quote:

---

...

Also explain the difference between deciding on gay marriage with a state-to-state vote to determine whether or not there will be an amendment, and deciding gay marriage issues on a state-by-state basis.

...

---

Well, basically, as I see it, one is asking for an amendment to be made to the constitution and one isn't. I'm quite interested to see what the wording of the proposed amendment will be.

---
Please replace the handset, and try again.

With the "state's rights" view, each state is free to choose for itself. With a Constitutional amendment (if ratified) it would no longer be a matter of choice for any state--it would be federal law and would overrule all state (and lower) laws.

Or was there an answer you were looking for that's less blindingly obvious?

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

Mikey asks "What if Kerry is as bad or worse than Bush once he's in office?"

I think that's an excellent question. I would hope that if this is the case it would wake the majority of the voters in the nation up to the futility of the two-party dominated system and actually consider their third party candidates. I'm not at all confident that it will happen, though.

The biggest problem with this year's election thusfar, and one that even though boo and company have tried their best to fight against, has in fact been all this talk about "electability." It's one of the few things that I agree with mAAk about, and I'm sick to death of hearing about it. While some may consider this electability nonsense to be a point of "strategic thinking," I consider it to be a lack of defineable backbone in what you believe, and a willingness to settle for less. I'm apalled at the lack of conviction displayed thusfar in the people who voted in the primary states. I don't think it's anything in particular about his platform or policies that has led Kerry to victory in so many state primaries in the 2004. Instead, I think it's just simply the fact that he won Iowa, and the democrats in the other states wanted so badly to back a "winner" that they threw in their votes with him because they thought that the people in Iowa were a fair representation of the people everywhere else in the US. Then as successive states went to Kerry, it became a self-fulfilling prediction. It's all because they're so desperate to get rid of Bush that they'll take whoever they think can do it. It's pathetic. The whole Democratic primaries process is pathetic. Why doesn't everyone vote at once so we can actually have someone who represents what the voters want instead of what voters in 49 states think everyone else wants based on voters in one state? In 2000, Did you see armies of republicans endlessly bemoaning the fact that "Well, I really like McCain, but he has no chance to beat Gore, so we'll vote Bush instead?" I certainly didn't hear it. Hell, if they had been talking about it they'd probably have been voting for McCain in the primaries, because he seemed far less objectionable to the democrats I knew at the time than Bush ever was. Some of those said democrats would have voted for McCain over Gore or Bradley, even.

Anyway, best case scenario that I'm willing to hope for is that Kerry wins the election, becomes president, proves only slightly less scummy than Bush, and it leads people to actually vote for what they actually want for a change... but I'm more willing to bet that it will just be yet another step in the seemingly endless cycle of 2-party insanity. I suppose it's theoretically possible for Kerry to be a "good" president, but I wouldn't be willing to bet on it.

How could you forget that the major domestic issue of the first two years of the Clinton administration was health care reform? Sure, scarcely any of it came to pass, but the blame there was not the White House's, rather it should go to Congress and the Big Health lobbies.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

With the "state's rights" view, each state is free to choose for itself. With a Constitutional amendment (if ratified) it would no longer be a matter of choice for any state--it would be federal law and would overrule all state (and lower) laws.

---

Not only that, but it's counter to everything else in the Constitution. The Constitution by and large enumerates and guarantees rights of individuals and states. Said amendment would do the opposite, denying those entities the right to choose how to define marriage.

Speaking of which, all the arguments I have seen so far against legalizing gay marriages in the eye of the government have come down to one of two things:

[list=1] [*] It's against my religious beliefs.

[*] I'm a homophobe.[/list]
Until someone can come up with a better argument against it, I can see no reason why I should oppose such unions.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

I am ardently and vehemently pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-war, and anti-death penalty. A lot of people here consider themselves liberal but are pro death penalty. Quickly, the death penalty is crap because the percentage of people proven innocent after their executions is far too large for comfort. But gay marriages?

The majority of Congress, and definitely the Bush Administration, is Christian. Marriage is NOT only a Christian sacrament. Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and other major religions all practice marriage. If you are going to limit a group of people to restrict them from marrying, as long as they are not RELATED to each other, based on their Christian beliefs, then why not restrict non-Christian marriage as well?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

SHHHH! You'll give them ideas!

Unless they already thought of it anyway, and are just waiting for the correct social climate to put if forth...

quote:

---

With the "state's rights" view, each state is free to choose for itself. With a Constitutional amendment (if ratified) it would no longer be a matter of choice for any state--it would be federal law and would overrule all state (and lower) laws.

Or was there an answer you were looking for that's less blindingly obvious?

---

wirthling the problem is once it was decided on a state-to-state issue, someone would challange it nationally by moving to a state where it wasn't allowed, and it would be taken through the court system and decided on a national level anyway. So either way the Constitution is going to have the final say, and if either side wants to be secured, they really do need their own respective amendment. Nothing is stopping the gay rights advocates for proposing their own amendment.

And it IS a matter for any state when 2/3rds of them must vote to approve the amendment. It HAS to be a national issue when married couples pay federal taxes.

I am kind of confused as to why they chose to push this issue now, when the nation is fairly conservative and we have a President in debt to the far right agenda. Maybe they are gambling that the amendment won't get passed and they can let the Supreme Court decide over the American people what the law should mean. If the amendment does get passed it's going to be a lot harder to change things in the future.

I'm not sure why the attack plan wasn't to focus on the few items where gay couples don't have parity with married couples, whatever they might be. (I'm not to read up on this so I'll use examples that are probably wrong). If they want the same tax advantages, argue for that, if they want to be able to adopt children, argue for that, if they want visitation rights as family in hospital emergencies, argue for that. Saying "we want you to recognize gay marriage" just seems silly to me, when if you have the same legal rights, you can just call yourselves married.

P.S. from now on wirthling and I are married.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

And I get to be the man btw

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

quote:

---

With the "state's rights" view, each state is free to choose for itself. With a Constitutional amendment (if ratified) it would no longer be a matter of choice for any state--it would be federal law and would overrule all state (and lower) laws.

Or was there an answer you were looking for that's less blindingly obvious?

---

wirthling the problem is once it was decided on a state-to-state issue, someone would challange it nationally by moving to a state where it wasn't allowed, and it would be taken through the court system and decided on a national level anyway. So either way the Constitution is going to have the final say, and if either side wants to be secured, they really do need their own respective amendment. Nothing is stopping the gay rights advocates for proposing their own amendment.

---

If the Supremes say gay marriage is not unconstitutional and people challenge it in states that make it legal they will lose. If there is a Constitutional amendment, the Supremes (Diana Ross included) will have no choice but to declare gay marriage unconstitutional by definition. In the first scenario states can still make their own marriage laws (provided the SC doesn't create anti-gay-marriage precedent) while in the second there is no state choice, so it seems to me to be a major difference.

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

I don't see no ring, bitch.

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

Awww, it's a non-traditional marriage! C'mon Wirth, you know you want it.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

I would like to bump this thread by reminding people that it is actually ESSENTIAL for Ralph Nader to run in this election. Before anyone accuses me of parroting Howard Stern, because this morning he said something similar but not the same, I had this stance when I first heard Nader was running.

We are supposed to be a democracy. It is ESSENTIAL in a democracy that we have choices. Ralph Nader represents the freedom to choose. I honestly don't think Kerry is going to be any better than Bush, but that's not even the point.

The point is that we have been so very, very limited to the two-party system that it has come to represent, now more than ever, the lesser of two evils as a standard. I don't like that idea one damn bit. Stalin over Hitler? Idi Amin or Slobodan Milosevic? Those might be extreme examples, but you get the point. How can anyone who supports democracy tell Nader not to run?

'Beat Bush at any cost'. But there IS a cost. DEMOCRATS are petitioning for Nader to NOT RUN. Did we forget what happened the last time he ran? At the Presidential Debate, he was not allowed to debate because HIS VOTE PERCENTAGE WAS NOT HIGH ENOUGH. He did not have a high enough percent to be allowed into the debate. This was because the Clinton Administration raised the percentage requirement from 5% to 7% just in time to lock Nader out of the debate. Nader had either five or six percent, I can't remember exactly. When Nader showed up at the debate, he was kept out, EVEN AS A SPECTATOR, by police and security.

Nader has said, accurately, that Washington has become 'corporate-occupied territory'. How many Democratic Senators do you think are on someone's payroll? A lot, if not all. We all know whose payroll the majority of Republicans are on, right? That's right, it's God's payroll, and Jesus is the Director of Human Resources.

Kerry considers himself a conservative, or at least that his stances are conservative. His wife seems to be pretty damn liberal, but she is conspicuously quiet during much of the Kerry hoopla.

Let Nader run, dammit. You can say that voting for Nader is throwing a possible Kerry vote away if you want. I say voting for Kerry is throwing a possible Nader vote away.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

You say in a democracy, we have to have a choice, but with Nader running he greatly increases the chances that there will be no choice, and Bush will stay in office. That's why I brought this up. Without a fourth party to balance out Nader he is hindering democracy from functioning.

That's what you get when you go to Howard Stern for your political opinions, MikeyG.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Hey, MaKK. Shut up.

If I went to Howard Stern for my political opinions, I'd have been pro-Bush for a while. When are you going to EVER know what you're talking about?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I know that Nader will never ever get elected President, and that you saying a vote for Kerry is a vote stolen from Nader is so funny I might fall off of my high horse laughing so much.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Is this statement supposed to make sense? Is democracy only palatable in multiples of 2? Any odd number just fucks everybody up?

