If he gets the Republican nomination, then he should prove to be their death knoll. And deservedly so.
I believe you meant to say death knell, but that is neither here nor there. Why would it be their death knell?
But if they manage to steal the election for the third frakking time in a row! Then kiss it all good-bye. We are toast! We are history!
Why?
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
Christian Conservatives are starting to rally around him
I don't really know. I was interested in him the first time I heard some of his plans. He's been my guy since the pre-elections began. But, admittedly, I didn't think he had a snowballs chance in hell because all the people I usually want in office end up losing. I then have to pick a lesser of evils.
Pat Robertson's recommendations be damned.
Pshhh. His recommendations are completely worthless to me. He epitomizes everything that went wrong and is one of the main reasons why people despise Christendom. The fact that he is endorsing Guliani, of all people, just shows that his ambitions are worldly related, and not for the things of above, as he claims.
Iowa republicans are typically quite conservative so this may not be indicative of the entire primary process for him.
I can't speak for everyone, but the reasons I like him is because, unlike almost all of the rest of the candidates, he explains, in detail, how he is going to do something. I'm really sick of the candidates that foist these banal platitudes who don't give an inkling as to how they are going to implement it. I also appreciate his convictions. He doesn't waiver like many of them. Almost all the other GOP candidates have flip-flopped on central issues.
Anti-abortion to the point where he is for a constitutional amendment to ensure the rights of the unborn.
The abortion issue should never have been left to be decided by the Supreme Court. It should come down to either a national vote, or left to the states to divide for themselves as the Constitution stipulates.
Since marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman, I hardly see how that is an amendment to the Constitution. Trying to change it, recognizing same-sex marriages, would be the amending of the Constitution.
Aside from which, DOMA was enacted by former president Clinton. No one can say that it was the invention of the GOP.
Fight the war in Iraq until "victory"
Well, "victory" is loosely defined. So until someone can present an intelligible treatise on what victory in Iraq means, then as a person running for President, he owes it to the people to define the objective.
He wants to revoke the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military concerning homosexuals and ban them from military service.
This was a silly law and a convenient way for Clinton to sidestep the issue just enough to keep people from both sides of the argument mildly happy. But I happen to agree with it. I don't think people should be barred from military service because they are suspected of being a homosexual. However, there is no discounting why it is the way it is. Men and women cannot utilize the same facilities, can't serve together in many capacities because it is a disaster waiting to happen.
Huckabee was asked about it. He said that it was not about being gay or straight, but that its about conduct. Unit cohesion needs to be found, whether gay or straight.
Religious convictions
quote:My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.
I think that pretty much says it all. I guess freedom for him means "free to do what my religion tells you is right".
Linear, you forget that everyone lives this way. Everyone believes their way is the right way, otherwise, they wouldn't maintain that belief. I don't see why his personal feelings on a matter should be any different than anyone else's. In fact, to try and take that away from him is dogma and the abrogation of personal freedom, in and of itself.
I remember last election cycle when Kerry stated that his faith didn't get in the way of how he thought. He stated, "I don't wear my religion on my sleeve." Then why do you ascribe to a religion, when the whole point is that it does define your outlook?
He was just trying to play both sides of the field. And it backfired on him miserably, because values and convictions became the defining principle in the last election.
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
The Nation of Islam/Black Muslim organization is openly racist, openly anti-white, anti Semitic and pressing for a black Islamic nation in America. They are militant and radical, so much so that even many foreign Muslims don't want to identify with them being it would alarm the people here as to the real nature of fundamentalist Islam. They are becoming a significant power among American blacks, many who come from the ghettos and who are discharged from prisons where the Nation of Islam ministers actively among the black inmates.
That kind of double standard doesn't seem to matter to many of the people on the forum. These rules of decency only apply to avowed Christians.
Its the American way
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
Ron Paul who's strongly religious has I dare say never voted yes on a bill based on religious morality.
He's against gay marriage. It should also be known that I happen to agree with him. He gives a great response.
Wouldn't voters who are afraid of religious crazies who may use their beliefs in decisions be better off voting for a candidate who while religious, has a extremely long history of saying No to religiously based decisions?
This may come as quite a shock, but a persons religion defines their moral outlook. By calling them "crazies" over it, you might as well indict yourself.
