sheep

[Robert J. Yates]

Do we really need some idiot fiddling around with the constitution much less legalizing un-equal treatment for roughly 10% of the population?

I've never been one to espouse a gay rights agenda, in fact I do not personally agree with the lifestyle but since when has this country changed from one where individual freedom and liberty is prized, to one where rights and civil privledges are dooled out or not, based on differences? Yep, today its an amendment against gays, tomorrow who gets one against them?

[Deaver]

Robert
I agree, He's got bigger things to worry about

[Stu Olson]

Well Robert....you surely got me on this one.

I read the title of this thread and then beginning of your post and thought it had something to do with gays and sheep. Silly me! Reminds me of the opening segment of the Rubicon video....

[Jeff Weston]

Robert,

I couldn't agree with you more!!! Regardless of anyone's position on this, do we really want this administration tinkering with our constitution?

As far as I can tell based on polls, gay marriage is not even the top concern in this election amongst gays. It was well below the economy and national security. How this will address any of those issues is beyond me.

I'm not a "political guy" as I think the whole system is kinda' screwy, but I do know that this is not what we were sold at the last election ... a uniter. Could things be more divided right now? This is deja vu all over again. Bush Sr. & Jr. will have the same presidential biography with only different dates and initial in the name ... get elected, get high approval ratings leading up to and climaxing of war, can't sustain popularity after war and getting beat seeking second term.

I'm not blaming it all on the president as I know the political beuracracy is bigger than any one person. That said, this sucks.

[Paradiddle]

I agree with you.

If you want to ban gay marriage because it destabilizes the "institution of marriage" then you'd better constitutionally ban divorce.

Jeff

[Jeff Weston]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
I agree with you.

If you want to ban gay marriage because it destabilizes the "institution of marriage" then you'd better constitutionally ban divorce.

Jeff

Wouldn't that get people's attention.

Marriage is what each couple makes it, isn't it? I mean Britney got drunk, married, sobered up and annulled quicker than you could get a handgun. That pretty much sums it up for me. Where was the "conservative outcry" there.

The funny thing is I used to consider myself a conservative until issues like this put me on the outside looking in. I don't know where I fit in now ... GDI?

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by Jeff Weston
I don't know where I fit in now ... GDI?

You don't fit in - you are a thinking responsible adult - that makes you the minority...

[Wind_Danzer]

Originally posted by Jeff Weston
As far as I can tell based on polls, gay marriage is not even the top concern in this election amongst gays. It was well below the economy and national security. How this will address any of those issues is beyond me.

To the gays it's not... to a good portion of the religious it is and they vowed not to vote in this election if he didn't come out with an amendment. Saw some of the news, they claim it's more posturing then anything else (baaaaaaaaaaaa) to get the vote as it takes years to actually get something like this on the books.

He just wants the election and the second term. Personally I think he's a fool for doing this and agree that it is a very slippery slope to try to stand on.

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by Jeff Weston
This is deja vu all over again. Bush Sr. & Jr. will have the same presidential biography with only different dates and initial in the name

That shouldn't come a sa surprize to anyone as for the most part, its the very same group of people running the show behind the scenes.

[cbassett]

Wind_Danzer touched on what I think is the crux of the issue, religion. Legalizing gay-marriage has huuuuuuuuuuge ramifications on the religious community & business. As soon as a gay couple is refused the access to a religious ceremony by a church that is sticking to it's faith values/beliefs, the lawsuits will ensue. Next step will be Churches will lose their tax exempt statuses, it's a very messy road for the religious community.
Bush is in a tough position. That jackass Newsom, whom I think should be imprisoned for his unlawful acts, has forced Bush's hand. The religious right has been gaining momentum over the past term, and they'll deman Bush take a stand, which he has. This is going to make for another exiting election year.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Call the president what you want.

But what about the Mayor of SF braking the law allowing gay marage to take place. You people out in CA have laws against stuff like this and you think it's alright for the mayor to break those laws?

The real issue here is not the Pres but the Major of SF and some libral judges breaking the law and that is why we need to amend the consitution.

[speaceman]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
Call the president what you want.

But what about the Mayor of SF braking the law allowing gay marage to take place. You people out in CA have laws against stuff like this and you think it's alright for the mayor to break those laws?

