Isn't it curious to say the least?

[woodman]

Doesn't it strike anyone else as curious and ironic that our government who is sending
troops around the planet ostensibly to try and bring freedom to other countries where
the people are suffering at the hands of wacko fundamentalist religious zealots, is now
trying to do just the opposite to its own citizens? How bizarre is that?

Our founding fathers laid out a framework in which government and religion were two
distinctly SEPARATE entities. Now George Dubya & Co. want to overturn that basic
principle and amend the Constitution in order to do so! Stop these maniacs come
November ... please!

Comments?

[bturk667]

What I find interesting is that durning his presidential campaign, four years ago, George W. Bush said that the states should make the decision about gay marrige. Now, however, he seems to think that he can. I thought the Republicans were suppose to be about less government, not more? Sorry, I don't think Bush should be telling anyone what they can and can not do morally

George W. Bush: The Moral Police
What a joke!

Did you know, that he is trying to add SEVEN amendments to the Constitution!
Again, aren't the Republicans about less government? Oh, maybe, but not when it comes to morality! Thomas Jefferson is probably rolling over in his grave!

I hope he gets voted out in the next election, if not were FOCKED!!!

[jack70]

Our founding fathers laid out a framework in which government and religion were two distinctly SEPARATE entities.
Then why aren't you equally upset about marriage, an ostensibly religious concept, being so intertwined in governmental laws and regulation? This is at the heart of the debate... that it's now the government that's telling religion how to run/define itself... it's pretty bizarre IMO. Just as bizarre as gays wanting to be part of a religious "thing" that generally excludes them, if you believe scripture, which is what religion supposedly does. Why would you want to part of something like that? And why are you surprised at the backlash when you try to co-opt such an institution?




Sorry, I don't think Bush should be telling anyone what they can and can not do morally
It's the LEGAL aspect of this that people (not just Bush) are upset about.... the fact that certain judges and mayors are not obeying their oaths, and are flagrantly disobeying the law. What if those people ignored the gun laws and started issuing carry-permits the same way... that would be OK with you too? It's a LEGAL issue, not a moral one. If you want a different "legal definition" of marriage, go through the democratic process, and get the state legislature to change it.

Personally I don't care all that much either way. But I can see the concern, that if society (through the heavy intrusive hand of government) redefines what marriage is, it could result in a lessening of the desire for marriage and how that might, in the future, (negatively) impact kids, family's and our cultural future. It's a legitimate concern. We already see plenty of negative fallout from the increased breakdown of the family unit, especially in the black community which had a stronger marriage rate (95%+) in the early 1900's than whites did; it's now under 50%. You want to (help) lower it still more?

[woodman]

Then why aren't you equally upset about marriage, an ostensibly religious concept, being so intertwined in governmental laws and regulation? This is at the heart of the debate... that it's now the government that's telling religion how to run/define itself... it's pretty bizarre IMO. Just as bizarre as gays wanting to be part of a religious "thing" that generally excludes them, if you believe scripture, which is what religion supposedly does. Why would you want to part of something like that? And why are you surprised at the backlash when you try to co-opt such an institution?

Say whaaaaa?
Seems like you've got this entire thing backwards, just like you have everything else backwards, Jack. It's not the government teling religion how to run/define itself ... it's exactly the opposite of that. It's the fanatical religous zealots that are trying to force their beliefs upon everyone else by using the government to do it. They've been at it for decades over the abortion issue, and now they're doing their damnedest to try and define gays as something other than human, and deny them their civil rights! This is an abomination and an obscenity. Those poor people were BORN with an abnormality ... they sure as hell didn't choose it for themselves - to be social outcasts - to be laughed at - to be spit upon - to be denied a job for which they're eminently qualified - to be fired from a job when their homosexuality was discovered - who, in their right mind would choose THAT for themselves? To deny them the right to marry makes no more sense than denying people the right to marry if they're left-handed, or have green eyes, or .......



It's the LEGAL aspect of this that people (not just Bush) are upset about.... the fact that certain judges and mayors are not obeying their oaths, and are flagrantly disobeying the law. What if those people ignored the gun laws and started issuing carry-permits the same way... that would be OK with you too? It's a LEGAL issue, not a moral one. If you want a different "legal definition" of marriage, go through the democratic process, and get the state legislature to change it.

Disobeying what law? Also, as far as being upset goes, I don't think Dubya is upset at all - he's just cementing his support from the religious right-wing wackos who want their beliefs to be the law of the land. It's nothing more than politics as usual - just like his sham of a promise to help the low-income seniors get the prescription drugs that they need and cannot afford.



Personally I don't care all that much either way. But I can see the concern, that if society (through the heavy intrusive hand of government) redefines what marriage is, it could result in a lessening of the desire for marriage and how that might, in the future, (negatively) impact kids, family's and our cultural future. It's a legitimate concern. We already see plenty of negative fallout from the increased breakdown of the family unit, especially in the black community which had a stronger marriage rate (95%+) in the early 1900's than whites did; it's now under 50%. You want to (help) lower it still more?