You don't even see your own bigotry, all the while claiming bigotry against them. Its astounding.
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
nem, i don't think "religious crazies" was not intended to be redundant.
I think that is exactly the kind of slander he was banking on. Its not like it would be a first at EvC. Unless you completely water down your faith to the point of it being indiscernable, and for all intents and purposes, non-existent, those who stand up for their beliefs will invariably be ridiculed for them.
the politicians on the right have been pandering to more or less the lowest common denominator among religious people -- the crazies.
Oh, right, which explains why they so fervently go after Al Qaeda, while those on the Left harbor them?????
i disagree with paul but not entirely on that issue. marriage is indeed a religious affair, but it can (and is) also granted by the state.
And yet no one cries foul ball that the Constitution is being trampled there. No, its only in reverse that anyone gives a whit. Isn't that interesting...
the state should be allowed to marry anyone, though no one is forcing anything on the churches.
If a homosexual couple wants legal recognition, I have personally have no problem with that. The problem for me comes when someone tries to redefine what a marriage is and to try and amend the Constitution. If homosexuals really just want legal recognition, then they would have no objection to it. Would that seem like a fair compromise? I think it would, which goes along with Paul's sentiments.
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
we're all well aware that you think that just because a group of people have "always been discriminated against" means they should continue to be discriminated against.
I don't think people should be discriminated against, or receive special compensation. I like to remain neutral on such issues.
quote:but a persons religion defines their moral outlook.
bullshit.
How could that possibly NOT be the case?
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
Immediately provide evidence that liberals as a group are guilty of harboring Al Qaeda, or retract.
Sure thing. Here are two high profile libs with their hand in the cookie jar.
I shouldn't have said harbor. That's obviously too light given the charges. She was in cahoots with the Blind Sheik, for conspiracy to commit murder -- mass murder.
quote:"I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Nice shifting of goal posts. Bush has said a number of times that focusing attention to bin Laden turns him in to a Bogeyman. I can assure you they are still very much searching for him, as evidenced by the FBI's Most Wanted list. The problem is that Pakistan is playing both sides and has stated that they do not want American special operation units coming in to their country searching for a ghost.
The word "marriage" is not found once in the Constitution of the United States of America.
There is no Constitutional "right to marry." No redefinition of the Constitution is required, in any way, to allow homosexuals to marry.
The Defense of Marriage Act, proposed by Bill Clinton, makes it so that there is no redefining. Surely, in your infinite wisdom, you can understand that no such specifics ever had to be penned in the Constitution. Why? Because it was considered, and always has been, an absurdity of the highest order.
I mean, look at the historical facts here, why don't you. Nowhere on the planet was the marriage of same sex partners an acceptable practice. At most, places like Greece allowed for men to molest little boys.
Rather, redefinition of the Constitution is necessary to deny a single group fair treatment under the law, which is what denying marriage licenses to consenting adults is.
Then how come incest isn't legal?
Marriage licenses, as issued by the State, have nothing to do with religion or religious freedom, since people of all religions and Atheists can get receive a marriage license.
You clearly misunderstood my premise. The very fact that the State is involved in a religious ceremony is an affront to the Establishment Clause. This doesn't seem to bother you. What only bothers you is when religion seemingly encroaches the State.
Compromise is not an option when one side of the argument is simple, blatantly, wrong, immoral, and unconstitutional.
Immoral? We live in a world of relativism, remember? There is nothing that is actually immoral; just differences of opinion. We also live in a Democracy where the People can cast their vote for what morals should be fixed. The People have spoken -- consequently, not in your favor on this particular issue. You, as a citizen, are afforded the right to protest. But for the time being the law is not repealed, and you will have to find another way to devote yourself to your boyfriend.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
I have no religion, yet have a system of ethics and morality. How could that be the case for me, or any other Atheist?
I never said or alluded that you can only have morals if you are religious. What I said was that to expect someone to derive their morals anywhere else other than an avowed religion is silly, since that is where the moral originates for them.
IOW, if you have a religion but don't believe in the precepts of that religion, then why even say you ascribe to it?
Morality changes with time independently.
