If you do not want liberal activist judges TELLING our legislature that they HAVE to pass laws allowing gay's to marry, you have to vote YES for this amendment.
The other side says nothing will happen if you vote NO, that we don't want to change the constitution.
Well, look around the country. The New Jersey Supreme Court just told their legislature they MUST make laws giving gays the same rights that heterosexual couples get.
Now, if you think that is the way it should be, then you will probably want to vote NO.
But if you think the legislature is supposed to make laws, if you believe the people YOU vote for in congress are supposed to represent you, you need to vote YES to stop liberal activist judges from taking away your rights and your power as a voter.
If you support marriage staying between a man and a women, the way it has been through all of time, then you need to vote YES.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Marriage amendment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
35 comments:
I sincerely hope the majority of people vote "yes." It's a terrible situation that it's come to the point where we should have to vote on something as basically decent as keeping marriage between a man and a woman!
Marriage is a religious option. It should stay there. Vote no to force religion out of civil contracts and partnerships.
Well said, rhyno!
How about if the legislature makes a law that says you may not own any fire arm, period?
That OK?
not the issue..not going to get off topic like you have to do all the time
It is TOTALLY the issue. What you call "activist judges" I call judges who understand and defend the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Rule of Law.
Judges have the responsibility, the DUTY to protect the rights of individuals REGARDLESS of what a majority of the people or their legislators may say.
Hey, wrong again, Jim. Judges have the responsibility of interpreting the law as written, not to suppose they think it contains some esoteric meaning of which only they can discern. The Constitution says I can bear arms. In most cases, it was legislation, not judges, who infringed upon that right. Judges and justices erred by not overturning such laws as unConstitutional, but at least there is some representation, and as such, the will of at least a portion of the people, to support the laws even existing, despite how wrong they are. There has not been such support for gay marriage in any state where it was put before the people. In fact, the average seems to be around at least 60-65% against gay marriage, or rather, supporting traditional marriage.
Rhyno,
Marriage has been a recognized legal union of man and woman (women, for a while, but women, not men) throughout history. It has never been anything else and is deserving of the special status it has always had. Gay unions are pale imitations. That's an objective observation that happens to be totally true.
gay marriage bans pass with an average of 71% support
gay marriage is not protected under the constitution or any law...there are many laws that say it is between a husband and wife, and only recently have liberals tried to bastardize that language...so for the vast majority of the country who wants to make sure it stays the way it has always been, we need these new laws and amendments.
The New Jersey Supreme Court did not give gays the right to marry. It said that gay couples could not be denied rights that heterosexual couples enjoyed. It left it to the legislature to figure out how to fix it. In other words the Court was protecting individual rights.
Marshall, the Constitution DOES NOT say you have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment states:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Judges, lawyers, and legal scholars have debated for over 200 years as to what that statement means. So apparently it's not so clear cut.
Should you be allowed to own a bazooka?
What if the NJ court (any court) ruled in favor of incestual marriage? Would you say this is ok Jim/Rhyno?
How about if they ruled in favor of polygamous marriage?
Are you consistent on the issue of judicial fiat in these matters?
Nobody has those rights poison. Therefore, nobody is being denied rights that other people have. Got it?
Jim,
It is extremely sad that the voters have to forcefully tell cretins like you that Judges do not write laws and have to prohibit judges from abusing their offices.
I dont think there should be gay marriage, in case you neglected to read marshall. Try again.
Or anyone else(PP, etc.) First we must read, then we must retort. Got the order...?
Oh, and since you tend to not read, or make erroneous assumptions, I'll help out with something. The second amendment does NOT say we can all be armed as we wish. It states that, in the context of a MILITIA, we are allowed to keep and bear arms. I have tutoring available at the HS for kids having reading and comprehension problems. Feel free to come on down.
I do have to admit, pcd gets the hypocrisy award, though. Judges defending peoples rights are abusing their offices, but Queen Bush can break any law or rule he wants and long he his hypnotizes everyone with his crap logic. PCD defends this at every opportunity. Pay no attention to the Queen behind the curtain, pcd. These arent the droids you were looking for.....
