You are really, honestly and truly dis-illisioned on what it means to be liberally minded. You fire and brimstone church has brinwashed you but good AAR.
"As I said in my post, I've grown used to the liberal name calling and allegations used in their effort to make those who oppose their agenda feel guilty and not fight! "
-- Isn't that a riot. After that long tirade post that "we need to take action now!!", its us liberals that have the agenda. LOL. You're the one with the agenda pal, we're just in favor of maintaining personal freedoms and liberities instead of curtailing it and forcing your views on others like you want.
"Contrary to what you may erroneously believe, marriage is not an issue limited to religious Americans! Gay marriage is not marriage regardless of what you and the liberals fabricate and choose to believe. It never was and never will be, even if liberals do get it forced into law by the activist liberal anti-Constitutional courts!"
-- I never said it was. What I did say is that americans recognize that issues important enough to consider an constitutional ammendment be reserved for matters of the utmost importance and ones seen as for the good of america overall. While what you say about many in mainstream america opposing it personally, they do not view it as important enough issue to warrant an ammendment to the constitution. In other words, there are far more pressing matters to deal with that worry about pleasing the religious right.
"No, Axis, I do not fear gays, but I don't have to support their lifestyle and I don't have to accept their living together as a "marriage". That's just the latest product of your liberal agenda that you have created and want the rest of us to embrace with open and willing arms! Well I don't agree with your agenda... period!"
-- yes you do fear them. AS I said, we liberals don't have an agenda. We are not pushing for a constitutional ammendment to legalize gay marriage! Not at all. You, the one with the agenda is pushing to ban it though. No one is saying you have to agree with it, simply be tolerant of it and accept that not everyone is like you. But thats unacceptable to you, the one with the agenda and you instead want to outlaw it and outlaw views not in alignment with your own.
"I do not have to accept abortion on demand funded by the taxpayer either. I don't have to accept your view that a parent has no say in and is not even to be told when their 14 year-old daughter is told she can and should have an abortion, even though parental approval would be required for any other medical treatment "
-- Again, we are not asking or telling you have to accept anything. Liberals are often in favor of pro-choice, means allowing people a choice to do what do what they feel is best for them.
You pro-lifers on the other hand want to FORCE people to do as YOU want and as YOU see things and force women to be a slave vessel to an undeveloped fetus,even if accidental, or in the case of rape .
In a choice vs FORCE situation, I will opt for the choice especially in situations where it affects life, family and liberty.
"Oh, and yes... I have a whole list of amendments I would like to see made to the Constitution. "
-- I can see that you do and i can also see that they overwhelmingly express your desire to force your personal views on other people.
"one that forbids liberal activist judges from applying their own values in their decisions"
-- I see, so its ok for conservative judges to take their personal views into consideration when making a judgement, but definately not ok for liberal judges to do the same. I notice how you are only against LIBERAL judges.
"one that forbids judges from using foreign laws and practices as a basis for their decisions;"
-- Banning judges from using foreign judgements as a basis for their decisions? Does that include when your republican friends dig up ancient british commonwealth decisions and use them to their favor? Or is it just liberal judges that will be barred from this practice? LOL
Judges rule primarily based on established precedent to strengthen their judgement and lessen the chances of having it overturned. When no domestic precedent exists on a particular issue they will often seek foreign interpretations for guidance.
"one that permits Congress and the legislatures to throw out the court decisions"
-- Oh, and you'd love to allow your republican congress to be able to overturn Supreme court decisions wouldn't you? Like Roe vs Wade perhaps? You're so transparent.
The existing system of law exists to protect the people from overreaching or oppressive laws passed by Congress that infringe on the peoples rights. Not surprising that you hold to the fascistic view of giving lawmakers the ultimate authority on all matters.
"one that allows judges to be removed from office more easily."
-- Yes, by all means, lets allow Bush to throw out all the liberal and moderate judges and appoint all ultra right wing fundamentalist christian judges instead. Thsts the best way to represent mainstreamAmerica for sure. My fascist stink o meter is going off like mad on you AAR. Beep Beep
"An amendment that requires all judges to interpret the Constitution and laws as they were written and intended,"
-- Actually, more "liberal" and moderate judges do that exact thing. Its the more conservative judges as a rule that like to fast forward to the present when society is more conservative minded to interpret the laws. Interpreting laws are not an easy task by any means. They not only need to consider the intent of congress when passing the legislation, but they must also consider laws passed later than may conflict or complicate their decision.
Just because a court judgement is not in your favoror does not reflect your views does not necessarily make it incorrect.
"No, I do not propose to make Christianity the state religion, nor do I support a state religion -- but I would stop the liberals, ACLU, and atheists from trying to make American into their own little atheist nation and playground."
-- Again my dis-illusioned friend, many liberals are Christians. Christ himself was a liberal. Liberalism and Atheists are not connected at all, nor is there any push for government sponsored athiesm.
Liberals however are often NOT in favor of mixing religion and state. Thats called a theocracy, such as you have in Islamic states such as Iran. You are confused and disillusioned and confuse an opposition to theocracy with a push for athiesm. They are 2 entirely seperate things.
The only agenda we have here is maintaining the status quo and keeping the two (religion and state) seperate. We're certainly not going to allow you radical fundamentalist christians to convert the country into a theocratic Christian fundamentalist state. Likewise you would not want a future Muslim president to convert the country into an Islamic state and implement Sharia law. Allowing theocracy of any kind is a very slippery slope.
"I would stop them from removing God from public view and that includes leaving "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments where they are now, and making sure crosses aren't removed from the graves of our soldiers buried in government cemeteries!"
-- Again, this demonstrates your confusion between anti-theocratic and athiest views. I would also not be in favor of doing any of those, not because I am a christian, but because they are already a long established practice and tradition. I do believe in allowing an individual to have their son/daughters gravestone reflect their particular belief though.
Strangely enough, people pushing to do as you say are neither athiests or anti-theocrats. They are more often people that take the seperation of church and state a bit too far. These could be radical left wingers so to speak.
I am not in favor of schools being forced to remove Nativity scenes in schools either, but I also think that it would be fair to also allow other cultures to express themselves in the same manner. The same with stores forcing employees to replace "merry christmas" greeetings with "happy holidays" for fear of offending a non-christian. All religions should be given the same respect to reflect the diversity of the american culture
"You want gay marriage? Invite them to Canada."
-- Personally, I would replace gay marriage in the traditional sense with a legally binding civil union. This would be a way of compromising. Many of you right wingers would oppose this as well, stating that these people should not have any rights. This is not a tolerant way of life at all.
"I want a strong America, not the weak America liberals will create."
-- Despite your baseless conservative rhetoric propaganda, fueled by ignorance and intolerance, there is no direct correlation between liberals and weakness or conservatives and strength. Liberals are traditionally far better at domestic governance, including strong economies, job creation, balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility, balanced legislation favoring the middleclass, which represents mainstream America.
Republicans to their credit are good at military buildup and strength, preserving traditional values, tax cuts, passing laws that favor the rich at the expense of the middle class. They have become elitists however, ignoring middleclass voters in favor of the richest 10% of America that support their campaigns. They are terrible at balanced budgets and run up huge national debts that require a Democratic president to fix and bring back under control. Regan ran up massive, massive debts and deficits with his tax cuts and military buildup, as did George HW Bush, which Clinton brought back under control with fiscal responsibility, and balanced budgets.
Now we have the "Decider" in office raking up record, record deficits and the highest debt in american history and the only one that thinks that massive tax cuts are the thing to do in a time of war and massive spending. Regan would have called that absolutely nutz as would Daddy Bush. The debt will be $10-$11 Trillion by the time Bush leaves office. If you get another conservative president in office in '08 with the same mindset, America will be bankrupt! Foreign governments are lending america the money it needs currently at a cost of $26 Billion per second in interest alone.
That will stop when the debt reaches a point where it cannot be repair in a reasonable amount of time. The mindset that you can continue to spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow is madness and you will eventually end up in another depression as the greenback will be devalued because of the high debt. Its already at 30 year lows against other world currencies. Thats a huge warning sign as the greenback has traditionally been among the worlds strongest currencies.
"What we need here are more real conservatives in America."
-- No, what we need is a centralist party that enbraces the positive values of each side and gives voters a better choice than right or left
"We need that third party -- a strong Conservative Party -- that can and will fight the liberal left and stop their agenda!!!"