Who then is the arbiter of such things? And if it is all relative, who are you to say which morals are greater or lesser?
Once, Christians thought Inquisition was okay.
Once upon a time a certain sect, calling themselves Christians, tried to find some justification for their barbarism. Read the moral from the source and it is instantly discernable that they fell from grace.
People decide morality for themselves.
Then what basis do you have to criticize mine -- calling me immoral, as if it is supposed mean something to me other than you giving your opinion?
The Bible is only used to justify what they already think to themselves and others. Fortunately for them, the Bible is so riddled with contradictions and excuses to overlook whatever bits and pieces you want that Christians tend to not have a problem finding support for any position at all, from racism to charity work to snake handling.
People from all walks use whatever they can to impose their own agenda on someone else. The difference about a religion is that it is generally understood what is acceptable and what isn't. With an irreligious person as yourself, you have nothing to codify your morality. Its as fluid as the water so that it changes at the first hint of a contradiction.
But really, this is all OT.
We haven't spoken about Huckabee in quite some time. Outline for me all the things about Huckabee you disagree with.
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
You said "The Left." These individuals hardly comprise "The Left." Completely ignoring the details of the case, two individuals do not warrant painting an entire political leaning as traitors.
Give me a break, Rahvin. You asked me to substantiate my claim and I have clearly done so. When people speak in generalities, they aren't necessarily inclusive of every SINGLE person that identifies with it -- but then, you know that already. You are frantically trying to back out of this because you now realize how foolish you are being.
When I mention people of the Left harboring their crimes, that much should be very obvious. Why? Because in leftist ideology, a conservative's idea of a terrorist is a leftists freedom fighter. In essence, they are simply lashing out from the injustice done to them.
Isn't that how its framed? Isn't that how they've justified the homicidal trappings of Che Guevara?
This is like holding up a KKK member and saying "whites are racist,"
And isn't that the very case!?!?! I implore you to read some of the commentary on this very issue in EvC. That is exactly the kind of guilt-laden non-sense that is spewed forth on EvC.
Now retract your disgusting slander of an entire group of people, and give us an apology.
Prove to me that the Truth® is in fact slander, and I will gladly do so.
Which is funny, because by letting him continue to live free, bin Laden is the boogeyman that Bush and the Repiblicans trot forward every other day to scare us with memories of9/11.
Al Qaeda is a crafty bunch, savvy in the ways striking maximum fear on a popoluace -- which is their stated aim. Bin Laden could be dead for all we know, and some sources allege that he is. Keeping him alive, whether he is or not, proves to be a strategy on their part.
You specifically said "The problem for me comes when someone tries to redefine what a marriage is and to try and amend the Constitution." There is no definition of marriage in the Constitution to amend. No amendment is necessary to allow equal treatment under the law. Matter of fact, who keeps proposing amendments to the Constitution? That's right, the people who want to keep gays from getting married.
I'll give you Justice Scalia's dissent on the issue. It is an illustration of how the word "freedom" for many is obscured to mean that nothing should be prohibited.
" Texas Penal Code Ann. 21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery. But there is no right to “liberty” under the Due Process Clause, though today’s opinion repeatedly makes that claim. Ante, at 6 (“The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice”); ante, at 13 (“ ” These matters... are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’ ”); ante, at 17 (“Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government”). The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of “liberty,” so long as “due process of law” is provided:
“No state shall . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Amdt. 14 (emphasis added).
It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy. Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots. Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is ”deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ or ”implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ is, at best, facetious.”
He goes on to say in other dissenting opinions that by granting homosexuals the right to "marry," which has always been a union between a man and woman, there is no rational basis to disallow anything under the sun the same "freedom," and to pass it off as legitimate pursuit of inalienable rights.
In my infinite wisdom, I can also understand why the founders never wrote anything like "free the slaves" into the Constitution, either. You know, because they would have thought that was absurd, too. The Constitution as written, however, affords equal protection under the law, period.
Yes, protection under the law... Homosexuals have the exact same protections under the law as anyone else. What they don't have the right to do is to get married. They are protected against criminal action without regard of their sexuality. You are totally conflating issues about protection and then redefining what both protection under the law and marriage even means.
quote:I mean, look at the historical facts here, why don't you. Nowhere on the planet was the marriage of same sex partners an acceptable practice. At most, places like Greece allowed for men to molest little boys.
