Page 1 of 12 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 231
  1.    #1  
    Not all those who voted "yes" support the amendment, however. Specter said he is "totally opposed" to it, but felt it deserved a debate in the Senate.

    "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," reads the measure, which would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.

    "Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman," it says.

    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has scheduled a vote on the proposed amendment the week of June 5.
    Okay, here's a part of politics that I'm in the dark on. When did it become okay for a representative to vote for something they're against? Hasn't this been debated enough?

    Some european countries have it. They have 2 ceremonies, one is civil, the other is religous. I don't believe either is required to recognize the other.
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Okay, here's a part of politics that I'm in the dark on. When did it become okay for a representative to vote for something they're against? Hasn't this been debated enough?

    Some european countries have it. They have 2 ceremonies, one is civil, the other is religous. I don't believe either is required to recognize the other.

    Rove has used gay marriage to motivate the religious conservative right to get out and vote for quite a while now. I think there are at least 10 states in 2006 with anti-gay marriage measures on the ballots. It's the party of hate.

    I've actually read a quote from Bush W. when they were using the homophobe tactic to beat Ann Richards stating he did not like singling out homosexuals, however, he still allowed it to happen in his name, and any discussion of a constitutional ammendment too.
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Okay, here's a part of politics that I'm in the dark on. When did it become okay for a representative to vote for something they're against? Hasn't this been debated enough?
    Typically, draft legislation goes to a committee before going to the floor. The committee's responsiblity is to determine if the legislation will be brought to the floor. On the floor, a determination is made if the legislation will be sent to the other house and/or to the President for signature.

    It is ok, and in fact appropriate, for a representative to vote that a measure move to the floor for debate and vote, even if that representative does not support the measure.

    Presumably, that same representative will vote against the measure on the floor.

    Senator Specter seems to be saying, "I don't want the measure to pass, however I believe the matter should be acted upon."

    What some influential representatives do is use their "power" on a committee to prevent matters from even coming up for debate. This is often described as legislation having "died in committee." Robert's Rules may refer to this as being "tabled indefinitely".
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    ...It's the party of hate....
    daT,

    When you use the term "hate" what are you intending to convey?
  5. #5  
    I think it's self-explanatory.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I think it's self-explanatory.
    I would not have asked if it were. You and I do not always agree, but I respect your views. When I read your reply, you seemed to be equating disagreement with hate.

    I wanted to confirm if my take on your statement was accurate, or if not (as I hope) I wanted to afford you the opportunity to clarify.

    I don't believe that those who disagree with me necessarily hate me. I know that I do not hate those with whom I disagree. Likewise, any effort I make toward influencing laws that promote or discourage a given activity are not motivated by hatred of those who practise said activity.

    In fact, quite the opposite, my efforts are usually motivated by love, as in a desire that others experience abundant life, true liberty, and real joy that exceeds mere happiness.

    I am not a Republican, so I know your comment was not directed at me. Even if I were, I would know it to be an inaccurate assessment.

    But, as a casual observer my interest is just in understanding your communication.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I would not have asked if it were. You and I do not always agree, but I respect your views. When I read your reply, you seemed to be equating disagreement with hate.

    I wanted to confirm if my take on your statement was accurate, or if not (as I hope) I wanted to afford you the opportunity to clarify.

    I don't believe that those who disagree with me necessarily hate me. I know that I do not hate those with whom I disagree. Likewise, any effort I make toward influencing laws that promote or discourage a given activity are not motivated by hatred of those who practise said activity.

    In fact, quite the opposite, my efforts are usually motivated by love, as in a desire that others experience abundant life, true liberty, and real joy that exceeds mere happiness.

    I am not a Republican, so I know your comment was not directed at me. Even if I were, I would know it to be an inaccurate assessment.

    But, as a casual observer my interest is just in understanding your communication.

    When a political party fosters discrimination for their political success they are a party of hate. There is no other word for it. 60 years ago, there were laws that would make me marrying my girlfriend illegal.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Okay, here's a part of politics that I'm in the dark on. When did it become okay for a representative to vote for something they're against? Hasn't this been debated enough?

    Some european countries have it. They have 2 ceremonies, one is civil, the other is religous. I don't believe either is required to recognize the other.
    Gay marriage will be back in the news now because Carl Rove has given marching orders to Republicans to put gay marriage legislation on ballots across the country. Apparently, t energizes the rural folk.
  9. #9  
    Well using some common sense here.....

    Marriage was created many centuries ago to make legitimate the off spring of a man/woman union.

    Since gays and lesbians cannot produce off spring in the normal form of creating children, why should two men or two women who want to enter into a "gay or lesbian" union deserve a marriage.

    This goes against the understanding of what marriage is.

    So why should there be a vote or even acceptance of a gay or lesbian "marriage". This is abnormal behavior for what the meaning of "marriage" is.

    Chuck
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Well using some common sense here.....

    Marriage was created many centuries ago to make legitimate the off spring of a man/woman union.

    Since gays and lesbians cannot produce off spring in the normal form of creating children, why should two men or two women who want to enter into a "gay or lesbian" union deserve a marriage.

    This goes against the understanding of what marriage is.

