Welcome to PatsFans.com

Bob Kraft takes a stand

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Jul 6, 2006.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,251
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    It's gratifying that the best owner in the NFL appears to be a fairly liberal guy. Go Pats!

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...07/06/leaders_oppose_bid_to_ban_gay_marriage/

    Taking on Governor Mitt Romney and the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, 165 prominent business and civic leaders are publicly calling for the Legislature to reject a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
    Article Tools

    The group, which includes leading bankers, healthcare executives, lawyers, and leaders of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, has purchased an ad in The Boston Globe that says the amendment would "take away rights." It urges lawmakers to "move on to other important issues like strengthening the economy, improving our schools, and protecting our neighborhoods."

    The signers include Patriots owner Robert Kraft and his wife, Myra; real estate developer Robert Beal; Mayor Thomas M. Menino; chamber president Paul Guzzi, and more than 20 members of the chamber's board of directors; architect Graham Gund; author Robert B. Parker; venture capitalist Richard M. Burnes Jr.; Boston Foundation president Paul S. Grogan; and Stacey Lucchino, who is married to Red Sox chief executive Larry Lucchino.
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    We should just have a vote on it instead of an ammendment because it would be guaranteed to fail. Marriage isn't a right, it's a priviledge and freaky lifestyles (whether gay or with kids or polygamous or whatever) don't get that priviledge. Too bad.
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,251
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Marriage is a special right for straight people. You only favor special rights when they're for you. A bit hypocritcal, in my opinion.
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    No, it's what society approves as good and right. Forgetting the kid thing, why can't I marry 2 or 3 or 4 women ? Because society says it's not something to encourage - there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Same with gay marriage. Society as a whole doesn't want it. Sorry.
  5. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Why should there be a vote??? Name one vote that was taken that had to do with civil rights, school desegregation, freeing the slaves??? Guess I missed that one..the Governor who was talking all about the vote and how THAT was democracy must have skipped many history classes.
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2006
  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    That's how we decide things, by voting. Allowing gay marriage has nothing to do with desegregation or slavery. We are not saying that being gay is illegal just that it's not legitimite as marriage. Just like polygamy.
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2


    Iguess you missed the 14th admendment and the Civil Rights Act.
  8. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Hartford an now this, I guess everyone is entitled to 2 mistakes in their lifetime:D
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,251
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    You're technically right, but check your history:

    http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=282

    (Perhaps some people here will like the author's point of view.)

    On the civil rights front, when we've had liberal government, Congress has done some good things, but in many cases -- desegregation, interracial marriages, fundamental gay rights, prisoner rights, age discrimination -- the courts have taken the lead by interpreting the Constitution in light of modern mores. If they had not done that, segregation might still be the law of the land.
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    mo·res ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrz, -z, mr-)
    pl.n.

    1. The accepted traditional customs and usages of a particular social group.
    2. Moral attitudes.
    3. Manners; ways.


    The point is that a vote is a way to determine accepted custons and moral attitudes. I claim that if we voted on interacial, heterosexual marriage that it would pass overwhelmingly whereas if we voted on homosexual marriage that it would fail by a solid margin. I don't think "modern mores" favor gay marriage any more than they favor polygamous marriage.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 12, 2005
  11. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The liberals don't want a referendum on this issue because they know they'll lose. They would rather have 2 justices of the state supreme court impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

    Pretty sad when you have to take a document written about 200 years ago and "interpret" it to mean that gays are allowed to marry... Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what John and Sam Adams had in mind when they put pen to paper...
  12. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I can understand the logic behind not taking a state wide referendum on this issue (the left is terrified of a state wide referendum because they know they'll lose).

    But how did this law become law in the Commonwealth..? Did the democratically elected governor issue an executive order...? Did the legislature take up the issue and vote on it...? Did the people put it on a ballot to be decided by popular vote...? The answer to all of the above is no. Some ultra liberal judges took a 220 year old document and interpreted it in a way that everyone in the Commonwealth knows was never the intent of those who drafted it.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 12, 2005
  13. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    So you must support polygamy then, right..?
  14. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Fine, SOM, let me marry multiple people then. This restriction on marriage isn't confined to gays. SOM.
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    LMFAO, SOM brings up the war again in a thread nothing to do with it.
  16. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Wow. That's a surprise and something we've never seen before. NEM takes an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush or the Iraq War, and mentions it anyway.
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    How much do you want to bet that if Bush proposed legalizing polygamy, SOM would throw a fit ? :D
  18. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That's where you're mistaken, my ignorant friend. Marriage is a public union. It is everyone's business. What two (or more) gay guys do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of my business and I don't give a damn about any of that. But marriage is a public union which effects us all.
  19. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The discussion was about gay marriage in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I referenced the men who drafted the MA constitution, since that document was used as the basis by the ultra-liberal MA Supreme Court to legalize it.

