Bush backs Gay Marraige Ban Amendment

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why is that such an offensive position?

Because minority rights should not be left up to the majority. Typically, they have not be overly supportive.

[Ben Kenobi]

and to anti-abortion groups operating so-called crisis pregnancy centers, outfits that masquerade as women's health clinics but deliver a strongly anti-abortion message and often medically inaccurate information.

Let's sift out the jargon.

anit-abortion = prolife

so-called crisis pregnancy centres = crisis pregnancy centres.

masquerade as womens health centres = provides options for pregnant women other than abortion.

often medically inaccurate = refuse to send women to abortion clinics.

So there is no bias in that source. None at all.

[rah]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because minority rights should not be left up to the majority. Typically, they have not be overly supportive.

Exactly,

God, I'm agreeing with a commie.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ming once said you guys were using the religous right. I think its rather obvious they are using you. It's not just in this case, either.

I agree with che's assessment.

I would disagree that the courts should decide, it ought to be up to the legislature. Let the people have a say on the issue.

Why is that such an offensive position?

because that's not how the US federal government is organized... the legislature makes the laws, the courts decide if they are constitutional or not. The seperation of power prevents tyranny by majority in this way. Like I said before, I could give two ****s if the majority of the people think gay marriage should be banned because it is unconstitutional. (see 14th Amendment)

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.

banning gays from receiving the legal benefits of marriage is against the 14th amendment... sorry BK, you can't discriminate against gays in America. Maybe you should move to Saudi Arabia where they impale gays on spears.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because minority rights should not be left up to the majority

Is there a right to marry whomever you want just because you love them, che? Is it in the constitution, that the state cannot restrict marriage?

[Sava]

in addition to my above post, President Bush has shown a complete lack of respect for the federal government and the seperation of powers. He has no respect for the judicial process at all. It's an insult to the entire judicial system when he paints these judges as "activists". Unlike Bush, these judges have spent a good part of their lives studying the laws. And Unlike Bush, they respect the laws and the spirit in which they were written.

[Ben Kenobi]

(see 14th Amendment)

I see nothing in there applying to marriage.

Maybe you should move to Saudi Arabia where they impale gays on spears.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Is there a right to marry whomever you want just because you love them, che? Is it in the constitution, that the state cannot restrict marriage?

I already answered this... the 14th amendment says people get equal protection under law. So yes, two gay people have the same right to the legal protections of marriage just as a black person has the right to vote.

[Ben Kenobi]

Unlike Bush, they respect the laws and the spirit in which they were written.

They are activist judges. Why fault the man for seeing clearly, just because you disagree with his assessment.

Secondly, I sincerely doubt the founders would have any doubt as to the legitimacy of the state in restricting marriage to one man and one woman.

Discrimination is not always bad. There are plenty of areas where the state discriminates.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I see nothing in there applying to marriage.

you need to learn about implied powers


I made the crack about Saudi Arabia because it seems as if you (and the rest of the anti-gay people) wish to punish gays. Denying them equal protection under law, whether it's marriage, voting, driving a car, getting medical care, equal employment, etc... is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

The US constitution is a sacred document because of it's lack of specificity. We don't need an amendment for every little issue that creeps up.

Instead of amendment saying "gays can't be discriminated against" and "blacks can't be discriminated against"... we have an all purpose amendment saying "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW"

so BK, if you want to punish gays you should move to a country that does so.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
They are activist judges. Why fault the man for seeing clearly, just because you disagree with his assessment.

this is an absolute BAM... but I didn't expect anything else from you and your gay-hating crowd (including Bush).

okay, name the judges in question

detail their careers and show how they are activists...

This is complete and utter bull**** from the weak-minded gay haters (I can't even say right-wingers anymore because not even all of them hate gays the way you do).

The judges are correctly interpretting the law... they are doing their jobs.

[Ben Kenobi]

the 14th amendment says people get equal protection under law.

Same critique as earlier. Nothing in there on marraige.

Secondly, you still fall into the poor analogy to race. One cannot change ones race, while one can certainly change sexual preference.

you need to learn about implied powers

Ah, to read in whatever you support. Yes, it is a wonderful tool of activist judges.

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW"

Ah, so just saying those words over and over again rebuts my argument?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is there a right to marry whomever you want just because you love them, che? Is it in the constitution, that the state cannot restrict marriage?

Stop shifting. You asked why not allow the people a say. I told you why. As for what is in the constitution, the Constitutions at issue are state constitutions, and apparently, several of them do say you cannot keep gays from marying each other. So there!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
one can certainly change sexual preference.

No they can't.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by rah
He may be throwing the fundies a bone, but it sure makes it harder for his more moderate supporters, (like me) to continue to vote for him.

It's a painless bone to throw because he knows it would never get past the hurdles in place to prevent people from putting things into the Constitution everytime they felt like it. Moderates already knew about his feelings on the matter.