I was wondering how long conversatives are going to fall for this sh!t? Republicans giving lip service to social issues dear to their religious base, in hopes to get them out to vote?
Cafferty from CNN says it best:
Quote:
Guess what Monday is? Monday is the day President Bush will speak about an issue near and dear to his heart and the hearts of many conservatives. It's also the day before the Senate votes on the very same thing. Is it the war? Deficits? Health insurance? Immigration? Iran? North Korea?
Not even close. No, the president is going to talk about amending the Constitution in order to ban gay marriage. This is something that absolutely, positively has no chance of happening, nada, zippo, none. But that doesn't matter. Mr. Bush will take time to make a speech. The Senate will take time to talk and vote on it, because it's something that matters to the Republican base.
This is pure politics. If has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in gay marriage. It's blatant posturing by Republicans, who are increasingly desperate as the midterm elections approach. There's not a lot else to get people interested in voting on them, based on their record of the last five years.
But if you can appeal to the hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in some people, you might move them to the polls to vote against that big, bad gay married couple that one day might move in down the street.
Let's not get into a gay discussion. This thread is purely about the politics.
---
politically?
i think it's quite ironic that the republicans are supposedly against big government and telling us what to do with ourselves, yet they're trying to mandate who you can and cannot choose to spend (or suffer) the rest of your life with.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Its a shame that instead of tackling issues that matter, Bush and his bigoted staff would rather spend all that time and money being the first administration to ever revoke the rights of a certain group of people.
But I suppose he will do or say just about anything at this point with his approval rating lower than my gpa
and save his butt for pissing a lot of people off about the war
In FLorida Jeb want to Ban students from going to any terrorist Country.
2004 Grand Prix GTP (Competition Group)
SOLD-->1999 Z24 5M-#30 to register on JBO
"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people'
all the time
I suspect that list would be VERY long. I really wonder about what it is that you're gaining by keeping up the Cuban Embargo.
In regards to the OP, this is posturing... The Ports Deal, Iraq, The sometimes War on Terrorism, the Economy, the Erosion of your personal rights and freedoms, The creation of the HSA (aka. The Administration without a cause)...
Watershed points for the Republican Party, all.
I found an interesting and apropos quote from, of all people, Michael Moore:
"What's the difference between Democrats and Republicans?
Democrats sometimes say one thing, and then usually do another - quietly holding hands with the bastards that make this world a meaner place.
REPUBLICANS JUST GIVE THE BASTARDS AN OFFICE IN THE WEST WING!"
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Don't forget Republicans are mostly up tight conservatives and gay marriage is very liberal so its no wonder they are opposing it. Doesn't have to do with being a bigot it has to do with old fashioned values, and thats what they see they are protecting. They are also mostly strong church goers (for the most part
) and the Bible says that marriage is of a man and a woman, not just 2 people in love.
So you roll that together and you get a bunch of uptight, church goers who think its attacking their religious beliefs
and you think they'll just sit there and do nothing to fight what they see as an attack on their values?
Puh-leeze, don't be so naive of course they're going to try and do everything they can to stop such things !
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
People can't seem to see that marriage is primarily a religious act (at one time it was strictly a relious act), and the civil part is really not that big of a deal. BUT NOOOO.. The tag "marriage" has been attached to civil rights etc (wrongly) and now people who could never be married in a religious setting are demanding their civil rights under the banner of marriage.
To me, the simple solution would be to separate the civil aspect completely from the religious for all people gay, straight or indifferent.
PAX
Mylife75 (ajose) wrote:In FLorida Jeb want to Ban students from going to any terrorist Country.
Jeb's a moron, just like his brother. This is the same guy who thought it would be a good idea for it to be legal to shoot someone when you feel "threatened." I'm glad he'll be out of office shortly. Though I'm sure the idiots here will elect someone equally appalling.
