Originally Posted By Beaumandy So Road Trip, you are willing to let the will of the people, who went out and put an issue on a ballot be over ruled by a single judge? You are willing to give the country to judges? Judges who are making new laws from the bench? Judges who are not following the meaning of the constitution? Also, the American people are good people. They knew slavery was wrong so they got rid of it. They knew women should vote, they knew segregation was wrong so they got rid of that. But you really insult the spirit of Americans everywhere by saying they are to stupid to know what's best for them. That... is liberlism 101 and the reson liberalism is not popular in America and also why liberalism fails every time it's tried. Liberals love to tell people that the government or in this case judges know what's right. The PEOPLE know what they want and they know what is right.
Originally Posted By gadzuux One thing about that frist quote about 'marriage being under attack in america' - it was in response to a comment earlier by, of all people laura bush ... >> The first lady told "Fox News Sunday" that she thinks the American people want a debate on the issue. But, she said, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously." << So GOP majority leader frist counters back with his comment - essentially admitting point blank that the GOP has every intention of using gay marriage as a campaign tool. Really - these people have no shame.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So GOP majority leader frist counters back with his comment - essentially admitting point blank that the GOP has every intention of using gay marriage as a campaign tool.> It appears to me that Senator Frist said that the law is needed because he believes the law is needed.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Except that it appears he was responding to a question about laura bush's comments at the time.
Originally Posted By gadzuux <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060514/ap_on_el_ge/laura_bush_gay_marriage;_ylt=AhNFzsT.fu9t8CJPqDDsKhGyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA-" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 60514/ap_on_el_ge/laura_bush_gay_marriage;_ylt=AhNFzsT.fu9t8CJPqDDsKhGyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA-</a>- Mrs. Bush: Don't Campaign on Marriage Ban
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Except that it appears he was responding to a question about laura bush's comments at the time.> When did Mrs. Bush become VP?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Also, the American people are good people. They knew slavery was wrong so they got rid of it. They knew women should vote, they knew segregation was wrong so they got rid of that.>> They did no such thing. Congress did those things. If they had been voted on by the American people they would have undoubtedly failed. The American people are good people. But they will ALWAYS vote in their own self-interest. And personal self-interest is not what is always best for the country. Let me ask you this.... Would you want to give Americans a vote to determine whether or not we should leave Iraq immediately?? I think you get my point.
Originally Posted By Jetlag The "swedish-story" was analysed, dissected, criticised and largely invalidated by many posters, including myself in a long thread in 2004. It is what it is: an opinion piece that relies on emotional manipulation, bogus facts and the gracious omission of background information of its sources. With "bogus facts" I mean the misleading visualisation of a "fact" or "opinion". A brilliant example for this was another "Opinion Journal" -link that was posted in another thread a few weeks ago. It dealt with the differences of wealth distribution between the USA and Europe. One point made was the "fact" that the average european household does not have air-conditioning, while this is a common thing in US houses. While this is an undoubtable fact, the article implies that the euro-dweller can not afford air-conditioning. It conveniently forgets to inform the reader that the average climate in western- and northern europe does not require air-condition but solid houses and heating-systems. Are you too poor to buy milk in a supermarket when you own a bunch of cows? The "marriage"-piece is full of those kinds of "facts" and they were shown. It is remarkable that this link is still the "deus-ex-machina"-argument against gay-marriage.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Anyone who think this overruling is about gay marriage is definately off base. WE VOTE IN CHURCHES HERE!!! Give me a break. This is a ploy to get the christian right into the voting booths in November. Thats ALL this is about.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<The "swedish-story" was analysed, dissected, criticised and largely invalidated by many posters, including myself in a long thread in 2004.>> Jetlag, if you read the link Douglas provided, it's a NEW update to the Sweden story that takes on the people that tried to " dissect " his findings. If anything, the Sweden and Scandanavia studies showing the negative effect of gay marriage are being proven correct even more now. Road Trip, you can't tell me that the American people are selfish to the point that they would still want slaves or approve of segregation. It's not to hard to make moral judgments like this. But gay marriage simply doesn't fit into this. You people who want gay marriage so bad need to REALLY ask yourself why 78% of the people in a state are against it. You need to ask yourself why even Oregon shot gay marriage down. Oh, the chick here in Portland, Diane Linn, who tried to make gay marriage legal in Multnomah county in 2004 after Gavin Newsome tried his little stunt... well, she lost her job last night in the elections we had here. She lost 70% to 30%. If your answer is that people in America are ignorant homophobes then you REALLY need to get a clue and try a little harder to get the right answer. Off to Vegas!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Road Trip, you can't tell me that the American people are selfish to the point that they would still want slaves or approve of segregation. It's not to hard to make moral judgments like this.>> Yes I can tell you that. NOW, almost 150 years after slavery was outlawed and 50 years after the Civil Rights act, people would vote to do the right thing. But that is ONLY because decisions were initially forced on them that they probably would not have wanted. Having to live with the decisions has shown people that it was indeed the proper thing to do. If people had been treating blacks decently the Civil Rights act would not have been necessary. The fact that it was necessary shows that the majority likely would not have approved it. Remember... at this time there were still separate restrooms for blacks and whites, separate drinking fountains, separate schools, etc. Someday people will look at gay marriage and wonder how anyone could have ever been opposed to it; just as you wonder how anyone could have ever been opposed to equal rights for blacks.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Someday people will look at gay marriage and wonder how anyone could have ever been opposed to it; just as you wonder how anyone could have ever been opposed to equal rights for blacks.>> Nope. You can't compare the two issues RT. Ever ask a black person if they think you can compare the two issues? Anyway, you guys fight it out this time. I'm taking my rocket of a wife on a little trip to sin city. Out.
