Musgrave and Allard give up on gay marriage amendment

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

yay!

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1169446772/6

[Padfoot]

Further proof that Republicans don't really care about this issue.  It's all just political grandstanding to keep the religious conservatives voting for them.

[Cubby]

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Further proof that Republicans don't really care about this issue.  It's all just political grandstanding to keep the religious conservatives voting for them.

no, it would be grandstanding to reintroduce a bill that failed last time that would receive even less votes now...besides, it's a lost cause anyway. 

[Gabu]

Further proof that Republicans don't really care about this issue.  It's all just political grandstanding to keep the religious conservatives voting for them.

Well, that and the fact that so many states already have such an amendment on the books, it's almost pointless now to do it federally.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Further proof that Republicans don't really care about this issue.  It's all just political grandstanding to keep the religious conservatives voting for them.

Well, that and the fact that so many states already have such an amendment on the books, it's almost pointless now to do it federally.

All it takes is one SCOTUS case to invalidate all of those.

[Verily]

Further proof that Republicans don't really care about this issue.  It's all just political grandstanding to keep the religious conservatives voting for them.

No, I think Musgrave actually cared about the issue. That's what's most scary; not all of it was political grandstanding. (Most GOP politicians did not care, but Musgrave did.)

[Gabu]

Further proof that Republicans don't really care about this issue.  It's all just political grandstanding to keep the religious conservatives voting for them.

Well, that and the fact that so many states already have such an amendment on the books, it's almost pointless now to do it federally.

All it takes is one SCOTUS case to invalidate all of those.

Sure, but fat chance at getting the current SCOTUS to rule in that direction.

[JSojourner]

Further proof that Republicans don't really care about this issue.  It's all just political grandstanding to keep the religious conservatives voting for them.

No, I think Musgrave actually cared about the issue. That's what's most scary;

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yep.  If you listen to the apopleptic, frothing-at-the-mouth rants of bigots like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the rest of that tribe...you KNOW they care about the issue.  They care, partly, because it ensures a steady flow of contributions from listeners/viewers afraid that their son will be turned gay by some teacher or scout leader.  And they care, partly, because they can't manage unless they define themselves by who and what they hate.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yep.  If you listen to the apopleptic, frothing-at-the-mouth rants of bigots like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the rest of that tribe...you KNOW they care about the issue.  They care, partly, because it ensures a steady flow of contributions from listeners/viewers afraid that their son will be turned gay by some teacher or scout leader.  And they care, partly, because they can't manage unless they define themselves by who and what they hate.

Ah, I see.

That must be why they also preach against stealing, lying, fornication, adultery, bestiality, witchcraft, murder, lust, greed, envy, etc, etc, etc.

not that there is anything wrong with stealing, lying, fornication, adultery, bestiality, witchcraft, murder, lust, greed, envy, and etc.

[this New Personal Attack Policy might not be half bad, at least it can be used in a cynical sort of way]

[Deano963]

Yep.  If you listen to the apopleptic, frothing-at-the-mouth rants of bigots like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the rest of that tribe...you KNOW they care about the issue.  They care, partly, because it ensures a steady flow of contributions from listeners/viewers afraid that their son will be turned gay by some teacher or scout leader.  And they care, partly, because they can't manage unless they define themselves by who and what they hate.

Ah, I see.

That must be why they also preach against stealing, lying, fornication, adultery, bestiality, witchcraft, murder, lust, greed, envy, etc, etc, etc.

You seem to be confused. I'll help you out. All of those things you just listed are sins/crimes that people must choose to commit of their own free will. Homosexuality is not a choice, so comparing it to murder dosen't make a lick of sense.

Oh, and it continues to amuse me that Dobson and Robertson still have their little jihad against the nonexistent "witchcraft" problem. Are they stuck in the 1700's or something?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yep.  If you listen to the apopleptic, frothing-at-the-mouth rants of bigots like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the rest of that tribe...you KNOW they care about the issue.  They care, partly, because it ensures a steady flow of contributions from listeners/viewers afraid that their son will be turned gay by some teacher or scout leader.  And they care, partly, because they can't manage unless they define themselves by who and what they hate.

Ah, I see.

