Interesting the way these 2 states operate. Ohio. A bill is introduced in the legislature of the people's representatives who face re-election every 2-4 years. It is debated. It must pass both houses of the legislature. It is sent for the Governor's signature. The Governor all faces re-election every 4 years. The bill becomes law and it is determined that the good people of Ohio, through their elected representatives, are not going to elevate homosexuality to a level of normalcy. Meanwhile, Massachusetts. 7 unelected, unaccountable Judges rule on a subject. The people are not consulted and have no voice Their representatives are not consulted and have no voice. Tell me again their is not a gay agenda. Bush and weak-kneed Republicans and other pols have sat back for years now, feigning or actually oblivious to this special interest movement. How much longer is Bush and his cronies going to study this issue?
Do not blame Bush for this. These issues had their birth in the 90's. These are state judges from a known liberal state. Bush has had to fight filibusters to appoint Federal judges, but even they cannot get involved in a state issue unless it crosses into Federal jurisdiction. You do seem to want to blame Bush for every issue both conservative, liberal, state, and Federal. I do not agree with this ruling, but blaming Republicans for liberal agendas like this being pushed by Democrats and Hollywood is crazy.
I'm not directly blaming Bush for the out-of-control Massachusetts Supreme Court. What I'm blaming him for is listening to his advisors on this issue 3 years ago who said there was no gay agenda and the key was to not appear, bigoted? If Bush has any legal counsel whatsoever, he knew what was on or coming quickly on the dockets of state and federal courts throughout the US. I suspect the kingpin in their tepid response to date is Wyoming Father of the Year, Dick Cheney. The Republican Party fiddled on this issue for no less than the past half-decade. Given the 2 apparent choices for President in 2004, I am wide open, since neither impresses me in the least. I'm certainly no paid advisor to either party, but if I was a Republican insider I would make this issue the abortion issue of 2004 and use it like the sledgehammer the Democrats have used the popular support of abortion.
Maybe President Kerry will fix it. To be honest outside of some type of amendment to the Constitution I am not sure what can be done with this issue in regards to State laws at the Federal level. Federal issues like taxes or federally funded programs would be another issue. I do think this ruling will hurt Kerry a little in the South and Midwest whether he agrees with it or not. Not that he would win a lot of those states in an actual Presidential election, but there are always a few that are close that Democrats want to pick up like they did with Clinton.
If I was Bush I would make a similar annoucement that Kerry made regarding abortion. Kerry said he would litmus test judges and only appoint those that would uphold Roe v. Wade. Bush should say he would litmus test gay marriage and only appoint judges who will uphold traditional standars of marriage.
That is because in America we have an independent judiciary. I feel safe in saying that to one degree or another every state in the union has an independent judiciary. Some states do elect their Supreme Court justices, but others do not. But it is still theoretically, independent. Guess what the US Constitution is? It is whatever the US Supreme Court says it is. People who get this worked up over homosexuals, ...it is difficult to say, but.....well, let's just say, they must have hangups.
Cotton Bowl, I agree with you on many issues but obviously not this one. That's been the refrain for years now on this issue. The, if you get worked up over, or this is no agenda, or it doesn't matter, or if you complain you must be latently homosexual *as if you are opposed to rape, you must be a latent rapists?*etc. etc. The problem is its the people who believe in traditional notions of parenting and marriage are told to ignore the issue or that they are making too big a deal out of the issue. Meanwhile, obviously judges, academians and special intests on the advocate side have been very busily working away at chipping away at traditional systems. Sort of a, don't worry about it, we'll take care of it argument. I agree with you that this Supreme Court is independent. But they have declared their independence from the words of the Constitution and concern themselves with the words of foreign court decisions, United Nation decrees and the advice of foreign leaders and courts. You may be on the opposite side of me on this issue, but when you have a Supreme Court acting completely independent of the Constitution, you have a problem. I'm as mad about their advocating for homosexuality as I am about their decisions concerning punitive damages and other pro-Big Business decisions. But, as bad as the pro Big Business decisions are, at least they make an effort to use precedent, Constitutional text and democratic decisions, although often wrongly. In the matter of their advocacy of homosexuals, they are ignoring text, precedent and democratic decisions.
I guess you have a point. If enough Americans would support a law banning Southern Baptists from breeding and having another generation of Southern Baptists, I would be strongly tempted to support the law. So I guess I understand the prejudiced feelings of people against gays. I don't understand people who feel so strongly about this that they will vote in November on this issue. That baffles me. With all the problems we have around us, people who waste time worrying about whether two gay people can enter into a legal contract called marriage are off my radar of understanding. Either they are just haters, which a lot of them are, highly prejudiced people, ignorant, or fear they are gay themselves. Do you know why Southern Baptists are against sex while standing up? They are afraid it will lead to dancing. The only problem I have with Southern Baptists is they just don't hold them under the water long enough. I felt about as out of place as a Southern Baptist in Hell. (Apologies to Mark Twain.)
So I guess I understand the prejudiced feelings of people against gays. I don't understand people who feel so strongly about this that they will vote in November on this issue. That baffles me. Fair enough. Does that go both ways? Not you personally, but your opinion that people who worry about this issue baffle you. Does that apply to the organizations formed strictly to promote worrying about this issue in the goal of allowing homos to marry? To the judges who instead of throwing such cases out as political questions, choose to rule in favor of such advocates? Or are you only baffled by those who take the opposite position? As an obvious loyal Democrat, I'd guess you are not as baffled by those who single-vote on the pro-choice abortion issue? A substantial block of Democratic loyalists. I find gay advocates such as yourself to be either openly gay, latently gay or repressing happy memories of gay sex and wanting to keep their future options open. Of course I'm not directly accusing you of any of those motives. Perhaps this gay movement is just the next frontier. Perhaps the next will be a codification of the old saying old enough to bleed.... Only the Southern Baptist probably stand in the way, or the haters of course.
