage, by the way, is not solely and exclusively a religious ceremony. It is a civil matter and is valid with or without a religious ceremony. Bush is pandering for votes here and he is bluffing.
Lightwizard wrote:Again moot points -- the amendment will never get passed the legislatures.
That hardly makes it a moot point, it is still a subject worthy of debate, one that the voters will be exposed to.
The ones exposing themselves are on this forum (and, ugh, spare me the sight
). Bush has desperately clung to this and dropped trying to chew on stem cell research as it's a hot button he could lose some of his own constituents on. Actually, he's dumb enough to believe his bluff on this issue won't lose him as many or more votes than he will gain. It's another sign of his abject desperation now that he is 4 points behind Kerry. Amazingly enough, 5 points behind with Nader clocked in -- what's is that?
This guy makes me want to vomit.
Quote:"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. ".....Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"
.................
"If you support ... a mother and a father for every child, you are a hater. If you believe that men and women for 5,000 years have bonded together in marriage, you're a gay-basher. Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That's what we hear," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.
NEWSDAY
Am I so isolated in liberal MA that I am delusional in thinking that people like this are completely nuts?
It's funny, littlek, I was going to post the exact same Santorum quote just now! And I had the same reaction to it.
His saying this does serve a purpose, though. It shows that the Republicans will use "homeland security" to defend anything in their agenda. Pathetic.
And, oh, by the way, the amendment failed in the Senate.
Yes, let's defend the heterosexual divorce rate, the much too high percentage of bad parents, the unfaithful spouses, the marriages of convenience, the marriages for money, the marriages that last not even one year. This is a control issue. Control freaks want to deny anyone the legal and emotional happiness they deserve and strive for. Perhaps they are consoling themselves in their glass houses -- their mistaken "values" that Christ would look on as more of a sin than their judgement and disgust with others for their sins. I suppose that goes for the mental picture of their parents having sex.