As for the topic at hand, I fricken love Jack Cafferty. That guy needs his own show. Anyway, republicans have always resorted to morality issues during election time. At least in the last decade or so. Banning gay marriage, limits on stem cell research and ultimately suggesting legislating the bible or what people have decided the bible would say if it were written today. This crusade against gay marriage is a ridiculous one as more and more people are realizing the lunacy of legislating hate and bigotry. And to Jackalope, ultimately this is bigotry. We can sugar coat it into religious opposition and being fashioned values, but ultimately it all comes down to hate. Christianity is supposed to teach of love and all that, but when it comes to people who disagree or people they think are immoral it's a whole other story. Tolerance is not exactly a big part of Christianity, at least in all of my experience. Don't forget, they chose to be gay!
But back on subject, I don't think even fighting this crusade that will never be won will help out the republicans poll numbers and ultimately their ability to get elected. Though the pathetic dems with their current slogan of "Hey, we have no ideas, but at least we're not the republicans" is not exactly furthering their cause so perhaps this crusade will help.
This article pretty much sums it up.
Quote:
Gay marriage debate is slippery slope
By Barbara Goodman Shovers
Toledo Free Press Contributing Editor
It's June, the marrying month.
You would think weddings would be a cause for celebration. Cake, champagne and happily-ever-afters (or at least for-a-whiles). What could make for a more joyful contrast to the world's pathologies than commitment declared between loving partners?
But no. A “mother of three small children” who recently left a message on my machine says “her greatest fear for our country” centers around the Massachusetts Supreme Court's legalization of gay marriage. “Once we've abandoned the concept of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, we as a nation founded under God will have no principal basis for rejecting polygamy and any form of sexual involvement. If you agree, please press 1.”
Ah, yes. Man marries man. Woman marries woman. Man marries women. The slippery slope is evident. If the Senate, which votes this week on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, fails to squash it, the next logical step must be Man marries goat. Or perhaps man marries goats.
Let me point out I am not gay, do not have gay children, and am not the child of gay parents. I'm less than 100 percent sure of my dog's inclination, but my point is I have nothing vested in the amendment. Except for the fact that I'm outraged. This is the most pressing issue in America? What about the war in Iraq, our failing schools and health care system, the price of gas, the choked environment? How can any two people who want to make a long term commitment — a delusional idea, but still — be anything but positive?
Though I guess some people think it is, since 11 states, including Ohio, have passed their own bans. “Now a conclusive national battle over gay marriage has broken out,” my caller, who said she was with the “National Campaign to Stop Same Sex Marriage” continued. “The battle ahead is nothing less than a civil war between the culture of average Americans and the culture of liberal intellectual needs. If you feel we are under attack, please press 1.”
I probably should have deleted the diatribe like I do those from re-mortgage or home-improvement companies that manage to get around my do-not-call register prohibition. But there was something so contradictory between the soft-spoken voice and the strident message I found myself playing it over and over. So “liberal” is to “conservative” as “intellectual” is to “average”? Isn't “average”... well, boring ... nothing special? Isn't “intellectual” the opposite of dim-witted? So my caller
admits she's boring, nothing special and wants me to be on her team? No thanks, I'd prefer to play with the smart people, no matter who they sleep with.
In fact, I don't see why who's in the marriage bed should make an iota of difference. If there's one thing this world needs more of — this month and every other — it's love and its subsidiary emotions of understanding, appreciation, commitment and kindness. It's the feelings between the couple, not the shape of their bodies, that counts.
My caller was particularly concerned that couples wed in Massachusetts will spread out across the country proselytizing gayness and forcing state courts — and then the Supreme — “to jam it down our throats.” If you agree,” she repeated, “press 1 to sign our petition.”
Uh, right. That's exactly the agenda I see Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts advocating. What was this woman thinking?
Or maybe that's the problem. The greatest threat to America today is not gay marriage. Nor is it per se the war in Iraq, our failing schools and health care system, the price of gas, the choked environment. The greatest threat to America is the lack of critical thinking that's brought on these problems. And as we become more and more “average,” it only gets worse. If you agree, refuse to press 1. Instead, wish a hearty congratulations to all this season's newlyweds. If they're up for the challenge, mazel tov and good luck.
