Nothing to make your day than yet another reason to despise the Bush administration.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
1991 will do nicely.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'm just say I can tell my children I was there when America became a theocracy.
Assuming the church allows a heretic like me to have a family, that is....
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I think I'm a heretic too. Maybe I should douse myself in gasoline and light a Cohiba.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I think you people misinterpret what Bush is saying. He is not saying Gays shouldn't allowed to be married. He's merely saying he doesn't want it called MARRIAGE. That is the debate currently going on in Massachusetts, wether or not the legal joining of two people of the same sex is a union or a marriage.
Yes, it would be nice if we could all call it marriage, but he isn't saying gays can never be joined. So really, I don't think he's doing much of anything wrong by saying this. It's merely a technicality of words.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's NOT merely a technicality of wording: Married couples get better tax breaks, joined legal status (for emergency medical desisions and probate purposes) and most of all, the protction from idiotic and arcane laws that still stand in many states to discriminate aganst gays (sodomy and lewdness laws being the most common). There is also the question of personal pride i being married to whoever you love and not just "a couple" forever. I sure wouldnt accept any government telling me that I can't marry a woman I love so why would I accept them telling other americans that they can't be legally bonded to their partner?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
How about a scenario where homosexual couples can be legally joined, but not called a marriage? I've heard some people proposing that such a couple could receive the same rights as any heterosexual couple, yet it would not be called a marriage, but rather a civil union. They simply want the name "marriage" to be reserved for a man and a woman. Spousal rights are the last thing on their minds.
I mentioned this in the other thread. Same spousal rights, different name. What you think?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
exectly what "married" legal statuses (stati?) can gay couples not get? One can arrange for transfer of legal authority (in event of evergency,) distribution of property in event of death (a will), and probably just about anything else a lawyer will accept money for doing.
"Marriage penalty" = better tax break?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Tax status & (most important probably) insurance coverage.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Social acceptability.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Legal aknowledgment of their union. ...and the "marriage penalty" only applies in some tax brackets. In may ways married couples get preferred treatment: from buying a house to opening your own business: legally married couples are considered a better financial risk on loans etc.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Also, the fun and wonderful ability to firmly thumb one's nose at the Catholic church
Always a good way to start the day. ....and breakfast, of course.
.....oral sex is good too. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Social acceptability.
Slapping the title of "marriage" onto something isn't gonna effect THAT.
Marriage as a civil contract needs to be completely seperated from marriage as a religious concept. Makes things so much simpler that way.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I agree but the same "good moral" people that would deny gay marriages based on their bible basedmorality would deny any legal civil contract between same sex partners based on the same reasons no matter what the union was called. It's discrimination on religous grounds plain and simple.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Indeed. What's in a name? A marriage is a marriage. . . Or so I thought:
quote:Marriage as a civil contract needs to be completely seperated from marriage as a religious concept. Makes things so much simpler that way.
How? It seems to me you're saying that they should be two different things. Now, I'm pretty sure that if you get married it'll be a religious marriage, correct? So that, from your point of view, will be your basic definition of a marriage. Which means that anyone who doesn't have a religious marriage isn't 'really' married, surely? Well, that is, quite frankly, complete bollocks. I'm an atheist, my wife is an agnostic, and we got married in a civil ceremony. But you're implying that we're not 'really' married?
We got married because we love each other, and wanted to make the ultimate statement of that fact. It wasn't a religious statement, or a civil contract (although of course the latter remains a part of it, just not a very important part - to us, anyway), it was an act of love. I was even quite happy for Kate to keep her own surname, but in fact she wanted to change.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote: I think you people misinterpret what Bush is saying. He is not saying Gays shouldn't allowed to be married. He's merely saying he doesn't want it called MARRIAGE
What? Read that again. It doesn't make sense. They are NOT allowed to be married. Because your President is a superstitious christian fundamentalist. But hey, you guys voted for him.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
No, we didn't. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I agree but the same "good moral" people that would deny gay marriages based on their bible basedmorality would deny any legal civil contract between same sex partners based on the same reasons no matter what the union was called.
True, they would. But they shouldn't. That would be letting religious beliefs influence law, which is a no-no as a general rule.
Now, I'm pretty sure that if you get married it'll be a religious marriage, correct? So that, from your point of view, will be your basic definition of a marriage. Which means that anyone who doesn't have a religious marriage isn't 'really' married, surely?
