Judicial Nominations

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

But liberal judges dominating the Supreme Court are tolerable? It's arguable that we lost our right to fair judges long ago--and inarguable, if you live in Colorado.

Not to mention that despite the claims of their detractors, I have yet to see any evidence that these judges are "extreme, far-right radicals".

Where did i say that liberal judges dominating the Supreme Court were tolerable? Heavily biased judges of any stripe are not and don't just assume that I am OK with the other side because I disagree with you.

First, I was referring to the Massechussettes State constitution--which is an explicity Christian document.

Second, nobody's trying to "impose one religion upon you"--but the Constitution also doesn't grant the right to never, ever hear the word "God".

1) Witholding a demand for proof on the Christian document, what does that have to do with anything? This isn't 1800, we are a diverse population with diverse religions. A constitution should not be considered to be a religious document and be permitted to be affiliated with the state, as the state should be secular. If this is the case, then it needs to be changed.

2) Yes, you are trying to impose religion on someone by simply saying "You gays cannot marry because God says so". If a judge is going to make decisions based on the Bible, they do not deserve to be a judge at all.

The filibuster isn't being eliminated (not to mention, this 'right' isn't anywhere in our Constitution). The Senate will be allowed to vote them down on one subject.

We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. We are a nation instituted to give power to the majority while protecting the right of the minority. That goes back to the formation of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which give equal voice to all states in the Senate and greater voice to larger states in the House of Representatives. The Fillibuster is a tool to preserve that, and it seems the Republicans are trying pretty darn hard to get rid of it.

[Raistlin]

But liberal judges dominating the Supreme Court are tolerable? It's arguable that we lost our right to fair judges long ago--and inarguable, if you live in Colorado.

huh?

Second, nobody's trying to "impose one religion upon you"--but the Constitution also doesn't grant the right to never, ever hear the word "God".

This I agree with whole-heartedly.

The filibuster isn't being eliminated (not to mention, this 'right' isn't anywhere in our Constitution). The Senate will be allowed to vote them down on one subject.

Allowing this would effectively eliminate fillibusters. If the majority party is able to call a majority vote to eliminate each particular fillibuster, how could a minority party ever again fillibuster?

[DarkLadyNyara]

Like that guy who said it's impossible to govern a nation without God and the Bible (Washington)?

Please tell me where he said that.
Oh, and btw- Article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli, (unanimously ratified by the senate, and signed by John Adams)- The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

[Raistlin]

Washington may have very well said that(I don't know), but that doesn't make it right. Washington didn't write the Constitution.

[The Redneck]

Please tell me where he said that.

That would be here. Other notations on Washington's faith can be found here.

1) Witholding a demand for proof on the Christian document,

Just in case, here's a copy of it, with such quotes as "We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence," and "and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design."

This isn't 1800, we are a diverse population with diverse religions.

So now that it isn't 1800 we need to scrap all our founding documents and write up some new ones?

what does that have to do with anything?

It has to do with the fact that such a document does not, anywhere in it, contain the right to homosexual marriage.

2) Yes, you are trying to impose religion on someone by simply saying "You gays cannot marry because God says so".

False. Homosexuals can marry--we know, because many of them, when they decide to be homosexual, leave their wives or husbands. On the other hand, saying "this homosexual couple is a legitimate marriage now, and if you pay taxes, buy insurance, get loans, or do business in any way you have to acknowledge it as such" is an attempt to impose non-religion on someone.

We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. We are a nation instituted to give power to the majority while protecting the right of the minority. That goes back to the formation of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which give equal voice to all states in the Senate and greater voice to larger states in the House of Representatives. The Fillibuster is a tool to preserve that, and it seems the Republicans are trying pretty darn hard to get rid of it.

We are not, however, a nation instituted to let the minority make the decisions--or else we wouldn't bother with voting at all.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

So now that it isn't 1800 we need to scrap all our founding documents and write up some new ones?

No, but we need to revise them so people aren't beholden to certain things in them. Kind of like how we revised them to stop slavery.

False. Homosexuals can marry--we know, because many of them, when they decide to be homosexual, leave their wives or husbands. On the other hand, saying "this homosexual couple is a legitimate marriage now, and if you pay taxes, buy insurance, get loans, or do business in any way you have to acknowledge it as such" is an attempt to impose non-religion on someone.

Since I'm sure you're smart enough to know what I meant, I'll assume you're being flippant. In any case I fail to see how a state mandate allowing two people who have absolutely no bearing on your life is forcing non-religion on you. As the state has no involvement in your own personal religion, their granting of marriage is nothing but a civil thing granting rights to the minority that really don't do anything to you.

