US President

[Rooster]

"My main question is still: what is the difference between marriage and civil unions? Marriage = religious; Civil union = secular We have spoken at great length about "separate but equal". Well, is the difference in what you register for?Marriage also has the backing of religious institutions Will someone have to register for a civil union instead of a marriage?In General, if one is able to perform religious unions, it is likely they are legally able to perform a civil union Is the difference only in who performs the ceremony? And the authority behind it.Will I, as a heterosexual, be able to register for a civil union?That's kinda the entire point. Like you two, and Canidae and I did. If I can, will I be married or joined in a civil union? Civil Union. Marriage would be performed by a religious figure. If I can't register for a civil union, is that true equality? What is the difference?"moot question.

[Swifty_Johnson]

My main question is still: what is the difference between marriage and civil unions? We have spoken at great length about "separate but equal". Well, is the difference in what you register for? Will someone have to register for a civil union instead of a marriage? Is the difference only in who performs the ceremony? Will I, as a heterosexual, be able to register for a civil union? If I can, will I be married or joined in a civil union? If I can't register for a civil union, is that true equality? What is the difference?

It actually all depends on the legislation. What will the differance be between a Civil Union and a marriage? If it's good legislation, nothing at all but the names. One will be for Churchs to preform, the other will be for Civil servants to preform. Until some good solid legislation comes along we will not know. :(

Swifty

[Rooster]

I assumed we were still talking speculation on best case scenario.

[Eiru]

Well, Swifty, you yourself said in your opinion that civil unions are marriages performed by the state. Roo's response also seems to indicate that Airr and I and Roo and Canidae are already in civil unions.

So where's the problem? Do we need a constitutional ammendment to tell us what we already know? That if you want to get married, go to a church; if you want a civil union, walk down to the registrar?

Let's be more specific. What sort of legislation are you waiting for? In your own, reasonable opinion?

EDIT: Roo, let me appologzie if I misconstrued your post. I get easily confused by responses like the quoting you did. It's a personal preference, but I prefer my responses as a single, cogent unit.

[Rooster]

Well, when it comes to raising a child, studies have been done that children fare better when raised by a married couple vs partners of the same sex. In this regard, child placement services may favor a "married couple" over a "civilunion couple" - if that distinction was still felt needed to be made (sorry for the poor english there).

[Swifty_Johnson]

Let's be more specific. What sort of legislation are you waiting for? In your own, reasonable opinion?

Legislation that defines Civil Unions, there is only a very few places that are doing this, most still conduct marriages, even if they are done by Civil servants. That is what we are all waiting for.

Swifty

[spyder913]

Any links to those studies roo?

[Eiru]

So what it boils down to is a legal description of civil unions. That places you in Boom's camp, right, Swifty?

Interesting side note: the old Soviet Union had civil unions. I guess they were ahead of the curve in some respects.

[Sparky]

Well, when it comes to raising a child, studies have been done that children fare better when raised by a married couple vs partners of the same sex. In this regard, child placement services may favor a "married couple" over a "civilunion couple" - if that distinction was still felt needed to be made (sorry for the poor english there).

What studies? and what are they testing?

And at any rate, i'm sure you'd agree that children would tend to do better in a home with ANY couple rather than the alternative

[Rooster]

Any couple (non-abusive) would certainly be better than raised by the state. Without a doubt.

But (and I'm at a client's site right now so getting into a search, that I did last night from home) I don't have links to the studies (found a bunch last night, some from neutral parties) currently.

[spyder913]

I think they would do better in 2 parent houses than 1 parent houses as well.

[Eiru]

Now if you are asking what I personally think you and Airr are (married vs Civil Union) I'll respond, it doesn't matter to me. As long as you both love eachother you can be married or joined in Civil Union, does the term really matter?

Swifty

One thing still puzzles me: why should it not matter what Airr and I call what we have yet it does matter what two homosexuals call what they have?

[Swifty_Johnson]

why should it not matter what Airr and I call what we have yet it should still matter what two homosexuals call what they have?

It depends on who you talk to. This country was founded on compromise. Same sex partners need the protections that marriage offer, but the religous community want to protect marriage from same sex partners.

So, you create Civil Unions that offer the same protections of marriage to same sex partners.

The religous people are happy as Marriage is protected, and we are able to give the protections of marriage to same sex partners with a differant name.

Swifty

[Canidae]

Like you two, and Canidae and I did.
*burst into tears* One day that will be rectified and will we have a proper church wedding. :(

[Rooster]

Is that before or after I'm allowed to get a motorcycle?

[Canidae]

Is that before or after I'm allowed to get a motorcycle?


:bang:

[Eiru]

So let me ask you, Swifty: are you for or against [a constitutional ammendment]?

EDIT: Sorry, I realized the question I asked wasn't the question I really WANT to ask.

[spyder913]

Is that before or after I'm allowed to get a motorcycle?
lol! it should be the same day ;) ride down the isle on the cycle!

[Eiru]

*burst into tears* One day that will be rectified and will we have a proper church wedding. :(

Haha, Canidae! Sorry, didn't mean to bring up such a sore subject. ;)

[Allison]

Rooster, you say pro-choice = pro baby murder? Can we please try to keep this relatively civil?

A majority of the justices in RvW decided that abortion was a right, so instead of following the well defined rules for admending the constitution, they just "interpreted" the constitution and said "It's in there!"

That is not the way it's done.That's exactly how it's done.

The Bill of Rights is a general statement of the individual rights guaranteed by government. Because of its lack of specifics, it is the job of the judicial branch to interpret the constititution when disputes arise with legislation. I repeat, it IS their job.

Are you suggesting that everytime a law is judged to be unconstitutional, we amend the bill of rights? Would the ruling court have that authority? Or are you suggesting that the ruling court would be granted special powers over states to force them to support a constitutional amendment? I'm confused, just how would you change this long-standing process?

The reason our constitution has been so successful is because our forefathers, and those who have since amended it (with the exception of Prohibition), had the wisdom to understand that times and circumstances will change, and with that, laws will need to be created and struck down. But the Constitution will remain because it doesn't involve itself in every detail of daily life, only in the most basic of rights.

The RIGHT is detailed in the 2nd amendment. You don't EXTEND that right through courts. Courts are supposed MAINTAIN that right against congressional efforts to RESTRICT that right.
It isn't exactly "detailed," which is why it has to be interpreted from time to time. And, like all rights, it's not absolute. This right has been "infringed" upon many times by the legislature. And I'm sure you'd agree rightly so, in some cases. You can argue all day long about where the line should be drawn, but I don't think anyone would argue that every person has the right to bear any arms he chooses. (I'm betting no NRA member in the world would be comfortable with their neighbor owning a nuclear weapon.)

You can argue about where that line is drawn by the legislature and judiciary, but if you're implying they have no business doing so, you'd be wrong. The public good always outweighs individual rights.

[Rooster]

"The public good always outweighs individual rights."

I think that's where we disagree. This isn't a socialist/communist society. Your individual rights are more important than your neighbors' opinions (aka public good) of how you excercise those rights.

You're right, pro-choice isn't exactly pro-baby murder ... they just want the OPTION to commit murder with no consequence.

[Eiru]

Roo should read "Atlas Shrugged". :)

[Swifty_Johnson]

That's exactly how it's done.

