Hang in there Larry! Let's show how perverted & hypocritical you Repubs are!

[Knutey]

Pervert defender. And I dont mean gays, They arent the pervs. You closeted & repressed gaybeaters http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/wyom-o13.shtml  are the real  sickos.

I never defended the folks who beat Matthew Shepard.

You have frequently call Larry Craig and other gay men perverts

So who is the basher?

Using your logic any gay person who thinks their sexual preference does not need to be worn on their sleeve like a name tag, is a hypocrite because they don't outwardly and vocally advocate changes to the status quo.

So if that is the case any gay is fair game for hunting down and publicly outing.

At least be consistent in your treatment of "pervs"

Are you really this dense or are you just trying out for Dancing With the Liars?
Gays that are honest about it do not need to wear it on their sleeves. They just dont deny and they certainly dont ask to deprive othes of their orientation of liberties and sometimes their lives.Once again, Gays are not the pervs. It is your closeted and kinky Repubs that are. Healthy gays do not hit on young boys online and cops in shithouses like your closeted creeps. Me thinks it may  the very hypocracy of denial self-hatred that makes y'all the kinks that you are.

[BT]

Mikey,

I don't believe you have an understanding of the marriage issue at all.

Marriage laws are governed by the various states. There is no federal constitutional right.

So how is Craig and any other gay or straight senator or congressman denying anyone a right that does not exist.

Even Loving vs Virginia was not about marriage per se. It was about a black man having the same rights as a white man.

What DoMA did and what the proposed amendment did was define marriage at the federal level.

Craig has as much right to be in favor of DoMA as a black has to be against reparations or a woman has to be pro-life even if she did have an abortion in an earlier phase of her life.

If you don't recognize that basic premise, that each individual has a right to weigh the evidence of an issue and decide according their conscience, then all your talk about rights in general is hypocritical at its core. 

[Plane]

I don't really agree with Knute and MT , but I think that Larry Craig looks worse every time he reappears on the TV.

Is it even possible that Larry Craig is telling the truth?

If he is, there has to be a sort of conspiracy to make him look bad.

This seems unlikely , but how can anyone prove anything about this stuff?


How long should a politicians supporters continue to support while the politicians credibility shrinks?

I don't think we can make hypocracy a crime without first multiplying our prison space enourmousy , nor can we really require the Senate to be free of hypocracy and still have a real senate.

 But unless Larry Craig can reverse the trend that makes his accusers grow more beleiveable as he grows less , his reelction seems very unlikely .  

[Michael Tee]

As I understand the issue, BT, no state can deprive a person of basic Constitutional rights.  So if a state's marriage laws deprive any individual of a Constitutional right, he has legal recourse.

The Constitution, as I understand it, provides certain equality rights (or maybe they are privacy rights) that are violated when any state law prohibits Adam from marrying Steve while allowing either of them to marry Eve.

The proposed Constitutional amendment was devised to prevent any gay from appealing to his or her Constitutional equality rights (or maybe they were privacy rights) if a state marriage law purports to bar him or her from marrying somebody else of the same sex.

Anyway, whether or not I got the details straight, the basic idea is to amend the Constitution to prevent anyone from claiming a right under it that would be violated by a state law respecting same-sex marriage.

[Plane]

As I understand the issue, BT, no state can deprive a person of basic Constitutional rights.  So if a state's marriage laws deprive any individual of a Constitutional right, he has legal recourse.

The Constitution, as I understand it, provides certain equality rights (or maybe they are privacy rights) that are violated when any state law prohibits Adam from marrying Steve while allowing either of them to marry Eve.

The proposed Constitutional amendment was devised to prevent any gay from appealing to his or her Constitutional equality rights (or maybe they were privacy rights) if a state marriage law purports to bar him or her from marrying somebody else of the same sex.

Anyway, whether or not I got the details straight, the basic idea is to amend the Constitution to prevent anyone from claiming a right under it that would be violated by a state law respecting same-sex marriage.

This is one of the issues that scuttled the ERA.

[BT]

You don't have it right.

The purpose of DoMA and the amendment was so that if Vermont decided to grant marriage rights to gays, that Nebraska would not be compelled under the full faith clause to do the same.

There never was a federal definition of marriage and therefore no federal right.
States have always been allowed legislatively to grant marriage rights to gays.

The problem was exasperated by a pending court decision in Hawaii that if decided on constitutional grounds could concievably be forced on other states.

As far as Craig goes, i could give a flip about him. What i take issue with is this hypocrisy charge that says all gays, all blacks, all women have to march in lockstep with the preferred position. And frankly that is just bullshit and gossamer cover for the outers own prejudices.

[Michael Tee]

I've got it right, BT.  If the Constitution protects gays from discrimination, it protects them from discrimination in marriage and even if states have the right to regulate marriages, they must ALL do so under the Constitution, i.e. respecting the Constitutional rights to same-sex marriage that its defenders claim to have found in the Constitution.

If the Constitution grants the right to same-sex marriage, then it is a right which would apply across the board to all states.  None of them could, under the guise of regulating marriage, abridge that right.  So the concern (that Hawaii not be forced to emulate Massachusetts) is totally bogus - - if the right is already enshrined in the Constitution, Hawaii could not do other than follow Massachusetts.  If the right did not exist in the Constitution, all states would be free to legislate as they saw fit on same-sex marriage.

The only purpose the amendment to the Constitution could possibly have would be to "clarify" the Constitution by eliminating the possibility of its being interpreted in such a way as would prohibit any state from preventing same-sex marriage.

[BT]

If the Constitution grants the right to same-sex marriage, then it is a right which would apply across the board to all states.

So where in the constitution is same sex marriage declared as a right?

For that matter where in the constitution is hetero marriage discussed?

Look to the 10th amendment.

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<So where in the constitution is same sex marriage declared as a right?

<<For that matter where in the constitution is hetero marriage discussed?>>

Wikipedia says that the Constitutional argument for same-sex marriage is contained in the 14th amendment (equal rights) - -

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Plane]

<<So where in the constitution is same sex marriage declared as a right?

<<For that matter where in the constitution is hetero marriage discussed?>>

Wikipedia says that the Constitutional argument for same-sex marriage is contained in the 14th amendment (equal rights) - -

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So we have to all be equally forbidden to marry the same sex, marry our parents ,marry ten at once or marry vegetabes?

Is this really unfair to those who want with all their hearts to marry a cabbage?

[BT]

At the state level, is marriage a right or a privilege?

If a right, why the need for a license?

[Michael Tee]

<<If a right, why the need for a license?>>

Probably to certify that they're of legal age, mentally competent, not already married, took their blood tests, etc.  Rights can be circumscribed by law too.  I have a right to free speech, but not to shout fire in a crowded theatre.  I have a right to marry, but not to a twelve-year-old.

[BT]

Kinda of like a drivers license.

Is that a right also?

[Plane]

<<If a right, why the need for a license?>>

Probably to certify that they're of legal age, mentally competent, not already married, took their blood tests, etc.  Rights can be circumscribed by law too.  I have a right to free speech, but not to shout fire in a crowded theatre.  I have a right to marry, but not to a twelve-year-old.

Odviously due to prejudice against twelve year olds , who thereby are not receveing equal justice under the law.

[Michael Tee]

<<Odviously due to prejudice against twelve year olds , who thereby are not receveing equal justice under the law.>>

If you feel that strongly about it, why not join the Children's Rights movement?  Or get on the real leading edge - - NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association.







(for the sake of sirs and others of the irony-immune persuasion, I had better point out that this is a JOKE.  Not that they'll believe it's a joke, but it's a joke nevertheless)