The Iraq war, bush's war, is a disaster.
Children and babies are being murdered in cold blood by US Marines.
Only 40 percent now support the war, and now it is all a matter of how to get the hell out of there with a tiny amount of face saving.
Jobs are being outsourced to China and India by the millions.
45 million Americans have no access to health care.
The dollar is weaking, and China has our economy by the short hairs.
America is hated now more globally that at any time in our history.
bush's approval rating is now 30 percent, as low as it gets for any modern American president.
If he ran today, your local dogcatcher could beat him.

And what is our disgusting leader's top prioirity????
Denying civil rights to a small, hated minority group who only want equal rights, marriage rights, to legally cement their love relationships.

Folks, this is EVIL!

Certainly not nearly as EVIL or DANGEROUS as your abject Stupidity TQ! You are without doube a perfect case of someone, who lacks the intellect to know when to STFU, for once in your life.

My friend, I could not agree more..... Whaty the hell are we - as real Americans- going to do to rid our country of all of these evil beings in charge?? The white house occupant being a small part of the equation- but certainly a more than willing accomplice to all of the Satanic activity being perpetrated under the guise of bringing Democracy to the rest of the world....

Gag Me !

P. Rogers ( Lake Elsinore, Calif)

Interesting that your are now resorting to PERSONAL attacks.
Too much TRUTH for you?
Why not stick to DEBATING THE TOPICS, and not personal attacks, OK, Sir Jonh?
I would REPORT YOU, but OOOOPPS, you are a moderator. How did that happen?

Election year pandering on the part of the Bush Administration. Annoying, but hardly what I would call Evil Personified.

Welcome aboard to the Malay P Rogers of near Sun City.

I think voting gags you more than evil beings, given this idiom of rhetorical hysteria failures to resonate to REAL AMERICANS thus far. Though, hopes are high this time around maybe?

Yet, I ponder what you meant in saying what are we going to DO TO GET RID OF THESE EVIL (elected) BEINGS IN CHARGE.

Especially, since you did not mention voting them out. I must presume you seek that end by other means. Perchance are you considering an alternative of say Genocide, or conceivably Jihad maybe? Or maybe you are into both already?

Are you a cousin of TQ’s, my over jealous callyfonicator of rhetorical over vexations and exaggeration?


Bellatoris Mores
Munus semper primus perficiam
Numquam cladem accipiam
Numquam signa deseram

That is all!

Again welcome to the REAL SUN CITY

And the large part being that pesky majority of the voters. No worries though, Constitutional amendments require 2/3rds. MARK




That, OR, he actually and honestly believes that is what is best for the country. Ive not seen anything to suggest he doesnt. MARK

Easy for a rich, straiht, white boy to say, who isn't a target of the scapegoating. TYPICAL.

Let me put it another way, PRIVELEDGED FIRST CLASS CITIZEN BOY:
Suppose your president was trying to pass a constitutional amendment saying the right to go to college was only for BLACK PEOPLE. Would you call that EVIL? This disgusting piece of excrement called president is going out of his way to codify denial of basic civil rights to a class of Americans citizens. For what? The rile up his hate group base.

Ya know what? It is gonna backfire big time. Most Americans care about REAL issues: economy, war, health care, etc. and now totally see through this ruse.

Oh, I don't question that he is actually against gay marriage. But he isn't dumb either. He brings it up at strategically important times to rally his base.



You are not a second class citizen. You are not being denied a right that anybody else has. There is no right to marriage. There is no right to college, either. I would oppose laws that regulate against white people going to college, just like I oppose policies that regulate marriage to bar homosexuals. It isn't a right, however. The only rights we have as citizens are laid out in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution.

If there was a right to college, that would mean the government would have to pay for anybody who wanted to go to college to go, and selecting applicants based on merit would be illegal.

If there was a right to marrage, every state in the union would be forced to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. This is tyranny. It is just as tyrannical for Washington to force the citizenry of Texas to issue marriage licenses against their will as it is for Washington to keep the citizenry of Massachusetts from doing so against theirs.

Not sure how you mean it, Ben. Do not straight adults have the right or the privilege to marry the opposite gender? Is that not a right or privilege that gays and lesbians don't have, to marry a same-gendered person?

In this case, how thin or obscure is the line, between a right and a privilege, in realistic practice? I'd say that gays are being denied the same practices (although you could say they're not exactly the same practice).

The governor of Massachussetts, Mr. Romney, is really pushing for a constit. amendment to forbid states to legalize gay marriages (the GMA). But it's timed for election time, so the homophobes can vote out of office those legislators who have the courage to say how silly such an amendment is.

