Welcome to PatsFans.com

Massachusetts pols thwart will of the people yet again...

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by QuiGon, May 10, 2007.

  1. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

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

    Well, another Constitutional Convention has come and gone without any sort of vote on putting gay marriage on the ballot in 2008. Every time these losers meet, they always promise to address the issue next time. Heaven forbid we should let the people decide, huh...?

    There is no depth the gay marriage supporters won't sink to in advancing their radical agenda. Deval Patrick is openly and shamelessly bribing legislators to cross over to his side. Their tactics are simple: They will delay any vote on the issue until they feel they have enough votes to win. It's great to see democracy in action, folks..!! No votes allowed until our side is allowed to win..!! Who cares what the people of the Commonwealth think..?
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,834
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +191 / 4 / -6

    Great idea, let's leave the civil rights of minorities to majorities. If it wasn't for the darn laws that protect other minorities, perhaps we get vote on interracial marriage, or even marriage between people of different religions, or perhaps marriage between people born with disabilities. Personally, I'm not sure that it's in the best interest of the nation to allow conservatives to marry and propagate. :)
  3. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,562
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +437 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    That's how I feel about letting the majority vote in favor of raising taxes on the minority (the rich).

    Patters, there is no birthright to marriage. It's a privilidge and should be used to encourage relationships that biology clearly intends. If gays want to do whatever with/to themselves, fine, go ahead. But the government should not be encouraging it.
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I'm with you, maybe we should put individual marriages up for a vote? My neighbor's wife is pretty hot, maybe I could bang her if the people would be kind enough to disolve their marriage at the polls?
  5. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    That's right, which is why we need to, before society crumbles, ban the elderly and infirm from marrying. Had menopause? Step aside and let the younger generation marry. Vasectomy? No marriage license for you! In fact, we shouldn't allow marriage until the woman becomes pregnant, in case the couple's just trying to pull a fast one on us and live a married life without kids, against what biology intended.
    Last edited: May 10, 2007
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,992
    Likes Received:
    188
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -2

    That's kinda silly.
  7. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

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

    Where is the Constitutions - either federal or state - does it say people have a civil right to marry someone of the same gender...?
    Ever notice that the same tired old arguments you people use to justify gay marriage would also apply to polygamy or to brothers and sisters marrying..? That kinda demonstrates the weakness of your arguments, now don't it..?
    Last edited: May 10, 2007
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Nope, government should get out of the business of marriage alltogether and let people "marry" whoever they want. Want to marry your sister or take 5 wives? As long as everyone's an adult, go ahead. Doesn't matter to me if you want to call it marriage or not.
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,992
    Likes Received:
    188
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -2

    The question is about what marraige is. Is it merely between two people, or is it between a man and a woman. It's an interesting question, and one that needs to be answered so that people can get over it and move on. Personally, I oppose gay marriage. Like abortion, I wouldn't hold a sign, bomb a clinic, or decide on a candidate because of either issue. That's merely my personal opinion. I do support civil unions. I have zero problems with them.

    Regarding the issue of a ballot initiative, it's another interesting dilema. Do politiicians put forth a ballot initiative that the people clearly want, and will clearly support one way, if they feel it is unfair? Or are they obligated to protect the rights of those who would be negatively affected? Are they, by their action of delaying said initiative, violating the contitutional rights of the people? Is marraige even a right? Also, by circumventing the law, with respect to the putting forth a ballot initiative, are they breaking the law, are they breaking the oath they swore to, in upholding the constitution, and representing the will of the people? Those are interesting questions.
  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,992
    Likes Received:
    188
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -2

    Maybe the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether and let the people decide. Maybe the problem isn't really with the government, or the people deciding, maybe it's that the result wouldn't be what you'd like.
  11. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    The government getting out of marriage isn't the same as letting the people decide. Beyond that, I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

    There are certain things that government, either directly through the people (as in the case of a ballot initiative) or through their elected representitives, is competent to decide. Other matters are private: the government doesn't tell you who you should be friends with or what job you should have "in the interest of society". Other governments might decide that for you, but in America we decided that we like to have autonimity. I think marriage is on the wrong side of that line right now by being treated as a public matter instead of a private one.
  12. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,562
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +437 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Marriage is just one of many things the government uses to encourage certain behavior. Just like the tax deduction on mortgage interest is used to encourage home ownership. And the tax deduction on charitable donations is used to encourage charity. Bestowing the privilige of marriage is to encourage the lifestyle that most people think is appropriate and in the best interest of our society.
  13. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Maybe the government should stop being our nanny and telling us what's best for us? I don't see a difference between this and taking all of your money through taxation and spending it on what they consider to be worthwhile causes.
    Last edited: May 10, 2007
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,992
    Likes Received:
    188
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -2

    So I guess marraige doesn't have any legal ramifications right? It's not like the government can impose it's will upon you because of marraige right? Afterall, marraige is strictly private. :rolleyes:
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,562
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +437 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    That's fine, I'm just saying this isn't wholly inconsistent with other things.

    Personally I don't like supporting churches - however I am being forced to as all the charitable donations reduced people's tax burden; if not for that we could lower the base tax rate on everyone.

    Seriously, why is the government in the business of supporting churches ? They don't pay taxes on all the donations nor do they pay property tax. It's a scam.
  16. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I said we're on the wrong side of that line. Marriage is treated like a public matter for some strange reason, but that's not where it belongs.

    It's amazing how disinclined people are to remember history. You, Real World, BelichickFan, etc, would all be arguing against letting interracial couples marry if this was 50 years ago (some of you might still think it's a bad idea today).

    Face it, people who oppose gay marriage oppose it because they think it's icky and don't want to be reminded that there are gay people in the world. Then they backfill with "principles" about encouraging procreation.
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I'm with you on that!
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,992
    Likes Received:
    188
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -2

    Please don't try to tell me what I would have supported 50 years ago. That's such a pathetic, backhanded accusation of racism. Welcome to the fray I guess. When in doubt, call someone a racist. I guess our points don't fit your "bottom-line" eh? Pathetic.
  19. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You're no more racist than you are homophobic. If the shoe fits, wear it.
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,992
    Likes Received:
    188
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -2

    Yup, more bottom line kind of guy logic. When your point has no merrit, or an arguement has been thrown back in your face, just lob accusations of racism and homophobia. I'd say I'm surprised but....
    Last edited: May 10, 2007

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>