President Bush

[ceo_pte]

Will announce his support or a Constitutional Ban on Gay MARRIAGES. Just heard that he will make the announcement within the hour.. That's my man. God Bless the people who are willing to take a stand for what's right in the face of adversity.

 

[jlabsher]

What a maroon!

 

[SamSpade]

Typical liberal - 'don't agree? you're a maroon!'

 

[jlabsher]

Better than "don't agree you're a queer commie pinko who believes in SATAN" Actually judging from the other big "homosexual marriage" thread on here some of the conservatives agree w/me.

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by jlabsher
Better than "don't agree you're a queer commie pinko who believes in SATAN" Actually judging from the other big "homosexual marriage" thread on here some of the conservatives agree w/me.

Hey JL... I'm glad you disagree, that means we are doing what's right.

A wise man once said... Observe the masses and do the opposite.

 

[jlabsher]

OK, since Christians are the majority in this country, and conservatives are the majority on this board am I doing the right thing?

 

[darkriver4362]

That's about the only thing I like Bush for.....

 

[vraiblonde]

It's unConstitutional and he'll never get it past the Supremes.

 

[SurfaceTension]

I just don't get where he's coming from....If I understand correctly, he's ok with civil unions but wants amend the Constitution to define marriage. Amend the Constitution to define a word....Perhaps a definition for "is" would be a better choice(?)

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by jlabsher
Better than "don't agree you're a queer commie pinko who believes in SATAN" Actually judging from the other big "homosexual marriage" thread on here some of the conservatives agree w/me.

Nobody believes that, except in the fantasies of leftists.

And right-wingers who know how easily provoked you are.

 

[jlabsher]

Actually I've been called all those things and more on here. Different opinions are certainly not greeted warmly. Sorry I seem to be easily offended, but I gives what I gets.

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
I just don't get where he's coming from....If I understand correctly, he's ok with civil unions but wants amend the Constitution to define marriage. Amend the Constitution to define a word....Perhaps a definition for "is" would be a better choice(?)

The problem with this is, you can HAVE no income tax in one state, or blue laws in another. But you can't have a law that affects something like *marriage* because it's something that follows you wherever you go. So you get "married" in San Francisco - you just can't have it so that you're NOT legally married in Ohio, even if Ohio has a law that *says* so. 37 states already rule against it, but one mayor, breaking his own state law, is trying to overrule what the majority of the nation has already ruled on.

The only way to deal with it, is to establish it at the federal level.

*OR* work it out amongst the states. So far, there's no one willing to compromise.

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by jlabsher
Actually I've been called all those things and more on here. Different opinions are certainly not greeted warmly. Sorry I seem to be easily offended, but I gives what I gets.

Then you have no right to complain.

 

[SurfaceTension]

Originally posted by SamSpade
The problem with this is, you can HAVE no income tax in one state, or blue laws in another. But you can't have a law that affects something like *marriage* because it's something that follows you wherever you go. So you get "married" in San Francisco - you just can't have it so that you're NOT legally married in Ohio, even if Ohio has a law that *says* so. 37 states already rule against it, but one mayor, breaking his own state law, is trying to overrule what the majority of the nation has already ruled on.

The only way to deal with it, is to establish it at the federal level.

*OR* work it out amongst the states. So far, there's no one willing to compromise.

Actually I don't quite see your point, but maybe I can further it...
There should be nothing wrong with one state accepting or denying a marriage license from another state. Just as for exterminators, ship captains, drivers, surveyors, concealed weapon carriers, whatever....Some licenceses we hold allow us to perform services in one state but not another; some allow us to pass through, but you can't reside in a new state without obtaining a new license, etc. Comity/reciprocity is left to the States.

Granted, the Feds got their fingers so deep into our daily lives (e.g. Social Security benefits) that they may have to regulate these things (and eventually all others?) Maybe the real problem lies herein.

Regardless, ammending the Constitution is a little extreme...Do we not have Federal regulations that defines such things? Or, by going straight to the Constitution, is there a tacit admission that the Feds are overstepping their normal bounds and have to resort to the basic foundation of the Country?

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits. – Thomas Jefferson

 

[BuddyLee]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
It's unConstitutional and he'll never get it past the Supremes.

I love when you speak the truth