*shrug*
My definition of marriage is where two people promise each other the usual stuff, i.e. operate as a unit, love, only you, death do us part, etc. Doesn't HAVE to be a religious ceremony, but the religious aspects add other degrees to it, as in making these promises not only to your spouse, but before all those present and before God. I wouldn't necessarily consider a civil marriage any less valid a marriage than a religious marriage, just like I wouldn't necessarily consider the word of an athiest to be less valid than that of a Christian. If and when I get married, it will be a religious ceremony, but it will also have the appropriate civil aspects as well.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Incidentally, many insurance carriers ALREADY provide insurance policies for same-sex couples. As do many employers.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry:
quote: I think you people misinterpret what Bush is saying. He is not saying Gays shouldn't allowed to be married. He's merely saying he doesn't want it called MARRIAGE
What? Read that again. It doesn't make sense. They are NOT allowed to be married. Because your President is a superstitious christian fundamentalist. But hey, you guys voted for him.
They are allowed to be married in some states. It's merely not called "Marriage". As pointed out, that is the debate before the Massachusetts court, wether or not it should legally be called marriage.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
But Bush is in hock to the religous right (if he wants to get re-elected anyway) and so is swayed by what the church tells him to do. Old man Pope is meddeling bigtime when his own priests are homosexual pedophiles? Talk about throwing stones.
The bad thing is: once Jon Paul II dies, the three main choices to replace him are far far less tolerant. 'Here ib America, we need lawmakers that actually adhire to the Constution.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: 'Here ib America, we need lawmakers that actually adhire to the Constution.
[sic]
Careful, that's a right-wing idea. You can't have those here.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, it's just a right-wing idea ignored, trampled on, and demolished at every convenient opportunity ... BY the right wing, and especially by the fascist assprick in the Oval Office at the moment (and I'm not talking about Dickweed Cheney, either), and just blamed on the left by every idiot and moron who worship the altar of whackos, fundementalists, extremists, and convicted felons (which, I think, pretty much lines up the conservative's representation in the media, especially of the AM-radio variety).
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"We got married because we love each other..."
LOVE?! What does love have to do with marriage? B)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Yeah, it's just a right-wing idea ignored, trampled on, and demolished at every convenient opportunity ... BY the right wing, and especially by the fascist assprick in the Oval Office at the moment (and I'm not talking about Dickweed Cheney, either), and just blamed on the left by every idiot and moron who worship the altar of whackos, fundementalists, extremists, and convicted felons (which, I think, pretty much lines up the conservative's representation in the media, especially of the AM-radio variety).
Don't hold back, tell us how you REALLY feel.
Snay's turning into a Rush Limbaugh Liberal. Oh, and the convicted felons? They overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Just FYI.
quote:Increasingly, groups under the Democratic umbrella have diametrically opposing views: a working-class Catholic Latino who opposes abortion; a black male activist who's against gays marrying; a Muslim who prefers there be no Bible group in public school. To coexist, all are forced to make pacts with the devil.
quote:A Notre Dame study found that 70% of Latinos identify themselves as Roman Catholic and 62% want religious organizations or the church to be more involved in shaping government policies. As issues involving gays, reproductive rights and the church/state relationship take center stage, Latinos have begun to jump the Democratic ship: 81% voted for Clinton in 1996, but only 62% supported Gore in 2000.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Honestly, you two, why don't you just fuck each other and get it over with? It's not like you have to get married - sorry, enter into a civil contract - afterwards. . . 8)
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Oh, and the convicted felons? They overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
First off, I'd like to see you post some sources to back up these numbers. Of course, you can't because like just about everything that sprouts from your idiot-infested brain, you pulled it out of your ass and dusted it off.
Second off, I'm surprised to see YOU happy that the Religious Right is gaining support. The seperation of church and state is fundemental to this nation's existance and how it is goverened and the efforts of the Wrong-Wing to turn this country into a bunch of Christian fundementalist bent on burning the wiccans, disemboweling the homos, exiling the non-whites, and silencing the dissenters would have, I thought, earned your wrath (if just from the "I'll join your religious sham when you pry my gun from my cold dead hands" mentality).