The real issue here is not the Pres but the Major of SF and some libral judges breaking the law and that is why we need to amend the consitution.

There doesn't need to be a Constitutional amendment to deal with what is going on in S.F.

Forcing a constitutional amendment to decide the issue of marriage seems to me like we're just doing prohibition all over again, and we all know how well that worked out.

[Jeff Weston]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
Call the president what you want.

But what about the Mayor of SF braking the law allowing gay marage to take place. You people out in CA have laws against stuff like this and you think it's alright for the mayor to break those laws?

The real issue here is not the Pres but the Major of SF and some libral judges breaking the law and that is why we need to amend the consitution.

If they are already breaking the law, what will amending the constitution do? As for everybody thinking its okay to break the law, read Chris' post for his thoughts on the mayor. The real issue that Robert raised is that do you want these guys tinkering with our constitution? Do you want leaders you consider to be the better between two bad choices doing this? Legalization of it or not, the constitution should be left alone IMO.

[Wind_Danzer]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
Call the president what you want.

But what about the Mayor of SF braking the law allowing gay marage to take place. You people out in CA have laws against stuff like this and you think it's alright for the mayor to break those laws?

The real issue here is not the Pres but the Major of SF and some libral judges breaking the law and that is why we need to amend the consitution.

Leave it at the state level... why go all the way up to the federal level? As spaceman stated, how well did the "speakeasies" go over???

There is no real justification to this whole mess. The religious are ****ed and wanted to take it to an extreme. If Bush actually said listen I see where you are coming from but it is something that needs to be delt with at the state level, he would look so much better in the eyes of many right now.

Let there be a admendment to the state constitutions if you want one, not the federal level.

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
Call the president what you want.

But what about the Mayor of SF braking the law allowing gay marage to take place. You people out in CA have laws against stuff like this and you think it's alright for the mayor to break those laws?

The real issue here is not the Pres but the Major of SF and some libral judges breaking the law and that is why we need to amend the consitution.

Yes - but since when has breaking the law or violating the constitution stopped either a state or the President.

Almost 20 years ago Regan violated government policy, congressional rules - he is revered as one of the best presidents of our time.

10 years ago Clinton violated the 2nd Ammendment - it cost him the Senate.

California violated the 2nd and the 10th ammendment as well.

If you think making more rules will fix the problem you are mistaken IMO.

[TObject]

Laws are subject to interpretation. Just because 02_WHITE_TJ_X thinks somebody broke the law it doesn't men that actually happened. Of course, if you think somebody broke the law, what you should do is go to one of the appropriate investigative agencies, and report the crime. Or you can go to the apt attorney's office, and try to interest them in the matter directly.

What you can't do is throw accusations around. In this country the duty to interpret the law is placed on courts.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by Jeff Weston
If they are already breaking the law, what will amending the constitution do? As for everybody thinking its okay to break the law, read Chris' post for his thoughts on the mayor. The real issue that Robert raised is that do you want these guys tinkering with our constitution? Do you want leaders you consider to be the better between two bad choices doing this? Legalization of it or not, the constitution should be left alone IMO.

Amending the constitution will put us all on a level playing ground IMO. If I'm gay and I go out to SF and get married come back to OH where it is illegal and demand from my employer benefits for my partner what does that cause? We as a country need to have the same laws and constitutional rights or it causes anarchy like is going on in SF right now with the mayor willfully breaking the law.

[BlueJeeper]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
We as a country need to have the same laws and constitutional rights or it causes anarchy

Ok then, lets start with the federal government and their own hypocrisy.

Give me a break. If this even comes to a vote in Congress, anarchy doesn't even begin to describe what real Americans will rise up to do. The two-party duopoly must fall.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by TObject
Laws are subject to interpretationation. Just because 02_WHITE_TJ_X thinks somebody broke the law it doesn't men it actually happened. Of course, if you think that somebody broke the law, what you should do is go to one of the appropriate investigative agencies, and report the crime. Or you can go to the apt attorney's office, and try to interest them in the matter directly.

What you can't do is throw accusations around. In this country the duty to interpret the law is placed on courts.

