Would any of you think more highly of a Democratic Party that...

[L32Projekt]

So are you saying they did anything to help President Bush? It seems to me that a neutral media is the way to go, with neither side "expecting" the media to sway voter's opinions. What's funny is that I kinda expect the media to help the Democrats, seems like they're always in bed with each-other (and interns) ;) J/K

[speedracer95v6]

Originally posted by GrigoryRasputin:
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment says youre wrong.
Affirmative action and social programs dont apply b/c theyre enacted in the spirit of either pursuing equal protection or pursuing social justice - sorry bad examples.

Marriage as an institution should not be infringed upon by the state in any manner - it is a religious promise and a sacred bond that involves the man and woman, God and the congregation.
However, tax and other benefits that would be covered by equal protection under the law IS a right given to all Americans. Dont call it marriage... my feeling is that if a man and a woman goes before the justice of the peace it shouldnt be called a marriage either.

Marriage is religious. end of story.
Marriage isnt included in the constitution and should never be.

That seems reasonable. Grant the same rights (and licenses) to everyone but let the church (or other religious body) decide if they will let them get married.

This gay marriage thing is kind of a touchy subject, but I'll throw in something a friend sent me that kinda opened my mind a little after I thought about it.

A quick, interesting read from MSNBC blog. The rest of email is below this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• November 7, 2004 | 2:26 p.m. ET

A loss for true conservatism (David Shuster)

On Tuesday, eleven different states outlawed gay marriage.

The basic argument I heard was not about marriage (more on that below)
but about being gay. And a majority of voters seem to believe that
homosexuality is an "immoral lifestyle choice."

Hmmmm. The problem is that anybody who has a relative or friend who
is gay also knows it is not a "choice." It is something wired into
the genes of approximately 3 or 4 percent of the human population in
every single culture on the planet. Secondly, when it comes to
morality, consider this: While the Bible does suggest homosexuality is
an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), The Bible also says in Leviticus
25:44 that we may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they
are purchased from neighboring nations; Exodus 35:2 says that my
neighbor who works on the Sabbath should be put to death; Lev. 19:27
expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed; Lev. 11:6-9
states that touching a dead pig makes us unclean (Are you ready for
some football?) and Lev. 19:19 forbids us from planting two different
crops in the same field or wearing garments made of two different
kinds of threat. The penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 suggests we stone people
to death.

Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery, devout
observance to the Sabbath, long hair, all cotton clothes, and stoning
people... I would prefer that our society move forward.

And the best way to move any society forward is to strengthen the
family. I adore my family and consider them to be the greatest best
part of my entire life. And I'm absolutely convinced that "marriage"
fosters social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence.
That's why I'm baffled as to why we would keep such an institution
away from anybody. (I'm not talking about "religion-sanctioned
marriage," I'm referring to the civil institution of marriage—the kind
that involves a "state-sponsored" license.)

The fact is, the couple down the street... whether they are straight
or gay, has no bearing what so ever on my marriage or yours. Gay
marriage could only undermine or delegitimize straight marriage if it
were a real alternative. But, do you know any heterosexuals who could
be persuaded by law (or anything else for that matter) to have sex
with or marry someone of their own sex? I don't.

Any intelligent and logical thinking person must know that gays are
not going away. So why not coax these human beings into traditional
values? Marriage reinforces a healthy social trend... and it provides
stability. Isn't that what conservatism stands for?

If we really want to improve and strengthen the institution of
marriage, instead of passing laws that exclude couples, shouldn't we
be focused on why 50% of all marriages end in divorce? Why not pass a
law that requires all couples (as some churches do) to meet with a
pastor and talk about hundreds of issues before the marriage. Or how
about a law that says you can't marry anybody you met in the last 24
hours?

Unfortunately, logic and common sense to be in short supply these
days. Instead, we have an endless supply of hatred and fear. Why is
that?

DShuster@msnbc.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On abortion: I have stated my third solution. Does no one take it seriously? It removes all the moral implications. Grow the embryo to term in an artificial womb. If we spent money from arguing over whether or not we should do abortion on this project, we would have more than enough funding.

On the Confederate battle flag: if individuals want it, let them have it...same as a swastika. If people don't like it being on a state flag or something, we have referendums for that.

Prayer in school: If students want to do it in school, let them. I can't see how the school could legally give them a "prayer time" but if it doesnt interrupt their class or studies and all are treated equally, who cares? They can always pray before school if they find they don't have the time at school

As for religious functions being announced at school, as long as they let everyone announce equally, let them. So Jane the atheist is offended. She isn't being forced to go, and if she wants to announce an atheist function of some sort or announce no function at all, let her.

Gun control: this is a major sticking point with me on the most liberal (and currently party leading) democrats. I believe gun control is using both hands. But seriously, I think registering new guns should happen as it does. There should be background checks on new guns. You should be able to own weapons that fire big bullets and have clips with over 10 rounds ("assault weapons"). The fact of the matter is, you can legally own a damn BAR if you have the money for the licenses. I mean who do you think the gov't buys their guns from?

I can't think of anything else to talk about, but I'm trying to be open minded. I mean I can find middle ground with about anyone as long as they are being rational and calm about the situation. I think that is why a lot of these get locked is cause some people can't do that. If our sorry *** leaders would do this we would get a lot more accomplished.

[ November 10, 2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: speedracer95v6 ]