Well now that the election is over...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Seeing you write about racism and other "dem supported" issues pertaining to predjustice, you seemed a little left. I, with yourself, am more in the middle than I may seem. I, like yourself(again) speak about equality and the freedom to do as I wish(as long as it's not hurting anyone) pretty passionately. And rightfully so...IMHO. In general, you seem to have the same handle on the left and the right as I and many others. I went to the DNC and RNC websites and did a little reading.(I figured someone would tell me to do so anyway) Not overly enlightening, but did expect more spin than I got.

Anyway, I wont bore you any longer. I just wanted to thank you for answering my question personally in the context I asked for.

Karl, I guess It would seem like I am from the left because I talk about prejudice and racism. The Republicans don't usually want to talk about it because they are usually the perpretrators(Prop 209 and 187 and totally anti affirmative action)

Republicans(especially the old school repubs, not this new generation) had plenty of ideals I openly support. Strong military, balanced budgets, smaller government and less intervention in private matters. The new generation of repubs talk about these things, but they fail in practice.

[JSE]

"Stevie Wonder can see this is about hate."

I am am sorry you feel this way. It's truly unfortunate, because it's not reality. Just because you are against something, does not mean you hate it. I can't understand why that is so hard to comprehend for some people. Maybe your past has contibuted to this view but the view is wrong. Like I alluded to before, someone can have no problem with gay people and still be against gay marriage. There is "being gay" and there is "gay marriage". Two completely different things. I personally don't have a problem with legal unions that afford the same rights as mariage between a man and women but I do have a problem with it being called "Marriage". So, I guess by your standards I now Hate gays?

"There is no scare tactic in reconizing the truth."

Your right, but your view that people against gay marriage "Hate" gays is utterly wrong and careless.

"Can you please enlighten me on how a gay couple getting married affects your marriage?"

It does not. Never said it did. But that's not what this is about. It's about the definition of Marriage. Not Hate or Intolerance.


JSE

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"Stevie Wonder can see this is about hate."

I am am sorry you feel this way. It's truly unfortunate, because it's not reality. Just because you are against something, does not mean you hate it. I can't understand why that is so hard to comprehend for some people.

Can you tell me what makes the word so exclusive? And why you think that its okay to discriminate against a particular group of people. If this wasn't about hate, then can you tell me why it is so difficult to come up with a solution that gives committed gays the same benefits as married straights? Can you tell me why some of these states constitutional amendments won't even recognized their union? It may not be about hate to you, but somebody in your party(religious right maybe) definately has it in for gay people in this country.

Maybe your past has contibuted to this view but the view is wrong.

You know nothing of my past that qualifies you to make this statement. And who gave you carte blanche on right and wrong? Nothing personal, we see things differently. It may be okay for you to discriminate against a group of people and feel alright about it, but I don't.

Like I alluded to before, someone can have no problem with gay people and still be against gay marriage

So, you have no problem with gay people, but you do have a problem with them committing to one another. Kinda schizophrenic isn't that?

There is "being gay" and there is "gay marriage". Two completely different things.

I guess if you seperate things in this fashion, it makes it alot easier to discriminate, and legislate.

I personally don't have a problem with legal unions that afford the same rights as mariage between a man and women but I do have a problem with it being called "Marriage". So, I guess by your standards I now Hate gays?

Many in your party have a problem calling it anything, let alone recognizing it. They don't want to give not one federal benefit to gay unions, even though individiual states recognized this. Something is awful fishy when a state recognizes a gay union and give them rights and benefits just like straight couples, but the feds absolutely move against giving benefits, and then moves to discriminate.

Nobody still has not effectively explain to me how what makes the word "marriage" so exclusive to heterosexuals. Or how your marriage is effected by a married gay couple next door. Can someone enlighten me?

"There is no scare tactic in reconizing the truth."

Your right, but your view that people against gay marriage "Hate" gays is utterly wrong and careless.

JSE, there is nothing reckless about pointing out legislated discrimination, which many in the Republican party would like to do. Gays are getting killed, seriously injured, and abused and you do not call that hate? How does sand taste?

"Can you please enlighten me on how a gay couple getting married affects your marriage?"

It does not. Never said it did. But that's not what this is about. It's about the definition of Marriage. Not Hate or Intolerance.

If it doesn't effect you, then why would you care about the definition? Something is not adding up at all here. This smacks of intolerance and discrimination. You may not like that, but it does.

My next door neighbor said something to me that was very interesting. He said "maybe we shouldn't push for gay "marriage". Considering the sucess rate that word incapsolates, maybe we should call our unions something else"

Only a short sighted fool would believe this is about a word. This is about keeping gays uncommitted(or at least unrecongnized) and marginalizing them. That is a hateful move if I ever saw one.

[JSE]

"Can you tell me what makes the word so exclusive? And why you think that its okay to discriminate against a particular group of people. If this wasn't about hate, then can you tell me why it is so difficult to come up with a solution that gives committed gays the same benefits as married straights? Can you tell me why some of these states constitutional amendments won't even recognized their union? It may not be about hate to you, but somebody in your party(religious right maybe) definately has it in for gay people in this country. "

No point in arguing about this any longer. You feel it's Hate, I don't. I think people can see the reality and make up their own minds.



"You know nothing of my past that qualifies you to make this statement."

I was simply going off your statments within this topic about you neighbors and wife. Nothing personal.

