Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign => Topic started by: Blue Rectangle on June 19, 2004, 09:59:02 AM



Title: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Blue Rectangle on June 19, 2004, 09:59:02 AM
Quote
The Senate in mid-July will take up a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, forcing lawmakers to cast a tough political vote just weeks before the Democratic presidential convention in Massachusetts.

While no one is surprised by this, the timing was uncertain until now.  This schedule clearly is meant to hurt Kerry at the convention, as a latter vote would be more effective against Senate Dems running for re-election.

The question is: do Senate Dems rally to support Kerry, or defect to save their own butts?

Bonus question: will the number of defecting Republicans be greater or less than the number of defecting Dems?

My prediction: Dems support Kerry, 3 defections from both parties.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 19, 2004, 10:08:37 AM
so far, the only "Democrat" to come out in favor of this is Zell Miller. But several Republicans, around 20 or so have come out against it. My prediction is that it goes down in flames, with Traitor Zell being the only "Democrat" to vote for it.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 19, 2004, 10:11:55 AM
here's the list of everyone who's issued a statement against the amendment. The total number of senators is 48:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN), George Allen (R-VA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joe Biden (D-DE), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), John Breaux (D-LA), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Jon Corzine (D-NJ), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Mark Dayton (D-MN), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Edwards (D-NC), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Bob Graham (D-FL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dick Lugar (R-IN), John McCain (R-AZ), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Harry Reid (D-NV), Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), John Warner (R-VA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on June 19, 2004, 12:58:56 PM
Quote
The Senate in mid-July will take up a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, forcing lawmakers to cast a tough political vote just weeks before the Democratic presidential convention in Massachusetts.

While no one is surprised by this, the timing was uncertain until now.  This schedule clearly is meant to hurt Kerry at the convention, as a latter vote would be more effective against Senate Dems running for re-election.

The question is: do Senate Dems rally to support Kerry, or defect to save their own butts?

Bonus question: will the number of defecting Republicans be greater or less than the number of defecting Dems?

My prediction: Dems support Kerry, 3 defections from both parties.


Oh, is that still going on?  I thought that went the way of just about everything else Bush talked about during his RIVETING State of the Union.  You remember, don't you?  The mission to Mars?  Yeah, wasn't Bush going to send Zell Miller to Mars or sumpthin?

As to "hurting" anyone, STAND CLEAR! Bush is about to blow his toes off on this one.  America recognizes the motives behind this stink bomb, and I see zero -- absolutely zero -- splattering of Kerry.

Ah, so much for uniting...


- Alfie

()


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Blue Rectangle on June 19, 2004, 04:33:32 PM
I think something close to 50/50 is pretty much a given, but whether that has impact on Kerry depends on the makeup of the vote.  A straight party-line vote casts the issue as a partisan one; several defections each way show the issue to be somewhat non-partisan.  The party-line outcome hurts Kerry slightly, the other has little effect.

As far as strategy goes, it would have been better for Bush to let the Defense of Marriage Act vote be the only gage of Kerry's record on this.  That vote was 85 yea/15 nay, with Kerry on the nays; that outcome makes Kerry look more extreme.  If several Republicans vote with Kerry against the GMA, then no one will care about the 1996 vote.

However, the vote schedule does force Kerry to address the issue shortly before he appears in Boston at the convention--in a state that is struggling with this issue.  If his strategy is to defend his senate vote while avoiding a stand on the state issue, then we could possibly see a blunder at the worst possible time for him.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on June 19, 2004, 05:27:24 PM
I think something close to 50/50 is pretty much a given, but whether that has impact on Kerry depends on the makeup of the vote.  A straight party-line vote casts the issue as a partisan one; several defections each way show the issue to be somewhat non-partisan.  The party-line outcome hurts Kerry slightly, the other has little effect.

As far as strategy goes, it would have been better for Bush to let the Defense of Marriage Act vote be the only gage of Kerry's record on this.  That vote was 85 yea/15 nay, with Kerry on the nays; that outcome makes Kerry look more extreme.  If several Republicans vote with Kerry against the GMA, then no one will care about the 1996 vote.

However, the vote schedule does force Kerry to address the issue shortly before he appears in Boston at the convention--in a state that is struggling with this issue.  If his strategy is to defend his senate vote while avoiding a stand on the state issue, then we could possibly see a blunder at the worst possible time for him.

Democrats are pissing me off with this.  When Kerry says he's against gay marriage, I really don't buy it for a second.  If he was he'd have no porblem with an amendment.  He just can't stand with the gays right now when 60% of the country still finds gay marriage wrong.  That'll change, I can't imagine my generation havng a problem with gay marriage.    


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: KEmperor on June 19, 2004, 06:04:54 PM
Getting desperate for votes Nym?


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Blue Rectangle on June 19, 2004, 08:49:27 PM
John Kerry's stance on Gay Marriage: (http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/glbt/record.html)
Under the rather cryptic name of "LGBT" (other groups and issues are clearly labeled) Kerry pushes his Gay Rights record.  However:
- He makes no mention of the Gay Marriage Amendment
- He makes no mention of his vote against the Defense of Marriage Act
- He makes no mention of the issue in his home state

This is how Kerry dodges the issue on his own website on a page specifically targeting gays and lesbians.  With leadership like that, do you think Kerry will even show up for the vote on the amendment?


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: zachman on June 19, 2004, 09:07:52 PM
I think John Kerry will not hinder the progress by fighting against the rulings that these courts make. That's his apathetic attitude on the issue.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 20, 2004, 11:29:59 AM
I think John Kerry will not hinder the progress by fighting against the rulings that these courts make. That's his apathetic attitude on the issue.


Good! Lets let the activist judges keep getting out of control.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 20, 2004, 11:54:36 AM
John Kerry's stance on Gay Marriage: (http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/glbt/record.html)
Under the rather cryptic name of "LGBT" (other groups and issues are clearly labeled) Kerry pushes his Gay Rights record.  However:
- He makes no mention of the Gay Marriage Amendment
- He makes no mention of his vote against the Defense of Marriage Act
- He makes no mention of the issue in his home state

This is how Kerry dodges the issue on his own website on a page specifically targeting gays and lesbians.  With leadership like that, do you think Kerry will even show up for the vote on the amendment?

probably not, but no one expects him to anyway.

But if no one defects except Zell Miller, and many Republicans do, which is expected, it's the best case scenario for Kerry. It makes his position look mainstream and perfect.

The GOP could've easily shot themselves in the foot with this. They could've just attacked Kerry's vote against the DOMA, but by pursuing this instead, they're making his position look mainstream.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: cwelsch on June 21, 2004, 11:35:22 PM
John Kerry's opinion on the Federal Marriage Amendment: Bush is causing unemployment.

Kerry is cowering on gay marriage just like he cowers on the Patriot Act.  He's a wimp, he likes to stay non-controversial.  That's why he constantly shifts position and has even less sense of himself than Clark and Dean - who were also big position shifters.


We cannot trust Kerry to defend the Constitution from the Patriot Act if he can't even side with a 75% Democratic constituency: gay people.  If he won't defend the Constitution for the left-wing, why would he do it on a much harder issue?  Simple, he won't because it's a very effective wedge issue.


Democrats since FDR (1930s and 1940s) have pulled the voters with less formal education.  This group only went GOP in primary 3 times since FDR: 1972, 1988, and 2000.  This is a large demographic (usually 1/4th of the vote) that the Democrats need, and polls show it's a big gain for Bush on the gay marriage issue.  They don't like it, and even Democratic pollsters admit it most of the time.  The issue is not who will gain but how much Bush will gain from the FMA.  This is the area of his pick-up, this is the demographic that prefers voting for socially center-right, fiscally centrist or center-left (Christian Democrat or populist, in other words) candidates.  The Democrats are often not so far left as to lose this group, and economics more than picks them up.  With Bush moving left on budget, spending and social programs he is in a great position, and putting up a social wedge issue like this one makes him seem a) like a leader with convictions and b) like he's not nearly so crazy as Kerry.

He'll win votes from it.  It's very sad that it happens, it's a stupid issue, but he will pick up from it.  We have to counter this issue by a strong turnout for a Presidential candidate against the FMA: Badnarik! :P

Bush proposed it and Kerry is waffling big time, but Badnarik is against it and marching in the gay pride parade in support of self-determination.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 21, 2004, 11:38:41 PM
And again Badnariks chances of winning go from .5% down to .4%. lol


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 22, 2004, 01:06:30 AM
On this particular issue, I split with many politicians who I am a big fan of (namely, Rick Santorum, Zell Miller and President Bush).  Even if I believed in the content of this ammendment, I still wouldn't support such a ridiculous thing being in the Constitution.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: cwelsch on June 22, 2004, 04:02:07 AM
Anyone who disliked gay marriage was either already voting for Bush or was voting for Badnarik despite it.

But protecting the Constitution from these misadventures might win the Libertarian quite a few votes from people inclined to that position, gay and straight.  I mean, how can gay people vote for Bush after this, and how can they be very thrilled about Kerry?  I suspect the Libertarians are in a position to make some headway among the gay demographic - who are the most affluent minority and tend to be both fiscally and socially inclined toward the libertarian perspective.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 22, 2004, 07:33:37 AM
Anyone who disliked gay marriage was either already voting for Bush or was voting for Badnarik despite it.

