A great deal of lip service is being paid about how pivotal the coming election is by both sides and nothing could be more true. On November the 2nd we may be choosing whether this great American “experiment” is to live or die.I Journalist Malcolm Muggeridge once said: I conclude that civilizations, like every other human creation, wax and wane. By the nature of the case there can never be a lasting civilization anymore than there can be a lasting spring or lasting happiness in an individual life or a lasting stability in a society. It's in the nature of man and of all that he constructs to perish, and it must ever be so. The world is full of the debris of past civilizations and others are known to have existed which have not left any debris behind them but have just disappeared. I believe it was Carl Marx who said that the only way to bring down America is to break down the family unit because the family is the microcosm of the nation. If the family is strong, the nation is strong; if the family is weak, the nation will crumble.In a few days, America will speak. America will cast its ballot and decide whether or not we as a nation will protect marriage - or not.George W. Bush wants to take a stand for the institution of marriage with a constitutional amendment to define marriage once and for all as being between one man and one women. John Kerry indicates that although he personally is against gay marriage, he believes it should be left up to each individual state. This notion has a false look of genuineness that will result in a tremendous amount of discord and eventually lead to the United States Supreme Court forcing gay “marriage” upon the rest of the states. Here is why: It will not work to leave it up to the states because there will be too much outrage among the “gay community” if they are married in one state and then suddenly have to move to a state that forbids gay marriage for whatever reason and to find their “marriage” all the sudden nullified by their new home state. It will only be a matter of time before they are launching lawsuits all over the country, trying to make the non-conforming states to placate them. If America makes the grave mistake of electing Kerry, there is a good possibility that he will be appointing anywhere from one to four justices to the Supreme Court. If that is the case, the concomitant lawsuits that will be launched by gays for years to come will eventually be heard before that court. Yes, if it were heard by today's Supreme Court justices the recognition of gay marriage would not be forced upon the states who forbid it, but if Kerry were to be elected, it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court resembles the ignominious ninth circuit court in California and when that time comes, you will see gay “marriage“ being forced upon this entire country whether they like it or not.Critics of President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment contend that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over marriage and in the past I as well as our founding fathers might have agreed with that notion - but that was before the foundation of our society, marriage, was under assault. There never before was a reason why it should be addressed by the Federal government - but there is now. In The Federalist Papers, the documents written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in order to persuade New York to adopt our constitution, these founding fathers elucidated on the proposed constitution and why it should be ratified. Therefore, it gives us a deeper look into what was their intent in forming this union as well as making clear what powers should belong to the Federal Government and WHY.In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton writes that authority should extend to controversies to which the United States shall be a party… to controversies between two or more states between a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states… to obviate or remove these inconveniences.We already have homosexuals like Rosy O'Donnell and many others who are going to states where it is legal to get marriage licenses in states where they do not reside. To contend that they are not going to try to get the courts to legitimize their “marriages” is disingenuous on the part of any politician who says otherwise. Marriage has thereby already become a federal issue. Just as the famous “Interstate Commerce Clause” was used in instances of racism in the south in order to make a diner serve people of color on the grounds that although the state had given commendation to segregation, so to should this clause justify federal intervention in gay “marriage” on the grounds that people are going to states where gay “marriage” is legal and attempting to export it into states that stand against it. To contend that the federal government has no interest in gay “marriage” with all of the aforementioned aside is incorrect. Marriage does in fact have federal implications as when one spouse dies, the assets of the one passes to the other without them having to pay estate taxes. I'm not an expert on Social Security as I'm only 33; however, if I'm not mistaken, as an example, when a husband dies for instance, the wife can collect Social Security benefits as a result of that death. What do you do in the case of gay marriage? Social Security is a Federal program.All that being said, The Federalist papers lead me to believe that this “national controversy” can only be resolved by a Unites States Constitutional Amendment.Much attention is being paid to this war in Iraq, but the future of our Republic is at hand. The war is important but the very pillars of our Republic is at stake in this election and regardless of what happens in Iraq, the family is the most important issue in this election. This Tuesday, vote for George W. Bush.
Much attention is being paid to this war in Iraq, but the future of our Republic is at hand. The war is important but the very pillars of our Republic is at stake in this election and regardless of what happens in Iraq, the family is the most important issue in this election.Speak for yourself. I'll be voting for the candidate who will best protect America itself, John Kerry.Erik
George W. Bush wants to take a stand for the institution of marriage with a constitutional amendment to define marriage once and for all as being between one man and one women.Right. Because the last time we amended the Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights, it worked out so well...Erik
We've got a war that's getting bigger, an insane deficit, $50/barrel oil, and global warming that's accelerating past the worse-case predictions.And you're worried about gay people?Your priorities are seriously screwed up.
