Wow.

[ylexot]

Obviously the government needs to stay out of the marriage business. It's mixing religion and government. I realize we have non-religious ceremonies for marriage, but largely *because* government has chosen to interfere. It's not unlike conferring rights to someone by being baptized, and then holding government sanctioned baptisms.

A civil union provides the best option - a contract between two people and government stays out of the religion business.

My opinion is that government should not be involved in marriage at all. That's a job for the various religions. I think that "civil unions" should be made available by the government as a standardized, simple way of entering into a legally binding contract between two people that affords affords those people certain legal rights to each other (i.e. financial dependence, next of kin, medical emergency authority, etc.).

 

[Penn]

My opinion is that government should not be involved in marriage at all. That's a job for the various religions. I think that "civil unions" should be made available by the government as a standardized, simple way of entering into a legally binding contract between two people that affords those people certain legal rights to each other (i.e. financial dependence, next of kin, medical emergency authority, etc.).

That, I can go along with.There is no way the gay community is going to cease, desist, or disappear from the face of this earth. As the popular saying that was started many years ago said: "they are out of the closet", and nothing anyone can do or say is going to undo/change that.

So, let's, for the sake of the arguement, say two honest same-sex people want to live together in love and harmony. Let them have a national license of a Civil Union-type nature that affords them the same protection and rights under the law, that married couples of the opposite sex have.

The same rights covered under a Will for inheritance, custody of children, if one spouse expires, medical approval for treatment, if one is incapacitated, and a decision has to be made to proceed with an operation, etc.

These people must have these rights, and others, the same way anyone else acquires them through a marriage contract.

 

[MGKrebs]

Yep, that certainly is what happened isn’t it.

The center is still where it has always been, the problem was the old “pong” master (Kerry) trying to play both sides of the fence. He was oscillating between left and right so rapidly it gave the impression that the center had shifted when in fact it is right where it has always been. There is plenty of common ground remaining and many shared goals that should be the concentration of effort if both sides can lay to rest the pettiness that partisanship breeds.

Partisanship is what democracy is all about! It recognizes that we will have differences, and we have built a mechanism to work things out. Lack of partisanship= one party=monarchy? Plutocracy? Yet, I agree with you on the pettiness part.

Sure is, isn’t it. I see nothing resembling greed, selfishness, fear or imperialism as an initiative or characteristic of the Republican philosophy. People enter/create business as a rule of capitalism; it is what makes our nation work.

See, to me, this is the dangerous trail we are being led down. People entering/creating businesses is not what makes our nation work, it is what makes our ECONOMY work. If we are going to confuse or merge those two things, I would suggest we all add "Mussolini" to our reading lists. And yes, I do believe that this is where Team Bush is heading, and I do not view them as true conservatives.

Thank you and I sincerely hope that you realize that what this election demonstrated was that the current path that our nation is now on is being observed as the best path for these times by the majority of our citizens that cared to participate in the process of selecting our leader.

What I am willing to accept is that the majority APPEAR to have voted to continue on this path when asked on election day!

 

[ylexot]

See, to me, this is the dangerous trail we are being led down. People entering/creating businesses is not what makes our nation work, it is what makes our ECONOMY work. If we are going to confuse or merge those two things, I would suggest we all add "Mussolini" to our reading lists. And yes, I do believe that this is where Team Bush is heading, and I do not view them as true conservatives.

Ummm, people loved the Clinton years and thought our nation was doing great because the ECONOMY was doing great. Also, one of the big complaints from the left during this campaign was that the government was going the wrong direction because the ECONOMY was not doing well (despite all the evidence to the contrary). Our nation and our nation's economy are linked. Always have been, always will be. You're right, they are not the same thing (and nobody said they were), but they are closely tied to each other.

How do you figure "Team Bush" is leading us the way of Mussilini?

 

[Bruzilla]

I am truly amazed that no one has pointed out the true driving factor of the election: ENTITLEMENT SPENDING! When you look at a red/blue map that defines counties rather than states, and compare that map to where the highest concentrations of Federal Entitlement Programs money goes, you get about a 97% match. The Dems won the cities, where most all entitlement bucks go, and they won these areas by making the recipients of said money feel that the Republicans were out to take it away. Basically, they go to the people with the most to lose, and threaten them with losing what they have. It's been that way for decades.

What the 2004 election has shown is that the folks in the blue areas have about had it.

 

[vraiblonde]

The news dudes are making a big deal about "morals" being the deciding factor in the election. They assume it means anti-gay marriage.

I am a Republican and I consider myself a conservative. I have repeatedly posted on here that I think it's unConstitutional to not allow gays to marry. And I believe (hope) that there are other conservatives out there that feel the same way. So, even though all those states voted against it, I don't really think that gay marriage had a lot to do with why Bush won.

And no, Penn, I'm not a queer or a butt-pirate (whatever that is).

 

[rraley]

So, even though all those states voted against it, I don't really think that gay marriage had a lot to do with why Bush won.

I believe that it did because it galvanized the Christian Right to get voters to the polls. Karl Rove's intention during Bush's term was to turn out 25 million Christian Right voters in 2004 rather than the 20 million that showed up in 2000.

 

[vraiblonde]

I believe that it did because it galvanized the Christian Right to get voters to the polls.

Okay, I'll buy that.

 

[Penn]

And no, Penn, I'm not a queer or a butt-pirate (whatever that is).

