|
05 Jun 06 - 09:50 AM (#1753278) Subject: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Donuel Constitutional ammendments by the Rove machine have one purpose, and that is to mobilize pea brained zealots (otherwise known as "the base". Such crass and base ammendments are laughable but are currently taking up the grueling 3 day work week of Congress. As a result important matters are being ignored. How about a Constitutional ammendment to pass an SAT test to sit as President? Or ban more than two left hand turns on a yellow light... Or: |
|
05 Jun 06 - 10:07 AM (#1753286) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Amos If we can't use the United States Constitution to make people behave properly, then what the hell IS it for? That's what I wanna know. We should add an amendment outlawing the consumption of fish on Friday (just as well, because as of next Friday there won't be any) and also washing one's hands before dinner. Hey -- this here is the UNITED States, remember? We should set some standards. And throw in driving on the right, the normal way, while you're at it. Oh, and natonal ID tags and no drinking until you're eighteen, too. Make it twenty one. I don't care what the French think, either. Twenty-one. And handkerchiefs. Make 'em use handkerchiefs, especially the menfolk. It was good enough for Granpaw, and he was a REAL gentleman. He even kilt an Injun once, even it if it was a young one. A |
|
05 Jun 06 - 10:42 AM (#1753303) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: GUEST,Donald Hakman The marriage ammendment is bigoted and mean spirited but more importantly it removes all states rights to decide their own standard regarding domestic relations/love. It is Federalism at its most intrusive. btw the ammendment would deny people from caring for children if they are not bound by lawful marriage. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 10:44 AM (#1753305) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Rapparee Both are red herrings, setting up false trails away from the REAL problems the country faces. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 10:53 AM (#1753314) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: MarkS Rapaire, you are right but at least our representatives now have something they can put into their newsletters to show the voters in their districts that they really care. But hey, I'm from New Jersey so when it comes to politics, I do not have any high expectations. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 10:58 AM (#1753316) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: GUEST I think it would be more advantageous for Society if we spent this effort on preventing divorce. With regard to flag burning, I read where the US had only 6 to 8 flag burnings last year. Why? Not illegal, so no photo ops of Cops making arrests or possible brutality mention. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 11:08 AM (#1753322) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Sorcha So, what will happen to the same sex couples that were married under Massachusetts law???? And their children???? |
|
05 Jun 06 - 11:24 AM (#1753331) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: bobad "I think it would be more advantageous for Society if we spent this effort on preventing divorce." Governments should not be in the business of social engineering. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 11:31 AM (#1753333) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Rapparee I think that flag burning should be illegal except in designated areas: outside the American Legion, VFW, Marine Corps League, etc., police stations, fire stations, and so on. Otherwise it should be treated as something like "outdoor burning without a permit" or "air pollution." Don't make a big deal of it, rob it of its new value. "Marriage" consists of two parts: the civil union and the church ceremony. If the church doesn't want to give its blessing, fine. But religion services is not the baliwick of civil society. "Render unto Caesar" etc. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 12:16 PM (#1753358) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Amos The arrogance of these pig-eyed narrow-minded bigots never ceases to astonish me. Bobad has expressed it in a nutshell. A |
|
05 Jun 06 - 12:27 PM (#1753367) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Sorcha Hey ho, let's ban right turns (or left, depending) on red lights! Surely they are unconstitutional!!!! |
|
05 Jun 06 - 12:32 PM (#1753372) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: GUEST "Governments should not be in the business of social engineering." They shouldn't be, but they are. Think 'school systems' and curriculums. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 12:42 PM (#1753379) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: GUEST Bobad, read "effort", not Agency. And what did Boabard exprees in a nutshell - arrogance, Amos? |
|