" And who gave you carte blanche on right and wrong? Nothing personal, we see things differently."

It's does not.

" It may be okay for you to discriminate against a group of people and feel alright about it, but I don't."

This I take offense with. I, in no way discriminate against gay people saying I prefer "Marriage" to be defined as man and women. What have I taken away other than a word? Like I said, I am all form legal unions that give gay couples every right couples have in a traditional marriage. How is this descriminatory? I am talking about a definition.

"So, you have no problem with gay people, but you do have a problem with them committing to one another. Kinda schizophrenic isn't that?"

How do I have a problem with a gay couple committing to each other? I am all for it. Don't have any problem with it what so ever.

"I guess if you seperate things in this fashion, it makes it alot easier to discriminate, and legislate. "

Again, I am not descriminating. If it makes you feel better to believe I am, then so be it.

"Many in your party have a problem calling it anything, let alone recognizing it. They don't want to give not one federal benefit to gay unions, even though individiual states recognized this. Something is awful fishy when a state recognizes a gay union and give them rights and benefits just like straight couples, but the feds absolutely move against giving benefits, and then moves to discriminate."

Look, there are alway going to be people that Hate gays. There are people that Hate Black people, Asians, Jews, Etc. But, I do not feel the Anti-Gay Marriage issue is Hate driven. Are there some, sure.


"JSE, there is nothing reckless about pointing out legislated discrimination, which many in the Republican party would like to do. Gays are getting killed, seriously injured, and abused and you do not call that hate? How does sand taste?"

What? So now if you oppose gay marriage you agree with gay people being killed, injured and abused? Whatever.

"If it doesn't effect you, then why would you care about the definition? Something is not adding up at all here."

It's about beliefs and cultural values.

"This smacks of intolerance and discrimination. You may not like that, but it does."

Sorry, not the case. Think what ever you want but it does not change who I am.

"My next door neighbor said something to me that was very interesting. He said "maybe we shouldn't push for gay "marriage". Considering the sucess rate that word incapsolates, maybe we should call our unions something else"

Sounds like a good idea!

"Only a short sighted fool would believe this is about a word. "

Like "HATE"?

That's all from me on this. I will read your response but I am done commenting on this.

JSE

[karl k]

I wasn't looking for a fight either, the overall thoughts I posted were a genuine attempt to answer what I thought was the question.

And you did. Due to the initial apprehension of responding to the topic, I suspected most thought I was just looking to start something... or the topic was immaterial.

One wise man I knew said: "Every time 2 people talk there's actually 6 people talking. On each side: the actual person, the guy he thinks he is, and the guy the OTHER guy thinks he is".

Probably talked to himself alot as well as in his sleep! I can see how confusing that can be... but I can't! LOL!

Topic? What topics?

Ya, there aren't many, and it's been awhile, but they do exist. Look and see. Maybe I'm just sensative.

The only real accountability we'll ever have is the next election.

By accountability, I probably meant credibility. It's one thing to state a means to achieve a goal, it's another to really expect the means to achieve that goal. The only way we'll really know is when the end game has been achieved from BOTH sides. Hopefully, we as a country will not have to see that day,(the day we can say we've tried and achieved both ideologies) for that may be the day we acknowledge as a people we really don't know what we want.

Regardless of what's being said, most Iraqis think it was immoral of us to desert them after Gulf War round one and would be horrible to do it now.

If we made a promise... you bet it was! And yes it would be horrible. No qualms with that here.

Yep I'm cynical about the love-fest, too - hate and fear each other (the election commercials) - love and respect each other - yeah that'll happen!

For me, it was more than that... it's like maintaining a view(like everyone does at sometime) and then saying my view has no rellevence.

The one thing that stood out was Kerry saying to stand together in Iraq.

And he meant it, in the context that we need to get the troups out as fast as posible without sacrificing the mission at hand... getting the Iraqi people on their feet and on their way.
That story (I wish I could remember the name!!) was supposed to be an example of what can go wrong with democracy. Fact is, people are NOT equally endowed. Any attempt to force that will only screw things up.

Wait a minute! "...all men are created equal. Are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights... life, liberty, pursuit of happiness." What have I missed here? just kidding!

At the risk of being called a flip flopper, back peddling, or other sort... the only thing I have preached is equal treatment, equal oppurtunity... not to have someones thumb on my head like it was as a kid! I am also a big fan of the idea that everyone has their place in the picture and we can't all take up the whole frame but we can all be in the same picture, taking up the same relative space in the picture... if we have the desire and the means. The constitution is the means, and all we lack is the will. Really is a shame when the constitution has to be used in that fashion... shows something about us.

Well, we're talking about equality and the like, I thought it interesting that within a couple of decades, with current birth rates, whites will constitute less than 50% of the general population of the US. No one race will control over 50% of the vote. Thus, the first multiracial democracy in the world, curtesy of the US.

Hopefully, the current minorities will have more wisdom than we have shown. At least, the whities will finally have a dose of what it feels like to potentially not get their way. A little humility can go along way if properly administered...don't you think?

If you reread my writing on reading you will see I did not judge the nonreader. I simply stated a fact.

Oh I got you alright! I only dispute the fact you cite. That one should/would be more economically or otherwise valueable than the other. Still disagree that to be fact. Yes, tools will only take you so far... reading is a tool, just like a wrench. Think about it. It's more a case of which is more valueable... having tools or understanding how to use them. Comprehension along with responsibility should determine a persons value. You can put that blueprint in front of an illiterate and get the same result as putting a wrench in the hand of one who can read. Either one can be taught to do the others job in most cases and one can't live without the other... in most cases.

And now... to pt2(tomorrow)

[karl k]

"Stevie Wonder can see this is about hate."

I am am sorry you feel this way. It's truly unfortunate, because it's not reality. Just because you are against something, does not mean you hate it. I can't understand why that is so hard to comprehend for some people. Maybe your past has contibuted to this view but the view is wrong. Like I alluded to before, someone can have no problem with gay people and still be against gay marriage. There is "being gay" and there is "gay marriage". Two completely different things. I personally don't have a problem with legal unions that afford the same rights as mariage between a man and women but I do have a problem with it being called "Marriage". So, I guess by your standards I now Hate gays?

"There is no scare tactic in reconizing the truth."

Your right, but your view that people against gay marriage "Hate" gays is utterly wrong and careless.

"Can you please enlighten me on how a gay couple getting married affects your marriage?"

It does not. Never said it did. But that's not what this is about. It's about the definition of Marriage. Not Hate or Intolerance.


JSE

Is "being gay" a choice?

[Feanor]

Your last statement sums up the whole problem with liberals today. Seeing as the moderate to conservative people clearly make up the majority(which is growing), one must ask, who is deceiving whom?
...

The deception is that conservative -- actually right-wing -- policies benefit the middle class person. They actually do not. Rather they benefit the very rich and large, multi-national corporations. Else where I asserted the welfare of the middle class in any country depends on the welfare of the less well-off class and the middle class, much more than that to of the rich.

You have to be very gullible today to swallow the doctrine that unrestricted capitalism will automatically result the greatest benefit for all. It ain't so. Bit lots of "moderate to conservative" people still believe this crap. Are they deceived or self-deceived?

Give tax breaks to the rich?? Why, because they're better investors? Yeah, right. Trouble is the investment is off-shore where wages are low, labor and consumer protection is weak, and the environmental policies are slash-and-burn.

In Canada the party in power is the "Liberal Party", (large-L as we over say up here). And generally "liberal" is not the dirty word is seems to be state-side.

[JSE]

Is "being gay" a choice?

Sometimes, but I believe that most gay people do not have a choice. I feel there is something genetically mixed up that causes someone to be gay.

JSE

[JeffKnob]

Sometimes, but I believe that most gay people do not have a choice. I feel there is something genetically mixed up that causes someone to be gay.

JSE

If that is the case we need to stop people with any genetic defect from getting married. I say we pass a bill or better yet an amendment that prevents people with 11 toes from getting married. That is just ridiculous.

[JSE]

If that is the case we need to stop people with any genetic defect from getting married. I say we pass a bill or better yet an amendment that prevents people with 11 toes from getting married. That is just ridiculous.

Why would you want to do that? Regardless of any genetic "defect", it does not change the fact that a man is a man and a women is a women.

However, every 11 toed person I have ever met has been a little off. Not sure a ban against the marriage of 21 toes is a bad idea.

JSE

[piece-it pete]

Pete, the funny thing is, I agree with many of your points - or at least the basis of them. I believe that you're a good guy. I'm all for personal freedom, personal responsibility, and the promotion of wealth. You tend to stand for the "good" things on the conservative side... the things worth agreeing with.

Thanks, Chris.

I'm going to start a thread about the wackos on both sides one of these days - it'll be interesting to see who's willing to admit they have loonies (and what type) in their party.

I think personal freedom is extremely important, we need to protect personal liberties fiercely. I think those who are not responsible for their actions should not expect to be bailed out by loop holes. And I think we should reward hard work. But I think there are a few things we overlook as Americans. I find a little irony in how we boast about equality and how everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Our nation was founded on many principles, some of them tightly tied to religion. The gay marriage bans have made me see how religion still excludes certain people from our society, even today. Most of my family is very religious, and I still can't understand how they view other human beings as outcasts because a book tells them they should - especially when the same book tells them to love everyone. If homosexuals are denied certain rights that marriage offers, how can we argue that everyone has the same shot at the same opportunities in our country?

All the principles we were founded on are directly tied to Christianity.

We aren't denying gays anything, unless you change the definition of marriage to include them.

All issues that are brought up, be it inheritance, hospital visits, etc, as reasons to change marriage can all be addressed RIGHT NOW through current legal devices like wills, living wills, and power of attorney.

In light of the recent votes I think we're beating a dead horse. The only reason the Constitutional amendment doesn't have popular support yet is 'cause the Federal judiciary hasn't struck down a State amendment. Look for this to happen REAL soon. These folks saying that, due to the States restrictions the Federal amendment is unneccessary, and an invasion of States rights (they care about that NOW?), are wrong.

As soon as it happens, look for the amendment to pass at the Constitutional equivilent of light speed.

Some plain talk regarding Christians: the biggest single difference between secular voters and Christians is a simple one, but a huge one, and not likely to be reconciled. Christians fear Gods' wrath. We know that if we deny God or turn against Him, judgement is not far behind. The Old Testament is full of examples of this.

THAT is behind the huge Christian turnout. Overall we're not scared of gays (homophobic), or vengeful, or haters. We fear for our country.

Some are thinking right now that THIS is the argument behind the new definition of seperation of Church and State, basically that me and like-minded folks should not be allowed to encode our beliefs of right and wrong into gov't. What that definition does is deny my right of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Canada and some European countries have already done this.