Tristan how is it bigotry ? They want to be married in a church and in the name of God. But it says that a marriage is between a man and a woman in the Bible so how can they be married in a church in front of a God who says they can't do it ? Thats insane !
Myself I believe they SHOULD be allowed a civil union the kind that is equal to a court house wedding so they CAN have all the bennifits of a married couple. But the term marriage is a religious one and its the religion itself that says its a crime against nature. So it seems to me they should be sueing the churches over the fact that the Bible says they can not be married.
Hey why shouldn't the homosexuals of the world be subject to devorce and alamonia and all those woderful things we get to go though ? I agree thats NOT fair !
So go sue the church and God cause by the simple fact of the Bible saying what it does it means the a gay marriage would not have to be recognized by someone whos faith goes against it. Think I'm wrong ? Go ask a Muslim how much interest they pay on a loan they get.
And the fact that its agaist the law to to have more then one wife would seem to me the govt has been telling us straights what to do when it comes to marriage as well. I guess this is bigotry to huh ?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
The issue is, Jack, that in this society "marriage" carries around benefits that a simple civil union doesn't. That is the underlying issue. A gay/lesbian couple in certain areas/states can't co in as co-signers to a mortgage, don't get insurance benefits or tax benefits, etc.
Now i'm not going to say that there are not gay people that don't want to be married in a church, but the underlying issue is that unless you're married, you miss out on a lot of benefits, and the stigma of being gay seems to have seeped over into that. Moreover, if a wiccan couple is "handfasted", let's say, society doesn't put equal weight on it as they do marriage. In other words, we're not being even handed.
As I've mentioned before, what needs to happen is make civil unions the only legally binding form of arrangement, and take all legal precedent out of marriage. of courswe, you grandfather in those who were married beforehand, and then you strip the rights of any minister why will not perform a civil union regardless of who's being joined (remeber, a catholic priest can fiorm a civil union just as easily as a justice of the peace and without the lavish ceremony). If someone wants to be married, fine, but it means nothing legally. The civil union should be the only thing that counts and ALL such unions regardless of who's married to who should all have the same legal precedent.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Then fix a civil union to include all the benefits of a standard marriage. I've said as much before.
BTW the Vatican just put out a statement from the new pope saying that marriage is between one man and one women and nothing any court says will ever change the way they view it and that the church WILL NEVER recognise gay marriage at all, Ya know being its a sin and all. So the pope layin the smack down on the Gay marriage issue !
Also Tristan, you'll love this,
Your good buddy Jeb Bush was just announced as the BEST governor in the country by a by-partisan panel of governors from all over the country. Ole Jeb must be doing something right to be awarded this wouldn't ya say?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
probably providing for a vacation spot in panama city or key west for all of them.
I am in agreeance with you, jack. they should make it be the same and ENFORCE IT under the civil rights act--so that anyone trying to cheat a gay couple out of insurance, mortgages, tax benefiits, etc, is prosecuted.
Further, I could care less what herr pope thinks. The way I see it is this:
First, we have to bring the civil unions up to the prestige of marriage.
Second, make the only legal form of a consotred partnership a civil union
Make Marriage no longer a legal binding arrangement (since it is religious in nature--at least according to the people harping about it)
Grandfather in all marriages after a set date of switchover.
Have a new rule for being an ordained minister: you can only be an ordained minister and by law execute a civil union into law if you accept anyone that come your way or is appointed to you. The ceremony for doing so is up to you (you can be a catholic priest, but you still have to perform a civil union of two gay people--but it could just be meeting at your office, signing some papers, and they go on their way). You can set the terms of what ceremonies you wikll do based opon your own convictions, but if nothing else, you act as a justice of the peace. The people getting unionized have to realize that the ceremony is above-and-beyond the legality, and is at the whim of the dictates of the ceremony-types governing body--if there is a ceremony. I.E. While a catholic priest must unionize two gay people less they lose their ordained ministry, they are under no oblication to hold, or preside over a catholic matrimonial ceremony.