That must be why they also preach against stealing, lying, fornication, adultery, bestiality, witchcraft, murder, lust, greed, envy, etc, etc, etc.

not that there is anything wrong with stealing, lying, fornication, adultery, bestiality, witchcraft, murder, lust, greed, envy, and etc.

[this New Personal Attack Policy might not be half bad, at least it can be used in a cynical sort of way]

The constitution isn't based on biblical law so bible references are not relevant at all for political debates

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You seem to be confused. I'll help you out. All of those things you just listed are sins/crimes that people must choose to commit of their own free will. Homosexuality is not a choice, so comparing it to murder dosen't make a lick of sense.

You are correct in saying homosexuality is a trait people are born with, but you are incorrect in assuming all others sins are not ingrained in us from birth. 

Most importantly, you are fatally wrong assuming that you are justified by the nature of your flesh.  The nature you are born with leads to death.  Jesus came to give a new nature by allowing us be born a second time.

1) All sin originates from the sinful nature we are all born with:

Rom 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.  21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

2) Since none of us can change the sinful-nature we were born with, we must be rebirthed into a new nature:

John 3:3 Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4”How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
 5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

3)  The result is the salvation of your soul:

Rom 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

[Padfoot]

You seem to be confused. I'll help you out. All of those things you just listed are sins/crimes that people must choose to commit of their own free will. Homosexuality is not a choice, so comparing it to murder dosen't make a lick of sense.

You are correct in saying homosexuality is a trait people are born with, but you are incorrect in assuming all others sins are not ingrained in us from birth. 

Most importantly, you are fatally wrong assuming that you are justified by the nature of your flesh.  The nature you are born with leads to death.  Jesus came to give a new nature by allowing us be born a second time.

1) All sin originates from the sinful nature we are all born with:

Rom 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.  21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

2) Since none of us can change the sinful-nature we were born with, we must be rebirthed into a new nature:

John 3:3 Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4”How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
 5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

3)  The result is the salvation of your soul:

Rom 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

Thereby proving that your goal is to force your own personal sense of morality on the rest of us via governtment legislation.  No thank you, I very much prefer separation of church and state.

And  beleive whoever said that the Consitituiton is not based on biblical law is also incorrect.  I beleive that it was partially based on the teachings of the Bible with the important subtraction of all references to God and Jesus.  So all you Christians out there who yell and scream about how the US is a Christian nation can be quite because as soon as you mention the words God or Jesus you completely invalidate any arguement you are trying to make with regards to politics.

[Colin]

Further proof that Republicans don't really care about this issue.  It's all just political grandstanding to keep the religious conservatives voting for them.

Well, that and the fact that so many states already have such an amendment on the books, it's almost pointless now to do it federally.

All it takes is one SCOTUS case to invalidate all of those.

Well that would enrage a lot of people not just your average Christian conservatives and the like. I mean if 60% of people in Oregon voted against this that would basically mean overturning the wills of those 60%, something they would most likely not like.

While I don't like these gay marriage amendments one bit to have the Supreme Court invalidate them, which would be highly unlikely anyway, would mean Republican dominance for another few elections and an even more vicious cultural war at a time when we really do need to become more unified.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Thereby proving that your goal is to force your own personal sense of morality on the rest of us via governtment legislation.  No thank you, I very much prefer separation of church and state.

I wasn't making a political argument nor do I want to legislate morality.

My point was to refute Deano’s barrowed “I was born that way therefore change isn’t required” argument by showing the bible clearly states that:
1) all sin is a product of the sinful nature
2) we were all born with that sinful nature (which is why it is referred to as a "nature")
3) Christ died so that we can die to that sinful nature we were born with, and through the receiving of the Holy Spirit be born again, having a new nature capable of overcoming the sinful nature.

Basically, claiming “I was born that way and therefore change isn’t required” blocks the one and only path to salvation. 

[Cubby]

Well that would enrage a lot of people not just your average Christian conservatives and the like. I mean if 60% of people in Oregon voted against this that would basically mean overturning the wills of those 60%, something they would most likely not like.

While I don't like these gay marriage amendments one bit to have the Supreme Court invalidate them, which would be highly unlikely anyway, would mean Republican dominance for another few elections and an even more vicious cultural war at a time when we really do need to become more unified.

