Palin breaks with McCain on gay marriage

[RickinNYC]

Ok, they can sometimes impose their will to stop a law, but they have no authority to impose their will by making a law.

To use gay marriage as the example, since this is a states issue, as already decided by the supreme court, the president can not make an executive decision to ban gay marriage.

Thank God in Heaven for that. Otherwise our current village idiot in office would have worked his self righteous butt off moreso than he has to insure a federal ban was in place.

 

[mickey2000]

Palin is exactly the reason McCain lost my vote.

My vote is in!

DITTO !

 

[RickinNYC]

If you had said that Palin made it impossible for you to vote for her, or even you and others, you would have been correct, however your blanket statement is proven false by the fact that I and many others have or are going to vote for McCain.

Putting someone in the office of president that I feel is unqualified is much worse than putting someone in the office of vice president, that I feel is unqualified.

Thankfully, I think you are in the minority. Fingers crossed!

 

[Master Mason]

If Palin had said "I support a constitutional amendment to prevent African Americans from marrying", would you feel different? Could you support someone and vote them into office if they had made that statement? What is the difference? The very bottom line, no matter what you argue, or what side of the fence you're on is this:

Palin supports a constitutional amendment to ban a group of people from the same rights another group of people are allowed. Bottom line. Period.

It is one thing to state that you do not "agree with homosexuality" or that "my religion teaches me it's wrong" ok to each his own HOWEVER; that is a far cry from supporting a constitutional amendment limiting legal/constitutional rights to a specific group of taxpaying, American citizens.

That is wrong. I don't care how much one may want to support their own agenda/candidate/ prejudices etc., it is wrong to do that. I honestly don't see how anyone could support such a thing...the very nature and tone of it is repulsive to me. I firmly believe history will remember those who treat gay people in this manner they same as it remembers George Wallace standing on the front steps of U.A.....and it will be deserved.

Everyone is so quick to jump on the slippery slope arguments in this election.....why not slide down this one for a minute:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

It is not my intent to attack anyone, I just don't understand why people can not see how wrong this is. It's just wrong

If I were voting for vice president, I would choose Biden over Palin. However, we don't get to vote seperately, we have to vote for a package, and I am much more concerned with Obama being the President than I am about Palin being the Vice President. That's my full stop on the subject. If you feel differently, then that's just fine and dandy, please vote the way you feel.

As for if it wrong to support a ban on Gay marriage, all I can say is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of the population believes that gay marriage should not be allowed, they are just as entitled to believe that as you are to belive that it should be allowed.

As for your nice nazi quote, no one that I can see has advocated coming to take anyone... so that really doesn't apply here.

 

[Mr Man]

If I were voting for vice president, I would choose Biden over Palin. However, we don't get to vote seperately, we have to vote for a package, and I am much more concerned with Obama being the President than I am about Palin being the Vice President. That's my full stop on the subject. If you feel differently, then that's just fine and dandy, please vote the way you feel.

As for if it wrong to support a ban on Gay marriage, all I can say is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of the population believes that gay marriage should not be allowed, they are just as entitled to believe that as you are to belive that it should be allowed.

As for your nice nazi quote, no one that I can see has advocated coming to take anyone... so that really doesn't apply here.

I invoke Godwin's Law......

This thread has run it's course.....

 

[RickinNYC]

If I were voting for vice president, I would choose Biden over Palin. However, we don't get to vote seperately, we have to vote for a package, and I am much more concerned with Obama being the President than I am about Palin being the Vice President. That's my full stop on the subject. If you feel differently, then that's just fine and dandy, please vote the way you feel.

As for if it wrong to support a ban on Gay marriage, all I can say is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of the population believes that gay marriage should not be allowed, they are just as entitled to believe that as you are to belive that it should be allowed.

As for your nice nazi quote, no one that I can see has advocated coming to take anyone... so that really doesn't apply here.

And more than 50% of the population half a decade ago wanted to keep interracial marriage illegal. I suppose you feel that if it's what the people want, then it should stay that way.

 

[Master Mason]

Thankfully, I think you are in the minority. Fingers crossed!

Unfortunately I fear that your right, I am going to be in the minority, and I will suck it up and muddle through the next 4 years hoping that a decent candidate steps up to the plate, because god knows our choices have sucked for the last 12 years.

 

[Master Mason]

And more than 50% of the population half a decade ago wanted to keep interracial marriage illegal. I suppose you feel that if it's what the people want, then it should stay that way.

Well if you would like my feelings on Gay Marriage I'll be happy to give them to you.

I do not feel that the governement should sanction Gay Marriage, but now the kicker, I do not feel that the government should sanction Hetero Marriage either. Marriage is a religious sacrement and should be left to the churches to decide who they will marry or not.