But protecting the Constitution from these misadventures might win the Libertarian quite a few votes from people inclined to that position, gay and straight.  I mean, how can gay people vote for Bush after this, and how can they be very thrilled about Kerry?  I suspect the Libertarians are in a position to make some headway among the gay demographic - who are the most affluent minority and tend to be both fiscally and socially inclined toward the libertarian perspective.

The question would be easily answered if the issue of gay marriage was put on the ballot in all 50 states. Much like the issue of abortion.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: bullmoose88 on June 22, 2004, 10:53:13 AM
And again Badnariks chances of winning go from .5% down to .4%. lol

no no...its still a 0% chance of winning...

this coming from a guy who's considering voting L if kerry continues to flip flop.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: © tweed on June 22, 2004, 11:21:20 AM
1-Zell Miller


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: cwelsch on June 22, 2004, 04:08:17 PM
Neither abortion nor gay marriage should be ballot issues.  Gay marriage is a private contract, it should always be allowed privately.  Abortion is murder, a human rights issue, it should never be allowed.  Neither should be up for the ballot because these are issues of rights.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 22, 2004, 07:45:21 PM
Neither abortion nor gay marriage should be ballot issues.  Gay marriage is a private contract, it should always be allowed privately.  Abortion is murder, a human rights issue, it should never be allowed.  Neither should be up for the ballot because these are issues of rights.

So should homosexuals be allowed to enter a church and get married? Should they recieve the same benefits as a male and female marriage?


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 22, 2004, 07:52:57 PM
Neither abortion nor gay marriage should be ballot issues.  Gay marriage is a private contract, it should always be allowed privately.  Abortion is murder, a human rights issue, it should never be allowed.  Neither should be up for the ballot because these are issues of rights.

So should homosexuals be allowed to enter a church and get married? Should they recieve the same benefits as a male and female marriage?

the views of me and most gay marriage supporters:

1-Completely up to the church.
2-yes


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 22, 2004, 08:02:26 PM
Neither abortion nor gay marriage should be ballot issues.  Gay marriage is a private contract, it should always be allowed privately.  Abortion is murder, a human rights issue, it should never be allowed.  Neither should be up for the ballot because these are issues of rights.

So should homosexuals be allowed to enter a church and get married? Should they recieve the same benefits as a male and female marriage?

the views of me and most gay marriage supporters:

1-Completely up to the church.
2-yes

At the cost of a health care cost hike.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Andrew on June 22, 2004, 11:21:42 PM
You know, we could probably keep health care costs down if we'd stop letting blacks get insurance.

Maybe we should cut off the women, too.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 22, 2004, 11:26:54 PM
You know, we could probably keep health care costs down if we'd stop letting blacks get insurance.

Maybe we should cut off the women, too.

Sounds like race baiting to me. I shouldn't even justify a response to that. So I'll ignore that post. Gay relationships are not natural. They should not cost me $ out of my pocket. They have a higher rate of STDs too.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on June 22, 2004, 11:38:34 PM

Quote
Gay relationships are not natural. They should not cost me $ out of my pocket. They have a higher rate of STDs too.

Hets, from what I see of your posts, have a higher rate of mental illness and mental retardation.

If you wish to get snippy about paying for things, why should I, a person with no kids, pay for the education of the many little nippers that "breeders" plop out with too must regularity?  But I know your "issue" on this subject isn't money: it's hatred and bigotry.

Got 'yo number.  You do know that, right?

Good.

- Alfie



Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 22, 2004, 11:48:31 PM

Quote
Gay relationships are not natural. They should not cost me $ out of my pocket. They have a higher rate of STDs too.

Hets, from what I see of your posts, have a higher rate of mental illness and mental retardation.

If you wish to get snippy about paying for things, why should I, a person with no kids, pay for the education of the many little nippers that "breeders" plop out with too must regularity?  But I know your "issue" on this subject isn't money: it's hatred and bigotry.

Got 'yo number.  You do know that, right?

Good.

- Alfie




Whatever you say. Troll. Call it hatred if you wish. Of course in your liberal mind any dissent is considered racism. But why argue with a troll.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on June 22, 2004, 11:55:16 PM
Quote
"Whatever you say. Troll. Call it hatred if you wish. Of course in your liberal mind any dissent is considered racism. But why argue with a troll.

No, not true.  Dissent, however defined, is a good thing -- at least when it is intelligent and reasonable.  It is when people become blind to their hatred of others that it becomes rather sad and dreary.

I just think that very few Americans share your frothingly radical, bitter view of the world, that's all.  From equality to war, you are on the fringe.  Not my fault.

- igwt


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 23, 2004, 12:00:45 AM
Quote
"Whatever you say. Troll. Call it hatred if you wish. Of course in your liberal mind any dissent is considered racism. But why argue with a troll.

No, not true.  Dissent, however defined, is a good thing -- at least when it is intelligent and reasonable.  It is when people become blind to their hatred of others that it becomes rather sad and dreary.

I just think that very few Americans share your frothingly radical, bitter view of the world, that's all.  From equality to war, you are on the fringe.  Not my fault.

- igwt


Listen troll. I am far on the "edge" I am fairly moderate. My religious beliefs show me that homosexuality is clearly an abomination and 2000 years of civilized society have shown that thought to be correct. Whether you like that fact or not. Call me whatever name you want. I personally do not give three craps. I have no bitter view of the world. I have a cynical view of the world as I do not trust 90% of Europe and almost all of Asia. They are in COMPETITION with us. They do not want America to stand as it is. It's those like you who would rather b*tch and moan about a few inconviences in your life then worry about the majority of Americans safety. Get over yourself already. If people with views such as yourself had been the majority in the second world war we never would have won and the national anthem would be Deutchland Uber Alles.  You are the first one to throw out "racist" "bigot" and that is not reasonable dissent. That is idiocy. Plain and simple.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on June 23, 2004, 12:08:45 AM
Quote
"Listen troll. I am far on the "edge" I am fairly moderate. My religious beliefs show me that homosexuality is clearly an abomination and 2000 years of civilized society have shown that thought to be correct."

Shown it correct?  Really?  To who?  You?  Please.  The world long left that dark ages stuff behind.  No, I fear the wrost -- you are on the fringe, on the edge.  But hey -- some people find that exciting.

Quote
"Whether you like that fact or not. Call me whatever name you want. I personally do not give three craps. I have no bitter view of the world. I have a cynical view of the world as I do not trust 90% of Europe and almost all of Asia. They are in COMPETITION with us."

And?  What's that got to do with the topic?  BTW, the only people afraid of competing are those who know they can not win.  Is that the case here?  I know it isn'twith me -- I say "bring it on!"  Any good capitalist knows competition is the friend of the market place.  

Quote
" If people with views such as yourself had been the majority in the second world war we never would have won and the national anthem would be Deutchland Uber Alles...  

Which views are they?  And please -- spare me the Rush "Dr Feelgood" Limbaugh crap about WWII.  He makes a mockery of all that is decent in America.  Draft dodging Chicken Hawk AND three-time divorcee... thinks he's a closet case?

- Alfie


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 23, 2004, 12:12:37 AM
Quote
"Listen troll. I am far on the "edge" I am fairly moderate. My religious beliefs show me that homosexuality is clearly an abomination and 2000 years of civilized society have shown that thought to be correct."
Quote
Shown it correct?  Really?  To who?  You?  Please.  The world long left that dark ages stuff behind.  No, I fear the wrost -- you are on the fringe, on the edge.  But hey -- some people find that exciting.

That is why 60+% of America agree with me. But I digress.

Quote
"Whether you like that fact or not. Call me whatever name you want. I personally do not give three craps. I have no bitter view of the world. I have a cynical view of the world as I do not trust 90% of Europe and almost all of Asia. They are in COMPETITION with us."
Quote
And?  What's that got to do with the topic?  BTW, the only people afraid of competing are those who know they can not win.  Is that the case here?  I know it isn'twith me -- I say "bring it on!"  Any good capitalist knows competition is the friend of the market place.  

They are in competition to destroy us as a nation. Both economically and militarily. The UN is anti US.

Quote
" If people with views such as yourself had been the majority in the second world war we never would have won and the national anthem would be Deutchland Uber Alles...  
Quote
Which views are they?  And please -- spare me the Rush "Dr Feelgood" Limbaugh crap about WWII.  He makes a mockery of all that is decent in America.  Draft dodging Chicken Hawk AND three-time divorcee... thinks he's a closet case?

- Alfie



This war is comparable to World War 2. But I guess you would prefer to have your Neville Chamberlain become president.

"We can not fight communism alone." -John Kerry 1971


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Lunar on June 23, 2004, 12:15:54 AM
I think the latest poll had 51% of Americans rejecting homosexuality in society.  Basically tied with the MoE.  Hardly the fringe though.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on June 23, 2004, 12:20:17 AM
I think the latest poll had 51% of Americans rejecting homosexuality in society.  Basically tied with the MoE.  Hardly the fringe though.

Got a documented cite?  And please, don't even try to pass of some lunatic "Family Research Council" crap.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 23, 2004, 12:20:46 AM
I think the latest poll had 51% of Americans rejecting homosexuality in society.  Basically tied with the MoE.  Hardly the fringe though.

