obummer backs gay marriage.

[corbanzo]

Quote from Carbanzo:
"Too bad they keep adding crap. Stupid "amendment" system. Stop at ten. Ten's a good number."


So you are saying you still support slavery along with blacks and women not being able to vote?
GuzziJohn

"all men created equal". Last time I checked blacks are people - so it already includes that.

And with todays talk "men" would be "people" also including women.

If you need a document to tell you not to hate or limit people based on those things.....  Idiots.

[corbanzo]

And now we are talking about two different sides of the constitution. One gives power to the government by saying what it can only do.  - that's the side in saying quit adding crap to.

The other side guarantees certain rights to all people - with no limitations on those rights - add all you want.

[scootrd]

Oh and the constitution gives power to state. With out it, state has no power. Everything not in the constitution, state cannot do. Sets a lot more limits that way. Shorter the constitution, better the government.

Too bad they keep adding crap. Stupid "amendment" system. Stop at ten. Ten's a good number.

Couldn't do that without at least 16 they couldn't Rape (yes Rape) us by ensuring direct tax on wages and salaries without apportionment.

Sorry back to the regularly scheduled thread topic.

[Dixie Dude]

It gets back to a "states rights" issue.  5 or 6 have legalised it, but 30+ have made it illegal.  Since the Federal government spends my money.  It is wrong for the government to give sposal rights to a gay couple working for the government spending my money for their benefits.  This is something they should stay out of when the majority of Americans don't want this.  I also don't want the feds spending my money paying for abortions, sex change operations, or other nonsense.  It is in dept, and will not get out of it unless they quit trying to pay for stupid stuff.  I think if a girl gets welfare and food stamps for more than two kids on my dole, they should have their tubes tied after a second welfare baby.  One you would help get rid of future poor and high crime members of society.  Two, it would make them think twice about what they are doing with their life.  Same with proven welfare baby daddy's, snip them if they have over two kids that are theres on welfare.  This is not preforming abortions like China with a one child policy, but preventing a rising population of dependents. 

[corbanzo]

Or you could just get rid of the welfare bull in the first place, so everybody is actually accountable for themselves.


With the current system you are allowed to act completely retarded (I don't mean that as an insult, I mean, like act seriously mentally retarded in the scientific sense) and have eight babies (we all know what I'm referring to) and have the government (the tax payers) pick up the check.  I don't agree we should try and control anybodies actions (as in snipping their privates) but I do believe they should be completely 100% accountable for those actions.  Children are something planned, and something that is your fault and your fault alone.  If you can't afford them, don't have them.  Simple. 


I am OK with with the system for helping the blind, the mentally retarded (the real ones this time), the disabled, etc - but just wasting money on idiots isn't ok.  Food stamps - might be ok to help very poor families, very controlled, but only for food.  No money.




So anyways, I'm not married.  Might never be.  Not really my thing....  but I was just wondering from all you married people what are the monetary benefits?  What does it cost me as a tax payer?  I have asked my other married friends - they say they don't get a tax break when filing jointly?   The biggest benefits out there seem to be health insurance type deals - but that's something the insurance companies deal with, not the government. 


You said gay couple working for the government - what if they weren't a couple?  but still worked for the government?  What difference would that make?

[SHOOTALL]

so think about this if the fed govt can make one state honor the marriage lic of another state why arent carry lic hornored ? just asking ............should on lic differ from another ?
so should we bring this to attention rather than fight gay what ever ? Whats good for the gay should be good for the stright. equality under the law ................. gun owners toters also.

[Dixie Dude]

This isn't about what gay's do, it is about the definition of marriage.  Gays want marriage for spousal benefits, such as medical benefits from one of them having a good insurance policy.  It is about government benefits for spouses, such as social security or VA benefits (my money they took in taxes).  It is about inheritance benefits, such as pensions and 401-k's.  Some pensions can't be given to a surviving non-spouse.  My thinking is don't change the definition of marriage between a man and woman.  Change the laws to allow these benefits if necessary.  I hold marriage to a higher standard. 

[ironglow]

And if some guy wants to marry his cow, or some gal her Great Dane...as long as they are in agreement..right ?
   Seems like "marriage" wouldn't really be the proper term...

Ironglow demonstrates strawman, here, along with more than a little contempt for his fellow citizens. The idea is, equate homosexual relations ships with (bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc etc etc take yer pick) in order to dodge the actual issue, which is, should the gov't be telling people what kind of relationships they'll be allowed to have with other citizens, who are consenting adults?
 
cheap & dismissive sophistry. real cheep.
 
...alternately, perhaps I'm unaware of the burgeoning political momentum of some bestiality movement - someone fill me in?

