VeeshanVault

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 1:43 pm**

We are still talking about this?

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 2:15 pm**

Arborealus wrote:
I'm a strong believer in state's rights. Looking at the constitution in the way that it was written and established, the rights of the states to determine law for their citizens should take precidence over federal mandates when constitutionality is at issue.
So you are saying the states should be allowed to make laws in violation of the constitution?...

No, that's not what I said. If the Supreme Court actually wants to touch this subject and make a definitive ruling on it, then I believe that the federal government has every right to enforce that ruling in the states. Because the supreme court hasn't ruled on this matter, clearly defining where the constitutionality of the subject lies, then the matter is left to the states to decide, based on the votes of their people. It's black letter law, if nothing else.

Archerion wrote:To answer part of your question:

Currently, gay couples do not have the automatic right to make medical, legal, or financial decisions on behalf of their partner should the need arise. They may be denied access to visit their spouse in intensive care units and other hospital departments. Gay and lesbian couples do not have the automatic right to make funeral arrangements, or to assume ownership of property (even jointly owned property) when a partner dies.

Gay couples also lack many of the financial benefits of marriage. They may not have access to their spouses' employee health insurance, retirement or death benefits. They are not eligible for tax breaks heterosexual couples receive, nor are they eligible for insurance discounts which are frequently provided for married couples. Gays and lesbians would like to see same-sex marriages legalized so that they could provide the same type of legal, financial, and emotional security for their loved ones that heterosexual couples currently enjoy.

With the help of an attorney, some of the benefits of legal marriage can be obtained by same-sex couples, but many cannot. A valid will and power of attorney can provide some protection, but this takes time and money, and is subject to challenges from biological family members and the government. Until same-sex couples are allowed to marry, their rights and benefits will not be equal to, or as secure as the rights and benefits granted to heterosexual couples upon marriage.

Furthermore, it is important to note that Massachusetts is soon going to be passing a law allowing gay marriages. However, a legally recognized married gay couple in MA would not be legally recognized in, say, Ohio. As a result, the resolution of the inconsistency between state laws is a matter for the Federal Courts.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I was unaware of the legal bindings to this point. As I said, I didn't have the time to read the last 8 pages of this thread.

It would seem to me that the limitations of insurance benefits, hospital access/decisions and power of attorney contests are the result of biased companies. Insurance companies find any way they can to not have to pay out. Federally recognized marriages or not, it's their decision to not recognize same sex marriages for the purpose of payouts. Same with hospitals. I know many of them are secularly-oriented. In those cases, I can see how administrators could be motivated to not support the decision making process of same sex partners. This, I would agree, would benefit from some government definition of "Domestic Partnership." However, as the ball lies now, it's in the hands of the companies more than the government to recognize these unions.

States can pass laws, such as Massachusetts which would compel the companies to recognize the unions. But until a definitive Constitutional issue comes up, I really don't see how the Fed can assert itself over the wills of the states. Civil rights does constitute a federal issue, however, the rights defined in civil rights clauses don't specifically name these items as guaranteed rights of a person. Nor are they guaranteed rights of a spouce.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 2:21 pm**

Ennia wrote:Let the religions keep the freaking word "marriage" as long as we can name every other legal union of 2 humans something else?

That would be the easiest way to get it done, IMO.

I believe that pretty much everyone agreed that Dubya was smoking crack when he decided to try and get a Constitutional Amendment forbidding gay marriage.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 3:29 pm**

States can pass laws, such as Massachusetts which would compel the companies to recognize the unions. But until a definitive Constitutional issue comes up, I really don't see how the Fed can assert itself over the wills of the states. Civil rights does constitute a federal issue, however, the rights defined in civil rights clauses don't specifically name these items as guaranteed rights of a person. Nor are they guaranteed rights of a spouce.

just because the rights aren't expressly granted by the constitution does not mean they arent protected. 9th amendment if i'm not mistaken.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 3:29 pm**

Ennia wrote:either I don't quite follow what's going on or something else, but...

And maybe it's just a matter of wording it carefully, Bush wants to make and amendement to constitution defining marriage as a union between man and woman, Kerry is against same sex marriages but is not against civil unions between gays. WTF does that mean?