The Bill of Rights is a general statement of the individual rights guaranteed by government. Because of its lack of specifics, it is the job of the judicial branch to interpret the constititution when disputes arise with legislation. I repeat, it IS their job.

Nope, sorry but incorrect.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Know what that means, if it's not "in there" it's for the STATES to handle, not the courts.

If you want abortion to be a right, the CORRECT method is to intoduce a bill into the house, and get it approved and ratifyed by 2/3 of the states.

The INCORRECT method is to stack the courts with justices that feel the same way as you.

Are you suggesting that everytime a law is judged to be unconstitutional, we amend the bill of rights? Would the ruling court have that authority? Or are you suggesting that the ruling court would be granted special powers over states to force them to support a constitutional amendment? I'm confused, just how would you change this long-standing process?

I'm not changing anything at all, just having the long-standing process USED not ignored as it is now. A law should only be unconstitutional if it truely goes aginst what is WRITTEN in the constitution, not becasue some judges feel that it should be unconstitutional and therefore "intrepret" it to be unconstitutional.

Judges decided abortion should be a right, not the states. That is wrong. You amend the constitution when you want rights to be reconigzed by all 50 states and all U.S. controlled territory. With RvW (and many other decisions) the courts actually trampled over the 10th admendment. As a matter of fact, liberal courts have little use of the 10th admendment as it gets in their way of defacto rewrites of the constitution.

Swifty

[Eiru]

Swifty, when it comes to laws, it's all about interpretation. Also, please don't just say "wrong". Tell us how the system works.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Swifty, when it comes to laws, it's all about interpretation. Also, please don't just say "wrong". Tell us how the system works.

I did tell you how the system works.

There's interpretation and than there's "interpretation".

The 2nd Admendment is clearly a citizen's rights, yet some judges "interpret" it as a state right becasue they feel gun control is good. These judges are wrong, you don't change the constitution becasue YOU feel it's the right thing to do, you follow the process and get it admended.

The way these judges "interpret" the constitution is a crime, we might as well just throw it away and have judges use tea leaves to determin what are rights are, as the constitution is loosing all meaning.

There is a reason why the 9th Circuit is the most overrulled appeals court in history. These judges do as they please, making ruling and ruling with no reguard to the constitution, only doing what THEY feel is best, not what the law says.

So people will say "What's the problem, the courts will protect our rights, we need need them in the constitution!"

I'm shure the people of Germany in the 20s felt the same way, yet 10 years later their courts were committing gross violations of human rights. Don't place your faith in the courts, they do change over time.

Swifty

[]LoL[Harm]

"The public good always outweighs individual rights."

I think that's where we disagree. This isn't a socialist/communist society. Your individual rights are more important than your neighbors' opinions (aka public good) of how you excercise those rights.
I think she was indicating that the government (it's laws and rights it protects) is more concerned with benefitting society as a whole instead of benefitting each individual. In almost all views of how our government governs this is true.

[Eiru]

I did tell you how the system works.

Swifty

I'm sorry, Swifty. Let me rephrase (something that's very easy to do, by the way), can you reitterate for us morons?

[Eiru]

Also, what about that constitutional ammendment?

[Allison]

"The public good always outweighs individual rights."

I think that's where we disagree. This isn't a socialist/communist society. Your individual rights are more important than your neighbors' opinions (aka public good) of how you excercise those rights.
I'm not advocating socialism or communism or even gun control here. My point, which I stated already, was that the individual rights guaranteed by our constitution are not specific or absolute, and thus, it is neccessary sometimes for those rights to be interpreted and/or limited. If you disagree with this, then you have to agree to your neighbor's right to own nuclear weapons.

You're right, pro-choice isn't exactly pro-baby murder ... they just want the OPTION to commit murder with no consequence.
And this is why people can't talk civilly about this issue. If you are not an extremist, Rooster, you certainly use their language. You know full well that the fundamental difference of opinion in this debate is about when life begins. You can argue that point all you want. Personally, I won't enter into that debate with you. But I will ask again that you try to be civil and not use inflammatory labels to describe those of differing opinions.

Know what that means, if it's not "in there" it's for the STATES to handle, not the courts. It IS in there. Article III of the Constitution gives the judiciary the power to resolve constitutional issues. There is no "trampling" of the 10th Amendment, as you say. You can argue that Roe v. Wade wasn't a constitutional issue, that the conservative Justices at the time shouldn't have ruled it as such, but the process itself was correct and inline with the laws of the land.

As for your statement about the "stacking" of the U.S. Supreme Court, while it's true that any president who finds himself in the position of appointing a new Justice will look to appoint someone of like-mind, the Roe v. Wade case was an interesting example of Justices behaving in unexpected ways.

Six of the nine Roe v. Wade Justices were appointed by conservative, Republican presidents. As such, they were expected by many to rule other than they did. But, what these people didn't realize is that there is often a huge gap between what is morally conservative and what is politically conservative. And these justices were politically conservative, make no mistake. So much so that their fear of government interfering with the private lives of its citizens outweighed any moral objections they might have had.

[Eiru]

Six of the nine Roe v. Wade Justices were appointed by conservative, Republican presidents. As such, they were expected by many to rule other than they did. But, what these people didn't realize is that there is often a huge gap between what is morally conservative and what is politically conservative. And these justices were politically conservative, make no mistake. So much so that their fear of government interfering with the private lives of its citizens outweighed any moral objections they might have had.

Interesting point you have there, Ailia. Might we suggest the same could be said for the whole marriage debate?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Swifty, when it comes to laws, it's all about interpretation. Also, please don't just say "wrong". Tell us how the system works.

Well all I can tell you is, if you want something to be a right, amend the constitution, otherwise it isn't a right.

It IS in there. Article III of the Constitution gives the judiciary the power to resolve constitutional issues. There is no "trampling" of the 10th Amendment, as you say. You can argue that Roe v. Wade wasn't a constitutional issue,

Still wrong, it gives them the power to resolve issues, not REWRITE the constitution. Only the house and states can do that, the courts CANNOT rewrite the constitution as it's doing now. It is tramping on the 10th admendment. It was a STATES right to regulate abortion as they saw fit. Abortion is neither banned nor supported by the constitution, therefor it's a STATES responsibilty to do decide what to do. The court enter the fry and said it was a right, and forced all states to bend to their will.

That's not resolving constitutional issues, that's rewriting the constitution as they saw fit.

This is why Richard Bork scared the hell out of liberals. He was 100% unwilling to do this, he is a strict constitutionalist. They smeared the hell out of him and stopped his nomination to the court, one of hte most disgraceful events I've ever seen.

Swifty

[Swifty_Johnson]

Interesting point you have there, Ailia. Might we suggest the same could be said for the whole marriage debate?

The whole marriage debate is over the term, Marriage. Most of the folk that I know will not object to same sex partners getting the same rights as other couples, just don't use the term marriage with them.

Swifty

[Swifty_Johnson]

So let me ask you, Swifty: are you for or against [a constitutional ammendment]?

I've stated this before, for!

Swifty

[Eiru]

But if we can create a legal catagory for civil unions, what's the point of a constitutional ammendment?

[Allison]

I absolutely think, yes, Eiru. Setting aside the moral element, I think most true conservatives would rather the government not be in the business of regulating marriage. Unfortunately, the government involved itself a long time ago by making it a civil institution as well as a social (religious) one. So, it's inevitable that the government will ultimately have to resolve this issue by trying to separate those two aspects of marriage, and also inevitable that we'll hear arguments from both of those perspectives, neither of which is neccessarily compatible with the other.

