Dividing the country?

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

I have heard it bought up in the news a few times and see it on the Internet. People are saying that Gorge Bush is dividing the country. I say it always has been divided on some issues. George Bush is making people think about where they stand on some issues ?Gay Marriage, Abortion? but that is far from dividing the country since people already had there opinions about it all along.

IMO the people that are diving the country are the ones that stated it in the first place by issuing Gay Marriage licenses they are the ones that started the ball rolling but George Bush gets called out for dividing the country IMO it sounds like a real play on words from the Far Radical Left.

This is not intended on being a discussion about whether Gay marriage is right or wrong but one on if George Bush is dividing the country when he is just standing up for something he knows is right and there has always been 2 sides to this issue but now it was brought out because Mayors are allowing Gay Marriage in many cities across thew US. How is that dividing the country when it has been divided all along?

[speaceman]

Bringing up the idea of a U.S. constitutional amendment to force the issue one way or another before the issue can be resolved through normal channels, such as the courts, state const. amendments, or governors arresting offending mayors (as happened in NY), could easily be seen by some as divisive.

Perhaps that is where the slant comes from.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by speaceman
Bringing up the idea of a U.S. constitutional amendment to force the issue one way or another before the issue can be resolved through normal channels, such as the courts, state const. amendments, or governors arresting offending mayors (as happened in NY), could easily be seen by some as divisive.

Perhaps that is where the slant comes from.

A U.S. constitutional amendment is the only way to make it consistant and pretty permanent accoss the contry but thats still not dividing it already was a divided issue. If we want why can't we have a U.S. constitutional amendment to allow Gay marrage would that be dividing the country? Do you see my point it goes both ways both parties are being divisive it's that way it is on any issue with two sides.

If thats the case I say the mayors are dividing the country not the Pres he just trying to come up with a permant fix.

[Robert J. Yates]

Bush, in suggesting constitutional amendments as a means for legislating against behavior he sees as wrong is clearly divisive to a large portion of society who do not support him in tinkering around with our founding documents. Its not just the non republicans either as the time I looked, he did not have a majority in the congree either.

[speaceman]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
A U.S. constitutional amendment is the only way to make it consistant and pretty permanent accoss the contry...

It's not the only way. Its the most divisive way.

[cbassett]

Originally posted by speaceman
It's not the only way. Its the most decisive way.

Fixed.

[mnjeeper]

Such a thin veil you've draped over today's gay marriage thread.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by speaceman
It's not the only way. Its the most divisive way.

Ok what other way do we do it? We can leave it up to the states but what happens when Joe and Joe get married in CA and come back to Ohio and try to get benefits from there employer because they are married. So the state of OH says no way. So they claim they are discriminated against do to there choice of being Gay. So we set up a new class of people that feel they are discriminated agaist do we want that? That sounds like a much harder way of doing things then a U.S. constitutional amendment. If gay marriage is going to be legal then make that way in the U.S. constitution. If it's not make it that way in the U.S. constitution.

But IMO Goerge Bush is not dividing the country it already was.

[speaceman]

Equal protection issues are decided all the time in the Supreme court. That is one of it's main functions and one of the reasons for it's existance.

You let the states individually come to a consensus as to what is right on the issue, and then you let the inevitable test case make it's way to the U.S. Supreme court.

By the time that happens, there will hopefully be more of a national consensus as to wether we as a country want to allow or disallow gay marriage.

If not, then the situation will be where we currently stand, but at least the normal channels of legal resolution will have been tried out first.

I personally think it's better to exercise the normal channels to decide an issue like this one. Equal protection cases are generally decided within the state and federal court structure.

Trying to force a decision on incremental societal change by using a U.S. constitutional amendment is not the best choice, unless you are trying to curry favor to your power base in an election year, and you need to get things done quick. In that case, it may be good election year tactics, but not necessarily the best choice to resolve the issue.

After all, we've been down this road as a country before. Prohibition is a pretty good example of what can happen with trying to codify societal change with a Con. Amend. before a concensus has been reached as to the appropriate benchmark for the societal behavior in question.

[cbassett]

Originally posted by speaceman
I personally think it's better to exercise the normal channels to decide an issue like this one.

Normal channels would mean prosecuting the lawbreaking mayors (and every other lawbreaking party involved).

