DC Tom Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 I lost all faith of that ever happening when "DC vs Heller" went 5-4 on political lines. That was just as easy as this one and the liberals !@#$ed it up royally. DC v Heller wasn't quite as clear-cut on quite a few grounds - mostly relating to the wonderfully vague "militia" reference in the Second Amendment, which means DC's status is doubly vague (since the District is not a state, thus has no militia, can the 2nd Amendment reasonably be applied to DC?) I mean, I agree with you...but the dissenters in Heller were arguing the law; they weren't without valid points. (Or at least three of them weren't. Breyer's dissent equating the regulation of black powder storage to restricting gun ownership was just retarded). It just so happens that the Second Amendment does, in fact, allow quite a bit of space for interpretation.
IDBillzFan Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 You know what'll be fun? Watching Obama respond to this ruling. Given that he's against gay marriage AND ass-deep in mid-terms, I look forward to watching this play out...if it does at all.
Rubes Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Referendums, as a rule, are fairly ridiculous, IMO. This country is a Republic, based on representative democracy. In general people rarely do enough research to know all the ins-and-outs of any particular law or proposal You might argue the same is true for our representatives, but they have staffs who research and report to them. The least capable and informed representative is far more capable and informed than the least of the general public. If you accept that about 10% of the population is gay, then I would expect gay rights to have a poor chance among the general public who, at best, have little concern or knowledge of their plight. Can you imagine where would be now if slavery was put to a general referendum? What about integration? Thankfully redheads never have been considered a lesser class. They wouldn't have a chance. The very idea that every group has to fight the same fight against bigotry, with the same people using the same arguments on the other side, is a HUGE black mark on our country. Shame on people for making basic human rights something that has to be earned in pieces over time because "the majority" of morons don't give a crap about anyone other than themselves. Amen, brother.
justnzane Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Referendums, as a rule, are fairly ridiculous, IMO. This country is a Republic, based on representative democracy. In general people rarely do enough research to know all the ins-and-outs of any particular law or proposal You might argue the same is true for our representatives, but they have staffs who research and report to them. The least capable and informed representative is far more capable and informed than the least of the general public. If you accept that about 10% of the population is gay, then I would expect gay rights to have a poor chance among the general public who, at best, have little concern or knowledge of their plight. Can you imagine where would be now if slavery was put to a general referendum? What about integration? Thankfully redheads never have been considered a lesser class. They wouldn't have a chance. The very idea that every group has to fight the same fight against bigotry, with the same people using the same arguments on the other side, is a HUGE black mark on our country. Shame on people for making basic human rights something that has to be earned in pieces over time because "the majority" of morons don't give a crap about anyone other than themselves. very well put dean. FWIW, if there was a referendum on slavery in the South in the 1800's, you can almost be certain that the voters of the time would have voted for the blacks to be picking cotton. So, majorities can be wrong in some cases. With the gays, I don't see why they should not be allowed to marry as weddings have been part of every society since pre-organized religious days. Then again, our founding fathers did write that we should have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To legally deny someone the right to marriage with whatever consenting adult, it is just un-American in my opinion. So, good for the limp wristed fart catchers, and the butch rugraiders.
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 very well put dean. FWIW, if there was a referendum on slavery in the South in the 1800's, you can almost be certain that the voters of the time would have voted for the blacks to be picking cotton. Not necessarily. A referendum probably would have overturned slavery in MD, and was an even-money bet in VA and TN (places like South Carolina and Alabama, I'd agree with you). In a lot of the "borderline" Confederate states, it was a difference over means, not ends (specifically, whether emancipation should be gradual or immediate, and whether it should be a state issue or forced by the federal government). My point being that not even black and white issues are that black and white. Including this one.
Booster4324 Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 So, good for the limp wristed fart catchers, and the butch rugraiders. I prefer lipstick lesbians, but whatever floats your boat... This seems at worst a silly debate. Of course they deserve equal rights. Lost some respect for a couple of posters in this thread.
OCinBuffalo Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Right except in my proposal there are no state marriages only civil unions - marriages are performed by non state actors Seems like another in a long line of rational compromises. Now, it's just a matter of getting your liberal pals to agree to it. And, it might make sense for a marriage performed by a religion to count as a civil union. Why make people do it twice? This way, the religions that want to allow gays to marry are free to do so, those that don't aren't forced to do so. Everything still counts as a civil union, and the rights are all the same. Or something like that. There is common ground on this issue that 80% of us can get behind, the problem is, just like with health care, the liberals aren't willing to compromise. They want to force the religious to accept principles that they simply cannot, or, they want to force religion out of the national consciousness altogether. Hardly a "tolerant" view. At least 80% of this country believes in God, hence, the 45 anti-gay marriage laws. I am still waiting for these fools to learn from their mistakes. It seems that they have no concept of introspection however, so it seems they never will.
bartshan-83 Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 The very idea that every group has to fight the same fight against bigotry, with the same people using the same arguments on the other side, is a HUGE black mark on our country. Shame on people for making basic human rights something that has to be earned in pieces over time because "the majority" of morons don't give a crap about anyone other than themselves. VERY well said.