    So why should there be a vote or even acceptance of a gay or lesbian "marriage". This is abnormal behavior for what the meaning of "marriage" is.

    Chuck

    Married persons have certain accessibility and rights granted to them other than breeding Chuck.
  11. #11  
    Hey da....

    So this is the Democrats wanting to remove the religous aspect of marriage in the sense of "BREEDING", so the gays and lesbians can obtain certain rights and accessablities under what we all (normal people) accept as marriage?

    You will have to convince me that gay and lesbian behavior is normal. This will be an impossible task.

    Chuck
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Hey da....

    So this is the Democrats wanting to remove the religous aspect of marriage in the sense of "BREEDING", so the gays and lesbians can obtain certain rights and accessablities under what we all (normal people) accept as marriage?

    You will have to convince me that gay and lesbian behavior is normal. This will be an impossible task.

    Chuck
    I don't have to convince you of anything. Backwards thinking people lost their druthers during the civil rights movement and eventually our society will advance to accepting homosexuality.

    Laws removed the "religious" aspect a long long time ago. The fact that there is a marriage license which has to be obtained from the gov't shows that.

    Anyway, this whole path has been rehashed the last election Rove pulled out this tactic, and the election prior to that, and the one prior to that....
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I don't have to convince you of anything. Backwards thinking people lost their druthers during the civil rights movement and eventually our society will advance to accepting homosexuality.

    Laws removed the "religious" aspect a long long time ago. The fact that there is a marriage license which has to be obtained from the gov't shows that.

    Anyway, this whole path has been rehashed the last election Rove pulled out this tactic, and the election prior to that, and the one prior to that....
    Hey da...

    Just because I do not accept homosexuality as normal does not make me a backwards thinking person. I am well aware of the homosexuals trying to get people to accept their behavior as normal under civil rights.

    Some homosexuals will even push their homosexuality agenda as another race under the civil rights act. Homosexual behavior and race are two very different things.

    Our laws are based on religion. I don't believe the religious aspect of marriage is removed because the government requires a marriage license.

    A marriage license is the modern day legitamacy of the man/woman union that produces off spring.

    Chuck
  14. #14  
    flag burning amendments, gay marriage, terrorists at your door -- expect them to deploy their usual arsenal of slime bushsht

    maybe when rove is indicted and resigns they won't be as effective in motivating the dumbasses as they've been in the past.

    nah -- those folks will fall for the same scam week after week after week -- some folks are beyond learning...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Hey da...

    Just because I do not accept homosexuality as normal does not make me a backwards thinking person. I am well aware of the homosexuals trying to get people to accept their behavior as normal under civil rights.

    Some homosexuals will even push their homosexuality agenda as another race under the civil rights act. Homosexual behavior and race are two very different things.

    Our laws are based on religion. I don't believe the religious aspect of marriage is removed because the government requires a marriage license.

    A marriage license is the modern day legitamacy of the man/woman union that produces off spring.

    Chuck
    Homosexuality is biological.

    You can sit there and keep repeating your "union for offaspring" but it simply doesn't address the reality of the legal rights and access the civil union of marraige afford a couple, therefore marriage WILL be allowed to homosexuals but you just keep fighting to "good" fight to keep a group of your fellow citizens down.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    nah -- those folks will fall for the same scam week after week after week -- some folks are beyond learning...
    You got that right. It's amazing how blatantly the manipulatiion of middle-america/the religious right is and they haven't come to resent it.
  17. #17  
    Hey da...

    You are correct with respect to homosexual behavior as being biological in one sense. The sexual activity they do. Is It a gene that makes a person homosexual? It's doubtfull. Is it a chosen life style? Most deffinately.

    The biological acts that homosexuals do is obscene. Hell, I will be driving through a turnpike toll booth in my big truck and some homosexual ***** will ask me on the CB to go have coffee with them. I don't swing from that tree.

    As far as the good fight goes, I am not trying to keep a segment of my fellow citizens down, I just think the biological homosexual acts and limp wristed way of life should be kept in the proverbial closet where it belongs. You know, the way it's been for years.

    Chuck
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's the party of hate.
    I am fine with homosexuality but two men together is not and cannot be a marriage. This is not hate. You cannot alter the meaning of a word on a whim. This is my view and I have no hatred in my heart for people that are born gay. I will not feel guilty for having good vocabulary.

    You may feel differently but it has nothing to do with hate.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    As far as the good fight goes, I am not trying to keep a segment of my fellow citizens down, I just think the biological homosexual acts and limp wristed way of life should be kept in the proverbial closet where it belongs. You know, the way it's been for years.
    Chuck
    Now substitute "negro" for "homosexual" and the racial slur of your choice for "limp wristed" and tell me how that sounds.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    I am fine with homosexuality but two men together is not and cannot be a marriage. This is not hate. You cannot alter the meaning of a word on a whim. This is my view and I have no hatred in my heart for people that are born gay. I will not feel guilty for having good vocabulary.

    You may feel differently but it has nothing to do with hate.
    I realize you are hung up on the word. There is nothing about the definition of it that excludes two adults who want to make that exclusive commitment to each other.

    (This thread brought to you by Karl Rove and his instant action item off gay marriage)
Page 1 of 12 12345611 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions