Definition of marriage

[dufus]

It is my understanding that a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman will be considered by the Senate in early June. This is at least the second consideration of this amendment in recent years.

I have some very pointed opinions about this topic, but I can understand other points of view. What say ye? And what is the rationale behind your position?

...opened a can o' worms, now haven't I...

[Sponsored Links]

[stonemason777]

Who's term? God's or Caesars'?

[bbcamp]

A marriage is an agreement between 2 people that has official status and is endowed with certain rights and priviledges in the eyes of the government.

Substitute the words "written contract" with "marriage," and there'd be no arguement. Get rid of the words "in the eyes of the government," and this would be a religious discussion.

Two people who want to enjoy all the rights and privledges of marriage can enter into a business agreement to manage their combined property interests, file wills naming each other as benificiaries, and establish living wills and durable powers of attorney to take care of health issues. Or they could get married.

I think the government should either get out of the marriage business, or mind their own business about who gets married.

[stonemason777]

YEAH! They need to stay out of alot of business. Dey not dat good at it!

[flatfloor]

Unfortunately this is one time where the Federal Govt. needs to step in.

What happens if a gay couple marry in a state that recognizes gay marriages and the the couple move to a state that doesn't. Are they still married?

[jdm]

Marriage should be split up into two separate entities -- civil unions and religious marriage. The government should license civil unions, which should have all of the civil benefits that marriage currently does. These civil unions should be available to any two adults (who are not in a union with anyon else) who care to form one. Go to a judge and what you get would be a civil union regardless of the sexes of the partners. And the benefits would be the same, too.

Religious marriage should then be left up to the churches (and synagogues and mosques). Religious leader could still be empowered to perform the civil union function at the same time as the religious ceremony.

BTW, it's widely acknowledged that this amendment has zero chance for passage. It's just a political move so that the radical right can try to stigmatize those who believe that individuals, and not the government can best decide who they are to marry. Those who oppose the amendment will be branded with the very emotional but meaningless phrase "anti-family".

[stonemason777]

Who cares where they move! Just move! Hopefully 6ft at a time :yeah:

[jdm]

Jim --

What happens if I'm a licensed lawyer, or doctor, or tilesetter in one state and move to another where I'm not licensed? Should the feds step in here, too?

[stonemason777]

You anticipate my plan Luke

[flatfloor]

Jeff an attorney or MD must be licensed in whatever state they practise in.

[stonemason777]

let's make this thread real short let's posse up @ the O.K. and cut it off at the pass - know what I mean COWBOY!!!

[dufus]

Now, there's some intellectual debate. And how.

[stonemason777]

10-4 REAL GOOD BUDDY?


Mama don't let your babies grow up to be truckers................................................or cowboys! :lol2:

[Eugenius]

I believe that marriage is the 'lawful' union of the 2 separate genders,
(1 man and 1 woman). By 'lawful', I mean that union which is given the nod by common sense. It is a union that will procreate, reproduce and assure the continuance of the species 'homo sapiens'. That is the nature of nature. As 'east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet', so 2 males or 2 females can enter into contractural agreement with one another but it is in no wise marriage. I have signed multiple contracts with home owners and have always fulfilled my duties but I never married a single one.
Any sort of contractual agreement that homosexuals wish to enter into, I have no problem with and would fight along side you on a field of battle to defend your rights, but I would never equate homosexual union to marriage.

[John Bridge]

Lance, you get your ass back in here and state your position. Where do you come off starting trouble like that and then sitting back and enjoying it? :D

I've come a long way on this issue, and I now agree with Bob Campbell. It's a civil union if it's "allowed" by the state. A true marriage is between a man and a woman, just the two of them. They don't need a state government to vilify it. :D

And the constitutional amendment is political. They know it will never be ratified. It's just politics.

[stonemason777]

U :fish2: :D

[BeachTile]

Offense intended for no one.
In many states, once you have shared a household with someone for a certain number of years, you are legally married. I think that should be the same sex mode of "union." For those of us with friends in the gay community, I'm sure most of us would vouch for their inability to maintain a monogomous relationship.
So, you have lived as if married for 5 years, go to the courthouse with proof (Electric Bills & Bank Statements) and you're married.
Watch how quickly our nation's divorce rate climbs if this passes.

[dufus]

Sorry, I was off for a bit yesterday, I had work to do, and I had to go to my day job.

My reason for not stating my position when starting "this mess" was intentional. I knew that if I was to state my position, then some would be inclined to attack me and persuade me to their way of thinking, instead of just stating their own rationale. Plus, I know my position to be unacceptable to some and that's not what I wanted this thread to be about.

But, it looks like I can't avoid it, so here goes.

For me, the issue is a moral one and, therefore, goes to the core of my beliefs. I already know that concept to be an overly sensitive subject here and that's why I tried to avoid it. And because I know a lot of people can't relate to my convictions, I try to participate amicably instead of inciting animosity. I've tried to learn from my experiences.

Anyway, I feel very strongly about the right to choose - agency, if you want to call it that. However, I also believe in God and the consequences for choosing one way or the other. In the case of marriage, I believe marriage is a sacred covenant that God created for mankind, and he's the one that defined it and instituted it. It doesn't matter what continent or hemisphere, all major religions originally taught the sanctity of marriage. So while I believe each person has a right to choose - I believe that nobody has the right - without consequences - to change God's commands.

So, what about this amendment thing? My feeling is that while I must allow all people the right to choose, I don't have to stand idly by while some people's choices try to change a sacred covenant. So, this amendment - while it may be politically and socially offensive and inconsequential to some - it's one way for me to stand for something that I think is right.

And for those who think that moral issues should not be part of the Constitution, I submit that most of that document addresses fundamental morals and an organization for their protection.

Now, there's more Sunday preaching than you probably ever wanted to hear. The issue for me has nothing to do with politics or homophobia or anything else that people will want to label me with. Rather, it has to do with choosing the right thing in the eyes of God.

And I'm not insisting that everyone or anyone agree(s) with me.

I know some will consider me ignorant, backward, uneducated, right-wing extreme and perhaps down-right stupid. I do not hate; I'm just trying to live according to my conscience. And I choose to be counted on what I feel is right.

I like George Washington's words in his resignation statement:

"I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my Official life, by commending the Interests of our dearest Country to the protection of Almighty God, and those who have the superintendence of them, to his holy keeping."

Enough heavy; now back to our normal banter.

[Angie]

Eugenious: On the union that will procreate.....what about union that can't...older couples, infertile couples....are they also excluded then. My husband and I never intended to procreate. Some think we have no business being married because of the procreation argument. What do you think about that.

As to the sanctity of marriage...sacred and sanctity have no business in a disucssion about government in my opinion. Gov should offer their blessing to all their citizens or none. I'd be happy if they got out of the marriage business or opened it up but they should do one or the other.

As to what God instituted...we ignore all kinds of God's biblical institutions. What interesting is which we think are meaningless and which we choose to focus on (by we I mean society in general, not me). We certainly don't spend time focusing on kosher, observing passover and having seders at the beginning and end of passover do we. Those are pretty well founded God initiated institutions too. And on the marriage covenant of god...what about the one about putting to death any bride who isn't a virgin. We are very selective about which of God's covenants "count".

[Eugenius]

My dad made some plywood lifesize, painted figures of Santa, elves and dalmatians as Christmas yard adornments several years ago. My mother was going to throw them away last year but told me that if I wanted them, to take them . I took them and arranged them all in the back yard against the wood fence and the plum tree last Christmas. Today is June 1 and they are are still there. No matter how many times I see them daily, I smile. I don't know if smile knowing daddy was real or thinking Santa may be real...
or both.
I meant you or no one ill will, Angie.

[Angie]

Eugenius:

None taken. I'm actually an activist on this issue and feel very strongly and just finished a legislative session trying to keep a constitutional amendment off our ballot in MN this fall. I have been hearing these arguments for 3 years now and they just do not make sense to me. AND actually this year there was a large contingent of the faith community which become very vocal on opposing the ban. I think they made the biggest difference on diffusing this issue here (this year - I'm sure we'll start all over again next year). It stopped being "people of faith oppose gay relationships" and it became "there are people of faith on both sides of this issue so another rationale needs to be found" and there was not much other compelling rationale around.

[Scooter]

I think the governent needs to stay out of our bedrooms.

[flatfloor]

I posed my question from a legal point of view rarher than a moral point. :talk:

[Eugenius]

A point of yours that I missed was about those that can't reproduce. I didn't mean to imply that procreation was in the 'nuptial job description'. God said to Adam and Eve , "Go forth and multiply", and although the first child they concieved ,Cain, turned out to be a murderer, they were able to concieve. God didn't ask them to do the impossible...He didn't send forth Adam and Steve , He sent Adam and Eve. What emerges from the womb was and is always kind of iffy. It's like Forrest Gump.."Mama say's, life is like a box o' chok'o'letts,...ya' never know whut ya' gonna get." A mothers greatest fear is that moment of birth, often very prolonged, hoping and praying that her child will be healthy and whole. I would compare a loving mother gestating, giving birth, and nurturing a child to the bravado and dedication of any soldier storming the beaches of Nomandy, parachuting behind enemy lines, or any policeman or fireman racing up into the twin towers on September 11. It's all a fearful journey into the unknown with the hope that life as we know it will continue. It all takes courage.
I know that some can't and some choose not to concieve. God bless those that adopt children. I was adopted. My wife was adopted. God bless those that choose not to abort their children.
Kinky Friedman is running for govenor of Texas. I'm voting for him.

[Eugenius]

I don't think that the 'government' should offer the same rights to felons as to law abiding citizens. Go figure.

[1Eric]

I have been given a lifelong partner. It is my wife. We have two beautiful children. Seven years after we were married we were blessed with our first. He was born at 28 weeks. Way too early. He spent 54 days in the hospital and we have expenses on the bills which indicate he actually died 3 times. He is 6 now. We did alot of praying during this time and our prayers were answered. I have a perfectly healthy boy now(although a little bit stubborn-I think he takes after his mom in that regard :D ). There isn't a gay man or women who can say they have been through the pain and pride I have been through.

The government can do what they want to. I will not recognize a same sex marriage as moral or decent. Reciprocity aside men and women compliment each other. I am 33 and have been married 13 years( to the same woman) and will not submit to what the democrats(liberals) want to do to the sanctity of marriage. They can all kiss my :moon: .

Two beautiful kids and pride not shame. But then again what does that matter these days?

[BeachTile]

Just out of curiosity, how many people on this post actually know someone in the gay community?
If you read my post before, you know where I stand. I have some great examples to base my opinion on, though. I also know of same sex relationships that lasted many years. Those started in the days when you had to hide your gayness, though. My previous post is based on my modern day observations.

[bbcamp]

I've always been confused about who Cain and Able married...

[flatfloor]

Lilith

[John Bridge]

I know people in the gay community. I like the idea of differentiating marriage from "civil unions." Can't be any objection to civil unions, can there? ;)

Also, government does not confer rights. Rights exist in a "state of nature." Our Constitution simply confirms them. Homosexuals have a perfect right to marry each other. The problem is with what the government recognizes and that fact that recognition affords material benefits to some while denying them to others. Has nothing to do with religion as far as I can see. :)

As to an amendment, I don't see that we need one. The right exists. Leave it to the states.

[jvcstone]

I agree that such an amendment is not needed, and believe it is just some more political hogwash intended to motivate a certain minority in this country that thinks that it is morally superior to the rest of us.

As for gay marriage, I know quite a few --as couples of this nature tend to have a lot of disposable income, and like artistic work. Eric, not true that there aren't any gay men or woman that have not been through the the pain, fear, and joy of childbirth and rearing children to adult hood. I could point to my first wife (and mother of my first child) as a perfect example.

I think the amendment is an intention to once again have government in position to make illegal such unions, and once again criminalize homosexual activity. Personally, having had 2 "marriages" with only one being "legally permitted", and 2 legally decided divorces, I am well aware of how easily any union can be entered into. Here in Texas, if you represent yourself as married, you are, and the divorce process is just the same as for those who walked down an isle.

What the gay community wants is the same legal rights and privileges as a heterosexual couple, and I say why shouldn't they have those rights and privileges. Things like being carried on a spouses insurance, or filing joint tax returns, and not being shut out of the decision making process at a time when your partner (spouse) is incapacitated and that family decides you are not. Just the things that normal couples take for granite, and if necessary the same rights a hetero couple have if the union is terminated--property settlements and yes, even child support issues on occasion.