Thats very true. As happy as I was over Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, I realize now that it scared conservatives into thinking they were in danger, and contributed to all the amendments in Nov. 2004.

This new Congress won't address any gay rights issues at first, because they remember how Don't Ask, Don't Tell hurt the early Clinton Administration. Hopefully, once they are settled in (or are bolstered in 2008) they will pass a few progressive laws without becoming too "leftist".

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As happy as I was over Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, I realize now that it scared conservatives into thinking they were in danger, and contributed to all the amendments in Nov. 2004.

not

[opebo]

Well that would enrage a lot of people not just your average Christian conservatives and the like. I mean if 60% of people in Oregon voted against this that would basically mean overturning the wills of those 60%, something they would most likely not like.

Well, no doubt over 60% of Southerners supported lynching blacks, and over 60% of Germans supported killing the Jews...

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The debate is moving to whether to have civil unions or gay marriage not whether to ban all recognition. We'll have civil unions in 10-20 years and gay marriage in 20-30.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well that would enrage a lot of people not just your average Christian conservatives and the like. I mean if 60% of people in Oregon voted against this that would basically mean overturning the wills of those 60%, something they would most likely not like.

Well, no doubt over 60% of Southerners supported lynching blacks, and over 60% of Germans supported killing the Jews...

And 72% of Americans opposed interracial marriage at the time of the Loving decision...

Excellent point

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well that would enrage a lot of people not just your average Christian conservatives and the like. I mean if 60% of people in Oregon voted against this that would basically mean overturning the wills of those 60%, something they would most likely not like.

Well, no doubt over 60% of Southerners supported lynching blacks, and over 60% of Germans supported killing the Jews...

And 72% of Americans opposed interracial marriage at the time of the Loving decision...

Excellent point

And >50% (hopefully) of Americans currently oppose incest.

Neither the will of majority nor the judicial overthrow of the legislative will of the majority automatically equates to reaching a correct decision.

[Joe Republic]

Neither the will of majority nor the judicial overthrow of the legislative will of the majority automatically equates to reaching a correct decision.

Very true.  There is no such thing as a 'correct' opinion.

[JSojourner]

Yep.  If you listen to the apopleptic, frothing-at-the-mouth rants of bigots like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the rest of that tribe...you KNOW they care about the issue.  They care, partly, because it ensures a steady flow of contributions from listeners/viewers afraid that their son will be turned gay by some teacher or scout leader.  And they care, partly, because they can't manage unless they define themselves by who and what they hate.

Ah, I see.

That must be why they also preach against stealing, lying, fornication, adultery, bestiality, witchcraft, murder, lust, greed, envy, etc, etc, etc.

not that there is anything wrong with stealing, lying, fornication, adultery, bestiality, witchcraft, murder, lust, greed, envy, and etc.

I listened to James Dobson every day for my 20 plus years in Christian radio.  I occasionally heard him mention fornication and adultery. Early on, he did some wonderful work in helping repair broken marriages.  But given the wealth of Biblical witness against these sins, you would think he would speak up about them more than a couple times a year.  Weigh his tomes on these issues against his apopleptic, hate-filled anti-gay rants...and you have a shocking imbalance. 

Interesting that Jesus had so much to say about heterosexual infidelity and the sanctity of marriage...and nothing about homosexuality or abortion. 

I wonder if Dr. Dobson would consider supporting a law making it illegal for divorced heterosexuals to marry...or if he would support criminalizing heterosexual fornication, which can lead to, among other things...abortion.

As to witchcraft...the only thing I have heard Dobson or Pat Robertson say about it is that it's the same as Satanism and that it's becoming the official religion of the Democratic Party and the Public School system.

But perhaps they should follow the example of fundamentalist Christian Gary North and call for state-sponsored execution of witches. 

[JSojourner]

I love how fundamentalist Christians always link homosexuality to bestiality. It's a popular tactic of the religious right.  I've received fundraising letters from the theocrats suggesting that soon, we'll have state-sponsored marriages of men and goats.

Josef Goebbels said, "Repetition is the lynchpin of propaganda."

I don't know why people drink the Kool-Aid, but they do...