Maybe we can finally separate marriage and civil unions, just give them both the same legal rights regarding spouses, kids, insurance etc.

Let the religions keep the freaking word "marriage" as long as we can name every other legal union of 2 humans something else?

I was on the line of thinking at first, but it is monumentally stupid. Think about the trillions of documents, online forms, etc. that use have the options ___single ___ married.

Why should married gay couple have to be segregated and singled out by having to check a new third option ____ civil union???

Plus think about the years it would take to replace those documents to add this third option.

They should be able to check ____ married, just like anyone else.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 3:32 pm**

Voronwë wrote:
States can pass laws, such as Massachusetts which would compel the companies to recognize the unions. But until a definitive Constitutional issue comes up, I really don't see how the Fed can assert itself over the wills of the states. Civil rights does constitute a federal issue, however, the rights defined in civil rights clauses don't specifically name these items as guaranteed rights of a person. Nor are they guaranteed rights of a spouce.
just because the rights aren't expressly granted by the constitution does not mean they arent protected. 9th amendment if i'm not mistaken.

You are correct sir...

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 3:42 pm**

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Why should married gay couple have to be segregated and singled out by having to check a new third option ____ civil union???

Plus think about the years it would take to replace those documents to add this third option.

They should be able to check ____ married, just like anyone else.

thats actually a really good point. the cost alone of implementing a "3rd box" would be huge. I'm not kidding.

think of tax returns alone. adding 2 new tax filing classes: civil union filing seperately/jointly.

it would be a total waste.

look if you are opposed to this for religious reasons, it shouldnt matter to your religion what the state sanctions. Using the Christian example, marriage is a sacrament between the couple and God. It doenst matter whether the state sanctions it or not.

The reverse is also true, unless you get married "legally" and do the bloodwork, arent siblings, etc, it doesnt matter if you had a pretty dress and walked down the aisle before everyone and God too.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 4:03 pm**

Not just a gay couple Mid, but heterosexual ones too.

Maybe we can finally separate marriage and civil unions, just give them both the same legal rights regarding spouses, kids, insurance etc.

Techically this is already true in practice for heterosexual couples but instead of "marriage and civil unions", they are both "married" just one is a church service and another a civil service.

Let the religions keep the freaking word "marriage" as long as we can name every other legal union of 2 humans something else?

While that would seem the easiest thing to do, it would mean anyone that was not married in a church are suddenly no longer married.

Imagine explaining to people that they cease to be married and have become something else.

I don't think anything needs to change. Right now, marriage is marriage, whether the cerimony that got you there was in a church, was a civil union or by Captian on a ship at sea (still legal if it is in international waters I believe). You are still "married" *shrug*

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 4:32 pm**

Voronwë wrote:
States can pass laws, such as Massachusetts which would compel the companies to recognize the unions. But until a definitive Constitutional issue comes up, I really don't see how the Fed can assert itself over the wills of the states. Civil rights does constitute a federal issue, however, the rights defined in civil rights clauses don't specifically name these items as guaranteed rights of a person. Nor are they guaranteed rights of a spouce.
just because the rights aren't expressly granted by the constitution does not mean they arent protected. 9th amendment if i'm not mistaken.

Something legal in one state but not in another also touches on the "full faith and credit" section in the main body of the Constitution.

I hadn't thought of the changes in paperwork necessary to establish a non-marital civil union. That's a fuckload of forms, programs, and other stuff to have to change. Looks like the religious right will just have to suck it on this one.

I am personally against ALL forms of marriage, especially between man and woman. Look at what it's done to poor Voronwe!

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 4:39 pm**

Arborealus wrote:
Voronwë wrote:
States can pass laws, such as Massachusetts which would compel the companies to recognize the unions. But until a definitive Constitutional issue comes up, I really don't see how the Fed can assert itself over the wills of the states. Civil rights does constitute a federal issue, however, the rights defined in civil rights clauses don't specifically name these items as guaranteed rights of a person. Nor are they guaranteed rights of a spouce.
just because the rights aren't expressly granted by the constitution does not mean they arent protected. 9th amendment if i'm not mistaken.
You are correct sir...

Yes, but those rights not expressed in the constitution are left to the discernment of the states, based on the votes of the populous: 10th Amendment.

