The next amendment added to the constitution will be....
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
well with what Mass.'s courts did yesterday, I think we can guarantee that within a year. we will be voting on a marriage definition amendment.
later,
epic
later,
epic
As I said before, the day hateful religious demagoguery is codified in our constitution is the day this country becomes a meaningless shell of its former self. There is no non-religious reason to ban gays from marrying whatsoever. It's just a continuation of this country's long dirty "secret" of exclusion and minority hatred.
The Republicans built their stronghold in the south right after the Democrats took a principled stand and backed the Civil Rights Movement, most notably the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as well as the enforcement of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. Is it any wonder that political analysts are virtually guaranteeing that the Republicans will run yet another FUD campaign, but this time targeting gays instead of blacks and women's rights organizations, to rally their "poor white male southern base?" The Republicans have used nothing but FUD in their platforms since the 60s. For an organization that extols itself on the meaning of self-governance and taking credit, and blame, for one's own actions, they sure have done a lot of finger pointing for all society's ills towards Blacks, Women, Immigrants, Jews, and now Gays.
Did I say how much I truly despise Republican social conservatives? The Mass. Democrats who disagree with Gay Marriage at the very least have publicly stated that while they have a personal disagreement with homosexuality, the law does protect us, and that is why they're standing with the decision as a whole. It seems that so far, Democrats tend to look past their own personal biases and look at the law itself, rather than co-mingle their personal biases with the law. If all the politicians in the 60s mingled their personal biases with the law, I dare say we would not have gotten the landmark Civil Rights acts we did. Or in the 70s the Women's Rights acts. The Republicans now have their "Wedge Issue" to run on. Lord knows they can't run on the economy or Iraq. So let's just divert those poor unsuspecting souls attention from what matters to what doesn't, in order to turn out our perpetually fearful southern base.
History is simply repeating itself.
The Republicans built their stronghold in the south right after the Democrats took a principled stand and backed the Civil Rights Movement, most notably the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as well as the enforcement of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. Is it any wonder that political analysts are virtually guaranteeing that the Republicans will run yet another FUD campaign, but this time targeting gays instead of blacks and women's rights organizations, to rally their "poor white male southern base?" The Republicans have used nothing but FUD in their platforms since the 60s. For an organization that extols itself on the meaning of self-governance and taking credit, and blame, for one's own actions, they sure have done a lot of finger pointing for all society's ills towards Blacks, Women, Immigrants, Jews, and now Gays.
Did I say how much I truly despise Republican social conservatives? The Mass. Democrats who disagree with Gay Marriage at the very least have publicly stated that while they have a personal disagreement with homosexuality, the law does protect us, and that is why they're standing with the decision as a whole. It seems that so far, Democrats tend to look past their own personal biases and look at the law itself, rather than co-mingle their personal biases with the law. If all the politicians in the 60s mingled their personal biases with the law, I dare say we would not have gotten the landmark Civil Rights acts we did. Or in the 70s the Women's Rights acts. The Republicans now have their "Wedge Issue" to run on. Lord knows they can't run on the economy or Iraq. So let's just divert those poor unsuspecting souls attention from what matters to what doesn't, in order to turn out our perpetually fearful southern base.
History is simply repeating itself.
natoma, please grind your axe in a different thread. Id like to keep this one focused on what might be the next amendment to the constitution. If you like to argue about stuff outside this scope please do so else where. Alot of thread get derailed early on, and id like this one to try to stay on course. thanks.
Id like to add that _MY_ support for a marriage amendment is based partly on non-religious views. However, having a definition of marriage does not imply it will be hateful.
Anyways, do you think this has a chance of passing. Serious question, so im hoping for a serious answer. I believe many(most) democrats will vote for it. Kerry has already publicly stated he is against the decision by the Mass courts. He has not said whether or not he is for an amendment though.
later,
epic
Id like to add that _MY_ support for a marriage amendment is based partly on non-religious views. However, having a definition of marriage does not imply it will be hateful.