05 Jun 06 - 12:53 PM (#1753382) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: GUEST,right wing zealot I would not deem flag burning impossible outside the VFW, Marine base, fire station etc. Veterans benefits have taken huge hits during this administration...the Marine Corps has taken a big hit from Rumsfeld's policies - explicit and illicit... and many firemen can not afford to live in the city they protect and have taken large budget, HSS and salary cuts. gay burning however will be allowed to flourish under religious law. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 01:01 PM (#1753387) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Rapparee I've never said that flag burning WAS impossible outside cop shops, etc. Just that those sorts of places (including military recruiting stations) should be where it's allowed. Of course, those who do that sort of thing should be willing to take the consequences.... If the 60s taught "protesters" nothing else, it taught them how to manipulate the media. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 01:20 PM (#1753400) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Don Firth This is another glorious demonstration that the Bush League doesn't have a clue—or more likely, doesn't give a damn—about the purpose of the Constitution of the United States. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the government. It is not its purpose to regulate the behavior of private citizens. Two important principles upon which the government of this country is founded: 1. The government is not allowed to do anything, unless it is specifically permitted by the Constitution. 2. Private citizens are free to do anything they want, unless it is specifically forbidden by the Law. Various government officials—including (particularly) the President of the United States—are required, before taking office, to take an oath that they will "preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution is not to be used as a tool for partisan politics. It is most definitely not to be used for partisan politics! To use the Constitution in this manner degrades it and demotes its importance. There are crypto-tyrants in this country who would find a weakened Constitution very convenient. So it's not just a political move. There is more going on here than meets the eye. Don Firth |
|
05 Jun 06 - 01:27 PM (#1753404) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: GUEST While Americans have purchased ATVs and new CDs, the Bush administration has corrupted that noble old document. If you are not willing to fight for your liberty, you deserve to have it taken away from you. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 01:30 PM (#1753407) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Amos Dear Guest, Since you are clearly willing to stand up and be counted in your wisdom, what do you believe us poor ignorant citizens of the United States should do by way of "fighting"? A |
|
05 Jun 06 - 01:37 PM (#1753410) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: katlaughing Good timing on Turner Classic Movies' part. They just showed Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Democrats say the amendment is a divisive bow to religious conservatives, and point out that it conflicts with the GOP's opposition to big government interference. Sometimes I am still proud to be a Democrat. Gay friendly orgs. in Colorado have been spending a good amount on very well-done tv ads, recently, to combat the social conservatives. It's good to see someone fight back. kat |
|
05 Jun 06 - 01:48 PM (#1753416) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: pdq If the government has no right to define a marriage as "between one man and one woman" how can they have the right to put other restrictions on it? Many countries and some religions allow a man to have two or more wives. That is much more reasonable (and traditional) than marriages between two men (or between two women). |
|
05 Jun 06 - 01:49 PM (#1753418) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Scoville I'm so mad about this I can't even come up with words to describe it. If they want to protect marriage, mandate premarital counseling. See how that one goes over with the smaller-government set. None of my gay friends has ever tried to convert me. None of them is out to destroy the institution of marriage. Some of them have, however, been deeply adversely affected by the fact that same-sex partners do not have the same civil rights as opposite-sex spouses. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 02:46 PM (#1753435) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Amos The Constitution does not put restrictions on marriage, and should have no business doing so. Essentially the rationale of "legitimacy" in marriage is a cultural issue born from the minds and religous or other convictions of individual citizens. Mandating it at a Federal level flies into the teeth of the whole concept of individual freedoms, and makes the national charter into a goddamned theocracy willing to impose shallow moral judgements on its entiore citizenry out of purblind shortsighted bigotry. A |
|
05 Jun 06 - 02:51 PM (#1753439) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: GUEST Amos, Do the same thing the Poor People did: March on Washington. I chose not to add my name because in fact it isn't my business that your Constitution is being corrupted. And, I have many times been to jail for civil disobedience. Maybe it's time some Americans got disobedient and let their government know that all is not right with the world. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 05:44 PM (#1753554) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: McGrath of Harlow I suppose if people want to marry flags it's harmless enough. No worse than worshipping them. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 05:48 PM (#1753558) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: JohnInKansas In partial response particularly to pdq. Traditionally nearly all religions have their own sacraments and rules pertaining to the "holy union" of two persons. Most religions provide rules for declaring the intent to "marry," prescribe particular promises to be made, provide for witnessing by the congregation and blessing by the leader(s) of the faith. Church records of all this "sacred joining" have been kept "religiously" in the churches. When civil authorities began to attempt to require Civil Licensing of marriages, there was tremendous complaint from the churches that the government was infringing in their religious rites. The Civil justification for licensing, and requiring the public declaration of "an agreement to be married" is based on the right of the community to know when a "Civil partnership" is formed, since such partnership affects how the parties to the agreement are able and entitled to act in their Civil (legal) relationship with the rest of the community. The principal way in which the Civil Marriage Contract affects the parties to the contract and the rest of the community with which they deal is in the ownership of and responsibility for property, the contracting of, and responsibility for repayment of, debts and obligations by either of the parties on behalf of the "partnership." It has, in its legal intent, no "Sacred" value, anymore than the Civil filing of intent to form a corporation or any form of business partnership. It is permitted by law, but NOT REQUIRED, that persons forming the association that is, unfortunately, named a Civil Marriage, may observe whatever sacrements, rites, and obligations their faith may separately impose. It is permitted by law in most places that those who render the sacraments and rites of any faith may have those rites stand in lieu of the taking of oaths (or making of promises) before a Civil Authority, provided in most cases that parties to the "contract" include the minimum requirements of the law. This typically means that they each assert that they intend to take the Civil status required by the law, that they each do so freely and voluntarily, and that there are witnesses to their acceptance of the legal requirements of the contract. The church/faith may add to the minimum declarations required by the Civil contract any and all additional promises, conditions, rites, and observances are appropriate to the Sacred Union demanded by their faith. It has taken many years to get the distinction between Civil requirements and Sacred rites somewhat clear in the law, and many people have devoted a great deal of time and effort to assuring that the Civil law (for the most part) does not encroach on the Sacred rites of any religion. The job is imperfectly done in many places. If the definition advanced by the "fundies" is to be taken seriously, that the Civil Marriage Contract and the Sacred Marriage Rites and Sacraments are interchangeably the same, then all existing Civil Marriages are illegal, since according to the Constitution: Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The prohibition against polygamous marriage is "justified" in the lawbooks as reflecting the need for the public to have clear knowledge of the ownership of property adherent to the marriage. IMO this is a farce, since this law is clearly the imposition of religious doctrine without satisfactory demonstration of an attendant Civil need; but nothing's perfect in this world - yet. Most of the laws relating to Civil Marriage, and the dissolution of such contracts, relate quite specifically how the property and debts of the partners are affected by the Civil Contract. Even the custody of children treats them as a "property" of the marriage, (since this is the only legal pretext the CIVIL law has found to assert control over the childrens' welfare) which may explain some of the bizarre laws extant. There is no good reason why persons who exist in the eyes of the law should not be able to form any CIVIL Contract of Association, whether corporate, partnership, or charitable trust, on the same basis as any other persons - unless one insists on imposing ONE RELIGION'S DOCTRINE on all the people. John |
|
05 Jun 06 - 06:22 PM (#1753579) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: McGrath of Harlow It's worth noting that whether in a religious marriage or a civil one, the the couple do not "get married" by the priest, minister or registrar (or whatever). The job of the priest etc etc is not to marry the couple, but to to act as a kind of special witness to a marrtiage actually carried out by the couple. In circumstances where it is impossible for the priest etc etc to be available, it's perfectly possible for the couple to marry in their absence. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 06:31 PM (#1753586) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Greg F. Observation: Those attempting to counter this latest BusShite gambit (dare I say Hail Mary Pass?) which is founded upon total rejection of rational thought and solid information by employing facts and reasoned argument are wasting their time. Fundamentalism revels in and celebrates its ignorance. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 06:31 PM (#1753587) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: pdq JohnInKansas, Thank you for another intelligent and informed answer. I will re-read it a few times before commenting (or not). There are at least 20 thousand men in the state of Utah alone who have taken more than one wife. Their children may total 1/4 million, most of whom are well cared-for and healthy, unlike many children produced in our big cities. From a practical standpoint, anything done by the authorities will cause great hardship on these people, especially the children. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 06:31 PM (#1753588) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Don Firth Well delineated, John. As far as this "protecting the institution of marriage" codswallop is concerned, I fail to see how the fact that Paul and Philip llve together as a married couple, as do Linda and Margaret, is, in any way a threat to Barbara'a and my marriage. I don't see that it affects us or any other heterosexual couple at all. Don Firth |
|
05 Jun 06 - 07:11 PM (#1753616) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Mrrzy Sure takes your mind off the war, eh? |
|