What the government shoul be sactioning are civil unions, those civil unions should be the basis of the rights, benifits, and obligations currently afforded to the state recognized marriage. And those unions should be allowed between any two consenting adults.

That's my feelings, it puts me in a minority possition in the country, and even on the fringe of that particular minority.

 

[Kath2003]

Clearly same-sex marriage would result in the same breakdown in society that we have seen in countries which allow same-sex unions to be legally recognized, such as the UK, Australia, Canada, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Iceland, Austria...

Call it what you want - I don't care. If you don't want to call it marriage, fine. If a religious institution doesn't want to unite couples, fine. But civil unions/marriage/any other legally binding contract between two consenting adults of the same or different genders is fine by me.

 

[ntsammy5]

And more than 50% of the population half a decade ago wanted to keep interracial marriage illegal. I suppose you feel that if it's what the people want, then it should stay that way.

That's why I'm glad this country is a Republic and not a Democracy - the Founding Fathers were brilliant!

 

[RickinNYC]

Well if you would like my feelings on Gay Marriage I'll be happy to give them to you.

I do not feel that the governement should sanction Gay Marriage, but now the kicker, I do not feel that the government should sanction Hetero Marriage either. Marriage is a religious sacrement and should be left to the churches to decide who they will marry or not.

What the government shoul be sactioning are civil unions, those civil unions should be the basis of the rights, benifits, and obligations currently afforded to the state recognized marriage. And those unions should be allowed between any two consenting adults.

That's my feelings, it puts me in a minority possition in the country, and even on the fringe of that particular minority.

Actually, no. That's not what I asked. I asked you if the people had voted to keep interracial marriage illegal a half decade ago, by your thought process, it should have been so. Right?

In the meantime, because heterosexual marriage is here to stay and absolutely no law will be changed with that regard (to think otherwise is absolutely ridiculous), what exactly do you think should be done to allow adult, tax paying gay citizens of the US?

You are merely speculating in hypotheticals and skirting the question.

 

[Cindy F]

As for if it wrong to support a ban on Gay marriage, all I can say is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of the population believes that gay marriage should not be allowed, they are just as entitled to believe that as you are to belive that it should be allowed.

As for your nice nazi quote, no one that I can see has advocated coming to take anyone... so that really doesn't apply here.

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree. I do agree that they have a right to their belief but I do not agree that their belief should be law. Just as I believe that people have a right to their racist beliefs but I do not agree that their racist beliefs should be incorporated into our laws and definitely not into our constitution. Do you honestly think might equals right? So slavery was the right thing to do too? Segregation was the right thing? I don't understand how is this different.

As far as the Nazi quote, I don't think is anything "nice" about it and I think you know exactly how it applies but in case I'm wrong-let me explain how I look at it. Once you begin banning rights of one group, what is to stop the banning of another groups right? Where does that line of thinking end?

Look at our constitutional amendments now, do any of them single out a group of people and deny them rights that others have? They are all designed to protect rights, not ban them. Our Constitution sets the tone for what our country is all about and I personally do not think that type of negative amendment supports the ideals of equality, freedom, democracy, fairness, etc. that our country is supposed to stand for.

In the year 2000, Alabama voted on whether the law against interracial marriage should be repealed. I am offended that repealing the law was even put to a vote instead of just repealing it based on the fact that it was unconstitutional. It was repealed by 51%. Only 51% of the people felt interracial marriage should be legal. So 49% of the people thought it should still be illegal....I have very little faith in the majority to do what's right anymore. As I saw on someone's signature:

"A person is smart but people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals"

 

[Master Mason]

Actually, no. That's not what I asked. I asked you if the people had voted to keep interracial marriage illegal a half decade ago, by your thought process, it should have been so. Right?

In the meantime, because heterosexual marriage is here to stay and absolutely no law will be changed with that regard (to think otherwise is absolutely ridiculous), what exactly do you think should be done to allow adult, tax paying gay citizens of the US?

You are merely speculating in hypotheticals and skirting the question.

I think that if you can get enough people to vote to make something illegal, then, yes it should be illegal, that's how things work.

As to how to get things to change, well, it's two fold. First off very very few things are actually decided by a vote of the people, the majority of them are decided by elected officials. When you have enough elected officials willing to go against the will of the majority, then they can enact laws contrary to public opinion, they do so at their paril but they can do so none the less.

The second thing to do is to change public opinion. By the time that the civil rights laws were passed, the majority of people in the US believed in them, but not the majority in the South where most of the issues resided, so the will of the US majority over rid the will of the local majority.

