Bush finally concerned about Bin Laden.

[This_person]

THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION! The majority of Americans CANNOT FORCE THEIR WILL on a minority when it comes to government entities.

That's just like the majority of Marylanders voting that everybody except black Americans are eligible for welfare. Blacks cannot get welfare because the MAJORITY voted that they shouldn't be eligible because of their race. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Please explain this to the next American Indian you see, or Japanese internment camp detainee survivor, or any white person turned down for a job because they were white.......

 

[This_person]

There is no constitutional basis for denying the right to marry. If there is, then there is also the right to deny them to enter into any other contract be it buying a car, a home or a job based on what we refer to as sexual preference. That is, clearly, unconstitutional

IMO, it's like saying denything them the right to declare the number 2 = 3. The definition of the word includes husband and wife. A husband is a male, a wife is a female, thus it is a union of a male and female.

By the logic that there is no constitutional basis for denying the right, there is also not one for denying child molestation, for denying flying airplanes with no license, for denying driving cars down the wrong side of the road.... Oh, wait, yes there is for all of that - the tenth amendment. Paraphrase - "Whatever we didn't say specifically is within the power of the federal government isn't in the power of the federal government; it's the power of the people, and the states". Thus, whatever the states, via their people, decide goes. Now, the states can't take away your gun, because the second amendment clearly defines the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Other rights (marriage, driving, doctoring, educating, etc., etc) fall into the realm of states.

 

[SamSpade]

:sigh:

Nobody has said that his support of a gay marriage ban has consumed his presidency. You're just resorting to overblown hyperbole at this point....moving the goalposts yet again.

Someone asked for proof showing that Dubya was concerned about gay marriage. I provided irrefutable proof.

Then, you wanted additional proof that he was concerned about it after 2004...because you weren't happy with the proof I showed.

Xaquin44 provided proof of him expressing the same concern in 2006.

NOW you're demanding proof that this has been Dubya's #1, all consuming mission of his entire presidency.




You just can't admit it...can you? As if admitting you may have been mistaken on this one issue would invalidate your existence.

You guys really need to get over yourselves.

You know, so do you. Maybe the argument hasn't been presented to your satisfaction - or in the best manner. But the gist of it has been clear - Bush isn't pursuing an agenda to end gay marriage. Whatever he wants or wishes really has little bearing on what gets done.

You're equating his wish to ban gay marriage with an agenda to do so. That is quite literally equating saying "Drop Dead" with attempted murder. It's stupid. Just because I wish you would drop off the face of the earth doesn't make it a "threat".

It's the very argument I bring up regarding abortion, when it comes to selecting a PRESIDENT. He has no power to do anything about it, really.

We've had several Presidents who were opposed to abortion. Even Jimmy Carter was and is against abortion - but what of it? Roe v Wade is still there, and no one's overturned it. Did Carter, Reagan, Bush I and II do anything about it? Not really, and none of them could really be said to be doing anything to end it. People could TALK about the Supreme Court nominees, but get serious - do you think any of the Supreme Courts we have had in the past 30-40 years made the slightest effort to overturn it? As conservative as it has been? Dems like to make the case that a conservative court "picked" Bush as President. Could they not have overturned Roe v Wade?

No. Because decisions like that aren't done lightly. They take their job seriously. You don't make law and you don't whimsically play with the Constitution - like they do in Congress.

Gay marriage will come about when the people of the United States are ready to permit it - or not to. It's this very line of reasoning that Lincoln used regarding slavery - he was a lifelong opponent of slavery - but he was against outlawing it with a stroke of the pen. The people had to make that decision. It wasn't up to him to make that decision, for the people.

So what if Bush declares he's for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Who gives a rat's ass - he can't do anything.

 

[Larry Gude]

I understand...

IMO, it's like saying denything them the right to declare the number 2 = 3. The definition of the word includes husband and wife. A husband is a male, a wife is a female, thus it is a union of a male and female.

