Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Federal Ban on Gay Marriage?
wonderwhoits
Member Posts: 128
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_el_pr/palin_gay_marriage
Palin wants a ban on gay marriage at the federal level. Is it really that big a deal? Why do conservatives have to stick their nose in everyone else's business with their moral bullshit? They talk about small government, but when it comes to morals, they want to build a police force like in the middle east to make sure people arent holding hands in public.
Mind your own F'ing business.
If gay people wanna get married then you have to let them. They deserve the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness as much as anyone else. I just do not understand why this is even an issue, why there is even a question, why there are STILL people with a hair up their ass about gay people and why they get a voice.
Not to mention that marriage between straight people is a big enough joke as it is. But maybe that's their plan and it starts with banning gay marriage. Make marriage so serious it can't possibly be a joke.
Maybe people like Palin would make laws requiring men to marry any woman they impregnate, make anyone trying to get a divorce face jail time for violating "moral" laws. ...Devices which monitor brain activity for thoughts of infidently to issue stiff fines. ...like a band that goes around your head with a tiny beeper-sized printer attached to it to spit out "naughty tickets" right there. Oh and it could light up all day so everyone would know that you thought about having sex with not-your-wife, so you could be judged... OH how conservatives LOVE to judge.
Maybe people like Palin are just bat-shit crazy and they have no business in America's government. The republican party will never get any respect with people like her in it.
Comments
Palin = Female Bush.
So the nonsensical 'defense of marriage act' would be replaced with the new 'really strong defense of marriage act?'
Well, apparently the new strategy is to energize the very base McCain did the worst with in 2000, while alienating the people that McCain did successfully win in 2000.
Desperation tactics indeed. Fortunately our future President, Obama, doesn't appear to have any intention of doing anything like this, so between that and the (it's looking hopeful) defeat of the California amendment, we'll be good. Obviously no way Bush is getting something this big passed before he passes out of office.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Well to be fair Obama has policies that piss me off too. He wants more gun control, favors affirmative action, opposes nuclear power- but at least I understand his logic for those policies even if I disagree with them. "Defense of Marriage" though is just straight up BS.
Last time I checked, Palin isn't running for President. McCain is. McCain is opposed to a federal ban on gay marriage and thinks its up to the states. This is the stance I agree with. I don't want someone from Vermont or Alaska legislating whats best here in California.
That's funny, but not for the reason you thought.
No, Palin's running for vice president, on the ticket with a presidential candidate who is 72 years old and has a history of melanoma, therefore has higher than average possiblity of being asked to assume the office.
Also, she apparently is in disagreement with the top of the ticket on this matter.
Since no one has EVER propoosed that various religious bodies be compelled to bless any marriage at all, that only the state's role in marriage is at stake here, religious objections are utterly moot.
Totally religious gay marriages have taken place for decades in this country.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
Palin has a fundamental belief that marriage is a special relationship to be shared between teenagers who are about to become parents thru natural childbirth.
Gays can't qualify for that......
That's funny, but not for the reason you thought.
lol.. ya I thought the same thing
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
The United States is still stuck in the stoneage as far as gay marriage is concerned.
And many several other issues.
Last time I checked, the US Constitution didn't authorize the Federal Government to involve itself in things like marriage licenses and who can obtain one. So, if Palin and her ilk want to create some sort of federal-level moratorium on issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples, they're going to need to get a constitutional amendment passed. Chances of that happening? Slim to none.
Yeah just like the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to force individuals ot provide abortions and morning after pills yet that is what they do.
Some how it has become illegal to refuse to sell the morning after pill if your personal beliefs are against abortion.
One of the first bills Obama wants to pass is to make Abortion not only completely legal but to strip states of all laws they currently have in place. Including laws about parental notification and bans on which trimester an abortion can be performed. He also wants to make it a tax subsidized procedure for low income individuals.
So that means that even if I am against abortion my tax dollars will be going to support it. Which is a complete crock of BS and might just lead to another Civil War. Between the issue of Abortion and Gun Control, Obama could be the next President to fracture the Union.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
That's just another of the plethora of reasons I have for not voting for Obama. OTOH, I'll not be voting for McCain, either.
More generally, this usurption of power by the federal government has been going on for a long, long time. It is, sadly, foolish for us to hope that this trend will reverse itself... ever.
People have such short memories, and when you start going between multiple generations, it's much worse: we don't even realize how far things have gone because we're so absorbed with the way things are *now*.
At any rate, the various trends driving us along are there to be seen by those who want to look. And for those who don't, there's no point in trying to force them to look at something they don't want to see.
Obama is doing you a favor by helping women get abortions. You're a conservative, you understand fiscal responsibility? How many more welfare babies do you really want in and out of the system?
I just dont think people really care enough about fetuses and guns to start a civil war. And if thats the case- you can keep take half of the union. Keep it and get the hell away from me. Enjoy conservativeland where people reproduce in a lab because sex is illegal, as is everything else that brings any form of joy to an individual's life- including having to give up your dreams because you got knocked up at 15 and the law says you gotta pop that bastard out.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Palin also said the polar bears can evolve if their ice melts too.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Look on the bright side, you've had one retard in office for 8 years, so what could possibly go wrong if you get another (assuming McCain dies and she takes over).
O_o o_O
Same sex marriage seems to me to be one of those things that would be unconstitutional to ban on any level.
It would be like banning marriage between black people, unequal treatment under law.
Then of course there are those people that get pissy if you call it marriage and demand for it to be called civil unions, but I say drop marriage entirely and everyone gets civil unions.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I wonder if either extreme side would be ok with civil unions?
My take on the whole thing.
If you see marriage as a religious ceremony I can see why you would be against a gay couple taking what is your religious ceremony and twisting it. We have religious freedom so I don’t think you should be allowed to force a religion to do something it doesn't want to. That being said I don’t think the government should be in the business of issuing marriage licenses. They should only offer civil union licenses and the church should offer marriage licenses. This way under the law a gay couple is seen the same but you are not taking away religious freedom of others.
Yeah, but don't two atheists getting married twist their little prejudice into knots too?
I wouldn't mind getting the church out of the marriage buisiness altogether. Have a government definition of marriage be the certificate, and let people do whatever the heck they want for a ceremony. I have no interest in regulating other people's marriage. If they want to have a christian ceremony or a muslim ceremony or a jewish ceremony or whatever, I think they should have that right.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Yeah, but don't two atheists getting married twist their little prejudice into knots too?
I wouldn't mind getting the church out of the marriage buisiness altogether. Have a government definition of marriage be the certificate, and let people do whatever the heck they want for a ceremony. I have no interest in regulating other people's marriage. If they want to have a christian ceremony or a muslim ceremony or a jewish ceremony or whatever, I think they should have that right.
Two atheists getting married doesn't twist the religious ceremony. But if they were separated into civil unions by the government and marriages by the church atheists wouldn't be getting a marriage anyway they would be getting a civil union.
But that is the problem you want it all your way screw religious beliefs or feelings. If you force religion to do something they feel is wrong you are just as wrong as the religions nut saying a gay couple shouldn't be equal under the law.
How would religions be forced to do anything? Is there a law anywhere that says a clergyman must perform a ceremony for a couple? I think there is not.
I would not force any religion to perform any ceremony they don't want to. If they only want to marry men and women of their faith, or only want to marry white people, or only want to marry people with at least 18 inches of hair on their head I just couldn't care less.
The government, being a non-religious institution, should offer marriage licenses to those who want them.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Marriage should be left up to religion, since marriage was created by religion. It isn't up to the government to regulate marriage, it is however up to religion to determine. Marriage can be recogonized by governemt as a contract between a man and a woman, because that was how it was created in religion. A "partnership" can be recognized between anyone. Why would anyone want the government regulating religion to force government views upon those who's religion does not agree with the context of their relationships?
Now I am all for people having a choice as to what they want to do with their life, but that is exactly what it is , a choice. Gay guys sleep with women, lesbians sleep with men.. all of this happens regardless of how they were born. These are all choices. Some are born male. some are born female, some are born hermaphrodite, that is a born condition, just like what color your eyes are what color your hair or skin. That was not a choice. Who you want to sleep with is a choice.
Now I do not believe in any group getting special rights simply because they made a choice. I have reviewed all of the information in this matter, and it is wrong. You can show me this nut here says that it is a born condition, and I do not care. A born condition is something you have no choice over. Now because I have kissed girls that makes me a lesbian? No I chose to do that, it is all about choices, and yes by many standards an unnatural choice due to the fact that if nature had intended men to mate with men they would have given the ability to reproduce without the need of a female, the same goes for women if nature had intended for us to mate with each other we would not need a male in order to do that.
Now I have nothing against anyone who wants to partner with someone of the same sex, just that is their choice to do so, and they shouldn't receive special rights for it, that is just silly to think you should. No moreso than if someone wanted to get a boob job, and then say hey I want special rights for people with boob jobs. It makes about as much sense lol. It is their choice to do so, but not something you should be treated special for. LMAO!
100% agree with the OP here.
Palin needs to just die, before she can infect this country further.
I remember back in 1999, folks kept asking me if I was stockpiling food. I always answered, "No, I'm stockpiling ammo and making a list of people who are stockpiling food"
How is being able to marry the person you love a 'special right?'
If you want politics out of the marriage business, I'll go along. Eliminate marriage as a legal entity. Replace it with a civil union, the government can decide what that means. Religions can decide who they want to marry, since it has no legal status (just like 'baptized,' 'celibate,' and any other fun statuses religions come up with). If they only want to marry people born on the same day of the week, or having the same color eyes, or any other silly arbitrary standard they make up, they'll be free to have fun with that.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson