| Author |
Message |
Sali
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 6:50 pm: | |
lol Min. I do get all riled up where the Constitution is threatened by obvious idiots. Or when religion becomes a factor in the making of laws or taking away of rights. This nation ,so long a bulwark of freedom , is now in jeopardy of becoming a theocracy . The far right,with its holy rollers , are slowly aquiring a power that has not been seen since the religious fanatics burned the witches in Salem. Will we be their next target. I wish people ,especially those of us with the most to lose,the gay community, would start a letter writing campaign to their local newspapers and voice their objections to this assault on the very fabric of democracy,our constitution. Certainly the issue of gay marriage is important ,but if we lose sight of the finer point-that of amendments changed because the majority want it so , then we shall lose sight of what the founding fathers so wanted to protect us from. Tyranny by the majority. So one need not own up to ones sexual orientation by letter writting if they use the constitution as their focus-
Thank you all (getting off my newly welded soap box-curtesy of tiffany jewlers) |
~min~
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 12:13 am: | |
Hello Ladies,
I too am in the camp that "it will never happen"..a constitutional amendment depriving it's contituency of rights is beyond rational thinking and in spite of furious activity by many of our "elected" officials I still believe the spirit of the constitution will survive. So far most state courts have upheld the decisions to go forward with the legal contracts of marriage and soon the debate on a federal level
will begin, success is not assured but it is a start and while the feeling is womens rights and civil rights haven't been successful I think they have moved us out of savage times and brought positive changes..I am hopeful.
And Gracie, for His honor Arnold to become Pres, well, it would probably require another admendment..so, I think we are safe there, for a while anyway, lol.
sali, you speak with such fire and emotion, I'm afraid we'd better get you a non flammable soap box...take care, love you. |
ellie
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
Several years ago there was another proposed Constitutional Amendment. Perhaps you ladies remember it, as it was during our lifetime. It was called the Equal Rights Amendment. It has long since fallen by the wayside as it failed to garner support in enough states to pass (38 states must ratify a proposal for it to be added as an amendment.) I suspect that this proposal will fail as well.
Perhaps it's time for many to go back and read the Preamble to the Constitution, the actual Constitution, and the Amendments. In the preamble itself you will read "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity...." The first eight amendments and their subsequent supreme court rulings protect many rights. The ninth amendment is a catchall which covers rights not protected by the first eight amendments. Thus, a federal constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage among gays and homosexuals would violate as many as six of the first ten amendments. It's not going to happen.
What is needed is federal legislation which adds to prior legislation banning forms of discrimination. The phrase "sexual orientation" is missing. With that the EEOC needs to fall in line and amend its wordings. Thus, governmental agencies and much of the private business community would be forced to comply and grant equal rights.
For the record, women experienced and continue to experience discrimination long after women suffrage passed. African Americans continue to be discriminated against even though civil rights laws have passed. Unfortunately, one of the byproducts of civil rights legislation is the discrimination against white citizenry. If our leadership needs to get active against a particular group, then I recommend they round up all illegal aliens and move for speedy deportation. Only citizens of this country have rights protected under the Constititution. It does not protect citizens of other countries.
On a personal note to sali, I did not bring out my big red pencil today. The reason is obvious. Go back and reread the original wording of the Constitution. Our founding fathers didn't spell very well. I do not accept any responsibility for their shortcomings, as I am only second generation born in this country. |
sali
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
Crap -if ellie reads this she;s gonna red pencil all the spelling errors. Please some one break the point on ellies pencil! |
sali
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Aside from not being given equal rights the more serious issue is Bushes attempt to alter the ethos of the constitution. Never has an amendment been proposed that denies civil rights to INDIVIDUALS! Prohibition disallowed the sale of a particular item but did not in any way denyied basic rights to people. The atempted imposition upon our constitution of in essence a religiously sanctified union ,which marriage is NOT,is the melding of church and state. This is far more important than wether homosexuals have the right to a civil marriage. It is important that we define just what this particular outrage is. rather than focus on homosexual rights. One can easily cast aspersions upon us, but not upon the crux of the constitution. So I suggest ,and it is only my opinion , that we remind others that this attempted amendment ,which in reality is a pipe dream, is an assault upon civil rights. Thus removing an attempt to cast homosexuals ,even though we are targeted, as the bad gays/ gals.
PS -will someone tell skippy to give me back my soap box! |
Grace
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
If the subject isn't food or sex, there doesn't seem to be much interest in participating in discussion of such an important and relevant topic. It would seem that the Governor of California has joined in the fray, plus he is attempting to add his agenda that another amendment also allow foreign born to become President. Very interesting!!!!! I seriously doubt same-sex marriages will become legal in this century. I seriously hope Arnold never becomes President. |
EM
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
There is a federal constitutional amendment being proposed in the United States to bar homosexuals from legally marrying one another, therefore depriving its homosexual citizens of the identical rights and protections granted to its married heterosexual citizens.
This smacks of discrimination. Women experienced this discrimination until the right to vote was won. Non-Caucasian races experienced this discrimination until civil rights were won. Now, homosexuals are experiencing this very same discrimination.
Shall we eventually win our right to legally marry one another in this country? If there is any justice in the world, yes. Hopefully, during my lifetime.
EM |
|
