Another Win For Good against Evil

Gather App
Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

Unimatic1140

Unimatic1140

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 26, 2001
Messages
10,130
Location
Minneapolis
"Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick just signed a law today that repealed a 95-year-old statute that had prevented gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in that state."

This is fantastic news and a huge win for us, because now even if Prop 8 in California passes (god forbid) anyone from anywhere in US can go to Massachusetts and get married, even if it is not recognized in their home state.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/07/gov_to_sign_bil.html
 
Dan~

I would suggest you research Obama's voting record, or lack there of. The National Journal wrote an article stating that Obama's voting record was the most liberal of any senator in 2007, more liberal than Ted Kennedy! Can you imagine that!
 
also~

I am very well versed in politics. But, unlike many people on this board, I can look at the political spectrum from both sides.

To think of the Democrats having full control over all branches of gov't is downright laughable.
 
Obama's 2007 voting record...

Wow! a whopping 33 no votes! Boy, talk about judgment!

They are as follows:

209/HR6

Create a national action plan for reducing oil consumption by 35 percent by 2030. June 12. (63-30) L-2

258/HR2669
Waive a procedural objection to barring the Federal Communications Commission from implementing a "fairness doctrine" for broadcasters. July 19. (49-48; 60 votes required to waive the Budget Act) L-3

260/HR2669
Waive a procedural objection to prevent labor bargaining with a union that has not gained secret-ballot approval from a majority of employees. July 19. (42-54; 60 votes required to waive the Budget Act) L-3

272/HR2669
Increase financial aid for college students and reduce subsidies for student-loan lenders. July 20. (78-18) L-1

288/HR976
Block most non-pregnant adults from coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program. August 1. (42-53) L-3

405/HR3043
Approve fiscal 2008 appropriations for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education departments. November 7. (56-37) L-3

406/HR1495
Override the president's veto of the Water Resources Development Act. November 8. (79-14; 62 votes required to override in this case) L-1

414/HR3996
Limit debate on a measure to revise the alternative minimum tax to prevent coverage of additional taxpayers, and offset that change with corporate tax increases. December 6. (46-48; 60 votes required to invoke cloture. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., voted no so that he could subsequently move to reconsider the vote.) C-3

429/HR2419
Limit federal, state, and local governments' eminent-domain power over private land. December 13. (37-58; 60 votes required because of a unanimous consent agreement) L-2

174/S1348
Eliminate an immigrant guest-worker program. May 22. (31-64) C-1

207/SJRes14
Limit debate on a measure expressing no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. June 11. (53-38; 60 votes required to invoke cloture) C-3

261/HR2669
Waive a procedural objection to providing legal immunity to people who report suspicious activities. July 19. (57-39; 60 votes required to waive the Budget Act) L-3

262/HR2669
Waive a procedural objection to denying Social Security benefits for illegal work. July 19. (53-44; 60 votes required to waive the Budget Act) C-3

269/HR2669
Waive a procedural objection to requiring photo identification for voters. July 19. (42-54; 60 votes required to waive the Budget Act) L-3

279/HR2638
Table a proposal to provide $300 million to states to comply with the "Real ID" requirements for driver's licenses and other identification. July 26. (50-44) L-2

318/HR2764
Block funding for international groups engaged in coercive abortions, as designated by the U.S. government. September 6. (48-45) C-3

319/HR2764
Permit funding for international organizations that perform abortions. September 6. (53-41) L-3

360/HR3222
Table a proposal to bar funds for military enlistment of individuals who have been convicted of various crimes, including sexual misconduct. October 2. (53-41) C-2

379/HR3043
Prohibit domestic family-planning funds to organizations that perform abortions. October 18. (41-52) L-3

383/HR3043
Block an effort to change the formula for distributing funds under the Ryan White AIDS program. October 23. (65-28) C-2

131/S372
Limit debate on the fiscal 2007 intelligence authorization bill. April 17. (50-45; 60 votes required to invoke cloture) C-3

317/HR2764
Restrict the U.S. share of the cost of United Nations peacekeeping operations. September 6. (30-63) L-2

344/HR1585
Condemn personal attacks on Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq. September 20. (72-25; 60 votes required because of a unanimous consent agreement) C-2

348/HR1585
Express the sense of Congress that Iraq should be divided into Shiite, Kurdish, and Sunni federal regions. September 26. (75-23; 60 votes required because of a unanimous consent agreement) L-1

349/HR1585
Express the sense of the Senate that the Iranian revolutionary guard should be designated a terrorist organization. September 26. (76-22; 60 votes required because of a unanimous consent agreement) C-1

362/HR3222
Require U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Iraq by June 30, 2008. October 3. (28-68; 60 votes required because of a unanimous consent agreement) C-2

413/HR3688
Implement a free-trade agreement with Peru. December 4. (77-18) C-1

437/HR2764
Require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. December 18. (24-71; 60 votes required because of a unanimous consent agreement) C-2

438/HR2764
Express the sense of Congress that by the end of 2008, the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq should be limited to counter-terrorism, training Iraqi security forces, and force protection. December 18. (50-45; 60 votes required because of a unanimous consent agreement) C-3

439/HR2764
Add $70 billion to a fiscal 2008 omnibus spending package to pay for the Iraq war through the spring of 2008. December 18. (70-25; 60 votes required because of a unanimous consent agreement) C-2


Well, there you go..media darling, Barack Obama's "No Vote" record in the Senate.

Food for thought.
 
"California's constitution cannot be amended with an unconstitutional limitation (or elimination) of rights."

Not sure what that means, but a constitutional amendment by definition cannot be declared unconstitutional by a court. That is exactly why the current anti-gay marriage initiative is proposed as a constitutional amendment, so that the courts cannot overturn it.

Proposition 13 was also a constitutional amendment, which is why various legislatures have not been able to touch it.

One area where a California consitutional amendment might be thrown out might be where it's in direct contradiction of the US Constitution - such as if someone wanted to amend the state constitution to make slavery legal again. But since gay marriage is not a right by the US Constitution, I don't think that argument would be enough to throw out the current anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment initiative in California.
 
The 1913 law was ressurrected by Mittler here in Mass since he didnt get his way when the Mass SJC said that gays and lesbians had a right to get married. Now we can kiss that law bye bye. the idea for the law at the time was to prevent interracial marriages from happening. But Mitt Mitt full of Sh-t decided that this law also could be interpreted another way and he had this long dormant law enforced.
Prop 8 in Ca doesnt look like it would pass at this time according to polls right now. I dont see what all the fuss is about really. If you dont hide behind the Bible and accept that man actually wrote the book and not God and see it for what it is and you think about what it actually says.
Like Dolly Parton once said..."sure I believe that Gays and Lesbians should be allowed to marry...everyone deseves to be miserable"
 
I am sure they will come up with away to fix that, so if you were thinking of getting married, don't let that stop you. <:
 
"If you dont hide behind the Bible and accept that man actually wrote the book and not God and see it for what it is and you think about what it actually says."

You mean a crock of shit??? Amen and Halleluia!
 
California has a real problem

The California constitution can be amended by initiative by a simple majority vote. This has resulted in a state constitution that is ten times as long as the US Constitution.

The good news is that most polls I've seen have a slim majority rejecting the gay marriage ban. We'll have to see if that is maintained on election day. The bad news is that there is nothing to prevent the anti-gay marriage faction from re-introducing a similar measure in election after election.

Of course it cuts both ways. I am wondering why someone doesn't try to get a constitutional amendment initiative going that specifically legalizes same-sex marriage.
 
This was one of the top stories this afternoon on the Yahoo

Indisputable facts: the earth is round, and people are born gay; it's a genetic variation that's been around in most species for all time. My favorite book on this topic is, "Biological Exuberance: Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom." Around 700 pages. Gay is everywhere;'D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_10
 
> The California constitution can be amended by initiative by a simple majority vote.

Not quite. California's constitution cannot be amended with an unconstitutional limitation (or elimination) of rights. Our courts have the final say on what is or isn't a right, not the people, and same-sex marriage is already a protected right for gay people in California.

This is by no means the first case where the people's will, whatever it happened to be on a particular issue, became irrelevant. E.g. when laws banning interracial marriages were overturned by our federal Supreme Court, a substantial majority of Americans still opposed these marriages. But the people's will didn't make these anti-miscegenation laws any less unconstitutional. The same is true for a rather long list of other issues in the last 200+ years.
 
All the more reason to fight with everything you can against

Whats even scarier is an Obama presidency. Where the hell has centrist, moderate thinking gone in this country? The extreme left is just as dangerous as the extreme right.
 
"Can you imagine what HIS supreme court would look like

Keep in mind that the Democrats are poised to pick up another 20 seats in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, the Democrats could realistically pick up another 6-7 seats. Now with the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens, (Alaska), that seat is also now in play. This would give the Democrats a huge majority and it would easily thwart any possibility of of any right wing zealot being confirmed to the court. McCain has a track record of centrist beliefs and after 8 disasterous years of Bush, McCain will try his best to restore the Republican brand.
Divided goverment does work and it will force Nancy "do nothing" Pelosi and Harry "weak link" Reid to compromise and work with the McCain administration. For those of you who think giving all of the power to the Democrats will improve your life, guess again. I don't trust either party to have full control over our government.
I truly believe that once election day comes, most Americans will come around to this way of thinking and John McCain will be elected our 44th president.
 