Judges have been setting precedents for centuries through their rulings. That is what interpreting the law is all about. The courts were intended to be the bulwark against legislative tyranny. Remember the Sedition Acts? It took a ruling of the courts to overturn that ghastly law. I suppose that would be called "judicial activism" today.
This amendment is setting a bad precedent. It is introducing discrimination into the constitution ... it is denying rights to some that have previously been guaranteed for all.
I hope you are right that the infamous second sentence of the amendment will not result in more legislative tyranny (I like the phrase). However, experience in at least four other states that have instituted similar amendment changes has found it not to be the case. Within a year, pre-exisiting benefits for couples as provided by business or other, were legally wiped out.
Rhyno,
Keep hitting your head against cement walls. Maybe the hypocrisy of what you say will sink in.
Rhyno,
You said,
"Marriage is a religious option."
I said,
"Marriage has been a recognized legal union of man and woman...throughout history."
How is what I said not a legitimate response to your statement? Check your own comprehension problems. I hope it's not your giving the tutoring.
Gotta get back to work now. Later.
That is, I hope it's not YOU giving the tutoring. (I need help with my typing, though.)
Once again, pcd gives the least intelligent and evasive answer. marshall, please read. I stated it was a religious option. Who cares what was or used to be considered anything? Its completely irrelevant to how it should be adjusted now. Keep that ignorant and prejudice BS in religion where the rest is.
Other: Well and succinctly said. Bravo!
Rhyno,
It's your ignorance of and prejudice toward religion that's the problem. This is the open minded thinking that goes on in your school? God help those kids. It is your own narrow mind that believes the support for traditional marriage is soley religious driven, if at all. It might align perfectly with my faith, but that doesn't mean it's only my faith that motivates my opinion, nor the opinion of others. You need to reign in your Christophobia. You stated it was a religious option. It is a legal option as well, and has been for ages. I had a judge preside over my wedding and guess what? When it was over, I was MARRIED, and the license said so. What the hell is your problem?
Jim,
I love the bazooka gambit. It's my favorite. What reasonable person, desiring the God-given right to defend himself, would carry a bazooka around in the normal course of his day? That example insults your own intelligence. Despite the ongoing debate over this issue, it is quite clear that the original intent referred to what a law abiding citizen had the right to do regarding carrying a weapon for protection. It had nothing to do with sport shooting or National Guards. That was put forth by lefty morons who think that criminals will abide by the law and not carry weapons. At the time that amendment was created, the militia was considered every law-abiding man who could wield a weapon. In fact, in the late 1700's, as I recall an article I once read, there was a mandate that every such citizen should own and train with the most state of the art weapon he could afford. The original colonies were adament about allowing for self-defense.
Other Side,
Bad precedent would be Roe v Wade. It's also bad interpretation and many lefty lawyers agree, though they may like the result. What's more troubling is the implication of your comment that somehow legislative tyranny is worse than judicial tyranny (a phrase I like). It's certainly not their job to insure that some tiny segment of society gets their whine attended to without some imput by the people. For them to override the majority due to their desires is certainly tyranny on their part. It's also certain that the ramifications of their "defending" the rights of gays will lead to the demand for similar support by other relationship variations, such as incestuous, polygamous, etc. Jim thinks no one has those rights. Well until Massachusetts, neither did gays. And the argument they used works every bit as well for those other groups.
It is ridiculous to think that because someone wants something, that the state, as a representative of the people of that state, should be required to grant that desire. The state has the duty and right to decide what it should license or permit by law. A 13yr old can't drive, no matter how well he can or how much it would benefit him and his family. He also can't drink, no matter how well he can handle that. A mature 13yr old has a better argument for his desires in those areas than does the gay community in theirs.
