It's not meant to Obama bash, but that person... just wow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh, if you want to look at it like "Obama will personally pay for all my expenses" I guess you could do that, but I think that's a wild misrepresentation. I would wager large amounts of money on her meaning that Obama will fix the economy and she's not going to have to worry about being poor and destitute because of another Great Depression.
Fixing the economy won't fill her tank with gas and pay off her mortgage <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Besides, the Great Depression was caused by the government.
Thank you, I am very proud of my fellow Floridians. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
Democracy is a wonderful thing, isn't it? The people get a chance to voice their choice in who is going to represent them, and also whether or not to approve various amendments.
I love the U.S.A.! <img src="http://www.ugleague.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/usaflag.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
The day you can approve amending a constitution to <b>remove</b> pre-existing rights for a significant minority is the day you forget what freedom and tolerance actually mean.
<!--quoteo(post=1692692:date=Nov 6 2008, 05:11 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Nov 6 2008, 05:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm guessing our constitutional scholars would disagree with you, maybe because these amendments were placed up for vote.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think the constitutional scholars would have a view one way or another on whether or not you've forgotten what freedom and tolerance really mean.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692692:date=Nov 6 2008, 11:11 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Nov 6 2008, 11:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm guessing our constitutional scholars would disagree with you, maybe because these amendments were placed up for vote.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still don't see how you're ok with this. You amended a constitution to *revoke* freedoms that were previously there.
How can that even be considered right nowadays? Seriously?
It sounds awful but, a lot of older folks are pretty out of touch with reality. This is really temporary, as the older people die out, so will their antiqued opinions. Nobody should ever have the ability to tell someone else how to lead their life, this country (was) based upon freedom. I think depot should be free to express his intolerance, and warped world view, however, nobody should say you can't marry someone else. This is coming from a straight male that curls a lip and winces at watching men make out.
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
Holy hell when did CWAG get unbanned and change his avatar to something other then that communist thing?
Ah, as to the topic at hand. If/when they continue to improve the duration and quality of life, and people live longer and longer, it will be interesting to see what sort of ripple effect this will have on cultural and generational shift. In a world where nobody dies of natural causes, will society ever progress? Will it takes thousands of years instead of 30? The influx of new births (hopefully few, otherwise overcrowding would be an issue) would probably be unable to change society much as they get older, as everybody already has their opinions set.
Although is the act of cultural improvement a function of age of mind or body? would 400 year old minds in 20 year old bodies react positively to change, or would they act like 400 year olds?
If homosexuals want to get married and be miserable like us straight people, go for it, your own downfall <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1692704:date=Nov 6 2008, 07:13 PM:name=NeonSpyder)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NeonSpyder @ Nov 6 2008, 07:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692704"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Holy hell when did CWAG get unbanned and change his avatar to something other then that communist thing?
Ah, as to the topic at hand. If/when they continue to improve the duration and quality of life, and people live longer and longer, it will be interesting to see what sort of ripple effect this will have on cultural and generational shift. In a world where nobody dies of natural causes, will society ever progress? Will it takes thousands of years instead of 30? The influx of new births (hopefully few, otherwise overcrowding would be an issue) would probably be unable to change society much as they get older, as everybody already has their opinions set.
Although is the act of cultural improvement a function of age of mind or body? would 400 year old minds in 20 year old bodies react positively to change, or would they act like 400 year olds?
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Oh yeah, go Obama! Canada <3s you<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've been unbanned from the forums for a really, really long time, couple years. I just rarely post ever
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
<!--quoteo(post=1692728:date=Nov 7 2008, 12:52 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 7 2008, 12:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692728"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They should try an amendment reinstating slavery. I mean, if it gets passed, that's simply the voice of the people. Gotta respect that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1692693:date=Nov 6 2008, 06:30 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Nov 6 2008, 06:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692693"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think the constitutional scholars would have a view one way or another on whether or not you've forgotten what freedom and tolerance really mean.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1692701:date=Nov 6 2008, 07:16 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Nov 6 2008, 07:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692701"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I still don't see how you're ok with this. You amended a constitution to *revoke* freedoms that were previously there.
How can that even be considered right nowadays? Seriously?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Honestly people, if freedom was infringed upon anywhere in the constitution by the passage of these amendments how do you think they would have even been placed up for vote?
They never would have made it on the ballot, of course.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
Except a bigoted and intolerant amendment to restrict the freedoms of a significant minority <i>was</i> put up for a vote, so that argument is meaningless. lolfighters point about slavery bears this out. If you genuinely believe this, you're either woefully naïve, or you're using it as a smokescreen to conceal the fact that you and others supported a proposition to continue state-supported hatred and oppression.