If it weren't so serious, some of this would be funny.

The right wing is using hatred of gays exactly the way the Nazis used hatred of Jews. For political gain and control of the ignorant masses.

Fit, marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman. This union is for the purpose of starting a family. The family has been the backbone of society since day one. Gays cannot procreate and thus cannot have a family. I, as most people, would not be against civil unions for gays. But "marriage" no. I am not a homophobe as some lesser intellects here believe. And actually Fit I respect you. Not for your sexuality but for the way you present your positions in a level headed non emotional way. I have had many gay friends over time and my next door neighbor is gay. Does the name Jim Corti ring a bell? We worked at the same place in the early 80's in LA before he became and aids activist. What I detest are the flaming emotional twits like TQ. If TQ wasn't gay I would still detest him. He and his ilk are what is perpetuating the ill feelings toward the gay community.

God bless my friend.

Now that is funny TQ, if we were real Right wing as say Islamic fundamentalist your married would be a 10 foot drop on 8 foot rope would it not.

Enough already, move to Canada or Mass. There you can marry whom want and then you can quit whinning about a lost cause for already 45 states have laws that stand against this issue that you stand for. It is that simple right now. It an't going to happen even if the Democrats win it all.

There is not a remote chance they is going to be any constitional admendment. The issue is a state issue legally and there are places where you can marry, Canada and Mass. It is not likely ever to be acceptable in Georgia so get over it and move already.

Though personally I could care less about anti gay rights as much as pro gay rights. They are inconsequential to me as an issue as abortion. If the majority buy into it, I have no problem joining in. Yet, that is not remotely the reality you face is it? Your choice for your life is move to state that allows it and get it over with.

I say either Get the votes in the state you reside or move and accept the reality that your mouth will NOT get you anything politically. Like the Eurpoeans trying affect the last election, they help get Bush get elected much more than they did not.

Your constant whinning about this does nothing, but consolidate those who would oppose and shows those who are with you, how currently hopeless it is this liklihood of there being a Unverisal right for Gay marriage except in a few states for likely your life and maybe a generation or two more.

That is all!

I have always said it will take 50 to 100 years. But it will happen. And people who are against it, will be looked upon with the same kind of disdain as we now look at slaveholders. But, believe it or not, it is people like me, who will not shut up, who are making it possible for this to happen in 50 or 100 years, for the future gay children of America to grow up as equals, not second class citizens ...
We shall overcome!



And US Trader, I am moving to Thailand, and I am personally never going to marry anyone, of any gender, in any country (there is no gay marriage in Thailand either). For me, it is all about those future gay children feeling like they are first class citizens with the same rights as everyone else.

I really don't see what the big deal is about gay marriage....if they want to get married, whats the big dead, it should be there descision....Its not hurting anyone, if they want their love to be solidified, thats their love, we as a people of a nation, should not be able to decide whether or not they can solidify commitment to eachother.

GOD'S SPEED!!

Thanks, UST, why did you change your mind on the issue? Was it my wonderful debating skills?

Actually TQ your mistaken in memory, if I understood you correctly, in thinking I was ever a homophobe or even an Islamophobe. I have never been either.

I, like most people, are a lot more free thinking and are as complexly as liberal or moderate or conservative minded than given credit by the extremes on issues.

One can be doggedly patriotic and at the same-time self valued in a social consciousness based on fairness honesty and liberty while being a loving capitalist yet devotedly law abiding constitutionalist you know?

Let me disagree. bush is not evil. Don't over-estimate him(correct English ?). He's just a regular moron.

Uncle Teddy said it best:



You guys LOST! Ha ha ha!

Actually TQ, you guys lost, as this issue, in the Senate, was well know to be DOA and nothing more than a political ploy to seed in the voters by placing one party against gay marriage and the other for it.

Just as the final role call vote of 49 to 48 showed. Seven Republicans voted against including two -- Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg -- who supported it in 2004.

Specter said he opposes same-sex marriage but would vote against the measure because it tramples on states' rights.

Two Democrats, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, voted for the gay-marriage ban.

The issue legally has always been a states rights issue and as was exampled in Alabama passing today of a Constitutional amendment ensuring that state, as has 16 now 17 other states, will not be required to recognize another states lawful union of gays.

Already each of the 45 states who currently have laws barring Gay marriage will or have started this “state constitutional” process, as it is based on the court rulings, whereby judges threw out the will of the voter in referendums voted on by overwhelming majorities in opposition to gay marriage.

