Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Senate blocks constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

Senate Constitutional Amendment Ban on Gay Marriage 2005

  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#21 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 07:04 PM

Quote

It was the general populus of the south that finally came to a understanding about intergration. Is it perfect? No but half a century ago three white men dragging to death a black man would not have raised an eyebrow in Texas. But only a few years ago it got two of them placed into prison for life and the third on death row.

The general populace had help, G.  First there was Brown v. Board of Education, the court order that integrated the schools and put an end to separate but equal.  Then there was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which sent the racists in the Southern Democratic party straight into the arms of the Republicans, where they've remained ever since.   There were  massive voter registration drives. The change didn't happen spontaneously, and it didn't happen willingly.

Why are you against a similar kick-start for civil rights for gays?

Edited by waterpanther, 07 June 2006 - 07:54 PM.

Posted Image

#22 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 07:49 PM

View PostOgami, on Jun 7 2006, 11:55 PM, said:

"This argument for same-sex marriage reflects a demand for political correctness that's gone berserk. We live in an era in which tolerance has progressed beyond a mere call for acceptance and crossed over to become a demand for the rest of us to give up beliefs that we revere and hold most dear in order to prove our collective purity. At some point a line's going to have to be drawn by rational men and women who are willing to say 'enough.'"


You know, if we want to know what idiotic talking points Rush Limbaugh is giving his followers to parrot each day (oh my God!  Cranky old Robert Byrd is against gay marriage!), we can go directly to his website and cut out the middleman.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#23 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 08:25 PM

Did we just add a new dittohead to the ranks, one who visits rushlimbaugh.com every day, but has not confessed it until now?

Dittos Zack! You are now assimilated into the Collective.

-Ogami

#24 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 08:48 PM

View PostG1223, on Jun 7 2006, 03:55 PM, said:

View Post_ph, on Jun 7 2006, 01:53 PM, said:

View PostG1223, on Jun 7 2006, 01:28 PM, said:

I disagree that the courts are the only group that can solve this. It's called a ballot box. It has this thing called the PEOPLE who are to vote on such issues.

Otherwise we will have the courts as social engineers trying to make laws that will effect generations of people. The courts solving this will drive people to extreams.

No, the courts exist precisely to deal with issues such as this, to provide a check against the tyranny of the majority.


To replace it with the tyranny of the minority?

Many of us have demonstrated, again and again, in these threads, how the majority is tyrannizing the minority in this case.  

Explain for us, please, how the governmental recognition of gay marriages tyrannizes anyone?  Even just one person?  (Star Jones.  Oops!)  

Quote

It was the general populus of the south that finally came to a understanding about intergration.

Whaaaat? Get thee to an encyclopedia, young man!

Waterpanthet said:

The general populace had help,

Or you could just use WP.  Just as good.

Edited by _ph, 07 June 2006 - 08:48 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#25 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 10:56 PM

Oh yeah Brown worked so well it gave us the white flight from the city schools.  We left the poor white kids and the black kids to those inner city schools which pull off that tax base of poor people rather than the middle class.

Hell there are districts which will never recover and we can thank the courts for their 'enlightened' social engineering. It brings to mind the scariest of phrases "I am from the government and I am here to help you. "
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#26 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 06:42 AM

View Postoffworlder, on Jun 7 2006, 07:50 PM, said:

it's always been a man and a woman married together in faith and in law and it should remain

Well, faith doesn't always have anything to do with it, but "that's the way we've always done it" is the worst argument for continuing to do anything. If there is no other supporting reason, then the very foundation of the argument needs to be re-examined. What if we had slavery just because "that's the way it's always been"? What if we hung people for being witches just becasue "that's the way it's always been"?

Quote

I just don't like using the marriage word for those laws.

Why? It doesn't change anything for heterosexual marriages, so why worry about this change in the definition?

#27 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 06:45 AM

View PostG1223, on Jun 7 2006, 07:55 PM, said:

To replace it with the tyranny of the minority?

No, but to perhaps allow cooler and wiser heads to prevail. Think about what they just tried to do. They tried to create an amendment to the US Constitution - something that doesn't happen every day. Granted, people talk about this subject all the time, but who heard about this amendment before the vote was even taken? Granted, they didn't really think it would pass, but it seemed like a very rash thing to do.

#28 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 06:49 AM

View PostOgami, on Jun 7 2006, 11:55 PM, said:

"This argument for same-sex marriage reflects a demand for political correctness that's gone berserk. We live in an era in which tolerance has progressed beyond a mere call for acceptance and crossed over to become a demand for the rest of us to give up beliefs that we revere and hold most dear in order to prove our collective purity. At some point a line's going to have to be drawn by rational men and women who are willing to say 'enough.'"

>a demand for political correctness

This is not a demand for political correctness.

