Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:As I keep hearing all of these "sour-grapes" liberals saying, "The President is going to have to reach across the aisle and compromise", I start thinking, why? You guys lost by 3.5 million votes and a LOT of electoral votes. Isn't that an indicator that it is you that needs to do the compromising and you that isn't mainstream? The people have spoken. They don't like your agenda. They sided with Bush. Why in the hell would Bush alienate the people that voted for him by pandering to the people that didn't? He's been there and done that. You are the guys that are going to have to re-evaluate your party and move closer to the center. HINT: It isn't putting the #1 and #4 senators in the country on the presidential ticket. The sheer arrogance of liberals astounds me.

Lyndon Johnson earned a mandate.

Ronald Reagan earned a mandate.

Bush received 51 percent of the popular vote.

That's no mandate.

Actually, I'd have to agree with you there, but only just a little. President Bush, as an individual, did not receive a mandate.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, did receive a mandate. Not only did they retain their majority in both the Senate and the House, but the people saw fit to increase their majority by electing more Republicans to both. To underscore this, the people unseated the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. So, President Bush did not receive a mandate, but the Republicans did and he is their leader. :ownd:

If I'm a Democrat in the Senate or the house I turn my back on this guy. The Republican party took out my Senate Leader who tried to work with them on a lot of occasions. Time to start disagreeing with these guys and make a stand for something you believe in. Time for the pendulum to start swinging back. It stays to the right when people see legislature like NCLB. A lot of people tolerate W. Time for the bad decisions to fall squarely on the red.

Dogger Wrote:If I'm a Democrat in the Senate or the house I turn my back on this guy. The Republican party took out my Senate Leader who tried to work with them on a lot of occasions.

That's the biggest crock of shiznit I've ever heard.

Dogger Wrote:Schad-

Don't name names. Tell me the office they hold.

I said leaders. Didn't say "officeholders." (There are rumors now and again along that line, but I'm not going to go beyond what gets reported in the media).

Doug Preisse, chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party, is out of the closet.

I've previously mentioned Alex Arshinkoff, chairman of the Summit County Republican Party before. His story is more complicated, as you can see here:

<a href='http://www.clevescene.com/issues/2003-06-11/feature.html' target='_blank'>http://www.clevescene.com/issues/2003-06-1...11/feature.html</a>

Schadenfreude Wrote:Bush wanted to write gays and lesbians out of the Constitution.

SF maybe you missed the memo but these kook one liners don't work.

If you, and your party, don't want to be relegated to the political clout of the Daughters of the American Revolution I'd suggest you try a new political tact.

My suggestion would be reality. It's always a good place to start.

Quote:I just don't get it.

Finally we agree on something.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Bush wanted to write gays and lesbians out of the Constitution.

SF maybe you missed the memo but these kook one liners don't work.

If you, and your party, don't want to be relegated to the political clout of the Daughters of the American Revolution I'd suggest you try a new political tact.

My suggestion would be reality. It's always a good place to start.

Not sure what you mean here.

I questioned why any gay American would vote for a Republican. As evidence, I pointed to George Bush, who advocates a Constitutional amendment that would take rights away from gay Americans.

It isn't clear to me what your post has to do with what I wrote.

Log Cabin Republicans are gay and I don't ever remember marriage for gay people being in the Constitution. They SHOULDN'T be allowed to get married, which is a religious ceremony, as their lifestyle goes against everything the church is for. Civil unions? Knock yourself out.

RebelKev Wrote:Log Cabin Republicans are gay and I don't ever remember marriage for gay people being in the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't address gay marriage. It is, therefore, a right not explicitly granted or denied to gay couples.

By seeking the amendment, Bush wants to take control of the issue away from the states and take away the right to marriage in any stat where it is now permitted.

Also, I'm not a lawyer, but the wording of the proposed federal amendment could also remove the ability of states to grant civil unions

Quote:They SHOULDN'T be allowed to get married, which is a religious ceremony, as their lifestyle goes against everything the church is for.

Sometimes, marriage is a religious institution. Sometimes it isn't.

Marriages are licensed by the state. One can be married in many (if not all) states without ever entering a church.

Nothing proposed anywhere would require any church to sanction a gay marriage.

Quote:Civil unions? Knock yourself out.

People are really hung up on the distinction between "civil unions" and "marriage." These are two sets of words that legally mean about the same thing.

And, again, would anyone like to clarify whether the federal constitutional amendment would left room for civil unions? I have my doubts.

i believe the proposed amendment language read:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

obviously, there's plenty of room to argue over what "the legal incidents thereof" means, and how it might impact civil unions.

Quote:The Constitution doesn't address gay marriage. It is, therefore, a right not explicitly granted or denied to gay couples.

The constitution doesn't address polygamy, does that mean I have the right to 5 wives SF? It doesn't address marrying animals, can I know wed my cat? How bout my car? I think you're smart enough to know how fallicious your statement is. The ommission of anything in the constitution does not therefore mean it is an implied right.

This of course addresses your previous question of "What do you mean?"

The constitution does not afford gay people the right to marry, therefore amending it to be explicit about the issue does not in turn take away a right, since there is no right there to begin with.

RebelKev Wrote:My bad Dogger, Kerry received 78%, while Bush received 21%. A lot of this is more than likely due to people telling them they will lose their rights and be burned at the stake if Bush is elected. I know a few gay people. Most of them are more fiscally conservative than I am, which leads me to believe that the LP will be the primary party of the gay community in the future. Add that with the fact that Neal Boortz goes head to head with people that talk bad about homosexuals all the time, and the DNC's chances of retaining them isn't good.

<a href='http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?start=10/29/04&end=11/5/04#163' target='_blank'>http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?st...end=11/5/04#163</a>


The one titled, "Bush wins same portion of gay vote as '00"

Call me crazy, but maybe it has something to do with Bush's strong public stance against gay marriage. While many Dems aren't for gay marriage, they aren't pushing for a nationwide ban either.

I'm sure nobody was inspired to go vote by the presence of measures to prohibit gay marriages were on the ballot in 11 states. "Ah, who cares about the President...we gotta keep them queers from marrying!"

RebelKev Wrote:Log Cabin Republicans are gay and I don't ever remember marriage for gay people being in the Constitution. They SHOULDN'T be allowed to get married, which is a religious ceremony, as their lifestyle goes against everything the church is for. Civil unions? Knock yourself out.

If marriage is a religious cereemony, isn't it entirely up to the church in which the wedding is performed and not the business of the government?

Civil unions? Somebody explain to me how that is incredibly different (legally) from marriage? If it walks like a duck...

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:The Constitution doesn't address gay marriage. It is, therefore, a right not explicitly granted or denied to gay couples.

The constitution doesn't address polygamy, does that mean I have the right to 5 wives SF?

If a state repeals its polygamy law, then yes.

Quote:It doesn't address marrying animals, can I know wed my cat?  How bout my car? 

Now you are just being silly.

Quote:The ommission of anything in the constitution does not therefore mean it is an implied right.

I'm not suggesting that. This is what I said:

The Constitution doesn't address gay marriage. It is, therefore, a right not explicitly granted or denied to gay couples.

Neither the United States constitution nor federal law prohibits states from recognizing gay marriages if they choose. That's the law now. George Bush wants to change that. He wants to take that power out of the hands of states and determine from Washington what is best for all states.

This isn't just hypothetical. The Massachusetts supreme court has examined its laws carefully and determined that gays and lesbians do have a right to marry unless that state's constitution is changed.

And, again, consider the potential impact on civil unions, which have been permitted for several years in Vermont. I read that proposed constitutional amendment, and I feel pretty confident that it would prevent Vermont or any other state from permitting civil unions.

(It could depend on how the civil union is structured. My take: If the Vermont civil union law references other sections of state law pertaining to marriage, then it might be pre-empted by Bush's proposed constitutional amendement. If, on the other hand, the Vermont civil union law creates a shadow set of rights under state law that merely resemble those extended to married couples of the opposite sex, then perhaps it would stand. Again, that's my take off the top of my head based on what greuls posted).

Quote:The constitution does not afford gay people the right to marry, therefore amending it to be explicit about the issue does not in turn take away a right, since there is no right there to begin with.

Quoting here:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

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.

Quote:If a state repeals its polygamy law, then yes.

Quote:It doesn't address marrying animals, can I know wed my cat?&nbsp; How bout my car?&nbsp;

Now you are just being silly.

No, I'm being quite serious. YOu don't want to answer the question cause you know it hurts your point.

What you want to do is alter the historical meaning of marriage is by adding something that is by defintion NOT MARRIAGE. Your statement that George Bush wanted to "write gays and lesbians out of the constitution" is moronic because the constitution DOES NOT afford them the right to marriage, because marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

So if you're going to argue that somehow it's implied that gay marriage (an oxymoron by the way) is in the constitution then you must therefore say there is no problem with me marrying my cat or my car. So are you cool with that? Will you go to court SF and argue for me that the constitution affords me the right to marry my cat?

Quote:The Constitution doesn't address gay marriage. It is, therefore, a right not explicitly granted or denied to gay couples.

So then you were wrong when you said Bush wanted to "write them out" of the constitution right? I mean how does Bush write them out of it when they're right to marriage isn't in there to begin with?

Quote:This isn't just hypothetical. The Massachusetts supreme court has examined its laws carefully and determined that gays and lesbians do have a right to marry unless that state's constitution is changed.

No, they're trying to MAKE LAW from the bench, usurping that constitutional right from the legislative branch.

As far as you quoting the constitution, you just proved my point. It does not afford gay people the right to marry. Therefore amending it doesn't take that right away because it's not there to begin with.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:If a state repeals its polygamy law, then yes.

Quote:It doesn't address marrying animals, can I know wed my cat?  How bout my car? 

Now you are just being silly.

No, I'm being quite serious. YOu don't want to answer the question cause you know it hurts your point.

I've already answered the question through your question about polygamy.

If a state wants to allow polygamy, it may do so.

I suppose the same applies to marrying cats or cars. But like I said: That's silly.

Quote:What you want to do is alter the historical meaning of marriage is by adding something that is by defintion NOT MARRIAGE.&nbsp;

I'm not adding anything. It's George Bush that wants to change the constitution. Not me.

Quote:Your statement that George Bush wanted to "write gays and lesbians out of the constitution" is moronic because the constitution DOES NOT afford them the right to marriage,

My statement is accurate.

The constitution does not address gay marriage. Therefore, it is an issue left to the states.

Bush wants to change that. He wants to take away any right to gay marriage states may choose to allow.

Quote: because marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

In your opinion.

Quote:So if you're going to argue that somehow it's implied that gay marriage (an oxymoron by the way) is in the constitution then you must therefore say there is no problem with me marrying my cat or my car.&nbsp;

Not saying it was implied. And, again, you are being silly.

Quote:So are you cool with that?&nbsp; Will you go to court SF and argue for me that the constitution affords me the right to marry my cat?

I would go to court and argue that the constitution does not deny you your silly hypothetical right to marry your cat.

Quote:

Quote:The Constitution doesn't address gay marriage. It is, therefore, a right not explicitly granted or denied to gay couples.

So then you were wrong when you said Bush wanted to "write them out" of the constitution right? I mean how does Bush write them out of it when they're right to marriage isn't in there to begin with?

I've explained this. The power to allow gay marriage is in the hands of the states. In at least one state, it appears to be a right according to state law. Bush wants to take that away.

Quote:

Quote:This isn't just hypothetical. The Massachusetts supreme court has examined its laws carefully and determined that gays and lesbians do have a right to marry unless that state's constitution is changed.

No, they're trying to MAKE LAW from the bench, usurping that constitutional right from the legislative branch.

Are you licensed to practice law in Massachusetts?

I haven't read the decision, but I suspect it hinges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court's interpretation of its state constitution and relevant state laws.

The idea that the Massachusetts supreme court was making law is fun way to spin things. In reality, the question had never been addressed before because in hundreds of years of Massachusetts history, gays and lesbians had never sought to marry before. The Massachusetts supremes looked at the law and finally concluded: "You know what? They can."

Quote:As far as you quoting the constitution, you just proved my point.&nbsp; It does not afford gay people the right to marry.&nbsp; Therefore amending it doesn't take that right away because it's not there to begin with.

Asked and answered.

SF you have an amazing ability to write pages of words yet say absolutely nothing. :rolleyes:

Quote:I've explained this. The power to allow gay marriage is in the hands of the states. In at least one state, it appears to be a right according to state law. Bush wants to take that away.

No, you haven't. All you've done is talk in circles while contradicting yourself. You say the right to gay marriage isn't in the constitution, yet you say Bush is trying to write it out. That is what those outside your party call a contradiction.

I personally don't support Bush's effort to get the amendment passed. It should be a states rights issue. It's hilariously ironic that you of all people would be arguing states rights, since you don't have a problem with the supreme court legislating rights as far as abortion. Guess as long as judicial activism suits your needs you'll fall in line accordingly.

Like I said I don't agree with the amendment. All I'm saying is your bleeding heart statement that Bush is writing them out of the constitution is pitiful hyperbole and has no basis in reality. The sad part is you contradict yourself yet still try and defend it. But that's par for the course for you.

Oh and by the way, the election is over, your guy lost. Might want to look for a new signature.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Oh and by the way, the election is over, your guy lost. Might want to look for a new signature.