Now - if I was a believer in what many Republican talking heads point out, this would appear suspiciously as one of the methods of the Saul Alinsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky) plan to distract with so many issues that no one can focus on one to fight. It seems that Obama has decided to flood more issues out. I can only see this one going badly for him - it will possibly serve to energize the 35% that truly support him. Unfortunately for him, when this issue is brought up for a vote in the various States on referendums most times the folks vote for Man-Woman marriage only overwhelmingly - even though the legislatures and the courts work against their wishes. This will serve to throw another large negative issue out there that the public will not support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/17/AR2009081702722.html

Quote

The Obama administration distanced itself Monday from legal arguments it had made earlier this summer, taking pains to remove and renounce language that had outraged advocates in the gay community in a case that centers on the constitutionality of a same-sex marriage law.
...

It almost seems like they are trying to provoke a backlash.

I am all for the States determining their own wishes in this issue. The reason DOMA was passed was to deal with issues regarding the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. Bill Clinton signed the Bill into law.

Full Faith and Credit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

This is has ZERO chance of going anywhere. I've noticed that Hussein Obama has
backed off "Don't ask, Don't tell" also. Like they say in the Army, BOHICA!
(Bend Over, Here It Comes Again)

They say it in the Navy too :)

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They say it in the Navy too :)

And probably the Air Force and Marines too. The Army also has a saying, "Here
comes the green weenie!" when you know you're screwed. What does the Navy
say?

My memory was just a variation on the theme. Mainly "Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye!"

Not in the shower of course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2009 10:09PM by Registered Voter.

It's nice to see some strategic thinking in support of liberal causes. I just hope it all works. A backlash that shows the stupidity of the conservative agenda and cements and energises the base is fine.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

DOMA is ridiculous and pointless. One of my friends is moving to England because her wife wasn't granted a spousal visa because of DOMA. England, on the other hand, is leaps and bounds ahead of us in that aspect.

The individuals who seem to fight so hard for DOMA are the same jackasses who go out and bang an intern. Marriage sure is sacred. *rolls eyes*

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being vague is almost as fun as that other thing.

Melissa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DOMA is ridiculous and pointless. One of my
> friends is moving to England because her wife
> wasn't granted a spousal visa because of DOMA.
> England, on the other hand, is leaps and bounds
> ahead of us in that aspect.
>
> The individuals who seem to fight so hard for DOMA
> are the same jackasses who go out and bang an
> intern. Marriage sure is sacred. *rolls eyes*

... or get caught in an airport men's room. Or get caught up in a male escort service scandal. Or get busted for texting underage male pages.

I won't apologize for my attitude or opinions about marriage - but it is more due to traditions regarding marriage then it is anything else. I actually respect the institutions of religion (regardless of their many flaws) and the Constitution. The main parts being:

1. States rights to determine how they want to manage those particular issues
2. Freedom of religion (paraphrased)

I am all for Civil Unions, or if a given Church "chooses" to perform a marriage based on the rulings within the leadership of their governing religious body, that is fine. Also at the Federal level, there is no reason that those Civil Unions (or marriages) should not be recognized for tax and other benefit determination purposes. But each State should have the right to deal with the recognition of marriage/Civil Unions as they see fit, and folks can choose to live in or move to a given State based on those issues. But I don't want to see Churches sued because they refuse to perform a same sex marriage. There are plenty of ways to get married and until a given church or religious body changes their beliefs or policies regarding same sex marriages, they should not be forced to perform them. Whatever their internal flaws, beliefs or practices. If a church does not recognize same sex marriages, and a member believes they are of that church, and yet they believe in same sex marriage - maybe they need to be in a different religion. A similar issue with abortion - if your religion has a belief or policy that abortion is wrong, and you believe in abortion, then you really are not OF that religion - you are just using their name as an identifier.

Perhaps the Federal government form of DOMA will come or go - it is just that at this time he is bringing up such a divisive issue, in the middle of a number of other divisive issues being argued in the public forum - you have to wonder what his motivation is for generating so much turmoil.