Originally Posted By FantasticSnake all i can say is marriage is about one thing-LOVE if you love a woman, marry her. if you love a man, marry him. I'm straight, therefor i should have no vote, I'm not gay, I can't say im too comfortable around it, but hey if thats the way you want to swing, go for it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It is remarkable that this link is still the "deus-ex-machina"-argument against gay-marriage.> Exactly - but it's about all they've got. The whole thing obviously makes Kurtz vibrate, but his new piece once again fails even the most basic tests of logic. At its heart is his assertion that because Sweden approved gay marriage (and before that, partnership) at about the same time it equalized most laws regarding marriage and co-habiting straight couples, that the two are inextricably linked, and in fact are "causal" of each other - and would necessarily be linked to each other in other countries (read: the U.S.). This is simply not true. These are two different things that could (and should, IMO) remain different here. Marriage and co-habiting straights are highly distinct legally here, and there is no strong movement to change this. I believe it should stay this way; marriage SHOULD entail definite protections and obligations. Marriage should remain highly distinct from cohabitation. My only thing is I think gay people should be included IN marriage. Then all people in the country have the opportunity to enter into this legal state, or not. In other words, we have equality. (And I won't even get into the obvious logical fallacy that what happens in one country will necessarily happen in another, when in fact things often don't "translate" that way. We're often told that European gun laws, for instance, wouldn't work over here because we're such a different culture. There's something to that - those highly restrictive laws work well there, but might not "translate" here if implemented.) And Beau, you seem to think this judge in Georgia did something she did not do. She did not declare that gay marriage was now legal, or something like that. She said the law banning it was unconstitutional because it failed the "single-subject" requirement. It wasn't spelled out, but I'm guessing it tried to ban gay marriage AND civil unions in one law. She pointed out that this does two things, not one. Many people can favor one, but not the other. And I hate to tell you this (actually, I love telling you this), but about 35% of Americans now favor full gay marriage, and an additional 25% or so favor civil unions. That's 60% of Americans who think we should have some legal recognition for our relationships.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If they had been voted on by the American people they would have undoubtedly failed.> I disagree. If the American people are overwhelmingly against something, then our elected representatives almost always vote against it. Even more so then the general public, politicians will vote in their own self-interest.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The "swedish-story" was analysed, dissected, criticised and largely invalidated by many posters, including myself in a long thread in 2004.> I'll agree that it was criticised, but "analysed, dissected, and largely invalidated"? Hardly. <It is what it is: an opinion piece that relies on emotional manipulation, bogus facts and the gracious omission of background information of its sources.> Which of his facts are bogus? What information is he omitting? <It conveniently forgets to inform the reader that the average climate in western- and northern europe does not require air-condition but solid houses and heating-systems.> Tell that to all the people who died in the last French heat wave. There's no question that the average American has a better standard of living than the average European. We have larger homes, more bathrooms, and bigger TV's, as well as air-conditioning.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The fact that it was necessary shows that the majority likely would not have approved it.> The majority in a minority of states would probably not have approved it. The majority in the country, however, is a different story.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<I'm straight, therefor i should have no vote, I'm not gay>>> This is not logical. Should only criminals be allowed to vote on criminal laws? Should only gun owners be allowed to vote on gun rights? The whole point of voting means everyone gets a say.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Oh and I am from Georgia by the way, but just so you know, I abstained from the gay law vote, which, judging from the overwhelming response, my vote would have been irrelavant either way.