I guess 51% of Americans are "racist" "bigots" like me for holding a different opinion.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 23, 2004, 12:22:55 AM
I think the latest poll had 51% of Americans rejecting homosexuality in society.  Basically tied with the MoE.  Hardly the fringe though.

Got a documented cite?  And please, don't even try to pass of some lunatic "Family Research Council" crap.

Time did a poll on that in 1999.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on June 23, 2004, 12:24:04 AM
I think the latest poll had 51% of Americans rejecting homosexuality in society.  Basically tied with the MoE.  Hardly the fringe though.

Got a documented cite?  And please, don't even try to pass of some lunatic "Family Research Council" crap.

Time did a poll on that in 1999.

Great.  Where's the URL?  It don't "count" if you can't prove it.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Lunar on June 23, 2004, 12:28:02 AM
I think the latest poll had 51% of Americans rejecting homosexuality in society.  Basically tied with the MoE.  Hardly the fringe though.

Got a documented cite?  And please, don't even try to pass of some lunatic "Family Research Council" crap.

I had O'Reilly running in the background at 5, so that's where I got the 51% number.

By the way, I support gay marriage (actually, I want the government out of marriage - leave that to the churches).

Anyway, I did a quick Google and found this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data081303.htm

36. Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples?

Oppose - 58%

38. As you may know, the Episcopal church has given its bishops the option of allowing clergy to bless the committed relationships of gay or lesbian couples. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision?


Disapprove - 60%

39. (ASK IF RESPONDENT HAS A RELIGION) Now thinking about your own religious faith or denomination, would you approve or disapprove of giving local churches the option of blessing committed relationships of gay or lesbian couples?

Disapprove - 63%

40. (ASK IF RESPONDENT HAS A RELIGION AND ATTENDS CHURCH AT LEAST A FEW TIMES A YEAR) If the church you regularly attend decided to allow blessings of gay or lesbian couples, would you (continue to attend that church) or would you (look for another church to attend?)

Look for another 47%


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on June 23, 2004, 12:33:56 AM
Quote
"Anyway, I did a quick Google and found this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data081303.htm

36. Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples?

Oppose - 58%"

Sorry, no cigar.  That's NOT the polling data to which you referred.  You wrote:

"I think the latest poll had 51% of Americans rejecting homosexuality in society.  "

Rejectig homosexuality in society is VERY DIFFERENT than saying one disagrees with Gay marriage.  Consider what you wrote, and reply to that polling question.

- Alfie


38. As you may know, the Episcopal church has given its bishops the option of allowing clergy to bless the committed relationships of gay or lesbian couples. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision?


Disapprove - 60%

39. (ASK IF RESPONDENT HAS A RELIGION) Now thinking about your own religious faith or denomination, would you approve or disapprove of giving local churches the option of blessing committed relationships of gay or lesbian couples?

Disapprove - 63%

40. (ASK IF RESPONDENT HAS A RELIGION AND ATTENDS CHURCH AT LEAST A FEW TIMES A YEAR) If the church you regularly attend decided to allow blessings of gay or lesbian couples, would you (continue to attend that church) or would you (look for another church to attend?)

Look for another 47%
Quote


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 23, 2004, 12:35:54 AM
Alfie here is another good thread for you. Now go criticize someone else if you can handle it.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=5124;start=0#msg131603 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=5124;start=0#msg131603)


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Lunar on June 23, 2004, 12:36:20 AM
Jesus, I heard the poll on the news.  I don't have the exact link, I just found a general question that implicates similar sentiments among the American populace.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on June 23, 2004, 12:38:10 AM
Jesus, I heard the poll on the news.  I don't have the exact link, I just found a general question that implicates similar sentiments among the American populace.


Sorry.  Hearsay simply is not admissible.  Get on google and FIND IT, or withdraw the comment.  I don't like being this way, but data, folks, is data.



Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 23, 2004, 12:39:05 AM
Jesus, I heard the poll on the news.  I don't have the exact link, I just found a general question that implicates similar sentiments among the American populace.


Sorry.  Hearsay simply is not admissible.  Get on google and FIND IT, or withdraw the comment.  I don't like being this way, but data, folks, is data.



The troll demands it Lunar. lol I love this 'dude'.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on June 23, 2004, 12:41:01 AM



Quote

The troll demands it Lunar. lol I love this 'dude'.

LOL!!!! Just busting them, that's all!!!

- Alfie


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Lunar on June 23, 2004, 12:45:24 AM
Jesus, I heard the poll on the news.  I don't have the exact link, I just found a general question that implicates similar sentiments among the American populace.


Sorry.  Hearsay simply is not admissible.  Get on google and FIND IT, or withdraw the comment.  I don't like being this way, but data, folks, is data.



Replace 'rejecting homosexuality in society" or whatever, with what my poll says.  Do in your mind.

Finding a specific poll when all I can do is paraphrase the wording is near impossible.  I might not even know it if I did manage to find it


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on June 23, 2004, 12:52:31 AM
Jesus, I heard the poll on the news.  I don't have the exact link, I just found a general question that implicates similar sentiments among the American populace.


Sorry.  Hearsay simply is not admissible.  Get on google and FIND IT, or withdraw the comment.  I don't like being this way, but data, folks, is data.



Replace 'rejecting homosexuality in society" or whatever, with what my poll says.  Do in your mind.

Finding a specific poll when all I can do is paraphrase the wording is near impossible.  I might not even know it if I did manage to find it

Fair enough.  But do you see what I'm pointing out?  That America rejects Gay marriage is understandable to me -- it really is.  But the suggestion that somehow we are to be exiled is very different.



- Alfie


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 23, 2004, 12:57:03 AM
Jesus, I heard the poll on the news.  I don't have the exact link, I just found a general question that implicates similar sentiments among the American populace.


Sorry.  Hearsay simply is not admissible.  Get on google and FIND IT, or withdraw the comment.  I don't like being this way, but data, folks, is data.



Replace 'rejecting homosexuality in society" or whatever, with what my poll says.  Do in your mind.

Finding a specific poll when all I can do is paraphrase the wording is near impossible.  I might not even know it if I did manage to find it

Fair enough.  But do you see what I'm pointing out?  That America rejects Gay marriage is understandable to me -- it really is.  But the suggestion that somehow we are to be exiled is very different.



- Alfie


I oppose gay marriage, though I think it should be put on the ballot of the states. I do not think you should be exiled, executed or whatever you want to say I believe. My opinions on this subject have been expressed on this forum yet you fail to respect them. You do what you want but I know from my religious faith that the act you are committing is wrong, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or evil. Simply misguided is all.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on June 23, 2004, 03:12:28 AM
Quote

I oppose gay marriage, though I think it should be put on the ballot of the states. I do not think you should be exiled, executed or whatever you want to say I believe. My opinions on this subject have been expressed on this forum yet you fail to respect them. You do what you want but I know from my religious faith that the act you are committing is wrong, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or evil. Simply misguided is all.


 

Nor do I think the evangelicals, America's equal to the Taliban, ought to necessarily be shipped to Gitmo when the Dems take power in January.  I know there is some discussion about that on the Left, but for now, I disagree.  Sort of.

Your religious "faith" is a mockery, and an insult to God.  Who do you think you are -- to act as God by being the judge and jury over any group of people?  Who elevated you to that lofty position?  It is a sacrilege, it is arrogant, and it wrong for you to make such outrageous and preposterous claims.  But I will pray for you...

- Alfie



Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on June 23, 2004, 04:39:56 AM
I think John Kerry will not hinder the progress by fighting against the rulings that these courts make. That's his apathetic attitude on the issue.


Good! Lets let the activist judges keep getting out of control.

You mean like ones who over-ride state's rights in an election case by a 5-4 ruling?  Yeah, I'll be pefectly happy if someone can keep those 5 SCOTUS members in control.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on June 23, 2004, 04:43:00 AM

I thought it asked for Democrats.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on June 23, 2004, 04:46:50 AM
I think the latest poll had 51% of Americans rejecting homosexuality in society.  Basically tied with the MoE.  Hardly the fringe though.

Got a documented cite?  And please, don't even try to pass of some lunatic "Family Research Council" crap.

I had O'Reilly running in the background at 5, so that's where I got the 51% number.

By the way, I support gay marriage (actually, I want the government out of marriage - leave that to the churches).

Anyway, I did a quick Google and found this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data081303.htm

36. Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples?

Oppose - 58%

38. As you may know, the Episcopal church has given its bishops the option of allowing clergy to bless the committed relationships of gay or lesbian couples. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision?


Disapprove - 60%

39. (ASK IF RESPONDENT HAS A RELIGION) Now thinking about your own religious faith or denomination, would you approve or disapprove of giving local churches the option of blessing committed relationships of gay or lesbian couples?

Disapprove - 63%

40. (ASK IF RESPONDENT HAS A RELIGION AND ATTENDS CHURCH AT LEAST A FEW TIMES A YEAR) If the church you regularly attend decided to allow blessings of gay or lesbian couples, would you (continue to attend that church) or would you (look for another church to attend?)

Look for another 47%

August 2003?
Trust me, opinion has moved in favor of gay marriage in the last 10 months.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 23, 2004, 08:34:32 AM
Quote

I oppose gay marriage, though I think it should be put on the ballot of the states. I do not think you should be exiled, executed or whatever you want to say I believe. My opinions on this subject have been expressed on this forum yet you fail to respect them. You do what you want but I know from my religious faith that the act you are committing is wrong, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or evil. Simply misguided is all.