What I don't understand is why the radical Christian right community is so afraid of people living a gay lifestyle, or any other lifestyle for that matter. It can only be a threat to their belief system if their faith in that belief system is not very strong to begin with.

Just a few random thoughts from "flaming Liberal" :fim:

JVC

[Brian in San Diego]

I am with you John Van Camp. I've hesitated to enter this discussion because I do my best not to enter into religious based arguments. I not only agree with your comment regarding 1Eric, but I would further add that there are plenty of Christian married couples who haven't been through such pain and pride...does that make their marriage any less substantial? I do know gay couples. I have two gay women friends in their sixties who live together and they are two of the most delightful women I know. I should ask them how long they've been together. I surmise that it has been for a long time. I don't get hung up on what this doctrine or that religion thinks about what two people do behind closed doors.

We're all human beings trying to make our way in this world and wouldn't it be a better place if we showed some compassion and tolerance toward others in general? I don't care what you call it, but I think it is totally unfair that two people who are married have different benefits than two men (or women) who have shown the identical commitment to each other. If the religious people want to reserve the right of "marriage" to heteros only, then so be it. But I think it's time that all the benefits that those people enjoy, should be enjoyed by all persons committed to each other. Does that require an amendment? I don't know, but it certainly seems like both state and federal governments should allow equal benefits to all couples regardless of their anatomy. As I recall there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. Interestingly enough, in Mexico (which is predominantly Catholic) people have to be married by judge. The ceremony performed in the church is not official, it's the religious ceremony, but it isn't a legal marriage until you appear before a judge. So if the religious people want to reserve the word "marriage", I've got no problem with that. I think perhaps we should go that extra step and have ALL unions performed by a judge. And any two people that want to be united and share the privileges and pitfalls of that union should be allowed to do so. Then if a man and a woman want to go to church and get married before God, then I say let them go. They can be married in the eyes of God, but that will not allow them any extra privileges.

Brian

[Eugenius]

Lots, bunches,...they are friends,...the are actually homosexuals...
And I wish they would quit calling themselves 'gay',...
My only sister's name was Gay. She killed hersef, blew her brains out in 1975. Why can't homosexuals call themselves, John, Bob, rock paper or scissors?

[Scooter]

If a particular State vote and allows a person to marry a jackass, then as far as I am concerned, that is that particular state's business. I know of no authority the federal governement has over this area, and I repeat that the governement should concentrate on highways, wars, schools, and should stay out of our bedrooms.

I know of one particular state that did allow a person to marrry a jackass. Texas.

The person was Laura Bush.

[Angie]

To Eric1: My husband and I have not been thru what you and your wife have been thru with your child...does that our marriage less valid to you? It may, but it does not make it less valid to the state. We never intended to have any children. Our reasons for getting married were purely to love each other, take care of each other, be life's companions and grow old together. That was enough for the state to grant us a marriage license. None of those things are gender or orientation specific so why isn't enough for the state to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses. Your personal moral code can recognize and label as you choose, that is your perogative .... the issue is what the state should recognize and morality is a slippery slope for the government to decide.

I was at an event once where 2 women had signs that they were just married after 30 years together. They had to go to Canada and their marriage was still not recognized here but they had done it anyway. I cannot accept it as moral that their 30 years together was less worthy of state recognition than Britney Spear's first 48 hour marriage or any of those hetero marriages that break up quickly.

[Eugenius]

but you'll still be stupid if you keep making remarks like that.
Come on', give me the keys, buddy.
I'll drive you home my friend.

[Angie]

Just because he's drunk doesn't mean he ain't right.

[flatfloor]

...more people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol. :crazy:

WC Fields

[Jeremy]

I have an honest question for those of you with more knowledge than I on the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. Were they really wanting this country to allow gays to openly flaunt their lifestyle? I dont understand it when folks start using the Constitution to further their agenda, when their ideology wasnt even a THOUGHT when the document was conceived.

I think Bush is a moron, but he is right on the money with this one. And no I dont know any gay folks, at least they havent admitted to it. My life isnt suffering, so far as I know. :tup2:

[Scooter]

I dont understand it when folks start using the Constitution to further their agenda, when their ideology wasnt even a THOUGHT when the document was conceived.

Exactly. Thats why we don't amend the constituion at a drop of the hat. Its a big frigging deal and all the states have to ratify it, and it just won't happen, guy. Sorry, this won't even go as far as the equal rights amendment of the 1970's which darn near passed. I didn't think that was necessary either.

But if the concept is that we need to update our constituion every 10 years, just like fashion or our cars, then I'm down with that. Lets make it clear that:

*The President can't listen into our phone calls without a warrant. E.g., the 4th amendment is restated--and this time we mean it--no exceptions for Shrub.


*The President can't hold people for now 4 years without charging them with a crime and taking them to trial. I thought we had the corpus delicious or something like that.

*The President can't track our internet sites or email without a warrant.

These are some fashionable ideas whose time has come? How about we amend the Constitution for that?

There will be no takers. Gay marriage is so much more important that privacy.

[Eugenius]

Scooter and the poster of the post you replied to , seem to infer that the United States Constitution is not worth the paper it was written upon. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to applaud situational ethics, ideas or desires of the masses 'du jour'. What seems to trouble you is that the Constitution doesn't change like a street light...red, yellow, green...if it did, it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.
The Constiution was written by men inspired by God.
The Bible was writen by men inspired by God.
How many ammendmendts have there been to each?

[jane m]

I'm having trouble understanding the issue- earned income tax credits, tax breaks, etc. should apply to anyone that meets the income criteria or is caring for children or whatever the eligibilty is. How does gender affect that? To the guy that doesn't see homosexual unions as equal, I have to point out that 50% or so of heterosexuals don't take marriage seriously anyway. The point is, it seems the govt.'s business should deal with tax laws etc...and not be poking their noses in people's bedrooms. If they want to do that, then they should start with our congressmen...might not like what they find....

[Jeremy]

I couldnt care less about what people do IN their BEDROOM. The issue is what people want to do in front of MY CHILD, and every other little kid in this country. We dont need to make believe that this is only about bedroom privacy, because thats a LIE!

Scooter, Im asking WHY SHOULD we even be thinking of an ammendment??? Are you debating the fact that gay people were NOT a thought when the Constitution was drafted?? My point is that, as far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue. People of the opposite sex marry, those who do not fall into this category do whatever they choose in their BEDROOM... Its a sad day when this is even discussed.

[geniescience]

i remember reading that the definition of marriage was "an endless visit in your worst clothes".

So i decided to wear at least one article of clothing that is fairly new and different, when at home.

[Angie]

Homosexual sex is not against the law nor will be banned by this amendment. I don't want people flaunting their sex lives in front of me whether they are homosexual, heterosexual, married or not.

For the gays I know, recognition of their relationships (this would ban not only marriage but also civil unions, domestic partnerships and all recognition of relationships) is not about their sex lives...it's about much more basic things. They worry that if one of them is in the hospital for an emergency that they have access to their partner and can make decisions for them. They want to be able to insure their wills are followed. Regardless of the money they spend on lawyers to try and guarantee that their partner will inherit their estate, the lawyers tell them that their "family" can challenge all their arrangements and succeed. This amendment would not change anywbody's sexual behaviour so if that's what you object to, this is still a meaningless exercise. If you're worried about what your kids are exposed to, why wouldn't you encourage monogamous, committed relationships anyway?

[scott anthony]

I haven't read all the prior but the topic ( defining marrage?)

It easy been married 24 years now, and the way it is done is that
you must treat your wife like your girlfriend.

[scott anthony]

And you must treat your girlfriends like your wife :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

[Scooter]

I think the Constitution is sacred and a wise document. I don't believe it should be amended willy nilly. My point is that once we go down the road of amending it for this and that or whatever is now trendy and fashionable, it is a slippery slope. Today its gay marriage, tomorrow, outlaw something else.

That is why the founding fathers made it so difficult to amend the Constitution.

The proposed amendment won't stop homos or hetros making out in public. So any concern that this will somehow stop or reduce homosexuality is nonsense. I do understand a parents concern to protect their kids from homos--unless of course your kid is a homo. Ask Dick Cheney. Is Britany Spears per se a better parent then Mary Cheney? Want to preserve marriage as an institution? Ban divorce. That will save 50% of the marriages. But I'm a Catholic.

The bible, to my knowledge, does not discusses homosexuality. Why is that? It does discuss adultry, but not homos. Hmmm. And we had homos back then. The Romans, the Greeks, and the Persians all had active and out of the closet homos. Indeed, Jesus healed a Roman Centurian's gay lover slave in Matthew 8:5-13: and Luke 7:2 (Roman Centurians could not marry and frequently took slaves as lovers). So this would have been known to the Apostles and Jesus. So why didn't they speak out and give us direction to make homosexuality a sin? Could it be that homosexuality was OK back then?

Then we have Jesus himself. Lets see, the guy is in his late 20's. Never married. No girl friend. Likes to bathe with other men. In Matthew I recall a verse that Jesus put his hands inside the tunic of one of the Apostles at the Last Supper. Hmmm. Could Jesus himself been gay? Interesting article discussing both aspects of the issue, pro and con at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm

This proposed amendment which the Republicans drag out every June like clockwork has no legs. It won't even pass Congress, let alone get to the States. This is like the amendment to ban flag burning. Waste of time.

Pick something else to talk about.

[dufus]

Seems to me, if we're insisting on the right of people to choose, then we can also allow people to choose what to discuss. You don't like it; don't participate.

I will not respond to the ridiculous and offensive claims made by a "few theologians" and "some scholars" quoted by religioustolerance.org.

I stated my position as being one based on a moral choice - and not on legal government-messed-up benefits associated with marriage.

To me, our society is based on morals/values which many believe have divine origins (Christian-Judeo law system). I compare society to a stack of Jenga blocks - each one representing a God-given moral. But society is not a game to play with. Rather, I feel that if God created the stack of morals, then it's not for me to remove them. Those who want to remove them, have other motives - perhaps to see how many can be removed - or perhaps to see if the whole thing can fall apart and tumble into nothing. Some may actually believe that a destroyed set of morals is better than the God-given order. I'm not one of them.

Sociologists and psychologists talk about the fight or flight choice. When it comes to morals, I choose to fight - figuratively speaking and not in some Crusade-like, hate-based frenzy.

As I said previously, I do not hate, but I also don't back down when it comes to morals.

[1Eric]

This issue seems to be debated as much as the abortion issue. Everybody has an opinion. Personally I don't agree with homosexuality. Sorry. I have known gay "couples" and intellectually I can recognize their struggles to fit in. I am no bible thumper but I have my own beliefs however flawed they are. From a religious stand point no way do they deserve the same rights and priviledges. Politically everyone is equal and deserve the same rights.

My opinion before was probably overstated. Pain and pride are universal and open to interpretation. Some things take on different definitions when looked at from a different perspective.

[Scooter]

Eric and Lance:

Whose morals? Just yours? What about mine? What about homosexual's morals?

Do you believe like the Bible says, that we shouldn't eat Lobster? Should it should be a crime because it is in the Bible? I eat Lobster. Am I going to hell? Should I therefore be arrested?

Would you like the Catholic Church to control politics and ban divorce? Thats in the bible. Are you going to hell because you got divorced and a Catholic Priest whom you don't recognize says you are going to hell? And if the Catholic Church controlled politics, you'd be arrested for getting a divorce.

The Mormons believe in poligamy, and have scriptures to prove it. Are they going to hell, because your pastor says so? Should they be arrested and prosecuted for poligamy? I don't think so.

When a Church, any Church, runs the State this is what you might get. Its fine when YOUR Church runs things, but what about when a Church you don't recognize runs things? Be careful what you wish for--you may get it.

This is why the founding fathers wisely separated Church and State. The older I get the more I realize that those dudes were REALLY smart.

[bathroomremodeler]

When a guy comes up to me and says I'm gay, I have to understand the definition or what they do differently to understand what he's telling me.

In other words, I have to think or visualize (in that brief second) them making out or doing the do to each other.

As a heterosexual, I simply can't relate to this.

It's not an issue of morality or law ... I simply go yuck.

If I see a grandfather and grandson wanting to get married ... I go yuck.

If I see a dog trying to do the do on a cat ... I go yuck.

If I see a red bird trying to do a blue bird ... I go yuck.

If I see a girl eating a bug ... I go yuck.

In trying to make a long story, short ...

I think we argue about right and wrong ... lawful and unlawful ... moral or unmoral, but the real problem is trying to make a heterosexual male relate to a homosexual male without going yuck.

If a heterosexual male can visualize two guys making out or doing the do ... without going yuck ... may be there is a chance for homosexual marriages ... and may be that hetersexual male really has homosexual tendencies, since he isn't going yuck.

Just my two cents,

Dean

[Angie]

If I see 2 really fat people together (or anybody with a really fat person) who are obviously together, I would think yuk. I can accept the relationship without having to visualize it. If I tell you I'm married I'm indicating my relationship to my husband. Would you then visualize us together? Do you visualize every couple together that you see or meet? When you hear about a child predator, do you start visualizing it? To that I say yuk.

[bathroomremodeler]

Angie,

Heading out for work, but quick answer.

I don't see fat people as yuck. Ok, may be someone who is as wide as they are tall.

Now, when I say "fat" ... you do have to understand what I'm describing. In a flash of a second, you visualize or dig in your brain to come up with some type of description you use.

If I go yuck to two fat people being married ... does this mean it is morally ... lawfully wrong. I'm not even getting into that scene, I'm just saying that homosexual marriages have more to overcome than moral or legal problems. They also have to over come the Yuck Factor.

Now remember ... I said "think" or visualize.

When you said "child predator" if I don't know what you mean ... I would ask you what a child predator is. From your description, I would then understand and go yuck.

So yes, I feel that everyone who is introduced to a child predator thinks or visualizes in a split second to understand.

Dean

[Angie]

Dean:

When I said "fat"people - I did mean pretty much people who are about as wide as they are tall. I was addressing your yuck factor. Think of your parents doing it....yuck! We should not be legislating according to each of our personal yuck factors. Some of us have very low ones and some of us have very high ones. On child predators - specifically sexual predators - I can accept any child abuse/violence as abhorrent without running a personal child porn video in my head. I find it easiest to just approach gay people the way I approach straight people with no more sex video in my head with them than I do with straight people. Is that really so hard? Someone saying their gay is no more an advertisement to me than someone straight saying this is their boy/girlfriend, wife, significant other, spouse equivalent, or whatever. Personally I have found their telling me keeps me from putting my foot in my mouth by asking about their boy/girlfriend, spouse, etc. Often, they haven't said until I've put my foot in my mouth and their clarifying for me. I do agree that the yuck factor needs to be overcome but that's why it often helps to know that their issues are largely legal and family oriented. People identify more with worrying about getting emergency room access in an emergency, getting health insurance coverage for children and situtations like those. When people have those common things to focus on, sometimes they focus less on the yuck factor and it can help override it.

[dufus]

Scooter - and anybody else who cares:

When I express that our society needs to be based on morals, I'm talking about our collective decisions about right and wrong. And historically, those collective morals have been based on divinely-given commands. My lament is that those collective morals are decaying by nothing more solid than man-made rationalizations.

I can't express anything about anybody else's morals, but I do have the right to express my own feelings and invite others to feel similarly. Nowhere am I forcing anybody. Rather, I'm just inviting and perhaps sometimes even pleading for us all to seek divine help in making decisions.

I never said anything about accusing or arresting anyone who doesn't agree with me. That was quite a stretch on your part.

I wasn't asking for a church to run our government, but I am asking for religious/morally-minded people to make wise decisions about government - just like our founding fathers/mothers did. And, I agree, they were really smart - perhaps even inspired individuals and collective. Oh, my! Shudder to think that religion could have influenced the founding fathers/mothers.

P.S. The basic premise of the separation of church and state originally was to prevent the state from dictating a specific church (ref. state religions of European fame). It never intended - I believe - to prohibit religiously-minded people from trying to influence society or government. If so, then few of the founding fathers would have been able to participate or contribute.

P.P.S. Mormons haven't sanctioned polygamy since before 1896 when Utah became a state. Every person who still does, is not part of the Mormon church, but part of some other break-off faction. You're gonna offend Mormons claiming they currently believe in polygamy. In fact, the Mormon Church leadership supported the now-defunct proposed amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Scooter]

Dean:

Yep, I go yuck too.

I saw an enormous fat woman bend over in the grocery store last night and thought of you--I went yuck.

Yep, when I think of two guys doing it--I go yuck.

Jeez, I am pushing 60, and I bet if you saw me and my wife go at it--you'd go yuck.

But then late at night, on cable TV, when I see two hot women go at it--I don't go yuck. And I don't understand why. Why does male to male homosexuality make my skin crawl, and hot lesbian sex is a turn on?

Can we legalize gay marriage only for hot lesbians? Can we make it a
condition that I get to watch?

Dufus and Others:

My point is that when religious morals from the Bible drive our civil and criminal law, much beyond the "natural law" that John elluded to, e.g., 10 Commandments, we run the risk of a theocracy. When Bible Beaters dictate our actions through banning homosexual marriage, inter-racial marriage, abortion, school prayer, and other religious issues, then the United States has little difference from the Taliban, that proscribes head gear for women and refuses them to be educated based on their relgious code.

Somehow we fault the Taliban, but our form of theocracy is OK. Because we're Christian and therefore right.

I liken this debate to the 1967 Supreme Court casee of Loving v. West Virginia which legalized interracial marriages. There, the State took the position that interracial marriages were a religious abombination and the State was authorized through religious morals to outlaw interracial marriages. Of course, the law was struck down. While the States had the right to determine marriage they could not treat different classes of citizens differently--some could marry, some couldn't.

[jvcstone]

I am asking for religious/morally-minded people to make wise decisions about government

Now wouldn't that be nice for a change. :tup2:

Too bad that politics and morality seem to be diametrically opposed anymore. :fim:

If I recall, the constitution was amended once before on the basis of a small vocal minorities moral hysteria. Didn't work then, and a later legislative group had to eat crow and repeal it. The current crop of politicians know that this one stands no chance now, and that it is only a "hot button" issue intended to stir up the flock before election so that we all can once again focus on nonsense and not look behind the smoke and mirrors to get a glimpse of what is really going on.

Congress is more than willing to debate wither a same sex couple are not deserving of the same legal rights and privileges as "normal" couples, or if wearing a bikini decorated with the stars&stripes is a crime. They would much rather waste their time and our dollars doing that than work on solving some of the less pressing issues like energy, pollution, medical costs, insurance costs in general, education, the crumbling infrastructure, the economy that is swelling the lower class as the American Dream fades farther into the past.

What we as a country have fed and nurtured as our national legislative body has become a bloated parasite whose only interest is getting re-elected time after time, and collecting on a benefit package that makes some CEO's look puny. Any concern for the citizenry is only incidental, because they can always rally up enough votes with "Hot Button" issues and it's the corporate and other big money (the root of many of our current problems) that actually controls what is legislated for and against.

In many ways, I'm glad I'm and old man (well not as old as some who visit here), but I have grave concerns for the country, and world we are leaving for our children's children. Ah, but at least if the radical christian right (which is neither) has it's way, those grand kids won't have to worry about homosexual couples having the legal benefits of "marriage". :yawn:

JVC

[Angie]

There are a lot of religious, morally minded people of faith who support recognizing gay unions and many clergy, churches, temples and synogogues who want to marry gay people. The questions is even further to which religious, morally minded people should we listen to more than which others and which of the unions churches perform the gov chooses to recognize.

This is not an issue of religious, morally minded and those who aren't. That has become very clear here in MN. The support from the faith community, people and clergy, supporting recognition of same-sex relationships, is significant and growing.

[Scooter]

And, by the way, the kids, those under 35, could care less about homosexual marriage. The only significant block of voters who give a rats hindquarters are those 50 and older.

This is the last hurrah for this proposition, because in 10 years the younger citizens will ultimately choose that it is OK for gay marriage. If it doesn't pass now, it will like trying to revive Jim Crow laws.

Oh, and I read in the paper that the Senate wouldn't even take this measure to a vote. Like I said, this political amendment did not have legs.

Maybe next year guys--the Repubs like bringing this out every June (Gay Pride Month).

[scott anthony]

A nice well balanced argument I love it.

I want in.

First leave God and religion out of this, That is a separate part of our constitution that allows us to think and believe what we want.
You people that think the only dam religion is your own. your so far off.
There is nearly a thousand religions ( don't really know but I bet I'm close) so many that when you can prove that you have nailed the right one just let me know.
Now my opinion on gay marriage, it sickens me! No I don't give a poop what they do when there together (unless there lesbians:) no really, but don't waste my hard earned tax payers money on solving what has been in place for centuries.
Oh ya, all that's happening is the stretching the constitutional rights by it's ears until the deprived poor souls can find a way to feel their so called freedom. Give me a break already.
I don't know who was arguing what and don't care, it's the way I think, everyone of you has that right also, at least until we find a way to find our constitution doesn't allow us that right. What's next?

[flatfloor]

Don't be so sure of that Scooter, yesterday's hippie liberals are today's conservatives. As people get older they tend to see things differently. :)

[John Bridge]

You're right, Scott. Damn good argument, and I can't keep myself out of it. :D

I'd like to re-focus on "civil unions." Why in the world does anyone object to that? It's not marriage. It's nothing to do with morals. It doesn't have to be sexual (as some marriages are not sexual). It's just a legality. And it's up to each state and the residents of those states.

As to the Founders and their religion, they had a bunch of them. :) The single thing the prominent founders wanted to avoid, though, was the effect of "organized" religion on the nation. Because they were all learned men (heirs to "The Enlightenment"), they knew that formal religion (although they deemed religion necessary to society), had never been a good thing when it came to nation building.

Thomas Paine, the fella who helped spark the Revolution with "Common Sense," also wrote "The Age of Reason." You should read that one sometime. Tom Paine had no use for organized religion at all. He was a deist, as were a number of the guys at the forefront during that period. :)

[bathroomremodeler]

Angie,

When someone comes up to you and says "I'm a lesbian", they are describing their sexual preference, but also describing themselves in a sexual characteristic.

If someone calls you and say's "I'm fat", they are describing themselves in a physical characteristic.

For you to understand them, you have to understand (think, visualize or something) their characteristic their describing.

For most people ... they go yuck (it shows in the voting) when you talk about two same sex individuals getting married.

But let's go a step further, since you are so open minded. May be you would like to get ahead of the curve and help the next group of people who want marriage or even civil unions

What about women who can't have children and they want to marry ...

1. Their young student in class
2. Their brother
3. Their grandfather
4. Their son
5. Their daughter

A wise woman once taught me that people go through different stages when it comes to unmoral standards

1. First you abhor it (yuck factor)
2. Then you endure it
3. Then you condone it

Pretty soon, the 11, 12 or 13 year olds will be wanting the right to marriage. Let's get ahead of the curve and allow them civil unions or marriage rights (I don't want it, but may be the free thinkers will).

Dean

[bathroomremodeler]

What’s the difference between broccoli and buggers … kids don’t eat broccoli.

Yuck

[scott anthony]

Thomas Paine :) The man had thoughts that in his days where grounds for execution. He had opinions like all of us. He sure does rip the Bible apart, but makes sense (at least to me). After this post you know me a bit better and many may hate what opinions I have but I'm right on track with a lot of his thoughts. The Bible to me is accurate accounts of times that could not be accounted for. Example : An easy one, Adam and eve, nice story but get real that account was not written until long after the snake choked on the apple:) and it's not just the early old testament but it's even the new testament. Paine makes a point that makes you wonder. Paine writes ( not in these exact words) why is there so many written accounts of the doings of Christ but there is not one writing done by Christ himself.
Paine is like a lot of us that don't feel religion or Christianity is to live it or die and burn in hell. He had a grand vision for society: he was anti-slavery, and he was one of the first to advocate a world peace organization, social security for the poor and elderly. But his radical views on religion destroyed him.
John, I read several points on him and found him quite interesting.
I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness by very strict parents, as a teen I rebelled and as adult I watched it tear apart all of my family. So you mention religion sorry, you can have it. Live eternal my friends.

SORRY FOR THE OFF TOPIC

[Eugenius]

those that wish to do that desire nothing more than to present to you, 'their god', ...whatever it is...their version of god....
eveyone is religious and worships either God, themselves or their work. We are all 'religious'.

[bathroomremodeler]

Scott,

Basically, religion is a group of beliefs. In a way, you got religion (group of beliefs).

