The District Court ruled that the rejection of these ballots violated federal law in a national election. OK. I may be completely missing your point, but why are you explaining this to me in response to my point regarding the ruling of the US Supreme Court that halted the recount permitted by the Florida SC?
And, tdn, you may diasgree with the results of the analysis conducted by the independent newspaper consortium. But given that analysis, you and I have vastly different definitions of what “pure conjecture” is. You definition apparently means “a statement supported by research and analysis.”
It took seventy five years for women to get the vote. A few years ago my girlfriends and I had a party to celebrate the fact that we’d now had had the vote for longer it took to get it.
And, of course, once we got the vote, it was another 40 or 50 before the other stuff started to even out (and we still have a way to go).
We fight these battles for the long term, recognizing that we may never live to see the big changes ourselves.
And yet, in this one, the changes have been fairly astounding. No gay marriage yet, but domestic partnerships, civil unions, anti discrimination laws. Companies that offer benefits to partners. Not that we should be content, but we do want to enjoy our victories as well as recognize how far we have yet to go.
I’m mostly with you on the SC thing; I just want to make sure we’re not using an argument over that issue to obscure the fact that fraudulent votes were the key to Bush’s election.
I see this is degenerating into another Was Bush Elected Or Not Threads. May I humbly suggest that if those involved want to continue that fight, they do so in another thread?
Now, then…FWIW, I happen to agree with what Fred said, :“It doesn’t follow that being against gay marriage is being against gays. Marriage is, after all, more a cultural than legal. The problem comes from all the legal rights that come with marriage that are denied to gays as a result of gays being denied the ability to marry.” I know I’m going to sound old-fashioned, but I happen to think of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Perhaps, as has been suggested, a different label for a homosexual bonding? But then you run into the spectre of seperate but equal, like seperate drinking fountains.
This issue is the hardest that I have ever struggled with. I have to admit that my reaction is purely visceral; I have a firm and unshakeable conviction to equal rights for anybody and everybody. Yet somehow, when it comes to this issue, I want to equivocate. I want to say that homosexuals can marry, but my skin just crawls when I think that. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.
I’m not making that argument either way, though I’m not sure your contention–fraudulent votes decided the election–is accurate based on your cite. The District Court did not recognize these as fraudulent ballots. Why are you certain they are?
And believe me, I am open to any evidence you may have. I am on record on this board as saying it is perfectly plausible to me that more voters left the Florida polls believing that they voted for Gore than those believing they voted for Bush. But that’s not the same to me as saying the Republicans stole the election, not if by that one means that different behavior would have led to a different outcome.
And we can take this to a different thread to avoid further hijack as was suggested, but I suspect it’s all been said at this point. I just can’t seem to resist responding to the incessant “the SC stole the election” cries. The SC, in this particular scenario, may have been short-sighted, they may have been partisan, they may have been outright villains (I’m not conceding they were), but ultimately they did not decide the election.
Yes, I was skipping the step in which DOMA is ruled unconstitutional. I’ve never heard any serious jurists argue that DOMA might be constitutional. Even its supporters realize this - that’s why they’re pushing for a constitutional amendment.
The full faith and credit laws only applies to US states, not foreign countries. So there’s no legal obligation to recognize those marriages in the US.
chula, the United States has treaties with at least one country with gay marriages (Canada) that make recognising marriages contracted there part of the supreme law of the land. (And I would be surprised if there weren’t a few other such treaties around.)
“Marriage means something different. You know, marriage has a meaning that I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can’t have, you know, many of the same rights and the same, you know, respect for their unions that they are seeking and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is…First of all, I think that it is unlikely, if not impossible, to be something (in the context of same-sex marriage) nationally accepted in our country, but I also think that we can realize the same results for may committed couples by urging that states and localities adopt civil union and domestic partnership laws.”
Mary Cheney recently split with the phony-baloney Repuclican Unity Coalition, which was set up so that the GOP could pretend to have some vague interest in gays without actually having to do anything. Supposedly she broke ties to devote more time to her career but recently signed on to her dad’s re-election campaign.
Hillary’s words are weasely and gutless (and pointless since the only people she would offend by supporting gay marriage are people who already hate her anyway) but at least she says that she would support civil unions. Would Shrub say as much?
Damn hamsters ate my post! Anyway… Do you have a cite for that treaty? I knew that the US commonly recognized Canadian marriages, but I never heard that such matters were regulated by treaty. There’s no constitutional requirement that foreign marriages be recognized, so DOMA would control in that case. There was a 1982 Court of Appeals case that said that for immigration purposes, marriage is between a man and a woman, and DOMA bolsters this.
Ugggh… side rant. I’m tired of everyone who disagree’s with gay lifestyle being labeled “Homophobic.” Like being gay has become so PC that you dont dare state differing opinions. Accepting and respecting someone’s belief’s is a two-way street. Nuff said.