Anyways, do you think this has a chance of passing. Serious question, so im hoping for a serious answer. I believe many(most) democrats will vote for it. Kerry has already publicly stated he is against the decision by the Mass courts. He has not said whether or not he is for an amendment though.
later,
epic
I find it ironic, epicstruggle, that you of all people would be for a constitutional amendment banning people from marrying, especially considering your own history. Or was it not you who had parents who were not allowed to marry under Apartheid Africa simply because they were Hindu, and not Christian?
I find your position sad frankly, especially given your own parent's history, nay, the history of all non-Christians in Apartheid Africa.
As for the amendment, it is obscenely difficult to pass an amendment to the constitution. 2/3rd of the Congress, and 3/4th of the states have to vote "yay" on it in order for it to pass. I doubt there are enough votes. Could it be close? Sure. Will it be enough? No.
The fact that Republicans all over the nation are trying to pass this absurdity into our Constitution, which since its inception has been a bastion of freedom and equality, shows they frankly don't give a shit about this country and what it stands for.
I find your position sad frankly, especially given your own parent's history, nay, the history of all non-Christians in Apartheid Africa.
As for the amendment, it is obscenely difficult to pass an amendment to the constitution. 2/3rd of the Congress, and 3/4th of the states have to vote "yay" on it in order for it to pass. I doubt there are enough votes. Could it be close? Sure. Will it be enough? No.
The fact that Republicans all over the nation are trying to pass this absurdity into our Constitution, which since its inception has been a bastion of freedom and equality, shows they frankly don't give a shit about this country and what it stands for.
After yesterdays ruling I am deeply worried by what that moron Bush will do if he gets re-elected. For my generation this is nowhere near as big of an issue as with other generations. I personally don't see any issues with it and a lot of other people don't either. Times changes and views do too and this is becoming less and less of an issue as time goes on. My big concern though is that an ammendment will be rushed through hastily and that will affect generation for years to come. This is a long term thing and it needs to be studied carefully before anything is done. I know quite a few gay people, and all of them are wonderful people. If they would like to get married that is their choice and it doesn't bother me at all. The MA ruling is exactly right when it says marriage is the only way to give equal rights. Civil Unions (or at least the definition) seperate you from the vast majority of people...even if you have the same rights. Also what is to happen if an ammendment is passed? Hundreds of people will have been married before any ammendment is passed.
Bush won't be happy until he runs over a gay couple in the Prez mobile.
No doubt powered with oil stolen from Iraq.John Reynolds said:
Just because one isn't behind gay "marriage", doesn't mean one is a homophobe or a gay hater.
Some, like me, just don't like the courts horning in on religion by overreaching of their judical advocacy.
The answer is removing marriage as a governmental institution and having civil unions be the norm in the eyes of the government. Privately (note: privately as in "not with respect to the government" and not "in the privacy of their own homes"), let whomever proclaims their marriage do so, just don't expect Pastor So-And-So to respect a homosexual one, as its antithetical to his faith.
The Supreme Court stated nothing about religion in its decision Russ. There is a clear separation between religious marriage and civil marriage, and the Supreme Court specifically mentioned civil marriage.
See that is the problem with the people bashing this. They are treating this as if the Supreme Court is saying religious marriage is now redefined when that is not at all what they've said. They spoke regarding the legal protections and benefits accorded civil marriage. Why doesn't Civil Unions work? Why would it be "separate but equal" under the current system? Because for one, civil unions aren't recognized nationwide. Civil Marriage is.
Today, you can be married in a church and the government will not recognize it. You still have to go to city hall and fill out your forms. No one is trying to impede upon the religious rights of others. If they want to conduct gay marriages in their church, fine. If not, fine. If they want to conduct interracial marriages in their church, fine. If not, fine. If they want to marry pigs and sheep in their church, fine. If not, fine. But this is about what the federal government recognizes. Not the churches.
And unfortunately thus far, the republicans are muddying up the waters by continuing to state that the Supreme Court is trying to redefine and destroy the sanctity (a loaded religious term and solely without legal merit) of marriage.