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: First off, I'd like to see you post some sources to back up these numbers. Of course, you can't because like just about everything that sprouts from your idiot-infested brain, you pulled it out of your ass and dusted it off.
quote:Of the illegal 452 ballots, 343 were cast by Democrats and 62 by Republicans.
quote:As many as 75% of illegal 'felon' votes cast in Florida were cast by registered Democrats.
Hundreds of felons cast votes illegally (12/1/00 - The Miami Herald)
STORY: "Since 1868, it has been illegal for felons to cast ballots in Florida. "At least 445 Florida felons voted illegally on Nov. 7, casting another cloud over a disputed presidential election already mired in legal challenges, a Herald investigation has found.
"The tainted votes -- found in a review of nearly half a million votes cast in 12 Florida counties -- provide evidence that the presidential race was influenced by thousands of ineligible voters. Nearly six million voters in Florida's 67 counties cast ballots.
Two Key Counties: "The majority of the illegal votes -- 330 -- were cast in Palm Beach and Duval counties, which decided not to participate in the statewide effort this year to purge felons, dead people and double registrants from the rolls ... most other counties -- including Miami-Dade and Broward" followed state law in deleting thousands of ineligible voters (felons and dead people) from the voter rolls.
The study included about 12% of all FL votes. 75% of the felons who voted were registered Democrats. If the trend is extrapolated statewide, over 3,750 Florida felons may have illegally voted for Al Gore. Palm Beach County refused to purge felons from its voter roles as required by Florida law. Additional Background: These are the people police were not permitting to vote. The police were not, as the NAACP has irresponsibly charged, keeping black voters from voting.
On election night, due to complaints of long lines at the polls, police asked voters to show some ID. If their name appeared on the felons' list, the police told them they could not vote -- which is the law in Florida.
Legal Challenges: "The lapses in Palm Beach and Duval counties could become significant if Democrats win any of their legal challenges and take the narrow lead away from Republican Texas Gov. George W. Bush. Nearly 75 percent of the illegal ballots discovered by The Herald were cast by registered Democrats.
"The votes could be seized upon by the Bush campaign to argue that a large number of illegal votes were probably cast for his opponent, outweighing the effect of any recount. ``It's a very powerful argument,'' said Robert Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University.
"Since 1868, it has been illegal for felons to cast ballots in Florida ... The provision has prompted a federal lawsuit by civil rights groups who allege it is discriminatory against blacks.
"The Herald found 62 robbers, 56 drug dealers, 45 killers, 16 rapists and seven kidnappers who cast ballots. At least two who voted are pictured on the state's online registry of sexual offenders.
"The Herald review included counties where voter lists could be obtained -- about 8 percent of the 5.9 million votes cast on Nov. 7. It encompassed all votes cast in Palm Beach and Pasco counties, most votes cast in Duval County, and only absentee votes in Miami-Dade, Broward, Lee, Leon, Hillsborough, Clay and the Panhandle counties of Escambia, Okaloosa and Bay.
"To find felony voters, The Herald compared a list of voters in those counties with a Department of Corrections database listing felons who had served at least a year in prison. If the pattern found in the study is the same statewide, more than 5,000 felons likely cast illegal ballots."
(Excerpted from the Miami Times story 12/1/00 by Times reporters David Kidwell, Phil Long, and Geoff Dougherty.)
TalkLeft.com even uses the fact to make a case to push to allow felons to vote: (That's right, dolt-boy, it's a Left-Wing site saying this)
quote:Our work suggests that if [Florida's] 613,000 former felons had been permitted to vote � and even if you factor in a far-lower-than-expected turnout rate than the general population � Al Gore would have defeated George W. Bush by about 60,000 votes and would have been elected president. What's more, if all U.S. felons � in and out of prison � had been allowed to vote, Gore might have carried the nation by more than 1 million votes.
That sharp pain? That's my facts kicking your attitude in the crotch.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Which makes a case for FLORIDA.