-- I couldn't agree with you more. You Neo-cons need to establish the American Fascist Party and stop masquerading as Republicans because your values are NOT republican, they are radical conservative ones. That way if America wants to become a nazi state, it can vote you in, rather than have you trick your way in by posing as Republicans while not sharing their values. Moderate Republicans will be glad to see you go as well and it will allow the moderate to come together as a nation.
"If Democrats win in November, that may even help the Conservative movement. Conservatives will get their voice, drive, motivation, and fighting spirit back, and we will be ready for round two!"
-- Thats a good thing, by that time, hopefully Democrats will have been successful at purging the corrupt fascists in power out, and sending them to prison where they belong and America will be looking to heal and reunite with moderates while now being better to disguish fascist bastards in sheeps clothing.
"I've seen what liberals have done to France and Canada and I don't want that here!"
-- No absolutely not. In Canada, we have universal health care, strict privacy laws that actually mean something, a strong democracy, leaders that actually obey the law and respect the constitution and are mostly honest, a society that focuses oncaring for its citizens rather than making the richest 10% as rich as possible on their backs, and a government that is vigilant against terror without spying on its citizens, without breaking into their homes, without spying on reporters, without imprisoning citizens forever with no due process or trial, without torturing prisoners. You definately would not want any of that in America. Hail the Bushevics!!
I love bush but gay marriage should be the last thing that congress needs to be talking about!
two people in love who Just happens to be of the same sex will never hurt the act of marriage because as of right now over 50% of marriage couple are breaking up. So, how two people can ruin marriage is beyond me.
I am glad to see it. This is exactly what happened here in Ohio in 2004 with Ken Blackwell leading the charge against Gays being able to Marry, which in turn help get Bush re-elected.
We do not want gays to marry here Ohio, and they cannot as it is now in our constitution. This issue bought out 1000's upon 1000's of conservative voters it will again
Nice political stunt. Sen. Specter is completely opposed to the ammendment, yet passes it through committe anyway in order to get a congressional debate - for the soel purpose of charging up the conservative base in time for the fall election. It reeks of desperation and it won't even work. Don't think the American people, especially values voters, are going to be suckered by the GOP again. Where's all that reactionary social reengineering that Karl Rove promised Dr. James Dobson? Is that all he gets - a symbolic yet meaningless debate in congress about gay marriage? He'll be pulling his support along with Mexican deportation - oops I mean "attrition" crowd.
(deleted ) we don't allow 4 year olds to post with this kind of language.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the evidence pretty strong that kids from broken homes have a harder time in life than kids from marriages that stay together? Thus, isn't it more appropriate for a marriage amendment to be centered on promoting a married couple (at least those with kids) to STAY married? The family IS a primary unit of civilization. A married couple, in and of itself, is not.
This whole thing is a re-election ploy, noting more as they know this will die on the Senate floor, but will give the republicans an opportunity to appeal to their conservative base to say "See, we're trying to get rid of gay marriage."
Although gay marriage was narrowly passed here in Canada last year, it is with little doubt that the mass majority of gay couples would be happy to have a civil union that is legally recognized and entitles them to the same benefits that married couples get. Only a small minority want the full church sanction marriage recognition. Canadian parliament here also left the door open for churchs to decline to participate based on religious values.
but, in the US, this goes deeper. Its not just a matter of Church and religious beliefs, it also is a matter of hatred. Many people hate those that are different from them or have views that differ from theirs.
There are those that are pusing hard to deny gays any rights. No civil unions, and now deny them from being able to adopt children.
This is what happens when you allow religion and state to mix. Next, you will be having the same fringe fundamentalists wanting to exclude non-Christians from certain rights and privilges.
This is not a matter of liberalism. Times have changed and gays are no longer hiding who they are and people are finding out they they make up a larger percentage of the population that conservatives could ever have imagined years ago.
Society needs to learn to adapt and show tolerance to those that are different. for you to say that "It's long past time that we amend the Constitution to put a stop to gay marriage" shos your short sightedness as you believe that you have the right to force your particular views on other people. Yet, if other people try and force their views on you, then you are outraged. Thats called a hypocrite.
The same wingnuts are doing the same in the anti-abortion circles. People with a rigid view want to force their beliefs on other people. But it goes further as some of these wingnuts don't just want to outlaw abortions. they also want to outlaw let's say personal use devices because they view sex as dirty. They also want to ban birth control and profolactics. STD's be damned they say, if god had intended to your get a disease then its his will and its wrong for you to use a device to inferfere with his will.
Gays are no different that you or I, other than their personal choice in lifestyle. They are doctors, lawyers, airline pilots, bus drivers, engineers, architects etc. Most simply want to exist in peace and be tolerated and be allowed to enjoy the same benefits as everyone else.
It takes a far bigger man to tolerate those different from yourself than to persecute them.
Rove...you magnificent bastard!!
We need this amendment passed now!
A constitutional amendment is the only way to stop the liberal left and activist judges from forcing their agenda, values, and non-traditional lifestyles on all Americans. Not just on gay marriage, but other areas as well.
Liberals and gays have already said, and made it clear, that they do not care what the majority of Americans want and will not allow the issue to be decided by Congress and the legislatures. They have said they plan to ignore Congress and our lawmakers and use the court system to force their gay marriage lifestyle on America. That said, a Constitutional Amendment is the only way to stop them.
It's time to stop stalling, discussing, and delaying. This amendment must be passed before yet another court issues its own law. Even when individual states -- overwhelming -- pass their own constitutional amendments, the liberals and gay activists continue to "judge shop" until they find a liberal court to strike them down.
There are enough states now to ratify the amendment if one can make it out of Congress; although, we can expect liberals like Ted Kennedy and others to filibuster and block this effort as they have done in the past and as they continue to do with other programs they do not "like". (Hypocrite Ted doesn't like wind power either when it's in his "own" backyard!)
We don't have to wait, though, for Congress to approve a Constitutional Amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution permits two thirds of the State Legislatures to call for a Constitutional Convention to propose and draft one or more amendments to the Constitution. If Ted and the liberals want to continue their obstruction and blocking efforts, we must get the state legislatures energized and moving and take the obstructionist liberals in Congress out of the picture entirely!
Liberals want Americans to believe that it is some "big deal" to amend the Constitution. People must ignore that liberal smoke screen and support whatever amendments it takes to stop the liberal agenda. Activist liberal judges and courts essentially amend the Constitution and make laws all the time. People just aren't told about those amendments... they are lead to believe that's what the Constitution and laws "intended"!
Hopefully, the various groups who oppose gay marriage will unite and work together to stop the attack on traditional American values! It's time the Complacent Majority, the majority of whom oppose gay marriage, wakes up before they "wake up" and find that a court has forced them to accept what they don't want!
Stand up and speak out for traditional marriage and traditional American values. Ask others to support the effort. Ignore the hateful and derogatory names the liberal left will call you for standing up for your values and what you believe. They will do and say anything they can try to make you feel guilty in their efforts to keep you from standing up for your beliefs. Get used to their name calling. Ignore them!
Next we need a constitutional amendment to make English our official language.
If gays want to get married... go to Canada!
AAR
Traditional American values, AAR?
Hmmm,like many "traditional Americans" from the 1700's and 1800's, MARRIED men who would sleep with their slave mistresses, producing bastard children?
Traditional Americans who raped and pillaged Native American women and children and burned their villages?
Traditional American values like the Salem witch trials?
Hmmm, sounds like "traditional marriage" has ALWAYS been flawed in many ways. Sounds like STRAIGHT people destroyed the "sanctity of marriage" long before gay people ever asked for anything. All gays want is equality.
History is full of atrocities, this country is NOT perfect. But one thing Americans have always tried to portray as right is protecting the civil rights of others. What is right is to protect those who are persecuted from persecution. That is a CHRISTIAN ideal as well.
America - the America that stands for right values and FREEDOM for all has ALWAYS been about protecting those who are persecuted for their differences.
"All men are created equal" - paraphrase of the United States Declaration of Independence.
"For Liberty and Justice for ALL." - The United States Pledge of alliegence.
America is about EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!!!
Think on these things.....
AAR, I hate to have to be the one that bursts your little bubble of reality thus forcing your eyes to open further than they are used to but...