Registered Voter Wrote:
> I am all for the States determining their own
> wishes in this issue. The reason DOMA was passed
> was to deal with issues regarding the Full Faith
> and Credit clause of the Constitution. Bill
> Clinton signed the Bill into law.

Frankly I'm not. The idea that a state would deny a loving, legally able to consent, couple from marrying is an extreme intrusion into one's personal business. Would people argue for Woman's suffrage the same way (ie, let the states figure it out)? No, bigotry is bigotry - even if it comes from a religious source.

If marriage didn't confer special privileges from the government then it wouldn't matter, but since it has stuck it's nose in this business then it needs to be equal to all people of consenting age.

This frankly smacks of interracial marriage issues of the 1960's.

So I could marry 4 women? They're all able to consent.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I won't apologize for my attitude or opinions
> about marriage - but it is more due to traditions
> regarding marriage then it is anything else.

?

You can keep the traditions the same - no one is arguing that we have to force churches to marry anyone.

> I
> actually respect the institutions of religion
> (regardless of their many flaws) and the
> Constitution. The main parts being:
>
> 1. States rights to determine how they want to
> manage those particular issues
> 2. Freedom of religion (paraphrased)
>
> I am all for Civil Unions, or if a given Church
> "chooses" to perform a marriage based on the
> rulings within the leadership of their governing
> religious body, that is fine.

I'm not for 'separate but equal' Civil Unions. Nor am I for forcing Churches to marry anyone they do not want to.

> Also at the Federal
> level, there is no reason that those Civil Unions
> (or marriages) should not be recognized for tax
> and other benefit determination purposes. But each
> State should have the right to deal with the
> recognition of marriage/Civil Unions as they see
> fit, and folks can choose to live in or move to a
> given State based on those issues.

Would you say the same thing if the issue were interracial marriage?

> But I don't
> want to see Churches sued because they refuse to
> perform a same sex marriage.

Why would they be? They aren't sued now for not performing marriages with people outside of the Churches religion. This is a red herring, IMO.

> There are plenty of
> ways to get married and until a given church or
> religious body changes their beliefs or policies
> regarding same sex marriages, they should not be
> forced to perform them.

I'm not aware of any serious arguments to force them to do this.

> Whatever their internal
> flaws, beliefs or practices. If a church does not
> recognize same sex marriages, and a member
> believes they are of that church, and yet they
> believe in same sex marriage - maybe they need to
> be in a different religion. A similar issue with
> abortion - if your religion has a belief or policy
> that abortion is wrong, and you believe in
> abortion, then you really are not OF that religion
> - you are just using their name as an identifier.
>
> Perhaps the Federal government form of DOMA will
> come or go - it is just that at this time he is
> bringing up such a divisive issue, in the middle
> of a number of other divisive issues being argued
> in the public forum - you have to wonder what his
> motivation is for generating so much turmoil.


I'm not sure why you are making this such a 'church' issue.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So I could marry 4 women? They're all able to
> consent.


In my opinion, sure.

The argumant that legalizing same sex marriages will forcr churches to perform such marriages is the same tactic as claiming Obama is setting up death panels in his health plan reform. It's a deliberate lie...spread by deliberate liars. So be aware of who you are dealing with...a person who makes such a claim is deliberately being inflamitory and deceptive for the sake of distorting the truth.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The argumant that legalizing same sex marriages
> will forcr churches to perform such marriages is
> the same tactic as claiming Obama is setting up
> death panels in his health plan reform. It's a
> deliberate lie...spread by deliberate liars.

It's also a red herring and to reduce the argument to absurdity, consider this:

There were Churches against interracial marriage (shoot, there probably still are some). If we legalized interracial marriage that might mean forcing these churches to have interracial marriage ceremonies. Therefore we should deny these granted government rights to interracial couples.

Let's say it's completely true - that if the government legalizes it, churches will be forced to have those ceremonies (or not have any ceremonies).


Is the argument then that we should make interracial marriage illegal?

Does it make sense to discuss the issue with liars? With people who will bring the discussion down to the lowest point of absurdity? I'll quote Barney Frank when he recently confronted a republican constituent of his at a town hall meeting...."What planet do you live on?"

