It's crap like this......

[TIdoublegaER]

You are correct, any citizen, including the President can change laws through initiative and referendum. Yes, I did read the article and yes, I saw where he said he didn't think it was necessary at this time. That doesn't mean that he won't push for it to happen.

I'm curious...where all of you as outraged when President Clinton did the same thing during his term?

I don't recall (now there's a Clinton line! ) him taking up this particular issue so no I wasn't outraged. If he held the same opinion as Bush, then yes I would have been. If you are talking about his opinions in general - well, I didn't think too highly of him then or now, so I tried to ignore a lot of what he had to say.

Of course, if he gets his way and gets term limits for presidents repealed, well, we might have to deal with him again!

 

[AirForceRocks]

Actually, I say take it the Constitutional amendment route, and see what happens. The amendment process is really the closest thing we have to a national referendum, roundabout as it may be. Take it to the states to ratify, and see what happens. If it fails, we have our answer on how people feel about it. Same thing if it passes.

 

[AirForceRocks]

I don't recall (now there's a Clinton line! ) him taking up this particular issue so no I wasn't outraged. If he held the same opinion as Bush, then yes I would have been.

He took up the issue when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It set out a definition of marriage and made it legal for states that don't have gay marriage to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. I don't know if it has been challenged on a Constitutional basis, but as far as I know, it is still the law of the land on this matter.

 

[TIdoublegaER]

I think I do remember that now that you mention it. I was pregnant for most of 1996, so I plead temporary insanity or at least hormonal imbalance! I tihnk you are right that it is still the law. Still don't agree with it and my opinion of him hasn't gotten any better because of it.

Quite frankly, I don't like most of the politicians in Washington and don't feel that most of them really represent their constiuents, but we don't have anybody to blame but ourselves, we put them there. What a minute - Isn't there somebody we could sue over that?

 

[AirForceRocks]

I was pregnant for most of 1996, so I plead temporary insanity or at least hormonal imbalance!

I was pregnant for the first half of 1996, so I feel your pain!!

Isn't there somebody we could sue over that?

WDW perhaps?

 

[DonnaS]

I thought you were suing WDW over being pregnant. I thought only the DCL provided that little souvenir. LOL

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by DonnaS
I thought you were suing WDW over being pregnant. I thought only the DCL provided that little souvenir. LOL

ROTFLMAO!! That is one of my all-time favorite commercials!!!

 

[TIdoublegaER]

WDW perhaps?

I was thinking the same thing! It MUST be Disney's fault somehow!

I thought you were suing WDW over being pregnant. I thought only the DCL provided that little souvenir. LOL

That is too funny! I know I can't, but maybe my sister can! She got pregnant while on her honeymoon there in '98. That is my all time favorite Disney commerical BTW.

But I digress... back to topic of whether or not Bush is allowed to have any opinion and gays can marry.

 

[ripleysmom]

I did not know that Clinton did that and am disappointed to learn it. I was also cranking out a baby about that time so that might have been why it slipped by me.

President Bush is certainly entitled to his opinion but I don't believe that any legislator has the right to force their personal opinions and bias on the rest of the US. Instead of saying "I don't think we need it let's wait and see", I think he should have said "While I do not agree with their lifestyle, we should not be looking to demonize a segment of the population because we don't like who they have sex with."

I honestly cannot believe that anyone would even consider allowing or approving of the NOTION of a constitutional amendment that would authorize discrimination against a segment of the population. That is beyond my comprehension and should have been addressed by him as well.

 

[AirForceRocks]

But I digress... back to topic of whether or not Bush is allowed to have any opinion and gays can marry.

Yes, he is and no, they can't (except possibly where, in Hawaii and Vermont? And do they call it marriage, or is it something else?)

 

[AirForceRocks]

President Bush is certainly entitled to his opinion but I don't believe that any legislator has the right to force their personal opinions and bias on the rest of the US.

You're kidding right? It's done every single time a law is passed. Think about it - every law that is passed in Washington (and in the states, for that matter) is some legislator's personal opinion or bias that is being forced on the rest of us.

The difference is how we react - those biases/beliefs with which we agree? We don't mind those being "forced" on us. It's only those biases/beliefs with which we disagree that cause us to stand up and scream "bigot(s)!"

I honestly cannot believe that anyone would even consider allowing or approving of the NOTION of a constitutional amendment that would authorize discrimination against a segment of the population. That is beyond my comprehension and should have been addressed by him as well.

I certainly can. While I have no problem with legal civil unions for gay couples, I have a huge problem with calling them marriages. Marriages, IMO, are between men and women. Give all the legal rights/benefits to gay couples that you want, but I don't think it should be called a marriage.