Plus, I don't know what state you're voting in, but there are always a good 5-6 candidates on the ballot for President when I go to vote. The big two, Green, Libertarian, Wacky Christian Right, two or three Socialist candidates...

Who gave the Democrats and Republicans the monopoly on winning? Because it's tradition? Because Americans are too uneducated and stuck in their ways to change?

Is it going to take another Ross Perot to shake shit up again?

---
I has a flavor!

My point is the Democrats and Republicans have a monopoly on winning whether or not you agree with it. Ralph Nader running for president isn't the same thing as the communist party being on the ballot in two states; Nader will make a noticable difference and it will make a difference by hurting the Democrats. He will never win this year, ever, under any circumstance. He will make enough of a difference to swing some state, and that's it.

In a way the Democrats are to blame, by racing to make themselves more like the Republican party they open themselves up for a splinter group. This is a big reason I feel the Democratic party having no mandate is a bad thing. (Ralph Nader looks pretty hot to disaffected Democrats not).

I've wondered if maybe this is like a hostage situation, with Nader demanding the V.P. nomination. I can't imagine that would be better for Kerry though, who is working hard to make himself look less liberal.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Saying Nader shouldn't bother running for President is akin to saying 7up should stop production because it doesn't sell as well as Pepsi and Coke.

7up = Nader
Pepsi = Kerry
Coke = Bush

Hehe. Coke. Bush. Nyuck Nyuck.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

The problem isn't him doing well, it's that he basically assures another party's defeat. America isn't set up for elections based on plurality, so the outcome is very biased if you don't have run-off elections as they do in countries where several parties is the norm.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Nader running for prez and garnering a few votes isn't "hindering democracy", as you put it MaKK...it is encouraging it. It's encouraging freedom of choice. Personally, I would love to see Bush out of office because he's a pompous prick and easily the worst president in the history of the United States, but that shouldn't limit the choices of who we have to vote for.

Besides, if either party is scared of losing votes to Nader (with Democrats being a lot more scared), then maybe they need to work harder at earning votes for their candidates, instead of bitching and moaning about losing the fence sitters to Nader or any other smaller party candidate.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

Kerry will be very different. Will he make everyone drive solar powered cars and eat tofu? No. But he will be a damn site better than Bush, and he is electable.

Nader on the other hands if off his meds. He needs to go back to dogging corporations - maybe get a job as a correspondent for consumer reports. And if he wants to get into public life, try running for mayor or something first.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Niteowl, maybe you should read up on the differences between a pluralistic democracy and a two-party democracy before you become condescending on the issue.

I say again: Nader is taking away the voice of the people, not giving more to them if he assures Bush victory in states where otherwise he would lose.

Yes, our government is elected, but they also have to be fairly elected, you minicing goofus.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I seriously cannot believe your post above this MaKK. Either you're trolling to get a rise out of me, or you are a complete idiot.

It's not condescending, it's the truth.

Jesus H, I'll just bring up the soda reference again. Why should I drink Pepsi or Coke just because everyone else is doing it? What if I want a 7up?

You keep talking about the "voice of democracy". If everyone is voting for who THEY want (as opposed to voting for a lesser evil), then the voices of everyone are being heard. Which means whoever gets elected gets elected fairly. And I'll say it again : If the 2 parties are so worried, then get your shit together and earn the votes. Period.

Besides, if this is truly a two party system, why is the Green Party still around? Or any other party? Shouldn't they have been wiped out by now?

Have you thought that maybe...JUST MAYBE...there are some people who don't want to vote for either Kerry or Bush? Oh, that's right...people shouldn't rock the boat and instead alter their votes so they don't spit in the face of "democracy".

I completely stand behind my point.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

Thank you, niteowl.

First off, Nader isn't 'off his meds'. He is participating in democracy. I don't remember anyobdy jumping up and down on Pat Buchanan for taking votes away from Bush. Why is it that Republicans are so single-minded and organized while Democrats are contentious and divisive?

By the by, as for stupid things to say, MaKK may have topped us all with the comment that there has to be a fourth party to balance out Nader. MaKK's ability to reason and make at least coherent statements seems to be directly proportionate to how much confidence the public has in the current administration. Since the confidence level is pretty low, MaKK's reasoning is waffling.

I am glad Nader is running. Shit NEEDS to be shaken up. Bush does need to get the fuck out of office, that is VERY, VERY important. But MaKK is right about one thing. Kerry has been distancing himself from the left lately. He's been calling his stances on issues conservative. His WIFE I like, and she's got the right idea. How often is Kerry going to listen to her?

Nader is NOT a fence-sitter and Kerry does not represent my issues. Kucinich totally did, but Nader comes the closest. I don't want Kerry. I'm so fucking tired of this compacency shit. 'Let's vote the LESSER of two evils in, and eventually we can just keep doing that until there's no evil at all!'. Is it too impatient of me to not want to be in my eighties when a viable candidate is elected?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.