[Allison]

But if we can create a legal catagory for civil unions, what's the point of a constitutional ammendment?
It's a matter of state's rights. It's not within the federal government's authority to impose civil unions on the individual states. And, if one state legalizes civil unions, other states, as well as the federal government, would not be required to recognize them. If there is a method to resolve this through the legislature, I am unaware of it. As far as I can tell, it can only be resolved by a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, or by a pre-emptive amdending of The Constitution.

Certainly, if brought before the USSC right now, they would rule that laws banning homosexuals from marriage are unconstitutional. Which is why I find it really funny that some have suggested an amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. This suggestion basically says, "Hey, it's unconstitutional, so let's just change The Constitution!" I'm sure some think this is valid. But I see our constitution as a sacred document that has served us well. Changing what has historically been a document that guarantees rights, with an amendment to deny rights, is laughable to me.

[Boom]

The second amendment needs courts to interpret it. Man is that poorly written. I don't even think its a grammatically correct sentence. I can't make heads or tails of it. I know it says that people can have guns, but its got something to do with a militia but I can't figure that part out.

Anyway, as someone who has managed to staple himself with an office stapler, I think its kinda scary that I can easily obtain a gun without having to take any kind of safety training test (like getting a drivers license). I have great respect for the men who drafted the bill of rights, but I think they had no way to foresee how powerful "arms" would become. It was clearly wise of them to guarantee our right to arm ourselves, to protect our homes and families and our freedom. But has that right been extended by technology so that now it guarantees us the right to arm ourselves with enough firepower to kill dozens of people? In those days you had to load each individual bullet. It would take like a few minutes between each shot, and they weren't very accurate. Nowadays I can buy a weapon that would allow me to easily walk into a McDonalds and kill everyone in there. This isn't a hypothetical, its happened. People have walked into McDonalds and killed dozens of people. Would our forefathers have wanted every citizen to have the right to easily obtain a weapon of mass murder like that? Or did they want us to have the right to protect our homes from intruders and British soldiers? I can also obtain a weapon that can take off a politicians head from 3 miles away. Is that considered "arming" myself for my own protection? Should that kind of weapon be covered by the 2nd amendment? Until we get a time machine and ask our forefathers I guess we don't really know. And like Ailia pointed out, technically a Nuke is an "arm" so is that covered by the 2nd amendment? Strict constructionists of the 2nd amendement would have to say "yes" but any reasonable person would have to say "no."

Just like the 1st amendment, no right is absolute, there has to be a reasonableness factor. We have the right to free speech, but we can't yell fire in a crowded theater. We can't set up a porn shop next door to an elementary school. We can't parade without getting a permit. We do have free speech, but its subject to reasonable restrictions. Doesn't this apply to the second amendment as well? We have the right to bear arms, but we can't own Nukes. Its a reasonable restriction that doesn't destroy the intent of the amendment, the right to arm ourselves.

Personally, I like the idea of getting a shotgun with no bullets. When robbers hear that noise the shotgun makes when you get it ready, that chuck chuck sound, they freakin run. Maybe I can get a toy that just makes that sound. Yall can get real shotguns with bullets if you want, but I don't think its right for me. But if you have a shotgun to protect your house, do you really need a submachinegun?

[Noleader]

You assume it was referring to an armed militia. Who do you think a militia is made up of? Average, every day citizens. It's called BYoG. Bring your own gun. It would be retarded to have some "organized" holding place for the "militia arms" - because all it would take is 1 turncoat to let the Gov't know where the stash is, and it's all over.
Well regulated militia... Is not Mr. Smith down the street with his .357 hand cannon.


Read the decision. Roe vs Wade makes it a defacto right. (until the court changes to a more normal balance than RvW will get overturned.)

No... The courts referenced other Rights and Laws when they made the ruling. They never said it was legel they just said the way Texas was going about banning it was not correct.

BTW I disagree with abortion but I still have strong opinions on the matter. Switfy you assume Normal for you is Normal for everyone else. Based off a lot of legal writings the court is more balanced now then it was 50 years ago. You have 3 conservatives(All different degrees) 3 liberials(All different degrees) and 2 justices on the fence(the swing vote). Normally Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens vary on were they vote.


Honestly, better to make like Ragu and say "It's in there!", than say, "no, it doesn't SPELL out your right to XYZ" and deny everyone that right.

Keep in mind I'm a former pro-choice (aka pro-baby murder) turned pro-life.

If the founding fathers drafted it like that then we would still be governed by the views of the 1700's. The reason it was left open ended was so that as times change the meaning of items do to. It is actully one of the best ideas man has ever had for government. So 'Its In there' does not work within that mindset. Also no reason to call pro-choice people pro-baby murders...

So you disagree with us and charge us with making shit up? Classy.
Using half an admendment to support your point is using misinformation to support your points. In day to day speak I call that making shit up. I never claimed it to be Classy, I find it to be more blunt actully. Maybe if I get more blunt some of us will stop pulling half quoting people and half referencing admendments.


In the terms of the time whe this was written, this mean well trained.
First point: How many gun owners are actully formally trained to use guns?
Second point: Being we just fought a war at home and many young people died fighting it I would bet my bottom dollar they were more trained in firearms back then.
Third Point: You are doing what you bitch about the courts doing. You are assuming that is what the founding fathers met. Difference between you and the courts is they have the power to apply it.

There it is, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed.

That's right, the right of the PEOPLE, not the militia. Why, becasue the people were the militia. In early U.S. history when the militia formed, everyone bought their own guns. It wasn't until the civil war that the large scale recruitment and arming of civilians took place.

So the 2nd Admendment applies to the people.

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.

That is the true admendment, none of that half baked shit. Swifty allow me to show you were you can find the Bill of Rights. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

I am starting to really doubt you know as much as you are claiming about the US Government or the laws that govern us. Roo can you get back into this? It was more fun when I had to actully think and not just use google.

I will get to the next 2 pages when I get a little free time.

[Eiru]

I'm not sure I understand your point, Ailia. Let me restate mine.

1. People don't want to use the word "marriage" when applied to gay unions.
2. People seem to all agree the civil unions are a justifiable substitute (although, I don't know about that; I mean, even Swifty said he thinks a civil union is a marriage by the State; I don't know why he hasn't tried to correct himself).
3. Methods already exist for states to enact procedures for civil unions (ie. resolve the problem).

So, I ask once again: given all the above, why do people want to ammend the constitution with information that doesn't even pertain to the running of the country? After all, if states amend their own processes, the problem is solved, right? How this happens is probably going to fall under Swifty's umbrella of new laws. But the essential problem is resolved, right?

So again: why the ammendment?

[Noleader]

Know what that means, if it's not "in there" it's for the STATES to handle, not the courts.

There are state courts :P

Fed courts get involved when it is appealed to them

[Noleader]

So again: why the ammendment?
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If a gay marriage ban were to go to the High Court the admendment above would cause the court to rule in favor of the couple. So the only fix is to write descrimination into the document.

[Swifty_Johnson]

That is the true admendment, none of that half baked shit. Swifty allow me to show you were you can find the Bill of Rights.
The only person with half-backed shit is you. I broke down the 2nd admendment so simple minds like yours can understand what it means. If you can't understand basic english than there is nothing that can help you.