I'd like to clarify that I am not in any way against same sex marriages. I'm merely playing a bit of the devil's advocate and throwing in objections as I see them in hopes of gaining a new understanding of the topic.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 5:05 pm**

ok so the cost of altering thousands of documents past and future is really not worth it, only option is just leave the definition of marriage as it is,

Bush is an idiot, he's right up there with that pharmacists who refused filling a prescription for that raped girl there other day

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 5:15 pm**

Pahreyia wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Voronwë wrote:
States can pass laws, such as Massachusetts which would compel the companies to recognize the unions. But until a definitive Constitutional issue comes up, I really don't see how the Fed can assert itself over the wills of the states. Civil rights does constitute a federal issue, however, the rights defined in civil rights clauses don't specifically name these items as guaranteed rights of a person. Nor are they guaranteed rights of a spouce.
just because the rights aren't expressly granted by the constitution does not mean they arent protected. 9th amendment if i'm not mistaken.
You are correct sir...
Yes, but those rights not expressed in the constitution are left to the discernment of the states, based on the votes of the populous: 10th Amendment.

To the states respectively or to the people...not to the states then the people...ultimately it is our choice what the states shall legislate...

Pahreyia wrote: I'd like to clarify that I am not in any way against same sex marriages. I'm merely playing a bit of the devil's advocate and throwing in objections as I see them in hopes of gaining a new understanding of the topic.

Yup

And of course the supreme court still has ultimate oversight as to whether the way the state legislates a thing violates constitutional law.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 5:33 pm**

Ennia wrote:ok so the cost of altering thousands of documents past and future is really not worth it, only option is just leave the definition of marriage as it is,

Bush is an idiot, he's right up there with that pharmacists who refused filling a prescription for that raped girl there other day

See there is the problem. It's ok for you to be intolerant but not someone else?

Just because Bush and the majority of American's grew up under religious guidelines doesn't make him an idiot. The fact he doesn't talk like a debating professional doesn't make him an idiot. At the core of his being and when it matters most, he has the character required for someone in the position of President of the United States.

I was a big Clinton basher when he was president, still am really. Not because he got head. Have you seen his wife? I don't blame the man at all. I didn't like him because he was a man who went by polls. His positions waivered along with the polls. I have a hard time respecting that quality in a leader.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 6:31 pm**

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Ennia wrote:ok so the cost of altering thousands of documents past and future is really not worth it, only option is just leave the definition of marriage as it is,

Bush is an idiot, he's right up there with that pharmacists who refused filling a prescription for that raped girl there other day
See there is the problem. It's ok for you to be intolerant but not someone else?

Just because Bush and the majority of American's grew up under religious guidelines doesn't make him an idiot. The fact he doesn't talk like a debating professional doesn't make him an idiot. At the core of his being and when it matters most, he has the character required for someone in the position of President of the United States.

I was a big Clinton basher when he was president, still am really. Not because he got head. Have you seen his wife? I don't blame the man at all. I didn't like him because he was a man who went by polls. His positions waivered along with the polls. I have a hard time respecting that quality in a leader.

not sure why you would call me intolerant for calling Bush an idiot.
Let me clarify what I was thinking at the time, still am.

Bush is a president, elected by people, sworn to protect/obey/serve etc.
Instead of unite all the people that elected him, he's proposing to alienate a group based on personal (I'm guessing) beliefs. He's an example of someone who can't stand the heat and becomes a chef, a pharmacists who is pro life and is faced with a prescription intended to end such a life, someone who picked a career that conflicts with his personal opinions.

I very much tolerate Bush, sadly all of the elections are based on choosing the lesser evil, se we choose someone and have to tolerate whoever gets more votes.

Maybe idiot was a wrong word, it's an insult, but an insult not based on intolerance or discrimination.

He's a wrong person at the wrong place in the wrong time.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 6:37 pm**

I don't agree, but that's okay. I really think our expectations are way too high of people most times. Wasn't it just 5-10 years ago that gays were afraid to come out of the closet? The expectation to have immediate acceptance and have a leader in office with complete tolerance and acceptance of all new strange ideas and concepts immediately, is crazy.