Anyway, what do you care if other people want to marry? Is your life genuinely that hollow that you feel the need to interfere with the way other people choose to express their companionship?
<!--quoteo(post=1692749:date=Nov 7 2008, 11:15 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Nov 7 2008, 11:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692749"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly people, if freedom was infringed upon anywhere in the constitution by the passage of these amendments how do you think they would have even been placed up for vote?
They never would have made it on the ballot, of course.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh come on. That's a TEXTBOOK example of circular reasoning. "If it was unconstitutional, it would never have made it onto the ballot. Since it made it onto the ballot, it can't be unconstitutional." You can't possibly expect us to swallow that.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
Well, actually.
It isn't unconstitutional.
Our government makes no provisions for marriage at all. The states then can make up any laws that they want that do not counter federal laws/constitution. So if a state constitution says that marriage is between a man and a woman, then that is what it is for that state. If it doesn't then it doesn't. The people of the state are free to alter their state constitutions as they see fit/are laid out in the state constitutions/laws.
So the constitutionality/legality of the issues at hand are not in question. The moral ground is completely different.
As for constitutional scholars and all that bunk? They would just direct you to the 18th amendment to the US constitution (you know, that one that baned the creation/transport/sale of alcohol?). And then to the 21st (the one that struck the 18th). Our laws are designed to reflect the morals of society, be it local, state or national level. Unfortunately, it appears that the majority of people still hold the moral judgment that ###### marriage is wrong, and thus our laws reflect that.
That all being said, I have seen a few things calling foul play in terms of prop 8. Hopefully they are true and people will keep fighting for their freedom.
However, I think CWAG got it right. Times are a changing, and eventually things will work out as they should. (It still distresses me that the country I view as being about freedom and equal rights for all is really such a damn repressed nation compared to others...)
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
actually eediot, one of the reasons we like our constitution so damn much is that it is able to be modified (been done 27 times to date, admitedly one of those was to repeal an earlier modification). The original authors included articles on how to amend the constitution because they knew they couldn't write a perfect document.
And now that the bashing has begun in earnest, ibtl.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited November 2008
In fact, most of the things people seem so impassioned about are what was amended ( free speech being one of the more notable ones ).
I think all constitutions allow for modification.
All constitutional amendments in Ireland have to be ratified by national referendum. We also have a really neat clause that requires a referendum whenever any legislation or treaty could in theory result in our constitution being superseded. This is why Ireland was the only EU member to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
The US constitution is one of the greatest documents in the history of mankind. I just wish the US politicians were aware of that fact.
And people need to stop being childish in their assumption that democracy generates correct decisions. It captures the majority opinion, be that one of bigotry or not. If you say you believe in democracy and then criticise it for restricting certain freedoms then you are not really a democrat but a libertarian.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692764:date=Nov 7 2008, 09:11 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Nov 7 2008, 09:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692764"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And people need to stop being childish in their assumption that democracy generates correct decisions. It captures the majority opinion, be that one of bigotry or not. If you say you believe in democracy and then criticise it for restricting certain freedoms then you are not really a democrat but a libertarian.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> thank you. said much better then my cold addled attempts.
I believe the correct phrase is "The Tyranny of the Majority". And the issue is that the majority of people are stupid, short-sighted and bigoted. Thus is the ultimate downfall of democracy.
Our government makes no provisions for marriage at all. The states then can make up any laws that they want that do not counter federal laws/constitution. So if a state constitution says that marriage is between a man and a woman, then that is what it is for that state. If it doesn't then it doesn't. The people of the state are free to alter their state constitutions as they see fit/are laid out in the state constitutions/laws.
So the constitutionality/legality of the issues at hand are not in question. The moral ground is completely different.
As for constitutional scholars and all that bunk? They would just direct you to the 18th amendment to the US constitution (you know, that one that baned the creation/transport/sale of alcohol?). And then to the 21st (the one that struck the 18th). Our laws are designed to reflect the morals of society, be it local, state or national level. Unfortunately, it appears that the majority of people still hold the moral judgment that ###### marriage is wrong, and thus our laws reflect that.
That all being said, I have seen a few things calling foul play in terms of prop 8. Hopefully they are true and people will keep fighting for their freedom.
However, I think CWAG got it right. Times are a changing, and eventually things will work out as they should. (It still distresses me that the country I view as being about freedom and equal rights for all is really such a damn repressed nation compared to others...)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually it is unconstitutional. It breaks the <i>First Amendment</i> in the Bill Of Rights. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1692510:date=Nov 5 2008, 11:13 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 5 2008, 11:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->According to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the People retain rights by default. That's why these are a amendments to the state constitutions to take away specific rights regarding marriage and adoption.
:Edit: That's a quick gloss and the way these states think they can get away with it is a twisted logic. A lot of states want to, and have, defined legal marriage as specifically between a man and a woman. Then they argue that the federal Gov't has no business butting in because A.) it's a religious defintion tied specifically to Christianity and B.) the Fed Gov't has no business mixing religion and the gov't/ opressing their religion(laugh/cry at the astounding hypocrisy and wilful ignorance). However, by this twisted logic they could also define marriage as only between a white man and white woman, or rich man and rich woman, or any such other nonsense. Not to say that that would happen, but to claim it's not taking away legal rights(I know you were asking, but many don't even ask) is disingenuous at best. Nevermind the fact that religions other than Christianity have the institution of marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1692761:date=Nov 7 2008, 06:50 AM:name=eediot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eediot @ Nov 7 2008, 06:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692761"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gosh, the constitution is amazing. I wonder if it has magical powers that allows it to be both perfect in its creation and scope and also unerring in its longevity and continued application? There must be some aura of purity around it that ensures all people who consult its greatness find themselves compelled towards peace and acceptance.
Perhaps, given time and devotion, we could extract from these sacred documents their powerful magicks for beauty and harmony. I can only imagine with ill-suppressed delight the wonderful armaments of acceptance and compassion that we could create with their oozing, patriotic gunk. A pistol that shoots pure love? An ICBM of truth? A nightstick of equality and opportunity?
What a marvelous document indeed that you Americans have been gifted so luckily.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't really understand what you're saying. Are you making fun of the Constitution, the great respect we give to it, or both? If it's the Constitution itself, I don't see where all the hate comes from, because it's a pretty good one as far as things go in my opinion. Obviously it's not perfect but nothing is. If you're making fun of our reverence, I don't see where that comes from, because 50% of America easily would trash much of the Constitution, and depending on which 50% you're asking they'd trash a different part. Scared rich people in the suburbs want to wipe out half the Bill of Rights if it means catching one terrorist, politically correct ultraliberals want to clamp down on free speech when you say mean things about minorities, plenty of people want to get rid of the right to bear arms in a lot of contexts, Bush and Cheney would love to be done with much of the restrictions on the presidency (although of course you don't have to amend the Constitution to do so), hard line right wingers want a lot of protections for criminals to get out of there, you can probably find some religious people who want prohibition back in, etc. Everyone has problems with the Constitution. That's why I don't really understand the caricature of worship that you laid out. Maybe if you explained it better.
<!--quoteo(post=1692764:date=Nov 7 2008, 07:11 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Nov 7 2008, 07:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692764"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And people need to stop being childish in their assumption that democracy generates correct decisions. It captures the majority opinion, be that one of bigotry or not. If you say you believe in democracy and then criticise it for restricting certain freedoms then you are not really a democrat but a libertarian.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The US isn't a democracy, it's a democratic republic, and there's a gigantic amount of stuff throughout the system that's designed to project the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution is one of these things; it lays out which freedoms can be restricted and which freedoms can't. Obviously there are <i>some</i> freedoms we all agree need restricting, like the freedom to kill people, and some that we're sure we never want to restrict, like the freedom to have blue eyes, but there are ones in the middle like the freedom of ###### people to marry and so on that aren't as clear cut. To YOU there might be no difference between everyone being able to marry whoever they want and having blue eyes, but you're probably acquainted with the notion of "other people" who have "different ideas" and part of life is learning to live with that even when they get there way and you don't. Whether or not YOU think it's an unconstitutional restriction of freedom is, unfortunately, not the standard to which the entire country must be held. This is a tough point to get over but I think most people either have to do so or live forever angry at the parts of life that don't line up with their fantasies.
Comments
It's not meant to Obama bash, but that person... just wow.
It's not meant to Obama bash, but that person... just wow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, if you want to look at it like "Obama will personally pay for all my expenses" I guess you could do that, but I think that's a wild misrepresentation. I would wager large amounts of money on her meaning that Obama will fix the economy and she's not going to have to worry about being poor and destitute because of another Great Depression.
Besides, the Great Depression was caused by the government.
<b>Florida Amendment 2: Ban on ###### Marriage</b>
Yes: 62%
No: 38%
(99% reporting)
[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn straight, skippy! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Congrats on your state supported bigotry.