The 2nd admendment is the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

First point: How many gun owners are actully formally trained to use guns?
Irrelvant.

Second point: Being we just fought a war at home and many young people died fighting it I would bet my bottom dollar they were more trained in firearms back then.
Your right, they were. Why? We didn't have people like you who couldn't read and undertand simple passages in the Bill of Rights to take their guns away. They were better trained becasue THEY HAD GUNS TO TRAIN WITH.

Third Point: You are doing what you bitch about the courts doing. You are assuming that is what the founding fathers met. Difference between you and the courts is they have the power to apply it.
I am not assuming anything, I'm pointing out what the founding fathers meant. Sorry it goes aginst what you THINK it should be.

I am starting to really doubt you know as much as you are claiming about the US Government or the laws that govern us. Roo can you get back into this? It was more fun when I had to actully think and not just use google
I broke down the whole 2nd admendment and explained it all, yet you picked on one part of my explination, claim I don't know the whole 2nd (I do, scoll up moron) and than insult me.

<personal attack edited out by Rooster>

Swifty

[Rooster]

I dont want an amendment. What I want is better clarification and support for civil unions.

Now, there are LOTS of undercurrents and nuances that I admit I don't understand, nor do I care to (my specialty is computers, not civil liberties).

Well regulated militia... Is not Mr. Smith down the street with his .357 hand cannon.I disagree. Mr. Smith with his .357 would have been equivalent to John McDonald down the dirt road past the Johnson farm that takes up arms to rebel against an oppressive government. It's not just about defending your home. Wait... it is, if you consider your life, liberty & happiness Home.The reason it was left open ended was so that as times change the meaning of items do to.Unfortunately, the founding fathers created a document that gave us SOO much freedom, from then on out, everything Congress passes, or the Judiciary rules on will likely further RESTRICT our freedoms and rights.First point: How many gun owners are actully formally trained to use guns?Training is not an issue and should not be assumed to be a factor. We're not TRAINED how to raise a child, or how to ride a horse, but I bet those were not freedoms they intended to be impugned on.Second point: Being we just fought a war at home and many young people died fighting it I would bet my bottom dollar they were more trained in firearms back then.This actually is part of your first point and is refuted by my reply.Third Point: You are doing what you bitch about the courts doing. You are assuming that is what the founding fathers {meant}. Difference between you and the courts is they have the power to apply it.All any of us can do is interpret (as Booms post illustrated). But, in all cases, I would expect a judge to ALWAYS interpret in a manner that does as little to change the meaning of the constitution and to support freedom above annoyances.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Personally, I like the idea of getting a shotgun with no bullets. When robbers hear that noise the shotgun makes when you get it ready, that chuck chuck sound, they freakin run. Maybe I can get a toy that just makes that sound. Yall can get real shotguns with bullets if you want, but I don't think its right for me. But if you have a shotgun to protect your house, do you really need a submachinegun?

Really really really bad idea.

If the robber has a gun, you are now facing a person with a loaded gun, with an empty gun.

If you want home protection without a gun, get a dog. Robbers are looking for places to hit and run, dogs tell them to move onto the next house.

Swifty

[Eiru]

Thanks, Nol. So that means those in favour of the ammendment are in favour of discrimination. But those in favour of the ammendment may balk at that description, saying that civil unions are another option. But the procedure for creating civil unions is already in place.

Plus ammendments can be repealed. It's a tough call. Would those here in favour of an ammendment agree to the corrolary that they are also in favour of discrimination? If not, why?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Which is why I find it really funny that some have suggested an amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. This suggestion basically says, "Hey, it's unconstitutional, so let's just change The Constitution!" I'm sure some think this is valid. But I see our constitution as a sacred document that has served us well. Changing what has historically been a document that guarantees rights, with an amendment to deny rights, is laughable to me.

The amendment proposed would make Marriage a right for men and women. It would also confirm inter-racial marriages, AND provide Civil Unions for same sex couples.

Nice little catch all, and Marriage AND Civil Unions become rights.


I dont want an amendment. What I want is better clarification and support for civil unions.

Without an amendment, the state of GA will not have to recoginze a Civil Union from the state of MA, so a couple joined in MA won't get the same protections in GA.

Swifty

[Rooster]

Really really really bad idea.

If the robber has a gun, you are now facing a person with a loaded gun, with an empty gun.

If you want home protection without a gun, get a dog. Robbers are looking for places to hit and run, dogs tell them to move onto the next house.

SwiftyI disagree. Even an empty gun is a threat, as are Persing II missiles stationed in Europe (in 1984). We didn't REALLY need warheads in them, but it was a deterrent none-the-less. If I were a house thief, with a gun, I don't think I'd care to take my chances the guy down the hall with the Mossberg Pump-Action didn't have it loaded. What do you think?

But yeah, a dog is a good deterrent (even a preventative measure).

[Eiru]

But if you enshrine this in the constitution, then you're impeding on State's rights, aren't you, Swifty? If the ammendment specifically states that states must provide civil unions, that's overstepping the bounds of the Constitution, isn't it?

EDIT: I mean, are you saying that GA shouldn't have the right to define it's own laws?

[Rooster]

The amendment proposed would make Marriage a right for men and women. It would also confirm inter-racial marriages, AND provide Civil Unions for same sex couples.

Nice little catch all, and Marriage AND Civil Unions become rights.




Without an amendment, the state of GA will not have to recoginze a Civil Union from the state of MA, so a couple joined in MA won't get the same protections in GA.

SwiftyWhich is fine. It should fall under state's rights.

Except for: Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There's a couple issues that make it unclear there, but I would lean in the direction that ... hrm.. ya know what... I don't know.

[Noleader]

A little lesson here.

In the terms of the time whe this was written, this mean well trained.

I followed up with

First point: How many gun owners are actully formally trained to use guns?
And then back from swifty

Irrelvant.

Umm... Swifty I did not bring up training you did... Part of debate is not changing your stance or points when you start to lose ground. If you are just going to be calling everyones points crap and pulling this change my story shit please leave this board for people that really want to talk about the issues.

On a side note Roo I personally agree and think it is the persons right to bear arms. I am just refuting Swifty's claims that the court is not doing what they were put here to do.

[Noleader]

Which is fine. It should fall under state's rights.


Except for: Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


There's a couple issues that make it unclear there, but I would lean in the direction that ... hrm.. ya know what... I don't know.That is why we have courts :)

I agree it belongs with the states not in the governing document of our country

[Rooster]

Except, as I stated, the courts have consistently been DENYING freedoms and rights our forefather's had. Only in a few blue moons do they actually uphold a freedom.

[Eiru]

Which is fine. It should fall under state's rights.

Except for: Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There's a couple issues that make it unclear there, but I would lean in the direction that ... hrm.. ya know what... I don't know.

Yeah, I see what you mean, Roo. If this ammendment is read correctly, a civil union in MA would HAVE to be recognized in GA without some kind of justification by GA. Unless I'm reading this wrong.

[Swifty_Johnson]

But if you enshrine this in the constitution, then you're impeding on State's rights, aren't you, Swifty? If the ammendment specifically states that states must provide civil unions, that's overstepping the bounds of the Constitution, isn't it?

EDIT: I mean, are you saying that GA shouldn't have the right to define it's own laws?


Depends,

How important to you is Marraige and Civil Unions.

If this isn't really important, if you feel than it can be left for the courts/states to decide, than you do not need to amend the constitution.