This is no different than when black people complain how terrible life is and how racist america is and how held down they are. While I garee with all those things, my god look where they were as a race just 50 years ago. Even just 40 years ago. Even just 30 years ago. The progress is astonishing. While the downtroden need to continue to fight and claw until they reach mainstream acceptance, it really disgusts me the overlooking of the progress that has been made. The unappreciatiion for the progress that has been made.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 6:47 pm**

those changes take time, it's been only 40-50 years to accept blacks as equals, still an ongoing process too

maybe it'll take another 50 years to accept gays as equal human beings, I'm not even going to touch "normalcy" since it's relative, but tolerance and acceptance just requires you to be at least indifferent to the subject.

Proposing even small changes like restricting gay people from something that others are enjoying is a step back in the progress we are trying to acomplish.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 7:38 pm**

On the same note Ennia, you can't expect people to instantly accept a change like that. Especially when a great deal of fervent religious believers are being told that it's innately wrong by the laws of God.

This is a legal issue that's being driven by secular ideals. It's hard to change the belief systems of a religion like that. It doesn't happen overnight. Discussions like this help to broaden understanding of the subject, but hardly is it the de facto honores mutant mores.

Acceptance and change come with educating peoples to the virtues of tolerance. There's little you can do while people refuse to be tolerant based on the opinions and decrees of an institutution that oudates our own government tenfold.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 7:39 pm**

Ennia wrote:those changes take time, it's been only 40-50 years to accept blacks as equals, still an ongoing process too

maybe it'll take another 50 years to accept gays as equal human beings

Exactly. But we will get there. You'll never have 100% acceptance of anyone, but it will get better.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 9:50 pm**

Pahreyia said:

On the same note Ennia, you can't expect people to instantly accept a change like that. Especially when a great deal of fervent religious believers are being told that it's innately wrong by the laws of God.

I agree with the first statement, but not exactly with the second. Yes, it is part of the belief system of some churches and if so, that doesn't need to change within that system. But again, the US is comprised of people from different races, religions, color and sexual orientation so basing a legal right (like marriage) on a religious belief violates the rights for everyone that does not follow the same religion.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 10:11 pm**

I agree it will be a slow change...But it won't happen by itself...So ya know we do have to keep working and pushing toward it...I don't think my arguements are alienating...I don't get mad about it...I do get frustrated with folks and they get frustrated with me...but there's no real enmity...usually...

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 11:15 pm**

Xzion wrote:If Bush had a gay son (being that he wouldnt shoot him), his opposition to gay marrige would go away in an instant.

I hate fucking prejudice assholes, and there is no other way to define what someone is who supports a ban on gay marrage.

Actually, he would disown his son or let him "accidently" fall off of some cliff in some distant land.

Posted: **February 11, 2004, 11:19 pm**

Ennia wrote:Maybe idiot was a wrong word, it's an insult, but an insult not based on intolerance or discrimination.
He's a wrong person at the wrong place in the wrong time.

No, idiot was the right word. We can add a few adjectives before it though, maybe some along the lines of "bastard" or "mindless" or "fundamentalist christian - hey lets make EVERYONE ELSE FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN" maybe?

It happens..

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 2:33 am**

I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?
--Abraham Lincoln

/clap

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 3:46 am**

Lynxe wrote:Pahreyia said:
On the same note Ennia, you can't expect people to instantly accept a change like that. Especially when a great deal of fervent religious believers are being told that it's innately wrong by the laws of God.

I agree with the first statement, but not exactly with the second. Yes, it is part of the belief system of some churches and if so, that doesn't need to change within that system. But again, the US is comprised of people from different races, religions, color and sexual orientation so basing a legal right (like marriage) on a religious belief violates the rights for everyone that does not follow the same religion.

You are correct, however, for the time being, the support necessary to declare this sort of equality is in the hands of the people. Most states would not support an amendment to the laws stating that same sex marriages are to be treated equally as different sex marriages.

Right now the law is in the hands of the people, unfortunate it may be, but until the constitutionality of it is in question at the hands of the supreme court, that's the way it is.

I have little doubt that the supreme court will rule in favor of same sex marriages, which is why most lawmakers won't touch the subject. Too many votes are at stake for politicians to take definitive stances on the subject, except in places like the bible belt.

It takes time to educate the hate out of people. It's unfortunate, but it's part of the freedoms that we enjoy in America.

