Reinquist died!

[DoTheFandango]

Don't forget banning stem cell research.

Oh! And him pushing the to FDA ban Morning After Pills.

He's not religiously based at all IMHO.

[Troll King]

There's a difference between being religious and being evangelical.

[DoTheFandango]

I never said he was evangelical, n00b.

[Troll King]

I never said you did.

[Kolar]

He became a Christian after a long life of drugs, alcohol abuse and has a lengthly police report. He is an Evangelical Christian. His beliefs do not reflect those of the Methodist church. If anything he's a Evangelical Methodist.


What the population wants or believes in is not important. It's unconstutional being anti-gay when it comes to politics. There wouldn't be a problem if conservatives didn't bring their views and beliefs into it. Although I believe there are a lot of options when it comes to pregnency it is a belief that abortion is murder at any stage and contraception is wrong. Look at the limitations all levels of Govn. has placed on the pill.

[genocidal]

He became a Christian after a long life of drugs, alcohol abuse and has a lengthly police report. He is an Evangelical Christian. His beliefs do not reflect those of the Methodist church. If anything he's a Evangelical Methodist.

Being a born-again Christian is not the same as being an evangelical. Evangelicals go around trying (forcing) people to believe what they do. I've never seen the President on Christian Life Network telling everyone they're going to hell if they don't repent.

What the population wants or believes in is not important. It's unconstutional being anti-gay when it comes to politics. There wouldn't be a problem if conservatives didn't bring their views and beliefs into it. Although I believe there are a lot of options when it comes to pregnency it is a belief that abortion is murder at any stage and contraception is wrong. Look at the limitations all levels of Govn. has placed on the pill.

You just saying it's unconstitutional does not make it so. While I do agree with you the argument is not grounded in dictating moral behaviour to the population but in the belief that marriage is inherently a union between man and woman for the purpose of reproduction. You can argue against that all you want and I'll agree with you but that's the argument - not that gays are going to hell therefore we should restrict their rights as much as possible.

I cited public opinion not trying to state that the public is right (they're often wrong - see Brown v Board and the entire segregation issue) but in order to show that Bush is not some looney Bible-bopper representing a small minority of white Protestants in the country.

The very idea that you bring up that the public is often wrong is the basis for all my argumentation that judges' rulings must be based on the Constitution and laws and not in their personal beliefs about gay rights or what a fetus is.

[DoTheFandango]

You just saying it's unconstitutional does not make it so.

Argh, I wish the constitution contained the Declaration of Independance.

poo.

But it is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

This is an offical declaration in the UN, so who knows.

[Cops]

..

[Kolar]

The general interpretation of the legal documents is that it is unconstitutional. The union between a man and a woman argument is just bullshit. People supporting that just use it as a legal avenue for their beliefs.

Most religious people can actually picture a world in which gays and alternative lifestyles destroy the world's population. In reaility that would never happen, being gay isn't unnatural or wrong. If you can't see this kind of movement happening then you're blind and you wasted a lot on your political science degree. I don't think you're liberal.

The very idea that you bring up that the public is often wrong is the basis for all my argumentation that judges' rulings must be based on the Constitution and laws and not in their personal beliefs about gay rights or what a fetus is.

That's basicly it, majority doesn't rule. A majority is using everything in their power to get what they want reguardless of the law. This isn't the ultra or grass root conservatives either. I'm sure Bush's view is that of many Americans.

[genocidal]

The general interpretation of the legal documents is that it is unconstitutional. The union between a man and a woman argument is just bullshit. People supporting that just use it as a legal avenue for their beliefs.

Most religious people can actually picture a world in which gays and alternative lifestyles destroy the world's population. In reaility that would never happen, being gay isn't unnatural or wrong. If you can't see this kind of movement happening then you're blind and you wasted a lot on your political science degree. I don't think you're liberal.

I guess you just aren't reading the part of my posts where I give my personal opinion.

While I do agree with you

You can argue against that all you want and I'll agree with you but that's the argument

What I'm trying to say is that as far as my personal beliefs go I do think that gays should have the right to marry. Here is my opinion from a legal standpoint - which should be the only justification for legal action for or against gay marriage (which has been my argument in this thread - not that gay marriage is wrong).
I believe that banning gay marriage violates the First Amendment that reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What you say about the argument conservatives make regarding marriage as being between a man and woman is, in my opinion, utter bullshit. So we agree, like I told you in my last post we would. I believe that their opinion lies in mostly based on their Christian ideals and Genesis-based beliefs - therefore banning gay marriage would violate the First Amendment by not separating church and state. Further, I believe banning gay marriage violates the 9th Amendment that reads as follows:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I interpret this Amendment as meaning we should ere on the side of rights being protected. Literally, it means that just because a right hasn't been given to the people by the Constitution does not give government the right to restrict it. Being as gay marriage does not negatively impose on anyone else's rights I think the 9th Amendment can be applied here to say show that government should step the fuck out of our lives in regards to marriage (even gay marriage).

Now I could go on with precedents (Supreme Court cases, apellate court cases, Federal court cases) upholding the rights of the people in regards to things like marriage (a private issue) but I won't because that's the job of the future lawyer who tries this before the Supreme Court. The reason I wrote all this was to show 1) We do fundamentally agree in our stance on this issue and therefore you claiming I'm not liberal has no basis and 2) This is how an argument for or against gay marriage should be framed regarding the law. Since it is very likely this will become a court case (being as laws need test cases before the Supreme Court can hear them) I think it's pertinent to show that our opinion is substantiated by the law and not just by our libertarian views.

Dunno what you were trying to prove in the last part of your post but I think I agree with that too.

[Squeezer]

Roberts for Chief Justice.

[pv=nrt]

evangalicals don't force anybody to believe what they believe. That's impossible.

I get tired of having to correct you guys all the time.

[Subjugation]

It's a matter of perspective. If evangelicals want more religion in govt, some might consider that force. If evangelicals (and Christians in general, actually) threaten you with pain and the eternal damnation of your soul unless you believe in Jesus as your personal savior, some might consider that force (although I personally consider it terrorism, not force per se).

However, the argument for calling it "force" can still be made if you accept Merriam-Webster's definition of the transitive word force defined as:

"2 : to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means" http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

I think it attempts to compel via moral means.

[genocidal]

Good Mexican, j=t.

[Cylor]

I fail to see how his ethnicity factors into any arguement you've had thus far with him. To me, you're only perpetuating the stereotype of a conservative (despite what you may call yourself).