SURPRISE!
SURPRISE!
New York Times is reporting that President Bush will back constitutional amendment “to protect marriage.”
Lots of people in the UK play Poker on the net. Online Poker sites in the UK are made up of some of the biggest high street brands like Sky, Virgin & Ladbrokes Poker.
SURPRISE!
New York Times is reporting that President Bush will back constitutional amendment “to protect marriage.”
December 31st, 1969 at 7:00 pm
I think this does the trick and it’s not post-modern at all. Click Here!
February 24th, 2004 at 4:42 pm
John Kerry on the subject: “I’m against gay marriage. Period.”
Presenting American voters with yet another clear choice this fall.
February 24th, 2004 at 4:42 pm
John Kerry on the subject: “I’m against gay marriage. Period.”
Presenting American voters with yet another clear choice this fall.
February 24th, 2004 at 4:42 pm
John Kerry on the subject: “I’m against gay marriage. Period.”
Presenting American voters with yet another clear choice this fall.
February 24th, 2004 at 4:48 pm
hahahahaha…. well, at least John Kerry is not in favor of altering our constitution in order to legalize discrimination. There’s a difference.
February 24th, 2004 at 4:48 pm
hahahahaha…. well, at least John Kerry is not in favor of altering our constitution in order to legalize discrimination. There’s a difference.
February 24th, 2004 at 4:48 pm
hahahahaha…. well, at least John Kerry is not in favor of altering our constitution in order to legalize discrimination. There’s a difference.
February 24th, 2004 at 6:16 pm
Against. Period. I can be forgiven for missing the nuance there.
February 24th, 2004 at 6:16 pm
Against. Period. I can be forgiven for missing the nuance there.
February 24th, 2004 at 6:16 pm
Against. Period. I can be forgiven for missing the nuance there.
February 24th, 2004 at 6:17 pm
Has the President ever uttered the words “gay” or “homosexual” in public? He seemed to do everything but in his remarks today (”people of the same gender”). I wonder if he feels like saying the word “gay” is a concession, and thus avoids doing it?
February 24th, 2004 at 6:17 pm
Has the President ever uttered the words “gay” or “homosexual” in public? He seemed to do everything but in his remarks today (”people of the same gender”). I wonder if he feels like saying the word “gay” is a concession, and thus avoids doing it?
February 24th, 2004 at 6:17 pm
Has the President ever uttered the words “gay” or “homosexual” in public? He seemed to do everything but in his remarks today (”people of the same gender”). I wonder if he feels like saying the word “gay” is a concession, and thus avoids doing it?
February 24th, 2004 at 6:28 pm
Good point. And it’s monosyllabic, so it’s probably not a pronunciation issue.
February 24th, 2004 at 6:28 pm
Good point. And it’s monosyllabic, so it’s probably not a pronunciation issue.
February 24th, 2004 at 6:28 pm
Good point. And it’s monosyllabic, so it’s probably not a pronunciation issue.
February 24th, 2004 at 6:30 pm
Rdan, that earns you a guest spot in a post.
February 24th, 2004 at 6:30 pm
Rdan, that earns you a guest spot in a post.
February 24th, 2004 at 6:30 pm
Rdan, that earns you a guest spot in a post.
February 24th, 2004 at 6:48 pm
It’s the ultimate wedge issue but I remain truly puzzled over why proponents pushed it so hard now, right during election year when it can be a polarizing issue. It’s like the answer to Karl Rove’s prayers — an emtional wedge issue that can obscure other issues. The question is: what will the important swing vote center do and how will they come down on it?
February 24th, 2004 at 6:48 pm
It’s the ultimate wedge issue but I remain truly puzzled over why proponents pushed it so hard now, right during election year when it can be a polarizing issue. It’s like the answer to Karl Rove’s prayers — an emtional wedge issue that can obscure other issues. The question is: what will the important swing vote center do and how will they come down on it?
February 24th, 2004 at 6:48 pm
It’s the ultimate wedge issue but I remain truly puzzled over why proponents pushed it so hard now, right during election year when it can be a polarizing issue. It’s like the answer to Karl Rove’s prayers — an emtional wedge issue that can obscure other issues. The question is: what will the important swing vote center do and how will they come down on it?
February 24th, 2004 at 6:59 pm
A question for those more learned in the law than I: absent a constitutionial amendment, how do states get around the “full faith and credit..” clause?
February 24th, 2004 at 6:59 pm
A question for those more learned in the law than I: absent a constitutionial amendment, how do states get around the “full faith and credit..” clause?
February 24th, 2004 at 6:59 pm
A question for those more learned in the law than I: absent a constitutionial amendment, how do states get around the “full faith and credit..” clause?
February 24th, 2004 at 7:09 pm
They pass their own laws preemptively outlawing it in their state, but someone more knowledgeable than I may have a more thoughtful response.
February 24th, 2004 at 7:09 pm
They pass their own laws preemptively outlawing it in their state, but someone more knowledgeable than I may have a more thoughtful response.
February 24th, 2004 at 7:09 pm
They pass their own laws preemptively outlawing it in their state, but someone more knowledgeable than I may have a more thoughtful response.