05 Jun 06 - 07:27 PM (#1753631) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: akenaton BestComment Mrrzy. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 07:34 PM (#1753636) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: McGrath of Harlow It seems pretty obvious that this amendment isn't being introduced with any expectation of getting passed, but purelly as a gimmick for campaigning purposes. As Mrrzy said, takes attention away from the war, and also from any real political or economic issues. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 07:54 PM (#1753649) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Don Firth Bush's popularity ratings are in the biffy, the Repubs in general are looking a little green around the gills, and there's a Congressional election coming up in a few months. And to add to their problems, at least a few Democrats are acting is if they've actually grown spines. This whole issue is an attempt to by-pass the higher brain centers and appeal to the reptile brain of the voters. "Never in our history has an incumbent administration relied so heavily on the intellectual sluggishness of the electorate." --Bill Maher. Don Firth |
|
05 Jun 06 - 07:54 PM (#1753650) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: GUEST,saulgoldie Anyone who perceives their marriage to be the leat bit threatened by a gay couple marrying has much bigger problems. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 07:59 PM (#1753653) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Amos It takes a lot of nerve and complete perversion of purpose, and a warped moral compass, to use the Constitution of the Unitd States as a plastic token in a gimmick for campaigning purposes; it really shows the character of the man. A |
|
05 Jun 06 - 08:01 PM (#1753657) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: The Fooles Troupe Dear JohnInKansas, I know you DID say, it was only a 'partial answer', but... I so rarely get the chance to argue with you over any of your pronouncements, that I just gotta jump in here... :-) While what you have said is spot on, long before that, people organised their own 'civil ceremonies; weddings, burials, comings of age, etc. The Roman Catholic Church then bullied its way in and took over all the 'significant civil ceremonies', as it gradually got its tentacles in, long before 'The New World' was invaded... |
|
05 Jun 06 - 08:46 PM (#1753682) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: catspaw49 I was in a Social Security office today as Karen had never changed her name on her card. I was shocked in this ultra-conservative and religious administration to find actual pornography in a SS office. Right there on the office wall above everything else were two wholly filthy and disgusting pictures! One was of a huge Dick and the other of a gaping asshole. Spaw |
|
05 Jun 06 - 08:47 PM (#1753683) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Bobert Hmmmmmmm? John excellent post gave me an idea.... Marriage = Corporation!!! Maybe this is the way around the issue??? Rather than civil unions two people could set up a corporation for "ownership of properties" and for a mutitude of other things such as hospitalization, insurance, etc. with the corporation being the common denominator??? What do you think, John??? There's got to be some way to beat out the folks with NASCAR mentalities who somehow have gotten control of what used to be a rather intellegent society.... Bobert |
|
05 Jun 06 - 09:11 PM (#1753704) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: hesperis Corporations are a hell of a lot more expensive than a marriage licence and are required to submit (and pay to submit) quarterly reports to the government. Some kind of similar legal entity to a corporation would be the best way to logically handle the issue of union of people. Of course, logic usually has nothing to do with love, much less marriage. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 09:32 PM (#1753724) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: paddymac "Corporate marriage" is not a new idea, but, like any other human bonding/binding scheme, it is neither all good nor all bad. Robert Heinlein explored the subject in one of his books - the Davis family if memory serves, but I don't remember off the top which one it was. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 09:42 PM (#1753734) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Bobert Anual reports in Virginia, hes, and the State Corporation Comission amils 'um out to ya, all filled out, an' all ya do is sign the thing, send 'um $100 and yer good to go fir another year... (21st year of being "president" (lol...) of my corporation...) Bobert |
|
05 Jun 06 - 09:59 PM (#1753744) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: GUEST,Joe_F Some Harvard men, stalwart and hairy, Drank up several bottles of sherry; In the Yard around three They were shrieking with glee: `Come on out, we are burning a fairy!' -- Edward Gorey * Some people in my country, even in the government, are capable of minding their business. A couple of friends of mine had rather conventional ideas of marriage (two sexes, monogamy, etc.), but being atheists & anarchists refrained from involving the church & state in the matter. When she took a job and used her husband's last name, she received a form letter from the Social Security Administration warning her that a person named such and so was using her number. She wrote on the back "I find it convenient to use the last name of the man I am living with", signed it, and sent it back. The office sent her a new card. --- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: The evil of most days is more than sufficient thereunto. :|| |
|