>an era in which tolerance has progressed
>beyond a mere call for acceptance

"tolerance" and "acceptance" are 2 different things. If you tolerate something, you don't accept it. If you accept it, you don't need to tolerate it since you've accepted it.

>a demand for the rest of us to give up beliefs
>that we revere and hold most dear

Absolutely not. Heterosexuals will still be able to get married and enjoy their marriage just as much as they did before.

>in order to prove our collective purity.

What does "purity" have to do with this?

>At some point a line's going to have to be drawn by
>rational men and women who are willing to say 'enough.'"

Exactly! Enough with the discrimination! Enough with prohibition of same-sex marriage! Enough!

#29 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 08:23 AM

Speaking of which, one of the amendment's supporters was Senator David Vitter, Republican from Louisiana (you know, the place that had that nasty little disaster a few months back).  Commenting on the gay marriage ban, Vitter said, "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one."  

Music to the ears of his constituents, especially the ones in NOLA, don't you think?

Vitter added, "Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better."

In other words, Vitter's probably toast in the next election, right?  :lol:
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#30 enTranced

enTranced

    Chasing Your Starlight!

  • Islander
  • 15,772 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 08:56 AM

View PostKosh, on Jun 7 2006, 04:25 PM, said:

You are correct sir, a badly worded post on my part.

Here are the two biggies for this issue.

Quote


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.

What Kosh said!

enTranced
Posted Image

#31 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 09:34 AM

View PostG1223, on Jun 7 2006, 11:56 PM, said:

Oh yeah Brown worked so well it gave us the white flight from the city schools.

Brown didn't cause white flight: bigotry did.  Which is irrelevant to the point you were trying to make:

G1223 said:

It was the general populus of the south that finally came to a understanding about intergration.

Again, no such thing happened: the courts intervened to secure the rights of a despised minority beind denied them by the tyranny of the majority.  

Your argument seems to be that the peace of mind of a bigoted majority outweighs the basic civil rights of an oppressed minority, which is pure, absolute, unadulterated B.S.  

Quote

Hell there are districts which will never recover and we can thank the courts for their 'enlightened' social engineering.

No, we can thank the bigots for abusing our democratic system in the first place.  The courts are there to check that tendency, and, as such, are doing precisely what the founders intended.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#32 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 09:58 AM

View PostBroph, on Jun 8 2006, 07:42 AM, said:

View Postoffworlder, on Jun 7 2006, 07:50 PM, said:

it's always been a man and a woman married together in faith and in law and it should remain

Well, faith doesn't always have anything to do with it, but "that's the way we've always done it" is the worst argument for continuing to do anything.

It's also not TRUE that marraige has "always been a man and a woman married together in faith and in law."  The "definition of marriage" has gone through innumerable alterations over the ages.  Polygamy was common--and accepted--in The Bible.  Miscegenation was forbidden by law in parts of this country until quite recently, historically speaking.  The idea that women should be equal partners, instead of THE PROPERTY of their husbands--radical stuff until the last few decades.  

But this isn't about ANY of that.  This is about whether the gay marriages that *already* exist should be given equal protection under the *secular* law that governs us all.  Biblical considerations can't come into that (even if The Bible said what homophobes seem to think it says--which it doesn't).  

Quote

Quote

I just don't like using the marriage word for those laws.

Why? It doesn't change anything for heterosexual marriages, so why worry about this change in the definition?

Exactly.  *Too bad*.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#33 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 10:12 AM

Broph wrote:

This is not a demand for political correctness.

"tolerance" and "acceptance" are 2 different things. If you tolerate something, you don't accept it. If you accept it, you don't need to tolerate it since you've accepted it.

Absolutely not. Heterosexuals will still be able to get married and enjoy their marriage just as much as they did before.

What does "purity" have to do with this?

Exactly! Enough with the discrimination! Enough with prohibition of same-sex marriage! Enough!


Hi Broph. This phrase was uttered by Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia on September 10th, 1996. He was the co-sponsor of the "Defense of Marriage" Act. I must have forgotten to attribute the quote properly. Butterfingers! (Kudos, or should I say Dittos, to fellow Dittohead Zack for spotting this.)

Edited by Ogami, 08 June 2006 - 10:13 AM.


#34 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 10:34 AM

You mean, the one you like to disparage as a former member of the KKK?  Strange Bedfellows, there, Ogami...

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#35 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 12:14 PM

View PostBroph, on Jun 8 2006, 07:45 AM, said:

No, but to perhaps allow cooler and wiser heads to prevail.

So does the ballot box. It allows the debate of the topic. It allows for the PEOPLE to show if they are ready to deal with the issue. But having the court make ruling and tell the PEOPLE to shut up and deal with our choices. It ends any debate. After all the court has said this is the way it is.