I love the U.S.A.! <img src="http://www.ugleague.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/usaflag.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I don't think the constitutional scholars would have a view one way or another on whether or not you've forgotten what freedom and tolerance really mean.
I still don't see how you're ok with this. You amended a constitution to *revoke* freedoms that were previously there.
How can that even be considered right nowadays? Seriously?
Ah, as to the topic at hand. If/when they continue to improve the duration and quality of life, and people live longer and longer, it will be interesting to see what sort of ripple effect this will have on cultural and generational shift. In a world where nobody dies of natural causes, will society ever progress? Will it takes thousands of years instead of 30? The influx of new births (hopefully few, otherwise overcrowding would be an issue) would probably be unable to change society much as they get older, as everybody already has their opinions set.
Although is the act of cultural improvement a function of age of mind or body? would 400 year old minds in 20 year old bodies react positively to change, or would they act like 400 year olds?
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Oh yeah, go Obama! Canada <3s you
Ah, as to the topic at hand. If/when they continue to improve the duration and quality of life, and people live longer and longer, it will be interesting to see what sort of ripple effect this will have on cultural and generational shift. In a world where nobody dies of natural causes, will society ever progress? Will it takes thousands of years instead of 30? The influx of new births (hopefully few, otherwise overcrowding would be an issue) would probably be unable to change society much as they get older, as everybody already has their opinions set.
Although is the act of cultural improvement a function of age of mind or body? would 400 year old minds in 20 year old bodies react positively to change, or would they act like 400 year olds?
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Oh yeah, go Obama! Canada <3s you<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've been unbanned from the forums for a really, really long time, couple years. I just rarely post ever
Touché
A very apt response to the point raised earlier, my hat is off to you good sir.
<!--quoteo(post=1692701:date=Nov 6 2008, 07:16 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Nov 6 2008, 07:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692701"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I still don't see how you're ok with this. You amended a constitution to *revoke* freedoms that were previously there.
How can that even be considered right nowadays? Seriously?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly people, if freedom was infringed upon anywhere in the constitution by the passage of these amendments how do you think they would have even been placed up for vote?
They never would have made it on the ballot, of course.
Anyway, what do you care if other people want to marry? Is your life genuinely that hollow that you feel the need to interfere with the way other people choose to express their companionship?
They never would have made it on the ballot, of course.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh come on. That's a TEXTBOOK example of circular reasoning. "If it was unconstitutional, it would never have made it onto the ballot. Since it made it onto the ballot, it can't be unconstitutional." You can't possibly expect us to swallow that.
It isn't unconstitutional.
Our government makes no provisions for marriage at all. The states then can make up any laws that they want that do not counter federal laws/constitution. So if a state constitution says that marriage is between a man and a woman, then that is what it is for that state. If it doesn't then it doesn't. The people of the state are free to alter their state constitutions as they see fit/are laid out in the state constitutions/laws.
So the constitutionality/legality of the issues at hand are not in question. The moral ground is completely different.
As for constitutional scholars and all that bunk? They would just direct you to the 18th amendment to the US constitution (you know, that one that baned the creation/transport/sale of alcohol?). And then to the 21st (the one that struck the 18th). Our laws are designed to reflect the morals of society, be it local, state or national level. Unfortunately, it appears that the majority of people still hold the moral judgment that ###### marriage is wrong, and thus our laws reflect that.
That all being said, I have seen a few things calling foul play in terms of prop 8. Hopefully they are true and people will keep fighting for their freedom.
However, I think CWAG got it right. Times are a changing, and eventually things will work out as they should. (It still distresses me that the country I view as being about freedom and equal rights for all is really such a damn repressed nation compared to others...)
And now that the bashing has begun in earnest, ibtl.
I think all constitutions allow for modification.
All constitutional amendments in Ireland have to be ratified by national referendum. We also have a really neat clause that requires a referendum whenever any legislation or treaty could in theory result in our constitution being superseded. This is why Ireland was the only EU member to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
The US constitution is one of the greatest documents in the history of mankind. I just wish the US politicians were aware of that fact.
And people need to stop being childish in their assumption that democracy generates correct decisions. It captures the majority opinion, be that one of bigotry or not. If you say you believe in democracy and then criticise it for restricting certain freedoms then you are not really a democrat but a libertarian.
thank you.
said much better then my cold addled attempts.
It isn't unconstitutional.
