| Author |
Message |
    
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4174
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 11:00 am: | 
|
Bush's version of the Nuremberg Laws has failed:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-07-gay-marriage_x.htm
I am still amazed that the Congress is spending a single second discussion writing discrimination into the Constitution. Apalling. |
Nancy - LibraryLady
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 3546
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 12:16 pm: |
|
There was only one reason for this to be even discussed, to energize the right wing base so that the Pres and others could say, "Look we tried. Come out and vote in November for us Rebubs anyway"> otherwise their constituencies have been so turned off by the economy, the War, etc, that ,while they probably wouldn't vote Democractic, they most likely would just stay home in November.
This is the only eay they have to attempt to energize the base. Sick mothers.... |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4175
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Nancy - Yes, I agree that was the motivation. However, how in the world can this even be remotely considered in light of the Nuremberg Laws:
Section 1
Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.
Proceedings for annulment may be initiated only by the Public Prosecutor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
How is Bush's proposal any different? Discrimination is discrimination. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7381
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Don't compare the two..Marriage as it is defined is between a man and a woman. Each state needs to be on the same page. This thread is offensive to Jews.. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5689
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Discrimination in our laws is already there. Targeting some for tax increases because they have it, denying school or employment spots based upon race when those denied had nothing to do with the situation being addressed, what counts as life and what doesn't.... Congress and the people are always drawing lines, some "good" and some "bad" but they're drawn all the time. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4176
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 12:37 pm: |
|
cjc - and modifying the CONSTITUTION to do it? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5690
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 12:42 pm: |
|
This effort is also designed to split the Democrats and depress their turnout. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1428
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 12:42 pm: |
|
No Straw it is offensive to Jews. The amendment proposal is offensive to Jews, and all other people who want to keep the government out of their personal lives.
I would define marriage as a contract, a bond, and a pairing which is not defined as solely between male and female.
you can research marriage for yourself here
Tell me Straw isnt there anything that you have second thoughts on about this administration? |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7382
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 12:51 pm: |
|
I support all states being on the same page when it comes to marriage. If a constitutional amendment one way or the other is required I support that. The reason I support that is because you cannot have individual states changing their laws when it comes to marriage.
You cannot have a couple married in Mass., being told that they are not legally married in North Carolina. Can't have that.
I support same sex marriage but not if it's going to be a state to state decision.
The Great Straw is a proud American.
|
Spqr
Citizen
Username: Spqr
Post Number: 93
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Actually, as an HR professional, I can tell you that there is no discrimination written into law with Affirmative Action, as is alluded to in a previous post. Affirmative Action, if applied correctly by companies, ensures that companies look at diverse pools of candidates for positions. No where does it state that you must hire a minority even if they are not as qualified as a non-minority candidate for a position. What it does say is that you need to demonstrate that you are actively seeking and marketing your positions to diverse candidates who are qualified for such positions. This does not seem like discrimination to me. Therefore, employment law is not the same as trying to amend the constitution to ensure that a class of citizens will never be able to attain the same rights as all other citizens. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1429
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Quote:I support same sex marriage but not if it's going to be a state to state decision.
Then why would you support an amendment stating that marriage is to be only between an man and a woman. Seems to me that you should be against that amendment. Seems to me that you would be in favor of an amendment stating that any two people can choose to be married and that all the legal protections of marriage should apply to them uniformly.
Gee you really are liberal. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5692
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Spqr -- is there affirmative action law that has ever been written for private companies? I thought the law was applied to public/govt institutions or institutions that had business with the government. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7383
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 1:05 pm: |
|
"Seems to me that you would be in favor of an amendment stating that any two people can choose to be married and that all the legal protections of marriage should apply to them uniformly."
That's what I support. However, I don't believe this nation will support a federal law such as the one you suggest. I also know an amendment against same sex marriage can never pass. However you look at it, we need to do something. At least the President is doing that much even if you disagree with his motives or his thoughts on the subject. All states need to be on the same page.
All that said, again laws against Jews and non-Jews marrying, or blacks and whites marrying, or Catholics and Muslims marrying etc. is quite different than this issue. So, again don't compare same sex marriage to the laws of the Nazis. No one is looking to kill 6 million homosexuals...
It was a moronic comparison.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1430
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 1:36 pm: |
|
no it wasnt Straw. The Nazis killed not only Jews. They killed homosexuals, they killed communists, they killed socialists, they killed gypsys, they killed criminals and anyone who was in anyway seen as a non supporter of the reich.
The law you would support is exactly opposite of the law you do support. The law that Bush is pushing and that can never pass - and these Senators and Congressmen know that it will never pass because it requres 3/4th of the STATEe legislatures to approve - is a bigoted law. A law that brings to mind laws of the south against interracial marriage.
This is only done for show and to get the focus off the harm this administration has done to our country.
|
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1618
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 2:00 pm: |
|
I don't agree with this amendment and I believe that gays should be able to marry but I will be the firs to tell you that it is not necessairly bigoted if someone thinks otherwise...
Both sides need to chill and let the state legislatures do their jobs (sorry Straw).
-SLK |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3332
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 2:02 pm: |
|
"You cannot have a couple married in Mass., being told that they are not legally married in North Carolina. Can't have that. "
The issue is, which state's law is wrong. In my mind, NC's law would be more egregious, as it not only denies their own residents, but would affect non-residents passing through their state.
If you truly believe what you say above, then you should be in favor of a national law that prevents one state from not recognizing a legally binding marriage in another. It should not be about having uniformity, but about universal acceptance of a marriage contract.
And if you really are in favor of same sex unions, then you cannot possibly be in favor of the Constitutional amendment Bush is proposing. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3333
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 2:32 pm: |
|
While we all knew it was a purely political move, the fact that the House is continuing with their version, even after it failed in the Senate, is evidence that the sole point of the proposal was the arouse constiuents.
Gay-marriage amendment fails in Senate
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060607/pl_nm/rights_gays_congress_dc_7 |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1937
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 2:33 pm: |
|
It's a good thing there is not a war on. Or a health care crisis in this country. Or serious immigration or national security issues. Or a ballooning deficit. Because if there were, this might be regarded as wedge issue Bush is pushing to appeal to his bigoted nedneck base in an election year. And that wouldn't be seen as good leadership, would it? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5694
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Look at all the bigoted Republicans:
The Boston Globe
Patrick faces challenge in black community
Some leaders unhappy with liberal positions
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/01/15/patrick_faces_challenge_in_ black_community?mode=PF |
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1619
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 2:53 pm: |
|
cjc-
Don't forget who signed DOMA into law either...
-SLK |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5696
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Yeah...but he was going to go back and fix it. Like Welfare Reform. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1818
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Republicans masturbating onto the Constitution. Hurrah. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2996
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Arguing with stupid, intellectual dishonest people is a waste fo time. |
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 5:11 pm: |
|
So can it be argued that DOMA was unconstitutional? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3335
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 9:47 pm: |
|
Possibly. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page