Palin breaks with McCain on gay marriage

[Master Mason]

It doesn't. It does mention "equal protection." What exactly do you take the 14th amendment to mean if it doesn't mean that the government cannot ban interracial marriage with the goal of keeping the white race pure from tainting by ****** blood?

It sounds as if you against ALL court cases that understand the equal protection clause in any substantive way? I assume, then athat you think Plessy v. Ferguson should still be standing law, and that the post-Plessy decisions of the civil rights era was judicial activism?

It sounds like you are placing yourself just about just one step to the left of George Wallace (surely you haven't said segregation and oppression of blacks is a good thing--just that there are absolutely no constitutional protections whatsoever to prevent it).

I don't know if you call yourself a conservative or not, but if I were a fellow conservative on the DIS, I would be trying to put as much distance as possible between myself and you since I'm guessing that the contemporary conservative party doesn't want to be known as the party who STILL thinks Plessy v. Ferguson was a great decision.

Your way over reaching with this.

I belive the constitution was writen with specific words and those words should be followed to the letter. Full stop.

 

[ChrizJen]

Your opinion, Rick. There are many others, including myself, of the opinion that sexual orientation is NOT based on genetics, but based on choice (DESPITE what those who may be of a different sexual orientation have to say). And many of those, including myself, would base that not just on their own feelings, but upon religious beliefs, among other things.

Palin's stance regarding gay marriage, which I happen to agree completely with, is but one facet of her many views. Would I expect gay couples to like her views? Nope. Would I expect die-hard Democrats, or even moderate or left-leaning Republicans to like her views? Nope. Will all conservatives even like her views? Nope. But that doesn't mean that ALL people dislike her views. It will all be evident in the election. Will Bush/Palin win? I hope so, but I'm doubting it. Do I think that's a bad thing? Personally, I do, but I just represent 1 vote. And if Obama is elected, it won't change my views on anything; for that matter, a McCain victory wouldn't change my views on anything either.

I don't hope to change anyone's mind - heck, most of them are made up already - just giving my opinions.

I only have a few questions about your opinion...
How long did you struggle before you chose your heterosexuality?
Did you wake up one day and it came to you, or did you really have a hard time deciding?
Did you weigh the benefits of being straight vs. being gay, and then just decide that it would easier to be straight, so you ran with it?

I'm just curious.


ETA...Oh, and you're right. It's not likely that Bush/Palin will win this election. I sure as hell hope not anyway. ACK!!

 

[Master Mason]

To be honest, that's one of those things that I think should be legal. I don't want to partake, but you should be allowed to in the privacy of your own home.

But yet again, the majority feel it should be illegal, and so it is when it has absolutely no effect on them. For the record, I haven't smoked a joint in 25 years and have no intention of doing so even if it were legal, it's just an example where the will of the majority is being imposed on the minority.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Your way over reaching with this.

I belive the constitution was writen with specific words and those words should be followed to the letter. Full stop.

Exactly--and that would mean that you oppose all of the civil rights cases, no?

There is nothing in the constitution that says "separate is not equal" so there goes Brown v. Board. There is nothing that says blacks cannot be discriminated against in terms of what bathrooms they can use or what schools they can attend--those words aren't there. And you yourself have already jettisoned Loving v. Virginia--as you say, the word marriage isn't mentioned and nothing in the constitution.

So that gets us back to Plessy v. Ferguson.

Where have I misunderstood your position?

 

[Master Mason]

Exactly--and that would mean that you oppose all of the civil rights cases, no?

There is nothing in the constitution that says "separate is not equal" so there goes Brown v. Board. There is nothing that says blacks cannot be discriminated against in terms of what bathrooms they can use or what schools they can attend--those words aren't there. And you yourself have already jettisoned Loving v. Virginia--as you say, the word marriage isn't mentioned and nothing in the constitution.

So that gets us back to Plessy v. Ferguson.

Where have I misunderstood your position?

Actually I would say that Justice Harlens dissent was the more accurate assesment of the words of the constitution in Plessy v. Ferguson....

 

[bicker]

I don't have to agree with everything my choosen candidate thinks or believes, including his opinion about his opponent.

Are you saying that you, specifically, disagree with McCain about Obama being a decent person and that there is no reason to fear an Obama Presidency?

Please by all means show me where the current president has made an executive order that forces his personal beliefs on everyone. Just one will do.

I know you were asking JR6ooo4, and I'm not sure yet whether he's provided you the one you were asking for, but this is one of my "favorites" (not!): July 2006: The veto of H.R. 810.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Actually I would say that Justice Harlens dissent was the more accurate assesment of the words of the constitution in Plessy v. Ferguson....

What do you mean "an assessment"? Either the words "equal means not separate" and "railroad cars" are there or they aren't (they clearly aren't.) Isn't that the standard you applied to Loving when you rejected it because the word marriage doesn't appear in the constitution?

Why is Harlan's interpretation of "equal" (in a way which is clearly not written in the constitution) okay, but the interpretation of equal in Loving v. Virginia is not okay?

You just said not 5 minutes ago:

I belive the constitution was writen with specific words and those words should be followed to the letter. Full stop.

Now you are talking about an "assessment"--how is that not going beyond "following the words to the letter"?

 

[Cindy F]

Just thought this kinda fits in here...sad some folks haven't evolved beyond this yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dKpHtc9F9M&feature=related

 

[soupy11]

Just thought this kinda fits in here...sad some folks haven't evolved beyond this yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dKpHtc9F9M&feature=related

Great show, some people still haven't figured out that the joke was always on Archie.....

