|| Replies ||

User	Blue Monk | 2008-03-28 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Being that apparently most of the elected and appointed officials in Washington D.C. can’t agree what the consititution means and/or would rather ignore it, I see no problem with any of us having a difference of opinion.

User	mae | 2008-03-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Well, joey, I guess we shall just have to agree to disagree about the Constitution. I see it differently than you. mae

User	Blue Monk | 2008-03-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"Marriage" may come to symbolize a life commitment." I kind of thought it already did, but then we have the 50% plus divorce rate whether or not the persons identify themselves as "Christian". The only winners in that deal are the lawyers.

User	latentlylyrical | 2008-03-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"The concept that women or slaves were "equal" to MEN was a totally foreign concept to Adams or any of the MEN of his day." True. But, the law has since accepted women and outlawed slavery. The great thing about the Constitution is it can be applied in spirit, and not by each literal word. MEN has come to symbolize mankind, rather than the white males the Founders had in mind. "Marriage" may come to symbolize a life commitment.

User	Blue Monk | 2008-03-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." Dare I suggest that this actually qualifies nothing that follows, but rather suggests that the author cannot really provide any evidence that what he says is true beyond a personal opinion? This is a classic opening for a circuitous arguement, knowing that the reality of the situation and the facts in hand do not actually support the idealistic feelings being expressed. My conclusion is that Adams is saying, "I wish it were really this way, but only if I can be the one in charge to actually make the new rules and define the word "MEN". That is pretty much what they did, but we’ve taken it further a step at a time. The concept that women or slaves were "equal" to MEN was a totally foreign concept to Adams or any of the MEN of his day. Rights indeed.

User	joeyalphabet | 2008-03-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	“they want the Constitution to be changed to protect those rights” Mae, that’s wrong. Gays don’t want the Constitution changed, and it doesn’t NEED to be changed, any more than it needed to be changed for blacks. No constitutional changes were made to give African-Americans their due rights; all that was required was for the already existing provisions to be ENFORCED. It’s a fundamental right to marry; society decides to whom that right belongs. Gays are arguing (and I agree) that it belongs to them as well as straight couples, and it’s discriminatory to not permit them to marry as well as straight couples. That’s the issue.

User	Chell | 2008-03-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Can someone explain to me what this means: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I read this to mean that the US sees all people as equals- regardless of sex, race, political inclination, sexual orientation, etc., and that these equals have the freedom to make their own choices, live their lives as they want, and be able top pursue the things that make them happy. I know I’ll hear about what it meant 200 years ago, and we have had to clarify that being black doesn’t give the US grounds to oppress your choices, freedoms, or happinesses. We have had to clarify that being female doesn’t give the US grounds to oppress your choices, freedoms, or happinesses. Why are so comfortable practicing outright oppression over a whole group of people in regards to the MOST important decision they will make in their whole lives- whom to love? We have created some seriously screwy laws about LOVE...

User	Chell | 2008-03-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I liked this blurb: The United States of America is not just a democracy – it is a constitutional democracy. What that means is that our government is designed to express not only the will of the majority (democracy), but also to simultaneously protect the unalienable rights of minorities and the powerless. That is an extremely important point because it is the constitutional protections of minorities and the powerless that add civility, humanity, and decency to what could otherwise be a barbaric nation – democratic or not. In other words, democracy alone does not ensure that a nation will act humanely and decently. A majority can at times be quite cruel and unfair. Lynch mobs will generally express the will of the majority (of the mob that is). The majority of whole nations can at times approve of and do terrible things. Even genocides can at times express the will of a majority. And that is precisely why our Founding Fathers recognized the need for a Constitution that would protect the rights of minorities and the powerless. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x60683)

User	mae | 2008-03-26 |
Subject	Joey
Message	Okay, but you make my point. Blacks were being denied rights they were entitled to so the Constitution had to be REVISED to protect their rights. It was not designed that way without changing it. Gays think they are being denied rights, so they want the Constitution to be changed to protect those rights (and those who disagree want it changed to keep things the way they are). It is not currently designed to protect this minority, but must be REVISED to do so. The Constitution was not written with minority protection in mind; it has to be changed in order to do that. mae

User	GoKart Mozart | 2008-03-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	*applauds joey*

User	joeyalphabet | 2008-03-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"How does "everyone" come to be defined as a minority?" Mae, I don’t know how to explain it more clearly. Yes, the Constitution protects everyone, but in cases where a minority’s rights are deprived (such as gays being allowed to marry); the Constitution is designed to protect their rights. That’s the same idea as the struggle of the civil rights movement. Blacks were being denied rights they were constitutionally entitled to. It’s the same argument here. That is what I meant. Society isn’t impacted negatively by gay couples being allowed to marry (unlike say, teenaged girls being forced to wed already married men). It’s just prejudice that prevents it from being legal.