Florida, Rob, you may have noticed, is not the rest of the US. Ooooh. That's the sound you're making when your foot impacts my steel crotch-protector. Did you fracture your big toe? Why, yes you did. And do you know why you did? Because you're a silly librarian with delusions of grandeur.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I'm watching.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay, I need to point out a problem w/ the use of the phrase "wrong wing". One would think that, "wrong" being the opposite of "right", "wrong wing" would be the opposite of "right wing". Which makes the "wrong wing" the "left wing". Which I don't think was the intention.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
the efforts of the Wrong-Wing to turn this country into a bunch of Christian fundementalist bent on burning the wiccans, disemboweling the homos, exiling the non-whites, and silencing the dissenters
I defy you to show any remotely rational reason to believe that any significant part of this country, irrelevant of party, supports even one of those goals. Oh, and Snay? Amusing as it is to watch you two go at each other using bad physical analogies for your arguments like a couple of nine-year-olds, I suggest you shut up. Rob just pierced your argument's spleen with an ice pick, and your counter was as pointless as a basketball. Or something equally pointless. Like this thread may soon become. HA!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Actually, Omega, Rob decided to use Florida as an example of that which is typical across the nation. As the average resident of Florida can't trace a straight line on a ballot, I hardly think that to be the case. Since those convicted of felonies cannot vote in Florida (one of ten or so states which completely disenfranchise felons) after they have served their time, all Rob has made the case for is that the incompetent Jeb Bush and his staff of cronies haven't done enough to provide for legal elections (gosh, what a surprise). Perhaps because they want to pander for illegal votes themselves. Gosh.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up. There was a voting contestion in Florida?
When was this?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
As the average resident of Florida can't trace a straight line on a ballot
Who originally claimed this, anyhow? I'm curious. Who originated the idea that the Florida ballots were confusing? But that's beside the point.
all Rob has made the case for is that the incompetent Jeb Bush and his staff of cronies haven't done enough to provide for legal elections
Disenfranchisement of felons, just like imprisonment of felons, is perfectly legal. But that is similarly beside the point.
Perhaps because they want to pander for illegal votes themselves.
That deserves a good hearty BUH? Apparently they're FAILING, if the majority of voting felons vote Democrat. Also beside the point. Nice attempt to change the subject, though.
Rob provided you with an example of a state where the overwhelming majority of felons vote for Democrats. While it's possible that Florida is unique in this regard, there is no apparent reason to believe that that state is not representative of the entire country in this matter. SO, unless you can provide some reason to believe that Florida felons are far more likely to vote for Democrats than felons from, say, Nevada...?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: exiling the non-whites, and silencing the dissenters
I defy you to show any remotely rational reason to believe that any significant part of this country, irrelevant of party, supports even one of those goals.
A bestseller, I believe. Certainly fits under "exiling the non-whites, and silencing the dissenters" and while to my knowledge there's no chapter entitled "Disemboweling Homos," there's so much of that between the lines that the book won't close properly.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I would point out that not all best-selling books are believed by those who buy them. They're bought because of name recognition, not for content. "Living History", for a random example. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Omega: Show me even one example of that. Tom: OK, here! Omega: Yes, but that's just one example. . .
8)
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
No.
Me: Give me evidence of X. Tom: Here's something that could be evidence of X. Me: Yes, but it isn't necessarily.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up. There was a voting contestion in Florida?
When was this?
I live in Broward county. There are no voting discrepancies here. These are'nt the droids you're looking for.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Move along?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:In an effort to keep the polls open past the closing time mandated by statute, Plaintiffs the Gore-Lieberman Campaign, William L. (Lacy) Clay's Campaign, and the Missouri State Democratic Committee filed a lawsuit in St. Louis City Circuit Court in which the lead Plaintiff (Robert D. Odom) was dead. The Plaintiffs then stated that the actual lead Plaintiff was Robert M. Odom. The Plaintiffs claimed that Robert M. Odom was not allowed to vote. However, Mr. Odom in fact had voted and had no trouble voting. As a result of the lawsuit and the representations made by the lead Plaintiff and witnesses, the St. Louis City Circuit Court issued an Order keeping the polls open in St. Louis City past the closing time mandated by statute. The information suggests that the lawsuit was not filed as a result of problems that occurred on election day, but instead was filed as a result of a plan conceived before election day. At about the same time that the court issued the Order, St. Louis City residents were receiving pre-recorded telephone messages from Rev. Jesse Jackson telling them they could vote late, and half an hour later Vice President Al Gore was telling KMOX radio listeners that the polls were still open. The purpose of these communications was to encourage persons not eligible to vote because of their failure to get to the polls on time to nonetheless go to the polls and vote.