February 24th, 2004 at 7:20 pm
thanks, Dawn–but doesnt that suggest the Supreme Court will (may) become involved? and THAT scares the hell out of me.
February 24th, 2004 at 7:20 pm
thanks, Dawn–but doesnt that suggest the Supreme Court will (may) become involved? and THAT scares the hell out of me.
February 24th, 2004 at 7:20 pm
thanks, Dawn–but doesnt that suggest the Supreme Court will (may) become involved? and THAT scares the hell out of me.
February 24th, 2004 at 7:23 pm
Sorry Dawn–didnt complete my thought–they would still be required to recognize the marriage from another state, no? They can pass a law prohibiting same sex marriage for their citizens of their state–but would not that state be required to accord to citizens legally married in another state those rights the state accords to married? (Damn–I am glad I am not a lawyer)
February 24th, 2004 at 7:23 pm
Sorry Dawn–didnt complete my thought–they would still be required to recognize the marriage from another state, no? They can pass a law prohibiting same sex marriage for their citizens of their state–but would not that state be required to accord to citizens legally married in another state those rights the state accords to married? (Damn–I am glad I am not a lawyer)
February 24th, 2004 at 7:23 pm
Sorry Dawn–didnt complete my thought–they would still be required to recognize the marriage from another state, no? They can pass a law prohibiting same sex marriage for their citizens of their state–but would not that state be required to accord to citizens legally married in another state those rights the state accords to married? (Damn–I am glad I am not a lawyer)
February 24th, 2004 at 7:25 pm
There’s also the federal DOMA (signed by Mr. Clinton) that removes the requirement that states from one state have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. (That said, although federal law can trump state law, one would think the federal gov’t couldn’t legislate around full faith and credit, but I think it has already withstood a consitutional challenge.)
This is probably the approach most Americans support. Let each state figure it out. (As much as I wish there were, there just isn’t a reasonable, non-postmodern interpretation of the U.S. constitution to support same-sex marriages until the equal protection jurisprudence evolves.)
The horribly worded amendment in the Senate now would prevent states from interpreting their own constitutions (and perhaps their own laws passed by their legislatures) to allow gay/lesbian marriages and would arguably ban civil unions too - crazy. (andrew sullivan’s blog has linked to several of the competing interpretations…)
February 24th, 2004 at 7:25 pm
There’s also the federal DOMA (signed by Mr. Clinton) that removes the requirement that states from one state have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. (That said, although federal law can trump state law, one would think the federal gov’t couldn’t legislate around full faith and credit, but I think it has already withstood a consitutional challenge.)
This is probably the approach most Americans support. Let each state figure it out. (As much as I wish there were, there just isn’t a reasonable, non-postmodern interpretation of the U.S. constitution to support same-sex marriages until the equal protection jurisprudence evolves.)
The horribly worded amendment in the Senate now would prevent states from interpreting their own constitutions (and perhaps their own laws passed by their legislatures) to allow gay/lesbian marriages and would arguably ban civil unions too - crazy. (andrew sullivan’s blog has linked to several of the competing interpretations…)
February 24th, 2004 at 7:25 pm
There’s also the federal DOMA (signed by Mr. Clinton) that removes the requirement that states from one state have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. (That said, although federal law can trump state law, one would think the federal gov’t couldn’t legislate around full faith and credit, but I think it has already withstood a consitutional challenge.)
This is probably the approach most Americans support. Let each state figure it out. (As much as I wish there were, there just isn’t a reasonable, non-postmodern interpretation of the U.S. constitution to support same-sex marriages until the equal protection jurisprudence evolves.)
The horribly worded amendment in the Senate now would prevent states from interpreting their own constitutions (and perhaps their own laws passed by their legislatures) to allow gay/lesbian marriages and would arguably ban civil unions too - crazy. (andrew sullivan’s blog has linked to several of the competing interpretations…)
February 24th, 2004 at 7:39 pm
hmm.. maybe no challenge to DOMA afterall - regardless, the proposed amendment goes much, much further than DOMA
Bush said the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and laws banning same-sex marriage in 38 states “express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.”
But, he said, “There is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.”
February 24th, 2004 at 7:39 pm
hmm.. maybe no challenge to DOMA afterall - regardless, the proposed amendment goes much, much further than DOMA
Bush said the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and laws banning same-sex marriage in 38 states “express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.”
But, he said, “There is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.”
February 24th, 2004 at 7:39 pm
hmm.. maybe no challenge to DOMA afterall - regardless, the proposed amendment goes much, much further than DOMA
Bush said the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and laws banning same-sex marriage in 38 states “express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.”
But, he said, “There is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.”
February 24th, 2004 at 7:39 pm
Alceste–thanks for the help!!
February 24th, 2004 at 7:39 pm
Alceste–thanks for the help!!
February 24th, 2004 at 7:39 pm
Alceste–thanks for the help!!
February 24th, 2004 at 7:42 pm
Alcest: re your last post, I also was not aware of a challenge–assuming SCOTUS would want to sidestep this issue and leave it to the individual states, they could choose not to hear a challenge, effectively letting DOMA stand? And, of course, in your good judgment–would they?