I'm only being frank here.

Humanity is imperfect. Our nation used to enslave people. We used to prevent black people and women from voting. We grew enough to see that was wrong. I'm hoping that sooner or later, we'll see how denying homosexuals various rights that married couples receive is also unjust. I'm not saying the right thing to do is to allow them to get "married". But give them their rights - that's what most of them want (along with not wanting to be verbally assaulted, beaten and killed for being gay). I don't think it's a "hate" thing
(well mostly) - just more about "exclusion" from society. If you're gonna promote wealth, you have to make sure people aren't being excluded. If you're going to promote religion, you have to promote love and acceptance for ALL.

And please, let's not have some half-wit start talking about "what's next, letting people marry sheep?" - that's the type of talk that really insults everyones' intelligence, not to mention how bad it makes you look. If you can't see the difference, please move on to a less complicated subject.

Look at the transcripts of the debate in the Massachusetts Congress, the sheep topic was brought up, a number of them said they couldn't in good conscience tell their neighbor what he could and couldn't do.

So, how bad does it make THEM look?

I realise you haven't heard about this, good luck getting the media to report it!

And NAMBLA *has* endorsed this. Why?

I, and many like me, see skin color as different than sexual preference.

Excluded from wealth generation? Gays make more on average than the general population.

Love and acceptance for all? My religion teaches us to love their enemies. I can do this without condoning their behavior, or agreeing with it. I certainly don't have to accept it.

As far as the topic goes:

I think Republicans are all about standing up for their freedoms and don't want the government to tell them what they can and can't do. They stand by their religious beliefs and what they feel is morally right. They believe in promoting economic growth and rewarding those who work hard. They also feel that the environment should only be considered as long as it doesn't negatively impact the economy - if there isn't proof, it isn't our doing.

I think Democrats fight to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to succeed by promoting government intervention. They believe that the poor aren't always necessarily poor because they don't work hard. They believe that those who prosper more from our system should give more back - even though they already do. They feel that the environment should be addressed so that future generations don't have to suffer from our greed.

Both sides have good intentions, however, they sometimes fail to see how each one of their stances can be a fault. I think Republicans help the rich get richer and I think Democrats put too much effort into trying to save people who don't want to be saved. This country gives everyone freedom - many choose not to be ambitious. Sure some people really do need help, but there needs to be more effort in making a distinction between those people and the lazy people.

One last note - have any of you heard how Bush might have to raise taxes? This was on the news the day after the election. Figures... at least now I can go tell my friend "I told you so". Not sure how anyone thought it would be possible to make a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. ???

Oh it's pretty easy - you cut spending.

The problem and big increased spending generator in gov't is this: Flush times, money is POURING in (without a tax hike), Congressmen do the spending dance (it's a very joyous dance ).

The economy takes a downturn, as it always does, tax receipts dry up. So, they cut the spending down to fit.

Yeah, I know, that's just plain silly - it'll NEVER happen on its' own.

But instead, the Yak thing happens, because every gov't program becomes a right. So at every cycle the gov't grows, naturally, becoming a bigger and bigger burden on all of us.

Let alone the fiction of the SS withholding. It's criminal, IMO, a regressive tax that effects the poor the hardest, and exempts the wealthy, a huge stealth tax sold as saving SS. If we're going to spend it, call it what it is: a general tax increase, and make it fair.

The same thing'll happen to health care premiums too, at first. Then, when the deficit ballons again due to waste, over-promising, and overspending they'll say the healthcare system needs saved, promise a "lock-box", raise taxes again, and spend that too.

History is a wonderful thing.

Pete

[piece-it pete]

Perhaps because no GOP issues have been mentioned here that I agree with. And please refrain from calling all democrats libs. We are not all that way, just like not all GOP supporters are not racist haters.

You mention in your response to karl:

"Republicans(especially the old school repubs, not this new generation) had plenty of ideals I openly support. Strong military, balanced budgets, smaller government and less intervention in private matters. The new generation of repubs talk about these things, but they fail in practice."

I have not seen the arguments that back this statement up, except the budget, which was a Kerry mantra.

Libs, well, not intended as a slight. Sometimes I use Dems. I used to use Cons as well - but it just didn't come off very well .

Although many would agree .

Further, you are now parsing your statement about hate and intolerance. So let's come to an agreement: I'll stick to Reps and Dems, you drop the hate and intolerance.

BTW, I am so conservative I made Kerrys' blood freeze when he saw me. I have questioned my continueing participation in the Grand Old Party as it drifts left. If you think the "old" Reps would have allowed abortion and gay "marriage" you are quite mistaken.

The neocons you are referring to are in for quite a shock this term. It should be a lot of fun watching!

Pete

[dean_martin]

Some plain talk regarding Christians: the biggest single difference between secular voters and Christians is a simple one, but a huge one, and not likely to be reconciled. Christians fear Gods' wrath. We know that if we deny God or turn against Him, judgement is not far behind. The Old Testament is full of examples of this.

THAT is behind the huge Christian turnout. Overall we're not scared of gays (homophobic), or vengeful, or haters. We fear for our country.

Some are thinking right now that THIS is the argument behind the new definition of seperation of Church and State, basically that me and like-minded folks should not be allowed to encode our beliefs of right and wrong into gov't. What that definition does is deny my right of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Canada and some European countries have already done this.

