Right, not ALL R's are complete jackasses. Just those who support Bush and his lies and agendas.

For example, I'm a Republican, and just a part time jackass.

But count on Jacket to make a blunt point eh?

libral is a mental disorder

Its very sad that america a country i love is going downhill.

Out of a showing of solidarity with my esteemed colleague Duwop, I must confess that I too am a Republican, and a part time jackass.....and being a part time jackass is not limited to only my politics

I manage to fit it in to all areas of life

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

The right thing was done, I do not credit any side , I credit clear thinkers.<

I don't see how you can be on the side of 4 people who wanted something and found it as a right in the state constitution, that was never there before by the way, and over-rid the votes of millions of Californians who did not want it! And if you are going to tell me that it is in the state constitution how come not all 7 of them found it? Show me the paragraph that says it?

Why are you not upset the that majority vote of millions has been reduced to nothing by 4? Is that democracy?

-Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

One of the PRIMARY PURPOSES of the Supreme Court is to provide a venue to challenge laws that are passed to insure that they are consistent with the constitution.

Let's suppose, for example, that a OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of voters in California voted in a law that made it illegal for Whites to marry.

Would you be upset if the Supreme Court over-turned it on Constitutional grounds?

I do not support gay marriage. I never have, and I never will.

I believe a marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

I support domestic partnerships, and I support gay couples being able to share benefits the same as a married couple.

I am against ANY constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, or "protecting" marriage as an event between only a man and woman.

I believe each state should decide the issue for itself.

In short....my position is really no different than Hillary's or Obama's.

In the end, it's not an issue that will ever cause me to give a shit beyond the effort it took to type this position. My beliefs are one thing, while life and law are another...and this one really isn't going to change my day any.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

I believe a marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

I support domestic partnerships, and I support gay couples being able to share benefits the same as a married couple."

It sounds like you just do not like the word Marriage use in a same sex union, that is kinda silly isn't it?

------
Truth, Justice and the American Way

No, and I don't really appreciate my beliefs being characterized as silly either.

I don't characterize the desire of same sex couples wanting to be married, and have it recognized, as silly.

In fact I feel I went to great lengths to state my beliefs, but illustrate that I would not take an activist position to enforce them upon anyone, nor would I condone anyone taking an activist position in the Federal government.

I went to great lengths to say these issues are for states to decide, and I said nothing of taking an activist role in making sure my beliefs became the rule of law, because in the end it won't change my day any.

I also went to great pains to say my beliefs are one thing, and the rule of law is another, and my beliefs are subordinate to the rule of law.

If you think that's "silly", I can't really help you.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

I have heard, but do not have a link, that %40 of marriages are church marriages, so lets say half are legal unions not backed by a church and half are religous unions backed by the law.

Churches do not need to recocnize divorces or marriages, but it is silly to want the word marriage to not be a legal term.

------
Truth, Justice and the American Way

That didn't translate over. It sounded more like an issue with my beliefs, and I think the wording supports that.

~I have heard, but do not have a link, that %40 of marriages are church marriages, so lets say half are legal unions not backed by a church and half are religous unions backed by the law.~

That could very well be true.

Again, what's silly or isn't silly is in the eye of the beholder. My views certainly aren't reactionary, nor unique, and my position is well thought out though it may differ with someone else's.

Personally, I think the notion that animals have "rights" is silly. They do not, nor or they capable of recognizing "rights" within their own species or the animal kingdom at large.

We decide to bestow them rights, and we decide to recognize them...but as far as them existing with any universal inherent rights, they do not.

But I do not tell who believe they have rights that they are silly. I simply make my argument.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

And that's exactly why you should only marry a woman. But other people love someone within their gender. Why should they lose one of the most fundamental human rights because you believe otherwise?

It's exactly the same as interracial marriage. Many people sincerely think it's wrong and immoral. Those people should not intermarry. But other people should, if that's what they want. Why would anyone even care if gay people marry?

The only thing that I find interesting is that there are no arguments for gay marriage that can't be made for childless incestual or for plural marriage. That doesn't mean I favor infertile incestual marriage; I don't. Inconsistent? Yes.

Jacket, your propensity for making arguments that don't exist is showing itself again.

I never said that two people of the same sex should be denied loving one another. You cannot show that I did say that either. Please, put down the "straw man" and back away.

I was CRYSTAL CLEAR in my BELIEFS....get it? BELIEFS! I was also CRYSTAL CLEAR in saying that societies, as in the states, should decide the issue for themselves.

Again, you gloss right by the fact that my position is essentially the same as Hillary's and Obama's, and millions upon millions of Americans.

Please, do not make any further attempts to distort my position. I, unlike you, at least can state my beliefs in an honest and cogent manner, even if you disagree with them.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

I'm actually 99% in HJ's camp on this one. Though I don't mind having the partnership okay vs. marriage not being called splitting hairs or silly. That's the 1% difference.

Civilization requires families, families requires heterosexuals making babies. Yeah, yeah, modern medicine *can* do some great stuff, but it can't give two men a child.

Making homosexuals equal in *all* things seems detrimental to me.

Yeah, in this regard I have no problem regarding them as "second class citizens".

But I'll probably vote against the constitutional amendment for some of the same reasoning the Cali SC did.

My reason is simply that I feel people either share my beliefs or do not...but in this case it's just not going to affect me is gay marriage is made valid.

That's what it really boils down to...whether or not it actually affects me..and being that this is a "morality" issue of a rather trivial nature (as it relates to my life) I just don't feel the need to support a ban.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

Actually, surprisingly for Jack, he actually has a legitimate point here. The fact is, gays view this as an issue of equal rights, and that's a viewpoint that the courts, at least in California and in Mass have been sympathetic to. The fact is, the Religious righties who have sued in opposition, generally have no leg to stand on, because they have a hard time showing that they have any legitimate interest in what two other consenting adults do with their own time, and what rights the State may or may not offer those other two consenting adults. In order to sue, one needs to have standing to do so - and the folks who tend to be opposed to these rights generally lack the standing to oppose the decisions.

The courts never said that any RELIGION needs to recognize same-sex marriage, only that if it's a right (with benefits that accrue from that right) that the STATE grants to heterosexual couples, there is no rationale under the equal protection clause - for the STATE to withhold that right from a gay couple. And straight right wingers really cannot show how THEIR interest has in any way been harmed by these state-supplied rights being extended to gay couples. So, the fact is, if the STATE is in the business of granting rights and benefits to married couples, it pretty well cannot withhold them from gay couples under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Does he ever do otherwise?

Wrong. His inaction to stop the practice was the same as if he instituted it. Here's why.

Suppose you're walking by the side of a cliff and hear a cry for help. If you don't throw down a rope, the person will die. If you fail to act, are you the one killing him?

You are answering this question "no" and I would agree with that. You might be heartless, but you're not the one killing him. But that analogy fails here.

First, Clinton was the PRESIDENT. He was sworn to protect the people. Therefore, he, unlike you or I, would have an affirmative duty to throw down that rope (or keep gays from being kicked out of the military).

Second, Clinton promised to stop the military practice if the people would elect him. In fact, he promised to do so as his first Presidential act, so this was not just one of a million empty political promises. If you promise the guy in the cliff analogy to throw down a rope later, then yes, you're responsible if you don't and he dies.

I trust you will also withdraw any criticism you have of Bush for anything he hasn't accomplished.

"I trust you will also withdraw any criticism you have of Bush for anything he hasn't accomplished."
Nope, but then I have not withdrawn critisism for Bill on this issue. I was pissed when it happened and I still hold this issue against Bill.

------
Truth, Justice and the American Way

Be the change
you wish to see