February 24th, 2004 at 7:42 pm
Alcest: re your last post, I also was not aware of a challenge–assuming SCOTUS would want to sidestep this issue and leave it to the individual states, they could choose not to hear a challenge, effectively letting DOMA stand? And, of course, in your good judgment–would they?
February 24th, 2004 at 7:42 pm
Alcest: re your last post, I also was not aware of a challenge–assuming SCOTUS would want to sidestep this issue and leave it to the individual states, they could choose not to hear a challenge, effectively letting DOMA stand? And, of course, in your good judgment–would they?
February 24th, 2004 at 8:40 pm
I think this does the trick and it’s not post-modern at all. Click Here!
February 24th, 2004 at 8:40 pm
I think this does the trick and it’s not post-modern at all. Click Here!
February 24th, 2004 at 8:57 pm
Dawn: post modern or not, I find myself in the position of applauding the ends of gay marriage, but apprehensive about the means–perhaps I am too much wrapped up in process.
February 24th, 2004 at 8:57 pm
Dawn: post modern or not, I find myself in the position of applauding the ends of gay marriage, but apprehensive about the means–perhaps I am too much wrapped up in process.
February 24th, 2004 at 8:57 pm
Dawn: post modern or not, I find myself in the position of applauding the ends of gay marriage, but apprehensive about the means–perhaps I am too much wrapped up in process.
February 24th, 2004 at 9:20 pm
It should be a State issue with no State forced to recognize another’s law. Like concealed carry. That would make good sense.
February 24th, 2004 at 9:20 pm
It should be a State issue with no State forced to recognize another’s law. Like concealed carry. That would make good sense.
February 24th, 2004 at 9:20 pm
It should be a State issue with no State forced to recognize another’s law. Like concealed carry. That would make good sense.
February 24th, 2004 at 9:42 pm
Your sex discrimination argument was the postmodern one to which I was referring. Although it is certainly “right” in the sense of what I think should be the law, same-sex marriage laws simply aren’t sex discrimination in the sense our courts use (i.e., those laws apply equally to male and female couples).
February 24th, 2004 at 9:42 pm
Your sex discrimination argument was the postmodern one to which I was referring. Although it is certainly “right” in the sense of what I think should be the law, same-sex marriage laws simply aren’t sex discrimination in the sense our courts use (i.e., those laws apply equally to male and female couples).
February 24th, 2004 at 9:42 pm
Your sex discrimination argument was the postmodern one to which I was referring. Although it is certainly “right” in the sense of what I think should be the law, same-sex marriage laws simply aren’t sex discrimination in the sense our courts use (i.e., those laws apply equally to male and female couples).
February 25th, 2004 at 12:24 am
Although I think the Mass. decision was poorly timed, very unfortunate, this amendment was in the air long before Massachusetts. Gillepsie even said in summer ‘03 that no matter what the court ruled, they would make same-sex marriage a major campaign issue.
They have nothing else to run on. It’s all about terror - terrorizing the homosexuals, and terrorizing the public with red alerts and orange alerts and aquamarine alerts…and now pink alerts.
February 25th, 2004 at 12:24 am
Although I think the Mass. decision was poorly timed, very unfortunate, this amendment was in the air long before Massachusetts. Gillepsie even said in summer ‘03 that no matter what the court ruled, they would make same-sex marriage a major campaign issue.
They have nothing else to run on. It’s all about terror - terrorizing the homosexuals, and terrorizing the public with red alerts and orange alerts and aquamarine alerts…and now pink alerts.
February 25th, 2004 at 12:24 am
Although I think the Mass. decision was poorly timed, very unfortunate, this amendment was in the air long before Massachusetts. Gillepsie even said in summer ‘03 that no matter what the court ruled, they would make same-sex marriage a major campaign issue.
They have nothing else to run on. It’s all about terror - terrorizing the homosexuals, and terrorizing the public with red alerts and orange alerts and aquamarine alerts…and now pink alerts.
February 25th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
Amen, James!
February 25th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
Amen, James!
February 25th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
Amen, James!
April 30th, 2005 at 9:18 am
Please check the sites dedicated to party poker party poker http://www.razordude.com/party-poker.html …
April 30th, 2005 at 9:18 am
Please check the sites dedicated to party poker party poker http://www.razordude.com/party-poker.html …
April 30th, 2005 at 9:18 am
Please check the sites dedicated to party poker party poker http://www.razordude.com/party-poker.html …
May 2nd, 2005 at 6:03 am
You may find it interesting to check out some relevant pages about poker rooms poker rooms http://www.jmhic.com/poker-rooms.html … Thanks!!!
May 2nd, 2005 at 6:03 am
You may find it interesting to check out some relevant pages about poker rooms poker rooms http://www.jmhic.com/poker-rooms.html … Thanks!!!
May 2nd, 2005 at 6:03 am
You may find it interesting to check out some relevant pages about poker rooms poker rooms http://www.jmhic.com/poker-rooms.html … Thanks!!!
September 19th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Are you there?
Well … again a nice post .
September 19th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Are you there?
I am not sure if this is true but …
September 19th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Are you there?
Do you mind to post some more information about this ?