 

Nor do I think the evangelicals, America's equal to the Taliban, ought to necessarily be shipped to Gitmo when the Dems take power in January.  I know there is some discussion about that on the Left, but for now, I disagree.  Sort of.

Your religious "faith" is a mockery, and an insult to God.  Who do you think you are -- to act as God by being the judge and jury over any group of people?  Who elevated you to that lofty position?  It is a sacrilege, it is arrogant, and it wrong for you to make such outrageous and preposterous claims.  But I will pray for you...

- Alfie



Hey, I'm just following the teachings of the bible. If you choose not to accept that, well that's your own idea. However wrong you are. My opinion of homosexuals is not my judgement, just biblical teaching.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on June 23, 2004, 08:35:42 AM
I think John Kerry will not hinder the progress by fighting against the rulings that these courts make. That's his apathetic attitude on the issue.


Good! Lets let the activist judges keep getting out of control.

You mean like ones who over-ride state's rights in an election case by a 5-4 ruling?  Yeah, I'll be pefectly happy if someone can keep those 5 SCOTUS members in control.


That is foolish. Quit whining about 2000. Its over get over it. Your boy didn't win. The court did need to step in. What were we just going to recount until November of this year? lol


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: jacob_101 on July 01, 2004, 01:49:47 PM


You mean like ones who over-ride state's rights in an election case by a 5-4 ruling?  Yeah, I'll be pefectly happy if someone can keep those 5 SCOTUS members in control.

Quote


The supreme court only gets involved if the issue has national implications, which the 2000 election did.   That being said, I have no problem with Massachusettes courts allowing gay marriage as long as it is not forced onto other states.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: afleitch on July 01, 2004, 03:38:14 PM
StatesRights, I'd have thought, in principle, you would be AGAINST the amendment, as it violates...well states rights in regards to marriage law! Alabama will never always take a different course from Vermont and vice versa. If you really believe in states rights, surely each states right to determine their marriage law, as liberal or as conservative as it may be, should have your full support? Oh and with regards to civilisation, homosexuality was fairly common in Ancient Greece and Rome (check out a few painted Greek vases in the British Museum) and the Christian churches (Catholic and Orthodox) didn't come out against it doctrinally until the 1200's as the world plunged into the dark ages. During the Enlightenment, it was also common in the Italian city states, with Machiavelli, Michaelangelo, Da Vinci and many more thinkers, statesmen and artists were notably bi-sexual. And today? Well if artists such as David Hockney and actors like Sir Ian McKellan really bother you, then you should remove yourself from both modern and classical culture straight away! No doubt you'll label me as a troll, but you seem pretty used to throwing labels at people already.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 02, 2004, 01:08:08 AM
StatesRights, I'd have thought, in principle, you would be AGAINST the amendment, as it violates...well states rights in regards to marriage law! Alabama will never always take a different course from Vermont and vice versa. If you really believe in states rights, surely each states right to determine their marriage law, as liberal or as conservative as it may be, should have your full support? Oh and with regards to civilisation, homosexuality was fairly common in Ancient Greece and Rome (check out a few painted Greek vases in the British Museum) and the Christian churches (Catholic and Orthodox) didn't come out against it doctrinally until the 1200's as the world plunged into the dark ages. During the Enlightenment, it was also common in the Italian city states, with Machiavelli, Michaelangelo, Da Vinci and many more thinkers, statesmen and artists were notably bi-sexual. And today? Well if artists such as David Hockney and actors like Sir Ian McKellan really bother you, then you should remove yourself from both modern and classical culture straight away! No doubt you'll label me as a troll, but you seem pretty used to throwing labels at people already.

I have said on many occassions that I am against this amendment and for leaving it up for the states to decide. I know the history of homosexuality but I also know it is forbidden in both the New and Old Testament. I must follow my beliefs on that. I have never heard of either Hockney or McKellan so I can't comment there. I will not label you as a troll as I believe you are excellent poster and a good addition to the forum. Those who have earned the label "troll" earned it. You are far far above a troll. So I apologize to you if I came off that way.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Akno21 on July 02, 2004, 09:09:53 AM
Quote

I oppose gay marriage, though I think it should be put on the ballot of the states. I do not think you should be exiled, executed or whatever you want to say I believe. My opinions on this subject have been expressed on this forum yet you fail to respect them. You do what you want but I know from my religious faith that the act you are committing is wrong, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or evil. Simply misguided is all.


 

Nor do I think the evangelicals, America's equal to the Taliban, ought to necessarily be shipped to Gitmo when the Dems take power in January.  I know there is some discussion about that on the Left, but for now, I disagree.  Sort of.

Your religious "faith" is a mockery, and an insult to God.  Who do you think you are -- to act as God by being the judge and jury over any group of people?  Who elevated you to that lofty position?  It is a sacrilege, it is arrogant, and it wrong for you to make such outrageous and preposterous claims.  But I will pray for you...

- Alfie



Hey, I'm just following the teachings of the bible. If you choose not to accept that, well that's your own idea. However wrong you are. My opinion of homosexuals is not my judgement, just biblical teaching.

Why can't people think for themselves?


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 02, 2004, 10:00:19 AM
Quote

I oppose gay marriage, though I think it should be put on the ballot of the states. I do not think you should be exiled, executed or whatever you want to say I believe. My opinions on this subject have been expressed on this forum yet you fail to respect them. You do what you want but I know from my religious faith that the act you are committing is wrong, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or evil. Simply misguided is all.


 

Nor do I think the evangelicals, America's equal to the Taliban, ought to necessarily be shipped to Gitmo when the Dems take power in January.  I know there is some discussion about that on the Left, but for now, I disagree.  Sort of.

Your religious "faith" is a mockery, and an insult to God.  Who do you think you are -- to act as God by being the judge and jury over any group of people?  Who elevated you to that lofty position?  It is a sacrilege, it is arrogant, and it wrong for you to make such outrageous and preposterous claims.  But I will pray for you...

- Alfie



Hey, I'm just following the teachings of the bible. If you choose not to accept that, well that's your own idea. However wrong you are. My opinion of homosexuals is not my judgement, just biblical teaching.

Why can't people think for themselves?

It's called moral beliefs and a foundation based on faith in God.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: afleitch on July 02, 2004, 10:45:54 AM
Apologies States Rights for just presuming your support of the amendment. At least you stick by your principles on the rights of states. However I still believe you are totally and utterly wrong, but thats the society we have. I look forward to more confrontations with you!


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 02, 2004, 10:54:17 AM
Apologies States Rights for just presuming your support of the amendment. At least you stick by your principles on the rights of states. However I still believe you are totally and utterly wrong, but thats the society we have. I look forward to more confrontations with you!

Also, I must add. Even though I do not believe homosexuality to be right I would never deny those who practice such things the right to existence. That would go against my views on liberty and freedom as well.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on July 02, 2004, 10:56:20 AM
Quote

I oppose gay marriage, though I think it should be put on the ballot of the states. I do not think you should be exiled, executed or whatever you want to say I believe. My opinions on this subject have been expressed on this forum yet you fail to respect them. You do what you want but I know from my religious faith that the act you are committing is wrong, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or evil. Simply misguided is all.


 

Nor do I think the evangelicals, America's equal to the Taliban, ought to necessarily be shipped to Gitmo when the Dems take power in January.  I know there is some discussion about that on the Left, but for now, I disagree.  Sort of.

Your religious "faith" is a mockery, and an insult to God.  Who do you think you are -- to act as God by being the judge and jury over any group of people?  Who elevated you to that lofty position?  It is a sacrilege, it is arrogant, and it wrong for you to make such outrageous and preposterous claims.  But I will pray for you...

- Alfie



Hey, I'm just following the teachings of the bible. If you choose not to accept that, well that's your own idea. However wrong you are. My opinion of homosexuals is not my judgement, just biblical teaching.

Why can't people think for themselves?

It's called moral beliefs and a foundation based on faith in God.

So, why do we have to all listen to God?  If God is that much of a bigot, I don't want to listen to him.  Don't we have that choice?  

And remember, PEOPLE wrote the Bible.  Hell, if I was one of the poeple writing it, I would've declared Wednesday Free Taco Day! :P


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 02, 2004, 11:01:42 AM
Quote

I oppose gay marriage, though I think it should be put on the ballot of the states. I do not think you should be exiled, executed or whatever you want to say I believe. My opinions on this subject have been expressed on this forum yet you fail to respect them. You do what you want but I know from my religious faith that the act you are committing is wrong, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or evil. Simply misguided is all.


 

Nor do I think the evangelicals, America's equal to the Taliban, ought to necessarily be shipped to Gitmo when the Dems take power in January.  I know there is some discussion about that on the Left, but for now, I disagree.  Sort of.

Your religious "faith" is a mockery, and an insult to God.  Who do you think you are -- to act as God by being the judge and jury over any group of people?  Who elevated you to that lofty position?  It is a sacrilege, it is arrogant, and it wrong for you to make such outrageous and preposterous claims.  But I will pray for you...

- Alfie



Hey, I'm just following the teachings of the bible. If you choose not to accept that, well that's your own idea. However wrong you are. My opinion of homosexuals is not my judgement, just biblical teaching.

Why can't people think for themselves?

It's called moral beliefs and a foundation based on faith in God.

So, why do we have to all listen to God?  If God is that much of a bigot, I don't want to listen to him.  Don't we have that choice?  

And remember, PEOPLE wrote the Bible.  Hell, if I was one of the poeple writing it, I would've declared Wednesday Free Taco Day! :P

Yes we do have to listen to God if you claim to be a Christian. God is not a bigot at all. Yes, we all have a choice. It's called free will but if you do the wrong thing mind you, their are consequences. The bible was written by man inspired by God and is free of error.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on July 02, 2004, 03:34:30 PM
Quote

I oppose gay marriage, though I think it should be put on the ballot of the states. I do not think you should be exiled, executed or whatever you want to say I believe. My opinions on this subject have been expressed on this forum yet you fail to respect them. You do what you want but I know from my religious faith that the act you are committing is wrong, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or evil. Simply misguided is all.


 

Nor do I think the evangelicals, America's equal to the Taliban, ought to necessarily be shipped to Gitmo when the Dems take power in January.  I know there is some discussion about that on the Left, but for now, I disagree.  Sort of.

Your religious "faith" is a mockery, and an insult to God.  Who do you think you are -- to act as God by being the judge and jury over any group of people?  Who elevated you to that lofty position?  It is a sacrilege, it is arrogant, and it wrong for you to make such outrageous and preposterous claims.  But I will pray for you...

- Alfie



Hey, I'm just following the teachings of the bible. If you choose not to accept that, well that's your own idea. However wrong you are. My opinion of homosexuals is not my judgement, just biblical teaching.

Why can't people think for themselves?

It's called moral beliefs and a foundation based on faith in God.

So, why do we have to all listen to God?  If God is that much of a bigot, I don't want to listen to him.  Don't we have that choice?  

And remember, PEOPLE wrote the Bible.  Hell, if I was one of the poeple writing it, I would've declared Wednesday Free Taco Day! :P

Yes we do have to listen to God if you claim to be a Christian. God is not a bigot at all. Yes, we all have a choice. It's called free will but if you do the wrong thing mind you, their are consequences. The bible was written by man inspired by God and is free of error.

Well, I'm not a Christian, and I'm sure many gay people are not either.  We have absolutely ZERO obligation to listen to anyone's else's morals.  


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: raggage on July 02, 2004, 10:47:23 PM
Jesus, I heard the poll on the news.  I don't have the exact link, I just found a general question that implicates similar sentiments among the American populace.


Sorry.  Hearsay simply is not admissible.  Get on google and FIND IT, or withdraw the comment.  I don't like being this way, but data, folks, is data.



Replace 'rejecting homosexuality in society" or whatever, with what my poll says.  Do in your mind.

Finding a specific poll when all I can do is paraphrase the wording is near impossible.  I might not even know it if I did manage to find it

Fair enough.  But do you see what I'm pointing out?  That America rejects Gay marriage is understandable to me -- it really is.  But the suggestion that somehow we are to be exiled is very different.



- Alfie


I oppose gay marriage, though I think it should be put on the ballot of the states. I do not think you should be exiled, executed or whatever you want to say I believe. My opinions on this subject have been expressed on this forum yet you fail to respect them. You do what you want but I know from my religious faith that the act you are committing is wrong, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or evil. Simply misguided is all.

Misguided! Thats hot coming from someone who bases there perspective social issues on their religion. Religion should play no part. It is you my friend who is thus misguided.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 03, 2004, 01:25:39 AM
Jesus, I heard the poll on the news.  I don't have the exact link, I just found a general question that implicates similar sentiments among the American populace.


Sorry.  Hearsay simply is not admissible.  Get on google and FIND IT, or withdraw the comment.  I don't like being this way, but data, folks, is data.



Replace 'rejecting homosexuality in society" or whatever, with what my poll says.  Do in your mind.

Finding a specific poll when all I can do is paraphrase the wording is near impossible.  I might not even know it if I did manage to find it

Fair enough.  But do you see what I'm pointing out?  That America rejects Gay marriage is understandable to me -- it really is.  But the suggestion that somehow we are to be exiled is very different.



- Alfie


I oppose gay marriage, though I think it should be put on the ballot of the states. I do not think you should be exiled, executed or whatever you want to say I believe. My opinions on this subject have been expressed on this forum yet you fail to respect them. You do what you want but I know from my religious faith that the act you are committing is wrong, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or evil. Simply misguided is all.

Misguided! Thats hot coming from someone who bases there perspective social issues on their religion. Religion should play no part. It is you my friend who is thus misguided.

Religion is one of the most important aspects of any persons life.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: raggage on July 03, 2004, 01:49:52 AM


Religion is one of the most important aspects of any persons life.

Again, thats just a personal opinion based on the fact that you are religious yourself... which I respect.

However it is not 'one of the most important aspects of any persons life'. That is for one to decide by yourself. It may be very important to you, but it plays absolutely no role in my life.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Akno21 on July 03, 2004, 09:46:55 AM
Quote

I oppose gay marriage, though I think it should be put on the ballot of the states. I do not think you should be exiled, executed or whatever you want to say I believe. My opinions on this subject have been expressed on this forum yet you fail to respect them. You do what you want but I know from my religious faith that the act you are committing is wrong, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or evil. Simply misguided is all.


 

Nor do I think the evangelicals, America's equal to the Taliban, ought to necessarily be shipped to Gitmo when the Dems take power in January.  I know there is some discussion about that on the Left, but for now, I disagree.  Sort of.

Your religious "faith" is a mockery, and an insult to God.  Who do you think you are -- to act as God by being the judge and jury over any group of people?  Who elevated you to that lofty position?  It is a sacrilege, it is arrogant, and it wrong for you to make such outrageous and preposterous claims.  But I will pray for you...

- Alfie



Hey, I'm just following the teachings of the bible. If you choose not to accept that, well that's your own idea. However wrong you are. My opinion of homosexuals is not my judgement, just biblical teaching.

Why can't people think for themselves?

It's called moral beliefs and a foundation based on faith in God.

So, why do we have to all listen to God?  If God is that much of a bigot, I don't want to listen to him.  Don't we have that choice?  

And remember, PEOPLE wrote the Bible.  Hell, if I was one of the poeple writing it, I would've declared Wednesday Free Taco Day! :P

Yes we do have to listen to God if you claim to be a Christian. God is not a bigot at all. Yes, we all have a choice. It's called free will but if you do the wrong thing mind you, their are consequences. The bible was written by man inspired by God and is free of error.

How do you know God is not a bigot? Have you met him? If he is prejudiced against gays (as you seem to think he is) he may be a bigot.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Nym90 on July 03, 2004, 10:18:29 AM
1-3, Southerners up for reeleciton.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 03, 2004, 11:08:12 AM
Quote

I oppose gay marriage, though I think it should be put on the ballot of the states. I do not think you should be exiled, executed or whatever you want to say I believe. My opinions on this subject have been expressed on this forum yet you fail to respect them. You do what you want but I know from my religious faith that the act you are committing is wrong, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or evil. Simply misguided is all.


 

Nor do I think the evangelicals, America's equal to the Taliban, ought to necessarily be shipped to Gitmo when the Dems take power in January.  I know there is some discussion about that on the Left, but for now, I disagree.  Sort of.

Your religious "faith" is a mockery, and an insult to God.  Who do you think you are -- to act as God by being the judge and jury over any group of people?  Who elevated you to that lofty position?  It is a sacrilege, it is arrogant, and it wrong for you to make such outrageous and preposterous claims.  But I will pray for you...

- Alfie



Hey, I'm just following the teachings of the bible. If you choose not to accept that, well that's your own idea. However wrong you are. My opinion of homosexuals is not my judgement, just biblical teaching.

Why can't people think for themselves?

It's called moral beliefs and a foundation based on faith in God.

So, why do we have to all listen to God?  If God is that much of a bigot, I don't want to listen to him.  Don't we have that choice?  

And remember, PEOPLE wrote the Bible.  Hell, if I was one of the poeple writing it, I would've declared Wednesday Free Taco Day! :P

Yes we do have to listen to God if you claim to be a Christian. God is not a bigot at all. Yes, we all have a choice. It's called free will but if you do the wrong thing mind you, their are consequences. The bible was written by man inspired by God and is free of error.

How do you know God is not a bigot? Have you met him? If he is prejudiced against gays (as you seem to think he is) he may be a bigot.

God is not against the people. He is against the act. A big difference. When you actually care enough, pick up a bible and read what it says about the matter.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: afleitch on July 03, 2004, 03:38:30 PM
If Barry Goldwater was still with us hed have voted against it. It was a strange enigma of his, a staunch conservative, a scary one at that too, yet he employed blacks in his department store and stood up for gay rights giving as a different, but more powerful argument for gay rights and human rights than the traditional liberal one. I've only begun reading about 'Bogeyman Barry', he is really interesting....


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: opebo on July 04, 2004, 12:47:14 AM
If Barry Goldwater was still with us hed have voted against it. It was a strange enigma of his, a staunch conservative, a scary one at that too, yet he employed blacks in his department store and stood up for gay rights giving as a different, but more powerful argument for gay rights and human rights than the traditional liberal one. I've only begun reading about 'Bogeyman Barry', he is really interesting....

Nothing enigmatic about it - Goldwater was pretty much a libertarian or classical Liberal.  