 

[ripleysmom]

"You're kidding right? It's done every single time a law is passed. Think about it - every law that is passed in Washington (and in the states, for that matter) is some legislator's personal opinion or bias that is being forced on the rest of us."

Whether it happens or not....that is not how it should be. Impetus for changes in law should come from the people not the whim of the legislator.


"The difference is how we react - those biases/beliefs with which we agree? We don't mind those being "forced" on us. It's only those biases/beliefs with which we disagree that cause us to stand up and scream "bigot(s)!""

Not true.....at least in my case.


"I certainly can. While I have no problem with legal civil unions for gay couples, I have a huge problem with calling them marriages. Marriages, IMO, are between men and women."

Why? Why is that so important to everyone?


"Give all the legal rights/benefits to gay couples that you want, but I don't think it should be called a marriage."

Fine....but even that does not appear to be acceptable to our dear lawmakers or President.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Whether it happens or not....that is not how it should be. Impetus for changes in law should come from the people not the whim of the legislator.

Legislators are elected based on their biases and personal beliefs. We all do it - we vote for those people that most closely match our own personal beliefs. Why? Because we want the things that we believe in to become law, and those things that we don't believe in to be outlawed. Candidates run on platforms of being for or against A, B or C, and they either win or don't based on those beliefs.

Not true.....at least in my case.

Really? So if there were a Constitutional amendment passed next week that outlawed abortion in all cases, you wouldn't be upset about someone else's moral beliefs being foisted onto you?
And conversely, if there were a Constitutional amendment passed tomorrow that made gay marriage legal, you wouldn't be happy, even though that would foist your personal beliefs on to those that disagree? I believe it's true (in some degree) in everyone's case, including mine.

Why? Why is that so important to everyone?

For me, it's the tradition aspect. Maybe the answer is to have marriages only performed in churches, synagogues or mosques, and have everything outside of that, be it heterosexual or homosexual, be called a civil union (justice of the peace, etc). I don't know. But I am opposed to taking a tradition that has been around for thousands of years and twist into something it was never intended to be just to satisfy the politically correct people of the world.

Fine....but even that does not appear to be acceptable to our dear lawmakers or President.

I may have missed it - where did he say that?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
It's done every single time a law is passed.

Thank you--I've been saying that for years on the Debate Board.

Hey, I was pregnant the first half of 96, too--I'll add that personal CBish tidbit before this one gets moved over to the Debate Board.

 

[disneefamily]

.

 

[Tony-NJ]

why on earth would anyone care if 2 men or 2 women were able to get married? I understand that some may have their own opinions, beliefs, Traditional beliefs etc. But if it's not you, then why would anyone care? How would this effect you and the way you live? It's pretty sad to me that we as a country have this issue. this is the land of the free, isn't it? Gays are not hurting anyone or anything. And yes the president has the right to voice his opinion about anything.

I honestly cannot believe that anyone would even consider allowing or approving of the NOTION of a constitutional amendment that would authorize discrimination against a segment of the population. That is beyond my comprehension and should have been addressed by him as well.

I agree

 

[ripleysmom]

Ripleysmom says that......DizneeDad needs to really consider whether or not homosexual unions can or should be lumped in with heinous crimes that are perpetrated on others.

Ripleysmom says that......DizneeDad should remember that the discussion is about an agreement between 2 legally consenting adults. There aren't any victims here.

Ripleysmom says that......it's a shame that DizneeDad could even consider classifying these things together.

But then what can you expect from someone who posts about themselves in the 3rd person.

 

[ripleysmom]

"Really? So if there were a Constitutional amendment passed next week that outlawed abortion in all cases, you wouldn't be upset about someone else's moral beliefs being foisted onto you?"

How is that foisting my beliefs on anyone? Is anyone now required to get an abortion?


"And conversely, if there were a Constitutional amendment passed tomorrow that made gay marriage legal, you wouldn't be happy, even though that would foist your personal beliefs on to those that disagree? I believe it's true (in some degree) in everyone's case, including mine."

Why, are you now going to be forced into a homosexual union?


The difference between what you are suggesting and having a ban on gay marriage is that one thing is promoting a freedom for others while one is restricting the freedom of others.

My beliefs are not forcing you to engage in those behaviors just giving the freedom to do so. Your beliefs (figuratively speaking) are forcing others into certain behaviors.

That is where my beef is.....


"For me, it's the tradition aspect."

Sounds like you mean religious aspect.


"I may have missed it - where did he say that?"

C'mon.....if he agreed then why didn't he say it was okay? Why not say okay it shouldn't be called marriage but they should have a union?

 

[dianeschlicht]

It's his opinion, and he has a right to it. I have a right to excersise my voting rights and NOT vote for him! I didn't vote for him last time, and I wont next time. Simple as that.

 

[CathyCanada]

Did I click on the Debate Board option by mistake??