Sadly, but practically, in Political speak, the issue was used as a political football kicked to one side to show which side the majority of voters should look to in viewing which party actaully oppose gay marriage.

As with immigration exampled in San Diego congressional vote proved yesterday, this has the possiblity of becoming a chain hanging over those that are for gay marriage and amenesty or those that are against it.

An issue which may be the local voters tipping scale uncalculated by the anti-bush and pro-Bush crowd who still do not get the fact that Congressional politics are exclusively local in temperment and not neccessarily tied to issues of national debate beyond how important that issue is to the local voter. Where, as is well known, the importance of issues vary as much as the people of one region from another.

That is all!

TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA!

How foolish.
You think the majority of Americans care about this issue compared to IRAQ, HEALTH CARE, and the ECONOMY!
Americans have wise up, the repubba party is going down.

No, as I said, only if the local community in which it becomes a political issue, by activist on either side, make it, then, yes, the majority in that community will weight it as but one measure of how they vote and the majority will be against it.

To think otherwise is to foolishly assume that people, though mostly amblivent to this issue, if pressed hard, will vote in majority against it in the vast number of America's communities and inner subcommunities where absolute social liberal secularism is a large minority.

First off, if the vote is on the economy, once people focus on the facts, that is not a issue that is anti-Republican nor pro Democrat locally.

Iraq, is wild card, yet, on a local level where incumbents win 90% of the time it may not be as large an issue to some as some would believed.

In the Cunningham district election, though much of the press said in Polls that Iraq was a big issue, immigration turned the tied for the Republican, who was behind or even in the polls in weeks just before the election but won by 5%

I know that those are issues The Democrats assume are local issues, but like the Democrats demonizing of the prescription drug program, as time as passed and real people have seen the savings, this issue of Democratic health care demonization has become abscured as it now silent mantra of Culture of corruption, as one can hear at the drug counter, among the elderly, if they would just straw poll it.

Sometimes shouting instead of persuading, not those that are on your side, but those that oppose you, only serves to harden their resolve in opposition you know.

If the Democrats do not take back both houses of Congress in this election, I thing it is the Democrats who are foolishly out touch.

Yet we will see, I expect, as is customary historically in mid ternm seciond term of majoritry, they should do well but I would count my Polisi/ Reid eggs in confidence just yet.

I would say that a state issued marriage license is a privelage, not a right. It is a privelage I personally feel should be given to homosexual couples, but regardless, a privelage, not a right. Nobody, hetero or homosexual, has a RIGHT to recieve a state issued marriage license. I think the idea of a constitutional ban on gay marriage is one of the silliest things I have ever heard of and I am glad it was defeated in the Senate.

Personally I feel that whom to issue marriage licenses to is an issue, that, in terms of legal authority, should be left up to each individual state to decide. Most think of this as simply allowing states such as Texas to bar gay marriage indefinitely, but I would remind them that if state sovereignty was upheld on this matter, California and Massachusetts would currently have legal gay marriages.

QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 5 2006, 02:11 PM)

Easy for a rich, straiht, white boy to say, who isn't a target of the scapegoating. TYPICAL.

LOL! Who is doing the scapegoating?

QUOTE

Let me put it another way, PRIVELEDGED FIRST CLASS CITIZEN BOY:
Suppose your president was trying to pass a constitutional amendment saying the right to go to college was only for BLACK PEOPLE. Would you call that EVIL? This disgusting piece of excrement called president is going out of his way to codify denial of basic civil rights to a class of Americans citizens. For what? The rile up his hate group base

.

Suppose you drop the drama, comparing Gay demands to segregation civil rights is ridiculous.

No, it is not ridiculous.
Gays are in a civil rights stuggle, simple as that, and we will win like all the other civil rights stuggles, its just going to take a lot of time because the hatred and bigotry is so pervasive and strong.
Every single person who supports the bush proposed amendment is a BIGOT.

It is in every way ridiculous.

Homosexuals are not faced with nearly the kind of adversity that Afro-Americans were in their attempt to recieve state issue marriage license.

When I see gay protestors being beaten by police in large numbers, being hosed down by firemen in large numbers, being attacked by dogs in large numbers, come on back. Until then, it is false and frankly offensive.

Now TQ, you know you have one box fits all names for anyone who disagrees you’re position on any topic.

pro war, baby killing war monger neocon;

anti-illegal immigration, racist, fascist

non-acceptance of the gay lifestyle, bigoted, fascist

Anti-liberal, Neocon fascist Nazi...the list is endless.