And judging by the replies on youtube, they never will!

 

[bicker]

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.

That's not true. There is no validity to the assertion that the government is to be allowed to make Person A live in accordance with Person B's beliefs and values. Unless there is compelling public interest in prohibiting them from doing so, Person A should be allowed to live in accordance with their own beliefs and values. The only significant, arguable "interest" in play here is the personal belief that homosexuality is wrong, and therefore that interest applies only to the people who believe that.

 

[soupy11]

I only have a few questions about your opinion...
How long did you struggle before you chose your heterosexuality?
Did you wake up one day and it came to you, or did you really have a hard time deciding?
Did you weigh the benefits of being straight vs. being gay, and then just decide that it would easier to be straight, so you ran with it?

I'm just curious.


ETA...Oh, and you're right. It's not likely that Bush/Palin will win this election. I sure as hell hope not anyway. ACK!!

Good post. Totally agree with you and I have yet to see a decent argument for the belief that people are free to choose what turns them on....such an odd and foreign idea. And why does it always come from someone who thinks of it as the wrong choice.

 

[Master Mason]

What do you mean "an assessment"? Either the words "equal means not separate" and "railroad cars" are there or they aren't (they clearly aren't.) Isn't that the standard you applied to Loving when you rejected it because the word marriage doesn't appear in the constitution?

Why is Harlan's interpretation of "equal" (in a way which is clearly not written in the constitution) okay, but the interpretation of equal in Loving v. Virginia is not okay?

You just said not 5 minutes ago:


Now you are talking about an "assessment"--how is that not going beyond "following the words to the letter"?

Loving said that Marriage is a right, however that right is not listed as a right in the constitution, not anywhere.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

"The object of the [Fourteenth] Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either."

—Justice Henry Billings Brown,
speaking for the majority

This was the majority descion in Plessy, the highlighted place is where they fell on their face, they attempted to say what had been "intended" instead of following the words that had been written.

When I said assement, that's exactly what I meant, he looked at the words of the constitution and applied them to the situation, he didn't make up something that was "not intended" to support his stance.

 

[stacyp9]

Hey. Quit that. You sidetracked me.

Palin is an idiot. Discuss.

She is dumber than a box of hair and the world has taken notice. We had international visitors at work today and they all wanted to know how anyone in this country, could still support her.

 

[Goofyluver]

Your opinion, Rick. There are many others, including myself, of the opinion that sexual orientation is NOT based on genetics, but based on choice (DESPITE what those who may be of a different sexual orientation have to say). And many of those, including myself, would base that not just on their own feelings, but upon religious beliefs, among other things.

Palin's stance regarding gay marriage, which I happen to agree completely with, is but one facet of her many views. Would I expect gay couples to like her views? Nope. Would I expect die-hard Democrats, or even moderate or left-leaning Republicans to like her views? Nope. Will all conservatives even like her views? Nope. But that doesn't mean that ALL people dislike her views. It will all be evident in the election. Will Bush/Palin win? I hope so, but I'm doubting it. Do I think that's a bad thing? Personally, I do, but I just represent 1 vote. And if Obama is elected, it won't change my views on anything; for that matter, a McCain victory wouldn't change my views on anything either.

I don't hope to change anyone's mind - heck, most of them are made up already - just giving my opinions.

Your opinion is just that...YOUR opinion. And you are entitled to that opinion. There's a difference in believing that somehow homosexuality is wrong or that it is a choice...and believing that we should deny rights to an entire group of people based on that so-called "choice".

If Sarah Palin had said, "I believe homosexuality is wrong." I would believe that she was entitled to hold that opinion.

What I have a PROBLEM with is the fact that she is using her opinion to deny an entire group of people basic and equal rights.

That's the crux of this argument here.

Not that she is not entitled to her beliefs.

But, that she would support legislation that would deny an entire group of people equal rights.

It is one thing to hold certain personal and religious beliefs. It is quite another to spin those beliefs into a denial of civil rights.

 

[Anewman]

Your opinion, Rick. There are many others, including myself, of the opinion that sexual orientation is NOT based on genetics, but based on choice (DESPITE what those who may be of a different sexual orientation have to say).

Thanks for the honesty.

I used to think similarly, and then a girl asked me if I thought I could choose to be attracted to men.

END OF DISCUSSION.

 

[Goofyluver]

Thanks for the honesty.

I used to think similarly, and then a girl asked me if I thought I could choose to be attracted to men.

END OF DISCUSSION.

 

[bicker]

I'm pretty sure that if I underwent transgender surgery, I'd end up as a lesbian. How does that map into this?

 

[ntsammy5]

This whole issue confuses me. Why should ANYONE be allowed to decide for another person what they should or should not do as long as no one else is harmed.

Telling people that they can't do something based solely and exclusively on a moral viewpoint is just wrong and I absolutely cannot countenance it.

 

[Master Mason]

Thanks for the honesty.

I used to think similarly, and then a girl asked me if I thought I could choose to be attracted to men.

END OF DISCUSSION.

See there are things we completely agree on besides cameras.

 

[Master Mason]

This whole issue confuses me. Why should ANYONE be allowed to decide for another person what they should or should not do as long as no one else is harmed.

Telling people that they can't do something based solely and exclusively on a moral viewpoint is just wrong and I absolutely cannot countenance it.

we have a ton of laws that are based exclusively on a moral viewpoint. Incest laws, drug laws, suicide laws, animal sacrafice laws, the list is endless.

It is simply a matter of where each person chooses to draw the line in the sand.