Another problem is the fact that granting this special right will impose on MY rights. As a business owner, I want to project a certain image. How would the law protect ME if I feel that being forced to hire gays, particularly those who dress like women, would infringe on my right to dictate how my employees should act or present themselves as representatives of my company? How would the law protect me if, like the Boy Scouts, I wanted to restrict membership or the granting of status to gays, due to my personally held beliefs, according to my rights of association? How would it protect the free speech rights of ministers and others who know that gay behavior is sinful or abnormal? I know it rankles the damned such as Rhyno, but hey, to live life according to one's religion is Constitutionally protected behavior.
The problem in New Jersey and Massachusetts, is that those judicial activists based their opinion on what the state constitutions DIDN'T say, when their job is to interpret what it DOES say. If there is no referrence, it doesn't mean they can decree something legal. It AIN'T their job to make law.
well done marshall
Dedanna – you wrote “…just to kick out the gays…”. What the?!
Other side – exactly what “rights” are you referring to? What “rights” do married couples have that gay couples don’t have?
she is talking about taxes and job benefits I am guessing....or just the right to be married
No, I'm asking who the hell cares in general.
There's nothing stopping anyone, according to the constitution, from getting married.
I'd like to know why we want to change that now.
I could care less if people marry a dog, so long as they keep it away from me.
Game, I don’t think she (OTHER SIDE) knows what she’s talking about.
A fringe benefit is something an employer pays for you in lieu of paying you more money. The federal tax rates and exemptions for a working married couple are the same as the rates for two people, each filing as single.
Regardless, rates and fringe benefits aren’t “rights”. It’s amazing what the left will attempt to define as rights (when it suits their purpose).
But even if dental insurance, or tax rates were rights, one could work to change the policies or laws instead of inventing a new definition of marriage.
No, what we’re really talking about here is an attempt to convince people that deviant behavior is normal, and further erode traditional values in this country. That’s the bottom line, nothing more, and nothing less.
dedanna,
You should care if someone wants to legalize marriage to a dog.
Blamin, do you want to marry a dog?
anonymous, are you proposing to me?
Send a picture, I prefer blond labs.
This is all that I will contribute.
http://electriccommentary.blogspot.com/2005/12/libertarian-argument-against-gay.html
Have fun screwing up the Wisconsin Constitution.
Whoa. Being gay is now deviant behavior? Ouch.
Women didn't always have the right to vote. Women couldn't wear pants, own property, hold a job, shall I continue? Just because that was the way things had always been, didn't mean it was the right way to be.
Change can be a good thing.
ME
I read your commentary, Paul, and I find it lacking. Your assumption of government tyranny or chicanery assumes that all government is suspect. This may seem to be the case often enough, but the point you forget is that in a representative republic, the government is the people. Their reps are in place due to the majority who voted them there. Thus, they speak for the majority which has every right to enact legislation that reflects that majority. They define and illustrate the nature and character of that majority. It is the opinion of that majority, that the traditional marriage arrangement is beneficial to the whole of society and that no other relationship arrangement carries the same benefits.
You also forget that amending constitutions, be they state or federal, is a regrettable move, but deemed necessary as long as judges and justices act like the amazing Kreskin and see things in those worthy documents that no one else has ever seen before. Were they to simply do their jobs, no one would consider changing any constitution.
anonymous said:
"Whoa. Being gay is now deviant behavior? Ouch."
No, not "now". It's always been deviant behavior. Since most people on earth have sex with members of the opposite gender, to do otherwise is to deviate from the norm, thus making homosexuality deviant behavior. It is not "normal" to be gay, since the norm is to be hetero. This is not subjective personal opinion, but clinical scientific fact. Whether the behavior is acceptable is subjective opinion, and they lose there as well based on every election where the issue is put before the voters. (At least as far as government sanctioning is concerned.)
"Women didn't always have the right to vote. Women couldn't wear pants, own property, hold a job, shall I continue?"
Please don't, as that argument has always been lame. Women are born that way and can't change. (Sex change operations are cosmetic and do not alter the basic chromosonal features of a particular sex.) Nor can blacks (except for Michael Jackson). The question of being born gay has NOT been settled, but the fact that they CAN change has been in every case where the subject truly desired it.
Post a Comment