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 12:55 pm**

those slow changes we were talking about regarding blacks started with legislation and supreme court decisions.

it wasnt a groundswell of popular support from the majority of Americans that started that ball rolling.

if we think the homosexual marriage issue should follow the same model, then the manner for that to get started is through legislation and court decisions like we see in Massachusetts.

public opinion will follow, mostly as the older people die.

i think that has been a big help to racism, is the old fuckers just die. cause i'm not sure racists "convert", hehe.

I think this issue will hurt BUsh though. Being in support of the "sanctity of heterosexual marriage" is one thing. Proposing a constitutional amendment to that end is an entirely different matter, and he is most likely going to do that. It will cost him votes. Thankfully.

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 1:03 pm**

Yeah love to hear talk about how homosexuality erodes the "legitimate marriages"...Ya know my father and mother had issues because he was seeing another woman...not a man...

I think the real issue with the erosion of marriage is people simply do not have the time to spend together in a lot of cases..And when we spend time together we are spending it together/ alone if that makes sense...and we do seem a lot more self-centered these days (myself included which is why I have chosen not to marry and or reproduce I think)...That plus the fact that I'm a real PITA...

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 1:34 pm**

Voronwë wrote:
I think this issue will hurt BUsh though. Being in support of the "sanctity of heterosexual marriage" is one thing. Proposing a constitutional amendment to that end is an entirely different matter, and he is most likely going to do that. It will cost him votes. Thankfully.

It shouldn't hurt him too much. All the polls taken have shown a large majority either agree with Bush or don't care. Only a small percentage of the population consider this a integral issue at this point in time. And while I agree with marriage for gays, I also find it to be a minor issue at this time. But, maybe if I was gay and wanting to marry my boyfriend, I would find it to be a very important issue.

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 1:44 pm**

it isnt going to be a pivotal issue for me either Mid, but we knew who we were voting for this fall 4 years ago

one thing about the gay community, is they have money to spend. cause they dont have kids (for the most part)! so they can exert some political force even though they aren't the largest group around, and they pretty much are in all social class levels.

you may be right that it won't hurt him, i think it will alienate some independent/libertarian type people though who would have voted for him otherwise...maybe. who knows.

the last election was very close, and i dont think Kerry is Jesus or anything , but he is a better candidate than Al Gore, but Bush is also an incumbant, so both positions are strengthened this go around i'd say.

but it will be close again i think, so seemingly minor issues may end up having a sort of "lynch pin" effect.

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 1:49 pm**

Yeah I kinda think its hurting him a bit more than he thought...For almost all the moderates I know this was the final straw...

Course me being a Jeffersonian the Patriot act was it for me...

The very idea that an American citizen can have been imprisoned for 1 1/2 years without being charge and without recourse to a lawyer is abhorrent...Wannna piss teh Arb off...1st and 5th Amendments are real holy ground for me

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 1:50 pm**

Speaking fo this Voro, I have a new theory. What fi Kerry picked Hillary as his vice-prsident. It would assure the Dems of a win and assure the Clintons strangle hold on the Democratic Party.

Oh yeah baby, what do you think?

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 1:53 pm**

Arborealus wrote:Yeah I kinda think its hurting him a bit more than he thought...For almost all the moderates I know this was the final straw...

Course me being a Jeffersonian the Patriot act was it for me...

I really don't get the agner over the Patriot Act. How has your life changed since the Patriot Act? I know mine hasn't. You know why? Bacause I am a law abidding citizen. The only people who should be against the Patriot Act are people who have something hide and people who deep down inside hate America and hope another 9/11 comes sooner than later.

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 1:57 pm**

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Speaking fo this Voro, I have a new theory. What fi Kerry picked Hillary as his vice-prsident. It would assure the Dems of a win and assure the Clintons strangle hold on the Democratic Party.

Oh yeah baby, what do you think?

i heard Tucker Carlson say this on Crossfire the other day i think. I don't think Kerry needs the approval of the "Clinton sector" of the DNC, so it wouldnt be a necessary choice.

Hillary is a devisive figure, and Kerry knows he has to be able to get some "fence sitter" types. It would be a bad move. I think Edwards is a much more sensible choice, but the Gov. of Virginia is going to make the short list as well.