Excuse me, but when and where did I associate you with the term butt-pirate?
I cannot think of any reason that I would.
I simply don't recall having done that.

 

[UrbanPancake]

That, I can go along with.There is no way the gay community is going to cease, desist, or disappear from the face of this earth. As the popular saying that was started many years ago said: "they are out of the closet", and nothing anyone can do or say is going to undo/change that.

So, let's, for the sake of the arguement, say two honest same-sex people want to live together in love and harmony. Let them have a national license of a Civil Union-type nature that affords them the same protection and rights under the law, that married couples of the opposite sex have.

The same rights covered under a Will for inheritance, custody of children, if one spouse expires, medical approval for treatment, if one is incapacitated, and a decision has to be made to proceed with an operation, etc.

These people must have these rights, and others, the same way anyone else acquires them through a marriage contract.

Wow, that was really a progressive thought that came straight from your mouth to this forum. I'm shocked. Are you sure Liberals don't have an influence on you?

 

[vraiblonde]

I cannot think of any reason that I would.

I just figured you kept insinuating UrbanJerkCake was gay because he's pro-gay marriage that maybe you'd think I was, too.

 

[vraiblonde]

Wow, that was really a progressive thought that came straight from your mouth to this forum. I'm shocked. Are you sure Liberals don't have an influence on you?

There are a lot of conservatives on this forum that feel this way.

And I still think you're an idiot.

 

[UrbanPancake]

There are a lot of conservatives on this forum that feel this way.

Well, I don't doubt there are conservatives in Maryland that feel the same way you do. But you can't tell me that there are conservatives in Georgia, or Texas that agree with you. If there are any, they would be a very rare breed.

 

[Kain99]

Well, I don't doubt there are conservatives in Maryland that feel the same way you do. But you can't tell me that there are conservatives in Georgia, or Texas that agree with you. If there are any, they would be a very rare breed.

This... Is profiling and I will not stand for it!

 

[MGKrebs]

Pretty funny.

I am truly amazed that no one has pointed out the true driving factor of the election: ENTITLEMENT SPENDING! When you look at a red/blue map that defines counties rather than states, and compare that map to where the highest concentrations of Federal Entitlement Programs money goes, you get about a 97% match. The Dems won the cities, where most all entitlement bucks go, and they won these areas by making the recipients of said money feel that the Republicans were out to take it away. Basically, they go to the people with the most to lose, and threaten them with losing what they have. It's been that way for decades.

What the 2004 election has shown is that the folks in the blue areas have about had it.

Here's a quote from the post just prior:
"Ummm, people loved the Clinton years and thought our nation was doing great because the ECONOMY was doing great."

So what am I to believe? Entitlement programs were not that big a deal when Clinton was Prez and everybody was making money, but now that Bush has wrecked the economy, we have to cut entitlements?

 

[Kain99]

This... Is profiling and I will not stand for it!

bump for Turban....

 

[ylexot]

Here's a quote from the post just prior:
"Ummm, people loved the Clinton years and thought our nation was doing great because the ECONOMY was doing great."

So what am I to believe? Entitlement programs were not that big a deal when Clinton was Prez and everybody was making money, but now that Bush has wrecked the economy, we have to cut entitlements?

Entitlements are always a big deal. Put simply, Republicans are generally for cutting or maintaining current levels on them and Democrats are for expanding them. Maybe you forgot about Welfare Reform under Clinton.

BUSH DID NOT WRECK THE ECONOMY! The economy had leveled and started it's way down before Bush got into office. Also, remember that the first year of Bush is under Clinton's Federal budget, so Bush's policies don't have much of an effect during that time. Oh yeah, then there was 9/11, but you probably forgot about that one. But despite all of that, look at the DOW. It's at levels close to where they were in 2000. I don't consider that a "wrecked" economy. If you want to keep calling the economy "wrecked" and keep blaming it on Bush, you need to come up with some evidence to support it just as I have done to prove you wrong.

 

[ylexot]

Well, I don't doubt there are conservatives in Maryland that feel the same way you do. But you can't tell me that there are conservatives in Georgia, or Texas that agree with you. If there are any, they would be a very rare breed.

So how many people do you know from Georgia or Texas?

 

[2ndAmendment]

3. Why would 9/11 have a huge effect on our economy?

Idiot alert.

4. There is no "left". Liberalism means- the very definition- tolerance of the ideas of others. (But my complete response to this would take more time than I have at the moment.)

Do you have your head where the sun doesn't shine? Liberalism has two very distinct meanings; the one you gave and the one politicians use which is the liberal interpretation of the Constitution (make it mean anything to fit the Democratic mantra). If you think you or the Democrats have exhibited "tolerance of the ideas of others" then I think there is a bridge in New York you may want to buy.

 

[MGKrebs]

Surely you voted for Clinton then.

Maynard, you're a smart guy and I know damn well you've been paying attention to these last 4 years and how the Democrats have behaved. Now, it's possible you think they are correct to call Bush "Hitler" and worse than Saddam, to make insulting movies like "Farenheit 9-11", to call our Commander in Chief a liar and a thief. But the majority of us don't like it. And we're not voting for anyone who DOES like it.

Ya'll did this to yourselves and you STILL don't get it.

Cause there sure were a LOT of ugly things said about him for a LONG time. You wouldn't have voted with them, would you?