GonzoStyle Wrote:I just don't understand how hard it is to see the distinction and similarity.
gays can not get married anywhere but in vermont
straights can
gays cant get married in a church
starights can
If that doesn't mean they arent viewed as inferior than I dunno what it is. The fags wanna march in a parade and they get crucified, so yeah they are viewed as equals.
women were always equal tho, as were blacks in jays opinion tho. The goverment never infringed on their rights....
Someone shoulda told the women sufferage people, aboloishonists, marcus garvey, and dr. king that the goverment couldnt make laws to infringe on peoples rights, saved them some time and their lives.
The government is not suppose to make those laws, and the Constitution say that. But they do make those laws, and those laws are unconstitutional. Bad laws get made.
The courts are intended to make sure that laws are constitutional.
Are you now saying that the Constitution doesn't protect anyone's rights?
Let me head on down to Washington and tell em to burn that piece of paper, since it obviously holds no meaning.
Black Lazerus Wrote:The Jays Wrote:GonzoStyle Wrote:Quote:The government cannot make laws which which infringe upon the rights of others; they cannot make laws which say who is better and who is inferior.
wow, you really are clueless.
How can the government do it? The Constitution says you can't make laws that infrige upon the rights of others.
The legislature does, and have made laws that infringe upon the rights of others, and the executive branch has enforced those laws, and it is the job of the judicial branch to deem those laws unconstitutional.
This is how Jay's...
Gerald Herbert/AP Photo
Bush Installs Judge by Bypassing Senate
By JEFFREY McMURRAY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Bypassing Senate Democrats who have stalled his judicial nominations, President Bush installed Alabama Attorney General William Pryor on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday.
Bush praised Pryor as "this leading American lawyer" and complained that the Senate had unfairly blocked him and other White House nominees.
"A minority of Democratic senators has been using unprecedented obstructionist tactics to prevent him and other qualified nominees from receiving up-or-down votes," Bush said. "Their tactics are inconsistent with the Senate's constitutional responsibility and are hurting our judicial system."
Pryor was immediately sworn in in Alabama.
I don't see how that's making a law that is infringing upon the rights of others.
GonzoStyle Wrote:Quote:Do you believe that the government has the right to tell people who is inferior and who is not?
I do not.
Not at all... this never happened...
Do you believe that the government has the right to tell people who is inferior and who is not?
Can't one of you just label the other a liar so I know who won?
Quote:gays can not get married anywhere but in vermont
straights can
States rights issue.
Quote:gays cant get married in a church
starights can
Government has no say regarding that.
States don't have goverment now?
I would rather let gays get married than have their own civil union simply because it will upset all the ultra fundamentalist jesus freaks
The Jays Wrote:Black Lazerus Wrote:The Jays Wrote:GonzoStyle Wrote:Quote:The government cannot make laws which which infringe upon the rights of others; they cannot make laws which say who is better and who is inferior.
wow, you really are clueless.
How can the government do it? The Constitution says you can't make laws that infrige upon the rights of others.
The legislature does, and have made laws that infringe upon the rights of others, and the executive branch has enforced those laws, and it is the job of the judicial branch to deem those laws unconstitutional.
This is how Jay's...
Gerald Herbert/AP Photo
Bush Installs Judge by Bypassing Senate
By JEFFREY McMURRAY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Bypassing Senate Democrats who have stalled his judicial nominations, President Bush installed Alabama Attorney General William Pryor on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday.
Bush praised Pryor as "this leading American lawyer" and complained that the Senate had unfairly blocked him and other White House nominees.
"A minority of Democratic senators has been using unprecedented obstructionist tactics to prevent him and other qualified nominees from receiving up-or-down votes," Bush said. "Their tactics are inconsistent with the Senate's constitutional responsibility and are hurting our judicial system."
Pryor was immediately sworn in in Alabama.
I don't see how that's making a law that is infringing upon the rights of others.
If the president can appoint his own judges with out checks and balances from the senate. Then how do we know that he’s not passing laws that can be unconstitutional? The Judicial branch of government decides that.
Black Lazerus Wrote:States don't have goverment now?
What do you mean by this?
It is up to each state to decide whether there should be civil unions or not.
Only Vermont hs recognized civil unions.
For some reason, New York does not recognize civil unions. I, personally, think they should.
It's called a recess appointment. The President has the right to appoint someone for a year without Senate confirmation.
Black Lazerus Wrote:The Jays Wrote:Black Lazerus Wrote:The Jays Wrote:GonzoStyle Wrote:Quote:The government cannot make laws which which infringe upon the rights of others; they cannot make laws which say who is better and who is inferior.
wow, you really are clueless.
How can the government do it? The Constitution says you can't make laws that infrige upon the rights of others.
The legislature does, and have made laws that infringe upon the rights of others, and the executive branch has enforced those laws, and it is the job of the judicial branch to deem those laws unconstitutional.
This is how Jay's...
Gerald Herbert/AP Photo
Bush Installs Judge by Bypassing Senate
By JEFFREY McMURRAY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Bypassing Senate Democrats who have stalled his judicial nominations, President Bush installed Alabama Attorney General William Pryor on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday.
Bush praised Pryor as "this leading American lawyer" and complained that the Senate had unfairly blocked him and other White House nominees.
"A minority of Democratic senators has been using unprecedented obstructionist tactics to prevent him and other qualified nominees from receiving up-or-down votes," Bush said. "Their tactics are inconsistent with the Senate's constitutional responsibility and are hurting our judicial system."
Pryor was immediately sworn in in Alabama.
I don't see how that's making a law that is infringing upon the rights of others.
If the president can appoint his own judges with out checks and balances from the senate. Then how do we know that he’s not passing laws that can be unconstitutional? The Judicial branch of government decides that.
This requires its own discussion, because I myself don't understand how this is possible.
I know that the reason that the minority of those senators are blocking the Senate vote because they believe that the Senate will have a majority vote of "yes."
The President doesn't make law. He executes law. When he signs something into law, he says "Yes, I will enforce this." When he vetoes it, he says, "No, I will not enforce this", but Congress can force him to execute it.
The judicial branch deems laws constitutional.
Mad Wrote:It's called a recess appointment. The President has the right to appoint someone for a year without Senate confirmation.
I did not know that, Mad. Thank you.
The Jays Wrote:Black Lazerus Wrote:States don't have goverment now?
What do you mean by this?
It is up to each state to decide whether there should be civil unions or not.
Only Vermont hs recognized civil unions.
For some reason, New York does not recognize civil unions. I, personally, think they should.
You seem to be separating state government and federal government.
i understand the differance.
The point I am trying to make is that the federal government can basically force a state government to do what they want it to do.
2 ways they can do it is
1. remove federal aid to the state.
2. Influencing party members to do what the Party wants.
Black Lazerus Wrote:The Jays Wrote:Black Lazerus Wrote:States don't have goverment now?
What do you mean by this?
It is up to each state to decide whether there should be civil unions or not.
Only Vermont hs recognized civil unions.
For some reason, New York does not recognize civil unions. I, personally, think they should.
You seem to be separating state government and federal government.
i understand the differance.
The point I am trying to make is that the federal government can basically force a state government to do what they want it to do.
2 ways they can do it is
1. remove federal aid to the state.
2. Influencing party members to do what the Party wants.
1. Removing federal aid doesn't force a state to do anything except find ways to get money from elsewhere.
2. A political party is not the federal government.
The Jays Wrote:Black Lazerus Wrote:The Jays Wrote:Black Lazerus Wrote:States don't have goverment now?
What do you mean by this?
It is up to each state to decide whether there should be civil unions or not.
Only Vermont hs recognized civil unions.
For some reason, New York does not recognize civil unions. I, personally, think they should.
You seem to be separating state government and federal government.
i understand the differance.
The point I am trying to make is that the federal government can basically force a state government to do what they want it to do.
2 ways they can do it is
1. remove federal aid to the state.
2. Influencing party members to do what the Party wants.
1. Removing federal aid doesn't force a state to do anything except find ways to get money from elsewhere.
2. A political party is not the federal government.
who runs the government huh
2 political partys!!!
Can you humor me for a moment and just answer the question I am about to pose.
Hypothetically...
The state of New York puts this into law:
All civil unions are recognized by the state of New York as a union between two people, and receive all the right, privileges, benefits. The term "marriage" will simply be defined as a civil union between a man and a woman.
In those two sentences, where does it say that a marriage is better than a civil union?
States that are considering civil unions are not looking to give the couples the same rights and priveliges of married couples. Vermont is the only state currently that is doing this. I really think that is the basic problem that a lot of people are having with the entire issue. That, and people are very scared still of gays/lesbians. Not sure why, but they feel that they are going to give them cooties or something, so they don't want them around and feel that they are inferior to everyone else because they are different.
Sure insurance companies will have a problem with more people being added to policies. I just recently re-did all the insurance paperwork. And my policy with myself and my son is much higher than if it were just me. And Arpi, I know that certain companies pick up large portions of the insurance premium, while your increased payment may have only been $50 per year I would imagine that your company picked up a larger portion of that to allow more savings for you.
I have more to say, but no time to say it...i hope i made sense and my first post in a while isn't just a mindless ramble...
Quote:In those two sentences, where does it say that a marriage is better than a civil union?
Jays, it doesn't...but why should there be distinctions at all? Why have 2 words or phrases for the same thing?
Black Lazerus Wrote:The Jays Wrote:Black Lazerus Wrote:The Jays Wrote:Black Lazerus Wrote:States don't have goverment now?
What do you mean by this?
It is up to each state to decide whether there should be civil unions or not.
Only Vermont hs recognized civil unions.
For some reason, New York does not recognize civil unions. I, personally, think they should.
You seem to be separating state government and federal government.
i understand the differance.
The point I am trying to make is that the federal government can basically force a state government to do what they want it to do.
2 ways they can do it is
1. remove federal aid to the state.
2. Influencing party members to do what the Party wants.
1. Removing federal aid doesn't force a state to do anything except find ways to get money from elsewhere.
2. A political party is not the federal government.
who runs the government huh
2 political partys!!!
1, There are more than two political parties.
2, A political party influencing party members of a state is not the federal government forcing a state to do something.
Besides, being a member of a political party does not automatically force a member of a Congress to vote a certain way. A member of Congress votes in a manner that he feels represents the will of the people.
Skitchr4u Wrote:Quote:In those two sentences, where does it say that a marriage is better than a civil union?
Jays, it doesn't...but why should there be distinctions at all? Why have 2 words or phrases for the same thing?
duhr, cause they are gay!!!!