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 1:58 pm**

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Arborealus wrote:Yeah I kinda think its hurting him a bit more than he thought...For almost all the moderates I know this was the final straw...

Course me being a Jeffersonian the Patriot act was it for me...
I really don't get the agner over the Patriot Act. How has your life changed since the Patriot Act? I know mine hasn't. You know why? Bacause I am a law abidding citizen. The only people who should be against the Patriot Act are people who have something hide and people who deep down inside hate America and hope another 9/11 comes sooner than later.

My litmus test is not my life and how it has been affected...Removal of protected freedom for ANY reason is unacceptable...The act is way too far reaching and has done nothing to increase our security in a real way...

See the Franklin quote in my sig...

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 6:06 pm**

Arborealus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Arborealus wrote:Yeah I kinda think its hurting him a bit more than he thought...For almost all the moderates I know this was the final straw...

Course me being a Jeffersonian the Patriot act was it for me...
I really don't get the agner over the Patriot Act. How has your life changed since the Patriot Act? I know mine hasn't. You know why? Bacause I am a law abidding citizen. The only people who should be against the Patriot Act are people who have something hide and people who deep down inside hate America and hope another 9/11 comes sooner than later.
My litmus test is not my life and how it has been affected...Removal of protected freedom for ANY reason is unacceptable...The act is way too far reaching and has done nothing to increase our security in a real way...

See the Franklin quote in my sig...

haha, damn fine quote in that sig of yours

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 6:17 pm**

We still on this?

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 6:43 pm**

Arborealus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Arborealus wrote:Yeah I kinda think its hurting him a bit more than he thought...For almost all the moderates I know this was the final straw...

Course me being a Jeffersonian the Patriot act was it for me...
I really don't get the agner over the Patriot Act. How has your life changed since the Patriot Act? I know mine hasn't. You know why? Bacause I am a law abidding citizen. The only people who should be against the Patriot Act are people who have something hide and people who deep down inside hate America and hope another 9/11 comes sooner than later.
My litmus test is not my life and how it has been affected...Removal of protected freedom for ANY reason is unacceptable...The act is way too far reaching and has done nothing to increase our security in a real way...

See the Franklin quote in my sig...

What freedoms have been removed?

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 7:16 pm**

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I was on the line of thinking at first, but it is monumentally stupid. Think about the trillions of documents, online forms, etc. that use have the options ___single ___ married.

Why should married gay couple have to be segregated and singled out by having to check a new third option ____ civil union???

Plus think about the years it would take to replace those documents to add this third option.

They should be able to check ____ married, just like anyone else.

Excellent point. Right on.

Posted: **February 12, 2004, 7:21 pm**

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Arborealus wrote:Yeah I kinda think its hurting him a bit more than he thought...For almost all the moderates I know this was the final straw...

Course me being a Jeffersonian the Patriot act was it for me...
I really don't get the agner over the Patriot Act. How has your life changed since the Patriot Act? I know mine hasn't. You know why? Bacause I am a law abidding citizen. The only people who should be against the Patriot Act are people who have something hide and people who deep down inside hate America and hope another 9/11 comes sooner than later.
My litmus test is not my life and how it has been affected...Removal of protected freedom for ANY reason is unacceptable...The act is way too far reaching and has done nothing to increase our security in a real way...

See the Franklin quote in my sig...
What freedoms have been removed?

Ok lets start with a non-patriot act case

IV, V and VI amendments...

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Jose Padilla a US Citizen has been imprisoned in a South Carolina naval facility since May 8 2002 without having been charged with any crime, without having access to an attorney. He was picked up on federal warrants not issued by a grand jury but by a judge with no probable cause given (these are only issuable under the patriot act). 2 days ago he was given access to a lawyer ( 1 year 8ish mos. later). Though all meetings with his lawyer are to be recorded (no lawyer client privilege). He was arrested in Chicago.

Now don't get me wrong given this guy's history he may well be guilty...
But essentially in this case FBI Agents arrested a citizen swept him off to a Naval Brig where he has had no outside communication since...for 1 year 8 months...

How in the hell is this OK?...

...