The frightening thing is, the Democratic Party might be poised to gain more in the House and Senate, but they'll screw it up and lose it all - infighting and silly squabbles that make the people flock toward the "R's" on the ballot. If they manage to pull off huge gains they'll do nothing once they have the reigns. Bumbling around crashing into doors and falling down like they're in the funny papers. ;-)

No matter what, we're screwed. Plant those victory gardens now!
 
divided government

I'm all for divided government, but the divide has to have some power. On paper we've had a divided government for the last 2 years, but without any way of forming a coalition there is no way for any effective counterbalance.

In 2000, I shrugged, I didn't care for Bush II but things were good and I thought there was little he could do to upset that, god was I wrong. There isn't a word dark enough to describe my feelings toward the R ilk. As an independent voter I've voted D and R about the same over the years -perhaps a bit more D than R. I've only vote a straight party ticket once in my like and that was last election. I will continue to split my vote but it will be D, Green and Lib or any other third party other than R's.

I shudder to think what this country, if it even exists, would look like after 4 more years of this crap.

OK, here is a challenge to those that feel as I do toward Bush and his ilk, what is your darkest most derisionary descriptive word to fit the deeds the R's have committed to this country.
 
The western states and their voter initiatives are ridiculous. California had a world-class public education system, with extremely low college tuition, until prop 13 bungled all that up. If it were up to me, I'd file an initiative to get rid of initiatives. But they play to the lowest common denominators of greed and ignorance, so they're probably here to stay. The good news is that I think that Prop 8 will fail, if the youth vote comes out strongly for Obama.

Speaking of Barak Obama, he's about as "extreme left" as Bill Clinton, who ran the country as pretty much an old-school Republican. The policy differences between Obama and Hillary Clinton are negligible - both have said so, and you can see that if you actually read their policy positions.

"Extreme left", if the term were to be used correctly, is the American Communist Party. Obama is no communist. He's not even a European style Socialist, unfortunately.

And Greg - is it really Democratic infighting, or the way it is reported in the mainstream media? The Democrats have done, and continue to do, some good solid legislation that helps working people. Unfortunately, Faux news and AM radio do their best to make them look ineffective, and they're very good at manipulation. Since corporate media interests dominate the media market - particularly in the midwest - the result is lots of people voting against their own best interest because of inaccurate reporting.

My big problem with the Dems is that they are too timid. The GOP is ran by bullies. If you stand up to a bully, they cave. The Democrats have forgotten that.
 
> But since gay marriage is not a right by the US Constitution

That's a huge (and in my view incorrect) assumption.
 
Let me amend that.

Same Sex Marriage is not specifically mentioned as a right in the US Constitution, and bans against it have not been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court... yet...
 
Yes, let's not forget....YET!! That is subject to change. As I've always said, same sex marriage will come about in this country when the Supreme Court rules that non-recognition of such is prohibited as it's a right somehow "guaranteed" by the constitution. I'd love to be the lawyer that pulls that one off.
 
Have you ever read or listened to arguments in one of these cases? And the "DOM" camp wonders why they keep losing, from Hawaii to Massachusetts. Pathetic, truly ridiculous arguments from their side.

The "DOM" camp are the ones who have no legal leg to stand on. Why do you think they've been reduced to pushing for constitutional amendments? It's the only way they can advance their gay bashing agenda and keep it in place.

As California's supreme court said, marriage is one of the most fundamental of all human rights, and if the state wishes to deny this right to any class of individual it must show a compelling interest in doing so. So far, the "DOM" camp hasn't come up with any justifiable interest, just a lot of religious ranting and the same set of disproven scare tactics about gay people.

The only way the U.S. Supreme Court could uphold state "DOM" laws and constitutional provisions is for them to claim that somehow, by some arsurdly contorted logic, applicability of the 9th and 14th Amendments to our Constitution depend on one's sexual orientation. I'd like to see any lawyer pull *that* one off.
 
And that's exactly what marriage is......

....a human right. Has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. It is a state granted right. And when the mainstream churches are finally told to keep their noses the hell out of it, then we'll really get somewhere.
 

Similar threads

J
Let's play, the FAAAAAAMILYYYY FEUUUUUUUUD!
Replies
2
Views
136
rp2813
rp2813
panthera
Obama's Open Letter to the LGBT Community
2 3
Replies
62
Views
623
neptunebob
neptunebob

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top