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
 
  YT;
  You're bright, I shouldn't have to tell you this...  Concerning moral questions, it is a question of where we as a culture want the arc of our moral compass to circumscribe.  I was using the hyperbole to illustrate the situation, do we want our culture to have certain limits or do we want ti to spray out in an erratic, totally incohesive manner..like a manure spreader.
   If it becomes too erratic, we no longer have an identifiable culture.

[ironglow]

  The constitution;
   Our understanding of it depends greatly upon our individual world views !
 
  The Christian/conservative;
     
  Looks upon the original/basic constitution as a document listing entirely what the government's powers and duties for/to THE PEOPLE would be..and no more.
   They view the Bill of Rights..purely and correctly, as a document limiting the powers of government.
 
 The liberal/secularist;
 
  Looks upon the original/basic constitution as a documnent listing what the government's powers and duties for/to THE PEOPLE would be...and no more.  And he doesn't like it..he wants it to become a "living, breathing document" so he can bend it to his world view.
   They view the Bill of Rights..purely and correctly, as a document limiting the powers of government. ...And he doesn't like that!  The typical liberal/secularist (socialist) holds government as their god..and want govt to have even greater power.
 
     That is exactly why Obama has called the Bill of Rights.."a bill of negative rights", because it so limits the power of government.  He apparently wants the government to be boss and god.
 

[scootrd]

  The constitution;
The Christian/conservative; Looks upon the original/basic constitution ......
 The liberal/secularist; Looks upon the original/basic constitution........    

It is not a The liberal/secularist vs Christian/conservative argument.
It's one of Originalist vs Literalist vs Instrumentalist

People do not understand these terms -
Originalists -  believe that the best way to interpret the Constitution is to determine how the framers intended the Constitution to be interpreted, And to do so all writings of the founders must be reviewed in context.

Literalists - believe that the contemporary writings of the Framers are not relevant to any interpretation of the Constitution.  The only thing one needs to interpret is the literal words of the Constitution.

Instumentalists  -  Believe the Constitution becomes stale and irrelevant to modern life if only viewed through 18th century eyes. We have more than 200 years of history, legal precedent, And all writings of the founders to consider. They believe the Constitution is Living and breathing and should change over time as the morals and beliefs of the population shift. .

I argue ,

The Founding Fathers never intended for the Constitution to be viewed as a time capsule from 1787. Thomas Jefferson believed in balance of a living breathing constitution with an Originalist perspective. I view our founding fathers as an Originalist / instrumentalist hybrid .(ie: don't throw baby out with bath water but to remain relevant you must allow for Constitutional change). They had the foresight to ensure the constitution would evolve as society evolved. Hence the amendment Ratification process.   
 
 "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."- Thomas Jefferson
 
 Thomas Jefferson once suggested that all laws should automatically be repealed every 30 years, so that each generation has the opportunity to make laws that reflect their societies.
 
 
 Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison in Federalist No. 44: argue that a broad interpretation of the Constitution is necessary for the sake of a powerful and united country.

I am of the opinion , The Constitution a contract between the generations. A foundational document that to remain relevant must be a living document.   Jefferson and our founding fathers understood this , they did their best to lay a solid foundation for a young country.. However They wanted to bestow the responsibility to future generations ,to ensure the constitution remained relevant (that's why some parts a remained vague) to their societies of the times as society advanced.

As society advances so too must our bill of rights. It's is present government who have sought to undermine and bastardized the process to ensure a Living breathing and relevant Constitution will exist for all our future generations.

 - JMHO, your mileage may vary

[DDZ]

The main point of our Constitution is that the majority would not be able to determine what can be passed or not passed, but instead the Constitution would determine what the majority can pass or not pass.
Make sure you read the part on what Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton all agreed on, and that is if almost every person in every state, in every class, and in every subculture, feels a change to the Constitution is necessary, then Washington and the States may amend the Constitution.  Anything else would be tyranny of the majority! Its why our Constitution isn't a living document. America would have folded long ago if it was a living document.
If the whims of the majority can dictate what the Constitution really means. Then the majority can decide to pass or not pass any law they want based on what the Constitution ought to say.

Thomas Jefferson forecast that Americans may loose faith in the Constitution and it’s underlying principles, and that to avoid a de-facto tyranny of the majority, we ought to have a referendum in the nation to change the Constitution every few years or decades. Hamilton, under PUBLEUS, in the Federalist Papers, responded to this critique; he said that any and all societal whims (majority whims), and he used ‘society’ as a term explicitly numerous times, of which the Constitution exists to limit in power, would be fully empowered by a scheduled Constitution referendum; for all they would have to do to implement a tyrannous agenda is wait for the next referendum!
Madison agreed, and eventually, so too did Jefferson. They all agreed with how Madison and Hamilton framed the situation on how to change the Constitution; when almost every person in every state, in every class, and in every subculture, feels a change to the Constitution is necessary, then Washington and the States may amend the Constitution. We did this when we ended slavery! This process, of super-majorities and assuring everyone (or almost everyone) is on board with a change in the Constitution, assures that minority voices won’t get tramples on in the debate on an amendment change, and in turn, their Natural Rights won’t get trampled on. PUBLEUS also added if we ever need to draw up a new Constitution, it would only be after generations of tyranny, and a refusal by government to follow the words of the Constitution. John Locke, the grandfather of Republican ideology, agreed with this postulate, as did Jefferson and Washington.
We’re starting on that slippery slope, early in our history of government that doesn’t follow the Constitution. We are down this path not due to a disregard for the Constitution, but due to a fallacious ideal; the ideal that the Constitution says whatever society at the time demands that it says, aka “Living Breathing” thesis.

[scootrd]

Jefferson examined the question of re-constitution especially closely. In his letter to Madison, he occasionally supplements his 'entailed estate' description of intergenerational relations with a description based more on the concepts and language of international law:

"Between society and society, or generation and generation, there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. . . . By the law of nature, one generation is therefore to another as one independent nation to another." - Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson maintains that re-ratification of constitutions and other legislation is required once every generation, and he defines a generation as the period after which a majority of those alive at the time of a law's passage shall themselves have passed away.

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." - Thomas Jefferson

"As we are not to live for ever ourselves, and other generations are to follow us, we have neither the power nor the right to govern them, or to say how they shall govern themselves. It is the summit of human vanity to be dictating to the world to come."
 - Thomas Paine

Paine went on to suggest that 30 years was the average length of a generation, that any public act could not be in force longer than that term, and that it would be useful to have an explicit notation to that effect in the constitution

Aspreviously posted  -

"I am not an advocate for frequent (HE DIDN'T SAY NONE , THEREFORE IT'S NOT STATIC )changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."- Thomas Jefferson

IMHO OPINION , IT'S A LIVING DOCUMENT AND SHOULD BE RATIFIED (BUILT UPON) TO MEET SOCIETAL NEEDS OF PROGRESS IN MODERN TIMES AS determined BY THE PEOPLE .

[DDZ]

It's all the same topic. Same document says life liberty and and the pursuit of happiness.

What if marrying a man is what makes a man happy?? 

Doesn't conflict with others rights.... Seems constitutionally guaranteed?

I guess it doesn't matter if it attacks, and systematically dismantles the family which is the foundation of our nation.
Every nation that has gone down this path of depravity have perished. Just so we keep everyone happy, who cares if we bring ourselves to destruction. Right? Lets just keep driving toward the secular, and humanist world views so everyone is happy. By now our destruction is imminent anyway.   

[Matt]

It seems so silly to me that so many people let this issues consume them and so much of their energy. Folks for at least the last 1500 years some men have had eyes for other men and some women have eyes or other women. I think that it will be happening 1500 years from now.

The issue seems to have shifted though and now somehow if a gay couple claims to be "married"  it undermines the "marriage" of every heterosexual couple in the world. I really wish someone couple explain the logic behind this line of thinking to me because I just don't understand it.

Even though I do not agree or approve of such a lifestyle for me, it does not mean that I have the right to tell anyone else that they can not have such a lifestyle. Also I do not have a right to cause hardship on a person just because they make such a choice though I do have the right to remove or disassociate myself from involvement or interaction with these people.

So here is where I stand on this issue, I offer this as just another perspective of this situation and am not trying to encourage anyone to adapt this mindset or belief system.

We were created in the image of our creator, and given the ability to create our future based on what we see and what we want. It is my belief that it is up to each of us to decide what we will do with the life that we have been given. This can be at times very difficult and at others very easy, it can seem trying at times and others just come so natural. I believe that in each of us is the potential for greatness and that through focus and determination anything is possible. I try not to lump individuals into groups, to me in doing so I take from them the gift of individuality given by the creator.

I do not worry about things such as "gay marriage", "interracial relationships", "white / black supremacy" or any such nonsense. To me homosexuality is a self correcting problem seeing as they can not reproduce with each other so therefor any new life created by a homosexual must be done in a lab (which I do not care for) or in a heterosexual manner. So this new life will be given the same power to create their own future that I was and so the cycle continues.

I find that if I focus on me and what I want that I am much more likely to achieve success than if I spend my time worrying about what others are doing, who they are doing it with and if I should be offended by it.

I have spent the better half of the last 10 years or so fine tuning my understanding of my own belief system and confirming that I know and understand why it is that I believe everything that I believe. I have come to the conclusion (Thanks Heather) that the only way I will ever be able to better myself is if I stop trying to make everyone else see what I see. So from now on I will take a different approach and only offer my perspective on an issue and thats all. I will not try to steer a conversation or thread in any direction over another regardless of my own beliefs on the topic.

So as to the original topic, Obama backs gay marriage.
Ok, thanks for the info although I am fairly certain this is not a newly discovered mindset for him.


Matt