Booster4324 Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Seems like another in a long line of rational compromises. Now, it's just a matter of getting your liberal pals to agree to it. And, it might make sense for a marriage performed by a religion to count as a civil union. Why make people do it twice? This way, the religions that want to allow gays to marry are free to do so, those that don't aren't forced to do so. Everything still counts as a civil union, and the rights are all the same. Or something like that. There is common ground on this issue that 80% of us can get behind, the problem is, just like with health care, the liberals aren't willing to compromise. They want to force the religious to accept principles that they simply cannot, or, they want to force religion out of the national consciousness altogether. Hardly a "tolerant" view. At least 80% of this country believes in God, hence, the 45 anti-gay marriage laws. I am still waiting for these fools to learn from their mistakes. It seems that they have no concept of introspection however, so it seems they never will. Yeah the Dems alone are responsible for how this issue is framed? Is that stating your position correctly?
Heels20X6 Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Once again the will of the people is taken away from judges. Although, as a Californian, I can not say I'm shocked. Quite possibly the dumbest thing I have read on this board in a long time and I've had to read most of what Hossage has written.... If it were for the will of the people, blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn't have the right to vote. But you go on thinking that bigotry is a-ok.
Heels20X6 Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 I'm not the most overly religious person but can I ask why religious groups (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, whatevs) are so opposed to the term "marriage" being applied to gays? I just don't see the uproar in terminology that seems to be happening here.
OCinBuffalo Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Yeah the Dems alone are responsible for how this issue is framed? Is that stating your position correctly? They started this and they purposely set out to impose their will on the American people. They had no interest in treating this as in inequity problem that needed to be solved. If that was their premise, this issue would have been rationally dealt with quickly and quietly. Instead, they treated this as an opportunity to embarrass and chastise religious people, while claiming the phony moral high ground and therefore freeing themselves from attack. They seriously miscalculated, because most people saw through their BS, and concluded that there is nothing "moral" about setting out to purposely chastise other people. They picked a political fight, and they got their ass kicked. Their arrogance and immaturity cost them, and more importantly gay people's rights, dearly. My argument is not about "framing". It is merely a statement of what happened and why. You might not like what happened and why, but, then again, nobody does, so you aren't special.
OCinBuffalo Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 I'm not the most overly religious person but can I ask why religious groups (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, whatevs) are so opposed to the term "marriage" being applied to gays? I just don't see the uproar in terminology that seems to be happening here. I could ask: I just don't see why gay people are demanding that their civil unions be called "marriages". I just don't see the uproar in terminology here. How do you answer that? Because something doesn't matter to you, doesn't mean it doesn't matter to other people, and their views don't get to be diminished just because you say "it's no big deal". And, you better be prepared for a fight if you purposely set out to antagonize large portions of American society. In this country, since we don't believe in ideology over practicality, you need to back up what you say with facts, and you need to construct a convincing argument. In this case, the argument wasn't: we should solve an inequity problem wrt gay families, specifically dealing with taxes, investments, inheritance, etc. No, the argument was: we should diminish the views of the religious right on gay marriage, and chastise them if they stand up for themselves, because religion = bad, immoral, opposed to freedom, blah, f'ing, blah. The rational first argument was supplanted by the liberal jackass 2nd argument, and therefore failed miserably. As I said, they purposefully picked a political fight and got their ass kicked. That pretty much sums it up.
Mark Vader Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 I get a good laugh at how bigots try to rationalize hatred. I really hope you are not calling me a bigot The Dean. If you are, you are way out of line.
Mark Vader Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Quite possibly the dumbest thing I have read on this board in a long time and I've had to read most of what Hossage has written.... If it were for the will of the people, blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn't have the right to vote. But you go on thinking that bigotry is a-ok. Explain to me, how what I stated is bigotry? I can not wait to hear this.
OCinBuffalo Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 You mean another law I don't agree with? That's called consistency, not the typical hypocrisy most of you show when you cherry pick the **** your religion tells you to be pissed about. Hehe But, Churchill said: "I'd rather be right than consistent". I am inclined to agree. God help you if some massive unplanned change/series of events happens that directly contradicts one of your positions, then, you will be doomed to a conner-like existence of being consistently wrong.
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 definitely not over. nothing is that simple, right? but for a lot of people in love, it's a step in the right direction. fag.
Alaska Darin Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 DC v Heller wasn't quite as clear-cut on quite a few grounds - mostly relating to the wonderfully vague "militia" reference in the Second Amendment, which means DC's status is doubly vague (since the District is not a state, thus has no militia, can the 2nd Amendment reasonably be applied to DC?) Let's just say I don't agree on common sense grounds. Of all the arguments, pro or con, those are by far the weakest against the Bill of Rights. I mean, I agree with you...but the dissenters in Heller were arguing the law; they weren't without valid points. (Or at least three of them weren't. Breyer's dissent equating the regulation of black powder storage to restricting gun ownership was just retarded). It just so happens that the Second Amendment does, in fact, allow quite a bit of space for interpretation. I read the first two and they contained the typical liberal speak and pretty much completely ignore the principles the country was founded on. While I have no proof in hand, I have a hard time believing the signers of the Constitution wouldn't: 1. Have owned multiple firearms. 2. Could imagine a fair government that disarmed an entire populous with no warranty.
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 hahaha, gfy buddy If I could do that I would not need to put up with the old lady
Recommended Posts