Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Huckabee
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 162 (448405)
01-13-2008 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by subbie
01-07-2008 7:41 PM


Re:
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by subbie, posted 01-07-2008 7:41 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 6:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 139 by molbiogirl, posted 01-14-2008 12:13 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 137 of 162 (448474)
01-13-2008 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Hyroglyphx
01-13-2008 10:50 AM


Re:
What does this homophobic screed have to do with Huckabee?
I mean, Huckabee's a homophobic bigot, too, but what does this particular invocation of bigotry have to do with Huckabee?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-13-2008 10:50 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-13-2008 11:56 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 162 (448560)
01-13-2008 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Rrhain
01-13-2008 6:45 PM


Re:
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 6:45 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by FliesOnly, posted 01-18-2008 11:14 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 139 of 162 (448564)
01-14-2008 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Hyroglyphx
01-13-2008 10:50 AM


Re:
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...
that this country does not, nor has it ever, recognized ... as being a Constitutional right.
Like miscegenation!
Hell. A congressman from my home state proposed a constitutional amendment outlawing miscegenation!
wiki writes:
In 1871, Representative Andrew King (Democrat of Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nation-wide.
Spot on, Juggs! Spot on!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-13-2008 10:50 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-14-2008 1:13 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 162 (448574)
01-14-2008 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by molbiogirl
01-14-2008 12:13 AM


Re:
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by molbiogirl, posted 01-14-2008 12:13 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Rrhain, posted 01-14-2008 2:09 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 142 by molbiogirl, posted 01-14-2008 2:09 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 141 of 162 (448577)
01-14-2008 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Hyroglyphx
01-14-2008 1:13 AM


Re:
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
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
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.
This completely ignores the direct and plain text of the Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That's the Ninth Amendment, NJ. It directly states that just because a right hasn't been mentioned in the Constitution, that doesn't mean you don't have it.
And then there's this:
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.
That's the Tenth. In other words, there are some things the government is not allowed to do: Such as prevent gay people from being full members of society.
And then there's this:
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.
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.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-14-2008 1:13 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-14-2008 7:21 PM Rrhain has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 142 of 162 (448578)
01-14-2008 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Hyroglyphx
01-14-2008 1:13 AM


Re:
I think you might have me confused with someone else. I never mentioned misogyny?
Either you've a very dry sense of humor this evening or you are a tard.
Miscegenation. Not misogyny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-14-2008 1:13 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 143 of 162 (448592)
01-14-2008 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Hyroglyphx
01-13-2008 3:13 AM


Re: Poster Boy for the Religious Right
quote:
Homosexuals have the exact same protections under the law as anyone else.
No they don't.
It is perfectly legal to fire someone because they are gay, or deny them housing, or prevent them from adopting or fostering unwanted children, or get married.
Where do you get this stuff?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-13-2008 3:13 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 162 (448667)
01-14-2008 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Rrhain
01-14-2008 2:09 AM


Re:
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Rrhain, posted 01-14-2008 2:09 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Rrhain, posted 01-15-2008 3:47 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2008 12:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 145 of 162 (448760)
01-15-2008 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Hyroglyphx
01-14-2008 7:21 PM


Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
quote:
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.
Incorrect. It is the majority opinion and thus is the law of the land. That's why the Supreme Court is there.
quote:
Plain English. Homosexual unions will not be respected by jurisprudence.
And such law is clearly unconstitutional. This happens all the time: Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President signs the unconstitutional law, and the Supreme Court overturns it as is their function.
Do you deny the decision of Loving v. Virginia? The SCOTUS got it wrong? Marriage is not a fundamental right?
quote:
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.
And that's exactly the "laundry list" attitude I was talking about. There are rights that are not "cased in law" that are constitutionally protected. The Constitution directly says so. That's the entire point behind the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
quote:
You have to show that it is a right to have homosexuals marry one another.
Incorrect. It is your burden to show that there is compelling state interest to deny the fundamental right of marriage.
Or are you saying the SCOTUS got Loving v. Virginia wrong?
quote:
You have cited a dissenting opinion from one case
Incorrect. I quoted the majority opinion of Loving v. Virginia. You were the one quoting the dissenting opinion of Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas.
Current law directly states that laws cannot be written against gay people and that marriage is a fundamental right. How does that jibe with the Defense of Marriage Act which targets gays by denying the fundamental right of marriage?
Or are you saying that the SCOTUS got both Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas wrong?
quote:
But the US Code has specifically outlined it
Indeed, unconstitutionally. I handily agree that the law exists. But the question is: Does it agree with the Constitution?
So given the Ninth Amendment's declaration of rights not enumerated, the Tenth Amendment's declaration of rights of the people, the Fourteenth Amendment's declaration of due process and equal treatment under the law, Loving v. Virginia's declaration of marriage as a fundamental right, and Lawrence v. Texas' declaration that laws cannot be targeted against gays, how does one reconcile DOMA?
quote:
you are going to have to first battle that out through legislation.
The courts work just as well.
Or are you saying the SCOTUS got Loving v. Virginia wrong?
quote:
cite obscure passages
Huh? Since when are the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments "obscure passages"? Since when are Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas "obscure passages"?
Are you saying the SCOTUS got those cases wrong?
quote:
pass it off as some unassailable proof that the Framers of the Constitution were cool with homosexual marriage.
Nobody said that. But, the Constitution is not something frozen in the 18th century. The Framers had no concept of nuclear power, telephonic communications, the internet, etc., and yet the Constitution is just as capable of handling those things as anything else. It has to be able to handle new concepts or it is a nearly worthless document.
That's part of the genius of the document. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments specifically state that they knew they couldn't get everything and thus there are rights that the people have that won't be listed and cannot be denied.
It doesn't matter what the Framers thought of gay marriage. The Constitution clearly defends it and it is your burden to show why the state has any interest in denying it.
Or does the Fourteenth Amendment mean nothing?
quote:
Note the due process and the equal protection of the law portion. Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law are already established.
Precisely. Ergo, denying the fundamental right of marriage to gay people is clearly unconstitutional.
Or are you saying the Fourteenth Amendment is meaningless?
quote:
You can't say that they aren't given due process, or that they aren't protected by the law.
Sure we can. Gays can't get married while straights can. Ergo, gays are denied due process and equal protection. That's the entire point. The fact that a woman is allowed to enter into a legal contract with someone that her brother is not is prima facia denial of due process.
quote:
What you are actually wanting, is a special exception of the law, and then calling it "equal."
If she can enter contract and he can't, how is that "equal"?
What you are demanding is special treatment for straights. But, this is typical conservative-think: Up is down, black is white, heroes are traitors.
quote:
Reading the Constitution, what prohibits a man from marrying a tree?
Huh? How does same-sex marriage lead one to consider interspecies marriage in a way that opposite-sex marriage doesn't? What is it about the sex of the participants that leads one to question the species involved?
Your question makes no sense. Are you trying to tell us you want to marry a tree?
quote:
Incest between consenting adults then?
Huh? How does same-sex marriage lead one to consider incest in a way that opposite-sex marriage doesn't?
Your question makes no sense. Are you trying to tell us you want to marry your child?
quote:
What Constitutionally constitutes a "basic right" anyhow?
That's what the Supreme Court is for.
What does NJ's homophobic screed have to do with Huckabee?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-14-2008 7:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 146 of 162 (448987)
01-15-2008 8:40 PM


Is Huckabee a Dominionist?
Well, Huckabee's proposal to modify the US Constitution to better reflect 'god's law' as opposed to 'human law' is already raising some eyebrows today on both Pharyngula and Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
Maybe if Huckabee doesn't like the US Constitution as is, due to such things as separation of Church and State, he should consider moving to Iran (concept plagiarized from right-wingers). Oops, same concept of government, but not quite same governing text.
Wonder what his position on slavery is? Maybe it's about time someone in the national press should ask. Maybe they should ask soon, instead of fawning over his likability, while they still have fashionable jobs instead of fashionable prison outfits.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by sidelined, posted 01-15-2008 11:21 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2008 12:05 AM anglagard has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 147 of 162 (449001)
01-15-2008 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by anglagard
01-15-2008 8:40 PM


Re: Is Huckabee a Dominionist?
anglagard
It would really be good to have a television news show not beholding to monetary considerations nor political ones either.
It really boggles my mind when politicians make the most horrendous statements and the press just sits there with their collective thumbs up their asses and says nothing.
As an example a politician of ours in BC once was asked about some shady real estate deals that his father and him were involved with.
Without blinking the guy says "Well, where I come from {India} this is all perfectly acceptable"
Not one of the members of the press saw fit to point out to him that he was no longer in India.
Staggering. Because of political correctness BS a perfectly legitimate concern was not addressed.
It is really sad to see politicians constantly stand up and jerk the press' chains and lead them wherever they please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by anglagard, posted 01-15-2008 8:40 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 148 of 162 (449014)
01-16-2008 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by anglagard
01-15-2008 8:40 PM


Re: Is Huckabee a Dominionist?
I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.
Apart from everything else, that's a bloody funny use of the word "contemporary".
I suppose to Huckabee everything since the Enlightenment seems frighteningly modern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by anglagard, posted 01-15-2008 8:40 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 149 of 162 (449015)
01-16-2008 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Hyroglyphx
01-14-2008 7:21 PM


Re:
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.
That would, in fact, be a problem. How could a tree consent to marriage?
---
If you marry two trees, is that twigamy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-14-2008 7:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by obvious Child, posted 01-16-2008 4:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 150 of 162 (449097)
01-16-2008 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dr Adequate
01-16-2008 12:08 AM


Re:
How would it sign an contract?
haaaha
I love those arguments. Any dog, tree, etc that shows it can talk, understand the law and sign its name can get married.
Bring it on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2008 12:08 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024