05 Jun 06 - 10:14 PM (#1753756) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: JohnInKansas The Roman Catholic Church then bullied its way in? True, but so did many other "religions." It depends (not depended) on where you live, as to which church tried and is trying to make the rules for you. Take, just for an example, the current Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: "Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. " (bold and italics added) John |
|
05 Jun 06 - 10:33 PM (#1753765) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Charley Noble My interest in marriage may be flagging but that's not to say that anyone else who wants to give it a try shouldn't have the right to do so in whatever combination they can envision. I personally draw the line at sheep or llamas but I will defend with my life the right of anyone else to give it a go! Having this issue on the front burner is really refreshing. I no longer need to be concerned about our international adventures, our abuse of enemy-combatants and friendly non-combatants, our furious billowing national debt, and other collective hangnails of the ruptured social contract. Charley Noble |
|
05 Jun 06 - 11:01 PM (#1753791) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: frogprince So far in the thread I see one single post that I disagree with somewhat, and I would consider that one to be a well-intentioned thought that I'm tempted to agree with. Is it possible this thread isn't going to deteriorate? If Bush's amendment should ever pass, the only clear effect I can see is a few dollars saved for any employers who are actually contributing significantly to their employee health care, at the cost of solidifying economic discrimination against gay (and polygamous) people. It might also have the social "benefit" of encouraging a larger fraction of gay people to stay in denial and attempt heterosexual marriage. Hard to say if this would be significant now, or if there is enough gay and gay-accepting community support out there by now to minimize that effect. |
|
05 Jun 06 - 11:02 PM (#1753794) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: JohnInKansas Before anyone gets into my last previous posting about the Massachusetts Constitution providing for taxation in support of religions, I should confess to telling the truth in a lying manner. (But I deny being a politician, even if it may look like a politician's trick.) Massachusetts doesn't "srike and replace" as their Constitution is amended. They simply add on a few more paragraphs. If you get the "annotated version" you may find the notes telling you what's been replaced by a later amendment, so the above "quote" is in the current document, but in the fine print you can find that the claim of authority for the Commonwealth to tax to pay for supporting (Protestant) religion was replaced by a granting to the religions themselves the authority to tax their members and a guarantee that the Commonwealth would enforce collection. The footnotes indicate additional changes (after 1810), but I haven't travelled the entire maze to discern what the effective current document ends up saying. I sincerely doubt that more than a very few residents of Massachusetts could address the question with any real competence; but that doesn't make them significantly "inferior" to citizens of most of our states. John |
|
05 Jun 06 - 11:10 PM (#1753811) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Amos John: Thanks for the elucidation -- I confess you had me a bit aggrieved and puzzled there! A |
|
05 Jun 06 - 11:33 PM (#1753839) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: JohnInKansas Amos - As indicated, that particular legal document is an incomprehensible maze, but not surprisingly isn't all that much different from several others in the same category. Some of them make very interesting reading, but I haven't been interested enough to read until finding how the Mass story ends. Emailed to myself, its about 600 KB, which would indicate 60 or 80 pages - at least. If you're interested: All current State Constitutions for the 13 original states can be accessed from: http://www.timepage.org/spl/13colony.html. John |
|
06 Jun 06 - 12:33 AM (#1753862) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Desert Dancer But hey, Bush's approval rating has gone up a whole 5% lately -- to a whopping 36%. Somebody must like something he's doing... 8-( ~ Becky in Tucson |
|
06 Jun 06 - 01:06 AM (#1753873) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: harpmolly Tee hee...today's Pardon My Planet seems quite germane to this discussion. ;) I'm getting really good at this blue clicky thing... M |
|
06 Jun 06 - 08:49 AM (#1754034) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: John P I agree that this isn't about gay marriage at all. It's an election year so they get it out of storage and wave it around until they get their huge network of bigot churches to tell everyone to go vote Republican. No one who is putting these things on the agenda gives a rat's ass about it. Wouldn't it be fun, though, to start a drive to have consititutional amendments requiring us to turn the other cheek? To love our enemies? To take adulterers outside the city and stone them to death? Isn't it true that wearing cloth woven of two fabrics is an abomination, just like homosexuality? John Peekstok |
|
06 Jun 06 - 09:00 AM (#1754042) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: The Fooles Troupe "The Roman Catholic Church then bullied its way in?" JiK. I do comprehend that you live in North America (including physically residing there), but I was thinking some many centuries earlier, when 'those damned pagans' in Europe and Britain were bamboozled by those carpetbaggin' monks... :P |
|