I should also point out, for my marginally-literate colleague, that the TalkLeft article included a bit about non-Floridian felons, and made a case for a nationwide change.
It is believed that as many as 11% of the voters in Maryland in 1996 were non-citizens. Maybe now we know why.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Interesting report. Now, I could say something about how the Bluntmeister, a Republican, seemed to concentrate mainly on past voting fraud committed by Democrats in his litle potted history of the past century, but I won't. 8)
Now, what have we here? Not a lot, really. The Gore-Lieberman campaign in conjunction with a local Congressional candidate petitioned to extend voting hours, which isn't actually illegal. Since then, their reasons for doing so have been a bit confused and rather varied (now what does that remind us of?). Meanwhile, lots of felons voted, which they're not allowed to to, and some even obtained court orders to vote, which they're not allowed to do either. These two facts are not coterminous. Nor does the fact that among the given reasons for wanting court orders were these statements:-
"I want a Dem(ocratic) president."
"For the democratic party."
"Have been working for the NAACP, wasn't getting off in time."
That's three reasons out of twenty-eight listed, and three hundred and fifty-seven reviewed, and even the last one is dubious only in that I can't imagine many Republicans being members of the NAACP.
Meanwhile, in Wisconsin. . .
quote:It's impossible to know who all the illegal voters supported - or even whether they made a selection for president on their ballots.
Sure, there's a lot of stuff about demographics, and a research study that was carried out, and ignorance about the voting laws, but hey, Earth to librarians, ignorance is not a crime. It's not always an excuse either, but it doesn't point to some great plot by the Democratic Party and/or the NAACP to get felons to vote, or even establish that most felons vote Democrat.
After all, a recent poll established that 'most Americans' believe most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. You going to agree with that?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Not to distract us from the extremely important and entirely relevant discussion of the political bias of felons (herring? nah, I'm trying to quit), but could someone who is opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage please explain to me why this is a bad idea? I mean like I'm actually curious because I can't see any way that this could be harming anyone or anything in any way, but that could be because I live in California (<50 south of Frisco.) I mean without launching into religious reasons, because I mean like church and state, ya dig? Thanks.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Being outside of the states, I have to ask one question. What does the potential bias of convicted felons, one way or another have anything to do with whether they should vote or not? i.e. Who cares?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I don't think anyone here said the two subjects were related. Of course, various politicians might consider it very important, seeing as it might affect their chances of being elected. Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Here's what I don't get: This happens all the time in the US. Not a congressional or school board or whatever election goes by without somebody whining about people voting who shouldn't be voting, or people being kept from voting who should be voting, etc. etc.
For all I know, voting irregularities might happen up here in Canada, too. But we never, ever, hear anyone whining about it. Elections are fought, if they're close they're recounted, and then we all shut up and deal. So, sure, maybe there are awful errors all the time up here and the Natural Law Party actually won the last federal election, and the only difference between Canada and the US is that we don't have such a keen and all-round brilliant media/political machine scrutinizing these things. But my hunch is that we're holding fair elections and a decent job is being done at ensuring those who can and wish to vote do.
So how the hell can you people have so much trouble carrying out a bloody election? Every other industrial democracy seems to get by just fine without any of this nonsense. Something to do with loving freedom and hating terrah more than everyone else, or what?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Maybe a poor education system has something to do with it, Tom.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
In the US's case, it's because the losers just can't deal with it. The rest of us are quite happy to let the matter drop, but, you see, every time they complain about how they don't like something about Bush, they HAVE to bring it up again. Because they can't take losing.
You don't hear the "right" (outside of incidents such as the rebuttal testimony given above), talking about things like how the Democrats tried to steal the elections in various ways, how the FLSC breached protocol by referring a case to itself (without legal precedent), the attempts at disqualifying military votes (because the mulitary votes overwhelmingly Republican), and the declaration of a winner in FL hours before the polls closed, even though those claims are just as valid as any the Bush-bashers can dream up.
Because despite the name of their activist website, they're simply unable to "moveon."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"You don't hear the 'right' (outside of incidents such as the rebuttal testimony given above), talking about things like how the Democrats tried to steal the elections in various ways..."
Um... That's because they got what they wanted. When was the last time you saw someone win something, and then proceed to complain about the manner in which they won it?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)