Ron Brownstein from the Los Angeles Times really hammered John F. Kerry on gay marriage, and all Kerry could do was stammer, "I was clear!" Brownstein in effect said, "Clear about what? You haven't answered my question. The only way to stop gay marriages, which you're against, is with a constitutional amendment. You agree with Bush!" Kerry and John Edwards finally said they're against gay marriage, but they practically whispered it.
Remember, don't call Kerry on his flip-flops or cite his record. That's "questioning his patriotism." It's election year, and the Democrats do not like all these people issuing marriage licenses to gays. They don't want to be part of this issue. You can tell from the way John Kerry tried to deal with the issue last night. He got all flipped up and screwed up on what the Defense of Marriage Act is ? when he voted against it ? and what the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is.
Bush Bash, Anti-gay marrige.
by SC_Guy 101 Replies latest social current
-
ThiChi
-
joannadandy
You know I REALLY can't stand the slippery slope fallacy that ALWAYS comes up in this debate...
"well if you let gays marry, what's to say that people won't marry their pets, or won't marry their children, or groups won't get married, or brothers and sisters...it's a horrible horrible mess"
Why do we have no self-control? Why is it that a floodgate has to open?
You relegate gay people to dog loving incestious pedophiles when you make a statement like this. It really is reather stupid, and still has nothing to do with a GAY RIGHT to marriage. If after we grant gay marriage I would be more than willing to discuss why I think people who want to marry their dogs shouldn't be allowed that right. Why adults marrying children is wrong, etc. Again, this is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy that only serves to de-rail the issue at hand.
People who are against gay marriage can't really articulate why it's so wrong other than to say something like "God hates gays", or "Then what's next" which really has nothing to do with legal sacation of gay marriage.
-
ThiChi
No slippery slope here, these restrictions have been in place for thousands of years. And it has worked. It is only now the radical left is advancing this monstrosity. You did not address the question: Where does it stop? What grounds do you have to deny a Father from marrying his Daughter? It has and does happen. Read the story above. Its a Fact. There are prople out there who, would do almost anything, if they could get away with it. Or, is it only your version of what "love" means? This father and his Daughter "love" each other, and want to "live" a "life" togeather... using your logic, why stop them? To follow your "slippery slope" people should use marriage for whatever activity they want. With no religious, or moral grounds, everything is a go!! You now have got your reasons why....
-
Phantom Stranger
There are many Democrats whose personal beliefs make them anti-gay marriage - in personal belief.
There is a difference between having a personal preference, and wanting to modify the Constitution to match one's personal preference.
The Dems didn't make this an election issue. Fortunately, they don't need to. Kerry can be conflicted, being personally against something that he suspects the Constitution allows - which both he and Yeru have sworn to uphold and defend - Kerry once as a Navy officer, and again upon entry to the Senate. Kerry can express his conflicted internal state without harm - he still gets the gay vote, and people see that he's not the mythical knee-jerk liberal of talk radio.
Yeah, allow gays to actually get Social Security benefits and health insurance from their partners, and next, dogs and cats will be living together. Blah, blah, blah. You, Jefferson Davis, and Strom Thurmond, pal. These arguments were trotted out against the Nineteenth Amendment, against the Civil Rights Act, against freeing the slaves, etc., etc.
As has been pointed out in many instances (such as here), the DOMA prevents any state's acknowledgement of a gay marriage from having to be give "full faith and credit" by another state - but even without DOMA there are noted instances, that have never been challenged, of one state failing to give full faith and credit to a particular type of marriage that contradicts its laws and practices. I think this is a perfectly good example of state's rights - a concept that conservatives seem to believe in wholehartedly - when they don't hold the Oval office or Capitol Hill.
-
Phantom Stranger
No, we don't have our reasons why, we just know what you are afraid of.
Plural marriage "worked" for thousands of years.
Slavery "worked" for thousands of years.
Oppresion of females "worked" for thousands of years.
Racism "worked" for thousands of years.
Hell, monarchy "worked" for thousands of years.
Every horse dies someday. Which ones will you choose to keep beating?
-
ThiChi
Are you a "Stranger" to History?
Your claim made has always bothered me. In 1957, Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican president, used his federal power to integrate the Little Rock school system. He stood up to a Democratic Governor, Orville Faubus, who, incidentally, Clinton befriended early in his political career.
Democrats claim that The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is their act. It isn't. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed with an overwhelming majority of Republican votes in the Senate. A greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the bill.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the Democrats claim as their monopoly, was opposed by southern Democrat senators, several of whom were outspoken segregationists, and one of them was Al Gore's father.
Lyndon Johnson, who was president, had to rely on Everett Dirkson, the great
Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Civil Rights Act passed just
like Clinton had to rely on Republicans to get NAFTA passed. It was the Democrats back in 1964 who were at war with themselves and conflicted over civil rights.
The idea that the Democrats are responsible for the Civil Rights Act of 1964
is a myth that has been given life by the Democrats and the media for
36 years now. It's hokum. It's grating on me as much as the idea that the
Republicans want dirty water and dirty air.
The liberals are living a lie. They're telling themselves these lies in order to make themselves feel good at their convention, but it isn't flying and the poll numbers show it. -
ThiChi
If a Democratic Congress can amend the Constitution for a pay raise, we can do it for Marriage. Don't forget the "two pillars" that make a Country Great....You probably don't even know what they are....
-
Phantom Stranger
PUT...THE...CRACK...PIPE...DOWN!
Never said it was a "Democratic" thing - but it was the right thing, it was a "liberal" thing (in the real meaning of the word - you can look it up) and conservatives fought against it.
I made no claim. Eisenhower was Republican - but a moderate one - and the Civil Rights Act can be described as a bipartisan victory for this nation.
As was pointed out earlier - conservative does not equal Republican and liberal does not equal Democrat.
And which poll numbers? As usual, the nation seems to be in the middle, and it looks like a horse race.
-
Phantom Stranger
Your religion and your morality may make you happy, as Washington asserted - I tend to gravitate to Jefferson, stating that yours should not be inflicted upon me:
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S.
-
ThiChi
""but it was the right thing, it was a "liberal" thing... "" The conservitives......"" I disagree, as an example, they passed the civil rights Act. Lincion freed the Slaves (a GOPer). That is my point. Thanks for clliarification. As you can see, your writing could be taken another way. If this was not your claim, then regrets. However, I think you can see where it was taken this way. At any rate, my point is still made....