Gay Marriage a Symptom, Not a Disease

Hobbit

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2004
5,099
423
48
Near Atlanta, GA
Right now, Congress is talking about how to prevent gay marriage from becoming law against the will of the people. This isn't a bad call, as Congress supposedly serves the people. Well, so far, how has the gay marriage issue gone. Well, 19 states have passed laws against gay marriage so far. The first gay marriages to take place were in San Francisco and were issued by Gavin Newsom. Since they contradicted an earlier passed law, they were not legally binding and were nothing but a stage show.

To date, the only legal ones in the U.S. are in Massachussetts. To be fair, any law allowing gay marriage probably would have passed in th bluest of the blue states, but the MA supreme court just couldn't wait for the legislature to convene, and went ahead and passed it without them. So far, 19 states have passed constitutional ammendments against gay marriage to prevent state courts from doing the same in their states, but it hasn't helped that much, as the courts are overturning it claiming it violates the U.S. Constitution (funny, I don't see anything in any founding documents about gay marriage as a fundmental right). So, with courts all over the place deciding that gay marriage MUST be legal, it seems that the only way to stop this epidemic is to make it abundantly clear that gay marriage is NOT Constitutional. However, this is only a symptom of the real problem, which has nothing to do with government endorsed sodomy.

No, the real problem has to do with the illusion of a three branch government which is now held in a vice grip by the black-robed oligarchy. Right now, the legislative process is little more than a stage show for approving budgets. Any time a big policy decision comes up, the way the issue swings always ends up in the hands of the Supreme Court. When this country was founded, the Supreme Court's job was to make decisions based solely on the law and weren't supposed to just overturn laws unless they were pretty directly and obviously against the Constitution. A little interpretation was allowed, such as what constitutes 'free speech' and such, but the SCOTUS of today has grossly overstepped its bounds. Under the intended system, each state could decide its own policies. Some even had state-sponsored religions. In this system, each state would be allowed to pass its own laws concerning gay marriage. Some states would require that anybody issuing marriage liscences issue them to eligible gay couples. Some would allow, but not require them to. Still others would ban in altogether. If you didn't like the law in one state, you could move to another.

Now, we come to the real issue, states' rights vs. the out of control supreme court. Abortion and gay marriage are two issues that have never been allowed to stand on their own, and are instead ruled upon by the courts. We don't need a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage from sea to shining sea. What we really need is to bitch slap the Supreme Court back into its constitutional role and let the state legislatures take their role back.

Then maybe the federal government can focus more on keeping Iran from blowing us up, tax reform, school choice, and other things that actually, you know, matter.
 
While the idea of a Constitutional amendment on the topic doesn't sit too well with me, the fact that the judiciary continually circumvents the legislature; therefore, the will of the people, doesn't sit with me at all.
 
Hobbit said:
Then maybe the federal government can focus more on keeping Iran from blowing us up, tax reform, school choice, and other things that actually, you know, matter.
Why can't the things that actually matter get taken care of first?
 
The ClayTaurus said:
Why can't the things that actually matter get taken care of first?

I dont know, why does the left insist on pushing gay marriage on the population despite having half the states directly voting against it instead of standing with us in our war on terror?
 
Avatar4321 said:
I dont know, why does the left insist on pushing gay marriage on the population despite having half the states directly voting against it instead of standing with us in our war on terror?
I didn't condone anything. But if it's really something that doesn't matter...

Gay marriage is definitely used by the GOP as a motivator to get people out to the polls. It's the biggest gift the dems have given in a loooooooong time.
 
GunnyL said:
While the idea of a Constitutional amendment on the topic doesn't sit too well with me, the fact that the judiciary continually circumvents the legislature; therefore, the will of the people, doesn't sit with me at all.
The problem comes in when liberals try to use the faith & credit clause to force one state to comply with another state's ruling, just as the homosexual lobby did with homosexual unions. I can see a Constitutional Ammendment which specifies the limits of state-based civil law when crossing into different states' jurisdictions. But a Constitutional Ammendment forbidding homosexual unions is in fact, an abuse of Federal authority which oversteps the Constitutional bounds of federal authority.
 
Hobbit said:
So, with courts all over the place deciding that gay marriage MUST be legal, it seems that the only way to stop this epidemic is to make it abundantly clear that gay marriage is NOT Constitutional.

If this were true, then the Amendment would say, "Marriage shall be defined by the individual States." But, since the Amendment doesn't say that... then it is obviously not what the Republicans are doing.

The Republicans are hosting another election year hoodwink... when they know that the Amendment won't pass the Senate, they make a great, big deal out of it... knowing that they've wasted their time, (which is OUR time since we're paying them for their time) and our money even addressing it. Well, wasting our money is a relative term I suppose. The money will be well spent come November for the Republican Party I suppose when they're running ads which say things like, "This Democrat wants to marry your son, and his dog, and a corpse! Just look how he voted on the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment."
 
jasendorf said:
If this were true, then the Amendment would say, "Marriage shall be defined by the individual States." But, since the Amendment doesn't say that... then it is obviously not what the Republicans are doing.

The Republicans are hosting another election year hoodwink... when they know that the Amendment won't pass the Senate, they make a great, big deal out of it... knowing that they've wasted their time, (which is OUR time since we're paying them for their time) and our money even addressing it. Well, wasting our money is a relative term I suppose. The money will be well spent come November for the Republican Party I suppose when they're running ads which say things like, "This Democrat wants to marry your son, and his dog, and a corpse! Just look how he voted on the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment."
And the Democratic party will, again, be too stupid to figure out how to combat it.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
And the Democratic party will, again, be too stupid to figure out how to combat it.

Oh, I think you're right. There are just too many brainless lemmings who eat this Republican demagoguery for breakfast to realize they keep getting hoodwinked.


Anyone ever notice that the Republicans love to talk about the "dumbing down of America" at the same time their party is winning elections?
 
jasendorf said:
Oh, I think you're right. There are just too many brainless lemmings who eat this Republican demagoguery for breakfast to realize they keep getting hoodwinked.


Anyone ever notice that the Republicans love to talk about the "dumbing down of America" at the same time their party is winning elections?
How come the Democrats can't find something to hoodwink people on?
 
jasendorf said:
I know! :duh3:
So now the logical question, if you support the dems more than the repubs, how come you don't spend your time and effort trying to get them to step their game up rather than just going "OH you Republicans suck!"

Sure, repubs use gay marriage to get people out to the polls. You should have learned the first time the gay marriage thing came along that you should just leave it alone. Don't give it any attention, and find another issue that will drive pro-dems out to the polls. All this "oh you're hoodwinking people" stuff is really just reinforcement that the Republicans know how to get into office and the Dems don't. Instead of trying to get even, they just cry and moan.

I'm telling you, Dems will lose so long as they try and champion gay marriage. Regardless of if its the right thing to do or not.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
So now the logical question, if you support the dems more than the repubs, how come you don't spend your time and effort trying to get them to step their game up rather than just going "OH you Republicans suck!"

Sure, repubs use gay marriage to get people out to the polls. You should have learned the first time the gay marriage thing came along that you should just leave it alone. Don't give it any attention, and find another issue that will drive pro-dems out to the polls. All this "oh you're hoodwinking people" stuff is really just reinforcement that the Republicans know how to get into office and the Dems don't. Instead of trying to get even, they just cry and moan.

I'm telling you, Dems will lose so long as they try and champion gay marriage. Regardless of if its the right thing to do or not.

Believe me... we're trying. Our biggest problem is that we use real issues with real cures that no one cares about instead of fake issues with fake cures that everyone cares about. We're pretty stupid in that regard. Take K Street for instance. No one cares about it no matter how much we scream about it. Lobbyists have been buying the government for 4 years now and no one cares. Jack marries Fred and suddenly theres a **Constitutional Crisis**... I agree we just don't get it.
 
jasendorf said:
Believe me... we're trying. Our biggest problem is that we use real issues with real cures that no one cares about instead of fake issues with fake cures that everyone cares about. We're pretty stupid in that regard. Take K Street for instance. No one cares about it no matter how much we scream about it. Lobbyists have been buying the government for 4 years now and no one cares. Jack marries Fred and suddenly theres a **Constitutional Crisis**... I agree we just don't get it.

Yeah, you just don't get it alright. I'm almost tempted to rep you for THAT!:mm:

What you don't get however has nothing to do with the reasons you stated and for the simple fact that y'all keep trying to sell nonsensical crap everyone can see through.

One of the biggest problems with the intellectually elite is they believe their thoughts and actions are so superior they can't hide shit. A coomon criminal has more sense and more stealth simply because he doesn't think he's so superior to everyone else that he doesn't have to try and hide what he's doing.
 
jasendorf said:
Believe me... we're trying. Our biggest problem is that we use real issues with real cures that no one cares about instead of fake issues with fake cures that everyone cares about. We're pretty stupid in that regard. Take K Street for instance. No one cares about it no matter how much we scream about it. Lobbyists have been buying the government for 4 years now and no one cares. Jack marries Fred and suddenly theres a **Constitutional Crisis**... I agree we just don't get it.
Howard Dean: What's your opinion on his role in the Dem party. This is going to be my barometer on you.
 
GunnyL said:
One of the biggest problems with the intellectually elite is they believe their thoughts and actions are so superior they can't hide shit. A coomon criminal has more sense and more stealth simply because he doesn't think he's so superior to everyone else that he doesn't have to try and hide what he's doing.

So, uh, what you're saying is that the Republicans are common criminals?
 
jasendorf said:
So, uh, what you're saying is that the Republicans are common criminals?

Not at all. I'm saying you Dems have too many wannabe intellectual elitists among your ranks. But not worry .... we have already established that YOU ain't one of them.:dev3:
 
The ClayTaurus said:
Howard Dean: What's your opinion on his role in the Dem party. This is going to be my barometer on you.

Flash in the pan... yesterday's cold cuts... Know who we need? James Carville should be running this Party. I think Howard Dean is an apologist pussy. He lets Republicans run roughshod all over him...

Bring me the Ragin' Cajun Now!
 
GunnyL said:
Not at all. I'm saying you Dems have too many wannabe intellectual elitists among your ranks. But not worry .... we have already established that YOU ain't one of them.:dev3:

What precisely is an intellectual elitist anyway? I keep hearing that on Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck... but can never seem to come away with anything other than, "the smart people."


I still find it odd that Republicans complain that American education has taken such a "nose dive" in the past twenty years and don't realize that their assertion lines up exactly with their rise to power...
 
jasendorf said:
Flash in the pan... yesterday's cold cuts... Know who we need? James Carville should be running this Party. I think Howard Dean is an apologist pussy. He lets Republicans run roughshod all over him...

Bring me the Ragin' Cajun Now!

There's your answer, Clay. A certifiable genius, without a doubt.:funnyface
 

Forum List

Back
Top