Irrelevant (and sneaking in a suggestion that all homosexuals are pedophiles is pretty low, NJ).
I'm making an historically accurate comment about just how much or how little homosexuality is viewed from all over the world, at different periods of time, under different religions, different beliefs, etc, yet they all come to an inescapable conclusion that is an aberration. Don't you find that amazingly coincidental? You can't just haphazardly erase history because it inconveniences your position.
If we're talking about consenting adults, I don't see a logical, rational reason to disallow it. Pointing out another leftover of an irrational legal system doesn;t help your case, NJ. The only rational reason to disallow incest between consenting adults is the possibility of genetic disorders - the chances of which are in reality only a tiny fraction more likely than in "normal" couples.
Then if you are for equality, you would reasonably fight for the rights of Mom and son to have incestuous relations the world over. You would also fight for polygamy and bigamy.
To counter: why are interracial marriages legal?
Because there is no legal basis to disallow a man and a woman of a different color to marry. None. Marriage is a religious institution that, since the dawn of time, has defined it as a union between a man and a woman. Maybe the ACLU should be crying over the affront of the State which has interfered with religion.
Marriage licenses are contracts which give certain rights and privileges under the law to the married couple. How could the State not be the one to issue them, unless all of those rights and privileges are eliminated for all married couples?
The State should have nothing to do with it other than to recognize it, and that's it.
could not a gay couple simply go to a homosexuality-friendly church and get married there? What about non-religious folk who want to make a lifelong commitment to each other? Am I not allowed to get married because I'm an Atheist, NJ?
If a pledge of devotion is what a marriage essentially is, then you can do whatever you want. You can go to Burger King and in the name of holy matrimony, dedicate yourself to french fries if you wanted. And if homosexuals simply want legal recognition for their union, I say, so be it. Just don't call it a marriage when it isn't.
Marriage isn't a religious matter any more. Not solely. Nobody requires your church to recognize a gay marriage. All we demand is that gays be afforded the same exact legal rights heterosexuals receive
You do realize that it won't stop here, don't you? NAMbLA is already crying about they aren't recognized for their love of boys. This will continue to devolve in to a three-ring circus. Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. If keep flouting what is sensible, you are going to find the complete collapse of Western civilization, which is well on its way in the making. Now that's Progressive!
"Relativism" doesn't mean that everyone's "opinion" is valid. A bigoted asshole who supports slavery or thinks beating his wife is a fine thing is still a bigoted asshole and his "opinions" are immoral.
LOL! On what basis?!?!? You have nothing to hang it on. Nothing. Does naturalism provide with any rights? This is what you are doing without even realizing it: You are borrowing a Judeo-Christian ethic in order to debunk Judeo-Christian ethics.
In denying a worldview, you inextricably support another. When someone denies the existence of God and/or morals deriving from such, what are you affirming in its place? If total secularism is a truism, you have no actual value for anything, nor do you have a point of reference from which to logically derive a moral framework! You end up reducing your own worth to material causes. You also make moral judgments in the absolute, only to deny that there is an absolute judgment. in an amoral universe, how do you invoke a moral judgment beyond mere opinion? Its a completely bankrupt ideology, fraught with contradiction.
Sometimes, NJ, the majority is just plain wrong. Constitutionally, that's the case now.
When you say they are wrong, do you mean that absolutely?
Incidentally, I'm not gay, NJ. I'm jsut a rational, moral person who beleives gay couples should have the same rights as everyone else.
So rational that your test for rationality fails its own test? You have no basis to decry injustice, for by doing so, you invoke a moral absolute.
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
quote:The Defense of Marriage Act, proposed by Bill Clinton, makes it so that there is no redefining.
Wrong.
DOMA was codified in two different sections of the US Code. Here's what they say:
quote::In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
1 U.S.C. 7
quote::No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Neither of these provisions prevents "redefining" anything.
Why on earth would you post that when it so clearly is against you? Those two chapters make it so unambiguous as to what a marriage is, and who shall respect the provisions of the law, there is no way for anyone to attempt to redefine what it means without being ratified.