Mainstream of America is traditionally moderate. Be that Liberal or Conservative. You, as a radical right winger are still very much in the minority.
While you no doubt live in the midwest, also known to many as "Jesusland" and have for the moment, had your states constitution ammendment to ban such marriages, don't count on your states or your narrow view to be carried to the rest of the united states. Your proposed ammendment needs 2/3's majority in both houses then 3/4 ratification of all the states. Thats simply not going to happen. In fact, count on this dying on the Senate floor and going no further than that.
Your proposed other way to get it passed has never been used or successful, although it is possible. Unless you are going to go on a ban gay marrriage x-country tour to rally all of the required state legislatures into dropping everything else and vote on the gay marriage ban, don't count on this issue popping the cherry on this method.
While as you say, a great many people are opposed to gay marriage, Mainstream America fortunately also recognizes that Constitutional Ammendments be reserved for the good of america as a whole and not perverted to reflect the views of a few (That being you)
Next you wingnuts will be pushing to an ammendment making Christianity the official faith of America and pushing for limitations for those of other faiths. Then you'll be pushing as you already are to outlaw gays from adopting kids. Then you will be pushing to outlaw allowing gay to live together. Your hatred and intolerance will never end. Its never enough.
Your views come as a result of fear and hatred. You fear those different from yourself and as such, this typically converts to hatred. Your fundamentalist views then lead you to believe that you have the RIGHT to force your particular individual views on everyone else. But heaven forbid someone should try to force their narrow views on you, then you are outraged, proclaiming that they have no right to force you into anything.
You're a hypocrite. And a bigot. Nothing more.
You're living in Jesusland, you have what you want statewide. Take what you have while you have it and be happy because it can just as easily be reammended in your state in future years.
We need this amendment passed now!
Yeah, God forebid if those gays and those lesbians got married, it would mean the end of civilization as we know it!
A constitutional amendment is the only way to stop the liberal left and activist judges from forcing their agenda, values and non-traditional lifestyles on all Americans.
exactly how are the homosexual community forcing an agenda on Average Joe Americans, AAR?
Another reason I can't stand you religious nutjob, redneck right-wingers: you people speak about being for Christ, but freefully discriminate against others when your Good Book tells you to be tolerant and to not hate others.
We are ALL God's children, we are ALL equal under the eyes of God, regardless of race, sex, and sexual prefernce.
Obviously, that section of the good book was written by a "liberal activist" LOL
Whenever referring to the good book as a reason to spread their hate, how quickly they forget that Jesus was a liberal
Go figure.
-----------------------
Posted by Teenage Liberal:
"Another reason I can't stand you religious nutjob, redneck right-wingers: you people speak about being for Christ, but freefully discriminate against others when your Good Book tells you to be tolerant and to not hate others."
axis,
Call me by whatever names suits your fancy. That doesn't bother me! Some people maybe... but not me.
As I said in my post, I've grown used to the liberal name calling and allegations used in their effort to make those who oppose their agenda feel guilty and not fight! Those days are over for me. I can even give you a list of some of the other names you or your liberal friends will use at some time against those who do not agree with you!
Contrary to what you may erroneously believe, marriage is not an issue limited to religious Americans! Gay marriage is not marriage regardless of what you and the liberals fabricate and choose to believe. It never was and never will be, even if liberals do get it forced into law by the activist liberal anti-Constitutional courts!
I will do what I can to oppose your liberal ways and liberal agenda. I do not agree with it, I do not support it, and I will not just sit by while the liberals cram one thing after another down the throats of Americans.
Will we win this one? I don't know. If not now, maybe some time in the future. There more than enough people who oppose gay marriage, but will they get off their couches and vote. I don't know that either. Who knows, some time in the future, Muslims could become dominate and we could have a president like that in Iran. There wouldn't be any gay marriage then!
Contrary too to what you believe... I do not live in the mid-west or by whatever name you want to call it. My state has not tried to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- my naive legislators incorrectly believe a law passed by them will do the trick. They still think they and not the courts make the laws.
No, Axis, I do not fear gays, but I don't have to support their lifestyle and I don't have to accept their living together as a "marriage". That's just the latest product of your liberal agenda that you have created and want the rest of us to embrace with open and willing arms! Well I don't agree with your agenda... period!
I do not have to accept abortion on demand funded by the taxpayer either. I don't have to accept your view that a parent has no say in and is not even to be told when their 14 year-old daughter is told she can and should have an abortion, even though parental approval would be required for any other medical treatment -- even if they are given aspirins in school. No... I do not support the liberal views you want to force on me and everyone else!!!
Oh, and yes... I have a whole list of amendments I would like to see made to the Constitution. One amendment is really all that's needed though to solve a whole multitude of problems: An amendment that requires all judges to interpret the Constitution and laws as they were written and intended, to include the traditions and practices that were in place at the time they were passed; one that forbids liberal activist judges from applying their own values in their decisions; one that forbids judges from using foreign laws and practices as a basis for their decisions; one that permits Congress and the legislatures to throw out the court decisions; one that allows judges to be removed from office more easily.
No, I do not propose to make Christianity the state religion, nor do I support a state religion -- but I would stop the liberals, ACLU, and atheists from trying to make American into their own little atheist nation and playground. I would stop them from removing God from public view and that includes leaving "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments where they are now, and making sure crosses aren't removed from the graves of our soldiers buried in government cemeteries! I would stop them from removing Christmas trees and traditional Christmas songs from our schools that have been sung by Americans for hundreds of years!
You want gay marriage? Invite them to Canada. I thought all the liberals were all moving up there anyway after President Bush won the last election. Many said they were, but we can't count on them to keep those promises either.
What we need here are more real conservatives in America. I want a strong America, not the weak America liberals will create.
We need that third party -- a strong Conservative Party -- that can and will fight the liberal left and stop their agenda!!! If Democrats win in November, that may even help the Conservative movement. Conservatives will get their voice, drive, motivation, and fighting spirit back, and we will be ready for round two!
I've seen what liberals have done to France and Canada and I don't want that here!
Oh, axis, are you reposting the information from the 4 year old that Mark already deleted! Don't you have enough derogatory words of your own without reposting those? It sounds like both you and the 4 year old are against Christians!
AAR
AAR,
FYI--I happen to be a Christian, I just don't swallow the radical facist view of Christianity that the demagouges like Robertson and Dobson spew, and I sure as hell want my religion to be used to spread intolerance and hatred of anyone who doesn't fit into their twisted sense of what is normal.
BTW: i'm sixteen, not four.
Teenaged,
I just hope that you recognise that if you are a Christian, then you have a saviour...which means you need saving. Please don't be a "Christian" who thinks that all Jesus stands for is a wishy-washy "I'm ok, you're ok" bit of modern psychobabble...
You are really, honestly and truly dis-illisioned on what it means to be liberally minded. You fire and brimstone church has brinwashed you but good AAR.
"As I said in my post, I've grown used to the liberal name calling and allegations used in their effort to make those who oppose their agenda feel guilty and not fight! "
-- Isn't that a riot. After that long tirade post that "we need to take action now!!", its us liberals that have the agenda. LOL. You're the one with the agenda pal, we're just in favor of maintaining personal freedoms and liberities instead of curtailing it and forcing your views on others like you want.
"Contrary to what you may erroneously believe, marriage is not an issue limited to religious Americans! Gay marriage is not marriage regardless of what you and the liberals fabricate and choose to believe. It never was and never will be, even if liberals do get it forced into law by the activist liberal anti-Constitutional courts!"
-- I never said it was. What I did say is that americans recognize that issues important enough to consider an constitutional ammendment be reserved for matters of the utmost importance and ones seen as for the good of america overall. While what you say about many in mainstream america opposing it personally, they do not view it as important enough issue to warrant an ammendment to the constitution. In other words, there are far more pressing matters to deal with that worry about pleasing the religious right.
"No, Axis, I do not fear gays, but I don't have to support their lifestyle and I don't have to accept their living together as a "marriage". That's just the latest product of your liberal agenda that you have created and want the rest of us to embrace with open and willing arms! Well I don't agree with your agenda... period!"
-- yes you do fear them. AS I said, we liberals don't have an agenda. We are not pushing for a constitutional ammendment to legalize gay marriage! Not at all. You, the one with the agenda is pushing to ban it though. No one is saying you have to agree with it, simply be tolerant of it and accept that not everyone is like you. But thats unacceptable to you, the one with the agenda and you instead want to outlaw it and outlaw views not in alignment with your own.
