| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Marine4life
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 591
Location: California
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:44 pm Post subject: Vote on Constitutional Amendment |
 |
|
The vote should be by Wednesday says MSNBC. Kerry and Edwards will return to vote NO on banning same sex marriage in our Constitution.
This will solidify their gay/lesbian vote but will only help Bush/Cheney with mainstream America. This shows us how out of touch Kerry and Edwards really are. Say so long to the Bible belt john john, you need it to win and you are kissing it good-bye. Thank you for taking this stand. Semper Fi.
_________________
Helicopter Marine Attack Squadron 169 which is now HMLA-169. They added Huey's to compliment the Cobra effectiveness. When I served we just had Snakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Indianbaboon
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just wonder when the 18-25 age demographic which is pretty heavily for it, will wake up and realize what they tried to do to this country.
For the record, i am 100% FOR the ban on gay marriage. things just don't belong IN the OUT hole (feel free to edit that admin, i realize it's in bad taste  )
you guys think the ban will pass? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nakona
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Indianbaboon wrote: | | For the record, i am 100% FOR the ban on gay marriage. |
Not me, and I'm glad that this plan to defile the Constitution won't succeed.
Besides... Why shouldn't THEY be miserable too? 
_________________
13F20P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Marriage belongs to Religion.
Civil Government shoud not consider the religious beliefs (including atheism) of differing religious sects or societies.
Civil (e.g. tax, property, inhertence) rights or entitlements should be by civil contract regardless of gender and have nothing to do with religious beliefs.
Civil entitlements or prograns to support and assist children and families with children should be granted to families regardless of parental gender or religious belief.
Just a "balanced" opinion from a conservative Republican!
and another thing: These beliefs therefore force me to accept plural civil contracts regardless of gender or religious belief!
_________________
 On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
B_Francis
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 09 Jul 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nakona wrote: | | Indianbaboon wrote: | | For the record, i am 100% FOR the ban on gay marriage. |
Not me, and I'm glad that this plan to defile the Constitution won't succeed.
|
I agree with nakona on this one.
_________________
we may agree or disagree (or agree to disagree), but if you are a vet, thank you for serving our country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The only way to stop activist judges from changing, defying, over-ruling ,or outright ignoring existing state law and the will of the people is through a constitutional amendment.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nakona
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| carpro wrote: | | The only way to stop activist judges from changing, defying, over-ruling ,or outright ignoring existing state law and the will of the people is through a constitutional amendment. |
Something that folks without a legal background may be unaware of is that ALL judges are activist udges.
EVERY TIME a judge makes a ruling, in ANY court, he is making law.
We're just more aware of certain cases.
On the gay marriage issue...
Look, let me be clear...
I have NO IDEA how one man looks at another man's butt and thinks; "I'm in love"
I fundamentally don't "Grok" it. (no wiseguy comments about me dating myself with the "Grok" comment, please.)
But if two consenting adults decide that they want to spend their lives together, who the heck am -> I <- to tell them that they can't?
Furthermore, getting married has a bunch of social and civil rights that come with it, the important ones having to do with inheritance, hospital visitation right, and things of that nature.
To deny that to a couple just because they are the same gender is a violation of the constitutions guarantee of Equal Protection under the law.
Furthermore, it's essentially impossible to make a coherent argument against gay marriage without invoking the bible, which would violate the constitutions "establishment" clause. You simply cannot force a person to live according to the morality of a particular religion.
Beyond that, I would have thought that we learned our lesson about legislating morality via the constitution, with Prohibition, which not only failed, but created and organized criminal structure that we are STILL trying to dismantle.
Finally, the only argument that's left is that Gay Marriage makes a mockery of the institution of marriage.
Well I've got news for you...
Us "breeders" made a mockery of marriage a long damn time ago.
Understand...
Nobody is asking us to approve of gay marriage or gay sex or anything else that has to do with living life as a homosexual.
All they are asking of us is to be allowed to live their lives the way they see fit and to find whatever happiness they can.
As a strong believer in personal freedom and liberty, I would be a real hypocrite if I wanted to deny someone the right to "Pursue Happiness", when that pursuit causes no harm to me or anyone else.
So if gays want to get married, let 'em!
Why shouldn't THEY be miserable TOO?
_________________
13F20P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeWinn
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 110
Location: South Carolina
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nakona said: | Quote: | | EVERY TIME a judge makes a ruling, in ANY court, he is making law. |
I am one of the great unwashed who does not have a legal background, but, If what you say is true, then what is the difference between statute law and case law?
On the thread topic, I'm pretty much in agreement with you, Nakona. Just think, if we don't stand in the way of 'gay' (I hate that word, used to mean happy) 'marriage', they can't reproduce themselves through pro-creation, so maybe that 'gene' will be bred out? By the way, let's find a new word for 'marriage' in the homosexual community. Miriam's dictionary defines marriage as | Quote: | The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
|
Anybody have any suggestions?
_________________
LOCK & LOAD!
GunnerMike
Spectre Gunner and 141 FE
Dedicated to Rico. KIA March 14, 1971.
Love ya man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Simple. Take government out of the "marriage" business. States stop issuing marriage licenses entirely. All "unions" are then simple partnership agreements under civil law and marriage (as a term) belongs to religion.
I'll point out again; if this is done it would, to be non-discriminatory, have to include plural and group civil "unions". Is that the result that civil society wants?
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marine4life
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 591
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gay marriage will make health insurance out of reach for everyone, unethical life styles brings disease, aids etc. A Costitutional amendment is necessary and will happen, just not this time. If it was on the ballot it would pass hands down. It will entitle benefits that will come out of my pocket, and I have my own ethical family to care for. We can't say God in school because it might offend someone but they can teach our kids homosexuality and that is ok, wrong!!! Clinton coined the phrase "acceptable alternate lifestyle", acceptable to who I ask? Kerry will sign his death warrant on this vote, he will lose the religious south and key battle ground states. He can't win with California, Flor-i-da, and mass. Bush is calling his hand and it don't look good for Kerry. More of these issues will come soon to make kerry take a stand, odds are that he will vote yes and no on every topic. Semper Fi.
_________________
Helicopter Marine Attack Squadron 169 which is now HMLA-169. They added Huey's to compliment the Cobra effectiveness. When I served we just had Snakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Indianbaboon
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i'm w/ aspb. let them have whatever economic benefits straight couples get. Just dont' tell me it's the same thing as marriage.
oh and Nakona, on how to argue for the defense of marriage wtihout invoking the bible? I'm a Hindu/Buddhist...which means my religious rules come from nature. Hence I can give you a pretty decent argument for marriage=man and woman based on evolutionary biology alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nakona wrote: | | carpro wrote: | | The only way to stop activist judges from changing, defying, over-ruling ,or outright ignoring existing state law and the will of the people is through a constitutional amendment. |
Something that folks without a legal background may be unaware of is that ALL judges are activist udges.
EVERY TIME a judge makes a ruling, in ANY court, he is making law.
We're just more aware of certain cases. |
No legal background here, but I disagree. Judges should interpret and apply the law.
Recent example: California State law clearly against same sex marriage.
Judge does not apply the law. He does not interpret it . The language of the law is unambigious. He CHANGED it.
Applying the law to any given case is not MAKING LAW. I don't believe you have to have a legal background to understand the difference.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freebird
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry morfdq, you've already been banned. Do not post here anymore under any different names!
Edited by Moderator War Dog! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