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on July 05, 2004, 10:21:28 AM
Barry is not often given the credit he deserved.  Mostly because his movement was hijacked.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: John Dibble on July 05, 2004, 11:20:55 AM
Lots of religious discussion going on. Kinda hard to convince me your religion is the right one though - pretty much every holy book says something to the degree "This is the truth, and our God is the real God". I can't really accept any of them, because none of them have proof that they are right. What also complicates the issue is that pretty much any holy book can be interpreted in many ways(some Christians take the Bible literally, some don't), so I can't see a holy book as being flawless if it can be interpreted in many ways. A flawless book could only have one interpretation, because it would account for human interpretation by saying "this book shall be interpreted this way". Faith must be a nice thing to have, but I just have a hard time accepting something unproveable that is often drilled into people's heads from the time they are too young to even think for themselves.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 05, 2004, 11:36:10 AM
Lots of religious discussion going on. Kinda hard to convince me your religion is the right one though - pretty much every holy book says something to the degree "This is the truth, and our God is the real God". I can't really accept any of them, because none of them have proof that they are right. What also complicates the issue is that pretty much any holy book can be interpreted in many ways(some Christians take the Bible literally, some don't), so I can't see a holy book as being flawless if it can be interpreted in many ways. A flawless book could only have one interpretation, because it would account for human interpretation by saying "this book shall be interpreted this way". Faith must be a nice thing to have, but I just have a hard time accepting something unproveable that is often drilled into people's heads from the time they are too young to even think for themselves.


The bible does say their is only one interpretation. Exactly what is written.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: John Dibble on July 05, 2004, 04:38:12 PM
Lots of religious discussion going on. Kinda hard to convince me your religion is the right one though - pretty much every holy book says something to the degree "This is the truth, and our God is the real God". I can't really accept any of them, because none of them have proof that they are right. What also complicates the issue is that pretty much any holy book can be interpreted in many ways(some Christians take the Bible literally, some don't), so I can't see a holy book as being flawless if it can be interpreted in many ways. A flawless book could only have one interpretation, because it would account for human interpretation by saying "this book shall be interpreted this way". Faith must be a nice thing to have, but I just have a hard time accepting something unproveable that is often drilled into people's heads from the time they are too young to even think for themselves.


The bible does say their is only one interpretation. Exactly what is written.

You don't come off as a literalist, SSN. I'm sure there's something in the Bible that's written that you wouldn't agree with a literal interpetation on. I'm not an expert on the Bible, so I can't think of an exact thing that I think you'd disagree with, but would you say the world was created 5000-6000 years ago, like pure literalists do?


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 05, 2004, 05:01:40 PM
Lots of religious discussion going on. Kinda hard to convince me your religion is the right one though - pretty much every holy book says something to the degree "This is the truth, and our God is the real God". I can't really accept any of them, because none of them have proof that they are right. What also complicates the issue is that pretty much any holy book can be interpreted in many ways(some Christians take the Bible literally, some don't), so I can't see a holy book as being flawless if it can be interpreted in many ways. A flawless book could only have one interpretation, because it would account for human interpretation by saying "this book shall be interpreted this way". Faith must be a nice thing to have, but I just have a hard time accepting something unproveable that is often drilled into people's heads from the time they are too young to even think for themselves.


The bible does say their is only one interpretation. Exactly what is written.

You don't come off as a literalist, SSN. I'm sure there's something in the Bible that's written that you wouldn't agree with a literal interpetation on. I'm not an expert on the Bible, so I can't think of an exact thing that I think you'd disagree with, but would you say the world was created 5000-6000 years ago, like pure literalists do?

I believe thier mathematics is off. I broke down generation by generation and it is closer to 15-20,000 years.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: John Dibble on July 05, 2004, 06:52:10 PM
Lots of religious discussion going on. Kinda hard to convince me your religion is the right one though - pretty much every holy book says something to the degree "This is the truth, and our God is the real God". I can't really accept any of them, because none of them have proof that they are right. What also complicates the issue is that pretty much any holy book can be interpreted in many ways(some Christians take the Bible literally, some don't), so I can't see a holy book as being flawless if it can be interpreted in many ways. A flawless book could only have one interpretation, because it would account for human interpretation by saying "this book shall be interpreted this way". Faith must be a nice thing to have, but I just have a hard time accepting something unproveable that is often drilled into people's heads from the time they are too young to even think for themselves.


The bible does say their is only one interpretation. Exactly what is written.

You don't come off as a literalist, SSN. I'm sure there's something in the Bible that's written that you wouldn't agree with a literal interpetation on. I'm not an expert on the Bible, so I can't think of an exact thing that I think you'd disagree with, but would you say the world was created 5000-6000 years ago, like pure literalists do?

I believe thier mathematics is off. I broke down generation by generation and it is closer to 15-20,000 years.

Well, I'll take your word for it(5-6000 is just what I heard), but my question is, do you believe it?


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 05, 2004, 06:54:37 PM
Lots of religious discussion going on. Kinda hard to convince me your religion is the right one though - pretty much every holy book says something to the degree "This is the truth, and our God is the real God". I can't really accept any of them, because none of them have proof that they are right. What also complicates the issue is that pretty much any holy book can be interpreted in many ways(some Christians take the Bible literally, some don't), so I can't see a holy book as being flawless if it can be interpreted in many ways. A flawless book could only have one interpretation, because it would account for human interpretation by saying "this book shall be interpreted this way". Faith must be a nice thing to have, but I just have a hard time accepting something unproveable that is often drilled into people's heads from the time they are too young to even think for themselves.


The bible does say their is only one interpretation. Exactly what is written.

You don't come off as a literalist, SSN. I'm sure there's something in the Bible that's written that you wouldn't agree with a literal interpetation on. I'm not an expert on the Bible, so I can't think of an exact thing that I think you'd disagree with, but would you say the world was created 5000-6000 years ago, like pure literalists do?

I believe thier mathematics is off. I broke down generation by generation and it is closer to 15-20,000 years.

Well, I'll take your word for it(5-6000 is just what I heard), but my question is, do you believe it?

I believe that life may be that old yes. The bible actually does not mention when the universe was created time wise. Of course 7 days could be 7 Million years. The bible says, "A day in the life of God is a eternity to mankind"


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: John Dibble on July 05, 2004, 10:12:32 PM
Lots of religious discussion going on. Kinda hard to convince me your religion is the right one though - pretty much every holy book says something to the degree "This is the truth, and our God is the real God". I can't really accept any of them, because none of them have proof that they are right. What also complicates the issue is that pretty much any holy book can be interpreted in many ways(some Christians take the Bible literally, some don't), so I can't see a holy book as being flawless if it can be interpreted in many ways. A flawless book could only have one interpretation, because it would account for human interpretation by saying "this book shall be interpreted this way". Faith must be a nice thing to have, but I just have a hard time accepting something unproveable that is often drilled into people's heads from the time they are too young to even think for themselves.


The bible does say their is only one interpretation. Exactly what is written.

You don't come off as a literalist, SSN. I'm sure there's something in the Bible that's written that you wouldn't agree with a literal interpetation on. I'm not an expert on the Bible, so I can't think of an exact thing that I think you'd disagree with, but would you say the world was created 5000-6000 years ago, like pure literalists do?

I believe thier mathematics is off. I broke down generation by generation and it is closer to 15-20,000 years.

Well, I'll take your word for it(5-6000 is just what I heard), but my question is, do you believe it?

I believe that life may be that old yes. The bible actually does not mention when the universe was created time wise. Of course 7 days could be 7 Million years. The bible says, "A day in the life of God is a eternity to mankind"

Ah, a wise statement. I also think that could be a possibility(of course, I don't think the Bible mentions which it took to create the world, 7 days of man or 7 God Days). I think many of the literalists probably miss that line. I think it's kind of silly to think the world is anything less than a few billion years old though, what with scientific evidence and whatnot(not to mention the dinosaurs). Well, have a good day.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: riceowl on July 07, 2004, 01:05:44 AM
I'm guessing Alfie stopped posting because he realizes he can't win...

thank you statesrights.

My main question is, why do homosexuals want marriage?
Marriage was founded as a union holy in the sight of God...it has only been lately that the government has taken it.

If I were gay, I would be pushing for more rights to civil unions...marriage should be the last thing they want.

Sigh...world confuses.  Fire bad. Tree pretty.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 07, 2004, 02:43:03 AM
I'm guessing Alfie stopped posting because he realizes he can't win...

thank you statesrights.

My main question is, why do homosexuals want marriage?
Marriage was founded as a union holy in the sight of God...it has only been lately that the government has taken it.

If I were gay, I would be pushing for more rights to civil unions...marriage should be the last thing they want.

Sigh...world confuses.  Fire bad. Tree pretty.

Is that a compliment? :) :D


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: afleitch on July 07, 2004, 04:19:31 PM
Marriage, in its many historical monogamous and polygamous forms, evolved independently across continents and faiths. It wasn't a 'God thing' but a 'people thing' Marriage is the union of two individuals into one loving couple, whether that is done under god or under the state. If gay people want to marry, the church neednt worry, most are quite happy to be married in the eyes of the law than in the eyes of god.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Blue Rectangle on July 14, 2004, 12:14:40 PM
Latest news:
The Senate failed to get 60 votes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20040714/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage) to bring it to a floor vote.
Six Republicans defected to make the vote 48-50.  I believe the two missing votes were Kerry and Edwards, but I don't have a full report yet.
51 minus 6 is 45, so looks like three Democrats defected.

edit:
Yes, Kerry and Edwards missed the vote.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: nclib on July 14, 2004, 12:19:18 PM
I'm sure Zell Miller voted for the amendment--I'm not sure about the other two Dems.