"I do not have to accept abortion on demand funded by the taxpayer either. I don't have to accept your view that a parent has no say in and is not even to be told when their 14 year-old daughter is told she can and should have an abortion, even though parental approval would be required for any other medical treatment "
-- Again, we are not asking or telling you have to accept anything. Liberals are often in favor of pro-choice, means allowing people a choice to do what do what they feel is best for them.
You pro-lifers on the other hand want to FORCE people to do as YOU want and as YOU see things and force women to be a slave vessel to an undeveloped fetus,even if accidental, or in the case of rape .
In a choice vs FORCE situation, I will opt for the choice especially in situations where it affects life, family and liberty.
"Oh, and yes... I have a whole list of amendments I would like to see made to the Constitution. "
-- I can see that you do and i can also see that they overwhelmingly express your desire to force your personal views on other people.
"one that forbids liberal activist judges from applying their own values in their decisions"
-- I see, so its ok for conservative judges to take their personal views into consideration when making a judgement, but definately not ok for liberal judges to do the same. I notice how you are only against LIBERAL judges.
"one that forbids judges from using foreign laws and practices as a basis for their decisions;"
-- Banning judges from using foreign judgements as a basis for their decisions? Does that include when your republican friends dig up ancient british commonwealth decisions and use them to their favor? Or is it just liberal judges that will be barred from this practice? LOL
Judges rule primarily based on established precedent to strengthen their judgement and lessen the chances of having it overturned. When no domestic precedent exists on a particular issue they will often seek foreign interpretations for guidance.
"one that permits Congress and the legislatures to throw out the court decisions"
-- Oh, and you'd love to allow your republican congress to be able to overturn Supreme court decisions wouldn't you? Like Roe vs Wade perhaps? You're so transparent.
The existing system of law exists to protect the people from overreaching or oppressive laws passed by Congress that infringe on the peoples rights. Not surprising that you hold to the fascistic view of giving lawmakers the ultimate authority on all matters.
"one that allows judges to be removed from office more easily."
-- Yes, by all means, lets allow Bush to throw out all the liberal and moderate judges and appoint all ultra right wing fundamentalist christian judges instead. Thsts the best way to represent mainstreamAmerica for sure. My fascist stink o meter is going off like mad on you AAR. Beep Beep
"An amendment that requires all judges to interpret the Constitution and laws as they were written and intended,"
-- Actually, more "liberal" and moderate judges do that exact thing. Its the more conservative judges as a rule that like to fast forward to the present when society is more conservative minded to interpret the laws. Interpreting laws are not an easy task by any means. They not only need to consider the intent of congress when passing the legislation, but they must also consider laws passed later than may conflict or complicate their decision.
Just because a court judgement is not in your favoror does not reflect your views does not necessarily make it incorrect.
"No, I do not propose to make Christianity the state religion, nor do I support a state religion -- but I would stop the liberals, ACLU, and atheists from trying to make American into their own little atheist nation and playground."
-- Again my dis-illusioned friend, many liberals are Christians. Christ himself was a liberal. Liberalism and Atheists are not connected at all, nor is there any push for government sponsored athiesm.
Liberals however are often NOT in favor of mixing religion and state. Thats called a theocracy, such as you have in Islamic states such as Iran. You are confused and disillusioned and confuse an opposition to theocracy with a push for athiesm. They are 2 entirely seperate things.
The only agenda we have here is maintaining the status quo and keeping the two (religion and state) seperate. We're certainly not going to allow you radical fundamentalist christians to convert the country into a theocratic Christian fundamentalist state. Likewise you would not want a future Muslim president to convert the country into an Islamic state and implement Sharia law. Allowing theocracy of any kind is a very slippery slope.
"I would stop them from removing God from public view and that includes leaving "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments where they are now, and making sure crosses aren't removed from the graves of our soldiers buried in government cemeteries!"
-- Again, this demonstrates your confusion between anti-theocratic and athiest views. I would also not be in favor of doing any of those, not because I am a christian, but because they are already a long established practice and tradition. I do believe in allowing an individual to have their son/daughters gravestone reflect their particular belief though.
Strangely enough, people pushing to do as you say are neither athiests or anti-theocrats. They are more often people that take the seperation of church and state a bit too far. These could be radical left wingers so to speak.
I am not in favor of schools being forced to remove Nativity scenes in schools either, but I also think that it would be fair to also allow other cultures to express themselves in the same manner. The same with stores forcing employees to replace "merry christmas" greeetings with "happy holidays" for fear of offending a non-christian. All religions should be given the same respect to reflect the diversity of the american culture
"You want gay marriage? Invite them to Canada."
-- Personally, I would replace gay marriage in the traditional sense with a legally binding civil union. This would be a way of compromising. Many of you right wingers would oppose this as well, stating that these people should not have any rights. This is not a tolerant way of life at all.
"I want a strong America, not the weak America liberals will create."
-- Despite your baseless conservative rhetoric propaganda, fueled by ignorance and intolerance, there is no direct correlation between liberals and weakness or conservatives and strength. Liberals are traditionally far better at domestic governance, including strong economies, job creation, balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility, balanced legislation favoring the middleclass, which represents mainstream America.
Republicans to their credit are good at military buildup and strength, preserving traditional values, tax cuts, passing laws that favor the rich at the expense of the middle class. They have become elitists however, ignoring middleclass voters in favor of the richest 10% of America that support their campaigns. They are terrible at balanced budgets and run up huge national debts that require a Democratic president to fix and bring back under control. Regan ran up massive, massive debts and deficits with his tax cuts and military buildup, as did George HW Bush, which Clinton brought back under control with fiscal responsibility, and balanced budgets.
Now we have the "Decider" in office raking up record, record deficits and the highest debt in american history and the only one that thinks that massive tax cuts are the thing to do in a time of war and massive spending. Regan would have called that absolutely nutz as would Daddy Bush. The debt will be $10-$11 Trillion by the time Bush leaves office. If you get another conservative president in office in '08 with the same mindset, America will be bankrupt! Foreign governments are lending america the money it needs currently at a cost of $26 Billion per second in interest alone.
That will stop when the debt reaches a point where it cannot be repair in a reasonable amount of time. The mindset that you can continue to spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow is madness and you will eventually end up in another depression as the greenback will be devalued because of the high debt. Its already at 30 year lows against other world currencies. Thats a huge warning sign as the greenback has traditionally been among the worlds strongest currencies.
"What we need here are more real conservatives in America."
-- No, what we need is a centralist party that enbraces the positive values of each side and gives voters a better choice than right or left
"We need that third party -- a strong Conservative Party -- that can and will fight the liberal left and stop their agenda!!!"
-- I couldn't agree with you more. You Neo-cons need to establish the American Fascist Party and stop masquerading as Republicans because your values are NOT republican, they are radical conservative ones. That way if America wants to become a nazi state, it can vote you in, rather than have you trick your way in by posing as Republicans while not sharing their values. Moderate Republicans will be glad to see you go as well and it will allow the moderate to come together as a nation.
"If Democrats win in November, that may even help the Conservative movement. Conservatives will get their voice, drive, motivation, and fighting spirit back, and we will be ready for round two!"
-- Thats a good thing, by that time, hopefully Democrats will have been successful at purging the corrupt fascists in power out, and sending them to prison where they belong and America will be looking to heal and reunite with moderates while now being better to disguish fascist bastards in sheeps clothing.
"I've seen what liberals have done to France and Canada and I don't want that here!"
-- No absolutely not. In Canada, we have universal health care, strict privacy laws that actually mean something, a strong democracy, leaders that actually obey the law and respect the constitution and are mostly honest, a society that focuses oncaring for its citizens rather than making the richest 10% as rich as possible on their backs, and a government that is vigilant against terror without spying on its citizens, without breaking into their homes, without spying on reporters, without imprisoning citizens forever with no due process or trial, without torturing prisoners. You definately would not want any of that in America. Hail the Bushevics!!
According to THIS ARTICLE by the Baptist Standard - The Texas Baptist Newsjournal, the way to save the institution of marriage is to ban CHRISTIANS from marrying.
In case you are too cowardly to read it yourself:
"'Born-again' Christians are more likely to go through a marital split than are non-Christians, according to a new study by the Barna Research Group.
___Using statistics drawn from a nationwide survey of nearly 4,000 adults, the Barna data show 11 percent of the adult population currently is divorced but that 25 percent of all adults have experienced at least one divorce.
___Among 'born-again' Christians, 27 percent currently are divorced or previously have been divorced, compared with 24 percent among adults who are not 'born again.'
___Surprisingly, the Barna report said, the Christian group whose adherents have the highest likelihood of getting divorced are Baptists. The only group to surpass Baptists were Christians associated with non-denominational Protestant churches."
Will somebody explain this to me? How is banning gay marriage any different than banning CHRISTIAN marriage because there is evidence that Christianity weakens the bonds of marriage?
Born again christians are also the most likely to adopt radical fundamentalist views as well since they usually were not able to benefit from a stable christian orientated home that showed and embraced the true meaning and spirit of christianity.
The true meaning of Christianity is to develop a relationship with God that will positively influence and enrichen your life.
Not to develop a hard core fire and brimstone type of radical religion where your either comply with the doctrines of the church or you deserve to be stamped out.
Axis - on your retort to AARs post - well said all around!!! You should write a book.
AAR, now that you've been flush from that bush that you were hiding behind and it has been well established that you are the biggest fascist that I have seen yet by far, I have a couple questions
I question how you view yourself in a few years down the road. Its clear that main stream america will never, ever adopt your fascist views short of being forced to by a brutal dictator.
You are as far right as they go. You passionately hate anyone with views leftward leaning of your own including mainstream and moderate republicans and write these people off as no good liberals.
Do you realize that you represent only 20% or less of the country and that most of your really conservative base are still more left leaning than you? The baby boomers and many young republicans are moderates.
You are not interested in compromise, or working together, you simply want your views to be the iron clad rule of law. Until that happens, you will never be happy.
You want to clear away all the constitutional protections that the founding fathers put into place to protect the country from another British King George type of dictatorship and put into place a fascist system of rule where the president or emperor would have absolute and unwaivering control over all aspects of law and government.
The dictator must only be a strong conservative, never a liberal as they would be intolerable to have a liberal with such sweeping powers over you.
You would like to abolish the common law court system if you could, failing that have only strong conservative judges with views identical to your own and give the emperor the power to waive any decision he chooses.
You would like to abolish the constitution altogether or at the least totally rewrite and pervert it to employ and reflect your strong conservative views only
You would ideally like to force people to adopt your religious views, or likely jail them as enemies of the state.
I have to wonder. Why are you even living in America when so many things are against your way of thinking.?
I also have to wonder if you have or did have any relatives that were in World War II where people died fighting against Nazi germany and the very same views and ideals that you show today. If you do or did and they saw you posting what you did earlier today, they would grab their gun and put you on the run as fast as you can.
Some disturbing parallels here, Hitler was a strong conservative. He was also a devout and far right fundamentalist christian. He was in favor of fasism giving him absolute control of the state and extremely limited constitutional protections of his citizens. He was also in favor of forcing his views and beliefs on others by any means necessary. All that really differs is the issues, his murderous, genocidal and socialpathic tendancies and the lengths he was prepared to go to fulfill his agenda
My question is why are you here when there are many other countries in the world where you views would be readily adopted and appreciated. America just does not happen to be one. You are ok at the moment, because the current administration shares many of the same views with a fascistic slant. But when the bloody liberals come back to power and bring the country more back to center where it belongs, you will again be out in the fringe, frustrated because your strong conservative views are not being recognized.
Theres going to be liberals in power, as well as moderate and even some more conservative republicans. But Bush is as far Right as you are even going to get in your lifetime and voters will not even want to venture that far down the road for some time after coming so close to losing control of the republic to those tha would pervert it to their own selfish wants and desires.
Congressive - what's not clear to me from that article is whether the folks are born again before they are divorced or after. It would stand to reason that people who have been through a divorce might suffer from feelings of depression, guilt and shame - sometimes to an overwhelming degree. These are just the folks who are most vulnerable to the offer of being "saved" by evangelical christianity.
I sure more than a few here can relate.
The article is clearly about The Baptist Standard's concern for Christians getting divorced, as they go on to make intervention recommendations. Sadly, their suggestions perpetuate the problem.
I'll find the link, but there was another study that suggested the problem was that bible belt couples would bring their problems, finacial, emotional, etc. to God and ask for guidance/forgiveness/absolution, when they should be going to their spouse and asking for guidance/forgiveness/absolution.
Praying with your pastor for the strength to stop running your charge card over the limit achieves nothing. Non-Christian couples were more likely to take personal responsibility for their actions, rather than seek an outside "devil" to blame. And any marriage where the husband "worships" his wife and the wife "worships" her husband over any organized religion will naturally outlast any marriage where they think God will "forgive" them if they divorce (which, according to Jesus Himself, God does not forgive, and considers dovorcees perpetual adulterers).
Way to go Axis! You explained true Christianity better than I've seen it before.
I'm glad you Canadians realize that Americans aren't all as narrow-minded as fundamentalist evangelicals like Jerry Falwell and AAR!
My idea of America is a country that is united because its government and people respect individual differences, and celebrates its diversity as its strength. By our constitution there is no state established religion-all are free to worship as they see fit. We are a country of people that value community, but understand the need for individual privacy. We also are a citizen of the world, and need not to abuse our abundant strength by exploiting the weakness of other countries. That is how liberals view America, and I look forward to when the good sense of our Founding Fathers returns to our government. In the meantime, I salute our good neighbor to the North!
I don't care if gays marry. I don't care if people marry cats, or dogs, or even trees.I don't want an amendement to the Constitution that adds a restriction. That document is about freedom and liberty. It should not be turned into a document of "moral" control. As it is, rights enumerated there (like the right to bear arms) are routinely dismissed by people claiming the moral high ground.
And though I am a former marine who might actually jump you if you tried it; I don't want an amendment banning flag burning either.
Congressive,
It is a six year old report - and it doesn't really tell us anything: a higher percentage of "born again" Christians either are divorced or have been divorced..."have been" is a very important thing: we'd need to find out how many of them became born again AFTER they got a divorce - or we can study couples who became born again prior to their marriage and see how their divorce rate compares to those who didn't become born again before marriage.
Axis,
Actually, Hitler was a nominal Catholic - though after he left home at the age of 17 or so he never, so far as can be determined, attended any religious services whatsoever...by action, he was entirely non-religious.
If your level of historical education makes you think that Hitler was conservative and Christian, then I suggest you hit the books again for a couple years...you really don't know anything.
kritter,
If you wish to celebrate diversity, then you have to celebrate conservative Christianity, too...unless, that is, you are some sort of leftwing hypocrit who say "diversity" and means "leftwing ideology".
axis,
My oh my. How did you produce so much garbage while I was out getting a little work done?
I guess it helps when you have repeated the same basic comments enough times to have them memorized!
Glad to know you have me "figured out"... or at least you think you do.
AAR
Robert,
RE: "Think on these things..... "
O.k., I thought about them. Nothing there worth a response.
AAR
Listen to all this talk of intolerance and name-calling. Precious. Really.
The fact of the matter is that social liberalism has killed marriage, destabilized the family, and has very real social consequences.
In 1962, 2% of whites and 24% of blacks were born out-of-wedlock. Those numbers have since ballooned to 20% of whites and close to 2/3 of blacks. Divorce rates were also far lower.
Time and time again liberals assured us that nothing would happen if we brought about unilateral divorce, if we became "tolerant" and accepted children being born out of wedlock--for the own sake.
Well, kids born into broken homes are more likely to enter crime than are children from poor families. We've created a monster worse than poverty, thank you.
Sorry, your liberal notions of marriage are counterproductive, outdated, and have been a general failure.
I see no reason to continue down this path and to make marriage about nothing more than some vague notion of romantic love.
From time imemorium in every society across the globe, marriage has existed between a man and a woman. A few patriarchal societies arose to allow polygamy, but only in isolated regions and generally not for long. Marriage has always been about forming a family--a woman guaranteed that a man would help care for her and her children and the man assured that his children that he cared for were his own. Very basic, even primal. But fundamental.
Now you want us to go take the family component completely out of marriage and make this solely about "romantic love." And you complain of the divorce rate now? Just keep marching and see what harm you cause.
Sorry, your intolerant comments don't apply to me. I've been to over 100 gay establishments. I've just spoken to a gay buddy of mine who went to a Madonna concert tonight in LA. I can befriend gays while recognizing that changing the fabric of marriage is pure stupidity.
So put aside your name calling and examine the issue from a broader angle than your mere instant gratification.
this will not survive a 10th admendment challange.
marrage is a clear states rights issue.
it's a clearly cynical attempt influence election-year, voter behavior - lemmings to the piper, if u will.
these pro-admendment, gop'ers greatly surprise me.
if this marrage travesty effort continues, I'll vote straight dem in the fall & will continue to do so until one branch of the federal govt changes party.
what's happened to the party philosophy of limited govt, states rights, & fiscal conservatism?
teenage liberal,
Sixteen? I've known some really intelligent sixteen year olds -- you still have a ways to go!
At sixteen, I was in college, but I also had some common sense. Maybe when you double or triple your current age, you will be more conservative too. I am now, but I have been since I was sixteen, and I am proud that I have been able to maintain my conservative values, even through the peer pressure of college. Yes, I have modified and changed some of my beliefs over time, but I have still maintained most of my core beliefs. Hopefully, your actions and those of the liberals you support now, at the age of sixteen, will not have changed America to something you don't like by that time you might change your views!
A Christian? Is there any public display or mention of Christians that you DO support? Do you believe that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance because someone doesn't want to see or hear the word God even if they aren't required to say it? Do you believe the Ten Commandments, that are part of our nations history and have been in parks for years should now suddenly be removed? Do you believe Christmas trees should be removed from public schools, and traditional Christmas songs that have been sung by school children for generations should now be prohibited from our schools? Do you believe that crosses should be removed from the graves of soldiers in public cemeteries? Do you believe that voluntary public prayer should be prohibited? Do you believe that the ACLU should attack the Boy Scouts because the Supreme Court said they are a private organization and are not required to have homosexual scout leaders? Do you believe that the town of Las Cruces (which means The Crosses) should be sued in federal court to remove crosses from their city logo because someone alleges that crosses are unconstitutional religious symbols on public property? Do you believe that freedom of religion means all reference to God must be suddenly be purged and removed from all public property, buildings, writings, and view? The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion!
Did you read the recent post and comments on this site about the judge's order to remove the Mount Soledad Korean War Monument in San Diego from city property -- because it contains a cross? It doesn't matter that the monument with the cross has been there for 35 years, and another cross had been there before this one since 1914. It doesn't matter that the overwhelming majority of the people (probably even non-Christians) wanted and voted to keep the monument. But, some anti-religious nut managed to find a judge to rule against the monument and order it's removal on the grounds that the cross constituted a religious symbol on government land.
Ricorun and others posted some excellent information about the history of that attack. You can read all of the details and posts by going to the original thread, but here is a partial quote from one of Ricorun's comments --
"So anyway, that one person won a court ruling on the grounds that the cross constituted a religious symbol on government land. Okay fine. Maybe he has a point, even though it took 35 freakin' years for him to make it. So what did the citizens of San Diego (I suppose we should call the city just "Diego") do? They put a proposition (Proposition F) on the 1992 ballot allowing sale of the land to said memorial association. The proposition passed with 76% of the vote. 76%! How often do you get 76% of people to agree on anything?"
"Nonetheless, the courts decided that the sale itself violated the California Constitution because it was tantamount to government support of religion. Perhaps because it stipulated a particular buyer. So then the city put the sale up to competitive bid. The highest bidder was the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association. As far as I'm concerned, that should have been the end of it. The people let it known that they were in favor of selling the site, the city put it up for competitive bid, and they found a buyer. What more do you want? But the courts blocked that sale, too. Jeepers. Then, in a subsequent ballot proposition, the people of Diego voted (again by a 76% majority) in favor of transferring ownership to the federal Dept of the Interior to make it a national war memorial. But the courts blocked the transfer. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it. This is ridiculous. I'm not one to cry "activist courts!" at the turn of a hat. Hardly ever, in fact. Most of the time I think that charge is ridiculous. But as far as I can tell, this one is a little beyond the pale."
Take your head out of the sand or some of those liberal websites and wake up. You, who say you are a Christian, can deny it all you want, but it is a fact that Christians and religion ARE under attack by liberals and the ACLU. What has been part of America for 200 years, and even before it became a nation, are to be removed if the ACLU gets their way. The ACLU searches throughout the country for ANYTHING Christian so they can file a lawsuit to have it removed. It doesn't matter if 100% of the people want it and vote to keep it, the ACLU doesn't. The ACLU doesn't even want the land sold to private groups either so monuments that have been there for years or generations can remain in place. Even if it is sitting on private land, the ACLU says it gives the "appearance" that the government supports religion. Ridiculous! It wouldn't surprise me to see the ACLU file a lawsuit at any time to have the letter "t" removed from our alphabet because it looks like a cross! Ridiculous? This whole liberal anti-religious, anti-Christian campaign is what's ridiculous.
Is there anything Christian that you are willing to stand up for and say enough is enough? You don't even need to preach to anyone about religion or even tell anyone you believe in any religion, but you could at least not support the liberal attacks on what has always been part of this nation and its history! You could stand up and say enough is enough, but if that is too much to ask, then you could at least not add fuel to the anti-Christian campaign and bolster the efforts of those who are attacking religion... unless of course, that is really your intent!
Now, how does this relate to the subject of this thread?
A person does not have to be a Christian to oppose gay marriage, nor do they have to oppose it because of anything to do with their own Christian beliefs. Some Christians support it and some don't. You will probably find that to be true with any group of people you choose. Christians are, however, entitled to their beliefs and opinions no matter what the basis is for their opinions and their choices, but they face a double attack from liberals first because some oppose the liberal agenda and second... simply because they are Christians!
You, axis (who believes he has me "figured" out), and the rest of the liberal commentors here seem to believe that I'm opposed to gay marriage because of my Christian beliefs. So what if I were? Well, I can tell you flat out -- you, axis, and the rest of the liberals here are ABSOLUTELY WRONG on that assumption!
It is not because of any Christian belief that I oppose gay marriage. The fact is, you, axis, and the rest of the liberal gang attack, name call, and slander me because you think it gives you another chance to attack Christians and religion! You cannot accept the fact that I do not agree with gay marriage -- you must make it an attack on Christians! Keep pushing and attacking Christians. See just how far they can be pushed before they do stand up and fight back! Who knows... if enough Christians, who are in the majority, ever get really fed up and motivated, they might just pass their own constitutional amendment to put a stop to it. I doubt it, but less likely things have happened.
I am opposed to gay marriage because I don't agree with the concept... period! I don't agree with it, and I don't support it. I don't know of any civilization throughout history that has ever created or recognized "gay marriage", but that's probably because they had not been "enlightened" in the ways of liberalism! Perhaps the decadent Roman Empire did at sometime before their final moral decline and eventual collapse, but I haven't read or heard that even they went so far as to claim that a homosexual or lesbian relationship was marriage. Yes, homosexual and lesbian relationships have existed throughout history, but it is only in recent history that anyone, anywhere has tried to force that concept on the majority, and then have the nerve and gall to call those who oppose "their new social concept" by every derogatory name they can.
More than anything else, I am opposed to gay marriage because of the way it is being forced on America using the activist liberal courts, not in by following the Constitution, but rather aborting the intent of the Constitution.
Even before the gay activists managed to get their one vote majority decision from the Massachusetts court, some gay activists were interviewed about their efforts during a newscast. They were asked if they really believed the people, through their State legislatures and Congress were going to approve the concept of gay marriage.
Do you know what they said? They basically said they DON'T CARE what the MAJORITY WANT, they DON'T CARE what CONGRESS or the state LEGISLATURES want, will do, or will not do. They said they plan to use the courts to get gay marriage approved! They said they were not going to follow the legislative process established and mandated by the Constitution. Their words, actions, and arrogance show that they don't care what the majority believe or want; they don't care about the Constitution; and they don't care about anything but their own little agenda item, be it gay marriage or any other liberal cause!
And some may ask, well just how can the liberals, gay activists, or anyone be so presumptuous to believe they can force other states to recognize gay marriage, even those states which have expressly enacted changes to their own constitutions to forbid gay marriage?
