Welcome to PatsFans.com

Senate takes up gay-rights ban amid criticism

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Jun 5, 2006.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,969
    Likes Received:
    317
    Ratings:
    +583 / 22 / -19

    It's no secret that the majority of Senators don't feel there should be a constitutional amendment to address this issue, but the Republican leadership has elected to pander to the bigots in its party.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060605/pl_nm/rights_gays_congress_dc_2

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Urged on by President George W. Bush, the U.S. Senate on Monday debated a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that both backers and opponents say has little chance of passage.

    Bush, speaking out again on the hot-button election-year issue, and other advocates said the amendment would prevent "activist judges" from striking down existing state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.

    Opponents said the measure was a transparent attempt to shore up support among social conservatives before November's congressional election, in a similar manner to 2004, at a time when Congress should be dealing with issues like high gasoline prices and the war in Iraq.

    "The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another," Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said.
     
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,926
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +780 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    Like it or not, Patters, most Americans don't want gay marriage. It's just the way it is. There won't be an ammendment but don't pretend Americans look at this like they do discrimination against blacks or something. For a variety of reasons we don't like it. For me it's because I don't want gays to get the same adoption rights, nor do I want the government to suggest it as an equal lifestyle. The government does this all the time, it "discriminates" against non home owners with the tax deduction on the interest. It does this to influence behavior and not having gay marriage is another one that the population as a whole favors.
     
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,969
    Likes Received:
    317
    Ratings:
    +583 / 22 / -19

    It's still pandering, BF. It's not like this is an issue that the government has been hard at work on. It's simply throwing this out there, like it did for the last election cycle. If they were sincere, I could see your point, but they're not even sincere about the constitutional amendment. They made no effort to line up a majority.
     
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,926
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +780 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    Well they pandered to the left with the medicare giveaway so why not a little pandering to the right ? ;)

    Personally I wish they'd get rid of all the behavioral incentives, including the mortgage deduction.
     
  5. Commander Shears

    Commander Shears Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I hardly think anyone is so naive to think that this is anything but election-year politics. Even the most ardent supporters of the amendment must realize that they are being played like a fiddle.
     
  6. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

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

    Actually that is not true...MOST is far from where the country is on this..those fot it may be up by a few points, but MOST?? not at all..take a look at polls....
    Just say you favor discrimination...admit it, it is true...and bottom line is I do NOT think there is a large majority who want that.
    As for why now, it is obvious...ot is a political plot pure and simple. A friend of Bush was quoted in either the Time or Newsweek basically saying he never talks about it and does not give a s**t about it...
     
  7. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,926
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +780 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    The polls say a clear majority are against gay marriage. They are NOT for an ammendment, though.
     
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,926
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +780 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    It's not discrimination, it's just the government trying to influence behavior. Gays are allowed to live together, hug, kiss and screw like the rest of us. It's not illegal it just doesn't get special priviliges. Again, much like the tax benefits of home ownership it's the government trying to tweak behavior.
     
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,969
    Likes Received:
    317
    Ratings:
    +583 / 22 / -19

    Of course it's discrimination. The rights that marriage affords are special rights for heterosexuals. Home ownership is a completely different issue. Anyone can be a homeowner and get that benefit. But, though some people might tell you otherwise, not anyone can be gay. It's the way one is, and the right to deprive gays of equal rights is as as indefensible as depriving women or people of color of equal rights under the law.
     
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,926
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +780 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    I'll reply to this later if I can get my wording right. Most likely I'll have to leave it at "I disagree", though.
     
  11. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

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

    Actually it is discrimnation...why do you think they wish to pass the amendment?? Because even a RIGHT WING court could see as plain as day that there is disctimination and MAY rule against it. It is NOT the same..if you do NOT give gays a similar rights as married people..you ARE discriminating big time.. THE fear thhat even right wingers in the court may rule is the ONLY reason they are going the amendment route...
     
  12. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,926
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +780 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    In that case kids are discriminated against because they can't get married. Or married people are discriminated against because they can't get married. In this one, the government is following what most (read : more than 50%) of the population wants - marriage to be between one unmarried adult male and one unmarried adult female.
     
  13. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,926
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +780 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    The short answer is that the majority of people don't want to give special priviliges (marriage) to a behavior they think is wrong. Most people don't think there's anything wrong with being female. Most people don't think there's anything wrong with being black. Most people do think there's something wrong with being gay. We put up with it. We allow it. But we don't reward it.
     
  14. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

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

    you want kids to get married??? Married people ARE married..so??? There is hardly any discrimination there... arguments do not hold water at all..IT IS discrimination and the courts will in time agree with that...It will NOT pass now or ever.. it is that simple!!! ALl it is is a panfering by Bush to get the right out to vote..that simple.
    What bigoted religous groups are saying is that it is God's will...
    the same Bible thumping bigots said it was God's will that interracial religion was God's will and wished to pass laws against that.
     
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,926
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +780 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    I didn't say I want kids to get married. But what if two want to ? Discrimination, baby :) And why can't I marry a second wife if she and I both want to ? Discrimination, damnit :)
     
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,599
    Likes Received:
    167
    Ratings:
    +459 / 12 / -14

    Unfortunatly the courts have been usurping the role of the legislature on this issue. Courts aren't supposed to legislate but they do.
     
  17. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Why do you put "activist judges" in quotes?
     
  18. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Take a look at the votes! In every state where there has been a law or a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a one-man-one-woman institution up for an actual vote by the people of that state, it has passed overwhelmingly. The fact that the minority opposed to those measure has included a few disgruntled judges is the only reasons those measures haven't become law.
     
  19. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,599
    Likes Received:
    167
    Ratings:
    +459 / 12 / -14

    Where people have been allowed to vote on this issue the sentiement was 75-80% against gay marrige.
     
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,969
    Likes Received:
    317
    Ratings:
    +583 / 22 / -19

    Discrimination is discriminaton. Hell, there was a time that 75% of people were probably for slavery, against interracial marriage, against a women's right to vote, opposed to women working, opposed to them wearing slacks, but you're not going to tell me those things aren't discrimination! The reason the courts get involved is beause politicians don't have the guts to stand up to the majority in order to protect the rights of the minority. Just because someone doesn't believe in equal rights for gays, doesn't mean it's not discrimination.

    As to BF's point about kids being discriminated against, let me point out there are objective, quantifiable reasons why kids aren't allowed to have the same rights as adults, why blind people aren't allowed to drive, why quadraplegics aren't allowed to become soldiers, and so on, but even with those groups there are many complications that the courts have grappled with. The only reason to oppose gay marriage is religious, and the countries that let religion interfere with human rights are more often than not backward and intolerant.

    If you want to advocate discrimination, go ahead, but, why only against gay people? Up until under 200 years ago, slavery was a norm for thousands of years and was defended by church leaders. The bible says, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear" (Eph. 6:5). And check out this great religious defense of slavery:

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/bledsoe-slavery.html

    How many of you who oppose gay marriage would have been Republicans in 1863?
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>