User	mae | 2008-03-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	You haven’t told me anything I didn’t already know, Chell. That doesn’t change a thing. You will note that in my quotes, I DID print the preface. Our sins have already been forgiven, whether we love our fellow humans or not. We must only accept the gift of that forgiveness. That was what was so great about it. Christ died for us WHERE WE ARE, without requiring us to do anything but believe he is who he is. mae

User	Chell | 2008-03-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	“The article I quoted was published in a gay magazine and has been widely supported in the gay community. It is not simply the opinion of one man.“ mae You apparently haven’t done much research on Michael Swift. The name "Michael Swift" is a pseudonym, the fictitious pen-name of the "Gay Revolutionary" who is responsible for the activist, homosexual sentiments expressed within the article below. The author’s real name is unknown. In 1987, “Michael Swift” was asked to contribute an editorial piece to GCN, an important gay community magazine, although WELL TO THE LEFT of most American gay and lesbian opinion. A decade later this text, printed in the Congressional Record is repeatedly cited, apparently verbatim, by the religious right as evidence of the "Gay Agenda". But when the religious right cites this text, they always omit, as does the Congressional record, the vital first line, which sets the context for the piece. In other words, every other version of this found on the net is part of the radical right’s great lie about gay people. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.html) Some commentators allege a more radical "homosexual agenda", quoting a SATIRICAL article authored by “Michael Swift” which first appeared in the Gay Community News in February 1987. Originally titled Gay Revolutionary, the article describes a scenario in which homosexual men dominate American society and suppress all things heterosexual.[17] The article was reprinted in Congressional Record without an opening disclaimer in which the author states that the essay is intended as "outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the OPPRESSED desperately dream of being the oppressor", suggesting it is a SATIRICAL piece of literary HYPERBOLE, and is NOT INTENDED by its author TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda) Hope that puts your mind at ease about us gay and bi people wanting to hurt you straight people- we don’t want to get violent- we might muss up our hair, smudge our mascara or break a nail! For the most part, most of us just rant in sarcastic tones at the intolerant hate filled- phobic people we meet on the net… “It is that very fact on which I base my contention that it isn’t just Christians who are stopping gay marriage. On what do those people base their feelings?: Hate crimes against homosexuals often occur because the perpetrator is "homophobic". The attacks can also be blamed on society itself. Many people view being homosexual as being weak, feminine, and morally wrong. Religion plays a huge role in perpetuating these views. Some religious followers believe that the bible says that homosexuality is wrong and believe that "GOD hates gays" (New York Times, 1990). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_gays,_lesbians,_bisexuals,_and_the_transgendered.) Attempts to form gay and lesbian associations, or simply to gather together on a social basis, may be subject to repression. In many places, the organization of gay and lesbian film festivals or the founding of a gay press have resulted in police action, or in official acquiescence to attacks incited by church officials, criminal gangs, and death squads. Violence against lesbians and gay men continues to flourish in places where police turn a blind eye toward perpetrators, and where courts excuse them when they claim to be reacting against a sexual advance. (http://law.jrank.org/pages/1338/Homosexuality-Crime-global-view.html) “You need to read the rest of the book, Chell. That’s just the first part.” mae Been there, done that- the second part is the best-est and most-est simple: Jesus died for EVERYONE’s sins- so NO ONE gets to judge anyone anymore- and we are all required to love each other in order to be forgiven of our own sins.

User	latentlylyrical | 2008-03-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	What about ’equal protection under the law’? Doesnt that come into play with the Bill of Rights and Constitution? Or did I read that wrong? Seems to me that the legal community cannot decide whether gay marriage is constitutional or not. The question of amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage is closer to resolution though; some courts have already decided such amendments are unconstitutional. Most states havent passed such amendment proposals because they couldnt get enough voters on board. I think that those who vehemently oppose gay marriage are slowly but surely becoming the minority. They are a very vocal opposition, though.

User	mae | 2008-03-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Joey, I guess perhaps it’s a case of definition. You are correct in that majorities don’t need protection, but the constitution protects all individuals equally, without regard to what class or group they may belong to. It does not set out protections specifically for minorities. And if the majority of those who vote in this country wanted to change those protections, there are methods by which they can do that, thereby taking away any protection to minorities. Granted, it’s difficult, but it could be done without looking for loopholes or going through any machinations to get there. That is why I say the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were concerned with protecting the form of government they were seeking to establish, not in specifically protecting minorities. By the time of the Revolution, the Puritans had been here a couple hundred years, give or take, and the men of the Continental Congress had been practicing their own brand of religion or non-religion as the case may have been, their whole lives. It was that freedom they were protecting. If they were interested in protecting minorites, they wouldn’t have allowed people to be burned for being suspected witches. joey - the constitution is meant to protect everyone’s rights, and by definition that would be the minority. How does "everyone" come to be defined as a minority? Everyone means everyone, which would include minorities, but also the majority. This is why I say it may be a case of definition. Apparently, we use different dictionaries. In my opinion, the men who framed our Constitution and Bill of Rights were concerned with protecting freedoms for ALL Americans, not those of any minority (which by definition, would require different freedoms from everyone else) and they were concerned mainly with protecting them from foreign governments or from assaults on them from this government. They were working to preserve a new type of government. mae

