Another reason Bush is dangerous

[Ivan Seeking]

On the issue of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages:

Even though most of us know that this is nothing but a distraction since there is no way this could never pass the 2/3, 2/3 needed, much less ratification by the states, the Bush logic is worthy of review.

Premise: Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.

Fact: No civil marriage is sacred [in the eyes of God as implied].

Most churches do not perform gay marriages.

If a church chooses to allow gay marriages, the state shall mandate otherwise.

Conclusion: Bush seeks to both mandate religious law in churches, that is he wants the state to declare what is and is not sacred, and he also seeks to impose religious precepts on a civil institution.

 

[Vodka]

that's because bush is a stupid whore.

theres just nothing more to be said. most anybody who follows enough news can go on for an hour about why he sucks so horridly. there's nothing you can say to one who doesn't understand to make him get it. conversely, to those who already know, nothing more needs to be said. this is one of those times :(

 

[Shahil]

temper, temper Vodka.

Anyway, yet another STOOOPID bill by our beloved dubya but what can you do...

Just a thought though: by passing this law, won't he alienate the intellectuals because of the NON-seperation of church and state??

 

[Zero]

Every time a politician uses the word "sacred" or "sanctity" in regards to marriage, they are going far beyond their job description. Their guidance should come from the Constitution, not the Bible, and until they accept that, and act on it, they are proving themselves unfit for public service.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Every time a politician uses the word "sacred" or "sanctity" in regards to marriage, they are going far beyond their job description. Their guidance should come from the Constitution, not the Bible, and until they accept that, and act on it, they are proving themselves unfit for public service.

It's the courts to get their guidance from the constitution and conform the actions of the politician to it. They are to interpret the law. In the meantime, it is the politicians right and duty to get guidance anywhere they see fit and will better the country.
I'm abstaining from the gay debate and constitution editing matter. However, you have made quite absolute statement that I just had to disagree with

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
It's the courts to get their guidance from the constitution and conform the actions of the politician to it. They are to interpret the law. In the meantime, it is the politicians right and duty to get guidance anywhere they see fit and will better the country.
I'm abstaining from the gay debate and constitution editing matter. However, you have made quite absolute statement that I just had to disagree with

Well, you are wrong, Wrong, and WRONG!

Ok, now that I got that off my chest, the point I was making is that, while people are allowed to draw on whatever inspiration in their personal lives, for specific behavior at work, they have to follow the rules of their job. The rules of governance are found in the laws, not in "holy" books, which seems to confuse some people.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, you are wrong, Wrong, and WRONG!

Ok, now that I got that off my chest, the point I was making is that, while people are allowed to draw on whatever inspiration in their personal lives, for specific behavior at work, they have to follow the rules of their job. The rules of governance are found in the laws, not in "holy" books, which seems to confuse some people.

hahahha

The rules of their job will stop bills that do not follow the constitution from becoming law. So, look where they may, the supreme court is not elected for a reason ;)
Also, what do you look to for guidance on ammending the constitution?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
hahahha

The rules of their job will stop bills that do not follow the constitution from becoming law. So, look where they may, the supreme court is not elected for a reason ;)
Also, what do you look to for guidance on ammending the constitution?

I personally avoid amending the Constitution as much as possible. I certainly wouldn't dream of doing so based on a narrow reading of a book of fairy tales, or openly proclaim that I am doing so for the purpose of establishing a government-endorsed religious standard.

 

[motai]

Originally posted by Shahil
temper, temper Vodka.

Anyway, yet another STOOOPID bill by our beloved dubya but what can you do...

Just a thought though: by passing this law, won't he alienate the intellectuals because of the NON-seperation of church and state??

Yup, taking one big step backwards for America. Let's just hope we take two steps forward to counteract it, and that probably won't happen if G-Dubya is in office.

 

[kat]

Has anyone seen poll numbers, statistics...anything to see which way the majority of the public leans on this matter?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Has anyone seen poll numbers, statistics...anything to see which way the majority of the public leans on this matter?

Should that really matter?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Should that really matter?

Should that matter? I guess if I were fighting it, or pushing it..I'd want to know what the odds were. This comment

since there is no way this could never pass the 2/3, 2/3 needed, much less ratification by the states, the Bush logic is worthy of review.

made me wonder what the numbers were. I have to be honest..I'm a bit apathetic about the whole subject...until it comes to constitutional amendments...can't say I'd be too happy about that but as I said...I'm pretty apathetic about gay marriages..or other peoples straight marriages and those oh so frequent divorces either...for that matter...

 

[Zero]

I think it is like 2/3 against gay marriage, and 50/50 for civil unions...not that any of that should matter in reference to gay marriage itself.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
I think it is like 2/3 against gay marriage, and 50/50 for civil unions...not that any of that should matter in reference to gay marriage itself.

Why should it not matter? Is this a human rights issue in your eyes (keep in mind, even then, that's a term created and judged to meet it's criteria by the populous)?

For making marriage out to be such a trivial thing, you sure do hold strongly that it doesn't matter what people want, this should be a god-given right to everyone.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Why should it not matter? Is this a human rights issue in your eyes (keep in mind, even then, that's a term created and judged to meet it's criteria by the populous)?

For making marriage out to be such a trivial thing, you sure do hold strongly that it doesn't matter what people want, this should be a god-given right to everyone.

I didn't know we needed to take a vote on human rights issues, or that rights were based primarily on public opinion. While I don't believe in mythological beings, you mentioned the term "god given rights". If they are "god given", then what does a poll have to do with it?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
I didn't know we needed to take a vote on human rights issues, or that rights were based primarily on public opinion. While I don't believe in mythological beings, you mentioned the term "god given rights". If they are "god given", then what does a poll have to do with it?

You are taking my questions as statements of my beliefs. I don't think it's a human rights issue, nor do I think it's a god given right :) I was asking your stance.

As for you human rights, yes it is up to the populous. The social safety net is decided by the populous. Some would say healthcare is a basic human right, some wouldn't. Some would say a job is, some wouldn't. Some would say marriage is, some woudln't.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
You are taking my questions as statements of my beliefs. I don't think it's a human rights issue, nor do I think it's a god given right :) I was asking your stance.

As for you human rights, yes it is up to the populous. The social safety net is decided by the populous. Some would say healthcare is a basic human right, some wouldn't. Some would say a job is, some wouldn't. Some would say marriage is, some woudln't.

Whatever...do you really think it is a good idea to put civil liberties to a vote? Ever hear the phrase 'tyranny of the majority'?