IF you feel Marraige IS extreamly important and is a basic human right, than you need to amend the constitution.

The Constitution is the rights of ALL Americans no matter what state they live in. When something is put into the constitution, no state can take that right away.

The problem with the 14th Roo is it's too vague. I don't want Marraige and Civil Unions held hostage by the courts.

Swifty

[Swifty_Johnson]

Umm... Swifty I did not bring up training you did... Part of debate is not changing your stance or points when you start to lose ground. If you are just going to be calling everyones points crap and pulling this change my story shit please leave this board for people that really want to talk about the issues.

I haven't changed my stance, you just can't seen to read. You don't want to debate, you just want to hurl insults at me, and try to put words in my mouth. I'll break the 2nd down into terms that even a simple person like you can understand.

[/quote]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.[/quote]

The security of the state is dependant on a well trained Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall I use smaller words, or do you understand the 2nd now?

The part about well trained milita has NOTHING to do with the average man being trained. How would a milita get well trained if noone had a gun? the training aspect applied to the militia, not the gun owners.

Swifty

[Allison]

So, I ask once again: given all the above, why do people want to ammend the constitution with information that doesn't even pertain to the running of the country? After all, if states amend their own processes, the problem is solved, right? How this happens is probably going to fall under Swifty's umbrella of new laws. But the essential problem is resolved, right?


If you're saying that civil unions should satisfy the opponents of gay marriage, I would agree with you. But, civil unions shouldn't satisy gay couples because under current law, unions do not provide the same protections and benefits as marriage.

IF every state allowed civil unions that granted the identical benefits and responsibilities of marriage, and IF all of the federal statutes relating to marriage were amended to include civil unions, THEN it would be the same thing. But until then, civil unions are wholly inferior to marriages.

And even if it were the case that civil unions were equal in every way to marriages, someday it will be challanged. A gay couple will want to get married. It will come before the U.S. Supreme Court, and they will find that it's unconstitutional to have one designation for gay couples and another for heterosexual couples. Then states will be forced to allow gays to marry. The only way for a state to guarantee this won't happen is to amend The Constitution.

[spyder913]

So if we define marriage as between 'man and woman', how are we going to define man or woman?

Genetically? So people born with XY chromosomes could only marry XX? What about those with XXX or XXY?
Developmentally? People born with penises can only marry those without?
Physically? Those who are from outward appearance a woman could only marry those who appear as a man?

People in non-traditional gender roles don't make up a large proportion of the population, but they would have to be considered.

[Eiru]

The thing of it is, Swifty, that the people who want the ammendment don't think that marriage is a basic human right because they actually want to deny that right to homosexuals. Instead, they want to enshrine a separate catagory for homosexuals. That doesn't sound like basic human rights to me. Basic human rights - to me, at least - are rights that you should receive because you are human, not because you are a certain type of human.

So what the ammendment REALLY seems to be doing is institutionalizing a two-tiered system for recognizing legal statuses. Two-tiered is not universal, it's discriminatory.

As an asside, I'm concerned about what ammendments you choose to identify as clear cut and what ammendments you choose to identify as vague. I think the healthy debate between you and Nol point out exactly how much give there is in our governing documents.

[Canidae]

Okie dokie.

First off, everyone take a deep breathe and calm the hell down.

Abortion: If a man can get charged for the death of an unborn child when he kills the mother, than a woman should be charged with murder if she has an abortion. Simple, easy logic.

By medical terms, a person is alive if they have brain waves.

Week 6 – brain waves detectable

You can all look this up yourselves, its really easy to find.

Now, if its illegal to help someone die, that has brain waves, then it should be illegal to abort a fetus that has reached the age of 6 weeks.

Again, simple logic.

Before that time, fine, let it be a womans choice (though I have serious issues with the fact that the father has no say in the decision, yet the woman can make a man be a father even if he doesn't want to.) I still believe its wrong and would personally not do it, but going strictly on medical standards, a 6 week old fetus is a living being.

The right to life has been taken away at this point from every fetus 6 weeks of age or older.

Guns: At the most, I think people should have to take a course on guns before they are allowed to purchase and own them.

Swifty is right about it being a bad idea to have an unloaded weapon to use against a robber. If you have someone breaking into your house that is carrying a gun and you try to scare them off with an unloaded weapon, chances are you very well could end up shot.

A large dog is actually one of the best determents, that and a well light outside.

Gay Unions: Said it before, will say it again, I don't really care if they give homosexuals the same rights under civil unions. Just really, don't be offended if religious people don't view them as "marriages." Marriage steamed from religious views long before it became a government thing. It would be really hard for people that are religious to change their view on it in the short term.

Just like anything else, there will always be a division, no matter what the law ends up saying, just because we are human and have a hard time fully agreeing on anything.

Now, I am surprised Roo hasn't bitched about taxes that are out there that are unConstiutional. Come on hun!!! ;)

[Eiru]

Haha! Once again, thanks for diffusing things, Canidae. Honestly, I'm not offending if someone finds the idea of gay marriage morally wrong. I, personally, am trying to come to some way of resolving this in a secular way which will satisfy all parties. I understand it's hard to change when you have a particular moral view. What I am concerned about is the institutionalization of a two-tiered system for sorting humans. That's what the ammendment option seems to be. If, as Swifty has said, marriage is a basic human right, isn't there some way to ensure that for all parties without resorting to such discrimination?

Let me put it this way. If there was a procedure in place for joining in a purely civil union as a recognition of certain rights and responsibilities by the state, I would jump at that because I have no religious affiliation. Ensconsing one type of union for me and another type of union I can't participate in because of what I am seems discriminatory to me.

What does anyone else say?

[Allison]

If a man can get charged for the death of an unborn child when he kills the mother, than a woman should be charged with murder if she has an abortion. Simple, easy logic.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, that logic can work both ways: If it's legal for a woman to abort a fetus, then a man shouldn't be charged with murder for causing the death of that fetus.

Both your statement and mine are flawed, because the laws on these two issues can be contradictory. As such, they can't be used to prove the validity or invalidity of the other.

[Swifty_Johnson]

And even if it were the case that civil unions were equal in every way to marriages, someday it will be challanged. A gay couple will want to get married. It will come before the U.S. Supreme Court, and they will find that it's unconstitutional to have one designation for gay couples and another for heterosexual couples.

Toss up, as long as Civil Unions have the EXACT same rights as marriage, than the Supreme court isn't going to waste their time. A same sex couple will have to show that their rights are violated by the two differant names, which won't happen if both names have the same set of rights.

Swifty

[Swifty_Johnson]

[quote]Abortion: If a man can get charged for the death of an unborn child when he kills the mother, than a woman should be charged with murder if she has an abortion. Simple, easy logic.[quote]

Not that simple. In the murder charge, the Women wanted to have the baby and it's life was terminated without the mother's consent.

With abortion, the baby's life is terminated with the mother's consent, and in the current legal climate it isn't a crime until the baby is born.

Swifty

[Swifty_Johnson]

What I am concerned about is the institutionalization of a two-tiered system for sorting humans. That's what the ammendment option seems to be.

Marriage is just a term, as long a Civil unions hold the same set if benifates what is the differance?

The alternative?

You can force this down the church's throat. Don't expect to many happy campers, and don't expect it to be taken lightly. The south needs a good reason to rise again, and more and more of them are arriving every day. Do we really need to fight another civil war?