I'm only being frank here.




Pete

Pete - we will be calling on you and others on the right to help defeat Bush's "tort reform".

"You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his suit." Exodus 23:6

Your usual excellent cooperation will be appreciated.

[piece-it pete]

Pete - we will be calling on you and others on the right to help defeat Bush's "tort reform".

"You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his suit." Exodus 23:6

Your usual excellent cooperation will be appreciated.

Hello Dean!

Honestly, I don't see the difference betwen 1 million and 5 when it comes to judgements!

Outside of punitives.

Unless justice = 5 million? Especially to the poor?

I'd be more worried over getting the indigent better legal help. I do realise that many very good lawyers do a lot of charity legal-wise.

But I wouldn't worry too much. As you have pointed out, many members of Congress, heck the majority of members!, are lawyers, I can't imagine they will shoot themselves in the foot, more likely pass something minor they can call what they like, and drop the issue altogther.

Classic Congress.

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No point in arguing about this any longer. You feel it's Hate, I don't. I think people can see the reality and make up their own minds.

JSE, here is the reality. 11 states passed anti gay marriage amendments to their constitution. Not one of those states offered a solution or compromise, they just block the right of committed gay couples to be recognized. Who was behind these campaigns? Anti gay groups, groups staunchly against gays right to even exist.

This I take offense with. I, in no way discriminate against gay people saying I prefer "Marriage" to be defined as man and women. What have I taken away other than a word? Like I said, I am all form legal unions that give gay couples every right couples have in a traditional marriage. How is this descriminatory? I am talking about a definition.

JSE unfortunately taking away the word takes away the recognition of a relationship by the state and feds, and all of the benefits that go with the word, and are afforded to straight couples. The is no other word that gets these benefits on the books at the federal level. This is called discrimination based on sexual orientation. Once again, YOU may be all for legal unions that give gays the same rights as straight couples, but others who also support what you believe don't. Perhaps their motivations are not the same as yours, but who makes that call, you guys appear to be on the same side. Your quest for a definition is going to leave somebody discriminated against, and that is not a very good thing. Sometimes the consequences of ones motiviations are not always very good, no matter how innocent they believe the cause.

It's about beliefs and cultural values.

Yes, so your beliefs are more important, more moral, and support better cultural values than the beliefs of gays to fit in, be recognized and equal? JSE, you cannot legislate any of these things. What your saying here is arrogant, shortsighted, and narrow minded. You saying here there is only one true great way to live, our way. Where is the freedom and equality in that?

What? So now if you oppose gay marriage you agree with gay people being killed, injured and abused? Whatever.

Unfortunately this position does put you in the same side as people who kill, injure, and abuse gays. Isn't if funny the company you keep when you choose a side that seeks to deny a group of people some very basic rights to equality.

Here is the most interesting thing I found in all of this. Massive amounts of resources and energy has been spent preventing gays from being married. But no energy has been devoted to coming up with a solution that gives equal rights and benefits to gay couples, and still appeases those who don't want the word "marriage" used to define their committed relationships. Based on this fact, it's easy to see the motivation. As a hispanic man in this country, I know what it feels like to be discriminated against. Just because this is a gay issue(and I am not gay) doesn't take away the sting of watching another group of people discriminated against like I have been. So who is next, you legislate this discrimination, then its people who are mixed with mexican and black? People with one eye, or limbs too short? Short people? Non christians? Where does this kind of discrimination end? The way this is being approached will further divide this country, much like racism did. Is this what we really want?

[dean_martin]

Hello Dean!

Honestly, I don't see the difference betwen 1 million and 5 when it comes to judgements!

Outside of punitives.

Unless justice = 5 million? Especially to the poor?

I'd be more worried over getting the indigent better legal help. I do realise that many very good lawyers do a lot of charity legal-wise.

But I wouldn't worry too much. As you have pointed out, many members of Congress, heck the majority of members!, are lawyers, I can't imagine they will shoot themselves in the foot, more likely pass something minor they can call what they like, and drop the issue altogther.

Classic Congress.

Pete

Pete - the provisions to look out for are those that may make it harder, more difficult or almost impossible for the "poor" or even middle class to access the courts. Be on guard. I would like for my fellow Christians to demonstrate that their allegiance is to their principles and not strictly to their candidate. There are 2 camps in the Republican party - one camp is most interested in preserving wealth. The other is most interested in preserving Christian principles. The GOP has used this latter camp to win statewide elections here in the South for years and more recently nationwide. But, what must not go unnoticed is that the former camp often calls the shots on policy, particularly economic, and some of their policies do in fact conflict with the principles of the latter. Christians can join the political debate on more topics than just marriage and abortion.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You mention in your response to karl:

"Republicans(especially the old school repubs, not this new generation) had plenty of ideals I openly support. Strong military, balanced budgets, smaller government and less intervention in private matters. The new generation of repubs talk about these things, but they fail in practice."

I have not seen the arguments that back this statement up, except the budget, which was a Kerry mantra.

Okay, Its a fact that government has not gotten smaller under Bush. It has gotten larger, that is a fact. This anti gay amendment is more government intervention in private matters. The military is stronger because of weapons developement under a Democratic leadership.

Libs, well, not intended as a slight. Sometimes I use Dems. I used to use Cons as well - but it just didn't come off very well .

Although many would agree .