06 Jun 06 - 12:26 PM (#1754203) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: JohnInKansas Ok Robin. I was zoned in on US history, since it seemed to be a US thing we might be discussing here, due to the recent resident manipulators; pandering to the fundies again. But there are more recent (than the assualt on the pagans) historical precedents for what's going on in the US now. At the moment I'm committed to a meeting I need to prep for, but I'll try to be back in a few hours. John |
|
06 Jun 06 - 04:02 PM (#1754375) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Charley Noble Most of the Republicans I know here in Maine are embarrassed by the Bush Gang. They do wish they could just take their tax breaks and go back to sleep, but they keep waking up during the night with the most bizarre dreams. My niece Michelle Goldberg just put out a new book THE RISE OF THE CHRISTAIN RIGHT. If you want to read something really scary... Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
06 Jun 06 - 04:04 PM (#1754377) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Charley Noble Correction: Michelle Goldberg's new book is entitled KINGDOM COMING: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. Whatever! Charley Noble |
|
06 Jun 06 - 04:12 PM (#1754384) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: beardedbruce "Robert Heinlein explored the subject in one of his books - the Davis family if memory serves, but I don't remember off the top which one it was. " "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is the book, which also expounds on Rational Anachism |
|
06 Jun 06 - 04:14 PM (#1754389) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: beardedbruce Anarchism... |
|
06 Jun 06 - 05:10 PM (#1754433) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Don Firth Thanks, Charlie. I just read the review on Amazon and added it to my list. A matter of considerable concern me, as it should be to a lot of people. Including liberal Christians, many of whom, fortunately, are getting pretty fed up with the religious Right. Don Firth |
|
06 Jun 06 - 06:57 PM (#1754523) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: JohnInKansas I doubt that Bush or his "Conservative" supporters in this Marriage Amendment particularly care whether it passes, although it's not impossible that there may be some who actually are "true believers." It seems clear that that this is primarily for the benefit of the "fundies" who seem to be the main source of votes for the current Congress and Administration. It should not be brushed off as an "It'll never happen" thing though. As of the present, 37 States have passed Amendments to their State Constitutions incorporating what is now being proposed for the US Constitution. Nearly all of the remaining states have recently passed new statutes with essentially the same effect, or in a few cases have reasserted and in some cases reinterpreted older laws. Should we have a Congress sufficiently ignorant and/or uncaring to send this amendment to the states, IT WOULD MOST LIKELY PASS AND BE RATIFIED if put to votes in the states, in the US of today. If good Christians (and others) who believe that something other than the "perfectness of one's anus" may influence their arrival in heaven DON'T OBJECT VIGOROUSLY, and SOON, it is the intent of the fundamentalists to impose their religious law in the US, and they do not intend to stop with one Amendment. As long as they can deliver the votes they will have the willing cooperation of our current crop of politicians. Regretably, it is immensely clear that they probably can succeed if current political trends are allowed to continue. John |
|
06 Jun 06 - 07:02 PM (#1754528) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Amos This nation was not conceived as a vehicle for imposing moral strictures on each other, at least not by the Founding Fathers. To imply that the Constitution is a meet vehicle for this kind of preachery and shallow moralistic dictatorship is to degrade the entire spirit of the greatest experiment in social inventions ever tried --- the notion that people could live in mutual respect of self-determination. To conceive of such a thing is to announce one's own woeful ignorance of the whole purpose and meaning of the charter documents of the nation. The Bill of Rights The Constitution of the United States The English Bill of Rights after James II, 1689 Madison's Intent and Philosophy regarding the U.S. Bill of Rights The Declaration of Independence Other Founding Documents Bush and his cronies are flagrantly displaying abysmal ignorance of these documents and the principles they established, and they should be laughed out of the capitol for it. A |
|
06 Jun 06 - 07:16 PM (#1754543) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: McGrath of Harlow Of course if all those 36% voted for Bushdom they'd get a lot more votes than they did last time round. Don't anybody relax and think it's in the bag. I suppose theidea of a constutution where nothing ever gets removed, but the changes are just added, like that one they apparently have in Massachusetts, is to guarantee work for lawyers like the ones who wrote it. Clever lot these New England lawyers... |
|
06 Jun 06 - 07:39 PM (#1754558) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: akenaton why don't we just ban marriage for everybody ..homosexuals, lesbians AND the silent majority. As almost half of marriages now end in divorce, and most of the others stagger on in abject misery, the "partners" too lazy, cowardly, or desensitised to make a run for it and get a life, banning the institution of marriage would seem to solve many problems. Not only the homosexual circus, but the damage done to our children by warring parents, many of whom are unfit to bring up a dog never mind a child. Todays parents are more interested in safeguarding their "space" and lifestyle than in the mental wellbeing of their children. |
|
