Posted on 05/17/2004 12:11:17 PM PDT by george wythe
So you would agree that Roe and Lawrence should be overturned?
"Kringle has left the building."
I am happy to debate with others who differ here and there, and don't mind heated discussions at times - I've sparred with you a few times, and you are always gentlemanly and sharp.
KK smells like a troll, and I am not in the mood to tolerate them today. If he isn't a troll, we'll find out. Mayhap I was a little too pointed, but that's the way the cookie crumbles today!
Cheers.
Which is why I came to this thread, too. I really think the President had already clearly stated his position on the matter, and was wondering why he was stoking the coals, but after reading the news article at the top of the thread, I realized what was going on. He merely wants to inspire a response by Sen. Kerry on the subject, on this day, especially being as the story centers around Kerry's home state.
Kerry's base has a much harder time with Kerry's position on gay marriage than Bush's base has with the President's position. Both have stated that they oppose gay marriage, but favor "other arrangements" that gay couples want to make. Bush leaves that pretty well undefined, but Kerry has called for Vermont-style civil unions. I suspect that Bush would not have a problem with civil unions, since I don't recall him ever making an issue over the Vermont situation.
The only other difference between them is that Bush has spoken out in favor of a Constitutional amendment that he realistically knows has little, if any, chance of passing, and Kerry has spoken out against it, again, knowing that to do so is relatively safe, considering his base.
I expect the person with the least to lose to play the most politics with an issue, that's why Bush does this on Massachusetts gay marriage day, and that's why Kerry does it with the Iraq war every day. Call it stroking the base, if you wish, but every politician does it.
Check the post above yours. I think KK has been outed, and is out of here.
Be careful not to let your anger get the best of you.
Thank you, I've appreciated our civil debates, its good to generate more light than heat. Further, I thought Breakem was being a bit too pointed at you today, like I said, I understand that this is a sorrowful day for many who believe deep in their hearts that gay marriage is very, very wrong. I'm sure there are some who would like to gloat that it has arrived, but don't count me as one of them.
Again, after today, there is still a five and a half month campaign out there, and the important thing is to win the hearts and minds of our fellow voters. We will all do that with calmness and reason, many of our fellow Americans got a giant wake-up call on 9/11, and before they join our side, they want to assure themselves that we are not the hideous monsters that the fringe left has always told them we are.
An important difference between a true conservative and a true liberal is the tolerance of another's right to be wrong, we celebrate it, they can't stand it.
Do the majority of Americans who are opposed to so called 'Gay Marriage' qualify?
I totally agree with you. Conservatives generally speaking respect others' free will to disagree.
Liberals? Hate speech laws.
KKringle was lying about his real viewpoints. I can smell them.
IMHO.... GW has bigger fish to fry....
Well, let's give him a shot at answering, if he comes back later. If he's been banned for a time, perhaps you're right, but I was banned myself for using the term "wetback" in a tagline while I was still fuming about the President's immigration plan.
I think your smoke detector is set to a fairly sensitive level today, if my wife burns dinner tonight, I think you'll smell it all the way from WA state! I'd buy you a beer if I were there, or at least a soda.
Could be. I've had one guy stuck like a burr in the forum stalking, and another freepmailing me! A guy who signed up today and hasn't posted once on the open forum. I think the Massachusetts thing has made some people dizzy or maybe they just drank too much...
I appreciate debate, but it has to be honest debate. I consider dishonesty and lying to be great evils and they destroy relationships, even the ethereal ones on FR.
TonyRo76 replied:
Yes! And it is our obligation under the Constitution (Article III, Section 1) to impeach their @sses!
Perhaps TR76 should reconsider his assertion, as it contains, at a minimum, two explicit errors and another implicit error. Let us consider them.
Explicit Error #1: We, as citizens, have no obligation to impeach judges. Nor do we have the right. Nor do we have the power. The power to impeach is given to our representatives. And, even given the power, our representatives have no obligation to impeach. That is a political, not a moral, decision. Niggling, I know, but not unimportant.
Explicit Error #2: Article III, section 1 provides, in part, "Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..." Given that judges can only be impeached for breaking this dictate, TR76 is clearly stating that adopting a particular interpretive stance is paramount to impeachable behavior. Clearly this is wrong. Why? Because Congress has yet to pass a law establishing a particular interpetive stance and requiring judges' compliance. As a result, judges may choose a wide variety of interpretative stances (which no doubt will piss somebody off) without fear of impeachment. To achieve TR76's goal, Congress would have to first, under the Art. 3, sect. 1 powers, outlaw certain interpretative methods. Then, and only then, could statutory or constitutional interpretation rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
Implicit Error #1: Both NCB and TR76 are getting exercised over a state court judge's decision concerning a state (here Massachusetts) Constitution. I would be remiss in not pointing out that the US Constitution provides no means for Congress to exercise power over state court judges and that any effort would violate the historic division between state and federal government. Perhaps TR76 lives in MA, where he might be able to have some voice in the state's constitution, otherwise he has no recourse.
Cheers!
Everett Volk
Here's a pleasant thought to get you feeling better: Imagine John Kerry speaking to a Rat convention in Boston, while news cameras are recording the crazies outside the convention hall who argue that he's not done enough to support gay rights. I don't know how old you were in 1968, but the antiwar protesters in Chicago got Nixon elected instead of Humphrey, and I remember it pretty clearly. I was too young to appreciate what it meant, but I'm glad it happened that way.
Thanks - I am old enough to remember, but at the time I was otherwise engaged... the word "windowpane" is a hint.
I don't touch anything now.
Time to get away from my computer for a while...I'm trying to disengage as we speak.
Again, Cheers!
Then who decides who is "Married" vs. "Single" for:
1. Federal tax filing?
2. Federal pension survivorship benefits?
3. Social Security survivorship benefits?
4. Military spousal benefits/entitlements?
(These are just a few that come to mind.
Please don't let them win! The only people doing anything are the R's.
Marilyn Musgrave has had a bill in the works since last year!
On a purely superficial level, I think it sullies the spirit of the Constitution to even MENTION homosexuality. Just like it was dumb to use it to prohibit alcohol. I just wish legislators in America would grow the cajones to impeach judges that are trying to impose its legality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.