I guess many would agree(especially blacks and the poor) that the Republican party is the party of rich white racists, overly judgemental bible thumping christians, and white collar thieves, but I am sure that wouldn't go over well either.

Further, you are now parsing your statement about hate and intolerance. So let's come to an agreement: I'll stick to Reps and Dems, you drop the hate and intolerance.

I will be more than glad to drop hate and intolerance when the Republican work harder on equal rights for all, and less on discriminating against gays. Their actions warrant the words intolerance and hate.

BTW, I am so conservative I made Kerrys' blood freeze when he saw me. I have questioned my continueing participation in the Grand Old Party as it drifts left. If you think the "old" Reps would have allowed abortion and gay "marriage" you are quite mistaken.

No, I would expect them to be more hateful and intolerant than they are now. But then I wasn't referring to either of thse issues when talking about "old" republicans. It just goes to show how much you guys have progress. You were discriminators and haters back then, and you still are today. So much for party progress.

The neocons you are referring to are in for quite a shock this term. It should be a lot of fun watching!

Pete

Yes, it will be very interesting to see how the course of action this president has chosen to take will unite this country.

[piece-it pete]

Pete - the provisions to look out for are those that may make it harder, more difficult or almost impossible for the "poor" or even middle class to access the courts. Be on guard. I would like for my fellow Christians to demonstrate that their allegiance is to their principles and not strictly to their candidate. There are 2 camps in the Republican party - one camp is most interested in preserving wealth. The other is most interested in preserving Christian principles. The GOP has used this latter camp to win statewide elections here in the South for years and more recently nationwide. But, what must not go unnoticed is that the former camp often calls the shots on policy, particularly economic, and some of their policies do in fact conflict with the principles of the latter. Christians can join the political debate on more topics than just marriage and abortion.

Dean,

So far I haven't seen any law restricting access.

Agreed on the two camps - but if the GOP doesn't pull something through for the Christians this cycle, or do something obviously against us, they can kiss the massive turnout goodbye.

Somehow I find myself reiterating the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I believe my beliefs, you yours. As a matter of fact, I believe the two party system is a neccessity, and do not want to shut up the opposition - only beat them .

Badly, if possible .

We have debated far more than abortion and marriage. Some things have a lot more grey, to me, then others.

Last election, I heard a thing on the radio that stuck with me - not what we disagree on, which only seems like everything, but what we agree on, which is more than we think.

One of these days we'll have to put it together.

Pete

[Chris]

We aren't denying gays anything, unless you change the definition of marriage to include them.

All issues that are brought up, be it inheritance, hospital visits, etc, as reasons to change marriage can all be addressed RIGHT NOW through current legal devices like wills, living wills, and power of attorney.

Actually, don't married couples get lower auto insurance rates, pay less for medical insurance, and are eligible for medical benefits where gay couples aren't? I would say that's denying them the same opportunities. You don't have to allow them to marry, just give them the same opportunities. By denying them, you're basically implying that they are inferior and that they do not deserve the same benefits rewarded to married couples. That's where I see it being wrong.

This is one fundamental belief I disagree with in Christianity (and other religions). I'm as straight as they come, but I feel a great injustice for the gay people I know who have had to endure being outcasts because of religion. I don't fault you for fully embracing a religion that outcasts a certain group of people. You're taught to believe things and not to question them. I just wish people would look at things from the outside a little more and realize what great atrocities have been attributed to religion in the past. Just ask the terrorists - they seem to think it's perfectly fine to murder innocent people in the name of their God - luckily others don't agree. Though sexuality is different than race, it is still alienation of a people, and it's something you teach your children to do. Hopefully we don't regress too far with these new bans.

The whole freedom of religion thing just sounds a little ironic at times like this. Here we're saying that anyone can practice any religion they want, yet our laws only reflect the beliefs of one religion. And some are trying to create new laws based on that one religion that we all will have to live by. Faith is good folks, but religion can be a little scary sometimes. Pete, I don't think you "hate" gays. But I must ask how many gay friends you have. Through the gay people I've come to know and befreind, I've learned more about what they go through and have realized that they are good people like you and I. Why create more laws that prevent them from being apart of our society?

Anyway, there's not much that can be done to battle a religious belief thousands of years old. If some had their way in our country, we'd still have slavery - and that's not even a religious belief, just a deep-rooted hatred. I fear this is something we'll have to agree to disagree on. I'm rambling now. Thanks for listening...

[piece-it pete]

Okay, Its a fact that government has not gotten smaller under Bush. It has gotten larger, that is a fact. This anti gay amendment is more government intervention in private matters. The military is stronger because of weapons developement under a Democratic leadership.

Yep, like the Star Wars program.

When is the last time the gov't has gotten smaller? Hoover? Well maybe Truman as the war wound down. I'll have to look sometime. The only issue is how fast it grows.

I see the gov't as intruding on a private matter, the definition of marriage. The vast majority agree. So we will take away the power of the gov't to force it.

I suppose the military became stronger by voting for equipment, before voting against it.

I guess many would agree(especially blacks and the poor) that the Republican party is the party of rich white racists, overly judgemental bible thumping christians, and white collar thieves, but I am sure that wouldn't go over well either.

Sir TT, my comments were directed at the Reps. My apologies if that was unclear.

I will be more than glad to drop hate and intolerance when the Republican work harder on equal rights for all, and less on discriminating against gays. Their actions warrant the words intolerance and hate.