...the point and I used to agree, wholeheartedly.

The problem is that marriage, two adults joined in a union, recognizing certain rights and responsibilities, legally, is an exclusion based on the comfort level of some people. We used to argue that blacks had no rights because only people have rights and they were property, not people, therefore, no rights. Same thing with women.

In our constitution there is a guarantee of an invididuals equal rights under the law be it speech, owning weapons, being safe in your person and property, commerce, etc and so forth. None of these rights may be limited or abridged based on gender. Not voting. Not being considered a human being and not entering into a contract which is what marriage is.

We have agreed, as a people, that we abridge these rights based on age, based on behavior (criminal) and based on practical limitations such as numbers allowed such as congressional districts, members of partnerships and other contracts for practical purposes. None of these limitations have to do with what you do in a bedroom, color of your skin or what kind of gear your are packing; they apply to all.

So, I changed my mind based solely on the constitutional principle of equal rights and protection under the law. This in no way requires a given faith to perform ceremonies outside their faith, but it is to be recognized, nationwide, same as a drivers license, business contract or otherwise legal status in matters of property, rights and responsibilities.

 

[Larry Gude]

Those...

By the logic that there is no constitutional basis for denying the right, there is also not one for denying child molestation, for denying flying airplanes with no license, for denying driving cars down the wrong side of the road.... Oh, wait, yes there is for all of that - the tenth amendment. Paraphrase - "Whatever we didn't say specifically is within the power of the federal government isn't in the power of the federal government; it's the power of the people, and the states". Thus, whatever the states, via their people, decide goes. Now, the states can't take away your gun, because the second amendment clearly defines the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Other rights (marriage, driving, doctoring, educating, etc., etc) fall into the realm of states.

...are behaviors that affect the common good. Comparing two adults having sex to an adult molesting a child is incomprehensible to me. Further, no one is being allowed to fly a plane, or denied, based on anything but qualification that is fair and equal to all; either you pass or you don't. It is not based on sex or race or sexual preference or which team you root for.

The right to regulate an individual based on sexual activity is no different than telling you you can't drink beer, watch violent TV or root for the Dallas Cowboys; all things that are bad for you, but, as I read the constitution, protected.

 

[Larry Gude]

Again...

Other rights (marriage, driving, doctoring, educating, etc., etc) fall into the realm of states.

...the states can NOT prohibit me from being a doctor or driving because I am 6' 2" or because I am male or because I am an incredibly handsome guy or because I hate the Dallas Cowboys. My constitution tells me so.

If the constitution doesn't protect what two adults do in bed, how does it protect anyone based on skin color or gender or the right, however heinous and distasteful I may find it, to root for Dallas?

 

[Larry Gude]

I disagree....

You're equating his wish to ban gay marriage with an agenda to do so. That is quite literally equating saying "Drop Dead" with attempted murder. It's stupid. Just because I wish you would drop off the face of the earth doesn't make it a "threat".

...Sammy. The ONLY thing we have to judge a politician on before he is elected is what he says he will do. After they have a record, then we can add that in as well. Bush has publicly supported the idea of turning the constitution on it's ear and adding an amendment to prohibit the rights of certain individuals. The very idea makes the 18th amendment look like sound judgement in comparison. At least it didn't violate only certain peoples rights; it violated every ones rights.

Hillary and Barrack both want to institute socialized medicine. Barrack wants to confiscate business profits. They want a chicken in every pot, a smile on every face and a song in every heart.

Your point is correct; just because someone says it it doesn't mean they mean it. But, it's all I have to go on. Bush is against a husbands rights and responsibilities over his wife when she is incapacitated. Was that just politics or did he mean it? All I have is what he says and does.

When we stop making the argument that our elected leaders don't really mean some of the things they say, then we'll start having better government. Bush is free to come out and admit he is wrong about this, based on the constitution whenever he decides to.

 

[Xaquin44]

Just for an fyi, I used to make a lot of chainmail (like armor not spam) and after you cut the ring, you seperate the two sides at the cut, the technical term is 'divorcing the ring'. When you put the sides back together to enclose the rings you've looped it to, it's called 'marrying the ring'


Is that ok?

I mean a piece of 14ga. brass isn't a man and a woman.

 

[Larry Gude]

That...

Just for an fyi, I used to make a lot of chainmail (like armor not spam) and after you cut the ring, you seperate the two sides at the cut, the technical term is 'divorcing the ring'. When you put the sides back together to enclose the rings you've looped it to, it's called 'marrying the ring'


Is that ok?

I mean a piece of 14ga. brass isn't a man and a woman.

...is vulgar and disgusting and a complete distortion of the issue as hand.





Brass. Humph. It's supposed to be iron.

 

[Xaquin44]

Brass. Humph. It's supposed to be iron.

Iron makes my hands turn colors and brass patinas better.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh???

Iron makes my hands turn colors and brass patinas better.

So this is a personal preference thing, huh? Well, pal, you can call it what you want, but you can't make me accept your twisted ways!

 

[Xaquin44]

So this is a personal preference thing, huh? Well, pal, you can call it what you want, but you can't make me accept your twisted ways!

=)

hahaha

 

[itsbob]

Wow, you guys are stupider than I originally gave you credit for.

ALL CITIZENS ARE GUARANTEED EQUAL RIGHTS. If this isn't common sense to you, and you can't figure it out on your own, me holding your hand reading the Constitution aloud to you isn't going to help.

Congratulations bob and Bann, you have managed to make yourselves look dumberthan Bruzilla, Kerad and forestal.

Effing psychos.

No they're not.

Preamble
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 1 - The Legislature
Section 2 - The House
Section 3 - The Senate
Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Section 6 - Compensation
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
Section 4 - Disqualification
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial Powers
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
Section 3 - Treason
Article 4 - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor All Others
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
Section 3 - New States
Section 4 - Republican Government
Article 5 - Amendment
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
Article 7 - Ratification
Signatories
Amendments
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice President
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed
Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes Barred
Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years
Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases

Please show me where it guarantees equal rights for EVERYONE, or where it shows marriage is a right. You don't have a RIGHT to marry.. so being denied is not an infringement of your rights.

Where it says anything about marriage.

Where it even mentions sexual orientation.

And to say EVERY citizen has equal rights is absurd. A 12 year old is a citizen, yet they have no right to vote.. A felon is still a citizen, yet they neither are allowed to vote, nor have the right to own or carry arms. There is no such thing a 'equal rights for everyone', other than life, liberty (though not a right for criminals that are citizens) and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Xaquin44]

Where it even mentions sexual orientation.

so?

where does the constitution define marriage?

 

[itsbob]

so?

where does the constitution define marriage?

EXACTLY, thank you for making my point.

So if the MAJORITY votes, and says, "This is what marriage is" then it has now been defined. The court shouldn't be able to overrule their definition on Constitutional grounds.

 

[Larry Gude]

Marriage...

so?

where does the constitution define marriage?

...requires, rightly, a license. It is therefore covered by any number of provisions; right of association, commerce, etc.

 

[Xaquin44]

EXACTLY, thank you for making my point.

So if the MAJORITY votes, and says, "This is what marriage is" then it has now been defined. The court shouldn't be able to overrule their definition on Constitutional grounds.

unless it's smooshing upon their rights ....

 

[itsbob]

unless it's smooshing upon their rights ....

Your circular logic is amusing.. again, which right would they be smooshing? You yourself said marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Xaquin44]

Your circular logic is amusing.. again, which right would they be smooshing? You yourself said marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of the person's civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of race, religion, sex or ancestry.

 

[itsbob]

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of the person's civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of race, religion, sex or ancestry.

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

This is the way I thought it read,