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does it make sense to discuss the issue with
> liars? With people who will bring the discussion
> down to the lowest point of absurdity? I'll quote
> Barney Frank when he recently confronted a
> republican constituent of his at a town hall
> meeting...."What planet do you live on?"

Are you referring to the people in this thread? In my experience RV has been wrong and we've had frustrating words, but I don't think he's intentionally lying here.

Maybe I'm misreading you here.

My main issue for pointing it out is, that Obama seems to be bringing up a number of seriously divisive issues and attempting to get many of them rammed through without taking into account the wishes of the people.

1. Stimulus Bill
2. Cap and Trade
3. Health Insurance Reform
4. Interjection of Racism into an issue where no racism (as portrayed) occurred
5. DOMA issues

etc.

He says he wants to "reach across the aisle" and be more bipartisan. Talk about a red herring.

EDIT: It just seems like a lot to put on the plate all at once. Is there some other issue behind all this? I am asking a question.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2009 10:55AM by Registered Voter.

Not devisive issues..important issues. And what appears to be happening in my humble opinion is that a vocal and violent minority in this country forgot that they lost the election. The majority of folks voted for Obama just on those kind of issues. Now it seems rather then hijacking an election with the help of the Supreme Court the republican party wants to cut the balls off Obama. The strategy appears to be to make Obama the next Jimmy Carter....ridicule him...and trivialize him. Well...lets just say more then just the radical right can get angry in this country. And in 40 years when the demographics wont even support a channel like Fox "news"...there will be hell to pay.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Are you referring to the people in this thread?
> In my experience RV has been wrong and we've had
> frustrating words, but I don't think he's
> intentionally lying here.
>
> Maybe I'm misreading you here.

Folks who have a patent disbelief of anything but their delusions will then turn around and call others liars.

But no, I don't come here to lie. What would be the point? Do I have some reason to lie to you all? Do I have some ulterior motive to lie here? To presume that means that the people on this board are so important I have some reason to come here and do something I don't accept in my own life.

???

Sorry, but no one here is that important for me to go against my strongly held beliefs that liars cannot be trusted. Or that delusional people, in many cases, need to be medicated or see a therapist.

This entire post is right out of the republican play book. Secret agendas..ooohhh scarey....what's really behind this black or should I say muslim president....ohhhhhhh, scarey. His wife wears shorts in public...ohhhh...scarey.
What the fuck! Are Americans so god damn stupid?


Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My main issue for pointing it out is, that Obama
> seems to be bringing up a number of seriously
> divisive issues and attempting to get many of them
> rammed through without taking into account the
> wishes of the people.
>
> 1. Stimulus Bill
> 2. Cap and Trade
> 3. Health Insurance Reform
> 4. Interjection of Racism into an issue where no
> racism (as portrayed) occurred
> 5. DOMA issues
>
> etc.
>
> He says he wants to "reach across the aisle" and
> be more bipartisan. Talk about a red herring.
>
> EDIT: It just seems like a lot to put on the plate
> all at once. Is there some other issue behind all
> this? I am asking a question.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This entire post is right out of the republican
> play book. Secret agendas..ooohhh
> scarey....what's really behind this black or
> should I say muslim president....ohhhhhhh, scarey.
> His wife wears shorts in
> public...ohhhh...scarey.
> What the fuck! Are Americans so god damn stupid?
>
>
>
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > My main issue for pointing it out is, that
> Obama
> > seems to be bringing up a number of seriously
> > divisive issues and attempting to get many of
> them
> > rammed through without taking into account the
> > wishes of the people.
> >
> > 1. Stimulus Bill
> > 2. Cap and Trade
> > 3. Health Insurance Reform
> > 4. Interjection of Racism into an issue where
> no
> > racism (as portrayed) occurred
> > 5. DOMA issues
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > He says he wants to "reach across the aisle"
> and
> > be more bipartisan. Talk about a red herring.
> >
> > EDIT: It just seems like a lot to put on the
> plate
> > all at once. Is there some other issue behind
> all
> > this? I am asking a question.


