Anything involving marriage does not belong in the Constitution. Period.

Two words “President Clinton”. 

And we are fucked.

By the way welcome back Jim. Where are the boobies? Everyone feels better with boobies.

Two words “President Clinton”.

Two words in response: Never happen.

We’re at least twenty years away from possibly being ready for a female president. Probably more like fifty.

The Dems’ best hope right now is Edwards, but they’ll never bring themselves to be the ones to pass up a Minority Ticket. He’ll drop early on, even though he’s slightly more electable than Kerry, worthless scum though he is.

Right now, the Republicans are gonna have to field someone utterly shitty to lose. Which is looking like a distinct possibility.

But in general, I’m with you. Tired of politics, tired of EVERYTHING having to come back to politics, tired of politicians and the political system. (Oh, yeah, and like you, a little tired of the Civil War being summarized as “The brave and noble warriors of the North rose up to fight the stupid and bigoted hicks of the South to end slavery.")

Which reminds me, I was in Barnes & Noble and saw a book that was basically intended to be a de-politicized, de-politically corrected American history. No shading things to spare anyone’s feelings, and so on. Would’ve picked it up, but it was expensive and I’m broke.

If Massachusetts or New York or fucking South Carolina want to pass a law saying gay folks are welcome to a marriage license, that;s how the fucking system was designed to work!  That’s the way it is supposed to be!  If Arkansas or Montana want to pass a law saying that their state doesn’t recognize gay marriage, then don’t live there, be gay and try to get married.

This actually reads to me that you and Fred have the same opinion policy wise; Fred just thinks that only a constitutional amendment would prevent marriages from being reciprocal, like straight marriages are now.  Note that his amendment would not ban gay marriage.

I actually think you two are on exactly the same page here, from a federalism standpoint.

I actually think you two are on exactly the same page here, from a federalism standpoint.

I would have to agree. This is to prevent the ultraliberal activist judges in California, New York and Massachusetts who have found the “right” to gay marriage in a document written 230 years ago from imposing their unelected wills on citizens of other states.

If Massachusetts were given the chance to vote on it, and if they accept it, then more power to them, but it should be up to each state to designate the legal definition of “marriage” in any way they see fit, without having to have the “full faith and credit” clause from overriding their own state laws with the State law from clear across the nation.

I would not want someone in New York to force Arizona to accept gay marriage, but that is the direction we are headed.

the god-damned simple fucking concept that each state was designed to pass it’s own laws and be essentially soveriegn

Which is what Fred is saying. It requires an Amendment to change the impact of the “Full Faith And Credit” clause.

Our reliance on such a monolithic central power to decide everything for us will bring us down.

You might be a liberal if…

- You think that city councils should pass resolutions on impeaching the President and the Federal Government should control local education standards.

Chill out Jim, you and Fred may not be on the same page, but you’re in the same chapter.  Besides, so what if you disagree on a single issue.  Do you really think you’re going to find a candidate who doesn’t disagree with you on an issue here and there?

JimK, I’ve listened to Fred a lot and you are on the same page. He wants the states to exert more control over things and get all of this crap out of the hands of the feds.

In the best of both worlds each state could pass whatever silly laws they want and it will not affect to will of the voters in another state. He made comments like this when NY tried to sue VA and get our gun laws changed. If NY wants only criminals to have guns the good for NY and all the libs can feel good about themselves while they are victims but in VA I can still carry my .40 where ever I go and my chance of being a victim is significantly less.

Let CA, NT,MA,CT VT and all the other loony left states allow marriage to goats for all I care. As long as I have a choice to live in a state no beholden to militant homosexuals I am not likely to care what they do. In NY, when gay marriage is legal you guys can have it taught in schools to 3rd graders and in VA we can remain blissfully ignorant.

What’s wrong with that?

As long as I have a choice to live in a state no beholden to militant homosexuals I am not likely to care what they do.

We’s sorry, massa! We’s no mean ta bothers ya with our talk of rights equal ta youren!

What’s wrong with that?

i’m torn between finding that comment the most amusing comment i’ve ever read and the most disturbing.

I was going to point out that Fred and Jim are, really, making the same points… but it seems I’ve been beaten to it by several of you guys, already.

Seriously, though… after the first angry paragraph, I had to scroll immediately to the bottom to see who posted it, because I was just damned sure it was Lee, not Jim.

I know the words “constitutional amendment” immediately incite harsh feelings in any real conservative… but you shouldn’t let that emotion blind you to the overall point Thompson is making, Jim… and that is the ridiculous amount of power that has been handed over to the judiciary over the years, which makes every state’s individual policy decisions a matter of legal precedent to impose on the rest of us.

If you really need an example of what Thompson is referring to, just look at the snowball effect of anti-smoking legislation.
From a few county ordinances in liberal regions 10 years ago, to a national movement resulting in the banning of smoking in all public places in many states.
Hell, now they’re even passing legislation to stop you from smoking in your own car.
Next, it will be our homes. Then, they’ll move onto other “socially unattractive” behaviours, like banning any form of fast food.

It’s an epidemic of “socially conscious” enforcement through legislation, really.

Maybe a constitutional amendment is not the way to stop it… but that is one way. 
Maybe there’s a better way. I don’t know.
But I do know that, at least in this case, the proposal of such an idea shouldn’t necessarily be attacked as hotly as some (including you, Jim) are bound to.

Yeah, I think the reporter in this case might have twisted around Thompsons words some to obtain a reaction exactly like you gave jim.  Notice the quoted part, and the part the reporter doesn’t use as a quote.  I’d be real interested to see fully what Fred said.  Because that first part isn’t a direct quote.  And when people read support ammendment gay and marriage, they will take it to be the same old song and dance.

Hey Jim,

You Americans are lucky you have the choice not to vote.  Last week I received a $127 fine for not voting in our State election last September.

I’m pretty sure Australia is one of last countries in the world to make voting compulsary.

And just because I didn’t want to vote for Bill or Ben Flowerpot (if you don’t get the kids show Bill & Ben the flowerpot men - that won’t be funny), I have to fork out $127.

Aint democracy grand??????