Sure thing. Here are two high profile libs with their hand in the cookie jar.
I shouldn't have said harbor. That's obviously too light given the charges. She was in cahoots with the Blind Sheik, for conspiracy to commit murder -- mass murder.
You said "The Left." These individuals hardly comprise "The Left." Completely ignoring the details of the case, two individuals do not warrant painting an
entire political leaning as traitors. This is like holding up a KKK member and saying "whites are racist," or taking an African American gang member and saying "blacks are dangerous."
Now retract your disgusting slander of an entire group of people, and give us an apology. "The Left" as you refer to us almost universally
supported invading Afghanistan to
annihilate Al Qaeda and their Taliban allies, and catch Osama.
Nice shifting of goal posts. Bush has said a number of times that focusing attention to bin Laden turns him in to a Bogeyman. I can assure you they are still very much searching for him, as evidenced by the FBI's Most Wanted list. The problem is that Pakistan is playing both sides and has stated that they do not want American special operation units coming in to their country searching for a ghost.
Which is funny, because by letting him continue to live free, bin Laden
is the boogeyman that Bush and the Repiblicans trot forward every other day to scare us with memories of9/11.
But it is in the Dictionary.
Which is
not what you said. You
specifically said "The problem for me comes when someone tries to redefine what a marriage is and to try and amend the Constitution." There is no definition of marriage in the Constitution to amend. No amendment is necessary to allow
equal treatment under the law. Matter of fact, who keeps proposing amendments to the Constitution? That's right, the people who want to keep gays
from getting married.
And the State marriage license is literally a contract between two individuals. There is literally no reason
not to allow homosexuals to receive a marriage license.
The Defense of Marriage Act, proposed by Bill Clinton, makes it so that there is no redefining. Surely, in your infinite wisdom, you can understand that no such specifics ever had to be penned in the Constitution. Why? Because it was considered, and always has been, an absurdity of the highest order.
In my infinite wisdom, I can also understand why the founders never wrote anything like "free the slaves" into the Constitution, either. You know, because they would have thought that was absurd, too. The Constitution as written, however, affords equal protection under the law, period.
I mean, look at the historical facts here, why don't you. Nowhere on the planet was the marriage of same sex partners an acceptable practice. At most, places like Greece allowed for men to molest little boys.
Irrelevant (and sneaking in a suggestion that all homosexuals are pedophiles is pretty low, NJ). "Tradition" is not an excuse to continue to discriminate unfairly. Or would you prefer we put all African Americans into chains for "tradition's" sake?
Then how come incest isn't legal?
If we're talking about consenting adults, I don't see a logical, rational reason to disallow it. Pointing out another leftover of an irrational legal system doesn;t help your case, NJ. The only rational reason to disallow incest between consenting adults is the possibility of genetic disorders - the chances of which are in reality only a tiny fraction more likely than in "normal" couples.
To counter: why are interracial marriages
legal?
You clearly misunderstood my premise. The very fact that the State is involved in a religious ceremony is an affront to the Establishment Clause. This doesn't seem to bother you. What only bothers you is when religion seemingly encroaches the State.
Marriage licenses are contracts which give certain rights and privileges under the law to the married couple. How could the State
not be the one to issue them, unless all of those rights and privileges are eliminated for
all married couples? And then, could not a gay couple simply go to a homosexuality-friendly church and get married there? What about non-religious folk who want to make a lifelong commitment to each other? Am I not allowed to get married because I'm an Atheist, NJ?
Marriage isn't a religious matter any more. Not solely. Nobody requires your
church to recognize a gay marriage. All we demand is that gays be afforded the same exact legal rights heterosexuals receive - and if the State document that grants those rights is called a "marriage license," there is no rational reason to change the name for the
same exact contract.
Immoral? We live in a world of relativism, remember? There is nothing that is actually immoral; just differences of opinion.
Nice strawman of secular morality. "Relativism" doesn't mean that everyone's "opinion" is valid. A bigoted asshole who supports slavery or thinks beating his wife is a fine thing is still a
bigoted asshole and his "opinions" are immoral.
We also live in a Democracy where the People can cast their vote for what morals should be fixed. The People have spoken -- consequently, not in your favor on this particular issue. You, as a citizen, are afforded the right to protest. But for the time being the law is not repealed, and you will have to find another way to devote yourself to your boyfriend.
We live in a
Constitutional Democracy, specifically created with checks and balances in place to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. Note that we don't operate under a completely "majority rules" system. Hell, if we did, we wouldn't
need the Constitution.
Sometimes, NJ, the majority is just plain wrong. Constitutionally, that's the case now.
Incidentally, I'm not gay, NJ. I'm jsut a rational, moral person who beleives gay couples should have the same rights as everyone else.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
™ Version 4.2