So, the Democratic partys' actions do not warrant the new meaning of the word "liberal"?

No, I would expect them to be more hateful and intolerant than they are now. But then I wasn't referring to either of thse issues when talking about "old" republicans. It just goes to show how much you guys have progress. You were discriminators and haters back then, and you still are today. So much for party progress.

I assume you are dropping the appearance of neutrality now? I would say this has degenerated into a name-calling match, except only one side is calling names.

The "old" Republican party freed the slaves.

Yes, it will be very interesting to see how the course of action this president has chosen to take will unite this country.

How would a Dem unite the country? Agree on gay "marriage", and not agree on it?

Fact is, there are two or more sides to every question. Somebody will always be upset. If you can come up with a way to unite us, please clue us in.

Pete

[Chris]

" It may be okay for you to discriminate against a group of people and feel alright about it, but I don't."

This I take offense with. I, in no way discriminate against gay people saying I prefer "Marriage" to be defined as man and women. What have I taken away other than a word? Like I said, I am all form legal unions that give gay couples every right couples have in a traditional marriage. How is this descriminatory? I am talking about a definition.

JSE, I wish more people who are against gay marriage shared your sentiment. Unfortunately, they do not want to even recognize legal unions. In fact, a few of the states who passed the gay marriage ban even reversed civil union laws at the same time. I don't think Terrence is attacking your stance on this subject. He's questioning the people who are treating gay people as social outcasts by rejecting their pleas to be apart of our society and receive the same benefits and rewards that married couples receive. Some of us may not think gays should be allowed to "marry", but you can't really deny that disallowing them the same legal benefits based on religious beliefs does carry some of the same undertones as racial discrimination did a few decades ago.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All the principles we were founded on are directly tied to Christianity.

Yet you cannot read a bible, pray, or hold any religious activities in schools. So much for our christian foundation.

We aren't denying gays anything, unless you change the definition of marriage to include them.

All issues that are brought up, be it inheritance, hospital visits, etc, as reasons to change marriage can all be addressed RIGHT NOW through current legal devices like wills, living wills, and power of attorney.

What about the more than 1,100+ federal benefits offered to straight married couples? What about recognition? What about equality? Not all benefits can be address through legal devices. And why should gay couples have to pay someone to get these services when straight couples get them by just getting married. So gay couples have to pay attorneys for things that straight couples get for free. Where is the fairness and equality in that?

Some plain talk regarding Christians: the biggest single difference between secular voters and Christians is a simple one, but a huge one, and not likely to be reconciled. Christians fear Gods' wrath. We know that if we deny God or turn against Him, judgement is not far behind. The Old Testament is full of examples of this.

As a christian I completely understand that Gods wrath is tempered by grace. In this day of grace, God doesn't punish the masses for the sin of a single person, or group. He deals with the person directly. Each christian has to stand before God and account for HIS life, not the life of the gay couple next door. We don't live in the old testiment, so that kind of fear is ignorance at its best. There is no scripture in the bible that supports forcing Gods word on anyone. But it does say "if they don't receive you, shake the dust from your feet and keep going." Any other words, walk away, and let God deal with them as he so desires. Its says nothing about legislated God's word on everyone, and it certain doesn't say discriminate if they don't believe in me. Who says gays are against God? Where does the word homosexual or gay appear in the bible? As a christian I am at a loss trying to understand where my fellow christians are coming from. What ever happen to love coverth all sin? There is no scripture in the New Testament(which is the dispensation we currently live in, not the Old Testament) which prescribes mass punishment for the sins of a few. This is a false arguement.

Some are thinking right now that THIS is the argument behind the new definition of seperation of Church and State, basically that me and like-minded folks should not be allowed to encode our beliefs of right and wrong into gov't. What that definition does is deny my right of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion

So we find ourselves at an impasse. You want to be able to legislate religion on those who don't believe in what you do, yet you don't mind squelching their rights and freedoms to live as they please to save your rights. What ever happen to PERSONAL responsibility? Now my christian brothers and sister think it is up to them to change everyone into a christian, and if you don't do it willingly, then we will vote to legislate it, and force it on you. That is not what God has commanded us to do. Why do some of us think that God cannot handle himself, or knows how to deal with this? Why do we think we have to judge and punish for God? The freedom of religion is a personal right, not your freedom to force others to believe as you do.

[piece-it pete]

Chris,

It took I while, but I've figured out why I enjoy discussing various things - I learn why, exactly, I believe certain things, and why others believe what they do. Glaring inaccuracies get uncovered, new facts discovered, on and on.

It's a shame it gets heated to the point where folks genuinely believe the other side is coming from a place that is not very good, particularly when previously they liked and respected each other. Nature of the beast, I guess.

Guess it's my turn to ramble!

Actually, don't married couples get lower auto insurance rates, pay less for medical insurance, and are eligible for medical benefits where gay couples aren't? I would say that's denying them the same opportunities. You don't have to allow them to marry, just give them the same opportunities. By denying them, you're basically implying that they are inferior and that they do not deserve the same benefits rewarded to married couples. That's where I see it being wrong.

I would tolerate ( ) some sort of civil union. That said, the issues you mention above also apply to single people, who are therefore discriminated against.