Thats one of the problems laws are not up for interpretation. Judges are suppose to uphold the law and rule based on the law and not interprate the law for what they think is right. Laws are a pretty black and white thing we are the ones that messed that up thinking they are gray.

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
We as a country need to have the same laws and constitutional rights

I couldn't agree more - when can I bring that AR15 that I purchased lawfully in Ohio into California - after all - that is the SECOND AMMENDMENT - the second most important thing out for-fathers had to say.

Read the 10th ammendment of the Constitution - it basically says that any right NOT spelled out in the Constitution is basically up to the state - maybe California wants to allow gay marrage - what do you care. California banned guns and you didn't care then - right?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

By the way - anarchy is a strong word - there is not anarchy in SF right now.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by Rick Bernotas
Ok then, lets start with the federal government and their own hypocrisy.

Give me a break. If this even comes to a vote in Congress, anarchy doesn't even begin to describe what real Americans will rise up to do. The two-party duopoly must fall.

So what do you suggest we go to 1 party and we can be a communist state?

[BlueJeeper]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
So what do you suggest we go to 1 party and we can be a communist state?

Are you kidding with this, or are you just trolling on your way out?

[Jeff Weston]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
Amending the constitution will put us all on a level playing ground IMO.

Why not just remove states and their laws altogether if uniformity is what you want.

If I'm gay and I go out to SF and get married come back to OH where it is illegal and demand from my employer benefits for my partner what does that cause? We as a country need to have the same laws and constitutional rights or it causes anarchy like is going on in SF right now with the mayor willfully breaking the law.

We pay only for our employees' health care. If they want their spouse, children or domestic partner they are more than welcome if they pay the premium. It is purely an economic issue, nothing else. If a company offers benefits it is because they want to attract employees, not some form of welfare. If you haven't noticed, many employers offer benefits to non-married partners so that they can attract good employees. It's not a homo-hetero issue, it's pure dollars and cents.

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
Thats one of the problems laws are not up for interpretation. Judges are suppose to uphold the law and rule based on the law and not interprate the law for what they think is right. Laws are a pretty black and white thing we are the ones that messed that up thinking they are gray.

Actually - you are wrong. Judges DO interpret law - that is their only job. Other government agencies uphold and enforce.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/about.html

The ultimate interpretative body in this country is the Supreme Court of the United States.

Nothing written is "black and white" as every person's experience can color the interpretation.

Jeff

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by Paradiddle

By the way - anarchy is a strong word - there is not anarchy in SF right now.

I agree that anarchy is a strong word. I'm just over doing it a little to prove a point. If I willfully break the law I get put in jail but if the mayar does the same thing he doesn't and that is not right.

BTW I do care about what guns people in CA can carry it effects me in the big picture. CA is still part of the US correct?

[William]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
constitutionally ban divorce.

And after that sex, when it doesn't involve making a child.

That's next. I'm a Bush supporter, I believe he has the backbone that the country needs right now, esp. in light of decisions that are unpleasant.

My religous, military and other support aside.


But, he's out of bounds on this. This is something that doesn't make sense. Civil unions are pacification. Seperate but equal comes to mind.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
Actually - you are wrong. Judges DO interpret law - that is their only job. Other government agencies uphold and enforce.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/about.html

The ultimate interpretative body in this country is the Supreme Court of the United States.

Nothing written is "black and white" as every person's experience can color the interpretation.

Jeff

I agree with you on this one to some extent. I do not belive that the interpretation can change mid steam interpretation must be based on history and other rulings so basicaly it should never sway to far from where it started.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by Rick Bernotas
Are you kidding with this, or are you just trolling on your way out?

I'm joking Rick. And I'm not leaving I just quit 4x4ing but I still own a Jeep and care about the sport.

[BlueJeeper]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
I do not belive that the interpretation can change mid steam interpretation must be based on history and other rulings so basicaly it should never sway to far from where it started.

Yeah sure.

Just like Kansas argued Plessy v. Ferguson was precedent for their position on Brown v. Board of Education.

Right.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by Rick Bernotas
Yeah sure.

Just like Kansas argued Plessy v. Ferguson was precedent for their position on Brown v. Board of Education.

Right.

Care to explain this case or are you just blowing smoke?