Could it be a possible in a reasonable position of sincerity that a person does not have be either a racist and or a bigot to be against gay rights or even against gay themselves?

Is possible to be against something out of a sincere conviction and not for some evil vile intended purpose?

Is it possible, as is an individuals right, to have ones own self determined view, far removed in purpose or intent from these one box fits all name calling so bantered about these days, while people on different sides of issues, talk past, not to, those that oppose their views on issues of war, morality, justice and fairness?



Bellatoris Mores
Munus semper primus perficiam
Numquam cladem accipiam a
Numquam signa deseram

That is all!

No more possible than for a non-bigot to be against equal rights for blacks. By definition, such a person is a vile bigot.

The issue of racial civil rights was not one of a single right or mere two or three rights being denied,all centered around gay's right to marriage, as is the argument for gay rights.

It was an issue about the inhumanity of slavery, were men where property and even once freed where denied ALL RIGHTS of Free citizenship. Yes, surely denied based on bigotry for sure, but not exclusively nor absolutely of even being dominate the reason. But instead as much based on culturally established comforts zones exampled in a sense of unwillingness to change and assimilate into this new paradigm that took time as all major cultural changes do.

In America, Bigotry and vileness always shines dim against the ever brightening lights of dominate human goodness, overwhelming acts in a sense of fairness and honesty, demurred, often slowly, in perspectives towards the brightness of Human truths for fair and equitable treatment.

That is all!




TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA!

QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 7 2006, 03:15 PM)

No, it is not ridiculous.
Gays are in a civil rights stuggle, simple as that, and we will win like all the other civil rights stuggles, its just going to take a lot of time because the hatred and bigotry is so pervasive and strong.
Every single person who supports the bush proposed amendment is a BIGOT.

Actually, yes it is ridiculous, except to the narcissistic, self-absorbed drama maven such as you. I guess the reason is you view the whole world thru the filter of your sexuality and can't imagine anyone thinking differently without malevolent motives.

It is hilarious for you to play the bigot card, when you are such a top notch example of it, i.e.

Easy for a rich, straiht, white boy to say, who isn't a target of the scapegoating. TYPICAL.

It is funny how some bigotry and perjudice is perfectly exceptable to certain segments of the population.

Ted Kennedy agrees with me. Is he also a narcissistic, self-absorbed drama maven?

I'm also not rich, btw. I'm not sure where that came from. I'm middle class.

May I try to summarize at this point in the thread? Most of us, except for ThaiQuila, would not be greatly offended if gay couples were accorded some kind of legal privilege such as "civil unions." It's the "matrimony" word that's a stickler here, because the Churches have called it holy matrimony, as if God automatically blesses whatever the State calls matrimony. Offhand I can't think of any weddings in the Old Testament.

Indeed, the days of the civil rights demonstrators being attacked by vicious dogs and fire hoses is gone, Thank God. Gays are still persecuted to a smaller degree.

Yes, some of the votes in favor of the GMA were motivated by bigotry, but most of them were posturing for re-election and trying to trap the ones who voted against the act.

Somebody said the purpose of matrimony is to make children (sounds like a Catholic position). Then, shall we invalidate all childless straight marriages? How 'bout if we just marry them during the 8th month of their first pregnancy, when they can't even get a late term abortion?

Fit', perhaps we can rely on you to give us some logic and sanity here: certainly not from our more 'level headed' one. Just what are homosexuals missing out with regards to civil unions? Is there some loss of estate grants, liberties, or any other thing that married couples enjoy, other than an "official" status?

QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 7 2006, 10:27 PM)

Ted Kennedy agrees with me. Is he also a narcissistic, self-absorbed drama maven?

So please to learn Kennedy agrees with you, I just can't tell you. I am almost giddy.

John I think I would be happy if the government got out of the 'marriage' business entirely and had zero say in who was married or not. If you can find a church that will marry you, go for it. It doesn't matter if you are homo/hetro.

JL, you clearly haven't followed my posts.
I have always said CIVIL UNIONS that include 100 percent of all the rights of marriage, but not called marriage, are OK by me! That of course includes FEDERAL immigration rights and taxation rights as well!
The evil supporters of the hate amendment were pushing to ban civil unions too! No, I am not a shameless Gay Uncle Tom like some I won't name!

LOL perjudice....LOL

I like the idea that TQ has advanced before. Make all state issued marriages, hetero or homosexual, "Civil Unions" and leave "Marriage" a matter of personal religion/custom/et cetera.

Yes, of course, but it is too logical to be adopted. We have a great country, but a stupid people and an ineffective government.