06 Jun 06 - 07:57 PM (#1754568) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: katlaughing JohninKS and Charley Noble, thanks for your postings. Fearful as it may seem, John has it right in that the MAJORITY needs to speak up NOW or we will be governed by the "Christian Nationalists" as Charley's niece has termed them. If anyone missed her interview on NPR a few weeks back, I would urge you to seek it out and listen. She is one brave and smart young woman. I hope the rest of her generation follow suite and VOTE, as well as all others who want to save our country. |
|
06 Jun 06 - 08:18 PM (#1754577) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: The Fooles Troupe Need new reading glasses - keep seeing this thread title as "Fag Marriage...".............. Justice Kirby, one of the Senior Judges in Australia, has finally made a public statement (he has never ben secretive about it before, just never said anything publicly, and has never been maliciously "outed") about his live in Male Partner. He still claims to be a practising Anglican, and regularly wries to the local Bishops, every time they make a public anti-gay statement - pointing out that each gay person has brothers, sisters, other family members, and that's a LOT of people to upset... Perhaps our American friends might like to take THAT idea and run with it... :-) |
|
06 Jun 06 - 08:48 PM (#1754589) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Ebbie I believe that the Anglican church is the Episcopal church that we're familiar with in the US. They/It is famously accepting of those outside the norm. |
|
06 Jun 06 - 09:21 PM (#1754613) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: The Fooles Troupe My Lutheran Minister (who was a distant family relation) used to say: "Remember - Practising Christians haven't got it Perfect yet!" |
|
06 Jun 06 - 09:43 PM (#1754619) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: JohnInKansas On the subject of the homophobia expressed by the current fundies, but many years ago when similar "movements" were evident, a very devout and very well educated minister gave a series of discussions for the "Youth" of the church where I attended, in which he discussed his own doctoral and postdoctoral dissertations on his own translations of surviving writings from both New and Old Testament times. Most of the "Youth" were college level students, and several were intending to proceed to seminary. He showed facsimiles of a number of "writings," a small part of his collection, and impressed us all with his documentation and validation of sources, and the discussion was at a quite intellectual level. At his conclusion of a full and thoughtful discussion of the Sodom episode in Leviticus, one of the pre-seminarians asked: "So how did the Southern Baptists come up with their interpretation?" His answer was quite direct: "Obviously their translator was a pervert." It may be the only thing I am quite sure that I remember exactly from the sessions; but I've not seen a contradiction of that opinion in the succeeding 50 years. The good (my opinion) Rev. Dr. Bruce E. M. departed shortly thereafter to a post of Director of Educational Publishing at the headquarters for the American Baptist Convention. I regret sincerely having heard nothing more of him since. John |
|
07 Jun 06 - 04:50 AM (#1754757) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: katlaughing That's a briliant answer, JOhn, though I am sure the Southern Baptists aren't the nly ones to have perverted translators! Speaking of which, one of my fav. books remains the Metaphysical Bible Dictonary by Chas. Fillmore. Very useful in finding what the actual Aramiac(sp) meaning was of a word and what the symbology is behind words of the Bible. It helps when combatting such ignorance as this *amendment.* |
|
07 Jun 06 - 10:18 AM (#1754957) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: katlaughing According to a junior member from LA, divorces are now the fault of gay marriages: But win or lose, Vitter and other supporters said it's important that the Senate debate the issue. "We spend a lot of time here in the Capitol debating a lot of domestic and social issues, and yet so many of those issues start in the home," Vitter said. "And the greatest predictor of success in life is a strong, two-parent family and the right upbringing for a child." Vitter said that voters in his state want "their wishes honored" on the marriage issue and are worried about seeing them overturned by judges. Asked by a reporter how the amendment would help deal with the problem of divorce and deadbeat fathers among heterosexual couples, Vitter said it's important for Congress to deal with those issues as well. "But I think recent history has shown that when marriage has been radically redefined, then it ceases to have any meaning and any significance in the life of a society," Vitter said. So, he must agree with Ake's suggestion that we do away with marriage altogether! |
|
07 Jun 06 - 10:41 AM (#1754975) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Amos Buncha effing criminals, you ask me. Talk about PREverts, making political hay out of that dear and precious document is about as PREverted as you can get. Chaps me byuttocks, it do. A |
|