This is one fundamental belief I disagree with in Christianity (and other religions). I'm as straight as they come, but I feel a great injustice for the gay people I know who have had to endure being outcasts because of religion. I don't fault you for fully embracing a religion that outcasts a certain group of people. You're taught to believe things and not to question them. I just wish people would look at things from the outside a little more and realize what great atrocities have been attributed to religion in the past. Just ask the terrorists - they seem to think it's perfectly fine to murder innocent people in the name of their God - luckily others don't agree. Though sexuality is different than race, it is still alienation of a people, and it's something you teach your children to do. Hopefully we don't regress too far with these new bans.

Christianity goes deeper than that. All sinners are outcasts - and all are sinners in the eyes of God.

Butthat doesn't mean that we as a society should validate it! Just as we should attempt to limit divorce, we should keep marriage the way it is.

The whole freedom of religion thing just sounds a little ironic at times like this. Here we're saying that anyone can practice any religion they want, yet our laws only reflect the beliefs of one religion. And some are trying to create new laws based on that one religion that we all will have to live by. Faith is good folks, but religion can be a little scary sometimes. Pete, I don't think you "hate" gays. But I must ask how many gay friends you have. Through the gay people I've come to know and befreind, I've learned more about what they go through and have realized that they are good people like you and I. Why create more laws that prevent them from being apart of our society?

2, and a family member, and a coworker, who I occasionally travel with. Mostly nice folks, but wow some bizarre relationships.

We're not creating laws excluding them, we are preventing laws from being created that validate them as legitimate "marriages".

The reason the laws here are based on one religion because, well, the majority is one religion. Outside of Constitutional protection the majority rules. Moreover, this is a good thing, as all the Founding Fathers agreed that this system of gov't, that they designed, would only work with a society based on the ten commandments.

Anyway, there's not much that can be done to battle a religious belief thousands of years old. If some had their way in our country, we'd still have slavery - and that's not even a religious belief, just a deep-rooted hatred. I fear this is something we'll have to agree to disagree on. I'm rambling now. Thanks for listening...

This isn't slavery, but yes, we can agree to disagree. Nice talking to you.

Pete

[Chris]

Pete, your message had some bad formatting with the quoting but I think I got it anyway. I have found that I've learned a lot about what I believe in and why I believe in it from discussing and debating things as well. And you're right, it does uncover certain things about people that you've respected that might change your view of them. I've found this to be true with close friends of mine. I can't say it's hurt any of my friendships, just as it hasn't made me lose any respect for you as a person. Maybe you believe I'm coming from a place that "is not very good" because I don't believe we should create laws that deem homosexual relationships as illegitimate, excluding them from various benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. I can't say I think that of you. I do however, think religion in its purist form has a way of alienating good people and having the opposite effect than it was intended to have. And I feel this is one of those instances.

It feels good knowing that you would "tolerate" some type of civil union - that's all I've been standing up for all along. They deserve the same opportunities that marriage offers, nothing more, nothing less. I can understand that allowing them to share "marriage" is something that the church would die fighting against, but at least allow them some type of civil union. That's all. I guess we don't disagree as much as we thought. As always, great discussion.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yep, like the Star Wars program.

I belive star wars was a Regan disaster LOL

When is the last time the gov't has gotten smaller? Hoover? Well maybe Truman as the war wound down. I'll have to look sometime. The only issue is how fast it grows.

On the campaign stump, Bush listed as one of his goal as smaller government. Smaller meaning smaller than it is now, or was? It got bigger during his first term!

I see the gov't as intruding on a private matter, the definition of marriage. The vast majority agree. So we will take away the power of the gov't to force it.

HUH?

I suppose the military became stronger by voting for equipment, before voting against it.

No the military got stronger because they had to use the money they received wisely.

Sir TT, my comments were directed at the Reps. My apologies if that was unclear.

No biggie, its all good man LOL

So, the Democratic partys' actions do not warrant the new meaning of the word "liberal"?

No more than the actions of the Republicans warranting the label hater and intolerant

I assume you are dropping the appearance of neutrality now? I would say this has degenerated into a name-calling match, except only one side is calling names.

Is not referring to moderate democrats as libral not name calling? Since when is it okay for one side to slap labels, but get offended when the labels come back? No this is two sided name calling I would say.

The "old" Republican party freed the slaves.

This incarnation of the republican party is not like the "old" republican party at all. The "old" freed slaves, the new wants to enslaved them again by rolling back affirmative action. And the decendents of these slaves still do not support the "new" republican party. Apparently the "new" republican party has lost their compassionate conservatism over time

How would a Dem unite the country? Agree on gay "marriage", and not agree on it?

No, actually we get a certain Republican president to stand in front of a camera, tell us that the country is united, on one accord and the economy is doing great. And if you don't vote for him, the world we know will come to an end. His audience could be a bunch of unemployed gay couples. (sarcasm off)

Fact is, there are two or more sides to every question. Somebody will always be upset. If you can come up with a way to unite us, please clue us in.

You do what is right and give equality where it is due. Allow "marriage" to be between a man and a woman, and give civil unions all the recognition, state and federal benefits that marriages has. Anti gay marriage activist get what they want, and gay couples get equality.
The course of action the republicans have taken on this issue is divisive, reckless, hateful, and intolerant. They pursued constitutional bands on gay marriage without providing a solution. Obstruction of equality, while discriminating through constitutional amendments.
You are sending a mixed message when you say this is the land of the free and equal, yet you are legislating morality, and refusing the right of equality for a certain type of american. And this is the party that thinks it is morally the right one.