How? They intend to use the liberal activist courts again, but this time through the "The Full Faith and Credit Clause" -- Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution -- which provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and [activist] judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. They will judge shop and file law suit after lawsuit until they can find a liberal court who will require other states to recognize gay marriage in all states because it is a legal [activist judge court imposed] act in another state -- Massachusetts. (The courts just did basically that in overturning an Oklahoma law against gay adoptions.)
So, liberals plan to take a court mandated action, that was imposed by a SINGLE VOTE majority -- not even a unanimous ruling -- and then use that single vote to force their views on ALL Americans. You call that democracy? You call that following the intent of the U.S. Constitution. You call me a hypocrite and all sorts of slanderous names because I oppose that type of abuse of our Constitution. I don't think so!
Now, the fact remains, the only way, THE ONLY WAY that the issue of gay marriage can be returned to the people for the majority to decide, is by a Constitutional Amendment. That is the ONLY WAY the actions of the states who legally amended their own constitutions can be recognized and upheld. Anything less will subject the democratic decisions and votes of the majority of their citizens to being thrown out by another "one judge majority" in some other liberal activist court!
After this, and if and when a MAJORITY OF AMERICANS follow the DEMOCRATIC process of making law through CONGRESS and state LEGISLATURES as provided by the U.S. and state constitutions, the people are still free to repeal that amendment and do as they please.
If you don't believe this, do your own research. If you have no problem with some liberal activists using the courts to circumvent and negate YOUR rights, and YOUR votes, and the YOUR constitutionally mandated legislative process, then just sit back, let the liberals lull you into inaction, or make you feel guilty, and the liberal activist, through the liberal courts will decide the issue for you!
Just sit back and think your beliefs and wishes are protected by your state constitution. But do check the news periodically and watch how things are moving!!!
axis,
You say or imply that I am the one who doesn't want to follow the U.S. Constitution. You say or imply that I am the one who wants to impose Christian views. You say or imply I am the one who doesn't want to let the issue be decided by Congress and the state legislatures as provided in the Constitution. You say or imply I am the one who doesn't want to follow the rules of democracy. Yet... you condone and support the actions of an activist minority to use activist judges to circumvent and ignore the democratic desires, choice, and votes of the majority!
Who's the hypocrite here? Not me! LOOK IN THE MIRROR. It is the liberal left!
AAR
Hello Marriage should be between one man and one woman,No on civil unions Bill marriage is a covenant
a covenant that not only a christian makes before God as being a christian but
a covenant pact that is made between husband and wife....
Take a look at the state of california for an example.
Marriage should remain as one man and one woman
Gods blessings
TandT
Hello marriage should be between one man and one woman and no on civil unions
special interests already run to high we don't want our tax dollars paying out for special interests groups I don't think our legislature was meant to fund out dollars to every special interest group that could eventually mean a dog and a person could marry just to get state funding tax dollars that money could be better spent in funding the war on terror and education and veteran needs and medicare and or medicade with normal married families and or fixing social security Lets fix the social security problem first for older folks someday to retire instead of
our tax dollars paying for special interest groups.than they just raise taxes on us hire to pay for more school funds.Marriage should be between one man and one woman
Cheyanne P,
"The fact of the matter is that social liberalism has killed marriage, destabilized the family, and has very real social consequences.
In 1962, 2% of whites and 24% of blacks were born out-of-wedlock. Those numbers have since ballooned to 20% of whites and close to 2/3 of blacks. Divorce rates were also far lower."
-- Funny, how there have been so many Republicans in power since that time that could have acted against what you say, and yet its all the liberals fault alone.
You don't suppose that the explosion of children out of wed lock could have anything to do with sex being everywhere on the tv, in music on ads, in magazines, in video games do you? I guess thats all the liberals fault too, since you republicans have been in power for the past 12 years in congress?
"Well, kids born into broken homes are more likely to enter crime than are children from poor families. We've created a monster worse than poverty, thank you."
-- I see, so now you want to ban abortions, contraception, condoms and sex ed so that not only do you have an explosion in more pre-marital sex, you have an explosion in unwanted and abandoned children as well. Look at the Regan years, sex ed was slashed and the result was an incredible explosion in teenage sex and abortions. Face it, its a loosing proposition.
AAR,
"It is not because of any Christian belief that I oppose gay marriage. The fact is, you, axis, and the rest of the liberal gang attack, name call, and slander me because you think it gives you another chance to attack Christians and religion!"
-- Again, way off base and not even close. I have nothing against Christian, am one myself, not not a radical one or a fire and brimstone one like you. Your crew would say that I am not a Christian because my values differ from yours. That makes you ignorant and short sighted. This is not an attack on Christianity, it is a vigilance from converting into a theocratic state that co-mingles religion and politics. Like Iran.
Religion is a good, thing but only taken in moderation. For example in some parts of the world, religious beliefs make it legal for a father to murder his children if they embarass him or his family. Are you ok with that? Or is it just ok for YOUR beliefs to be merged into law and politics. In centuries past, American culture was theocratic , I believe in inquistition will come to mind? People believed in witches and satanism and it was legal to burn people alive and murder them if they were though to be witches or evil. Is that ok with you AAR??
Keeping Church and State seperate, thats all we want. You would not want our religious beliefs to become law would you? So why should you expect to make yours law?
"I am opposed to gay marriage because I don't agree with the concept... period! I don't agree with it, and I don't support it. I don't know of any civilization throughout history that has ever created or recognized "gay marriage", but that's probably because they had not been "enlightened" in the ways of liberalism!"
-- Again, no one is asking you to do or agree with anything, simply to show tolerance and allow people to live and believe as they choose to, nothing more. Why is that such a threat to you? Be that a gay marriage or civil union, they simply want to exist and be entitled to the same benefits, they are not asking you to agree with it. You no doubt do not agree with the very fact that gays are allowed to exist and would outlaw the practice if given the chance. Its such a threat to you isn't it? They scare you. And you hate what scares you. Were you a gay basher in high school too? Maybe you just haven't come out of the closet yet? Its a fact that most gay bashers and homphobics are in fact self-hating gays themselves. Why can't you simply tolerate and accept people for how they are not what they are?
I don't agree with it personally either, however I don't hold myself so high and mighty that I have the right to stand in their way and stop it like you do.
Keep advocating for a constitutional ammendment AAR. Maybe someday, the tolerant mainstream of america that may not agree but still is tolerant will be replaced by homphobic gay and jew hating christians like you and will rise up and put a stop to all thjose with different view, beliefs and lifestyles.
Or maybe if you keep looking under your Iraqi prayer rug every day, one day the mainstream of america will see it your way that its better to put aside all those important issues and beat the queers down and chain those pregnant children to the hospital bed and FORCE them to have, raise and love those children.
Or maybe, your radicals will see that you are never going to get all that you want and will see that its much wiser to rejoin society to bring the country together and strengthen the nation for all its citizens, black, white, brown, yellow, christian, muslim, athiest, gay, straight, bi etc.
You are ALL Americans. Time to smarten up and start acting like it instead of acting like a bunch of spoiled 6 year old bickering because another kid has a bigger piece of cholcolate than you.
Gee AAR, I'm flattered that you gave me an honorable mention for my stand on the Mt. Soledad memorial issue. But I think it's important to keep in mind that my premise on that issue was that the memorial was essentially an historical landmark that a broad spectrum of San Diegans didn't want to see destroyed -- in spite of the fact that it had some more narrow religious connotations. And secondly, the city of San Diego tried very hard to accommodate the requirement of separation of church and state while still preserving the landmark, and yet at every turn the court found some problem with their attempts. I guess you could say I was arguing against ideological goofiness run amok.
In the same vein, I am against the proposed marriage amendment -- it is another example of ideological goofiness run amok. And while I might draw different conclusions, I like CheyenneP's take on the issue. See, to me the core principles underlying the whole concept of marriage and family are love, commitment, and personal responsibility. To the extent that you have those things in abundance, your marriage will last. And to the extent that you are able to teach them to your kids, you will have a strong family unit. And to the extent that your society shares those principles you will have a strong society. Religious affiliation is irrelevant. Likewise, I would argue that gender preference is irrelevant. Am I wrong?
I grew up in a little tiny town where everyone was white. Then a black family moved in down the street. It caused quite a stir. In fact, our next door neighbors, the Smith's (lol!) couldn't handle the concept of living down the street from "a bunch of niggers", so they moved. Never mind that they had been fine for years with the white family (equidistant from them in another direction) that had a freakin' mountain of liquor bottles in their backyard and were given to public hystrionics in the middle of the night. And never mind that the father of the new family was a college professor and his wife was a CPA. In other words, their credentials as middle class citizens were in fact superior to most of the other people in the neighborhood. They were only different in a way that was totally irrelevant: they were black.
Homosexuality is not something I would choose for myself. The whole notion kind of makes my skin crawl. But then again, I am not inclined to impose my will, or my religion, on them. Whatever they do in private is fine with me. It's only when another's rights infringe on mine that I get my hair up. For example, I would be much more concerned about the alcoholics or drug dealers down the street, or guys who pull hole shots in the cul-de-sac where kids play, or hookers turning tricks on the street corner, or the teenagers that run around unrestricted in the middle of the night -- because those things affect the whole fabric of the community -- than I would be about a law-abiding gay or lesbian couple across the street. And while there is some evidence from ancient societies (e.g., the Spartans, Etruscans, Romans, and others) that occasional homosexual behavior might be an acquired taste, there is very little evidence that a true homosexual orientation is anything like a virus. In other words, one's intrinsic sexual orientation is largely impervious to external influences. External influences may determine one's proclivity to come out of the closet, but whether you stay in the closet or come out of it, the closet is still there.
"Gay marriage" sounds like an oxymoron to me. I mean heck, I thought they were smarter than that, lol! But I suggest that the only reason it is an issue is the fact that certain economic and legal advantages follow from "marriage". For example, many hospitals only allow visitation rights to "family members" when a person is critically ill. Under those sorts of scenarios I find the exclusion of a same-sex mate totally unconscionable. Same sex couples are, after all, capable of love, commitment, and personal responsibility. Thus, depriving same-sex couples of that kind of right is, to me, ideological goofiness run amok.
Now, whether you want to call such a union a "marriage" or a "civil union", I don't much care. It sounds like a question of semantics to me. Either way, it doesn't affect my faith at all.
Even GWB doesn't expect this to pass! Its a bone he's throwing to the social conservatives to make up for caving on immigration and not doing much to ban abortion right or stem cell research, or any of the other issues they care about. Oh, I forgot one -flag-burning. Bush doesn't care one way or another about gay marriage. He knows if he alienates his base any more than he already has, they'll stay home in '06, and he'll have to deal with Speaker of the House Pelosi.
Impeach the bastard and Dead eye Dick and Pelosi for President in '07!! LOL
There seems to be a disconnect with Republicans nowadays...
They preach a "small government" agenda, yet total spending under Bush has ballooned 42%... so much for small government...
Anyways...
This won't pass. It's a plain and simple fact. This is just a kamakaze like move by the republicans to mobilize their base, but the problem is that the backlash against congress recently hasn't been party-specific... it is anti-incumbent. People just want a change, and the current membership in congress just provides more of the same incessant babbling and never accomplishes anything meaningful.
About the disconnect I mentioned earlier. Why is it "small government" conservatives that want to pass a constitutional amendment that would restrict the rights of an entire group of people? Why was it "small government" conservatives that passed a law on behalf of one vegetated woman in florida?
We have the establishment clase of the first amendment for a reason, and there is no non-religious argument for this amendment. The "traditional American Values" argument is just a thinly and poorly masked religious one. Marriage is a religious institution; civil unions are a government-enforced contract between consenting adults.
Let the churches meddle with the former and the government with the latter.
Hi Guys
This is a really good topic to debate ...
Jennifer.E
"two people in love who Just happens to be of the same sex will never hurt the act of marriage because as of right now over 50% of marriage couple are breaking up."
Why do you think traditional marriage is breaking up? Could it be that marriage between a man and a lady is under attack. An example of this: Try to think of a current TV show where the father in a family is portrayed in a positive light. Not many?
Axis
"Many people hate those that are different from them or have views that differ from theirs.
...
There are those that are pusing hard to deny gays any rights. No civil unions, and now deny them from being able to adopt children."
Axis - do you believe certain things are right and other things are wrong?
The same wingnuts are doing the same in the anti-abortion circles. People with a rigid view want to force their beliefs on other people.
Axis please explain to me how you can support abortion.
Axis:
Gays are no different that you or I, other than their personal choice in lifestyle.
"personal choice in lifestyle" ? No they have chosen to live an immoral life.
It takes a far bigger man to tolerate those different from yourself than to persecute them.
when you say tolerate do you mean that we must just accept what other people do?
Robert:
History is full of atrocities, this country is NOT perfect. But one thing Americans have always tried to portray as right is protecting the civil rights of others. What is right is to protect those who are persecuted from persecution. That is a CHRISTIAN ideal as well.
Robert I urge that you read your Bible. James 1v27. "Religion that God our father accepts as pure and faultless is this - to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
Where in the Bible does it say that you must protect the sin in someone elses life. (yes two men having sex is a sin, just like lusting after a lady is a sin).
Teenage Liberal:
Another reason I can't stand you religious nutjob, redneck right-wingers: you people speak about being for Christ, but freefully discriminate against others when your Good Book tells you to be tolerant and to not hate others.
We are ALL God's children, we are ALL equal under the eyes of God, regardless of race, sex, and sexual prefernce.
...
more from teenage liberal:
I happen to be a Christian, I just don't swallow the radical facist view of Christianity that the demagouges like Robertson and Dobson spew, and I sure as hell want my religion to be used to spread intolerance and hatred of anyone who doesn't fit into their twisted sense of what is normal.
By Christian - you mean someone who has accepted Jesus as your Lord and saviour? Luke 6:46 says (this is Jesus speaking)
"Why do you call me,'Lord, Lord,' and don't do the things which I say?".
This is what God says about men having sex with each other: Lev. 18:22,
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." and
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Please note homosexuals are not being singled out.
Axis
"Then you'll be pushing as you already are to outlaw gays from adopting kids."
Children need a mom and a dad, do you not agree?
"Then you will be pushing to outlaw allowing gay to live together. Your hatred and intolerance will never end. Its never enough."
Is it intolerant to stand up against something that you know is dangerous?
Axis:
"The true meaning of Christianity is to develop a relationship with God that will positively influence and enrichen your life. "
Christianity is based on the Bible, so please provide scripture verses that back up your claim on the 'true meaning' of Christianity. I agree with you that God does positively influence and enrichen your life as you submit to him. However that is not the true meaning of Christianity.
Luke 9v23 (Jesus speaking) "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me". Picking up your cross daily means giving up your will and doing what Jesus says.
2 Timothy 2v12 (apostle Paul speaking) "In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted".
When you become a Christian you 'die' to yourself (this means you choose to give up your wants, desires and planes and submit your life to Jesus. You do what He says you must do regardless of whether you personally want to do it). Galations 2v20 (apostle Paul speaking) "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me".
Axis:
"Some disturbing parallels here, Hitler was a strong conservative. He was also a devout and far right fundamentalist christian."
Please define what made Hitler a Christian. If someone says 'I am a christian' however their life does not match up to the Bible then they are not a Christian. Jesus talks about this in Luke 6v43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks." I think we all agree that based on Hitler's action he is 'bad fruit'
Kritter:
Way to go Axis! You explained true Christianity better than I've seen it before. Kritter - read and study your Bible to understand true Christianity.
"My idea of America is a country that is united because its government and people respect individual differences, and celebrates its diversity as its strength."
Are certain things wrong and other things right? If an individual 'difference' is wrong must it be accepted, promoted and condoned? Please explain to me how a homosexual relationship can be the right thing to do? Physcially it makes not sense, from having children it makes not sense. What good reason is there to condone homosexuallity?
So if two people love each other anything goes?
Axis:
"I have nothing against Christian, am one myself, not not a radical one or a fire and brimstone one like you. Your crew would say that I am not a Christian because my values differ from yours. That makes you ignorant and short sighted. "
Axis do you live your life according to the Bible? Is Jesus Lord of your Life? (ie you do what he says?) From previous conversations I know that you are a reasonable person - I urge you to study the Bible carefully.
Axis
Again, no one is asking you to do or agree with anything, simply to show tolerance and allow people to live and believe as they choose to, nothing more. Why is that such a threat to you?
Guy marriage is a direct threat