The couple can of course, request a specific ordained minister and the minister can tie the legalities into the ceremony.
Any priest not ordained legally can perform wahtever ceremony that their belief's governing body dictates, but it is not legal in any sense of the word. (i.e. if, for the sake of an argument, Hahaha gets married by a catholic priest and is not ordained, he may be married, but the law will not recognize his union and he and his wife would not qualify for any civil union benefits. He can, however, have a ordained minister perform a civil union totally separate,and then he would qualify.
In that way, you not only make things even-handed, but you also have a better separation of church and state: the state controls the legal aspects, while the churches and other religious bodies can control the rites of their ceremonies, and include or exclude at their own whim.
I don't think, however, that many churches or religious right would go for it--it least at the higher levekls because they have to relinquish some political power.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Most GLBT groups say that calling it gay marriage is going to cause problems... Most prefer to call it civil unions.
I can't argue with the logic of that, no church or faith should have to perform a marriage it doesn't sanctify, that's not right. Be it between a Jew and a Gentile, an Aetheist and a Catholic or a Muslim and a Christian, if the Church doesn't want to deal with it, I say that's fine, let it be a civil union, and protect it like a traditional marriage.
What's the harm in letting people that want to be happy together be married and have the same advantages that other couples have?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
And I'll go along with that as it provides homosexuals the same rights as straight people but also affords the church its right to say no or to not recognise it at all. You can't force the Vatican to do anything the Vatican doesn't want to do ! It may be the smallest and newest country in the world but its also the richest and most influential one as well.
Hey did we just do what the Congress can't seem to ? Wow Go us!
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
I'm saying that we're forcing herr pope or the catholics to do anything they don't want to except give up the political power of having their marriages mean something legally.
The thing is, GAM, a Justice of the Peace can perform a marriage--outside the bonds of religion. just strip it dowen to civil union and call it good
And yeah, Jack, we have. Remember, even the best and brightest in congress are merely following out in front.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
All non faith based marriages should be called a civil union. Each religion should have the right to marry or to turn down whomever they want to. But all should have the same rights under the law.
Ok now someone get the speaker of the house to log on here and see how we fixed this so everyone is happy.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Just to clarify, by the way, I am in complete agreement with you guys. I've long thought that marriage should be stripped of its legal characteristics and simply be something those who believe in God should be able to do. Make civil unions the only binding legal document that ensures all of those rights guaranteed in marriage and allow couples of any sex to procure one.
And I too couldn't give a flying f#$% what the pope says. His word is worthless to me.
Finally, to Jackalope, I don't love that all. In fact, it irritates the crap out of me!!! Jeb. Bah. The only decent thing I can say about him is he handled the hurricanes the last two years pretty decently. Other than that...nothing. Though, I do feel very threatened by you. So watch out! Hahaha. j.k.
Wait, what ? You feel threatened by me Tristan ? What on Earth for ? You lost me there man. Anyway you know you have a Bush bumper sticker on your car so stop trying to kid us !
You have the right to not care about what the pope says by all means, but a large number of people do care what he has to say and by it being such a large number they can effectivly change policies thru out the world so his word is anything but worthless to you as we're debateing gay marriage and the pope is the main driveing force trying to stop it. So see you ARE effected by his word even if you don't want to be or like to be.
Funny little world itn't it ?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Marriage has been around for thousands of years and is the basis of the family.
I dont have a problem with gay people being together or whatever you want to call it, but they shouldnt be "married". I also do not believe they should be allowed to adopt. But thats another topic.
Not all faiths call matrimony "marriage"
And marriage, or any faith-based matrimony should have no legal precedent.
in other words, a civil union and marriage should be mutially exclusive. moreover, you can have both at the same time.
A marriage should have as much legal standing as a handfast (nil). but a civil union in no way means that one is handfasted or maried...
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
This thread turned into exactly what I didn't want it to turn into. A thread about gay marriage.
---
AGuSTiN I thought it went well myself. We actualy all agreed on how it should work.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