Also, I do not personally equate sexuality to race. In this case, denying an interracial couple to marry was a race issue, not a sexuality issue. So while I see why people try and equate it, I personally don't believe it to be the same. That's just my opinion and as with any of my opinions your free to disagree with them.

As for skirting the issue, not really, I think that in our current times, it is a workable solution to the issue. The folks that are against gay marriage on a religious basis, really don't have much to stand on if it's not "marriage".

 

[RickinNYC]

I think that if you can get enough people to vote to make something illegal, then, yes it should be illegal, that's how things work.

As to how to get things to change, well, it's two fold. First off very very few things are actually decided by a vote of the people, the majority of them are decided by elected officials. When you have enough elected officials willing to go against the will of the majority, then they can enact laws contrary to public opinion, they do so at their paril but they can do so none the less.

The second thing to do is to change public opinion. By the time that the civil rights laws were passed, the majority of people in the US believed in them, but not the majority in the South where most of the issues resided, so the will of the US majority over rid the will of the local majority.

Also, I do not personally equate sexuality to race. In this case, denying an interracial couple to marry was a race issue, not a sexuality issue. So while I see why people try and equate it, I personally don't believe it to be the same. That's just my opinion and as with any of my opinions your free to disagree with them.

As for skirting the issue, not really, I think that in our current times, it is a workable solution to the issue. The folks that are against gay marriage on a religious basis, really don't have much to stand on if it's not "marriage".

So you are totally fine with my own hypothetical situation that, in using your line of thinking, interracial marriage should have remained illegal. For that matter, women should not have been given the right to vote. Got it.

 

[Anewman]

I think that if you can get enough people to vote to make something illegal, then, yes it should be illegal, that's how things work.

That is scary, so if something is unpopular it could become illegal... TRULY SCARY.

 

[Master Mason]

As far as the Nazi quote, I don't think is anything "nice" about it and I think you know exactly how it applies but in case I'm wrong-let me explain how I look at it. Once you begin banning rights of one group, what is to stop the banning of another groups right? Where does that line of thinking end?

No rights are being taken away, because there currently are no rights afforded. So no, your quote doesn't apply.

Look at our constitutional amendments now, do any of them single out a group of people and deny them rights that others have? They are all designed to protect rights, not ban them. Our Constitution sets the tone for what our country is all about and I personally do not think that type of negative amendment supports the ideals of equality, freedom, democracy, fairness, etc. that our country is supposed to stand for.

Could you please point me to the amendment that is currently before the congress to ratify and send to the states? People can talk about an amendment till they are blue in the face, until it is on paper and presented to the congress it means nothing

In the year 2000, Alabama voted on whether the law against interracial marriage should be repealed. I am offended that repealing the law was even put to a vote instead of just repealing it based on the fact that it was unconstitutional. It was repealed by 51%. Only 51% of the people felt interracial marriage should be legal. So 49% of the people thought it should still be illegal....I have very little faith in the majority to do what's right anymore. As I saw on someone's signature:

"A person is smart but people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals"

There are all kinds of archic laws on the books, some of them the only way to remove them is by a vote, otherwise they are simply unenforcable. In your example, the majority voted and removed it, which means the majority got it right.

 

[RickinNYC]

That is scary, so if something is unpopular it could become illegal... TRULY SCARY.

I respect the fact that he admits that his' position. Some others, both on the DIS and in real life, back pedal and would never admit to something like that. I don't respect his position but do respect his willingness to stand by it.

 

[Master Mason]

That is scary, so if something is unpopular it could become illegal... TRULY SCARY.

Tried to light up a cigerette in a public place recently? That smoker would really like to be able to have one while enjoying his coffee sitting in the resturant. Do you have any problem taking his right away?

 

[Master Mason]

I respect the fact that he admits that his' position. Some others, both on the DIS and in real life, back pedal and would never admit to something like that. I don't respect his position but do respect his willingness to stand by it.

But I am willing to listen to opposing ideas and if someone can show me where I am wrong, I am also willing to change my opnion.

In fact, when I first joined these boards, I had a several day discussion with you, where you convinced me I was wrong about my feelings towards gay days at WDW, don't know if you remember that or not.

 

[Cindy F]

I think that if you can get enough people to vote to make something illegal, then, yes it should be illegal, that's how things work.

Also, I do not personally equate sexuality to race. In this case, denying an interracial couple to marry was a race issue, not a sexuality issue.

Again, I disagree, that is not how things work, if it were, Kennedy would not have had to federalize the national guard to assist with segregation. You do not personally equate sexuality to race because it would not support your opinion. Denial of rights is denial of rights no matter how one may try to justify it.