I had no idea there was a gay marriage in your future. Congratulations.
In all seriousness, you have to stop reading neo-christian capitalist crap. believe it was Carl Marx who said that the only way to bring down America is to break down the family unit because the family is the microcosm of the nation. If the family is strong, the nation is strong; if the family is weak, the nation will crumble.In the right wing eyes this is what Marx said, because of thier view of family. What Marx said was that the "traditional" family was created by society to subjugate women and children to lesser than the dominante male household leader. By keeping the economically unsafe they had no option to "obey" the Father. Marx wanted to free women and their children from patriarchal rule.To christian conservatives that gets translated to break up of family but to most thinking people that gets translated to equality and economic justice as well as improving America by allowing women to be complete beings, not just mothers and housewives (not to say you cannot be a complete being as mother or housewife, but you better have your own savings account and education if you are to be free)In the world of the internet and unlimted information there is no excuse for being ignorant.
Ok Mr.Arbitrage,how, exactly, are civil unions or gay marriage going to destroy the family?HOW?All I see from you homophobes are delusional, fact-free rants.
I believe it was Carl Marx who said that the only way to bring down America is to break down the family unit because the family is the microcosm of the nation. If the family is strong, the nation is strong; if the family is weak, the nation will crumble.Quoting Marx to support Bush? LOL! The divorce rate has been 50% since I was in high school 30 years ago. The family started crumbling back then, and it had nothing to do with gay marriage. During the 60's, coming from a "broken home" carried a stigma, but now more kids are raised in single-parent homes than in traditional nuclear families. Women were able to take advantage of more equitable educational and career opportunities and no longer had to depend on men for sustenance. That's what made marriage optional, not gays.The Constitution wasn't intended to preserve social institutions. It was intended to preserve and enforce the individual rights and civil liberties of the people. Often, that's led to the abolishment of unjust social institutions, despite the fact that people such as yourself objected strenuously that tearing them down would be the downfall of our civilization. Our civilization is still here and the objectors either got over it or they didn't, it really doesn't matter. The Constitution prevents individuals and states from inflicting intolerance on others because of the equal protection clauses; there's no clause I know of that permits discrimination in order to preserve social institutions.As far as Social Security and estate taxes are concerned, money has never been an issue in deciding civil rights cases. Abolishing slavery and segregation cost untold amounts, not just in cash but in human lives as well. What it will cost just isn't an issue in deciding whether something is right and just or not.
It is the same stupid argument they used against the Equal Rights Amendment.Beverly LaHaye watched a television interview of Betty Friedan, founder of the National Organization for Women. Realizing that Friedan claimed to speak for the women of America, Beverly LaHaye was stirred to action. She knew the feminists' anti-God, anti-family rhetoric did not represent her beliefs, nor those of the vast majority of women.The first meeting to educate and alert Christian women on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), led by Beverly LaHaye, occurred in San Diego, California. More than 1,200 attended. This was the springboard to beginning Concerned Women for America as a national organization.They are for a amendments that discrimination and against the ones that assure equal rights. Honestly, I don't know America stays as one, that is some damn fine writing, that Bill of Rights.
Allowing gay marriage or certainly 'like' marriage rights, will allow millions of American couples to feel that they too have a voice. This will in turn strengthen the country, it will strengthen 'family' units. Gay couples should be considered families, if not through marriage, legally.The problem with the Christians is that they believe that Homosexuality is a sin. They believe it is an evil 'choice'. If that is so, then it has been a choice for thousands of years, long before any sexual revolution, mtv, queer as folk, The L word or the 60's.Vote for Kerry on Tuesday and strengthen America's families by allowing all couples the rights we take for granted within marriage.
It is the same stupid argument they used against the Equal Rights Amendment.They are for a amendments that discrimination and against the ones that assure equal rights.Honestly, I don't know America stays as one, that is some damn fine writing, that Bill of Rights.Exactly. I wish I could send today's young women back to the 60s for a few days so they could see for themselves the kind of life Concerned Women for America would like them to have. That would get them to the polls. And while we're at it, we should time warp the young men too. Would the young Bushies be so content to excuse their future President from being packed off to Viet Nam along side them if they could actually see what those times were like?