As for the 6 Repubs, my guess would be Specter, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, and two others.

When anybody has the full list, please post it here...


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on July 14, 2004, 12:26:23 PM

It doesn't appear to be up on the Senate website yet.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 14, 2004, 12:27:18 PM
I'm sure Zell Miller voted for the amendment--I'm not sure about the other two Dems.

As for the 6 Repubs, my guess would be Specter, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, and two others.

When anybody has the full list, please post it here...

Lamar Alexander maybe?


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on July 14, 2004, 12:28:28 PM

I for one am really disappointed that Kerry and Edwards didn't show up for this vote.  This gives the Republicans multiple lines of attack on them, whereas if they had just shown up and voted against the amendment, the would only have one attack, and a weak one at that.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on July 14, 2004, 12:37:42 PM

The list has now been posted:

Dems voting Aye:
Byrd (WV)
Miller (GA)
Nelson (NE)

GOP voting Nea:
Campbell (CO)
Chafee (RI)
Collins (ME)
McCain (AZ)
Snowe (ME)
Sununu (NH)

Interesting that Specter voted Aye.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: agcatter on July 14, 2004, 12:40:42 PM
It was the least he could do....


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: nclib on July 14, 2004, 12:45:41 PM

The list has now been posted:

Dems voting Aye:
Byrd (WV)
Miller (GA)
Nelson (NE)

GOP voting Nea:
Campbell (CO)
Chafee (RI)
Collins (ME)
McCain (AZ)
Snowe (ME)
Sununu (NH)

Interesting that Specter voted Aye.

So Alexander and Hagel voted for the amendment...


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on July 14, 2004, 12:47:36 PM

Well, remember this wasn't actually a vote on the amendment, just to advance the debate process.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Blue Rectangle on July 14, 2004, 01:32:53 PM
Does voting against a floor vote in the case of a constitutional amendment qualify as filibustering?
Can Republicans use the word "filibuster" to attack Dems that voted against a vote?
Does Kerry's and Edwards' missing of the vote hurt them with swing voters?  Does Kerry's failure to address the issue in a meaningful way hurt his standing among gay rights activists?

My opinions:
Gay rights activists know Kerry takes them for granted and will vote for him anyway.  Kerry will suffer very little from his constant dodges of the issue.

Kerry would have been better off showing up for the vote and making a case for not changing the constitution.  Bush will take the missed senate vote, add it to a list of other important missed votes, and make an issue of this.  Kerry can't sell his presidency to swing voters by refusing to show leadership on issues.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on July 14, 2004, 02:21:44 PM
Barry is not often given the credit he deserved.  Mostly because his movement was hijacked.

His "credibility" wasn't enhanced by the most vicious and false political ad in all of American history -- the "Daisy Girl and the Countdown".  The ad was a filthy lie, and though it aired only once, it really hurt Goldwater.

Question: how was Goldwater's movement "hijacked"?  I don't know much about that era -- love to know more.

- Alfie


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: agcatter on July 14, 2004, 09:46:51 PM
Theodore White's "The Making of the President 1964" discusses how some elements of the John Birch Society latched on to some of the Goldwater campaign machinery.  It tainted the campaign and made it impossible for Goldwater to make the broader appeal he needed to have any chance at all.  Of course, he had no chance in any event, but I think that might be what was meant by "hijacking the movement".  I could be wrong.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 14, 2004, 10:07:32 PM
Barry is not often given the credit he deserved.  Mostly because his movement was hijacked.

His "credibility" wasn't enhanced by the most vicious and false political ad in all of American history -- the "Daisy Girl and the Countdown".  The ad was a filthy lie, and though it aired only once, it really hurt Goldwater.

Question: how was Goldwater's movement "hijacked"?  I don't know much about that era -- love to know more.

- Alfie

yes, such a dispicable ad. More proof LBJ was a total creep.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 15, 2004, 01:11:34 AM
Barry is not often given the credit he deserved.  Mostly because his movement was hijacked.

His "credibility" wasn't enhanced by the most vicious and false political ad in all of American history -- the "Daisy Girl and the Countdown".  The ad was a filthy lie, and though it aired only once, it really hurt Goldwater.

Question: how was Goldwater's movement "hijacked"?  I don't know much about that era -- love to know more.

- Alfie

yes, such a dispicable ad. More proof LBJ was a total creep.

And a criminal......you know what he did.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on July 15, 2004, 07:36:41 AM
Barry is not often given the credit he deserved.  Mostly because his movement was hijacked.

His "credibility" wasn't enhanced by the most vicious and false political ad in all of American history -- the "Daisy Girl and the Countdown".  The ad was a filthy lie, and though it aired only once, it really hurt Goldwater.

Question: how was Goldwater's movement "hijacked"?  I don't know much about that era -- love to know more.

- Alfie

yes, such a dispicable ad. More proof LBJ was a total creep.

And a criminal......you know what he did.


He says he didn't.  Looks like it's your word against his...

- Alfie


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 15, 2004, 07:39:15 AM
Barry is not often given the credit he deserved.  Mostly because his movement was hijacked.

His "credibility" wasn't enhanced by the most vicious and false political ad in all of American history -- the "Daisy Girl and the Countdown".  The ad was a filthy lie, and though it aired only once, it really hurt Goldwater.

Question: how was Goldwater's movement "hijacked"?  I don't know much about that era -- love to know more.

- Alfie

yes, such a dispicable ad. More proof LBJ was a total creep.

And a criminal......you know what he did.


He says he didn't.  Looks like it's your word against his...

- Alfie


His word is as good as useless. LBJ was guilty of intensifying Vietnam, conspiracy to assasinate a president and murder of political rivals. History backs up all the aforementioned facts.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on July 15, 2004, 08:16:00 AM
Barry is not often given the credit he deserved.  Mostly because his movement was hijacked.

His "credibility" wasn't enhanced by the most vicious and false political ad in all of American history -- the "Daisy Girl and the Countdown".  The ad was a filthy lie, and though it aired only once, it really hurt Goldwater.

Question: how was Goldwater's movement "hijacked"?  I don't know much about that era -- love to know more.

- Alfie

yes, such a dispicable ad. More proof LBJ was a total creep.

And a criminal......you know what he did.


He says he didn't.  Looks like it's your word against his...

- Alfie


His word is as good as useless. LBJ was guilty of intensifying Vietnam, conspiracy to assasinate a president and murder of political rivals. History backs up all the aforementioned facts.

Vietnam I know.  What's this murder of political rivals"?  Never heard that before.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 15, 2004, 10:10:25 AM
Barry is not often given the credit he deserved.  Mostly because his movement was hijacked.

His "credibility" wasn't enhanced by the most vicious and false political ad in all of American history -- the "Daisy Girl and the Countdown".  The ad was a filthy lie, and though it aired only once, it really hurt Goldwater.

Question: how was Goldwater's movement "hijacked"?  I don't know much about that era -- love to know more.

- Alfie

yes, such a dispicable ad. More proof LBJ was a total creep.

And a criminal......you know what he did.


He says he didn't.  Looks like it's your word against his...

- Alfie


His word is as good as useless. LBJ was guilty of intensifying Vietnam, conspiracy to assasinate a president and murder of political rivals. History backs up all the aforementioned facts.

Vietnam I know.  What's this murder of political rivals"?  Never heard that before.


States believes LBJ was responsible for the Kennedy assassination.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 15, 2004, 10:13:40 AM
Barry is not often given the credit he deserved.  Mostly because his movement was hijacked.

His "credibility" wasn't enhanced by the most vicious and false political ad in all of American history -- the "Daisy Girl and the Countdown".  The ad was a filthy lie, and though it aired only once, it really hurt Goldwater.

Question: how was Goldwater's movement "hijacked"?  I don't know much about that era -- love to know more.

- Alfie

yes, such a dispicable ad. More proof LBJ was a total creep.

And a criminal......you know what he did.


He says he didn't.  Looks like it's your word against his...

- Alfie


His word is as good as useless. LBJ was guilty of intensifying Vietnam, conspiracy to assasinate a president and murder of political rivals. History backs up all the aforementioned facts.

Vietnam I know.  What's this murder of political rivals"?  Never heard that before.


Yes, it is known that one political rival in LBJs early days of politics was murdered because he was going to turn LBJ in for his crookedness.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: zachman on July 15, 2004, 03:55:19 PM
I'm at least happy that Sununu voted against it. I have to makle a decision, which Senator from NH I like better and today I would say Sununu.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on July 15, 2004, 04:25:31 PM
Quote

"Yes, it is known that one political rival in LBJ's early days of politics was murdered because he was going to turn LBJ in for his crookedness."


Is said demised person's name known?  I just don't buy it.    Johnson was a "big casualty" kind of guy -- the hyper-inflated body counts of Viet Cong, ordered by Westmoreland (or others, not sure) compliments that crude scale by which the Johnson admin measured success: if we killed more VC than they killed Americans, well -- that's good news for domestic consumption.  Besides, who in Texas didn't know LBJ's "deal" already?  