May fly in NY, I don't see anyone in CA sacking-up to do that.

[William]

Originally posted by speaceman
After all, we've been down this road as a country before. Prohibition is a pretty good example of what can happen with trying to codify societal change with a Con. Amend. before a concensus has been reached as to the appropriate benchmark for the societal behavior in question.

I'd, er, hate to see what replace's the "speakeasy".

[shmekelhead]

Not that anybody asked, but:


States have rights too ya know!!!


Or we used to, I forget.

[Daless2]

To begin with I personally think changing the Constitution with a Marriage act is not a very appropriate thing to do.

That said I do think it is politically odd to say the President of the United States is being divisive in this "proposal". Last time I looked it was in his Constitutional Powers to recommend to the Congress amendments to the Constitution.

From there there is a process. Both houses of Congress (the peoples House) must pass the proposed amendment by 2/3 majority. Then 2/3 of the States must "ratify the Amendment. else it doesn't become an amendment to the Constitution.

Sounds like a process to me with a good amount of checks and balances and prevents for frivolous amendments. It also sound very legal, legitimate and appropriate before we change the Constitution.

On the other hand, we have Mayors who are breaking the law becuase of their own beliefs and little action is being taken to stop it.

What if we had a Mayor who decided on his own that pregnant woman could no longer have access to abortions?

Would we allow him/her to shut down the choice of woman becuase he feel the Constitution gives and applies "rights" to an unborn fetus?

I doubt it!

I'd bet he would be arrested quicker then you or I could blink an eye. Today! But if we let this law breakage go without enforcement, then tomorrow we will be dealing with the other type of Mayor too! The writing is on the wall folks!


If anyone is being divisive it is those who are circumventing the law for their own beliefs, rather then trying to change the law to support their beliefs.

Maybe states such as California should have a "Do Over Referendum" over this issue, and keep doing it over till "the people" come up with the "right" answer, the answer that supports the law breakers.

Until then the division and divisiveness here is happening becuase no one has the b***s to enforce the law of the land.

It is that simple folks and it has NOTHING to do with the issue.

Frank

[Cement_guy]

He is, so what?

[kid4lyf]

What if we had a Mayor who decided on his own that pregnant woman could no longer have access to abortions?

There is a HUGE difference here. Taking away a conservative's rights are OK, ie school prayer, etc. But mess with a liberal's "right" to break the law; are you kidding. Hell hath no furry like an ACLU lawyer.
Anyone remember the furry over an art exhibit that showed a painting of Jesus in a public urinal? Boy, us narrow minded conservatives were messing with that poor artists right to express himself.
Imagine the same painting, only now it shows Martin Luther King, or Mohamed, or that gay kid who was murdered in Wyoming.
Think the ACLU would be as interested in protecting THAT artist's rights?

[Cement_guy]

Originally posted by kid4lyf
Think the ACLU would be as interested in protecting THAT artist's rights?

When the ACLU decides to defend the Second Ammendment, I will then take them seriously.

The last ACLU lawyer that made any sense to me was Jack Nicholson in EASY RIDER

[Sephiroth]

02_WHITE_TJ_X your all over the place on issues, your boy George not only went religion but to the extreme and he's out of control. The very things he says he is giving Iraq, he is trying to take away from us.

[kid4lyf]

Originally posted by Sephiroth
02_WHITE_TJ_X your all over the place on issues, your boy George not only went religion but to the extreme and he's out of control. The very things he says he is giving Iraq, he is trying to take away from us.

You're equating the torture, murder, and inhuman treatment that went on in Iraq to not letting homsexuals wed?!

And you say 02_WHITE_TJ_X is all over the place.

[Sephiroth]

Originally posted by kid4lyf
You're equating the torture, murder, and inhuman treatment that went on in Iraq to not letting homsexuals wed?!

And you say 02_WHITE_TJ_X is all over the place.

I could care less about Iraq , I care about USA and no I don't equat one with the other but freedom of speech I do!!!!

[kid4lyf]

freedom of speech I do!!!!

And who's freedom of speach is "our boy George" trying to take away?

[Sephiroth]

Originally posted by kid4lyf
And who's freedom of speach is "our boy George" trying to take away?

Read the XSM thread