Bush finally concerned about Bin Laden.

[Xaquin44]

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,

that's fine too.

so what's the problem?

 

[itsbob]

that's fine too.

so what's the problem?

There isn't a problem. You've done an excellent job of proving my point.

Thank you!

 

[SamSpade]

Your point is correct; just because someone says it it doesn't mean they mean it.

Then you didn't get my point, because that wasn't it by any stretch of the imagination. I even went so far as to include the reference to Lincoln to illustrate my point. He was a lifelong opponent of slavery - vehemently opposed to it. He also believed it was NOT his job as President to stop it. No matter how much he hated it personally, it was never his job to outlaw slavery. It had to proceed from the people.

Carter made no secret he was opposed to abortion. Despite all the other things he's done since then, it's a stance he still holds. Have you seen him campaigning over it? Anyone else?

So I don't care if Bush declares from the highest mountain that he opposes gay marriage with every fiber of his being. One, he can't do diddly about it, and two, until he does diddly about it, I don't care one whit what he thinks. It's what he does that matters. He's been in office almost eight years. I think it's fair to say he's not got an agenda on the matter.

 

[itsbob]

Then you didn't get my point, because that wasn't it by any stretch of the imagination. I even went so far as to include the reference to Lincoln to illustrate my point. He was a lifelong opponent of slavery - vehemently opposed to it. He also believed it was NOT his job as President to stop it. No matter how much he hated it personally, it was never his job to outlaw slavery. It had to proceed from the people.

Carter made no secret he was opposed to abortion. Despite all the other things he's done since then, it's a stance he still holds. Have you seen him campaigning over it? Anyone else?

So I don't care if Bush declares from the highest mountain that he opposes gay marriage with every fiber of his being. One, he can't do diddly about it, and two, until he does diddly about it, I don't care one whit what he thinks. It's what he does that matters. He's been in office almost eight years. I think it's fair to say he's not got an agenda on the matter.

 

[Xaquin44]

There isn't a problem. You've done an excellent job of proving my point.

Thank you!

so exactly what "life, liberty, or property" is being denied to people who oppose gay marriage?

lets see here .... ah yes, .... none.

 

[itsbob]

so exactly what "life, liberty, or property" is being denied to people who support gay marriage?

lets see here .... ah yes, .... none.

EXACTLY, thanks again.

 

[Larry Gude]

I see...

Then you didn't get my point, because that wasn't it by any stretch of the imagination. I even went so far as to include the reference to Lincoln to illustrate my point. He was a lifelong opponent of slavery - vehemently opposed to it. He also believed it was NOT his job as President to stop it. No matter how much he hated it personally, it was never his job to outlaw slavery. It had to proceed from the people.
Carter made no secret he was opposed to abortion. Despite all the other .

...so, when Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation he didn't really mean that either?

You have got to be kidding. Please tell me you are kidding. That is possibly the worst analogy in the history of these forums.

 

[Xaquin44]

EXACTLY, thanks again.

not quite .... would they be at liberty to marry?

no ....

so that would be a right denied.

please don't alter my quotes, as it is poor form.

 

[Kerad]

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".
...

Okay...I'll just agree that we see the same situation from slightly different angles. It really isn't worth all the time and effort we've put into the discussion.

In my opinion, I feel Bush has done pretty much everything that he can legally do to get an amendment pushed through. Presidents don't really have much they can do when it comes to introducing and passing legislation. They can get someone to sponsor it, and then publicly and privately encourage its passage.

If he's publicly pushed for this amendment (which he has), I'm confident that he has had at least a few behind-the-scenes discussions with lawmakers seeking to get it done.

But in the end...as you mentioned...there's little he can do about it. If the support isn't there, it won't happen.

 

[This_person]

...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.

And, I agree with you in concept of equal rights. I'm personally well in favor of civil unions, because that would offer the same rights (of course, the same rights ARE already offered, just not as easily - it would take several different legal documents to accomplish what a marriage or civil union would). Again, my main problem is changing the definition of a word so that a percent or two of the population can feel better about themselves.

The California issue is a perfect example. There already was a civil union type setup on the books. The lawsuit was over the word "marriage". IMO, the agenda for this is to force through legal wording a social acceptance of gay marriage.

 

[This_person]

...are behaviors that affect the common good.

There are some who argue, and valid arguments for, denying homosexual union for the common good. At one point in the past, I was one of those people. I have since changed my opinion due to reflexion, and (in no small part) to conversations on the subject on these forums

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.

I wasn't comparing the actions. I was comparing the concepts of what is and is not specifically protected. None of those things is specifically protected. The act of licencing is a state regulated act (federal for FAA, obviously due to transiting between states). I wasn't saying who was allowed to get a license, I was saying it's not just a given you can do it without a license.

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.

How about bigomy? Incest? Age limits, or time of day/week you can buy liquior? What day of the week you can't buy a car?

 

[This_person]

...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.

You're missing the gist of the argument - it's not about what he believes, it's about whether he was preoccupied with it by taking actions that distracted him from more important issues.

I don't doubt what he believes, I deny he's done anything about it, and therefore it's not a priority of his.

 

[This_person]

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.

Wow, you have a great point. Words have more than one meaning, based on the context. Good point

 

[Ken King]

In my opinion, I feel Bush has done pretty much everything that he can legally do to get an amendment pushed through. Presidents don't really have much they can do when it comes to introducing and passing legislation. They can get someone to sponsor it, and then publicly and privately encourage its passage.

After doing a little more research I believe that your point of Bush pushing for the amendment is valid. On no less than 14 occasions during the 107th through the 110th Congresses amendments have been brought forth for consideration to make marriage an act only between a man and a woman. Now whether the push for the amendment was a result of Bush or the states those submitting them represent I do not know but I will concede that it is highly likely that the submissions were the result of executive influence.

 

[This_person]

not quite .... would they be at liberty to marry?

no ....

so that would be a right denied.

please don't alter my quotes, as it is poor form.

Read the tenth amendment. It's the one that applies to marriage "rights"

 

[Ken King]

Read the tenth amendment. It's the one that applies to marriage "rights"

Except when the right is denied to a class of people and then the 14th would be the controlling amendment just as it was when interracial marriages were illegal and the Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional. (see Loving v. Virginia)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

 

[Xaquin44]

ken I would give you so much green karma.

 

[Tomahawk202]

Whooo, hooo... Just wait folks. I can't wait until Obama gets elected. He's gonna do just like this:

Sit down with the president of Iran:

Obama: Hello
Achmadinajadd: Suck it

Sit down with Hamas:

Obama: Hello
Hamas: Suck it

Sit down with N.Korea:

Obama: Hello?
Kim Jong Il : ing mawing tah wek nong: Translation: Suck it

Then the economy is going to crash, Martial Law will be declared, and I'm gonna laugh my A$$ off!!!

 

[Kerad]

After doing a little more research...On no less than 14 occasions during the 107th through the 110th Congresses amendments have been brought forth for consideration...

Wow...that is some serious research. Good find!

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

How about bigomy? Incest? Age limits, or time of day/week you can buy liquior? What day of the week you can't buy a car?

...an argument that limits the number of people allowed in a marriage is one that applies uniformly. It does not single out three breasted women, men with a death wish or skin color or anything else. I'm fine with a prohibition against bigamy and institutionalizing anyone who is for it. Incest has a minor victim in my view and a dark hearted adult that should be forced to have 10 wives. Age applies to all as does retail sales laws and so forth.