+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: Bad week for Dems!!!!

  1. #61
    Champ arkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond repute arkansasbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    state of incredulity
    Posts
    8,624

    Re: Bad week for Dems!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
    sorry, i'm coming late into this conversation. i've skimmed most of it...enough to get the vibe that the general theme of it seems to be related to the prospect of a constitutional amendment to "define marriage..."

    an amendment i believe to be one of the silliest propostitions i have ever heard. an amendment to effectively criminalize something that almost every state in the union already has laws against.

    and, huss (if this is the case), i realize that your quote is in reference to the accounts of "homosexuality in nature," .and to that extent i agree that universal homosexuality would render our species extinct (it woul be silly not to) but my question is: what purpose would this amendment serve if (by and large) the practice is illegal (or not recognized as a valid union) anyway?
    the only reason i can think of is that some states have made it legal, and federal judges have forced other states to honor those unions. i would prefer if federal judges would get their heads out of their proverbial posteriors and honor the laws of the states. but until we get a little judicial restraint, a constitutional ammendment is the only way to prevent that type of thing. the only problem is that either way, the will of some states is forced on others. the only difference is that one case is the will of the few forced on the many, while the other is the will of the many forced on the few.

  2. #62
    Champ sik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the rough sik-m-boi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    new orleans
    Posts
    2,355

    Re: Bad week for Dems!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by arkansasbob
    the only reason i can think of is that some states have made it legal, and federal judges have forced other states to honor those unions. i would prefer if federal judges would get their heads out of their proverbial posteriors and honor the laws of the states. but until we get a little judicial restraint, a constitutional ammendment is the only way to prevent that type of thing. the only problem is that either way, the will of some states is forced on others. the only difference is that one case is the will of the few forced on the many, while the other is the will of the many forced on the few.
    i agree that other states should not be obligated to honor those unions. but that is a problem for the courts...an amendment is not necessary. if this amendment were to be passed it would be only the second amendment to our constitution limiting rights...the other was prohibition and we all know that didn't last very long and caused more problems then it solved. now, i'm not saying that the passage of this would lead to an uprising of gay organized crime but it's not going to "solve" homosexuality. even if it is passed i don't think it will last long...mainly because from what i've noticed (from my completely unscientivic survey of people i know) we are mostly of three, relatively equal in number, groups 1: totally for the amendment, 2: totally against it, and 3: don't care either way or think its legislation is a waste of time and money. i am of the the third camp and would vote against it if i were given the chance as i think the majority of voters would. anyway, if you don't want it (and your state has legalized it) petition and get it repealed and petition the judges to honor your state's choice. no amendment needed.

  3. #63
    Champ arkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond repute arkansasbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    state of incredulity
    Posts
    8,624

    Re: Bad week for Dems!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
    i agree that other states should not be obligated to honor those unions. but that is a problem for the courts...an amendment is not necessary. if this amendment were to be passed it would be only the second amendment to our constitution limiting rights...the other was prohibition and we all know that didn't last very long and caused more problems then it solved. now, i'm not saying that the passage of this would lead to an uprising of gay organized crime but it's not going to "solve" homosexuality. even if it is passed i don't think it will last long...mainly because from what i've noticed (from my completely unscientivic survey of people i know) we are mostly of three, relatively equal in number, groups 1: totally for the amendment, 2: totally against it, and 3: don't care either way or think its legislation is a waste of time and money. i am of the the third camp and would vote against it if i were given the chance as i think the majority of voters would. anyway, if you don't want it (and your state has legalized it) petition and get it repealed and petition the judges to honor your state's choice. no amendment needed.
    it would be great if it worked that way. but our system is set up so that judges are not subject to political pressure. this is a good thing, but there needs to be a check on their power. the only two options are to impeach judges that overstep their power (this sets a bad precident -- we don't want judges being impeached just because they make politically unpopular decisions) or ammend the constitution. perhaps a law that clearly defined the roles and bounds of the judicial branch would work, as long as it was not subsequently declared unconstitutional. in that case, they would have to go ammendment with it, which would be, in my opinion, a constructive endevour.

    as for the three groups, i don't belong to any of them at this point. while i did play the devil's advocate on behalf of group 1, i'm not sure how i would vote if it were offered up. but it really doesn't matter because it has absolutely zero chance of being passed at this point, or at any point in the near future.

  4. #64
    Champ sik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the roughsik-m-boi is a jewel in the rough sik-m-boi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    new orleans
    Posts
    2,355

    Re: Bad week for Dems!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by arkansasbob
    it would be great if it worked that way. but our system is set up so that judges are not subject to political pressure. this is a good thing, but there needs to be a check on their power. the only two options are to impeach judges that overstep their power (this sets a bad precident -- we don't want judges being impeached just because they make politically unpopular decisions) or ammend the constitution. perhaps a law that clearly defined the roles and bounds of the judicial branch would work, as long as it was not subsequently declared unconstitutional. in that case, they would have to go ammendment with it, which would be, in my opinion, a constructive endevour.

    as for the three groups, i don't belong to any of them at this point. while i did play the devil's advocate on behalf of group 1, i'm not sure how i would vote if it were offered up. but it really doesn't matter because it has absolutely zero chance of being passed at this point, or at any point in the near future.
    good response. i think i agree with most all of what you've stated. i would much rather see the prospect of an amendment providing judicial restraint than one specifically geared towards the definition of marriage...although whether i'd support it or not...i'm not sure. but you're right: it is not going to pass, which is indicative (imo) of it being a waste of time.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts