RRC Archives

its a free country as long as your willing to stand up to the liberal point of view that only they have a right to opinions since the truth is not important to them

cnn article wrote:A ballot measure approving the use of marijuana for medical reasons is projected to pass in Montana.

Anybody wanna move to Montana?

I think Alaska passed it too, sweet kind budd bud

The one that kicked me in the gut was the fact that 11 states passed ammendments to their state constitutions to ban gay marriage. It's one thing to disapprove of it, but to pass legislature that specifically discriminates against people is something else.

I agree sorta, I don't think its a civil rights issue 100%, the minorities sure didn't think it was, I think it helped get the conservative vote out if nothing else, our gay friends have taken steps to legally bind their assets so it is quite doable, they just can't marry, I think you have to be in the Navy submarine force to do that.

It just bugs me that the only "reason" that I've ever really heard for rejecting it was because they were "protecting the sanctity of marriage". Bullshit. We need to protect the right for a man to marry a cocktail waitress in Vegas that he just met but prevent a 10-year-long monogamous couple from having any legal rights (including child custody)? 500 years ago it was considered one of the deepest forms of heresy for a person of royal blood to marry a commoner. 100 years ago it was morally irreprehensible for whites and blacks to marry.

Crankmas wrote:Kerry met in Paris with the Viet Cong, yes our enemy, Lt Calley was convicted of his horrible crimes what is your fucking point?

My point is you're an idiot. Shut up!

j/k

Seriously, this isn't as black and white as you would like it to be. Kerry even references Senator McCarthy as having set a precedent for citizens working on behalf of the people of the US. You seem to forget that we were pretty evenly divided over VietNam during this period and there were people working for peace in many ways (some more controversial than others). You also ignore that Kerry himself knew that the meetings he attended were in no way binding but he hoped they would demonstrate that there was a way out of the war other than massive retreat. The meetings were in pursuit of peace, not surrender. The war in VietNam was a huge mistake and many war crimes were committed from carpet bombing to machinegunning women holding babies to blanketing villages with napalm. These things were wrong and if it wasn't for people like Kerry the American people may never have been aware what was being done in their name.

Here's an interesting blog about this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091943/posts Some entertaining repartee in the thread.

Another thing Kerry rarely gets credit for is pursuing the Iran/Contra affair. Remember that? Why aren't Oliver North or G. Gordon Liddy (or Reagan or Bush Sr.) guilty of treason in that? They weren't negotiating for peace with the enemy (Iran was holding the hostages at the time), they were selling weapons to Iran so they could give money and training to a dictator to help torture and kill his people. Which is worse? I guess it depends on whether or not you're a Republican?

Crankmas wrote:I agree sorta, I don't think its a civil rights issue 100%, the minorities sure didn't think it was, I think it helped get the conservative vote out if nothing else, our gay friends have taken steps to legally bind their assets so it is quite doable, they just can't marry, I think you have to be in the Navy submarine force to do that.

This was the text on the ballot: Amend the Kentucky Constitution "to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized?"

The text of the Kentucky amendment may bar efforts to bind assets. The amendment bans gay marriage along with similar legal relationships. It is so vaguely worded that it holds a huge potential to affect far more than same sex "marriage" and bar everyone's efforts to legally bind assets whether gay or straight. I predict this language will not hold up constitutionally under the scrutiny of the courts.

busty wrote:I predict this language will not hold up constitutionally under the scrutiny of the courts.

Unfortunately it's a Constitutional Amendment which means it is Constitutional. Now whether or not it will hold up under the Federal Constitution's equal protection clause (which was probably your point) is a whole other matter but it's still going to make life even less pleasant for around 10% of the people. Yet another regressive movement brought to you by our conservative Christian friends.

Yes, I was referring to the federal constitution. Equal protection clause applies, along with some other possible bases - vague, overbroad, etc.