I'm reading Barbara Tuckman's "March of Folly", and I'm approaching that part of her book.  Really excellent and prescient woman,. Without trying to inFLAME anyone who supported the Bush War of Mass Distration, but subsitute "Iraq" for "Vietnam" (at least in policy developpment areas), and the interchangability will perhaps change your opinions on the ultimate outcomes of Iraq.

- Alfie


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 16, 2004, 01:53:46 AM
Quote

"Yes, it is known that one political rival in LBJ's early days of politics was murdered because he was going to turn LBJ in for his crookedness."


Is said demised person's name known?  I just don't buy it.    Johnson was a "big casualty" kind of guy -- the hyper-inflated body counts of Viet Cong, ordered by Westmoreland (or others, not sure) compliments that crude scale by which the Johnson admin measured success: if we killed more VC than they killed Americans, well -- that's good news for domestic consumption.  Besides, who in Texas didn't know LBJ's "deal" already?  

I'm reading Barbara Tuckman's "March of Folly", and I'm approaching that part of her book.  Really excellent and prescient woman,. Without trying to inFLAME anyone who supported the Bush War of Mass Distration, but subsitute "Iraq" for "Vietnam" (at least in policy developpment areas), and the interchangability will perhaps change your opinions on the ultimate outcomes of Iraq.

- Alfie


Alfie

I apologize I can not provide a link. My source is a documentary that appeared on the History Channel called "The Men who killed Kennedy". The Johnson family raised hell about it and demanded it never to be shown again. Why is it that in his later years LBJ was said to have gone crazy? Guilt? We'll never know I guess.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: © tweed on July 16, 2004, 09:30:52 PM
3 ended up voting for it.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Fritz on July 16, 2004, 09:52:56 PM
Hey States, what happened to the Anti-Alfie pledge?  :D


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 16, 2004, 11:48:16 PM
Barry is not often given the credit he deserved.  Mostly because his movement was hijacked.

His "credibility" wasn't enhanced by the most vicious and false political ad in all of American history -- the "Daisy Girl and the Countdown".  The ad was a filthy lie, and though it aired only once, it really hurt Goldwater.

Question: how was Goldwater's movement "hijacked"?  I don't know much about that era -- love to know more.

- Alfie

yes, such a dispicable ad. More proof LBJ was a total creep.

And a criminal......you know what he did.


He says he didn't.  Looks like it's your word against his...

- Alfie


His word is as good as useless. LBJ was guilty of intensifying Vietnam, conspiracy to assasinate a president and murder of political rivals. History backs up all the aforementioned facts.

Vietnam I know.  What's this murder of political rivals"?  Never heard that before.


States believes LBJ was responsible for the Kennedy assassination.

and he's 100% right.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 17, 2004, 02:07:53 AM
Wow,

BRTD and I agree on something....BiPartisan hate for LBJ. lol


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on July 17, 2004, 02:28:07 PM
The Good Senator writes;

Quote

Alfie

I apologize I can not provide a link. My source is a documentary that appeared on the History Channel called "The Men who killed Kennedy". The Johnson family raised hell about it and demanded it never to be shown again. Why is it that in his later years LBJ was said to have gone crazy? Guilt? We'll never know I guess.

No problem.

You raise the very issue that makes me feel such sadness for LBJ, and that is his life after his presidency.  The man was destroyed by Vietnam.  He very well could have "gone crazy", or mad, or whatever one calls it.  What a burden, but then, what a sin!  But was it a sin of ill intent, or a less evil sin, a sin of making a poor decision?  Same with Nixon.   The great ones!  They never make it "out of Dodge" intact...

- Alfie
 



Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 17, 2004, 03:53:37 PM
The Good Senator writes;

Quote

Alfie

I apologize I can not provide a link. My source is a documentary that appeared on the History Channel called "The Men who killed Kennedy". The Johnson family raised hell about it and demanded it never to be shown again. Why is it that in his later years LBJ was said to have gone crazy? Guilt? We'll never know I guess.

No problem.

You raise the very issue that makes me feel such sadness for LBJ, and that is his life after his presidency.  The man was destroyed by Vietnam.  He very well could have "gone crazy", or mad, or whatever one calls it.  What a burden, but then, what a sin!  But was it a sin of ill intent, or a less evil sin, a sin of making a poor decision?  Same with Nixon.   The great ones!  They never make it "out of Dodge" intact...

- Alfie
 



Very true. Sad to say that if it hadn't been for Watergate, Nixon would be listed as one of the greats, no doubt in my mind about that.


Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Alfie on July 18, 2004, 04:18:49 AM
The Good Senator writes;

Quote

Alfie

I apologize I can not provide a link. My source is a documentary that appeared on the History Channel called "The Men who killed Kennedy". The Johnson family raised hell about it and demanded it never to be shown again. Why is it that in his later years LBJ was said to have gone crazy? Guilt? We'll never know I guess.

No problem.

You raise the very issue that makes me feel such sadness for LBJ, and that is his life after his presidency.  The man was destroyed by Vietnam.  He very well could have "gone crazy", or mad, or whatever one calls it.  What a burden, but then, what a sin!  But was it a sin of ill intent, or a less evil sin, a sin of making a poor decision?  Same with Nixon.   The great ones!  They never make it "out of Dodge" intact...

- Alfie
 



Very true. Sad to say that if it hadn't been for Watergate, Nixon would be listed as one of the greats, no doubt in my mind about that.


Um, Message to Senator:  He Still Is.


- Alfie



Title: Re:Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: ?????????? on July 18, 2004, 06:35:41 AM
The Good Senator writes;

Quote

Alfie

I apologize I can not provide a link. My source is a documentary that appeared on the History Channel called "The Men who killed Kennedy". The Johnson family raised hell about it and demanded it never to be shown again. Why is it that in his later years LBJ was said to have gone crazy? Guilt? We'll never know I guess.

No problem.

You raise the very issue that makes me feel such sadness for LBJ, and that is his life after his presidency.  The man was destroyed by Vietnam.  He very well could have "gone crazy", or mad, or whatever one calls it.  What a burden, but then, what a sin!  But was it a sin of ill intent, or a less evil sin, a sin of making a poor decision?  Same with Nixon.   The great ones!  They never make it "out of Dodge" intact...

- Alfie
 



Very true. Sad to say that if it hadn't been for Watergate, Nixon would be listed as one of the greats, no doubt in my mind about that.


Um, Message to Senator:  He Still Is.


- Alfie




Alfie,

I must say I'm shocked. I'm glad to see you say that! He was Tricky Dick no doubt but by todays standards he'd be a Moderate Conservative. Kind of like Clinton but with a (R).

()


Title: Re: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: 2952-0-0 on June 07, 2006, 06:00:36 PM
*bump*


Title: Re: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Gabu on June 07, 2006, 06:22:55 PM
Gee, something about this looks kind of familiar.


Title: Re: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on September 09, 2013, 05:13:29 PM
Bumpity Bump

Is Alfie now a congressman for Texas, I wonder


Title: Re: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Bacon King on September 12, 2013, 04:36:51 PM
my nostalgiavision remains in effect despite how horrible this Old Atlas thread is


Title: Re: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Peter the Lefty on October 23, 2013, 10:42:16 PM
Holy crap am I glad I wasn't here in 2004.


Title: Re: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook on October 30, 2013, 08:00:32 AM
It's probably the only way it can happen unless the court makes another ruleing (I think they knew they would promote an unacceptable idea in most states.


Title: Re: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 30, 2013, 10:00:35 PM
Look, I don't understand the big discussion about Gay Marriage. If a church says yes, then let the church marry the gays wanting to get married. If a church says no, then no. It should be up to the individual church and the individual. And i'm saying this as a bible thumping pro-life conservative, god made gays so their not immoral people. We need to stop putting homosexuals into categories, and start expecting them as our equals as they are our equals in the eyes of the god.

If they are our equals, then how come you support churches denying them the right to get married? Or are you one of those "gay civil marriage is 1000% good but churches have the right to not marry them" people?"


Title: Re: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Deus Naturae on November 04, 2013, 05:16:10 PM
Look, I don't understand the big discussion about Gay Marriage. If a church says yes, then let the church marry the gays wanting to get married. If a church says no, then no. It should be up to the individual church and the individual. And i'm saying this as a bible thumping pro-life conservative, god made gays so their not immoral people. We need to stop putting homosexuals into categories, and start expecting them as our equals as they are our equals in the eyes of the god.

If they are our equals, then how come you support churches denying them the right to get married? Or are you one of those "gay civil marriage is 1000% good but churches have the right to not marry them" people?"
Are you implying that churches don't have the right to decide who can get married within their sacraments/rites/whatever?


Title: Re: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook on July 08, 2015, 12:40:17 AM
No need for an amendment, we got a court decision.


Title: Re: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: H. Ross Peron on July 09, 2015, 10:46:52 PM
Was BRTD a conspiracy theorist in 2004?


Title: Re: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: WVdemocrat on July 10, 2015, 02:00:30 PM
Holy crap am I glad I wasn't here in 2004.


Title: Re: Gay Marriage Amendment
Post by: SWE on July 20, 2015, 12:47:56 PM
I too would be horrified if I found the atlas when I was 3 years old