Those statements are almost too bizarre to answer, but I'm appalled that you "don't care either way". It's alright with you if we were to pass an amendment to the Constitution that disallows certain citizens the right to marry? Oh really. No wonder that you support Dubya - the absolute epitome of a lying, deceitful scumbag that has no right whatsoever to be sitting in the Oval office. A position that he acquired through political chicanery. I'm hoping with all my heart that we can dump his ass right out of that seat he's been occupying for the last 4 years ... he's the absolute worst president this country has ever had - bar none!

[jack70]

Seems like you've got this entire thing backwards, just like you have everything else backwards, Jack. It's not the government teling religion how to run/define itself ... it's exactly the opposite of that.
If the government "re-defines marriage" in a way that goes against certain basic religious tenants (like allowing gays to wed), then the government is getting involved in religion... period. Why can't the government simply allow "civil unions", which allow all the governmental aspects of basic civil rights (medical rights, inheritance, power of attorney, etc)? Many states already do this, and it works just fine. Just stay out of "marriage", which is a religious sacrament in many religions, with strict rules (whether we like them or not).




It's the fanatical religious zealots that are trying to force their beliefs upon everyone else by using the government to do it. They've been at it for decades over the abortion issue, and now they're doing their damndest to try and define gays as something other than human, and deny them their civil rights!
I feel the same way about gay marriage as I do about abortion... they're not something the FEDERAL government should be involved in. Both should be left to the individual states, just as the founders planned -- those states that go in one direction will lead or hinder their citizens, and those that go in a different direction will show how society will evolve under different rules & laws. We do this with gambling, prostitution, drugs, and hundreds of other laws. The trouble is, both the left & right want to force their own ideologies on EVERYONE else. (you put yourself in this totalitarian view...LOL). BOTH groups are going against the freedoms the founders hoped states wuld experiment with in order to evolve a better society (whatever that is).



Disobeying what law?
The mayor of SF (& others) have allowed the granting of (legal) marriage licenses to gays, even though the statute does not cover them. They are simply not following the law (the specific written elements), whether you or I like the law or not. It is NO DIFFERENT than the local motor vehicle dept issuing licenses to blind people, or the local state police (dept of safety) issuing gun permits to felons.... they're are ALL outside of the legal umbrella (statutes) of the law. If society wants to change it, go through the legislature, and frickin change it. Bureaucrats cannot MAKE law in our system last I knew.



Those statements are almost too bizarre to answer, but I'm appalled that you "don't care either way" It's alright with you if we were to pass an amendment to the Constitution that disallows certain citizens the right to marry? Oh really.
You still don't understand the principle here. An amendment to define marriage wouldn't take away any civil rights to gays... civil unions are already the law of the land in many places. It works fine too. It insures ALL the civil rights married people have. I know of many gays who believe this (in your face) desire to co-opt the definition of marriage will only turn back the clock & hamper much of the strides gays have made in recent decades. It's typical of the zealotry... on the left, as well as the right.

[bturk667]

Bush is the Executive branch, not the Judicial branch. To understand the difference, go and read the Constitution!

Tell me, how many people have been directly killed by gay marriages, as opposed to how many have been directly killed by somone using a fire-arm? Nice argument, makes a whole lot of sense! I heard O'reilly use that argument, how about coming up with an original thought.

I think you know...Kim

[jack70]

Tell me, how many people have been directly killed by gay marriages, as opposed to how many have been directly killed by somone using a fire-arm? Nice argument, makes a whole lot of sense! I heard O'reilly use that argument, how about coming up with an original thought.
As usual, my point either went way over your head... (or you're avoiding it because you know I'm right...LOL). Elected Government officials have to observe & enforce the law, as they are written. They can't selectively "pick & choose" what they like, or make up elements that don't exist. It's as simple as that.

A cop can't decide what the speed limit is. A public official can't determine zoning policy by himself. A public bureaucrat can't give a driver's license to a 12 year-old. A mayor can't change the tax rate independently. If individuals want to change the law, they propose a change, and the legislature votes on it. It's a real basic concept. Most of us understand it.

I don't have the time to listen to O'Reilly very often, but I'm glad to hear he thinks logically too.

[FLZapped]

Say whaaaaa?
They've been at it for decades over the abortion issue, and now they're doing their damnedest to try and define gays as something other than human, and deny them their civil rights! This is an abomination and an obscenity. Those poor people were BORN with an abnormality ...

Whoa. Born that way? There is yet any real evidence this is true. My family has two "gays" and both made a choice to live this way at some point in their life.

So in that sense, there are no civil rights to be guaranteed, interesting though how the "gay rights" lobbyist try to portray themselves as being denied civil rights.

Who would be next? Pedophiles? Serial Killers? Racists? They all had to have been born that way! I know, smokers, yeah, they were born that way, so they should be able to light up where ever they wish, I mean, after all, that is their basic civil right, no?