What needs to happen imo is education on the matter. People think we're trying to run roughshod over their religious beliefs thanks to the social conservatives in the republican (the majority of republicans in control) and democratic party (thankfully very few), when that is simply not the case at all. We want the same legal rights, protections, responsibilities, and benefits at the local, state, and federal level, accorded to heterosexuals.
If I'm a religious person and my church won't ordain my relationship, well that is their decision. The state has no claim on what the church does in matters of religion, and there is no attempt to change that. I'm sure there were many churches who abstained from performing interracial marriages even after the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down. But that made no difference to the federal government and how it sees its citizens.
The same situation exists today.
See that is the problem with the people bashing this. They are treating this as if the Supreme Court is saying religious marriage is now redefined when that is not at all what they've said. They spoke regarding the legal protections and benefits accorded civil marriage. Why doesn't Civil Unions work? Why would it be "separate but equal" under the current system? Because for one, civil unions aren't recognized nationwide. Civil Marriage is.
Today, you can be married in a church and the government will not recognize it. You still have to go to city hall and fill out your forms. No one is trying to impede upon the religious rights of others. If they want to conduct gay marriages in their church, fine. If not, fine. If they want to conduct interracial marriages in their church, fine. If not, fine. If they want to marry pigs and sheep in their church, fine. If not, fine. But this is about what the federal government recognizes. Not the churches.
And unfortunately thus far, the republicans are muddying up the waters by continuing to state that the Supreme Court is trying to redefine and destroy the sanctity (a loaded religious term and solely without legal merit) of marriage.
What needs to happen imo is education on the matter. People think we're trying to run roughshod over their religious beliefs thanks to the social conservatives in the republican (the majority of republicans in control) and democratic party (thankfully very few), when that is simply not the case at all. We want the same legal rights, protections, responsibilities, and benefits at the local, state, and federal level, accorded to heterosexuals.
If I'm a religious person and my church won't ordain my relationship, well that is their decision. The state has no claim on what the church does in matters of religion, and there is no attempt to change that. I'm sure there were many churches who abstained from performing interracial marriages even after the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down. But that made no difference to the federal government and how it sees its citizens.
The same situation exists today.
RussSchultz said:No doubt powered with oil stolen from Iraq.John Reynolds said:
Just because one isn't behind gay "marriage", doesn't mean one is a homophobe or a gay hater.
No, he just wants to amend the Constitution to forbid gay marriages based on his fundie Christian beliefs. I'm sure Dubya has lots of gay friends he invites over to the White House for social visits.
Oh, and my turn playing the emoticon game:
2 of the amendments got some news this week. Defining marriage to not include gays, and allowing those not born in this country to be able to become president.
Im rooting for the later since i really do want to run for president.
later,
epic
Im rooting for the later since i really do want to run for president.
later,
epic
Joe DeFuria
Legend
John Reynolds said:
Christian, or what he believes is basic American and historical traditional values?
And I'm sure you have a lot of "Fundie" friends that you invite over your house for social visits.
You gotta love gross generalizations....
Oh...almost forgote....
Joe DeFuria said:
Like slavery? That was certainly a historical American tradition for several hundred years, but social progression ended it. I guess if it's "tradition" based it's okay to be a bigot? It was American political tradition to deny black the right to vote until 1965. . .gwarsch!, lordie oh lordie, why did we cave into a civil rights movement and let those darkies have the right to vote?! Here's a clue, maybe because it was the right thing to do.
And I'm sure you have a lot of "Fundie" friends that you invite over your house for social visits.
You gotta love gross generalizations....
Oh...almost forgote....
WTF? Dig up a 20-day-old post and hop right in there, Joe. Who I invite into my home isn't pertinent because I'm not the one promoting legislation that will curb the rights of fellow Americans. My statement of who Bush does invite over is relevent because he's the person sitting in the highest office of this country who is supporting such law, so whether he's has a prejudicial attitude toward the very people he wants new law made against is relevent.
