Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think the Dem campaign position will be (1) leave it to the states/DOMA is enough to protect states from recognition of gay marriage elsewhere; (2) no amending the Constitution; and (3) if you press me (Kerry/Edwards) personally as a Christian, I'd say what happens between same sex couples is not marriage in a religious sense, praise Jesus, but there is no reason in the world why there shouldn't be something in our nation, conferred by our states, that gives all the same benefits; what it's called is unimportant, and "marriage" means something in religions. We don't call the issuance of an SSN "baptism."
If you think that's a Clintonian straddle, you're nuts. Bush's position is to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF STATE COURTS TO INTERPRET STATE CONSTITUTIONS. Consider this an unusual favor --- I'm educating you about what the Bush proposes to do. IIAB/CYLL.
|
Kerry has come out against gay marriage but wouldn't do anything about it. That's the equivalent of "don't ask don't tell" or, in other words, a Clintonian straddle. As policy is it as bad as Bush's? No it's not. But the mere fact that he is against gay marriage, or at least says publicly that he is, is nearly as reprehensible.
Quote:
|
Let me ask you something --- how do you feel about the felony murder rule?
|
The proper question is what do I THINK about the felony murder rule, but I digress. I honestly haven't thought about it in a while, but generally speaking I don't have a problem with it. What are you setting me up for?
Threaded Mode