    That does not in any way, shape or form by even the most perverse and twisted logic "open the door" to a response about Bush or Iraq.
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,251
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Democracy does not always work when the majority (be they white, straight, Christian, etc.) is asked to share their power. The issues over separation of church and state are an example of the majority trying to bully its way over the minority. Gay marriage, like so many similar issues, is being manufactured by right-wing special interest groups, and we must not allow civil rights to be manipulated in this manner. You might disagree with the MA Supreme Court ruling, but to do so would be to recognize the right of the state to deny equal rights to a perfectly legal union. I would no more support a vote on gay marriage than I would support a vote on inter-racial marriage.
  21. BruschiOnTap

    BruschiOnTap Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Why not abolish marriage as a state-recognized institution altogether? Then churches can decide if they'll marry gay couples or polygous groups or whatever and nobody gets a tax break and we can all commit to whoever we love. It will be merely a social institution with no legal status. It's not the state's business who I love/have sex with.
  22. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    What about polygamy...? I give NEM credit, he at least isn't a hypocrite by supporting one form of deviant marriage while opposing another. Can you say the same..?
  23. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    What tax break ? Have you ever heard of the marriage penalty ?

    No-one ever said it was. Being gay isn't illegal.
  24. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,251
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    I agree with BurschiOnTap that marriage belongs to the churches. If the state finds it in its interest, it should support civil unions for all couples, including a child caring for an elderly mother or two elderly siblings living together, etc.

    As far as QuiGon's comment about legalizing polygamy, I'm not well versed in the issue. I suppose a case could be made for polygamy, and if polygamists win the support of people I trust, national psychology associations, prominent church organizations, and so on I'd consider supporting it. Any idea of what the polygamist movement is up to these days, QuiGon?
  25. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Well the state gets in the business of encouraging "correct" behavior all the time whether it's making drugs illegal, encouraging home ownership with a tax deduction, making driving without a seatbelt a fineable offense, etc. And as a whole our society feels that homosexuality should be legal but not encouraged through legitimite marriage.
  26. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    You don't vote on rights my freind..I don't know what country you live in, but that is NOT any part of any tradition in the US...The judges interpreted tjhhe law..which is what they do.. YOU and all the others wish to pass a law LIMITING civil rights..that is NOT good for democracy or this commonwealth. you WANT to discriminate and you hide behind all kinds of fancy words of process...but that is the bottom line. Many do NOT want that..the courts have ruled against it...What votes caused schools to desegregate?? to free the slaves?? NONE!! The courts are doing the right thing..and you just do not like that..
  27. Mainefan

    Mainefan Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    There's no question that if gay marriage were subjected to a referendum today, it would lose.

    There's also no question that the same referendum would pass easily if brought up again in 10 years. According to the polls, few people under 40 object to it.

    Marriage is a religious concept. The government should have nothing to do with it. The government should be concerned with legal partnerships, not religious ceremonies or concepts.

    All the fuss here comes down to a single word: marriage. Some people want to define it one way, others want to define it differently. That is not how the meaning of words is determined. It is determined through usage.

    Today, when we talk of the relationships between gay people, it is awkward to use the word "marriage," even if we approve of it. But it's only been a couple of years since we've associated that word with gays. In time, I am quite sure, we will become accustomed to it and it will no longer be awkward.

    I would say to those opposed to the idea: there's no stopping this one. It's only a matter of time. I would also say to them, the relationships between other people and what they choose to call those relationships have no effect on you, except as you allow them to.

    And to those who say what's next? Will we let people marry their pets? I say, keep your eye on the issue at hand. The "slippery slope" idea can be imagined about anything, but it rarely happens. The slippery slope argument is just an attempt to distract from the issue being discussed.
  28. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    That's what we're told. However when I say that to the 22-25 year olds I work with they laugh in my face about how homophobia is on the decline in schools and among people their age.
  29. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I agree..!! And as soon as you show me the passage in the United States Constitution that says a man has a right to marry another man, I will drop the matter. Actually, this being Massachusetts, you may feel free to use the Massachusetts state constitution in lieu of the U.S. Constitution.
    I live in the United States, of course. I thought that was obvious.
    So the judges' interpretation of a 220 year old document written mostly by John Adams is that what he really meant was that gays should be allowed to marry..? You don't honestly believe that, do you..?
    I do not support gays being married. you can call it whatever you want and come up with all your own fancy words. And it just kills you to know that my opinion is more represented in the mainstream - even here in liberal Massachusetts.
    Tough to answer since there have been multiple judicial rulings as well as laws passed by the legislature. I do not want to write a 1,500 word essay detailing the many judicial and legislative activities that put an end to segregation.
    That was done by Executive Order.
    Correction: The courts have done the wrong thing for the wrong reason and I don't like it.
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2006
  30. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I would be very interested in seeing any such polls. Please post your references here so that I may look at the data.
    "Slippery slopes" constantly happen, but I am not going to bring up ridiculous things like people marrying pets. But make no mistake about it: A large part of the gay agenda - and the next logical step in their activities - is to go after the churches that refuse to submit to every demand they make.

Share This Page