I'm sorry but I don't get that from RV's post. I think RV answered his own question, granted (Obama seems to be bringing up a number of seriously divisive issues and attempting to get many of them rammed through without taking into account the wishes of the people).

In fairness, I only have limited experience with RV - for all I know he's written tirades about Obama being a Muslim - but you seem to be tarring his reputation in this thread in an effort to distract from what he's actually arguing.

You disagree with him, I get that, but it would be more productive to actually list out the reasons you object to his argument as opposed to just trying to smear him as a nut-ball.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I won't apologize for my attitude or opinions
> about marriage - but it is more due to traditions
> regarding marriage then it is anything else. I
> actually respect the institutions of religion
> (regardless of their many flaws) and the
> Constitution. The main parts being:
>
> 1. States rights to determine how they want to
> manage those particular issues
> 2. Freedom of religion (paraphrased)
>
> I am all for Civil Unions, or if a given Church
> "chooses" to perform a marriage based on the
> rulings within the leadership of their governing
> religious body, that is fine. Also at the Federal
> level, there is no reason that those Civil Unions
> (or marriages) should not be recognized for tax
> and other benefit determination purposes. But each
> State should have the right to deal with the
> recognition of marriage/Civil Unions as they see
> fit, and folks can choose to live in or move to a
> given State based on those issues. But I don't
> want to see Churches sued because they refuse to
> perform a same sex marriage. There are plenty of
> ways to get married and until a given church or
> religious body changes their beliefs or policies
> regarding same sex marriages, they should not be
> forced to perform them. Whatever their internal
> flaws, beliefs or practices. If a church does not
> recognize same sex marriages, and a member
> believes they are of that church, and yet they
> believe in same sex marriage - maybe they need to
> be in a different religion. A similar issue with
> abortion - if your religion has a belief or policy
> that abortion is wrong, and you believe in
> abortion, then you really are not OF that religion
> - you are just using their name as an identifier.
>
> Perhaps the Federal government form of DOMA will
> come or go - it is just that at this time he is
> bringing up such a divisive issue, in the middle
> of a number of other divisive issues being argued
> in the public forum - you have to wonder what his
> motivation is for generating so much turmoil.

I agree with you -- churches should be able to choose who they want to marry, and do. Look at the Catholic church! Politics and religion should not be co-mingled. What people want is equal recognition for taxes, benefits, probate law, adoption -- the legalities that protect a heterosexual married couple. I do not know a single person who gives two shits about the church in this aspect. Every gay person I know who is religious goes to an inclusive, welcoming church. Why would someone choose to go to a church who hates them? It's not about fighting to force CHURCHES to marry people, but to have the same recognition legally.

Hey, it will stimulate the economy, if nothing else. Weddings are expensive, and divorces are even more expensive.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being vague is almost as fun as that other thing.

Melissa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> ....and divorces are even more expensive.


I agree. Homosexuals should have the same opportunity to become as miserable as the rest of us. :-)

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If marriage didn't confer special privileges from
> the government then it wouldn't matter, but since
> it has stuck it's nose in this business then it
> needs to be equal to all people of consenting
> age.
>
> This frankly smacks of interracial marriage issues
> of the 1960's.

Yeah, I won't deny that. I am all for people being happy with whomever they want to marry - but I have to say that at times the slippery slope argument gets closer and closer as religion is removed from the argument. As was asked, 4 women, sure - with the ways the laws are going today I see the removal of polygamy as a crime and the allowance of these types of marriages. At some point I just hope it doesn't lead to things even worse.

I will make a small example - not to be construed to something larger, just an example.

Let's say we remove christian religion beliefs from all forms of lawmaking. Now, in 30 years the country has been flooded with immigrants that believe in Sharia Law who are highly motivated to vote in large numbers. It doesn't take religion then to start making the laws that these people believe in become enforceable on others.

You see this in England already, where they allow Sharia Law to be used to decide certain types of cases. There are quite a few things about Sharia Law that most people here today would find pretty offensive.