We are not, however, a nation instituted to let the minority make the decisions--or else we wouldn't bother with voting at all.

Obviously. However, as I said, we are to preserve the right of the minority. That's why we have laws protecting minorities, because at some point or another they were oppressed or denied rights. This is the same thing, homosexuals are not given a right that they deserve, a right that will have absolutely no bearing on the rights of the majority, and a right we, as a government, have no right to deny them.

[edczxcvbnm]

We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. We are a nation instituted to give power to the majority while protecting the right of the minority. That goes back to the formation of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which give equal voice to all states in the Senate and greater voice to larger states in the House of Representatives. The Fillibuster is a tool to preserve that, and it seems the Republicans are trying pretty darn hard to get rid of it.

We are not, however, a nation instituted to let the minority make the decisions--or else we wouldn't bother with voting at all.

We do let the minority make decisions or else we wouldn't have the electoral college and everything would be done on the popular vote.

[DarkLadyNyara]

That would be here.

I notice that they describe the quote as "questionable", and say it has never been confirmed.

Since I'm sure you're smart enough to know what I meant, I'll assume you're being flippant. In any case I fail to see how a state mandate allowing two people who have absolutely no bearing on your life is forcing non-religion on you. As the state has no involvement in your own personal religion, their granting of marriage is nothing but a civil thing granting rights to the minority that really don't do anything to you.

Precisely. If your religion/ marriage is so fragile that allowing a couple that you happen to oppose get married will destroy it, well, then, whose fault is that?

[Raistlin]

False. Homosexuals can marry--we know, because many of them, when they decide to be homosexual, leave their wives or husbands. On the other hand, saying "this homosexual couple is a legitimate marriage now, and if you pay taxes, buy insurance, get loans, or do business in any way you have to acknowledge it as such" is an attempt to impose non-religion on someone.

Oh horrors! We're trying to impose tolerance on someone, instead of staying bound to fundamentalist dogma!

[Gnostic Yevon]

False. Homosexuals can marry--we know, because many of them, when they decide to be homosexual, leave their wives or husbands. On the other hand, saying "this homosexual couple is a legitimate marriage now, and if you pay taxes, buy insurance, get loans, or do business in any way you have to acknowledge it as such" is an attempt to impose non-religion on someone.

Oh horrors! We're trying to impose tolerance on someone, instead of staying bound to fundamentalist dogma!

I agree that gay marriages probably as a practical matter do far far less damege to marriage than other things, like no fault divorces, adultary, pornography, and things like that. On the other hand, I oppose having gay domestic partnerships recognized as a marriage, as it would tend to have the effect of forcing sincerely religious people to negate their beliefs by either having to recognize a gay marriage (say if they list anniverseries in a newsletter), or to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, even though they believe that God told them through whatever holy book they believe in that being gay is a sin.

[ShunNakamura]

Why would the religious person have to do that?! you lost me I am afraid.

If you don't like gay marriage... don't go to the places they are being held. If you don't like hosting them.. I am sure you could decline to host them. Afterall this is a world of freedom.. of course I more then likely overglanced something.

[Raistlin]

On the other hand, I oppose having gay domestic partnerships recognized as a marriage, as it would tend to have the effect of forcing sincerely religious people to negate their beliefs by either having to recognize a gay marriage (say if they list anniverseries in a newsletter), or to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, even though they believe that God told them through whatever holy book they believe in that being gay is a sin.

So basically, you're saying that you shouldn't have to recognize any beliefs that aren't your own as valid. I'm an atheist, and therefore I shouldn't have to hear the word "God" anywhere - if I do hear it, that would be an infringement on my beliefs, since I don't even have to accept the fact that other people could be religious. You can substitute "atheist" for "religious nutjob" and "the word 'God'" with "of homosexual marriages" and "religious" with "homosexual" in that last sentence, and you'll have the same argument.

[lordblazer]

Me being a christain.Really the whole gay marriage thing was jsut there so Bush oculd get re-eleted because people like redneck actually cared aobut that instead of worrying aobut real issues like the war.Heck if anything this society in america is the most selfish one in american history.WW1 people rationed there own food and materials.WW2 everything was rationed and most things went to the war effort.

Now we deal with having ot hear garbage said by the president.That gays marrying will destroy the sanctity of marriage.Bah thats bullcrap.We have greater problems than seeing two guys french kiss each other and having rings on there hands and being recognised as partners.I dont think it destroys the sanctity of marriage.How does it?

Anyway I'm tired.

[Del Murder]

This thread has gone off topic.