[Old Man G Funk]

Unless you want them to do something for you, like circumvent the legislature...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900879.html

 

[Reactor]

un huh.....Judges are only activist when they decide in the favor of a progressive cause. If they help the extreme right wingers they are just okey dokey.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

What gets me is the multiple levels of irony.

Romney got all ticked off at the activist judges and pushed for a constitutional amendment because he can't trust the judiciary. Why are they activist? Because they supposedly circumvented the legislature.

So, now he is going back to those judges that he supposedly can't trust, and he's doing it in order to circumvent the legislature. I think we should call him an activist governor.

 

[robdamanii]

Goddamned religious right. I love how we're a country of equality, but not everyone can be equal because a bunch of biblebangers claim it's wrong.

 

[BurlyShirley]

The "god damned" religious right is putting the issue in the hands of the voters. Shouldnt that be our goal with all issues?

 

[LordOpie]

The "god damned" religious right is putting the issue in the hands of the voters. Shouldnt that be our goal with all issues?

yes and let's take it one step further and reduce the Federal Govt's power. If one state bans something and another allows it, the Fed should fvck off in each case.

What happened to "Union"? We're not one state, we're a collection of states.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The "god damned" religious right is putting the issue in the hands of the voters. Shouldnt that be our goal with all issues?

No.

The rights of the minority should not be put to popular vote.

Not only that, but the majority has the ability to elect people who will act on this. In a sense, the people have already voted. If the representatives don't act on this and the people dislike it, then the people can elect those who will act.

 

[Plummit]

Romney is so goddamn busy primping and preening himself to appeal to all the fundamentalist and homophobic nutbags for a white house run, such a bushy tailed and bright eyed bigot with his eyes on the prize, that he'll happily mow down the most vulnerable minority or group for his own personal gain. He'll gladly play on the lowest common denominator of stereotypes regarding homosexuals, when all they seem to want is equal access to a public institution, secular marriage. His blind ambition is also the reason he said he'd approve the morning after pill when he ran for governor and then vetoed it when it came before him in the last year. I think it all goes to show what sort of man he is at his core, and what sort of President he'd be (may this NEVER come to pass).

Meanwhile, 1/2 a world away, in the country where Apartheid used to hold sway and Nelson Mandela was imprisoned, they just approved gay marriage, because their new constitution vigorously defends its citizens from all forms of discrimination. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400450.html

The question we ought to be asking ourselves, is what right does any religion have to enforce its edicts and beliefs on the public at large. Furthermore, after a couple of years since the Mass. supreme court made it's ruling, have all the dire warnings about gay marriage "destroying the institution of marriage" or "destroying the family" held any water in any way? Or have they, as I believe, been revealed as bald-faced bigotry in it's ugliest form. I'm happy for anyone who chooses to embrace both the joys AND responsibilities of marriage regardless of their sexual orientation. Of these people are our communities built.

I also believe the churches are free to ban homosexuality and/ or gay marriage withing their own congregations. Their call, their loss.

In retrospect, I'm so glad my wife and I got married outside of any church influence, in a place and manner that meant something special to us. After all, isn't that what marriage ultimately is, gay or straight: two people acknowledging the unique bond they share and committing themselves to each other? Sounds pretty dangerous and subversive doesn't it???

 

[Plummit]

No.

The rights of the minority should not be put to popular vote.

Not only that, but the majority has the ability to elect people who will act on this. In a sense, the people have already voted. If the representatives don't act on this and the people dislike it, then the people can elect those who will act.

Wow, beautifully and succinctly put! Kudos!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Romney is so goddamn busy primping and preening himself to appeal to all the fundamentalist and homophobic nutbags for a white house run, such a bushy tailed and bright eyed bigot with his eyes on the prize, that he'll happily mow down the most vulnerable minority or group for his own personal gain. He'll gladly play on the lowest common denominator of stereotypes regarding homosexuals, when all they seem to want is equal access to a public institution, secular marriage. His blind ambition is also the reason he said he'd approve the morning after pill when he ran for governor and then vetoed it when it came before him in the last year. I think it all goes to show what sort of man he is at his core, and what sort of President he'd be (may this NEVER come to pass).

Meanwhile, 1/2 a world away, in the country where Apartheid used to hold sway and Nelson Mandela was imprisoned, they just approved gay marriage, because their new constitution vigorously defends its citizens from all forms of discrimination. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400450.html

The question we ought to be asking ourselves, is what right does any religion have to enforce its edicts and beliefs on the public at large. Furthermore, after a couple of years since the Mass. supreme court made it's ruling, have all the dire warnings about gay marriage "destroying the institution of marriage" or "destroying the family" held any water in any way? Or have they, as I believe, been revealed as bald-faced bigotry in it's ugliest form. I'm happy for anyone who chooses to embrace both the joys AND responsibilities of marriage regardless of their sexual orientation. Of these people are our communities built.

