I can understand that a person in Cheney's position might have to go against their beliefs to support their boss, but I'd hate to be in the same room with father and daughter for a while...
[ January 12, 2004, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vaclav Havel said that politics is about compromise. I've come to accept this as true. Thus, if I were elected, I'd most likely approve day-after drugs if I could get approval on a bill stopping abortions after the first trimester.
It isn't perfect-- the idea of willfully destroying a child is abhorrent to my principles-- but I'm willing to compromise to save what I can.
At least, that's the way I feel tonight.
I wonder if Cheney's daughter has struck a similar bargain.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've wondered about this (gay issues and Cheney, that is -- not the biting-heads-off-bats thing).
Anyone have any sense on how Bush/Cheney has done on gay issues? Have they helped gays any, or have they actively promoted anti-gay measures? (Or have they just slowed the promotion of anti-gay measures?)
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny how many of these conservatives have gay relatives. Especially when they most hard core among them say that gayness is caused by parenting kids wrong. Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case, I'm not being sarcastic. It would go against my larger, uncompromising nature, but while IN public office, you have to compromise.
A fact that I think is lost on many religious politicos.
:shrug:
That's the way I feel this morning. Who knows if I could actually justify my stance when faced with the capability to make it real?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Vaclav Havel said that politics is about compromise.
Velvet revolution, I like it.
However, when it comes to enforcing the constitution, there can be no compromise. There is no authority located anywhere in the constitution for the government to ban gay marriages. If anything, it is a state issue.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gephardt also has a gay daughter, and seeing that politics make strange bedfellows.....
I'm just sick and wrong.
The Bush Administration has not done anything for Gay rights or the homosexual community. They have promoted a constitutional definition of marriage that prohibits gay marriages, and fought the Supreme Court when it struck down an anti-sodomy law last year.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The children of strong conservatives go completely liberal (Cheney, Gephardt's daughters), and the children of free spirits are horrified with their parents and marry young (Kate Hudson). I'm not surprised that the children of people of strong opinions live lives completely incompatible with those opinions.
Heck, half the reason I bought an Altima was to annoy my dad, who wanted me to buy a Ford Thunderbird.
Before I get pied/egged, of course I don't think that is the only reason. Human beings are complex, and their are a thousand motivations that go into every action.
In another comment that will not win me friends or influence people, maybe the politicians are strengthened in their beliefs because they have seen their children try it and they can see their children are not happy?
Or, maybe changing and compromising this belief means a backing down of sorts to their children, and they have not discovered a way to do that and keep their pride/self image.
There could be lots of reasons.
[ January 13, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It "deserves" a Constitutional amendment because people are coming to realize that denying same-sex couples the right to civil marriage is in fact unconstitutional, so those people who are determined to continue to deny this right are gearing up to change the Constitution.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, when it comes to enforcing the constitution, there can be no compromise. There is no authority located anywhere in the constitution for the government to ban gay marriages. If anything, it is a state issue.
So why do we continue to hang on to a 200+ year old document that was written in vastly different times?
posted
Yeah, shooting down the Constitution AND the Bible is going win you lots of friends at cocktail parties.
But seriously, if they did successfully ban sodomy, as they tried in my current state of Texas, who in their right mind is going to enforce it? I mean, if I was a police officer, and I got a report of sodomy taking place somewhere, I'd probably just pull over and slash my tires and say I got a flat. No WAY am I breaking out the cuffs for that. There has to be a better felony going on somewhere. Whatever happened to arson?
Allright. I'm done with my bad joke now. My apologies.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many places banned sodomy, including Texas. Of course, the SC struck it down, when someone did try to enforce it. In fact, they struck down pretty much any attempt to ban sexual practices that are not otherwise objectionable in the bedroom.
posted
Also its worth pointing out that we definitely don't follow the Constitution in the same way any more. Our interpretation of it has changed considerably.
Some would argue our interpretation of the Bible has likewise changed considerably with time.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Constitution doesn't guarentee personal freedoms. By enumerating freedoms in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution actually LIMITS freedoms. If nothing about religion, etc., was stated, the message of the constitution would have been MUCH clearer-- anything not mentioned by the Constitution was a right, or subject to legislation by the State, not Federal, government.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: the Constitution actually LIMITS freedoms. If nothing about religion, etc., was stated, the message of the constitution would have been MUCH clearer--
This doesn't follow. What would could be clearer than
quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If such things were left unsaid, then, as you pointed out, they would either be rights or the states would take them up. Instead, the framers intelligently realized that certain rights(those above being 1 instance of 10) need to be inviolable under any circumstances and could not leave it to the states to secure their freedom.
posted
I know you're being the devil's advocate, but the things that always peeve me about that statement are:
That the bill of rights explicitly makes clear there are other rights available not enumerated (see: #9).
And that many of the rights are those that could be limited by the government under the powers granted elsewhere in the constitution were they not enumerated (see: #1-8), and so would not be protected were they not enumerated.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people grant government power via the Constitution; the Bill of Rights turns that on its head by forcing the government to interpret the rights enumerated.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, the government is not and has never been a monolithic entity. Most of the power to interpret rights rests with the courts, for instance.
Second, as the government is an embodiment of some of the powers of the people, it is only natural it has some ability to adjudge its own powers, as the people do.
Third, there's nobody else to do it, really. If a group is a representative of the entire people of the US, it is almost by definition a part of the government. If its not representative, it shouldn't be interpreting rights.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, some people are forgetting the following amendments:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
---
Note especially the ninth. Though there is debate on what amendments 13-15 mean for the ninth.
quote: The children of strong conservatives go completely liberal (Cheney, Gephardt's daughters), and the children of free spirits are horrified with their parents and marry young (Kate Hudson). I'm not surprised that the children of people of strong opinions live lives completely incompatible with those opinions.
Heck, half the reason I bought an Altima was to annoy my dad, who wanted me to buy a Ford Thunderbird.
Hehhehehehe. This is probably one of the reasons I found it so easy to convert to my husband's religion (Hedonistic Heathen). It annoys my parents AND my kids will probably be religious anyway. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
