mz. said:

Not taking it literally enough is what is screwing us all.

Aloysius said:

DOMA was passed in order to limit the impact of any single state allowing gay marriage. That's much different from the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from doing precisely that.

If anything, your analogy further proves that Obama's better than Bush on gay rights. And so was Bill Clinton.

If in fact you consider marriage a right to be applied to any humans.

I do think Obammy is just lying to keep his base from freaking out.

I suppose the guy who wants kiddie porn legal only in states that want it is better than the guy who wants it banned constitutionally if you're a child molester.

But seriously I didn't take you for a states rights guy.

WSS

Aloysius said:

DOMA was passed in order to limit the impact of any single state allowing gay marriage. That's much different from the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from doing precisely that.

If anything, your analogy further proves that Obama's better than Bush on gay rights. And so was Bill Clinton.

No argument there except possibly the whole premise of better.

In the end, the whole gay rights issue boils down to two M's.

Morality and money.

As a nation under God, is it moral to sanction gay marriage? I am not going to get in to that debate as it more or less comes down to the same issue as abortion. Some think it right, some think it wrong.

The only real benefit a gay couple doesn't enjoy is the transfer of benefit, so it is a issue of money. I don't think many are seeking to make cohabitation illegal. Draconian laws against sodomy are being thrown out or just allowed to gather dust to the point a DA isn't going to dig them out.

Personally, I would like to see tax codes changed where tax isn't determined by marriage, so that would take that out of the mix in so far as gay rights. The transfer of assets isn't a real problem for them anyway as long as a will is in place. A simple act by the parties involved take care of that and keep things out of probate...any person with half a brain should do that no matter their orientation.

I myself while thinking gay is immoral, I don't think it is my place to determine that. if any judgment on that is to take place, I will leave that up to the Creator.

I am all for freedom of choice on the issue of abortion. I myself wouldn't opt for that. Under law if you kill a woman who is carrying child, it can and is in many cases a charge of two homicides. That being the case, i see no distinction between choosing to terminate the life and having it terminated unwillingly.

Also on the freedom of choice issue, if a woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy, a man should be afforded the same rights as a woman.

That isn't to say he can force her to terminate the pregnancy if she wants to have the baby, but once he is informed of the pregnancy, through legal means he should be able to opt out of any claims to the child and any responsibility towards the care of that child.

If women can terminate a pregnancy on grounds of finances or not being mentally prepared(or any grounds really) for the serious role of raising a child, and man should have those same options. Men can be as mentally unprepared, financially unprepared, or simply don't want a kid, as a woman.

Do we afford equal rights or do we not?

strawberry area.

Went to our grocery, bought strawberries, worked all day,

next say, in the evening, got em out of the fridge, and about a third of em were fuzzy.

I just want the top court in the land to rule what the Constitution says, not be

deciding that it should be ignored per their arrogant opinion that they know best,

or to fit a political movement.

The Constitution rules. And, I do believe we need a federal ruling defining marriage

as of a man and a woman.

Anything else goes against the laws of the universe, the laws of physics, the laws of science,

and the Word of God.

On talk radio, a great caller called in. He said Obama was failing to inspire a lot of

of black folks - a strong majority of "us" he said - vote against gay marriage from state to state.

He said he had a tough time trying to find one reason to really believe in Obama as president.

And, he said blacks in big cities like Detroit and DC and New York... especially Detroit, are hell holes.

And, they are heavily Dem, but the Dems only pander to black voters by claiming "racist" on issues...

enough to try to convince black voters they are on their side. But in Detroit, where has that ever

gotten the black portion of the population? That caller made so much sense, they are talking about

inviting him on the talk show. He was great, and exceptionally articulate in what he wanting to explain.

With two magnets, N-S attract strongly. NN or SS repel strongly. Adam and Eve. End of controversy.

DOMA was passed in order to limit the impact of any single state allowing gay marriage. That's much different from the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from doing precisely that.

If anything, your analogy further proves that Obama's better than Bush on gay rights. And so was Bill Clinton.

mz. said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

Send me some of those strawberries. The ones in the markets here look like shit.

But mz the pussy the defense of marriage act defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Obama's position.

Probably meant to give small perks to natural familiy units in the old days where the "family" had more respect.

So if Bush (along with at least two thirds of the population) feels that law should not be changed his best course of action is to get it cleared up constitutionally.

Isn't it?

WSS

@calfoxwc said:

get rid of that amendment?

Bush wanted to add an anti-marriage amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

Send me some of those strawberries. The ones in the markets here look like shit.

face it, the constitution is there to protect us (the people) from them (bureaucrats)....they all want it dissolved....regardless of party. CHOCO

*******************************

Which amendment is it that guarantees the right of gays to marry specifically? And Bush wanted to

get rid of that amendment?

When did this happen?

I'm just taking a dinner break from planting about 200 strawberry plants...

@mr.-t said:

and let us not forget the damage shrub did as well.....you feel that an amendment banning gay marriage was just?

face it, the constitution is there to protect us (the people) from them (bureaucrats)....they all want it dissolved....regardless of party.

mz. said:

Blargh.

Fair enough, but on that count we disagree.

You may not have a need where others do.

In real terms, I would say the need is as great as it was in frontier days where criminals far outstripped the ability of the law to control them.

Even 25 years ago, you didn't have home invasions and car jackings anywhere near the level we have today. You had stolen cars and home break-ins no doubt, but not the flat out strong armed stuff that takes place everyday.

The killing of the Clutter family in the late 50s not only shocked the nation, it gripped the nation because things like that just didn't happen. Now, something like that still shocks people, but it is becoming so common place, it barely holds the attention for a few days. Now it seems like there has to be a child involved to really grip peoples attention.

Well it didn't matter because Bill and Hill both took a crap all over it.

Some want it changed to protect their thoughts and actions while others use it for protection of all thoughts and actions.

What a great document we have for Americans, and it is worth protecting and not to allow it to be misconstrude. What other country gives you a Bill of Rights? and that is not a Bill of Special Intrests.

@ballpeen said:

I never said the RIGHT is questionable. I said the NEED.

Blargh.

adjusted to take out certain parts Obama doesn't like?

But let Bush try to change it... oh... and all hell would break loose.

The politics of self-serving power control is out of the bag, and running

wild like a crazed rhino.

mz. said:

No it isn't, anymore than someone saying the right for women to vote is questionable.

@ballpeen said:

The right is there. The need on the other hand is very questionable.

The National Guard is a militia....those are state units....a neighborhood watch is a militia of sorts.

Militias are very necessary.

The rights of people to own arms is very necessary.

@ballpeen said:

That was the point I was trying to make. Just because the Constitution allows for a militia, it doesn't mean it is a need in modern society.

It is a more modern trend to take rights away that are written in to the constitution.

That is what can't change.

It is a static document in that regard.

You are confusing the right to bear arms with a militia.

@ballpeen said:

Sure it is.

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.

Not that I care if y'all have guns or not, but the notion that we need a well regulated Militia is antiquated as all hell. This is offered as a mere example, not to get the NRA Krew all riled up.

Come on, I have a hard time believing those who wrote the Constitution didn't have the foresight to allow changes as need be.

The problem I have with many in the judiciary is the seeming attack on black letter law and the effort to shade things gray.

Over the years many have proclaimed the constitution is a living, breathing document. I tend to disagree and think it is more static than some suggest.

That doesn't mean it is entirely static and can't bend as modern, unforeseen needs arise, but that isn't that common. For the most part, the constitution should be viewed as black letter and we shouldn't keep chipping at the buttress issues as sooner or later, the whole document will fall. Status quo isn't necessarily a bad thing.

While many of the justices in the past may not have met my personal approval for what ever reason, I think by a large they all understand the weight of the position and once appointed, they all seem to take a step or two towards the center.

That is especially true when one political side of the court seems to gain a numbers advantage. There are usually one or two who will swing the other way as I don't think any of the justices want to be a part of a run away court that attacks the country and document they are there to uphold.

Also, as we have seen in the past, once appointed, there is no political pressure any longer. Some may think that is dangerous, but I trust that once a person has been elevated to such a position, the really bad apples have been weeded out and exposed.

If a really bad candidate is nominated, the senate can knock that down easy enough, and trust they would....members of either side taking part.

When it come to the big issues, I don't think politicians are as partisan as we think. This is a big issue.

I honestly don't think members of either party are just going to rubber stamp their Presidents nomination if in their heart of hearts they know the person is a bad or unqualified candidate who is going to cause the country harm.

I can't recall all the nominations, but I don't really remember any who were simply unqualified or unable to have performed the job, and I don't recall any who were elevated to the position who were simply unqualified or took a radical activist position, because the sitting justices tend to rein those people in a bit because as stated earlier, the history and weight of the position tends to make people step away from the fringes and move more towards the center.

No doubt that over the years there have been decisions I didn't agree with, and took a opposite view of the law and how it was written, but I don't think any majority opinion was baseless nor well thought out. At most I have thought the interpretation was stretching the bounds past what I would have though reasonable.

And yet everyone I know who was a lawyer at the time warned me not to be a lawyer. Many described how much the business end of the job was squeezing out the legal end, so much that they didn't much feel like a lawyer anymore. Plus, they never saw the sun.

I like seeing the sun.

But you're right that the snap judgments on whether a nominee is a "good pick" or not are mostly pointless. Only scholars and people working in the White House are familiar enough with the potential justices' work to point out all the possible controversial opinions/articles that could get a nominee Borked.

Fortunately, the confirmation process affords enough time for enterprising law students to put together analyses of a nominee's major cases. A few years ago, a bunch of Yale law students put together a thorough, critical account of Alito's judicial record. I'm sure some young Federalist Society members will do the same for whoever becomes Obama's nominee.

Not being of this world, I'm going to defer to Tupa and Alo on the eventual pick. I'd only be forwarding something I read and agreed with, and that's only so interesting.