There may not be so many religions as much as so many view points (thousands)

I find it amazing, that the vast majority of the world, believes in a supreme being (a God), an afterlife there is right and wrong and also that a messiah has come or will soon come.

Even primitive tribes who are basically cut off from the rest of the world, have these same beliefs.

There is no scientific proof, yet billions still believe in a God, afterlife, right and wrong and messiah.

Where does this belief come from century after century? Is it inherited in our DNA or embedded deep within our soul? Is it an imprint in our spirit or a revelation from God himself?

Only the billions of those who believe know why they do. Likewise, those few (as compared to billions) who don't believe, know why they don't.

Dean

[scott anthony]

I read the word belief a lot and that's what it is belief. Not fact.
When they can present fact let me know, please.
This is a topic I need to lay off, I 'll let the others carry on with the gay thing. Hey now that must be religion right? I'll call it bootyism :rofl:

[John Bridge]

Paine didn't get in serious trouble for his beliefs on this side of the pond. He got himself mixed up in the French Revolution, and those folks weren't as liberal as our founders were. ;)

[dufus]

Thanks to all for your opinions and the discussion. I hope not to have offended anybody herein. I was curious as to where my virtual friends were on the topic of marriage and I think I found out. While I definitely do not agree with some of the comments, I choose to disagree without being disagreeable.

But I can't resist a final comment before I leave.

One sample point (Thomas Paine) does not make an adequate test or representation. And the fact that some were deists doesn't bother me in the slightest - as long as you also recognize that many weren't as well. Even still, I said nothing about an organized religion dictating to government or trying to influence government. I did say, however, that most of those involved were religious (meaning spiritual or recognizing God exists). I did NOT say they all belonged to the same religion or did I suggest that such was a good idea. It's enough for me that they considered more than their own understanding when working for the common good.

I think our own feelings of right and wrong should dictate our course. It appears we definitely agree on that point. I just simply differ on where I get my values of right and wrong.

[John Bridge]

I only brought up deism because I heard the phrase "Judeo-Christian" somewhere in the mix, a phrase that was not coined until about twenty years ago. I was making the point of separating the religious "marriage" from the secular "union." I chose Paine simply because he was so outspoken on the subject. There were many others.

Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Adams. Those are probably the most famous. All proclaimed themselves to be Christians, but it's very doubtful any of them believed Jesus to be God.

I hate to get into religion, but it was sort of thrust upon me. I have been married twice, once in a church and once by a justice of the peace. I consider both to be valid. :)

[jvcstone]

I have been married twice, once in a church and once by a justice of the peace. I consider both to be valid.

I too have officially been married twice. Once by a religion professor in a university library, and once by just agreeing to be married. I consider both to be valid, and so did the court system in Texas when it was time to dissolve those particular contracts.

As I see it, that's the thing---marriage is just a contract between two people. Sure it is traditionally between a man and a woman, but in many parts of the world, the marriage contract is negotiated by family members without the input of the potential partners, and tremendous age differences and/or child brides are common. And, as with any contract, the marriage contract brings with it certain obligations, rights and privileges, and penalties for breaking the contract. The only thing our gay friends are asking for is that their contracts be recognised as just as legitimate as any of my marriages. For the life of me, I do not understand why there is such an outcry about that, and why our federal government thinks it is it's place to even involve itself in the matter. After all, each state has it's own legalese about marriage anyway, particularly when the contract is broken.

If any sort of constitutional change is needed it certainly should not be an amendment that officially denies rights to a segment of our population. There is already enough of that going on at local, state, and federal level as it is.

JVC

[Eugenius]

Geniescience proposed a definition of marriage up this thread...
i forget what it was...

25 years ago ,I bought a tattered paperback at a garage sale , "The Neurotics Notebook" by Mingnon McGlaughlin. I've since lost it and wish I could find another copy.

One of her quotes whether original or borrowed was, "Oh the chills and fevers of love, ...that marriage puts to bed and cures."

Marriage is not the apex of a relationship (the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima)
but it's about why you raised that flag on Iwo Jima. Marriage is not about about love, but about commitment.

[flatfloor]

Forgot what I wanted to say. ;)

[geniescience]

nonetheless i am glad you are able to contribute regardless.

[EEEO]

Wow. It's impressive what I miss when I go on vacation.

For what it's worth, I'm married, which communicates the commitment my wife and I share to people in the easiest and most understandable manner. Unfortunately, given the recent "marriage amendment" BS in Minnesota I'm reminded that many people view it to be a religiously based commitment. For us, it's nothing of the sort. I'm a humanist, my wife is essentially agnostic(I say "essentially" because she doesn't really give a hoot about the issue). We're married for quite a number of reasons, none of which are religious.

My point is this: I think the state should grant civil unions to all people. It's the purest way to separate church and State. As soon as the debate starts as to what marriage should be defined as(man-woman, man-man, etc.) one starts crossing that line of separation, which brings us(as someone mentioned) one step closer to a Taliban style government.

[Shaughnn]

California's State Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage today. They ruled, in a 4-3 vote, that the ban was unconstitutional. It's going to be interesting to see how the opponents try to spin this into an "activist judges" issue when there is only one Democrat among the 9 justices? I'm sure they'll try, but it's going to be entertaining to watch them contort themselves to create spin.
Hurray!, for liberty!!!!! :)
Shaughnn

[kate42]

:wave:

California strikes again. :D

[HS345]

Hey Shaughnn, let me start the contortions.
R.I.N.O. Judges.

[Shaughnn]

Keep going Greg. I know you can manage to discredit all of those judges, if you just suspend disbelief long enough. I can't imagine that these judges could have possibly been basing their decision on legal precedent instead of pushing some fantastically myopic social agenda? I mean, how could three of these four judges have all come to be appointed by stalwart conservative governors line George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson and still voted to strike down a poorly-conceived yet populous-driven law, meant to impose a short-sighted social agenda as being "unconstitutional"? Yup, that certainly smacks of "activist judges". Yup, you got that one pegged, fer sure.
:rofl:
Shaughnn

[kate42]

:wave:

Oh boy, this is going to be another good thread. :D

[sandbagger]

It's going to be interesting to see how the opponents try to spin this into an "activist judges" issue when there is only one Democrat among the 9 justices? spin? what's to spin? a clear majority of citizens (well, mostly) voted to define legal (ie, state endorsed) marriage in a certain manner. That's a FACT, Shaughnn. :yeah: and party is irrelevant (Republicans have appointed some pretty bad judges over the years.)

the sad irony, of course, is that it is the left that rails "LET EVERY VOTE COUNT!!" Unless, of course, conservative causes happen to win. :rolleyes:

but in a sense the timing is actually pretty bad for the "gay rights" advocates. This is exactly the kind of ammo we need in states like AZ to make the case that a marriage statute just isn't enough - we need ammendments. Advocates have struggled a little to get the Marriage Amendment back on the AZ ballot this fall. One of the main arguments is that AZ already has a statute defining marriage that excludes same-sex. The CA case is a wakeup call to those who think it can keep surviving court challenges. Courts are just too fickle and unpredictable. Watch for a number of states to use this as motivation to pass state constitution amendments this fall - thus taking the courts out of the picture.

[Shaughnn]

Art,
If a state chooses to amend it's Constitution, then that's their Right. More power to them, even if I think they are backwards-thinking Flat-Earthers. :D But the notion that a mob (the voters) can throw any jumble of words into Law, just by the merit of their numbers, is silly. That's EXACTLY why the Judicial Branch is meant to do; review laws and make certain that they mesh with everything else that's already on the books. "Unconstitutional" means that it violates the Constitution, and so it is thrown out. It's in no way an "activist" ruling, just like calling a batter "out" in a Little League game doesn't make you a "child hater". Those are the rules. IF you can't play by the rules, then follow the rules set forth to change the rules. But this lunacy of demanding that laws be upheld because "people voted for it" is such a juvenile argument that you really have to question the integrity of any law scholar who argues in it's favor.
Laws CAN NOT contradict each other. It's up to a bills sponsor to make absolutely certain that this does not occur, or he's wasting tax dollars and the voter's time. That's the case with the California "Same Sex Ban". It was poorly written so as to contradict existing law. And that's what happens when you write laws inspired by emotional hullabaloo instead of rational need.
Shaughnn

[HS345]

"Unconstitutional" means that it violates the Constitution, and so it is thrown out. It's in no way an "activist" ruling.
Shaughnn, are you familiar with the California constitution? Can you tell us which portion of the California constitution this law violated? Obviously you can answer those two questions in the affirmative, since you state unequivocally that this was NOT, I repeat, NOT, an activist judge ruling.

And that's what happens when you write laws inspired by emotional hullabaloo instead of rational need.

"Rational need" as defined by whom?

[MudMaker]

It's going to be interesting to see how the opponents try to spin this into an "activist judges" issue when there is only one Democrat among the 9 justices?
Shaughnn... You do know about Log Cabin Republicans - right??

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
Of course I'm not intimately familiar with the California State Constitution. Are you suggesting that a tile installer with a high school education should be able to stack their interpretation of constitutional law against that of 7 studied law professionals, each of whose careers have been vetted for gross misinterpretations of the Law? I've watch a few episodes of "House" with my wife. Next time you've got a dull pain in your abdomen, can I diagnose you? :yipee:
Frank,
Of course I've heard of the "Log Cabin Republicans". I've also used to work with a Jewish guy who was a card-carrying Neo-Nazi. Can't explain it but it happens. Maybe they find core ideas which they agree with so strongly that they overlook the self-defeating nature of their membership. Maybe they are driven by self-loathing? Do you mean to suggest that these 3 Republican Justices were all gay and THAT's why they voted this way???
Shaughnn

[tommm]

...just one man's opinion....

In two generations, this country has changed from a "we" society to the "me" society. The definations of right and wrong have become clouded. We have changed from "do the right thing, regardless of the cost" to "if it feels good, do it." Individual selfishness is at an all-time high...and our young people see that as normal. Formerly a great and powerful, yet sympathetic, nation...we are sliding into decline. Continuing on this path, I believe we are at risk of our grandchildren being slaves in a Moslem world. Homosexuality is one of many issues contributing to that selfish decline. The greatness this nation has enjoyed was based on one man and one woman procreating and nurturing their offspring. Marriage is a covenant not a contract. A man's word is his bond. Selfish individuality is the root cause of our moral decline. The results will be painful for future generations.
...and yes, continually robbing Peter will cause his decline...or exit...then when the coffers are empty, a society full of Pauls (whose support is useless) will be devastating.

[sandbagger]

But this lunacy of demanding that laws be upheld because "people voted for it" is such a juvenile argument that you really have to question the integrity of any law scholar who argues in it's favor. WOW!!! Did you really say that, Shaughnn??

[mark11755]

And here comes the next round in November, pending signature verification. CA will try to make it a Constitutional ammendment.

1298. (07-0068)
Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 11/29/07 Circulation Deadline: 04/28/08 Signatures Required: 694,354

Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.)

[HS345]

Shaughnn, If you are not even familiar with the California constitution, how did you come to the conclusion these bums in black robes are not activist judges? :wtf:

Nice try.:yeah:

[flatfloor]

Republicans have appointed some pretty bad judges over the years.)

Earl Warren comes to mind. :rolleyes:

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
And by the same slanted logic, how can you be so certain that they ARE "activist judges"? Here's the really stupid part of this whole uproar. It's the very people who are screaming about the fictional "activist judges" who are attempting to impose their own political and social agenda upon what SHOULD be an impartial system. Every time I hear of some idiot railing about "activist judges" I think to myself "shell game".
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Shaughnn, There is a clear and undeniable history of judicial activism in this country. To deny that, one would have to be ignorant, or a liar.

[Shaughnn]

That's funny, Greg. I had thought about saying the same about you. :)
Shaughnn

[gueuzeman]

I like this Shaughn guy, on an unrelated front he'll even hit the 8,000 mark with his next post.

gueuze, trying hard to keep his mouth shut in the mud box. Failure is obviously an option.

[tilerite]

In two generations, this country has changed from a "we" society to the "me" society. The definations of right and wrong have become clouded. We have changed from "do the right thing, regardless of the cost" to "if it feels good, do it." Individual selfishness is at an all-time high...and our young people see that as normal. Formerly a great and powerful, yet sympathetic, nation...we are sliding into decline.

I couldn't agree more. The decline of modern civilization is upon us but most of us are too busy thinking about our next self-satisfying feat to realize.