So I have a concern. This isn't a lie, it is a concern. I suppose most of the time I post here is to get some feedback from folks who don't share my views to see if they can advance arguments I understand and can embrace, and also it forces me to look into these issues myself.

Registered Voter Wrote:
> Let's say we remove christian religion beliefs
> from all forms of lawmaking. Now, in 30 years the
> country has been flooded with immigrants that
> believe in Sharia Law who are highly motivated to
> vote in large numbers. It doesn't take religion
> then to start making the laws that these people
> believe in become enforceable on others.
>
> You see this in England already, where they allow
> Sharia Law to be used to decide certain types of
> cases. There are quite a few things about Sharia
> Law that most people here today would find pretty
> offensive.
>
> So I have a concern. This isn't a lie, it is a
> concern. I suppose most of the time I post here is
> to get some feedback from folks who don't share my
> views to see if they can advance arguments I
> understand and can embrace, and also it forces me
> to look into these issues myself.

If we removed Christianity from the laws, why would we then institute Sharia law? I wouldn't support those ass backward beliefs. You'd see my fat ass on a flight to Australia.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being vague is almost as fun as that other thing.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, I won't deny that. I am all for people being
> happy with whomever they want to marry - but I
> have to say that at times the slippery slope
> argument gets closer and closer as religion is
> removed from the argument. As was asked, 4 women,
> sure - with the ways the laws are going today I
> see the removal of polygamy as a crime and the
> allowance of these types of marriages. At some
> point I just hope it doesn't lead to things even
> worse.

Well let's investigate it, what's wrong with polygamous marriages if all the parties are consenting? I don't know, but slippery slope arguments are pretty hard to justify.

> I will make a small example - not to be construed
> to something larger, just an example.
>
> Let's say we remove christian religion beliefs
> from all forms of lawmaking. Now, in 30 years the
> country has been flooded with immigrants that
> believe in Sharia Law who are highly motivated to
> vote in large numbers. It doesn't take religion
> then to start making the laws that these people
> believe in become enforceable on others.

Ie, say we are living in Europe.

What I think we should all push for is secular laws and *not* religious laws. Ergo, there would be no problem when the hypothetical Muslims came in and tried to get their laws passed - they would be struck down as unconstitutional.

> You see this in England already, where they allow
> Sharia Law to be used to decide certain types of
> cases. There are quite a few things about Sharia
> Law that most people here today would find pretty
> offensive.

I agree, but allowing Christian dominance of the laws is not an answer. At best it stems the problem and justifies Sharia law when the Muslim population increases.

> So I have a concern. This isn't a lie, it is a
> concern. I suppose most of the time I post here is
> to get some feedback from folks who don't share my
> views to see if they can advance arguments I
> understand and can embrace, and also it forces me
> to look into these issues myself.

I can understand your concern, but I'm not entirely convinced that keeping Christian based laws is going to prevent Islamic laws - if the population of Muslims increases. In fact, I would think that it would give them more of a leg to stand on if that were to ever occur.

Melissa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we removed Christianity from the laws, why
> would we then institute Sharia law? I wouldn't
> support those ass backward beliefs. You'd see my
> fat ass on a flight to Australia.

It isn't that we would institute Sharia Law - it would not be couched in religion. It would just be laws based on Sharia beliefs (much like today we have laws based on Christian beliefs). I guess it comes down to whether or not we stay Americans as defined by our laws, or if we change our laws and become Americans as defined by the "current" religious belief system - because like it or not, many of the things codified into law are based on those shared beliefs and values.

Polygamy is a good example of a law based on religious beliefs.

I HATE DOMA! It means me and by fellow AIDS-infested butt-pirates are treated as 2nd class citizens. No fair! waaaa waaaa waaaa I'm gonna take my ball and go home!

look... if i cant marry a sheep, why should they be able to marry?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Attachments:

Exactly. Lol

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> look... if i cant marry a sheep, why should they
> be able to marry?


A ridiculous cmparison designed to trivialize the issue and to energize the religious right. Equating the love 2 men or women feel for each other to the level of fucking sheep..is disrespectful but typical of the 2 of you.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2009 09:20PM by Vince(1).