28 U.S.C. 1738C is pure political pandering. There was no need to pass a law saying that states didn't have to recognize gay marriages from other states. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require states to recognize acts from other states that go against their public policy.
In a perfect world I think marriage should remain a religious ceremony. But the government decided to infringe upon religion. I happen to agree that the Federal government needs to be out of the issue altogether and to defer the question to the States just as Paul said.
quote:Surely, in your infinite wisdom, you can understand that no such specifics ever had to be penned in the Constitution. Why? Because it was considered, and always has been, an absurdity of the highest order.
Well, lest your infinite ignorance lay unchallenged, the reason nothing was ever put in the Constitution about marriage is because it's a matter for the states to regulate.
Indeed. And anti-sodomy laws were in every single state, as in, all 50, until 1961, which supports the notion that this country does not, nor has it ever, recognized gay marriage as being a Constitutional right. That's what your argument, as well as a few others, are based upon. You are making the specious claim that gay people have a Constitutional right for them to marry when, very evidently, the Framers never had in mind anything relating to the specific rights of gay people. Why? Because homosexuality has been both a physical aberration, a moral deficiency, and an illegal sexual act since the dawn of time.
Perhaps you've never come across the term "federalism." It's the idea that some things are reserved to the states to determine, and marriage is one of those things, subject of course, to the dictates of the 14th Amendment.
I agree with that. So if the state of Massachussets says homosexuals can marry, then they can get married there. Any other state has the right not to allow it, nor is it compelled to legally recognize the "marriage" should the homosexual couple decide to move.
Wow. Did you actually listen to the clip that you linked upthread, or did someone else tell you what he said and you just believed what they said? He said that any voluntary association should be protected by law, and that the question of marriage should be left to the states. In that clip, he never said a single thing against gay marriage, and his argument for the protection of "voluntary associations" can only be understood as an endorsement of the right to gay marriage. And, given the fact that he said he was against a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, I'm completely at a loss how you could conclude that he's against gay marriage, absent some neurological condition that prevents you from accurately perceiving reality.
Wow. Did you listen to it? This is what he is saying: He said that marriage is a religious ceremony. He said that the State stepped in for health reasons, but thinks that it is not right for the Federal government to stick its nose in the affairs of any given state or religion. He says that we don't need a Constitutional "ban" on gay marriage because we already know what a marriage means. It just seems so unnecessary." Meaning, why take away a States right to choose for itself, and why make a ban for something we already know the definition for?
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
What does this homophobic screed have to do with Huckabee?
*shrugs*
I just follow the dialogue wherever it may go. I presume that it started with the question of how Huckabee wants to handle the issue of gay marriage.
Perhaps a moderator will come in soon.
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
quote:And anti-sodomy laws were in every single state, as in, all 50, until 1961, which supports the notion that this country does not, nor has it ever, recognized gay marriage as being a Constitutional right.
I'm with you, Juggs! All behavior outlawed before 1961 clearly indicates.
Then why does no one concede the fact that the Framers never intended to make it compulsory, nor could they have ever guessed that this issue would ever be an issue. Therefore, allowing homosexuals to marry is not a Constitutional right. For it to be a right, the Constitution would have to be ratified.
That said, the Framers had the foresight to leave some things open to interpretation to allow for things they were incapable of thinking of in their day.
So the question is, why do homosexuals have an inherent right to marry? Would they be happy with a Civil Union? Do they merely want a legal status for their union, or is this issue about principles?
Like miscegenation!
All people, including all women, gay or straight, have certain unalienable rights. The "right" to marry is not a decision afforded as a protection of the Constitution, since it is clearly a religious institution that has been infiltrated by the State after-the-fact.
So perhaps invoking the Constitution on this issue, whether to allow it or disallow it, is irrelevant and specious, irrespective of which end of the spectrum one resides on the issue.
A congressman from my home state proposed a constitutional amendment outlawing miscegenation... Spot on, Juggs! Spot on!
I think you might have me confused with someone else. I never mentioned misogyny?
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
quote:The "right" to marry is not a decision afforded as a protection of the Constitution
Incorrect. Loving v. Virginia directly states:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival
This is completely irrelevant, as it is a dissenting "opinion" of a Justice, not a law within the United States Code. Bottom line: Homosexual marriage at this juncture is not recognized as a right in this country. Furthermore, it stipulates that no State, territory, possession of the United States, or Indian tribe shall not infringe this law.
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." Title 28: Chapter 115 1738C of the United States Code
Plain English. Homosexual unions will not be respected by jurisprudence.
You're treading into the waters where you treat the Constitution as a laundry list: If it isn't stated in the Constitution, then it isn't a right.
I've done no such thing. Re-read what I said, and I very plainly stated that if a specific right is not cased in law, that it should be left for the states to decide for themselves.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You have to show that it is a right to have homosexuals marry one another. You have cited a dissenting opinion from one case, as if it were to set the precedent. It does not.
quote: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.
Furthermore, your quote of the Tenth Amendment is useless for the single fact that it is outlined by the Federal government. The 10th Amendment refers to standards not cased, meaning, things not specifically outlined. But the US Code has specifically outlined it, and therefore, a States opinion on the matter shall not be recognized.
But I will tell you my personal opinion on the matter: I think the Federal government needs to be out of civil affairs as much as humanly possible -- to include the question of gay marriage. However, the current law states that homosexual unions will not be respected by the law. Period.
So if you really want to repeal the law, and it is a law, you are going to have to first battle that out through legislation. You can't just pretend it doesn't exist, cite obscure passages with no clear reference as to what constitutes a "right," and then pass it off as some unassailable proof that the Framers of the Constitution were cool with homosexual marriage.
quote:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That's the Fourteenth. Since marriage is a State-governed contract, it is clear from the Fourteenth that it cannot be denied to people of the same sex if it is going to be offered to people of the opposite sex. That would deny due process and equal protection.
Note the due process and the equal protection of the law portion. Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law are already established. You can't say that they aren't given due process, or that they aren't protected by the law. What you are actually wanting, is a special exception of the law, and then calling it "equal." That isn't so.
But, like I said, I agree that FedGov needs to be out of this altogether. I might even join you in signing a petition to get the FedGov out of it.
So since everything about the Constitution indicates that you cannot deny marriage to people on the basis of the sex of the participants, one has to wonder why you think it isn't a fundamental right, protected by the Constitution.
One has to wonder why you think it would. Tell me: Reading the Constitution, what prohibits a man from marrying a tree? Consent?-- the famed catch-all response? No problem. Incest between consenting adults then? Do they have a basic right? What Constitutionally constitutes a "basic right" anyhow?
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
I mean after all, not only has Huckabee come out and said the he wants the Constitution changed so it reflects the word of God and not the word of man
Source please.
he has now come out and compared same sex marriage with incest, polygamy, a pedophilia.
Source please.
N J, you must be so proud.
Since he is the only Republican candidate not to have flop-flopped on an issue, his steadfast character does appeal to me.
What a piece of shit that man truly is.
Don't hold back for me. Just let it all out. Let be your catharsis.
Here's a Presidential candidate that pretty much says he wants this Country to be a Christian Theocracy
Give me a break. A Theocracy? Please give me something to reference.
and that homosexuals are comparable to pedophiles, and yet no one speaks out against him.
What then are doing right now?
Where's this supposed liberal media we hear so much about?
On the television.
How come this asshole hasn't been blasted by the press?
Maybe because your conspiracy theories aren't grounded in fact.
his idea of changing our Constitution to agree with your Bible...do you agree with that as well?
I highly, highly doubt he's ever said any such thing. It sounds like a distortion on your part. I would never want a theocracy for the sole fact that everyone he wants one wants to be Theo.
And lastly, let me ask you a couple more questions. We liberals get accused of this crap all the time, being pretty much opposed to anything Bush does, but in light of Huckabee’s latest statements, I”d just like to ask you . Why do Christian hate this Country and why are Christians so unpatriotic?
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
He made the statement in a campaign speech. The context was his wanting to amend the Constitution to ban abortion, but the way he worded it was how FliesOnly stated that he did.
I agree with a Constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. No argument there.
I think his meaning was taken well out of context, but nonetheless, his phrasing was bad a move for his political clout. This is the kind of thing that will haunt him for throughout his campaign, because you know this will be used as ammunition against him.
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
™ Version 4.2