User	mae | 2008-03-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Chell - Shall we judge you as dangerous because you follow a book that admonishes you to stone people to death for all manner of behaviors? mae - You need to read the rest of the book, Chell. That’s just the first part. mae

User	mae | 2008-03-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The article I quoted was published in a gay magazine and has been widely supported in the gay community. It is not simply the opinion of one man. And it will never be my dream because it espouses violence - extreme violence. I’m surprised that you think it should be. (Chell - It’s sad that isn’t your dream, too. ) Chell - heterosexuals who wish (and perpetrate) harm on our homosexuals than visa-versa. Shall we deal harshly with them, or are they fine ‘cause it’s normal to beat the crap out of the weaker men in our society mae - I have already stated that I think they should be dealt with harshly. I do not condone violence from anyone against anyone. Chell, I am not so naive as to think that there aren’t many heterosexuals who have strong and violent feelings toward gays. It is that very fact on which I base my contention that it isn’t just Christians who are stopping gay marriage. On what do those people base their feelings? I don’t know each individual’s mind. I cannot answer that for you. But I am also not so naive as to believe the picture you try to paint of homosexuals being gentle, weak men who only want to live and let live. Whether gay or straight, people are people and there are those of every orientation who wish others harm. If it isn’t your opinion that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights support gay marriage - again, in broad terms - then why did you bring them up? We both hold strong opinions on this subject, Chell. I respect your intelligence and the depth of your feeling, but I cannot agree with you on the basic principle. It is too bad we can’t discuss it without your resorting to sarcasm. mae

User	Blue Monk | 2008-03-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Actually I think it sad that gays are not allowed to actually be married if that’s what they really want, but I think it is even more sad that our current rates of divorce and domestic violence show that from a statistical point of view, marriage in general is already in the ditch anyway and perhaps we should be screening the would-be partners better.

User	Chell | 2008-03-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Better grab a rock… Ya know mae, for being such a proponent of “Don’t judge the religion by the practitioners” you seem eager to ignore the fact that you have just judged a whole group off of ONE self-proclaimed fantasy of ONE fed-up homosexual. Shame on you, you know better than that. Shall we judge you as dangerous because you follow a book that admonishes you to stone people to death for all manner of behaviors? The writers of the Bible do not claim their violent tendencies to be merely a fantastically bizarre dream cooked up by one of your leaders- it’s a personal ORDER from God. I can say without reservation that there are MANY, MANY more heterosexuals who wish (and perpetrate) harm on our homosexuals than visa-versa. Shall we deal harshly with them, or are they fine ‘cause it’s normal to beat the crap out of the weaker men in our society? You contend that heterosexual violence towards gays “are a response to ideas and actions such as those stated above. And they should be dealt with harshly.” I contend that these angry statements are the direct result of the homosexual community continuously being refused the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Those pesky inalienable rights!) How happy would you be if you neighbor felt they had the right to tell you who you could be with? BTW, I never claimed the constitution of Bill of Right support gay marriage. I asked what secular (non-god-abomination) reason you carry for wanting the status quo in the US to refuse a group of loving, committed adults to have the same rights you enjoy as a loving, committed adult. I asked what secular basis there was for restricting a group of people the same benefits another group of people enjoy based on sexual orientation. You seem to miss the point that I hold to the “more perfect” ideals than how a bunch of people who have been dead for 200 years implemented them. They did a great job putting together documents that would lead to the equality of ALL MEN- regardless of race, age, sex, sexual orientation, or minority or majority status. It’s sad that isn’t your dream, too. We fought to make sure your church (as a minority group) got to enjoy you life and liberty and pursue your happiness as you see best- that’s all anyone else is asking from you.

User	joeyalphabet | 2008-03-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Mae: I base it on facts. The founding fathers understood persecution. Catholics, Puritans and Quakers left England because of religious persecution – they were minority religions. In England, speaking out against the king would earn you a noose, or worse. All you have to do is look at the violence of 16th and 17th century Britain to understand where they were coming from. They understood that in order to have a republic, all points of view would need to be tolerated. That is why there was such a furor over a bill of rights not being included in the Constitution. It was written into the document that the first order of business of the new Congress would be to pass a Bill of Rights. If I speak out against the government (short of treason), it is a protected right. If I practice any religion, I can (within the bounds of law). Why? Because I am PROTECTED, that’s why. From whom? The majority. It would be relatively easy for the Congress to pass a law mandating Christianity as the state religion (Constitution notwithstanding), but they can’t do that. Minority religions are protected from that sort of thing. Minorities would not have the rights they do if it wasn’t for courts that found Jim Crow laws unconstitutional. The majority of whites didn’t want those overturned; but the courts held they were protected rights because the constitution is meant to protect everyone’s rights, and by definition that would be the minority. The majority does not require protection.