Our government makes no provisions for marriage at all. The states then can make up any laws that they want that do not counter federal laws/constitution. So if a state constitution says that marriage is between a man and a woman, then that is what it is for that state. If it doesn't then it doesn't. The people of the state are free to alter their state constitutions as they see fit/are laid out in the state constitutions/laws.
So the constitutionality/legality of the issues at hand are not in question. The moral ground is completely different.
As for constitutional scholars and all that bunk? They would just direct you to the 18th amendment to the US constitution (you know, that one that baned the creation/transport/sale of alcohol?). And then to the 21st (the one that struck the 18th). Our laws are designed to reflect the morals of society, be it local, state or national level. Unfortunately, it appears that the majority of people still hold the moral judgment that ###### marriage is wrong, and thus our laws reflect that.
That all being said, I have seen a few things calling foul play in terms of prop 8. Hopefully they are true and people will keep fighting for their freedom.
However, I think CWAG got it right. Times are a changing, and eventually things will work out as they should. (It still distresses me that the country I view as being about freedom and equal rights for all is really such a damn repressed nation compared to others...)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually it is unconstitutional. It breaks the <i>First Amendment</i> in the Bill Of Rights.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1692510:date=Nov 5 2008, 11:13 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 5 2008, 11:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->According to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the People retain rights by default. That's why these are a amendments to the state constitutions to take away specific rights regarding marriage and adoption.
:Edit: That's a quick gloss and the way these states think they can get away with it is a twisted logic. A lot of states want to, and have, defined legal marriage as specifically between a man and a woman. Then they argue that the federal Gov't has no business butting in because A.) it's a religious defintion tied specifically to Christianity and B.) the Fed Gov't has no business mixing religion and the gov't/ opressing their religion(laugh/cry at the astounding hypocrisy and wilful ignorance). However, by this twisted logic they could also define marriage as only between a white man and white woman, or rich man and rich woman, or any such other nonsense. Not to say that that would happen, but to claim it's not taking away legal rights(I know you were asking, but many don't even ask) is disingenuous at best. Nevermind the fact that religions other than Christianity have the institution of marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps, given time and devotion, we could extract from these sacred documents their powerful magicks for beauty and harmony. I can only imagine with ill-suppressed delight the wonderful armaments of acceptance and compassion that we could create with their oozing, patriotic gunk. A pistol that shoots pure love? An ICBM of truth? A nightstick of equality and opportunity?
What a marvelous document indeed that you Americans have been gifted so luckily.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really understand what you're saying. Are you making fun of the Constitution, the great respect we give to it, or both? If it's the Constitution itself, I don't see where all the hate comes from, because it's a pretty good one as far as things go in my opinion. Obviously it's not perfect but nothing is. If you're making fun of our reverence, I don't see where that comes from, because 50% of America easily would trash much of the Constitution, and depending on which 50% you're asking they'd trash a different part. Scared rich people in the suburbs want to wipe out half the Bill of Rights if it means catching one terrorist, politically correct ultraliberals want to clamp down on free speech when you say mean things about minorities, plenty of people want to get rid of the right to bear arms in a lot of contexts, Bush and Cheney would love to be done with much of the restrictions on the presidency (although of course you don't have to amend the Constitution to do so), hard line right wingers want a lot of protections for criminals to get out of there, you can probably find some religious people who want prohibition back in, etc. Everyone has problems with the Constitution. That's why I don't really understand the caricature of worship that you laid out. Maybe if you explained it better.
<!--quoteo(post=1692764:date=Nov 7 2008, 07:11 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Nov 7 2008, 07:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692764"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And people need to stop being childish in their assumption that democracy generates correct decisions. It captures the majority opinion, be that one of bigotry or not. If you say you believe in democracy and then criticise it for restricting certain freedoms then you are not really a democrat but a libertarian.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US isn't a democracy, it's a democratic republic, and there's a gigantic amount of stuff throughout the system that's designed to project the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution is one of these things; it lays out which freedoms can be restricted and which freedoms can't. Obviously there are <i>some</i> freedoms we all agree need restricting, like the freedom to kill people, and some that we're sure we never want to restrict, like the freedom to have blue eyes, but there are ones in the middle like the freedom of ###### people to marry and so on that aren't as clear cut. To YOU there might be no difference between everyone being able to marry whoever they want and having blue eyes, but you're probably acquainted with the notion of "other people" who have "different ideas" and part of life is learning to live with that even when they get there way and you don't. Whether or not YOU think it's an unconstitutional restriction of freedom is, unfortunately, not the standard to which the entire country must be held. This is a tough point to get over but I think most people either have to do so or live forever angry at the parts of life that don't line up with their fantasies.