I also believe the churches are free to ban homosexuality and/ or gay marriage withing their own congregations. Their call, their loss.

In retrospect, I'm so glad my wife and I got married outside of any church influence, in a place and manner that meant something special to us. After all, isn't that what marriage ultimately is, gay or straight: two people acknowledging the unique bond they share and committing themselves to each other? Sounds pretty dangerous and subversive doesn't it???

Well said.

The irony of Romney's situation though is that as much as he panders to the religious right, many of those fundamentalists will never accept a Mormon, because they don't consider him to be a true Xtian.

 

[robdamanii]

Romney is so goddamn busy primping and preening himself to appeal to all the fundamentalist and homophobic nutbags for a white house run, such a bushy tailed and bright eyed bigot with his eyes on the prize, that he'll happily mow down the most vulnerable minority or group for his own personal gain. He'll gladly play on the lowest common denominator of stereotypes regarding homosexuals, when all they seem to want is equal access to a public institution, secular marriage. His blind ambition is also the reason he said he'd approve the morning after pill when he ran for governor and then vetoed it when it came before him in the last year. I think it all goes to show what sort of man he is at his core, and what sort of President he'd be (may this NEVER come to pass).

Meanwhile, 1/2 a world away, in the country where Apartheid used to hold sway and Nelson Mandela was imprisoned, they just approved gay marriage, because their new constitution vigorously defends its citizens from all forms of discrimination. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400450.html

The question we ought to be asking ourselves, is what right does any religion have to enforce its edicts and beliefs on the public at large. Furthermore, after a couple of years since the Mass. supreme court made it's ruling, have all the dire warnings about gay marriage "destroying the institution of marriage" or "destroying the family" held any water in any way? Or have they, as I believe, been revealed as bald-faced bigotry in it's ugliest form. I'm happy for anyone who chooses to embrace both the joys AND responsibilities of marriage regardless of their sexual orientation. Of these people are our communities built.

I also believe the churches are free to ban homosexuality and/ or gay marriage withing their own congregations. Their call, their loss.

In retrospect, I'm so glad my wife and I got married outside of any church influence, in a place and manner that meant something special to us. After all, isn't that what marriage ultimately is, gay or straight: two people acknowledging the unique bond they share and committing themselves to each other? Sounds pretty dangerous and subversive doesn't it???

Bra-fvcking-vo! :clap:

The way I see marriage is a union of two people, for the purpose of sharing resources and committing time to each other. The main reason a lot of these people want a union of some kind is to gain benefits, power-of-attorney, visitation rights, etc etc, everything allotted to heterosexual couples in marriage, but without the religious undertones.

I swear, when I actually get married, the word "god" "lord" or "faith" will not be part of the ceremony. Nor will it be held in a church.

 

[Silver]

The irony of Romney's situation though is that as much as he panders to the religious right, many of those fundamentalists will never accept a Mormon, because they don't consider him to be a true Xtian.

"Evangelicals are appalled by all that," said Pastor Ted Haggard, president of the National Assn. of Evangelicals in Colorado Springs, Colo. "We evangelicals view Mormons as a Christian cult group. A cult group is a group that claims exclusive revelation. And typically, it's hard to get out of these cult groups. And so Mormonism qualifies as that."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mitt10oct10,1,6805742.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Now, in case you had forgotten, Ted Haggard is the anti gay evangelical preacher who just happens to be a closeted gay man who likes to get high on meth before he pays a gay hooker for sex. And if he doesn't think Romney is a Christian, who am I to judge?

 

[dante]

the constitution and judicial branch are to protect the minority *from* the majority. i bet if you put it to a vote, a majority of americans would vote to seize all of bill gates' money and use it to pay down the national debt. democratic? yup. fair? nope. legal under the bill of rights? nope.

romney should face the fact that we *elect* representatives to run the government. if we're going to have ballot issues every time we don't agree on something, I want ballot issues on the Iraq war, military spending, stem cell research spending, Alaska's $200m bridge to nowhere, amount of federal spending with regards to how much a state actually pays in, etc.

 

[Reactor]

The "god damned" religious right is putting the issue in the hands of the voters. Shouldnt that be our goal with all issues?

Part of the goal of our system of government us to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority", and to protect the country from "passions of the moment". Look it up.

 

[Reactor]

In my view marriage is either a contract between two parties, or a holy sacrament. If it's a contract between two people to share community property and co mingle rights, religion and religious bigotry have no place it deciding who can get married. If it's a sacrament, then who can get married is up to each individual church, and the government has no role except to issue a piece of paper.

In either case somebody elses religious views should have absolutely no bearing in telling me who I can marry. And the party allegedly for smaller and less intrusive gorvernment should stand up to it's base and tell them to suck it up, princess.