Gimme a bit and I'll give you the case for the Camp Liberty Detainees at Guantanamo...Sorry Im slow responding...in a lot of pain today...:/

Posted: **February 13, 2004, 2:44 am**

Arbor, while I understand what you are saying, my point is I want more of this. We are way too liberal these days. Case in point.... that mother fucker who killed that young girl that he kidnapped and was caught on camera doing so. He had been in court 16 times before. With this liberal attitude we have let more criminals go in our judicial system to end up commiting a really bad crime later on because of all the liberal imposed restrictions. I can live with the occassional innocent person being left to rot in jail without an offical charge raised against them if it helps prevent against 9/11's and little girls getting raped and murdered.

Posted: **February 13, 2004, 3:04 am**

you are dodging the issue Mid.

because somebody (the fucker in Florida) is an example of a case where the system doesnt work (more funding for federal prisons maybe???), doesnt mean it is OK to arbitrarily interpret the Bill of Rights.

You can't seriously think that.

Posted: **February 13, 2004, 3:06 am**

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Arbor, while I understand what you are saying, my point is I want more of this. We are way too liberal these days. Case in point.... that mother fucker who killed that young girl that he kidnapped and was caught on camera doing so. He had been in court 16 times before. With this liberal attitude we have let more criminals go in our judicial system to end up commiting a really bad crime later on because of all the liberal imposed restrictions. I can live with the occassional innocent person being left to rot in jail without an offical charge raised against them if it helps prevent against 9/11's and little girls getting raped and murdered.

I am aghast...

You do grievous injustice to the 1.6 million who have died defending those rights sir...

Posted: **February 13, 2004, 10:34 am**

Arborealus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Arbor, while I understand what you are saying, my point is I want more of this. We are way too liberal these days. Case in point.... that mother fucker who killed that young girl that he kidnapped and was caught on camera doing so. He had been in court 16 times before. With this liberal attitude we have let more criminals go in our judicial system to end up commiting a really bad crime later on because of all the liberal imposed restrictions. I can live with the occassional innocent person being left to rot in jail without an offical charge raised against them if it helps prevent against 9/11's and little girls getting raped and murdered.
I am aghast...

You do grievous injustice to the 1.6 million who have died defending those rights sir...

Oh please. Because I hold a differing opinion now I have done an injustice? You're ridiculous.

Posted: **February 13, 2004, 2:45 pm**

our court system is just as fucked as our welfare system ... and they arn't gonna get fixed because of the fuckers that would be like oh no ... that punishment is too harsh ... shut the hell up its prison not the damn health spa ...

Posted: **February 13, 2004, 4:13 pm**

Jacob Sullum wrote a pretty decent article today about the gay marriage issue.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/021304.shtml

An excerpt.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Judicial Court said it would not be acceptable for the legislature to give homosexuals all the rights and privileges of marriage while calling it by another name. The name itself was important, the court said, because the only point of calling the relationship between two men or two women a "civil union" rather than a "marriage" would be to signify the second-class status of homosexuals.

Justice Martha Sosman, who dissented from the court's decision in Goodridge, noted that giving marriage licenses to gay couples was not the only way to satisfy the majority's objection. "Rather than imbuing the word 'marriage' with constitutional significance," she wrote in a footnote, "there is much to be said for the argument that the secular legal institution, which has gradually come to mean something very different from its original religious counterpart, be given a name that distinguishes it from the religious sacrament of 'marriage.'...The legislature could, rationally and permissibly, decide that the time has come to jettison the term."

Significantly, this solution seemed acceptable to the majority. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall said giving a new name—"civil union," say, or "household partnership"—to a legal arrangement available on an equal basis to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals "might well be rational and permissible."

Such a switch may seem like a word game, but it would reflect an important reality: Civil marriage is not synonymous with "the sacred institution of marriage," which existed long before the state started doling out marriage licenses.

A couple can be married under Jewish law, for example, without being married under civil law, and vice versa. Orthodox Jewish authorities will never recognize a union between two men or two women as a marriage, no matter what paperwork the state agrees to issue.

The state does not own marriage and therefore cannot change it to the liking of this or that interest group. It is astonishing that conservatives, of all people, are so quick to grant the government that kind of power over something they hold sacred.