This is what happened in Boston last year. Look at the reaction. States are scarmbling to amend their Constitutions to prohibit same sex marriages. Some are doing this out of fear of gay marriage. Others are doing it to prevent the courts from playing social engineer without the PEOPLE having a voice in events. Even if it through their elected represntatives.

Most states the Bench is appointed and never faces the ballot box. this is both a good and a bad thing. It allows for unimpaired judgement, and it allows justices to lose touch with the people they are suppose to protect. It has happened in the past and will again in the future.

The cooler wiser heads are not always judges.  But the PEOPLE are the ones having to deal with rulings.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#36 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 12:16 PM

View PostBroph, on Jun 8 2006, 07:45 AM, said:

No, but to perhaps allow cooler and wiser heads to prevail.

So does the ballot box. It allows the debate of the topic. It allows for the PEOPLE to show if they are ready to deal with the issue. But having the court make ruling and tell the PEOPLE to shut up and deal with our choices. It ends any debate. After all the court has said this is the way it is.

This is what happened in Boston last year. Look at the reaction. States are scarmbling to amend their Constitutions to prohibit same sex marriages. Some are doing this out of fear of gay marriage. Others are doing it to prevent the courts from playing social engineer without the PEOPLE having a voice in events. Even if it through their elected represntatives.

Most states the Bench is appointed and never faces the ballot box. this is both a good and a bad thing. It allows for unimpaired judgement, and it allows justices to lose touch with the people they are suppose to protect. It has happened in the past and will again in the future.

The cooler wiser heads are not always judges.  But the PEOPLE are the ones having to deal with rulings.

#37 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 12:25 PM

View Post_ph, on Jun 8 2006, 10:34 AM, said:

No, we can thank the bigots for abusing our democratic system in the first place.  The courts are there to check that tendency, and, as such, are doing precisely what the founders intended.

Yeah people who do not go along with your ideas are bigots. Guess what from where I am at you are the one who might be a bigot. Trying to use the courts to make everything the way you want it. You are not going to accept that majority of people are not ready to go the way you want them to. You do not want to take the time to educate them. You want it NOW. No mater the cost. Your seeing that cost right now. States making alws and editing their constitutions to ban the act. The courts will get their hands tied and the idea stiffled before there can be a debate.

And even where there is going to be a debate realize that one side does not always win the debate. There are other schools of thought which make up part of this nation and to demonize them without hearing their side takes any chance of learning and or teaching what they think is important. You might not like their POV ,but guess what they pay taxes they vote and they are part of  society and deserve to have their voices heard.  You do not get to make them into shop clerks who jump at your command.

Courts are their to pass judgment and see that laws pass the muster with the constitution either state or federal. When they play social engineer they make messes that decades later we keep having to fix.

Edited by G1223, 08 June 2006 - 12:48 PM.

If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#38 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 12:52 PM

View PostOgami, on Jun 8 2006, 03:12 PM, said:

This phrase was uttered by Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia on September 10th, 1996. He was the co-sponsor of the "Defense of Marriage" Act.

I'm not sure I understand the point. Are you saying that because one democrat is against something that everyone on both sides should be against it?

#39 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 12:57 PM

View PostG1223, on Jun 8 2006, 05:14 PM, said:

So does the ballot box. It allows the debate of the topic. It allows for the PEOPLE to show if they are ready to deal with the issue. But having the court make ruling and tell the PEOPLE to shut up and deal with our choices. It ends any debate. After all the court has said this is the way it is.

Not necessarily, though. We could vote a law that is against our state or nation's constitution. We need the system of checks and balances. Laws have to be tested in court.

Quote

This is what happened in Boston last year. Look at the reaction. States are scarmbling to amend their Constitutions to prohibit same sex marriages.

But you said that the ballot box could be used by cooler heads. Now you say that they're "scrambling".

Quote

Some are doing this out of fear of gay marriage. Others are doing it to prevent the courts from playing social engineer without the PEOPLE having a voice in events.

But that's not what's happening at all; not even in Massachusetts. All that happened in Massachusetts is that some people found that there were no actual restrictions against same-sex marriage. When they went to City Hall for a license, they were refused and they brought it to the courts. It was the state that hadn't made any structure of prohibition. The courts simply recognized that. The courts didn't create anything; they just recognized that there was no barrier.

Quote

Most states the Bench is appointed and never faces the ballot box. this is both a good and a bad thing. It allows for unimpaired judgement, and it allows justices to lose touch with the people they are suppose to protect. It has happened in the past and will again in the future.

There are judicial review boards. If a judge isn't competent, they can be reviewed and stricken from the Bench.

#40 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 01:10 PM

This is an obvious effort by Bush and certain other politicians to rally their respective bases and distract from the more critical issues.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Senate, Constitutional Amendment, Ban on Gay Marriage, 2005

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users