-Bruce

[woodman]

Whoa. Born that way? There is yet any real evidence this is true. My family has two "gays" and both made a choice to live this way at some point in their life.

So in that sense, there are no civil rights to be guaranteed, interesting though how the "gay rights" lobbyist try to portray themselves as being denied civil rights.

Who would be next? Pedophiles? Serial Killers? Racists? They all had to have been born that way! I know, smokers, yeah, they were born that way, so they should be able to light up where ever they wish, I mean, after all, that is their basic civil right, no?

-Bruce

Oh really, Bruce? Your family has two "gays" and you think that they CHOSE that lifestyle for themselves? Is that what they told the rest of the family ... that they were choosing to be "gay"? You gotta be kidding me. I'll flat out guarantee you that anyone who chooses to be "gay" will regret their choice and denounce it as soon as they've experienced the amount of intense discrimination and yes, even hatred that they're exposed to. It's why so many of them stayed "in the closet" for so many decades. No one in their right mind would pursue that way of life if they had any choice in the matter, rest assured of that. And yes, the scientific community has just about conclusively established the fact that gays are born that way. It's the only explanation for that condition that makes any sense, or holds up to any serious logic or reason.

Your last question - "who'll be next" is totally ridiculous. Pedophiles, serial killers, racial bigots, murderers, bank robbers, drug addicts ... all can marry whoever they please and no one will object in the slightest, as long as they marry a person of the opposite gender that is. But if you're "gay" and want to get married, by golly we've got LAWS against that, and if those laws aren't clear enough, we'll just have to make 'em so that they are clear enough. We cannot have two men or two women marrying each other fer crissakes, can we? Sheeeeeeeesh! You surprised me, Bruce ... I thought that you were more intelligent than this.

[FLZapped]

Oh really, Bruce? Your family has two "gays" and you think that they CHOSE that lifestyle for themselves?

Dude, you have no grounds to tell me what goes on in my family. You don't like what I told you, too damned bad - that's the way it is, period.



Your last question - "who'll be next" is totally ridiculous. Pedophiles, serial killers, racial bigots, murderers, bank robbers, drug addicts ... all can marry whoever they please and no one will object in the slightest, as long as they marry a person of the opposite gender that is. But if you're "gay" and want to get married, by golly we've got LAWS against that, and if those laws aren't clear enough, we'll just have to make 'em so that they are clear enough. We cannot have two men or two women marrying each other fer crissakes, can we?

Really? Homosexual behavior has not been proven to be genetic, therefore, that leaves it as a chosen deviant behavoir, as are the other things I listed. You may think it's crazy, but once we accept one deviant behavior as normal, why shouldn't we accept all the others??

You are calling this a civil rights issue, marriage is just the object upon which you wanted to thrust that argument. Marriage itself is irrelevent. You are calling for the normalization and legalization of a deviant behavior.


Sheeeeeeeesh! You surprised me, Bruce ... I thought that you were more intelligent than this.

Excuse me? Where do ad hominem attacks belong here? You really want to go down that path?

-Bruce

[bturk667]

One question for you: Did you choose to be a heterosexual?

[FLZapped]

One question for you: Did you choose to be a heterosexual?

Are you going to choose to vote to be enslaved by the government for your daily existance?

[piece-it pete]

Doesn't it strike anyone else as curious and ironic that our government who is sending
troops around the planet ostensibly to try and bring freedom to other countries where
the people are suffering at the hands of wacko fundamentalist religious zealots, is now
trying to do just the opposite to its own citizens? How bizarre is that?

Our founding fathers laid out a framework in which government and religion were two
distinctly SEPARATE entities. Now George Dubya & Co. want to overturn that basic
principle and amend the Constitution in order to do so! Stop these maniacs come
November ... please!

Comments?


To me it's cut & dry. It's not even a moral issue.

The people of California spoke clearly a couple of years back, and said that yes, marriage is strictly man & woman exclusively.

A grandstanding policitian decided that the people's vote was wrong, and started breaking the law by writing worthless "marriage licenses" as at best a political stunt and at worst possibly voiding the people's will completely via judical fiat (also known as tyranny).

The judical system shows its' willingness to continue its' power grab by not issuing an immediate injunction halting this ploy, while examining it. Even if there is some sort of Constitutional issue at stake, the will of the people would generally take precedence because there is no clear & present danger. So they're complicit.

Our founding fathers, largely wacko fundamentalist religious zealots like myself (as evidenced in the Capitol building - where they still open every session of Congress with - gasp - evil, hateful prayer, and had the bad taste to refer to God in our most precious documents, stating that He was the source of the very rights we're arguing about) would have agreed 100%, and would have pointed out that if they in their wildest dreams thought that some twisted definition would have been bought by enough people that gay couples would have been considered "married" - then they certainly would have defined it - clearly.

Of course, the amendment proposed by Bush will only state that one states' law will not apply to any other.

But that's beside the point. These folks aren't having any rights taken away. They never had the right in the first place.

Pete