07 Jun 06 - 12:42 PM (#1755058) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: GUEST I suppose I would be consider by some as a right winger something or other. I am a believer that this mess didn't get its' start from some slime that washed ashore. Have been registered as a Repub for the second half of my voting 'career'. Not sure where that party is headed these days. With that bit of background, I was happy to hear a few minutes ago the the proposed Amendment to the Constituion did not get off the ground. Gay marriage should be considered an oxymoron to those that travel the road as I do. However, I see nothing wrong with the Domestic Partners title. I know of brothers who have never married, live on the old homestead and totally share. There are some States' laws that have eliminated the benefits that these people are entitled to. I noted in a paragraph on my former company's info sheet on health insurance that was sent to all concerning the new prescription benefits offered under Medicade. "Includes....,Domestic Partners...." Never notice that before but never gave it any thought also. All I was interested in was the continuing benefits provided as part of an early retirement package. Again, we seem to focus too much of our time on minor things. What percentage of the citizens are Gay? 3 - 5%? And unlike the Hetrosexual mob with their 50% divorce rate, they would not be contributing to the amount of children that currently go without as a result of broken homes and subsequent reduced incomes. "Protection of Marriage" - A good idea with regard to the divorce rate. Just keep the Feds out of it. |
|
07 Jun 06 - 02:23 PM (#1755105) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Don Firth Michelle Goldman, Charlie Noble's niece, was interviewed on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross. Thanks for the head's up on that, Kat. I managed to track it down and listen to it. Well worth the time. Folks can listen to it HERE. You know, people tend to snort "conspiracy theory" when anyone gets worked up about possible plots to take over control of the government, but dammit all, there are power-hungry factions out there, and so far, the PNAC and the Christain Nationalists seem to be succeeding. They're entrenched in the government and they're in the White House. "The sky is falling!" my ass!!! I'm quite sure that there were people in Germany in the 1930s who snorted "That's just a conspiracy theory. That can't happen here!" I wonder how they felt later when they found themselves staring out from behind the barbed wire. Don Firth |
|
07 Jun 06 - 06:32 PM (#1755273) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Bill Brillo Not my country, not my law. Isn't it the duty of government to ensure fair treatment for all its citizens so, regardless of creed, colour or belief, people in similar situations should pay similar taxes, get similar benefits and have similar responsibilities. Religions have their own rules, one chooses to join a religion and live according to it's rules. We see what happens when Religions run countries (Iran). By the way, the Anglican/Episcopalian church is not a Protestant church it is a Catholic (as opposed to Roman Catholic) one, check out the Nicene (Nicean) Creed! |
|
07 Jun 06 - 07:10 PM (#1755295) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: GUEST Good point (s), Mr Brillo Part of the reason for some to live by the rules of a religion is the dictates of same. The Golden Rule works as do the 10 Commandments, even if one does not pay strict attenton to the first 4. While I consider myself a follower of the Bible, I am of the opinion we are violating/ignoring the rights of citizens with the various State laws that have been passed in the last several years. |
|
07 Jun 06 - 07:13 PM (#1755299) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Amos I am pleased that the Senate did not let the Amendment Discriminating Against Gays go anywhere; but it is still (IMHO) shameful that they had to even discuss something that should have been laughed out of court before it got to Capitol Hill. Ptui. A |
|
12 Jun 06 - 08:41 PM (#1758503) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Charley Noble Don- Thanks for providing the link to the NPR interview with Michelle Goldberg, author of KINGDOM COMING: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. My mother says this book is really scary so you should think long and hard about whether you want to assume the responsibility of becoming more fully informed. JudyB and I are planning to do that soon! Charley Noble |
|
12 Jun 06 - 08:49 PM (#1758508) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: The Fooles Troupe "unlike the Hetrosexual mob with their 50% divorce rate, they would not be contributing to the amount of children that currently go without as a result of broken homes and subsequent reduced incomes." Hate to spoil a good punchline, but SOME such couples ARE determined that they WILL have children 'raised in a loving environment', in spite of some very basic biological hinderances... |
|
12 Jun 06 - 08:55 PM (#1758511) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: The Fooles Troupe "I wonder how they felt later when they found themselves staring out from behind the barbed wire. " Moot Point. Most of them didn't do that for very long... |
|
02 Jul 06 - 09:53 PM (#1774402) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Amos From a poet who is arguably the greatest Candain singer-songwriter of modern times: Patriots shout promises, And fools salute a flag, While the country that it represents Is torn apart like rags. It's not just done in fact -- it's done in deeds. My country 'tis of thee. Rich man left you helpless, With his bank account intact. Poor folks never had it -- Can't ask us to put it back. It hurts me deep inside to see you bleed; Country, 'tis of thee. (Excerpted from "Country 'Tis of Thee", by B. Murdoch). A |
|
03 Jul 06 - 07:11 AM (#1774594) Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Article IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Article X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. These are the most ignored articles. The federal government has no authority to take things or matters into their own hands that they are not specifically empowered to do in your Constitution. If all else fails, there is always the second ammendment, which means it would make it very hard to burn gays without consequences, if they dont want to be burned. Yours, Aye. Dave |