[sandbagger]

Judicial activism is hardly a myth. It can actually be traced to a specific time and decision. Marbury vs Madison - 1803. In that decision SCOTUS decided on its own that it had the power to decide cases about the constitutionality of laws or actions of the other two branches. Further, it decided it had the power to overturn them. Nowhere in the Constitution is this power granted. Chief Justice John Marshall was the architect, and it was really designed as a counter to new President Jefferson - Marshall's longtime political rival. The rest, as the saying goes, is history. :cry:

[reglilly]

Art -- you're quite right about Marbury V. Madison. It's true that the power of judicial review is not explicitly given to the SCOTUS by the Constitution, However, the principle of such judicial review is rather old and could be seen as a something of a legal commonplace at the time. What the Constitution does empower is the judicial branch to the the final arbiter of all matters of law, explicitly between one state and another, and many other named parties. Furthermore, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if legislation seems to run afoul of this law, the SCOTUS has the jurisdiction to render a decision.

Judicial activism is a red herring. What about judicial inactivism? To render a decision is to act. The so-called strict constructionists so beloved by conservatives are no less active than are 'activist' judges. They simply have a different, conservative interpretation of the constitution (it is a timeless document with one 'literal' meaning, somewhat like literalism in biblical studies), and theirs leads to different 'actions' than liberal interpretations. But the idea that judges should not be active -- why have them at all if they don't do anything?
Reg :)

[John Bridge]

First off, let's assume nobody here is a liar. That has to be a given.

What Marshall did in Marbury v. Madison was "define" the powers granted the Supreme Court by the people who ratified the Constitution, because prior to that nobody, including the Framers, really knew what the Court was supposed to do. They were in too much of a hurry to get the Constitution "framed" and ratified before the new country fell apart at its seams, one state at a time.

I think Marshall was wrong, but many of the prominent founders, many of whom sat at the Constitutional Convention, agreed with him or at least acquiesced at the time. Marshall himself was a "framer" of the Constitution. So I think more than anything what Marbury v. Madison established was the right of each branch of government to interpret the document how they chose, the Supreme Court being only one of the three branches.

If you really want to know where things went downhill, look at the New Deal. That's where the Supremes backed down. It was a much darker day than when Marshall whooped one up on Madison. ;)

[HS345]

Reg, Could I please have a side of baloney sauce with that order of malarkey?

As I am sure you are well aware, the term "judicial activism" does not refer to the normal actions taken by judges, as proscribed by the constitution. But rather, actions taken by judges that fall outside of the authority given by the constitution.

The constitution is a plainly worded document, very easy to understand. By design IMHO.

Strict constructionist judges do not render "conservative" decisions, they simply render decisions that strictly follow the text of the document, without reading anything into it. But I am certain you already knew that. :rolleyes:

[kate42]

First off, let's assume nobody here is a liar. That has to be a given.

Well said. :)

[reglilly]

Greg,

I would suggest that the Constitution, like every text -- or at least every text that speaks of principles (it's not a shopping list, after all) -- is never plainly worded. You can put a 'simple statement of principle' in from of ten very reasonable and intelligent people, and they will give you several very different interpretations. The entire issue of judicial activism is, at root, a conflict of interpretations, it's a conflict regarding how to read, how to interpret the Constitution. It so happens that strict constructionists say that there is no real conflict -- there is one right way (the True Meaning) and many wrong ways, or so they say. Everyone who is not a strict constructionist (and it's undeniable that strict constructionists are conservative -- viz. Scalia, Thomas, etc.) holds that there is some plausible latitude to interpretation, that there is no hidden, singular and ideal meaning to the Constitution (or the Bible, or any other text). Such interpreters say that since there is no one, eternal meaning to the Constitution, we have to treat it as a living (read historically variable) document.

This means, simply, that some texts -- text of principles, foundational texts like the Constitution, spiritual texts -- just don't make any sense if you don't 'read something into them', that means, if you don't bring something of life to the text. Literalism is an impoverishment of both text and life.

So, when you say 'actions that fall outside of the authority given by the constitution' you are begging the question. The question is, precisely, What authority does the Constitution give to 'x', and what is our basis for determining the limits of authority set by the constitution. Sometimes the limit is clearly stated -- "No state shall ....". But more often (and this is where all the interesting stuff lies) it's a big gray area. Don't be too quick to claim you speak for the True Meaning of the Constitution.

Reg :)

[HS345]

I dunno Reg, I have read the constitution a bazillion times, and I just don't see where it is difficult to understand the meaning of it. Maybe it's just me. :scratch:

For example, perhaps you could point me to the section where ANYONE could glean a constitutional right to an abortion, or a separation of church and state, or ANY limit to gun ownership.

[reglilly]

Greg,

It's true you will never read the word abortion in the Constitution. From a literalist's point of view, that means that there can be no constitutional position on abortion. However, what if you say 'abortion is a matter of how one disposes of one's body.' Do you think that the Constitution protects you from governmental invasions and control of your bodily functions? The latter approach is one that does not say, as do literalists, that the Constitution doesn't mention abortion, so, the Framer's couldn't possibly be interested in it; rather, it says that abortion -- governmental involvement in abortion -- is the sort of thing that the Constitution is interested in addressing, and limiting. The constitution does indeed speak of searches and seizures. Is it wrong to think that people the Framers wanted to limit intrusions into the personal matters of citizens and would, by reasonable extension, find governmental intrusion into matters of fertility objectionable? The fact is, that many, many people, including the Supreme Court, find such reasoning very compelling.

That is how you find things covered by the Constitution that aren't explicitly addressed by the document.

If you want to know where ANYONE could glean these topics as addressed by the Constitution, all you have to do is read the legal opinions where the many textual sites are indicated! (Of course, you can say they are misinterpreting the constitution, but then, again, we're back to a dispute about theories of proper/valid interpretation, and you can't simply assert that your way is obviously right -- if it were obviously right, there would be no dispute!)

No one lives with and deals with things and people in a purely literal manner -- what weirdness that would produce!? Why should we be monodimensional in our reading/interpreting of the Constitution, which is a commentary/document about life, after all.

Reg

[sandbagger]

gotta go along with Greg, Reg - the Constitution says what it says. One thing pretty clear is that in spite of all the vigorous debate among the Framers most of them agreed that an important function of the Constitution was to LIMIT the reach of the Federal govmint. It was so limiting that Jefferson almost didn't go through with the Louisiana Purchase because he didn't know how to square it with the Constitution.

As for how to define "judicial activism" it's pretty clear that there's a difference between deciding law and creating law; the latter being the domain of the legislature, not the courts.

speaking of Constitutions, I still haven't seen anyone answer Greg's challenge a few posts back about reading the CA Constitution. Specifically, what is the Constitutional basis for the decision last week? What Section of the Constitution? The court majority couldn't find one, but the dissenting opinion was pretty explicit in their opinion of the Constitutional abuse: "The majority purports to apply certain fundamental provisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental— article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that“[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides." :yeah:

[HS345]

That is how you find things covered by the Constitution that aren't explicitly addressed by the document.
That's exactly right Reg, things are "found" in the Constitution that simply aren't there. Therefore, they must be made out of whole cloth, yanked outta thin air, pulled from one's a.......you get the picture.

Why should we be monodimensional in our reading/interpreting of the Constitution, which is a commentary/document about life, after all.
Again, you are correct Reg, it IS a document about life. Since when is the life of an unborn child a "bodily function"? If the Constitution is a document about life, why is the life of the unborn child unimportant? By that logic, I guess any person who cannot speak for themselves, should be deemed unimportant, or, as in the case of abortion, nonexistent.

I still haven't seen anyone answer Greg's challenge a few posts back about reading the CA Constitution.
This is another clear cut example of judicial activism. The reason nobody has answered my challenge Art, is because there is no answer. Shaughnn's lame assertion that conservatives cannot possibly have any valid argument against this decision because the 3 outta 4 of the majority judges were appointed by "Repubs", is a joke. :yeah:

[reglilly]

Greg,

My point is that for a literalist, a text is a simple thing, and some texts are. A Sear's Catalogue is a simple text. It names everything that it contains. A poem is not a simple text and cannot be given one single meaning because it speaks not just literally (although there are, of course, literal senses in most every poem), but inferentially, analogically, metaphorically, etc. The question is, does a text like the Constitution speak simply and literally like a Sears Catalogue, or does it speak in a variety of ways, so that you can really find (and not with quotation marks around "find") many sorts of things in it? I would suggest that any document that speaks of and with concept cannot be understood simply literally, but necessarily makes use of categorical assertions, inferential propositions, and even metaphors, etc.

BTW. Among the things that you won't find literally stated in the Constitution is any right to privacy. None. The word "privacy" doesn't occur in the Constitution, and the word "private" only once in the fourth Amendment, which says the government can't take your private property without compensating you. Literally, if the government pays you for your property, it can mess with you all it wants -- literally. You can only derive a right to privacy by conceptual extension, inference, etc. Are you ready to sacrifice your privacy on the false altar of literalism?

As to abortion, the real argument is about whether a fetus is a citizen ("free Person") with rights (not all [free] persons are citizens with rights, viz. slavery, Indians -- Dred Scott was a literalist interpretation -- do you agree with it?). There's no indication that the Framers thought a fetus was a person much less as a citizen with rights; they could have included a reference to the "unborn" but didn't. Nothing in the Constitution prevented slavery (indeed, it codified it), nothing in it can prevent abortion unless you 'read into it' an attribution of rights that it literally does not contain. You'll have to either read into the constitution 'rights of the unborn' or get rid of the right of privacy to get rid of ground for Roe v. Wade. And, of course, the latter can be done, by a literalist reading of the Constitution! If there was ever a Trojan horse for social conservativism, it is their affection for literalism.

Reg

[Shaughnn]

Reg,
Greg only sees black and white. You're speaking "grays". He'll never understand your position.
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Thanks for speaking for me Shaughnn, I appreciate it.

In reality, I understand Reg's position perfectly, I just happen to disagree with it. I believe the constitution still allows that. Until January anyways.:rolleyes:

Reg, to say the founding fathers would not be aghast about the murder of infants disguised as partial birth abortion, is at the very least, naive in the extreme.

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
And to argue that a mass of tissue, in many respects more alike a tumor than an individual, has those same "inalienable rights" is equally extreme.
I'm happy to speak on your behalf, Greg. Sometimes we have to rely upon our friends to expose our own failures. I only hope that you can take my revelations and make something good out of them. :D
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Shaughnn, please tell me you're not describing a full term fetus as "a mass of tissue" akin to a tumor.:wtf:

I am glad to see that you admit your extremism. The first step toward full recovery is to admit you have a problem.:D

[MudMaker]

And to argue that a mass of tissue, in many respects more alike a tumor than an individual, has those same "inalienable rights" is equally extreme.
Shaughnn... Have you ever seen a partial birth abortion?

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
What are you pretending to be a "full-term fetus"? Is it one which can survive outside of the womb or does this occur the moment a sperm pierces the egg? What's your position on in vitro-fertilization? What's your position on masturbation? How about hysterectomies?
Frank,
No I haven't seen a "partial birth abortion", have you aside from the admittedly grotesque placards displayed by protesters? Here's one for you. Have you ever stood on the killing floor of a commercial slaughter house? How about worked in a morgue inside of a war zone? Which on of God's great creatures did you eat for dinner last night? Was your menu choice driven by nutritional need or by pleasure? When was the last time to rallied outside of a munitions factory to protest the wholesale slaughter of human beings from the products which they profit from?
I'm not advocating "abortion". What I am saying is that those arguments against it are hollow and contrived, and even a bit hypocritical. If you honestly have a problem with abortion, then you SHOULD be just as furious about the commercial meat industry and the military industrial complex, both of which actually profit from the murder of living things. If there is a God, he/she created the natural impulse in all animals to cull their own offspring in times of hardship. Dogs and cats eat their young with faced with famine and peril, we've all seen that. Herds shun the infirm, because their presence weakens the community. And even we exalted human beings have a long history of abandoning our elderly and our imperfect to die in the elements. A woman's body will very naturally "murder" a fetus if her own immune systems recognizes that it is flawed. It's a natural thing which happens around as every day. Allowing a doctor to assist in a woman's choice to follow this natural impulse seems to me to be both humane and civilized.
I've got two children whom I would die to protect. But that's a choice which my wife and I made together. And, if the occasion ever presents itself where my son or daughter is faced with the same choice under more difficult circumstances, I want them to have both to have the freedom to make those choices for themselves, rather than allow religious fanatics to overwrite science with zealous superstition and impose their narrow views upon my children. That's the sort of fanaticism that the Taliban exercises. Here in The United States we value Freedom much more highly. :usflag:
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Shaughnn, for the sake of this argument, we are talking about the barbaric practice of infanticide known as "partial birth abortion". I'm pretty sure even you know what a full term fetus is Shaughnn, if not, google it.

Shaughnn, comparing human life with animal life is like comparing apples with 45 caliber lead muzzle loader rounds.

God gave man dominion over the animals, and placed many of them here for food. Even in your godless world view, you can't argue with biology. Mans digestive system is clearly designed, yes DESIGNED, for an omnivore. That means to consume meat as well as plant matter.

[Shaughnn]

See, Greg, you're mistaken here also. I've heard it argued that "dominion" is the interpretation given by those who wish to legitimize their indulgences. Instead, "God gave man STEWARDSHIP over his creation. But that's irrelevant because I said nothing about the "evils of eating meat". I asked about commercial meat operations. Do you sincerely think that God intended animals to be crammed into feed pens, forced antibiotics to stave off the unsanitary conditions of their miserable lives, pumped full of growth hormones (which come from other life-destroying industry) and killed at an assembly line rate just so you can have a cheap steak and potato dinner? My wife and often, though not always, shop at a local butcher who sells locally raised livestock. We pay for it, but it makes more civilized sense to us. How do you respect God's creatures? Or does your "dominion" pretense let you laugh at roadkill?
Ever shot a squirrel in your back yard? My grand-father used to shot them all of the time, until he got sober and starting thinking about his place in the greater scheme of things. He still hunts, but he eats what he kills. Last time I visited him, he was in the habit of feeding the squirrels in his backyard. You see, once he got past his ego, he saw that those animals are just as important as the ones he takes care of as pets. Dominion vs. Stewardship. Try it on for size, why don't you?
You say that Human Life is more valuable than the lives of other VERY innocent creatures? Isn't that the first step to saying that THIS human life is more important than THAT human life? And doesn't that then lead to genocide?
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Praise the Lord Shaughnn!

Just when I think you and I will never get back to common ground, God smacks me back into reality.

I am certainly not in favor of mistreating any of God's creatures. The determental effects of the commercial meat industry extend to humans as well due to the unnatural methodologies you just enumerated.

I certainly do not celebrate road kill. In fact I once wept after hitting a raccoon.:cry: And I sigh out loud every time I see a dead deer on the side of the road. I hate to see good meat go to waste. And I do feel compassion for the animals.

Onna side note, the words "dominion" and "stewardship" as they relate to theology, offer only a difference without a distinction. Use either word and you don't significantly change the meaning of the text.:)

Additionally, to value human life over animal life is in no way a step toward genocide, in fact the opposite is true.

[mravenez]

Hi everyone,

I started reading this thread this morning and I wasn't going to respond to it, but one post in particular really stood out to me and I felt the need to say something. The following is a quote from 1Eric.

<<I have been given a lifelong partner. It is my wife. We have two beautiful children. Seven years after we were married we were blessed with our first. He was born at 28 weeks. Way too early. He spent 54 days in the hospital and we have expenses on the bills which indicate he actually died 3 times. He is 6 now. We did alot of praying during this time and our prayers were answered. I have a perfectly healthy boy now(although a little bit stubborn-I think he takes after his mom in that regard ). There isn't a gay man or women who can say they have been through the pain and pride I have been through.>>>>>>

My question is this. If that child came to you one day, years from now, and said "Dad, I'm Gay".....what would happen then? Would all of the pain and pride and praying have all been a waste in your mind. I really would like an honest answer and not a clipped "It would never happen to my son because etc....."

MrAvenez

[ddmoit]

Good question, Mr. Avenez, but don't hold your breath for an answer. That post was made almost 2 years ago by a poster who hasn't logged on in nearly a month.

[mravenez]

<<<That post was made almost 2 years ago by a poster who hasn't logged on in nearly a month.>>>

Well, thats a drag. But, I'm still glad I posted that anyway because it was on my mind all day.

Anthony

[Bonus]

"<<I have been given a lifelong partner. It is my wife. We have two beautiful children. Seven years after we were married we were blessed with our first. He was born at 28 weeks. Way too early. He spent 54 days in the hospital and we have expenses on the bills which indicate he actually died 3 times. He is 6 now. We did alot of praying during this time and our prayers were answered. I have a perfectly healthy boy now(although a little bit stubborn-I think he takes after his mom in that regard ). There isn't a gay man or women who can say they have been through the pain and pride I have been through.>>>>>>"

It's also not true: a gay couple can adopt a child, at which point they become parents with all of the joys, frustrations and fears that are inherent to parenting. Besides, it's not a competition for pain and pride.

[reglilly]

I was thinking the same thing Rich. I have two kids - I'm their natural parent. One of my best friends couldn't have kids and he adopted three kids in all. I had always thought some biological link must add strength to the relationship, but I've seen I was entirely wrong. Indeed, he is something of a model of true, good parental love (with all it's ups and downs). Unless one wants to say gays are incapable of a love comparable to heterosexuals (a losing position, I would think), then parenting has to be taken off the table as a heterosexual advantage.

In fact, I've been quite taken by the adoption process and those that engage in it (I haven't), both by gays and heterosexuals. It's hard to explain, but there is something special going on there, in that love; I admire it tremendously.

Reg

[MudMaker]

My question is this. If that child came to you one day, years from now, and said "Dad, I'm Gay".....what would happen then? Would all of the pain and pride and praying have all been a waste in your mind.

I don't think the argument is whether or not you'd still love the son, you would.. It's just that he can't marry another man..
Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman.. If two gay guys got married, which one would be the Mrs.??
Also, a child needs both a mother and a father to grow up properly.. He needs different things from each making him a whole person....

Shaughnn.. on so many different levels.. wow is all I can say...
If you haven't seen a Partial Birth Abortion here is a sequence of pictures that sorta describe it... Caution: it ain't a pretty sight....

So much for "mass of tissue, in many respects more alike a tumor than an individual" remarks...........
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html
Nothing deserves to die in this fashion... Cattle killing is more humane... and yes Shaughnn, during summer vacations from college, I worked in a meat packaging facility - 3 summers... Didn't eat hot dogs for years after workin there...

[Dan Kramer]

Uhhhh... if I was smarter I would bite my tongue like I usually do and not respond, but naaa.....

If two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together in marriage then it is a non issue what sex they are. It's pretty simple.

The images of the quick partial birth abortion are a welcome sight compared to the years and years of physical, verbal, and emotional abuse unfit parents can impose on unwanted children. As a parent, it torments me when I see some scumbag parent destroying a child's life for years when they could have done it in just a few minutes.

And finally, go Shaughnn go. I enjoy and agree (most of the time) with your posts.

[HS345]

Dan, let me ask you a question. Why not post birth abortion? What's the difference?

Shaughnn, Dan just proved my point about genocide. Rather definitively, I might add.

[Brad Denny]

I wonder what would happen if say, 1000 women who had an abortion were asked under the supervision of a polygraph if they would change their decision if faced with it again. Adversely, poll another 1000 women who were on the brink of choosing to abort and did not whether they felt they made the right decision. I would venture to say that a majority of abortions take place because of guilt, shame, and convenience, not infirm, imperfect, war, or protection of the strength of the "community".

And just out of curiosity, what is a "fit" parent?

[Shaughnn]

Anthony,
On the "gay parents" issue, my wife works with a really wonderful woman. She and her lesbian partner ( I've never asked if they were married) made a decision a while back which I was in awe of. Through in vitro fertilization, one woman's fertilized egg was transplanted into the other's womb, thereby giving them BOTH the joy of being physical parents as well as emotional parents. And they are both immensely loving with their son, who is about Hannah's age now.
And, as I understand it, they did this out of their own pockets because no insurance would have covered it.
Just thought I'd share,
Frank,
I guess I'm just wonderful that way? I won't bother to look at your photos because I already know them. They are the same photos which have been paraded around clinics for the past 25 years. While the technology which those images document has long ago been surpassed for more humane procedures, the activists continue to use them in their dishonest campaign. Those images are used to suggest that "right here, right now, this terrible thing is happening inside of that place", when the truth is that those techniques have long ago been abandoned, except in extreme cases. When you know the history behind the snapshots and sound bites, somehow the argument becomes comically macabre.
Shaughnn

[Dan Kramer]

Jeeeees...I knew I shouldn't have opened that can. But now that I have....

Greg,
Birth abortion, partial birth abortion, feticide, intact dilation and extraction. You can call it whatever you want if it makes you feel better. Even genocide.

If a woman decides...It should be her decision. Not some 70 year old white hair in DC.

To clarify I'm not pro abortion. I'm pro making the best choice one can make for oneself.

Quite frankly this thread (http://johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=62659) a few weeks back told me enough about your rangebound way of thinking.

Too much negativity and inflexible thinking in the political / religious arena. That's why I shouldn't have stepped on the box. I don't care to be involved with the arguments / intense discussions.

Brad,
New Oxford American Dictionary defines "fit" as having the requisite qualities or skills to undertake something competently. Here are some synonyms: able, capable; ready, prepared, qualified, trained, equipped. Parental duties include providing physical security, physical development, intellectual security, intellectual development, emotional security, and emotional development for starters.

[Brad Denny]

Dan, I just thought that a judgment as to who can and should have children, and how they rear them, is little extreme. I'd guess a huge percentage of children who've had great upbringings had parents with deficiencies in those areas you listed.

[sandbagger]

Dred Scott was a literalist interpretation.... HUH?? :scratch: If that's the case, Reg, I'm sure you can point to the specific Article, Section, etc upon which the decision was based, right? You can't, of course, because Dred Scott was pure judicial fabrication - one of the worst decisions of the Supremes in our history. Fact is, the courts have historically screwed up when it comes to civil rights and particularly the issue of slavery and its aftermath.

[HS345]

Dan, you still didn't answer the question. I find that, shall we say, curious.
Since the killing of a 9 month full term baby with part of his or her body left inside the birth canal is a-okay, in your book. What would be wrong with killing the same baby, oh let's say, a day or two, heck, maybe even a month or two later? What is the difference?

Maybe CPS should just off kids when they find parents to be "unfit", sure would save a lot of money and resources. :idea:

Shaughnn, could you please enlighten me as to what the "humane" method of killing a 9 month old baby (or, fetus, if that makes you feel better) is. :sick: :shake: So much for common ground.

You guys kill me (literally), you are against the death penalty for murders and rapists, and child molesters, but you don't bat so much as an eyelash when it comes to killing a baby. :wtf: Who is completely innocent, BTW.

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
9-month abortions the way you describe them are fiction. If a procedure like that has to be performed, it's because the fetus has already died. You will say absolutely anything and distort everything just to win an argument, won't you? I think that's why having these discussion with you is so frustrating. For you it's a competition, instead of an honest process.
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Wow Shaughnn, I am so busted, you've got me pegged to a tee. :rolleyes:

If you want to know what liberals are doing, pay close attention to what they accuse you of.:gerg:

Hmmmmm, still no answer.:scratch:

[Brad Denny]

Abortion is kinda like drunk driving. You go out, have a good time, but when it's time to go home do you drive or call a cab? Well, you call a cab it's gonna cost you money and time, huge inconvenience. Your friends may rib you. How you gonna get your car home? Heck, you've driven home before, but how do you know this time won't be the time you kill somebody?

With abortion, how do you know that the baby wouldn't grow to be healthy, happy, and a productive member of society? Your gonna make a permanent decision about the life of a human, when you are likely "inebriated" by the weight of your unplanned pregnancy? I know there's all these situations of rape, abuse, and medical emergencies that is brought up, but again, I doubt that's the reason for a majority of abortions.

We make lotsa laws for the protection of human life from the carelessness of others. Last time I drove plastered, I was threatened by an officer with a DUI, is that fair? I just don't see how you can justify abortion. I stand on my comment about the harsh reality of the effects of abortion to those who have had them. I can't see why we don't we protect them as well as the future of the baby.

[scuttlebuttrp]

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.

Article one Sec. 7 (b) Cal. Constitution

Does this count?

Section 1.
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.

How about this one?
14th amendment Sec. 1 U.S. Constitution

[scuttlebuttrp]

I started reading this thread because I was curious( :lol1: ) as to what you guys were saying concerning gay marriage; and all I found was an argument over abortion.

Why would you care what anyone else was doing? If two people want to be recognized as hitched; so what. Married people are usually seen as more stable for a community. This is supposed to be a good thing. I know a few gay people. Big suprise. They're not much different than the rest of us. Some are very nice hardworking dedicated citizens. Some are whores who'll cheat on they're spouse. Some are major drug users. They also get drunk, fight, hold extremist positions, vote both sides of the aisle, and act like a bunch of A-holes. Same as us. (off topic-illeagals are this way too).
We're all people. They want to get married; cool. None of my business. My church doesn't have to recognize this fact, but we should recognize that gay people are our fellow citizens and deserve all the rights afforded to everyone.

[kate42]

:wave:

Today I met the nicest couple you'd ever want to meet. They cared very much for each other. They were also a gay couple. They were great to talk to. We discussed our favorite books and authors.
I find it hard to accept their lifestyle, but they are who they are and who am I to judge them?

[Dan Kramer]

Dan, I just thought that a judgment as to who can and should have children, and how they rear them, is little extreme.
I agree. If what I said came off that way then I apologize. Not what I meant. My thoughts were if a woman carrying a fetus felt that she was not able to provide for a child, then she should have the right to make a decision for herself.

Dan, let me ask you a question. Why not post birth abortion? What's the difference?....Dan, you still didn't answer the question. I find that, shall we say, curious....Hmmmmm, still no answer.
The answer was so painfully obvious that I thought the question was rhetorical. As for my delay in responding, while you were playing on the computer I was working.You will say absolutely anything and distort everything just to win an argument, won't you? I think that's why having these discussion with you is so frustrating. For you it's a competition, instead of an honest process.
Greg, I can also see that Shaughnn has you pegged to a tee.

It was a mistake to jump in here, I should have just observed you make an.....

A safe and happy Memorial Day weekend to all!

[HS345]

Hey Dan, It was not my intention to brow beat you over this issue. It just happens to be a subject that I am passionate about. If that makes me an ass in your eyes, then so be it. Nobody will ever convince me that the wanton killing of a baby as a matter of convenience is right, clearly it is wrong.

[ddmoit]

Nobody will ever convince me that the wanton killing of a baby as a matter of convenience is right, clearly it is wrong.Agreed. I also feel the same way about Iraqi civilians.

[sandbagger]

I started reading this thread because I was curious......and all I found was an argument over abortion. I believe the main point of this thread, Royce, is (or should be) judicial activism. abortion is simply one of the more egregious examples of judicial activism.

having said that, just the math of abortions is pretty horrific - at least 45 million since Roe v Wade. And that does nothing to guesstimate the number of babies that were never born because their parents were aborted. The irony is that some of the people who study demographics believe that this has actually been a factor in pushing the US in a slight rightward (ie, Conservative) direction. After all, who has most of the abortions? :shrug:

If a woman decides...It should be her decision. Not some 70 year old white hair in DC.In my younger day I was pretty agnostic on the issue for precisely that reason. Then I heard someone ask the obvious - "Who decides for the child?" I had no answer. The only counter is to do what some have done here, and that is to argue that a fetus is really more like a parasitic mass feeding off its host. riiiiiiiiiiiigghhht :rolleyes:

but all this is just a big diversion to avoid talking about the obvious - the decision to have (usually unprotected) sex in the first place. :yeah:

[flatfloor]

If that partial birth abortion were to be born prematurely wouldn't it have a pretty good chance of surviving and being a healthy child? Assuming that is true then can we assume a PBA is murder?

That's not necessarily my belief just a question.

[jvcstone]

After all, who has most of the abortions?

That would be (I think) women--mostly younger but some older too.

Not sure when legislated morality has ever worked as intended. Making abortion once again illegal will not stop women from aborting unwanted pregnancies.
In the days of my youth prior to Roe V. Wade, thousands of young girls died every year as a result of illegal back alley abortions, and to insist that they should not be allowed is unrealistic.

That said, I think Roe v. Wade should be repealed-- it is not the business of the federal government to deal with abortion one way or the other. Place the issue where it belongs --in the States hands, or more appropriately the decision is up to the people within each state.

As to the judicial activism thing--doesn't what one feels is an over stepping of bounds by the court (or legislation from the bench) really depend on one's particular political slant. There has been as much judicial activism directed right as left, and it goes back to the very first court. No matter right or left though, it always has had the result of giving the federal government additional power and authority that the framers of the constitution never intended the federal (central) government to have.

Seems to me, that if the central government is so intent on ignoring both their oath of office and the constitution we ought to quit pretending. I recall JB talking about a new constitutional convention a while ago. Maybe it is time for a new constitution.--and as the song says, we won't be fooled again.

JVC

[flatfloor]

it is not the business of the federal government to deal with abortion one way or the other. Place the issue where it belongs --in the States hands, or more appropriately the decision is up to the people within each state.

That is exactly Justice Scalia's position. I recently posted that either either is in this thread or a similar one.

[HS345]

Quote:
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.


Article one Sec. 7 (b) Cal. Constitution

Does this count?

Quote:
Section 1.
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.


How about this one?
14th amendment Sec. 1 U.S. Constitution
Yes, they do count Royce, and major big time kudos to you for looking them up. :tup2:

I would say the question then becomes. Is marriage a privilege? I would say it is not. Additionally, even if marriage were deemed to be a privilege, California already allows same sex unions, which have all of the same legal ramifications of marriage.

California voters legally placed a ballot initiative banning same sex marriage to a vote of the people. This initiative passed overwhelmingly in the affirmative. Can you also find a constitutional proscription for usurping the will of the people?

If that partial birth abortion were to be born prematurely wouldn't it have a pretty good chance of surviving and being a healthy child? Assuming that is true then can we assume a PBA is murder?
Yes, partial birth abortion is murder. If it is not, how can a person that murders a pregnant woman, even if the pregnancy is only a few weeks along, be charged and convicted of the murder of the unborn fetus?

Not sure when legislated morality has ever worked as intended.
JVC, if you cannot legislate morality, then what, pray tell, can you legislate? Aren't all laws legislated morality?

[jvcstone]

JVC, if you cannot legislate morality, then what, pray tell, can you legislate? Aren't all laws legislated morality?

Far from it. In fact most law as passed today have nothing what so ever to do with morality.

There is one set of laws that are common amongst all cultures during all of human history. They are often referred to as Natural law-- that which is necessary for us to live together within society. These are the laws that protect a persons individual and property rights from transgress from another.

When I refer to legislating morals I refer to all of those "victimless" crimes which in essence are only crimes against society if society so designates them as crimes. Never in the history of man have laws making Alcohol, drugs, prostitution, gambling, sodomy, bestiality, pornography, etc etc etc illegal ever prevented or even have much impact on these "crimes" I know that in your point of view, there is a victim during abortion, or drug use (drinking - smoking) or paid for sex, but that is not the point of view of everyone.

All legislation of this sort ever accomplishes is more funding for an ever expanding police state, and a black market making huge profits through control of the "illegal" activity. And, btw, it is often that same police state and the very legislators pushing such laws that are in on the black market profits. There is not another country in the industrialized (first world) countries that has such an overwhelming need to control what it's citizens do as this one, so it is no wonder this country has a so much greater percentage of it's citizens incarcerated.

Back to our constitution which every one tends to ignores unless it happens to be convenient,-- the very purpose in limiting the central (federal) government in it's scope of legislative authority was to protect the minority from the bullying of the majority. The federal government needs to butt out of everything not within the purvey of it's constitutional mandate, and let the citizens of this country decide for themselves what standards they are willing to tolerate community by community,--state by state. This is true for all sorts of things that would not even be considered vice. Many communities adopt laws that you would be in agreement with, as is their right. Some adopt a more tolerant stance and not legislate against your particular evils. and that also is their right. It is not the right of the federal government to have any say in it unless the constitution is amended to that extent. And we all know what a disaster the 18th amendment turned out to be.

JVC

[HS345]

John, while I may not agree with everything in your last post, I have to say it was a very well reasoned, and excellently worded piece of communication.:)

I now see what you mean by "legislated morality". My point was that most laws seek to control morality in some way. For example. Is it not immoral to steal, rape, or murder?

I do agree with the fact that there are too many laws. Often times it seems legislators feel that writing another redundant law will somehow solve solve a problem, when all that is really needed, is to simply enforce existing law.

[Crestone Tile]

JVC,

:goodpost:

[sandbagger]

yes, there are far too many laws, and they come from both sides of the aisle.
the very purpose in limiting the central (federal) government in it's scope of legislative authority was to protect the minority from the bullying of the majority. sorry, I can't pass on this one. The function of the Constitution in limiting the reach of government and it's ability to bully ALL citizens. As far as I can tell this "protect the minority" thing was invented by the Left after they lost their stranglehold on Congress in the 90s. You cannot argue men who wrote a Constitution that originally allowed slavery and prohibited women from voting cared a hoot about "protecting the minority." :shake:

Democracies (and derivatives such as republics) are far from perfect. Once you give power to the citizenry you have to accept the fact that the majority is going to pass laws that the minority probably won't like. But the good news is that so far our history shows that voters will also right the ship when we stray off course. When the courts intervene in the legislative process history shows that the results are far from satisfactory.

[jvcstone]

sorry, I can't pass on this one. The function of the Constitution in limiting the reach of government and it's ability to bully ALL citizens. As far as I can tell this "protect the minority" thing was invented by the Left after they lost their stranglehold on Congress in the 90s.

I believe that Madison wrote federalist #51 well before the 90's.

Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority... the other by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable... The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.

JVC

[sandbagger]

The Federalist papers make for a good read, but there are a whole lot of things said in them that never became law. They are opinions and background, not the Constitution. You can also found a great deal about the fear many of the Framers had of an overzealous judiciary.

Madison was also quite strong in his religious beliefs and the role of religion as a participant in government. Do you feel the same about that aspect of Madison?

[jvcstone]

Interesting Art.,

You discount my claim that the constitution was intended to protect the rights of the minority by saying that opinion did not come about until the 90.s and the republican congressional majority.

Then when I offer backing for my statement with a direct quote from 1781, you discount that too by saying the federalist papers were in fact just opinion ---which they were.

But, I have to call you on your statement that it was just a liberal interpretation of the constitution in the 1990's that claimed it was to protect the minority from the majority. Your statement was just flat out wrong, and obviously (whether you you think the federalist papers are of any value or not) Madison and others did hold that opinion at the time the constitution was written. However, in light of your typical neocon dogma, I can understand why you would not want to let the facts get in the way of your position.

JVC

And exactly what was Madison's opinion about the roll of religion in Government. I think that the first amendment speaks for the Virginians thoughts on that matter.

[sandbagger]

The Constitution does contain certain specific protections for those minorities, the 1st Amendment being the most obvious. But that didn't stop the Congress and Harry Truman from from using the tax code to bludgeon the churches out of the political process. Madison (and many others to be sure) would never have supported this.

what has happened since the '90s interpretation by the Dems is more than opinion as it has impacted the legislative and judicial processes. When Bill Clinton submitted judicial nominees to the Republican Senate, Arlen Spector said, "He was elected President, so he gets to pick the judges." Fast-forward to the Bush presidency when the Democrats decided that they - not George Bush - should pick judges so they could "protect the minority."

Who was protecting the minority when FDR was socializing America? Who protected the minority when LBJ had a veto-proof House and Senate?

The Constitution protects certain "minorities" in certain very specific ways. We don't need the courts inventing new ones. :shake:

[pitterpat]

If that partial birth abortion were to be born prematurely wouldn't it have a pretty good chance of surviving and being a healthy child? Assuming that is true then can we assume a PBA is murder?

Flat, No that would not be true. A baby born at 23 weeks does not have a pretty good chance to survive. My partner, is a nurse in the neonatal ICU (NICU) of one of the best children's hospitals in the world, here in Indianapolis. She sees these 23 weekers very often; they have many physical problems that include respiratory, intestional, heart and other aliments. These babies have a hard time staying alive and it is very time, $$$, and labor intensive. But they have a very poor chance of living and of having a life that is not without problems. But they try to keep ALL of them alive no matter what. Many of the NICU mothers are of lesser socioeconomic backgrounds hence they have very poor pre-natal and pregnancy care, diets and habits (smokers, drug use, etc).

As you have seen I have not been in this thread before, actually I did not know it was here until I checked the Mudbox this evening. With that said, if you did not know before you know now that I am gay, lesbian, or whatever you want to call it. What I will tell you is that it is not that much a different life than being hetrosexual. We have the same joys, pains, likes, dislikes, problems and triumphs as everybody else. However we get branded or stigmatized (is that a word) as being queer. For all of you that say this is an "immoral" life that I am leading you need to understand some things that I look at: It is all about LOVING a person!!!!! I LOVE my partner with ALL OF MY HEART just like you love yours of the opposite sex. I have waited all of my life for her, Mittie, to come into my life and I would not give her up for ANYTHING!!!!

I am no different this minute than I was 10 minutes ago b/4 I posted this. I still am trying to be the best tiler I can be. I am still a smart alec, jokester, have bad hands at times, firey, funny, serious, struggle with estimating all my jobs, worked in corporate america for 20 some years, overweight (and trying to loose weight), will tell people what I think, like to have fun, drink very little..... :blah: :blah: :blah: but now you know that I am a lesbian. I'm not a querr, I think people that molest children or anybody are horrible. I just LOVE my partner with all my heart and I don't care who knows!!!! She has made me a better, less combative, stronger Christian, more loving person than I was before I met here and I am striving every day to be better at all of that and more.

To judge me because of who I love and who I sleep with is so unfair. Come live in my life and you will see that I am no different than most of you. People are people and we need to concentrate on loving them instead of debating who they can be with.

PS. did you know that the definition of homosexual in the bible was of a man raping a man?

Pat

[Shaughnn]

Pat,
I'll always be your fan. :clap1:
Shaughnn

[pitterpat]

Thanks Shaughnn! You're the best anyway! :bow:

[tileman2000]

Pat,

Very well put. :clap1:

[pmcall57]

Right on, Pat.

At one time, my marriage (interracial) would have been illegal in certain states. These things do change ... thanks to people speaking up.

Pam

[pitterpat]

Thanks to all...it's just how I feel.

Marge, yeah no bad hands...why, I ain't using that HIGH latex thinset no more! :lol1:

Well Pam, I'm still in your boat. My partner happens to be white and I happen to be black. but I'm equally prejudice to all dopes!

[Marge]

About time. ;)

[HS345]

did you know that the definition of homosexual in the bible was of a man raping a man?
That is not true. Not trying to be argumentative Pat, but I cannot let a Biblical untruth go unchallenged.

Here is just one small example, but there are more. In the book of Romans, Paul aptly describes both the perversion and the penalty:
“Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned
natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts
with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (Rom. 1:26–27 NIV, emphasis
added).

Please don't misunderstand me Pat. I am not calling you names, nor am I sitting in judgment of you. I am simply refuting your interpretation of what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

[pitterpat]

Greg,

You're taking it farther and adding in things I did not. I stand behind my info.

Pat

[HS345]

Not sure what you mean by that, I am simply quoting the Bible, and what it has to say about homosexuality.

Could you please post the verses you are talking about?

[ddmoit]

I am simply quoting the Bible...Greg, there is nothing simple about "quoting the Bible". In fact, I would dispute that you have quoted the Bible at all. I don't see anything but English in your post, and the Bible was not written in English. At best, you are quoting someone's translation of the Bible.

To paraphrase William Shakespeare, even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

[HS345]

Oldest cop out in the book Dan, nice try.

Are you saying translations cannot be done accurately? What about Ludwig Von Mises, are his books in English?

[ddmoit]

What about Ludwig Von Mises, are his books in English?Mises' most important masterpiece, Human Action (http://www.amazon.com/Human-Action-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0865976317/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211892357&sr=1-1) , was indeed written in English. What's more, English translations of Mises' previous works were translated with his approval.

[HS345]

Dan, I was merely using Von Mises as an example you would be familiar with. My point is, translations of literature from one language to another can be done accurately. To say an English translation of the Bible isn't accurate because it is "just one person's opinion", is just plain wrong.

[ddmoit]

To say an English translation of the Bible isn't accurate because it is "just one person's opinion", is just plain wrong.I said no such thing, Greg. I stand by my original point - there is nothing simple about quoting the Bible. What's implied is that it is insufficient to take an English translation of a Bible verse, stripped of context, and use it to advance an argument.

For example: Homosexuality is wrong, or at the very least a sin, as proved by the translated Bible verse I just quoted.

To be fair, I suppose I should take Pat to task as well. It's just that you dragged out an actual translated verse.

For what it's worth, the Catholic Church holds that the Scripture is divine and true. It also recognizes that humans - even humans within the Church - are fallible and can misinterpret the Bible.

[Shaughnn]

A very famous example of what Dan is saying is presented by the "Whom-so-ever is without sin may cast the first stone" parable abou the prostitute and the mob attempting to stone her for her sins. Before the 14th century, it did not exist. Biblical archeologies have traced it's origins to a very specific monastery, and even have strong suspicions of the translator who wrote it into the margins of his illumination. Before this human being fabricated the story, it simply did not exist. There is no text at all which even suggests it prior to this edit. But it has now become commonly accepted as a great teaching of Christ.
Arguing that the Bible is infallible ignores the incredible influence which selfish and dishonest human beings have impressed into it.
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Dan, as usual, you make some very good points. The Bible is anything but simple.

I must point out, I wasn't trying to advance any argument, I was only standing up for the truth, because after all, truth does matter.

It is an accepted fact within orthodox Christianity, including Catholocism, that homosexuality is contrary to what God wants for us.

For our purposes here, it would be impractical to quote entire passages of scripture, chapter and verse. Perhaps you could provide me with a context in which the verse I quoted would have another meaning.

The Bible is pretty clear on this issue Dan.

[HS345]

Shaughnn, that's pretty interesting, could you please point us to the resource where you found that information?:)

Thanks.

[flatfloor]

Pat, since you addressed your reply to me I hope you realize the question I raised dealt with abortion and only that. This thread has split please don't confuse the two issues.

I have been aware of your lifestyle for a while now you certainly have made no attempt to hide it. Even if I objected to gay marriage I would not risk offending you by posting it here. I like you too much.

However I do have concerns for you and your partner. This subject ha come up before and in that thread I wondered what happens when a gay couple marries in a state that recognizes their union and they move to one that doesn't? What happens to community property, children, estates, etc. on event of divorce or death?

[dgunnels]

Jim Said what happens when a gay couple marries in a state that recognizes their union and they move to one that doesn't? What happens to community property, children, estates, etc. on event of divorce or death?

Interesting. I imagine that commerce laws will come into play at some point. How it will sort itself out remains to be seen.

As for you Miss Pat, I don't care what you do behind closed doors nor do I worry about such things regarding anyone else. As long as you are a decent, honest hardworking person I am happy to hang with you. I think you embody all the afore mentioned characteristics. (Besides, your avatar ROCKS!)

I'm not sure where I stand on the legal marriage issue. I do think that in the end somebody is going to have to get out of the marriage business. It will have to be determined if legal unions/marriages are a civil or governemt function or a religious one. I think the co-mingleing of the two is what is causing us so much grief.

OK now I'm getting ready for all the stones y'all are about to throw my way. I think government shouldn't recognise ANYONE's marital status. My value as a human being to society has nothing to do with who I married. Why can't we be taxed and awarded benefits (there won't be any left by the time it's my turn anyway) based on each person as an idividual? MHO :blah: :blah:

[pitterpat]

Flat, I think I may have mis-construed (like mis-remembered) what you were asking. If a woman is having a PBA then I know nothing about that and what there chances are of living.....yes it could be looked at as murder. I do know that at 23 weeks the chances of living are dim, maybe 20%.

Thanks for liking me....I know that I can offend some people with my outspokenness. I still ain't buyin' nothing from you, I been warned by CX :uhh: :) :tongue:

To answer your question about recognition of marriage, property, estates, legal guardianship, children I'll try to tell you as much as I know. I don't think it is wise to get married in a state that recognizes it then move back to your home state, at least not now. My partner wants to move to the beach (CA) because she likes to be at the beach but we've just vaguely talked about it. Property, estates, legal guardianship, children: We are just starting to talk to a lawyer now about property and estates, we will get the strongest legal agreements drawn up that we can and hope that when or if we need them it will be enough. I don't have kids and my mother is well aware of my lifestyle and LOVES my partner, and is comfortable with Mittie making health decisions for me if it is necessary. My Dad.....well, we won't go there. My partner has children and is very open with them about what she wants to happen, they like me, so we will see if it ever comes to something that I have to make a decision.

I'm not as knowledgable about some of the legal stuff yet but I will be in about 2 weeks. But I do know that it all depends on the people outside the relationship that make a stink (parents, children), if you have the legal paperwork you usually can navigate the system and keep "control" (not the best word) of the situation.

Divorce: I don't think that is going to happen to me!!!!!!!!!! I have the BEST partner in the world.....we have a wonderful, intimate (not talking about sex), loving, fun, exciting, down to earth relationship. We LOVE one another, RESPECT one another, she is very smart (smarter than me, nursing school later in life with a 3.87 GPA), and fills in the gaps where I am deficient and I where she is deficient. We have a better relationship than a lot of married people, I don't do anything anymore without talking to her about it and I don't feel like I have a chain around my neck. It's GREAT!!!

Didn't mean to go on but trying to answer questions that have come up. If anybody has more questions feel free to ask, I don't get offended.

Pat

[flatfloor]

I still ain't buyin' nothing from you, I been warned by CX

Are you saying you trust a guy that wanders around on a cold dark mountain looking for small creatures to do god only knows what to them? :shake:

[pitterpat]

Are you saying you trust a guy that wanders around on a cold dark mountain looking for small creatures to do god only knows what to them?

I didn't say I trusted him but that I've been warned.....better safe than sorry. :)

[ddmoit]

Can a moderator change the name of this thread to "FAA Owl Deflection Guidelines" so that CX will see it and have a chance to defend his good name?:D

[flatfloor]

He gave that up years ago. now he prefers skulking. :yeah:

[MudMaker]

Dan... It's better this way... See... We can talk about him and he'll never know...
:lol1: :lol1:

[INtilesetter]

Marriage...I was told there are 3 types of Rings in a marriage..
Engagement Ring
Wedding Ring
And SUFFERING....lol

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
I first heard this in an interview with Gary Wills, the Pulitzer Prize winner and historian from Northwestern University. It was one of the first discoveries he made in Seminary which caused him to question the *text* of the bible. I can try to send you a link to the interview, if you like. I heard it on the program "The Forum, with Michael Krasny" back in March, 2006. It's very interesting and I don't think that you will be able to argue that he is not a careful or spiritual man.
Shaughnn

[INtilesetter]

Holy Mackeral...just read thru most of this thread....this thread has it all...marriage, abortion,the constitution,gay/lesbian relations,politics......but no where is there a discussion of ones their favorite beer? :neesie:

[Shaughnn]

Corby,
That would be Fat Tire, but what's that got to do with tile????
:D
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Thanks Shaughnn, I'll check it out and get back to you.:)

[Shaughnn]

I just listened to the whole MP3 (it was still on my computer as a podcast) and I may have mistaken the interview episode. I'll get back to you, but I now think that it wasn't Gary Wills but another biblical historian from that same week. I've written to the show's host to get a confirmation. I'll get back to you too, Buddy. :)
Shaughnn

[sandbagger]

It is an accepted fact within orthodox Christianity, including Catholocism, that homosexuality is contrary to what God wants for us. we have to be careful here and be specific. I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church, but I believe they got this correct when they say it is the behavior associated with homosexuality that is to be condemned, not the person. I imagine that commerce laws will come into play at some point. How it will sort itself out remains to be seen. As long as the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld it already has. DOM specifically exempts marriage contracts (or facsimile) of one state from being forced upon another through the commerce or "equal protection" rules. Note that I say "as long as it is upheld." Proponents of the Marriage Amendment argue that the courts cannot be trusted to uphold DOM - especially if a liberal such as Obama gets to appoint a couple of Ginsbergs to the Court. I happen to agree. It will have to be determined if legal unions/marriages are a civil or governemt function or a religious one. whenever it concerns things like taxes, Social Security, property ownership, etc the government will have no choice but to be involved. this thread has it all...marriage, abortion,the constitution,gay/lesbian relations,politics.because ALL of those areas and more have been impacted by the real topic of this thread - judges who legislate from the bench.

[flatfloor]

we have to be careful here and be specific. I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church, but I believe they got this correct when they say it is the behavior associated with homosexuality that is to be condemned, not the person

Art, you are not being very careful if you're posting something you only believe to be correct.