Swifty

[Eiru]

See, Swifty, I can use the same argument against a constitutional ammendment, so obviously we're missing something here. I don't for a minute suggest that we need to force this down anyone's throat. It's obviously the churches that are making the biggest row about marriage in the first place. I think your suggestion that the south will rise again is specious at best. They didn't rise after integration, why should they rise now.

No, what I am saying is either it's a states issue OR the Constitutional ammendment needs to reflect the fact that the government is taking a secular stance on the status of two people who want to be joined together to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as if they were married in a church. Now, I'm all for a constitutional ammendment that says this. As I mentioned above, if I wasn't married, I'd be the first one to sign up for this as this appeases my non-religious sensibilities.

The ammendment proposed, however, would limit MY options, as a heterosexual man to marriage only. This is discrimination. How can we resolve this WITHOUT discriminating, is my question. Any thoughts on that?

EDIT: Just to be clear, what I am suggesting is a constitutional ammendment that says you can only get married in a church or religious institution and that any other ceremony is a civil union. THAT wouldn't be discriminating at all now would it?

[Boom]

Just to clarify.

I never said that an unloaded gun would offer better protection, or equal protection to a loaded gun.

A loaded gun is out of the question for me. I am accident prone. It would be very dumb for me (just talking about me) to own a loaded gun. It is my right to not own a gun.

You hear lots of stories about people hearing intruders and yelling "I HAVE A GUN!!!" and then doing that "chuck chuck" thingy with a big ass shotgun and the robbers run away. So for someone like me, who isn't qualified to handle a gun safely, and can't have a dog in his apartment (dog would be the best idea) this could work possibly. It would be at least as effective as a baseball bat because if the "chuck chuck" doesn't scare the robber away you can bash him over the head with it like a baseball bat. And there is no danger of the robber getting the gun from you and shooting you with it.

Canidea mentioned something about a safety course for gun owners. I don't see why the gun lobby resists this idea so strongly. We have to take a course/test before we get a license to operate a car, because it is a dangerous machine. Why not something similar for guns? Just the basics, don't leave it where the childrens can get at it, how to work the safety, etc etc. Maybe its a bad idea for reasons I haven't thought of, but the gun lobby acts like it shouldn't even be open for discussion. Same thing with limiting the firepower of weapons. I think even the most hard core guns right activist would allow that I shouldn't be allowed to own a personal Sherman Tank, and the most hardcore gun control activist would allow that we should definitely be allowed to own a 1776 musket, so why not narrow it down to what is reasonable? Tomahawk missile, no. Old western six shooter, yes. Rocket launcher, no. Hunting rifle, yes. Any gun powerful enough to destroy a building, no. Shotgun, yes. Any gun that carries enough ammo to take out a McDonalds, no. A gun with enough ammo to stop 3 intruders robbing you, yes. Ok, I don't know a lot about weapons so maybe my examples above are really bad. My point is more that that gun lobby should be open to this kind of discussion, not that my examples of what should be allowed and what shouldn't are correct.

[Swifty_Johnson]

You hear lots of stories about people hearing intruders and yelling "I HAVE A GUN!!!" and then doing that "chuck chuck" thingy with a big ass shotgun and the robbers run away.

Except if the robber has a gun, you've just given him incentive to shoot you first. This is a very bad idea, never pretend to have a working loaded gun, you either do or you don't. Any police officer will also tell you, very bad idea. Also, bad gun can take your gun and get ammo for it and kill someone else with it later.

Your in an apartment, just scream holy hell and raise attention to your plight. Criminals don't want to get caught, and you screaming like mad will drive them away.

Swifty

[Rooster]

" gun with enough ammo to stop 3 intruders robbing you, yes. "

Boom, it's not about defending your HOUSE. It's about being able to form an semi-organized fighting force to fend off an oppressive government. A 5 round clip isn't going to do that.

[Rooster]

Except if the robber has a gun, you've just given him incentive to shoot you first. This is a very bad idea, never pretend to have a working loaded gun, you either do or you don't. Any police officer will also tell you, very bad idea. Also, bad gun can take your gun and get ammo for it and kill someone else with it later.

Your in an apartment, just scream holy hell and raise attention to your plight. Criminals don't want to get caught, and you screaming like mad will drive them away.

Swiftya criminal, when their mind is made up - has already decided somewhere in his mind, that he's either going to use it, or he won't. Whether your gun is loaded or not has no bearing on whether you get shot or not. If it's loaded, you have an EQUAL chance of being shot vs it NOT being loaded.

[Canidae]

Both your statement and mine are flawed, because the laws on these two issues can be contradictory. As such, they can't be used to prove the validity or invalidity of the other.
Yes it can. If you can prove in the courts using convictions with the men, that the fetus is considered a living being, you can prove that abortion is murder.

Boom, correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't it a common thing to use other cases to prove your point? Its call precedence yes?

So, if that is true, then a lawyer could use cases against men that have seen them convicted for murdering an unborn child, to prove that, by law, that unborn child is considered to have the right to life and taking that life is murder.

Now, I am sure you could switch that around and a lawyer could try and get a man out of a conviction by using the fact that abortion is legal, but I doubt very seriously that would work.

The fact is, its hypicritical for any woman to condem a man for murdering an unborn if she believes there is nothing wrong with abortion. In both acts, the childs right to life is being completely and blantantly ingnored.

Again, it is a medical FACT that people are considering BY LAW alive if they have brainwaves/functions and at 6 weeks of age, the fetus has such. If its illegal to promote the death of a person with brainwaves, it should be just as illegal to abort a 6 week old fetus.

[MickeyFinn]

Not a big fan of GWB but the last thing I want is to see the country in the hands of anybody that doesn't scare the pants off of foreign ambassadors. Intimidation is the key to saving lives over in the middle east, and I think its important to prevent as much death as possible.

That's why we're there in the first place after all, to prevent wrongful death.

[Figtoria]

Canidea mentioned something about a safety course for gun owners. I don't see why the gun lobby resists this idea so strongly. We have to take a course/test before we get a license to operate a car, because it is a dangerous machine. Why not something similar for guns? Just the basics, don't leave it where the childrens can get at it, how to work the safety, etc etc.


They resist it because they don't want any gov'ment interference telling them what to do. If they want to give guns to small children as Christmas gifts so that they can teach them to blow the heads off of small animals and birds, then gol-darnit it's their right! Why should the gov'ment be able to tell them what to do!? They make perfec'kly good decisions all by theyselves dammit! They don't need no eddimacation! What my granddaddy did was good enough for him, so it's good enough for me and my chilluns! Learnin' from the past - pfffft - that's fer yankees and other furreners.

[Swifty_Johnson]

They resist it because they don't want any gov'ment interference telling them what to do.

Actually you can thank New York for that. See, New York had this great idea on how to combat crime, register all guns and gun owners. Than after that was done, they banned guns and used the registration lists to seize all guns in New York. Now New York is the safest, most crime free place on the planet!

Swifty

[Eiru]

Actually you can thank New York for that. See, New York had this great idea on how to combat crime, register all guns and gun owners. Than after that was done, they banned guns and used the registration lists to seize all guns in New York. Now New York is the safest, most crime free place on the planet!

Swifty

Don't forget Disney taking over Time Square. That had to have something to do with it, too. ;)

[Allison]

Swifty, you make it sound like NYC instituted the registration process the week before it "seized all guns." Let's at least be clear on the facts.

First of all, the registration process hasd been in effect for 25 years. Second, if it's the 1991 ban you're referring to, it didn't affect all guns, as you imply, only certain semi-automatic weapons. Third, the state didn't go around seizing everyone's guns. They sent a letter informing the owners of the guns in question that they had to either get rid of the guns, disable them, or send them out of the city.

I find it interesting that people cite this case as an example of why they don't want to register their guns. They're basically saying, "I don't want the state to know what guns I have, because if they're ever banned, I don't want to get caught breaking the law when I keep them."

[spyder913]

why morons should not be allowed to own guns -
http://www.thedaily.washington.edu/index.lasso?-database=DailyWebSQL&-table=Articles&-response=newspage.lasso&-keyField=__Record_ID__&-keyValue=9099&-search

[Hammer]

Wasn't that assisted suicide?

[spyder913]

no it was assisted removal of bad genetic material.. morons!

suicide is usually on purpose -- this guy just wasn't thinking

[Swifty_Johnson]

First of all, the registration process hasd been in effect for 25 years. Second, if it's the 1991 ban you're referring to, it didn't affect all guns, as you imply, only certain semi-automatic weapons. Third, the state didn't go around seizing everyone's guns. They sent a letter informing the owners of the guns in question that they had to either get rid of the guns, disable them, or send them out of the city.

The did this before banning handguns, not "assult" rifles. You know when they banned handguns? about 24 years ago.

Swifty

[Rooster]

And NO resident of Chicago is allowed to own a hand gun.

WTF?

And there is no concealed carry available in Minnesota. So much for the right to protect yourself. And for the "cops dont like it" argument, that's BS. The Police Association may not, but it's been proven - that when criminals have to consider whether a target is armed or not, it cuts down on crime.

eg Chicago's extremely high crime rate

[Jobius]

Only Chicago proper is not allowed to own hanguns the rest of the surrounding towns/suburbs and the state of IL can. Just clearing that up just incase you didn't mean Chicago proper like when I first interpreted your statement Roo. ;)

[Rooster]

No, I meant Chicago the city. I found that stuff out in my short time in Chicago. :)

[Eiru]

So, whaddayathink? Kerry or Bush?

:rolly: :rolly: :rolly: :rolly:

[IceFire]

Im just a simple person, If I dont like either canidate I dont vote. My 10th grade history teacher told me, if you dont vote you have no right to voice your opinion. I told him to tell me the definition of free speech. He shut up.

Anyhow, IMO you guys need to just delete this fuckin thread, it made me sick having to re-live the nightmares noleader told me when all this shit was going on, that I never repeated to anyone else.

So do us all a favor roo, please delete this thread, it has been read by alot of people and in my opinion it does not need to be read.

All the first 2 or 3 pages, has done was argueing sides. I stoped reading after the fourth. I don't think you said anything directed twoards Noleader on purpose about his father. However, this is a polical debate fourm, and I think it has went out of hand on many diffrent people. Even though he brought it up. I dont think it belongs. So I would like to request it being deleted.

[IceFire]

O ya, i dont like either of them. =) So I will not vote.

We will all end up being fucked in the end so it dosn't really matter.

[IceFire]

I ment this post/thread not the debate fourm =)

[Rooster]

Not gonna happen though.

Just let it die a natural death (which it was doing).

[IceFire]

I pitty your ass then, thats all i can say.

And apparently have lived a perfect life. Anyone with any heart would of stoped this thread after reading the replys that was posted about "REAL LIFE FAMILYS" THat was effected.

Ban me if you wish, but the respect I had for you as a knowledgeable IT person, is plain gone.

Selfish

[Justar]

GWB. I'm Texan, so go figure. I don't blame Bush for 9/11. I blame Clinton. GWB did more about terrorism in 9 months than clinton did in 4 years.

[]LoL[Harm]

IceFire in the defense of freedom of speech Noleader can post what he wills, he can also go back and delete them whenever he wishes. They are his words and his alone.

[Noleader]

Yea I got sick of trying to explain to people how our system works. After reading the same shit over and over and over, because some people came here with closed minds, I decided to just stop typing. It is pointless to debate with people that like to lremain ignorant. If it helps them sleep better at night blaming a political party for all there problems, so be it. This is my final reply on this thread and I will not respond or read anymore replies here.

Swifty: I beg you to stop taking the I know it all stance and really read up on subjects before shooting from the hip.

Roo: We started out strong but we basicly agree on the core issues just see different ways to get to the goal.

Eiru & Airr: :)

Ice: Although I might not agree with all their opinions on the subject (uninformed about INS and immigration in general). I still would like to have this thread here. If one person reads this and it helps them better understand the abuses that are within the system I have done what I set forth to do. Thanks for all your support though bro :)

Below you will find a little insight into the founding fathers mind set. I hope this helps clear up a few issues about church and state re: marriage.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], ... ("Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Edited by Hunter Miller. Vol. 2, 1776-1818, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1931, p. 365. From George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 45. According to Paul F. Boller [George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 87-88] the treaty was written by Joel Barlow, negotiated during Washington's administration, concluded on November 4, 1796, ratified by the Senate in June, 1797, and signed [see below] by John Adams [2nd U.S. President] on June 10, 1797. Boller concluded that "Very likely Washington shared Barlow's view, though there is no record of his opinion about the treaty ..." [p.88]. Jefferson was Secretary of State in Washington's first administration but had resigned when the treaty was written. Jefferson was Vice-President when the treaty was ratified and signed. Barlow, identified in The American Heritage Dictionary as an American "poet and diplomat," 1754-1812, knew and corresponded extensively with Jefferson. Among many letters Jefferson wrote Barlow was one written on March 14, 1801, just ten days after Jefferson's first inauguration as President.)

---------------------------------------------

Now be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. ("Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Edited by Hunter Miller. Vol. 2. 1776-1818. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1931, p. 383; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 45.)

----------------------------------------

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363)

-------------------------
Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature. (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363)

--------------------------
In the Notes [on the State of Virginia] Jefferson elaborated his views on government's keeping its distance from all religious affairs and religious opinions. "The legitimate powers of government," he wrote, "extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 42-43. )

---------------------------
I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 499.)

----------------------------
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 369)

------------------------------
Are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule of what we are to read, and what we must disbelieve? (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to N. G. Dufief, Philadelphia bookseller, 1814, on the occasion of prosecution for selling De Becourt's "Sur le CrŽation du Monde, un Syst�me d'Organisation Primitive"; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371)

--------------------------------
Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. (James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788; from Michael Kammen, The Origins of the American Constitution: A Documentary History, 1986, pp. 369-370. )

--------------------------------
The only ultimate protection for religious liberty in a country like ours, Madison pointed out--echoing Jefferson;--is public opinion: a firm and pervading opinion that the First Amendment works. "Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance." (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 56. Madison's words, according to Gaustad, are from his letter of 10 July 1822 to Edward Livingston.)

--------------------------------
Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate....The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual matters between men or between man and his maker ... spiritual matters are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion. (U. S. Supreme Court, Melvin v. Easley, 1860, as quoted by Samuel Rabinove, "Church and State Must Remain Separate," in Julie S. Bach, ed., Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints, St. Paul: Greenhaven Press, 1988, p. 53.)