The Federal Marriage Amendment says, in part, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Taken literally, the amendment forbids religious groups from sanctioning homosexual unions; a minister who officiated at such a ceremony would be violating the Constitution. The absurdity of that scenario suggests how confused our thinking about marriage has become.

At the same time, the amendment's backers insist it would not bar states from granting gay couples all the legal advantages of marriage, so long as the arrangement was not called "marriage." The president himself has said he has no problem with legal provisions that allow gay couples to take care of things like hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits, and inheritance, provided "the sanctity of marriage" is preserved.

The best way to do that is to take marriage—the word as well as the institution—back from the state.

Doesn't sound like a bad solution.

Posted: **February 13, 2004, 4:20 pm**

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Arbor, while I understand what you are saying, my point is I want more of this. We are way too liberal these days. Case in point.... that mother fucker who killed that young girl that he kidnapped and was caught on camera doing so. He had been in court 16 times before. With this liberal attitude we have let more criminals go in our judicial system to end up commiting a really bad crime later on because of all the liberal imposed restrictions. I can live with the occassional innocent person being left to rot in jail without an offical charge raised against them if it helps prevent against 9/11's and little girls getting raped and murdered.
I am aghast...

You do grievous injustice to the 1.6 million who have died defending those rights sir...
Oh please. Because I hold a differing opinion now I have done an injustice? You're ridiculous.

Sun Tzu once said "Choose your friends wisely, but choose your enemies more wisely for it is they you will become most like"

A brief (non-exclusive) list of other who thought punishing the guilty was more important than preserving the rights of all...

Jozef Stalin
Adolf Hitler
George III, King of England
Kim Il Sung
Mullah Omar
Sadam Hussein
Idi Amin
Benito Mussolini
Pol Pot
Ayatollah Khomeini

Posted: **February 13, 2004, 4:23 pm**

i know immigrants who understand our consititution better than lots of the citizens, hehe

Posted: **February 13, 2004, 4:30 pm**

Dude, you're going to fanatical extremes. It's just dumb really. Believeing that guilty motherfuckers should fry and/or not be allowed to ever live among society has nothing to do with what you are perpetrating.

Instead of answering my question of "how has your life changed since the Patriot Act?", with it hasn't, you try and cloud the issue with this nonsense.

Working in a bank dealing with international trade, I have seen some of the positives of the Patriot Act. We have turned away and scared away a lot of terrorist organization, drug organizations, etc. from using our bank to move money around via fraudulent trade agreements.

Posted: **February 13, 2004, 4:44 pm**

I can live with the occassional innocent person being left to rot in jail without an offical charge raised against them if it helps prevent against 9/11's and little girls getting raped and murdered.

How many innocent people should we be willing to sacrifice? You willing to be the first?

Posted: **February 13, 2004, 4:49 pm**

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I can live with the occassional innocent person being left to rot in jail without an offical charge raised against them

Unless it's you. Or your mom. Or dad. Or brother. Or sister. Or spouse. Or son. Or daughter.

There is NO reason for someone to be held w/o being charged and w/o access to legal representation and a trial within a reasonable amount of time. What if in the end the person above is found innocent? Is it still ok to have held them for 2 years? Do you realize what would happen to your life if for the next two years you disappeared? Lose your job. Your house. Your car. Your possessions. Your life would be so screwed up, it would be amazing if you were able to recovery to half of what you were before. And the government sure as hell isn't going to help you out. "Sorry for the last two years, our bad.."

Hell, even people that do get speedy trials to prove their innocence and such often end up losing everything just from the process. I've got a family member's relative in jail presently.. been 3 months at least and still waiting for a trial. Her job is gone, her place of residence is gone, had to sell the car to pay bills while she's in jail.. if she's found innocent, what does she have when she gets out? And that's 3 months. Let alone 2 years.

As for how life has changed since the Patriot Act.. it's more dangerous now than ever to be falsely accused. And it does happen. And once it too much.

Posted: **February 13, 2004, 5:07 pm**

And here is an interesting little article about an actual "Patriot Act Detainee"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3051501.stm

Off course he's free now...and ya know we gave him some jeans and a shirt so its ok. I mean who wouldn't want a 14 month vacation at "Camp Liberty"...

VeeshanVault

just when i think bush can't possibly get anymore retarded..