And I have no problem with fundies, so long as they don't try shoving their self-righteous opinions onto others. Be free to live your life, hold your own personal beliefs, and understand why there is a separation of church and state in this country, a separation the more right wing fundies want to see removed.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
John Reynolds said:
That's nice.
No, who you invite into your home is pertinent since you pretend to know who Bush would or wouldn't have in his home.
EDIT: What I specifically mean by that is...you keep railing on Bush for having "Fundie" Christian values....and yet, you of all people should know that if he does espouse such values, he would in fact welcome gays into his home. That doesn't mean he welcomes the concept of them getting married.
I have no problems with gays, so long as they don't try shoving their self-righteous opionions on to others. What kind of argument is that?
Joe DeFuria said:
Careful with what they shove....
Joe DeFuria said:
Cute reply. I'm sure the black community thanks you for your support. It's nice being a white male in America and not having your rights restricted. And taking that freedom for granted and being unwilling to share it with others because, gasp!, they're different than you are. Eeeeek.
Wow, fallacious logic if ever there was. So who I invite into my home is indicative of my ability to take a guess at Bush's guests. Nice dodge, again, of my point.
Another dodge. Gays are fighting for equal rights, and those who oppose those rights are of the opinion that they don't need or deserve them. You can't see the difference. I'm arguing that I have no patience for such opinions because regardless of their catalyst they are a blatant form of bigotry. If Bush and others want to protect the sanctity of their holy ritual of marriage then he can outlaw divorce; maybe then us straight people will stop jumping in and out of it like it's a carnival ride.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
John Reynolds said:
Um, my point is, what does slavery have to do with gay marriage?
Murder is a generally frowed upon "tradition". And no one seems to have issues with changing that.
So, gays are not free to cohabitate or love one another? Sorry, I didn't know their freedoms were restricted in that way.
Um, what was your point...other than to paint Bush as someone who hates gays? And trying to do so by painting him further as a Christian Fundie....which of "hatred of gays" blatantly conflicts with fundamental Christian beliefs in the first place.
Why? Divorce doesn't lessen the sanctity of marriage. Or do people get married with the idea that they want to get a divorce from the get-go?
Joe DeFuria said:
How does one minority fighting for equal rights relate to another? Beats the hell out of me.
And I'm sure you think you're scoring 'argument' points with that statement. IMO, minority fighting for rights = minority fighting for rights; in your argument, murder = disallowing gays freedom to marry. Great logic, yet again.
Gwarsch! You mean we don't hunt them down in their homes and root out the evil, Matthew Sheperd style? I'm quite certain the gay community thanks God every day for this blessing. Yeah, you're right, they should just shut up and be happy with their semi-rights while we straight white males keep the status quo nice and firmly protected.
I never said he hates them. But he's willing to damage the separation of church and state in this country's government in the effort to deny them their rights as American citizens.
No, you're right, Joe, American society has done a damn fine job of upholding marriage and keeping our families strong. A damn fine job!
Joe DeFuria
Legend
John Reynolds said:
Me too. Because the basic concept of "ownership" (slavery) is about as 180 degrees from the concept of "freedom" as possible. Where as I was not aware that having a piece of paper saying you're married was some right bestowed upon anyone by anyone.
You mean, exactly like what happened to slaves who tried to flee?
Perhaps you see a slight difference now?
Who said I expect gays to be happy about it? You've got quite a track record going of making up shit that I don't say or imply.
No, you said things like "Bush won't be happy until he runs over a gay couple in the Prez mobile." Cleary, showing your utmost understanding of the separation between gays, and gay marriage, right.
What are you talking about? The gov't already recognizes "marriage" as a legal entity.
Um, did I say high divorce rates aren't a social issue?
I said divorce does not undermine marriage. Please tell me you understand the difference.
Joe, you had to have been the Dodge Ball champ at your high school as a kid. I'm done with this little discussion. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back and crown yourself the winner.
Similar threads
- Locked