--------------------------------
Supreme Court Justice Rutledge stated in 1947 that the First Amendment was not designed merely to prohibit governmental imposition of a religion; it was designed to create "a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority...." (Martha M. McCarthy, A Delicate Balance: Church, State, and the Schools, Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation, 1983, p. 11.)

---------------------------------
The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Justice Hugo Black, U. S. Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. From Samuel Rabinove, "Church and State Must Remain Separate," in Julie S. Bach, ed., Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints, St. Paul: Greenhaven Press, 1988, p. 53.)

[IceFire]

And as a good REAL LIFE friend of his, I have my FREE SPEECH to say what I wish as well

[IceFire]

Then so be it, if you wish it to be here then I support you 100%. I just didn't want others to see it, after you cooled down and might of relized you didn't wish the hole world to know real life facts about what has went on.

[Figtoria]

I pitty your ass then, thats all i can say.

And apparently have lived a perfect life. Anyone with any heart would of stoped this thread after reading the replys that was posted about "REAL LIFE FAMILYS" THat was effected.

Ban me if you wish, but the respect I had for you as a knowledgeable IT person, is plain gone.

Selfish


Don't read the thread if it annoys you so much.

Free speech and all that.

Explain to me how Rooster's knowledge as an IT person in any way corresponds to his willingness to allow free debate on a BBS?

Lose respect for him?

Sheesh.

[Figtoria]

Okie dokie.

First off, everyone take a deep breathe and calm the hell down.

Abortion: If a man can get charged for the death of an unborn child when he kills the mother, than a woman should be charged with murder if she has an abortion. Simple, easy logic.


Apples and oranges = not simple easy logic.

Motherhood is too important a job to have it forced on anyone.

'Every child a wanted child' would solve many of our societies ills.

[Rooster]

And I'm not even sure where you got an inkling that I would ban you.

By your statements alone, you've proven you really have no idea who I am, or the state of my character. I believe Noleader KNOWS I mean him no ill, only wishing him the best. This is a political discussion about serious matters. It is NOT meant to be personal. Only once did I step in because I felt I HAD to. But I WILL not stifle anyone's freedom of speech here unless it is A) illegal due to the public nature of the board or B) Extremely extenutating circumstances.

This was a minor spat compared to some issues I've watched over at Planet Unreal & Beyond Unreal. (I'm still an Admin there).

I mean, I don't think my feelings about Figgy's political views affect my judgement of her professional talents, not to mention her zest for.. uhm... manhood. :p

Honestly, this may come off cocky, but I've been taking care of forums for years -- and feel that at this point, I'm pretty much beyond reproach when it comes to keeping things on an even keel regarding administering a forum and doing the "right thing" regarding maintaining order & such. Whether I agree with you or not has nothing to do with the respect I give you to voice your opinion.

[Rooster]

Apples and oranges = not simple easy logic.

Motherhood is too important a job to have it forced on anyone.

'Every child a wanted child' would solve many of our societies ills.Forced? Other than Rape... uhm.. it's a choice. (again, different thread! Yes, I already admonished Canidae about it)

[Allison]

GWB. I'm Texan, so go figure. I don't blame Bush for 9/11. I blame Clinton. GWB did more about terrorism in 9 months than clinton did in 4 years.Ugh. I had a novella written in response to this, complete with a nice, informative laundry-list of the Clinton administration's counter-terrorism achievements, and then IE crashed. :(

Bah, the information is out there if you care to look. I'll just sum up my lost post:

1. You blaming Clinton for 9/11 is as ignorant as those who blame Bush.
2. The Clinton administration made great strides in counter-terrorism.
3. Our counter-terrorism policies pre-9/11 and post-9/11 can't be compared.

Thank you very much .. I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitress.

Oh, and I'm a Texan too. :D

[Rooster]

2. I'd love linkage.

But Allison, #3 is EXACTLY what the Democrats are doing. They're wondering why we didn't take the precautions that are being implemented now BEFORE it happened when it was just the bully down the street making threats.

[Allison]

But Allison, #3 is EXACTLY what the Democrats are doing. They're wondering why we didn't take the precautions that are being implemented now BEFORE it happened when it was just the bully down the street making threats.I'd need you to be a little more specific before responding fully. What precautions are you talking about? And what Democrats are you talking about? My #3 point was made in response to the implication that Bush's policies were superior to Clinton's because of Bush's large-scale military actions after 9/11. That sort of military action wasn't warranted before 9/11, so it's an unfair comparison.

Now if you want to compare Bush's counter-terrorism policies pre-9/11 to Clinton's counter-terrorism policies, that's a little more fair. (Although, we have to allow for the fact that the Bush administration didn't have a lot of time to get rolling with any new policies before 9/11.) And in general, that's what most people are looking at: What were our policies during both administrations prior to 9/11; were those policies commensurate with the level of threat; and was the level of threat accurately represented to the Executive Office?

Your assertion that Democrats are "wondering why we didn't take the precautions that are being implemented now before it happened," I think is a correct one. But I would add that Republicans are rightly wondering the same thing. The question, again, is were those precautions warranted before 9/11? I think it's a legitimate question since many of the policies enacted after 9/11 were proposed by the adminstration and rejected by Congress as early as 1995/1996.

But, any attempts to turn this into a partisan blame-game are shameful. Let's save our petty partisan bickering for topics that are less grave. Maybe more could have or should have been done. But if there were failures, they were most likely failures of the system that hopefully will be discovered and resolved. They aren't indicative of some intrinsic shortcomings of Democrats or Republicans.

2. I'd love linkage.I think I listed some things in the Clarke thread already if you want to go back and read that, but I doubt I could find a site with a concise listing of all our counter-terrorism policies from 1993-2001 that wasn't partisan in some way, and I know you'll accept nothing less. So here's a start for you if you're interested in a little reading. I found a State Department archive on counter-terrorism policies. It lists actions taken since late 1998 to "fight terrorism." I'm not sure why that section only goes back to 1998, because a great deal happened between 1993 and 1998, but I'm sure you can find the rest with a little searching. It also has all the public statements made by the administration on terrorism since 1996, and annual reports since 1995.

Following the links at this site will take you to some interesting places, including the National Archives where you can read every public document released by the administration by month and year. It will take some research on your part, but if you really want to know the facts from a reasonably unbiased source, this would be a good place to start.

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/index.html

[BugThuggin]

well, personally i dont like G.W. Bush, for a few reasons, i will spare you all the pain of hearing, but all im gonna say is that if he gets elected im petitioning my mom to move to Canada, if he doesnt decide to invade them next

[Rooster]

Well, if Canada starts harboring Terrorists... he might. :p

[Figtoria]

http://www.funsnap.com/1/bushgirl.swf

:rolly:

[Rooster]

OMG it's Tracy Ullman!

[Swifty_Johnson]

Swifty: I beg you to stop taking the I know it all stance and really read up on subjects before shooting from the hip.

You should heed this advise more than I, as you've been way off base. You also need to frame what in being said/written with the context of the period, not in the context of today, this is your biggest mistake. You also need to learn what the 2nd admendment is all about.

Swifty

[Rooster]

Last I checked, none of us are Constitutional Lawyers (please speak up if you are!). So, we're all just hypothesizing :bang:

But, we should each respect each other's opinions on this; and while we may disagree (some more violently than others), we're all going to feel our particular way of viewing it is correct.

[Allison]

Well said, Roo.