Mr Arbitrage...Sad to report but IF Kerry wins, I plan to join the Liberals when it comes to social issues like this. I also plan to help them fight AGAINST school vouchers.Its simple: Liberals use social issues to destroy lives and that is their business. However, in the process they will keep the good neighborhoods free of the riff-raff, as victims of social decadence will not enjoy upward mobility.I guess that's not a bad thing.Jedi
Mr. Arbitrage,My quick instinct has been to oppose gay marriage, mainly because (from what I know) it has no historical precedent. I don't like to see us rapidly departing from "the way things have been done" everyplace I have ever heard of throughout all time. Is there any historical antecedent for gay marriage? Any? Anyway - bottom line is - I have been carefully considering arguments raised by those for and against gay marriage. The utter lack of persuasive argument by those who oppose gay marriage is what is turning me mildly pro-gay-marriage. I've not heard anyone come up with a single argument against gay marriage that persuades me (other than the ones in my head, which are not entirely compelling.)Proponents of gay marriage have more compelling arguments, for me. And I know several gay couples who function exactly as married hetero couples do - exactly. One such couple (lesbian) has been together for nearly 30 years. I of course do not favor a Constitutional amendment opposing gay marriage and am inclined - no matter which way I come down personally - to believe that it's best for states to decide this one (for now anyway).Unlike race, I will depart with most liberals and offer my opinion that SOME gay people choose that lifestyle - though many/most do not. I believe it's in society's interest to dissuade people from opting to "be gay" if they have any choice. I have come to see how irritating the know-it-all liberal mentality is on this. There is no respect for the lack of precedent of gay marriage. There is no respect for the position that it's reasonable and best for society to encourage hetero marriage exclusively. In arguing these points, proponents of gay marriage talk to me as if I had grown a second (retarded) head.Anyway - I have to disagree with you Mr. Arbitrage, though I respect your position. I think gay marriage is a tough issue (though not a top issue of the day). I think it is moving too quickly, in all honesty, to allow people to even get used to the idea. Letting the states make their own decisions on this - we can see how it works in those states that allow gay marriage and can see if the rest of us are ready for it (or not).Regards,MitsouR
My quick instinct has been to oppose gay marriage, mainly because (from what I know) it has no historical precedentThere were native american tribes that had gay marriage.
"In a few days, America will speak. America will cast its ballot and decide whether or not we as a nation will protect marriage - or not."Arbie,Is your marriage that weak and fragile that you need a constitutional amendment to protect it?
Is your marriage that weak and fragile that you need a constitutional amendment to protect it? Touchdown. The idea that it's somehow wrong for two consenting adults to be together forever in life and commit to one another is absurd. The idea that they should not be allowed to share the fruits of their labor together legally in terms of a joint contract of marriage is equally absurd, IMO. Their sex is irrelevent. Allowing and protecting gay marraige as a full equal marriage under the law is different than Church A or B endorsing it according to their doctrine. And it's the legal recognition that is being looked at here and asjed for, and that's fine- I'm sure a Church condemning gay people is not going to be frequented by them, so the religious hang-up is also moot IMO.Allowing gay marriage is not going to destroy anything except the hatred spewed by the religious right. And that is a very good thing.-Scott
Anyway - bottom line is - I have been carefully considering arguments raised by those for and against gay marriage. The utter lack of persuasive argument by those who oppose gay marriage is what is turning me mildly pro-gay-marriage. I've not heard anyone come up with a single argument against gay marriage that persuades me (other than the ones in my head, which are not entirely compelling.)i was 'mildly-pro' ....then the thing in Frisco happened...saw the pictures in the paper and on the TV,read posts here at TMF from one of the guys.they were just SO happy..... i don't really understand why,i really can't imagine anyone wanted to deny them such a simple joy.-x( but also can't imagine someone sitting down and thinking, "I'll decide to find other guyssexy instead of girls" ..since *i* didn't make a decision )
This just kills me.Do you realize that the only reason your wife has the right to vote is via a miscalculation??? There were those in Congress who were sure that tacking on women's right to vote on the amendment giving African-Americans the right to vote would kill that amendment! Instead, it passed. Otherwise, who knows when I and the rest of the women in America would have gotten that right.The problem I see with leaving it up to the states became clear when I read an article about a gay couple in, I believe, Colorado who adopted the child of a young unwed mother in Texas. It was an open adoption and the couple agreed to bring the child to visit his/her natural mother occasionally so he/she would know her. The problem is that Texas doesn't allow gays to adopt children and doesn't recognize their parental rights within state boundaries. Now, the couple is scared to travel to Texas to vist for fear of having the child taken away.While hetero couples' marriages may be subject to the rules of the state in which they are married, NO OTHER state can refuse to recognize their union just because the rules in that state may differ on what is required to get married in the first place, i.e. blood tests, waiting period, counseling, etc.I have to agree with the original poster that this will indeed end up being an all or nothing thing. But, I'm for it.In fact, I'm going to a wedding reception this Saturday for two friends of mine who went to Toronto to get married. (Yes, they realize that it isn't recognized here.) So, I guess America isn't exactly the "first one in the history of the world" to consider this. Apparently, Canada is already allowing it.3MM
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |