The law just passed in France was regarding the wearing of relgious symbols in schools. It is not illegal for them to be worn in public.
Rightly or wrongly the secularist tradition of France has decided that the wearing of headscarves for Muslim girls whilst in public school is inappropriate. They must remove them upon entering the school and may put them back on when they leave. It is not a racist law as such as no crosses or crucifixes may be displayed either.
There are of course some groups who are racist, such as Jean Marie Le Pen's Front Nationale.
Nazism is still illegal in Germany, I think you may be confusing them with the Jorge Heidler Nationalist party in Austria.
And we have some groups in the UK also but they don't get anywhere in the polls apart from a couple of local councillors.
For most people the memories of the horrors of WW2 are still too real and the EU is constructed to attempt to make sure that it never happens again.
I am aware that each state, irrespective of population, gets two senators. I was under the impression, however that the House or Representatives is more representative of the population of each state as are the electoral college votes in Presidential elections.
The law just passed in France was regarding the wearing of relgious symbols in schools. It is not illegal for them to be worn in public.
Sorry, thought it was ALL public facilities, not just schools
quote:Rightly or wrongly the secularist tradition of France has decided that the wearing of headscarves for Muslim girls whilst in public school is inappropriate. They must remove them upon entering the school and may put them back on when they leave. It is not a racist law as such as no crosses or crucifixes may be displayed either.
Ask a Muslim girl whether its racist or not. You might get a different response.
quote:There are of course some groups who are racist, such as Jean Marie Le Pen's Front Nationale.
Nazism is still illegal in Germany, I think you may be confusing them with the Jorge Heidler Nationalist party in Austria.
And we have some groups in the UK also but they don't get anywhere in the polls apart from a couple of local councillors.
Actually, the last time I was in Germany (around the 1999 time frame), I saw quite a few political posters up for the "Nationalist" party in Germany, as well -- I've also read quite a few articles in Spiegel about the subject. Remember, when Hitler's crowd took over there, they only had about 20% of the populace.
I am not calling these nationalist parties Nazis in the literal sense, I am using Nazi as a metaphor to compare the level of xenophobia that is growing, particularly in France and Germany. This consituency is being represented by those Nationalist parties (just Nationalist, not National Socialist)
Oh, and by the way, there is no anti-Pakistani feeling in the UK? The growing number of mosques is not causing any concern in your country?
quote:For most people the memories of the horrors of WW2 are still too real and the EU is constructed to attempt to make sure that it never happens again.
Yeah...right. The Weimar Republic was well constructed as well.
quote:I am aware that each state, irrespective of population, gets two senators. I was under the impression, however that the House or Representatives is more representative of the population of each state as are the electoral college votes in Presidential elections.
The electoral college is divided to equal the number of senators plus the number of representatives. Thus, a sparsely populated state like Wyoming has three electors, even though their population would justify only one elector, if that, if a truly proportional system was used. This, and the fact that all legislation must pass both houses of Congress, ensures that densely populated states, such as New York and California, cannot marginalize the interests of the sparsely populated states, such as Wyoming and South Dakota. One thing that a lot of foreigners don't fully appreciate is that the US is made up of 50 states that have 280+ million people, not simply 280+ million people.
[This message was edited by Mark on February 22, 2004 at 18:39.]
Funnily enough the response has been mixed and has the support of some Muslims on the grounds that the scarf is a symbol of oppression by men. Others have taken it as some kind of attack on their religion but not as racist. Muslims after all come from a variety of ethnic groups.
But when you think of what some Muslim women are compelled to wear the scarf is a relatively small thing. I have seen Islamic scholars themselves debating the issue on TV and not agreeing.
There might indeed be Nationalist groups in Germany but parties are still illegal as far as I am aware. I cannot claim to be a regular reader of Der Spiegel, but British TV does cover stories about Nationalism in Europe and whereas they cover parties in several countries I have not seen anything about a party in Germany.
There are some groupings in the UK which are anti-Pakistani but they are also anti quite a few groups. There is no panic regarding Mosques as places of worship, only when they have been used by extremists for other purposes.
As to your comment about the Weimar Republic. There is no comparison between that and the EU. It was Germany's first attempt at republican government following unification and monarchic rule. It was in a single country which had to deal with the economic repercussions of the Versailles Treaty. Hitler got in because they thought they could more easily control him by giving him the Chancellorship but there were only 3 other government posts given to the Nazis. They did not expect that Hitler would effectively stage a coup d'etat when Hindenburg died. The EU on the other hand is a federation of nation states from both sides of the conflict of WW2. Naturally being a human and political institution it is far from perfect but its mechanisms are far different from Weimar. We have ten new members due to join in May with other nations having an interest in joining.
I hope I have demonstrated that I am not one of those "furriners" who live in ignorance of how the US works. Here in the UK at least the process is well reported.
as I was sleeping with my moose of a cat this morning and he rolled over and I couldnt move to get out of bed because of his size. I thought this is not normal.
I ask myself why why is this happening and it dawned on me , I had his balls removed about 12 years ago and he has not been the same ever since.
I bet he thinks I ruined his life. I do think I discriminated against nature itself in his case. but I just didnt want my house to smell like cat pee. I love him , I adore him and he is my best friend but for some kibble and sand he no longer can think about what could have been .
and you think the homosexuals have it bad he seemed to scream.
we all make life choices .
I am stuck with a rather smelly old very fat cat on my bed as a result.
We all have to chose what is right and wrong you call it discrinination I call it making a choice.
A local father watched his daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and innocent his little girl was.
Suddenly, she just stopped and stared at the ground.
He went over to her and noticed she was looking at two spiders mating.
"Daddy, what are those two spiders doing?" she asked.
"They're mating," her father replied.
"What do you call the spider on top, Daddy?" she asked.
"That's a Daddy Longlegs," her father answered.
"So, the other one is Mommy Longlegs?" the little girl asked.
"No," her father replied. "Both of them are Daddy Longlegs."
The little girl thought for a moment, then she stomped both spiders flat and said, "Well, it might be okay in California, Vermont, and Massachusetts, but we're not having any of that here in North Carolina!"
I certainly don't think you're an ignorant "furriner." If I did, I wouldn't waste my time corresponding with you.
As to Nationalist parties in Germany, the "National Socialist" (Nazi) party is illegal. Nazi symbols and actions are illegal. But nationalist parties are alive and well. One that I am familiar with is the "National Democratic Party (NDP)."
I am aware of nationalist parties in the UK (The British National Party), France (National Front), Austria (Freedom Party), Switzerland (Swiss People's Party), and Germany. Italy still has a form of fascist party (the name surprisingly escapes me) that has some significant srength up in the Northern regions. The Greeks have an anti-Albanian movement, although I'm not sure if they've organized into a political party or not. I realize that none of these movements are yet close to gaining power in any national government, but there have been some surprises. The one that stands out in my mind was the almost 20% of the popular vote gained by the National Front in France's 2002 elections.
As far as comparisons between the Weimar Republic and the EU, you are, of course, correct. There are few comparisons. But, as you rightly said, nobody expected Hitler to stage a coup upon Hindenburg's death. My concern with the EU is the fact that the three biggest economic powerhouses are the home to the most viable nationalist movements in Europe. Two of those countries dominate the monetary union. If the trend of immigration continues and a recession hit, there could be some ugly repercussions. After all, as you rightly point out, economic chaos following the excesses of the reparations owed by Germany as a result of Versailles drove a large enough minority of that country into the Nazi camp. That's why the analogy with the Weimar Republic.
"Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage," he said. "Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community."
If we all get honest, I think this is true. Heterosexuals marry and divorce at the drop of a hat. If you will notice, alot of these marriages in California are between folks who have been in commited relationships for a long time. I bet they can really appreciate the "sanctity" of marriage alot more than some heterosexuals who marry and then divorce when the sexual passion wears off and the relationship faces any type of difficulty. They are out of there, because it is so easy to get divorced these days.
You can get a divorce on the internet. Wow what sanctity of marriage. Just do it on line.
No doubt we can all think about people who should not have been allowed to marry and no doubt everyone is also aware of how much the institution has been abused by some heterosexuals.
Yet there is still the attitude that somehow heterosexual marriage is a sacred institution. This may come from religous belief or from custom or from upbringing or because of the attitudes than many individuals have toward homosexuals. Certainly I note that every advance in gay rights has been opposed by some people, belittled, complained of but they really do see equality under the law to marry as the last straw.
The Religious Right plan to make this the only issue in the coming Presidential elections no matter how many other important domestic issues should be debated - unemployment or whatever will take second place (if any place at all).
outofadog - I did not know that divorce was now possible over the internet! I am sure that Reno Nevada will be upset about losing business! :D-->
For some people the Nationalist parties are ones that get the protest vote but as time goes on they tend to lose support once people see the mask of respectibility slipping.
Most people see themselves as both citizens of a nation and also as Europeans and whilst accepting that the EU is an imperfect institution also see the benefits that this has brought them.
It would be difficult to replicate the economic conditions that Germany experienced when a loaf of bread cost millions of Marks. Countries have a different attitude to each other, the days of the various individual empires have gone.The mechanism is there for a common immigration policy. It is possible that in time a Federal structure will develop. Every institution has its teething problems, there are still some in the US even after 230+ years.
Oh yes, divorce is definately now available over the internet. What isn't?
Laura Bush also said recently that she is sure that many people are "shocked" about this situation in San Fransisco. But she also stated that she felt the whole issue should be debated in our society so that everyone had input. I think this is quite fair of a statement. It should be debated.
But history will repeat itself and ultimately the gay society will gain the rights that they deserve. Just as the blacks and women had to fight for their rightful place in society.
Unfortunately the smokers in our society have allowed the non smokers to fill them with the fear of God and be afraid to be a smoker or admit to that. This is a totally ridiculous issue to me. People have smoked forever. I have know people who never smoked who died of lung cancers, and please don't tell me that it was from second hand smoke. The guy that invented running for a health benefit, died of a heart attack while running. This was the jogger of all times. Running was good for the heart, but he had a heart attack one day while he was running.
I think it is interesting that one person, Madeline O'hara was able to take prayer out of school when the religious part of society did not even stand up and fight. One women took prayer out of school, because those conservative christians did not have the "balls" to stand up and say, Hey this is a democracy or a republic. But all of a sudden, when it comes to homosexuality, the right wing conservatives are spouting the bible verses from Leviticus and Romans. Why didn't you speak up when Madeline was taking prayer out of school because she was an atheist? How does one person change an entire society? Unless the majority of the society remains quiet.
I do not know if In a "right wing" but Im a christian and I do not believe prayer should be allowed in public schools .
the definition of " prayer" can get quite outrageous and then who is right and wrong about what it may mean to them.
I know the off shoot I was didnt agree with me, but I think public schools are public and should not involve in prayer. a private can decide what their choice and manner of prayer would include a public shool really can not .
I look at the organization and purpose of public schools .
Who picks and choses? it is a public school . some prayer rituals are not what I think the schools should police, but does that make mine better?
No.
so I think prayer should be out of the agenda all together to avoid offending anyone.
If any person wants to pray I believe they can and do . Prayer is often a private thing. like the christmas decorations having to be without religous ideals because Christ offends some beliefs etc. it is a very choice conscience world we live in and public schools have not the time or place to police all what the public may deem is fair.
The story of the witch(honestly a self proclaimed witch Im not name calling) she raised such a fuss about the christmas songs being against her faith and sued , it cost a small district thousands of dollars to defend their choice of singing a song she felt was wrong. they no longer do any holiday concert .
it is a pity really but public schools are open for those kind of things and that is why I think they can not and probably should not allow prayer. The resources in many public schools are at the limit and can not afford such law suits and problems allowing prayer would bring them.
that is the main reason my child goes to a private school . Public schools must meet the needs of all the public and not offend some for another.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 20, 2004 at 13:49.]
(CNN) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that the marriage licenses San Francisco is issuing to same-sex couples are illegal, after the city sued the state over a law banning such marriages.
"The marriage certificates submitted to the Department of Health Services by the city and county of San Francisco fail to meet legal standards," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on his Web site.
San Francisco on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the state of California, challenging the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman only, the city attorney's office said.
The suit came a week after newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the county clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Nearly 3,000 couples have taken advantage of it, despite the filing of two lawsuits to stop the practice.
San Francisco's city attorney Dennis Herrera said his city and county are "going on the offense" with the lawsuit. "Mayor Newsom took a bold step last week, and we fully agree with him that his position is justified,"
Herrera said the city's case will assert that the state law banning same-sex marriage goes against California's constitution because it violates the equal protection and due process clauses.
Schwarzenegger's statement said California citizens generated, and passed, Proposition 22 -- the marriage law -- and it will be defended.
"The attorney general has assured me that he will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law in the case brought against the state by San Francisco," the governor's statement said.
Herrera said he hopes to consolidate the cases against same-sex marriage pending against the city with the city's lawsuit against the state. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for Friday at 11 a.m. PT (2 p.m. ET).
"I would anticipate that this case is going to have a long life," Herrera replied when asked about the national ramifications of the city's move.
Separate suits
One of the suits against the city was to resume in San Francisco County Superior Court at 2 p.m. PT (5 p.m. ET) Friday. Judge Ronald Quidachay had continued the case from Tuesday.
That lawsuit was filed by the Campaign for California Families and the Alliance Defense Fund, which contend the city's issuing of same-sex marriage licenses violates current state law. They asked the judge to stop the practice immediately.
A separate suit, filed by the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, was continued until March 29 to allow city attorneys time to prepare to show cause as to why Newsom's action is allowable.
Across the street from the Superior Court is City Hall, where lines of people snaked out the front door and down the steps as gays and lesbians from inside and outside the state hurried to get their relationships validated in the eyes of the law.
Newsom has said that marriage between same-sex couples is "inevitable" and that anything less is "fundamentally wrong."
Almost two-thirds of Americans do not think same-sex marriages should be recognized as legally valid, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
But the 1,006 people polled on Monday and Tuesday were almost split over whether individual states or the federal government should determine laws regarding marriages between gays or lesbians.
President Bush Wednesday repeated his belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples, adding that he was "troubled" by what was happening in San Francisco.(Full story)
Supporters of same-sex marriage say denying gay and lesbian couples marriage licenses denies them basic rights.
"We're talking about state inheritance, we're talking about state property issues, we're talking about children's issues, we're talking about power of attorney," Ralph Neas, president of the group People for the American Way, said.
Critics of same-sex unions say those rights can be afforded through other means, and homosexual couples don't need a marriage certificate to validate them.
Genevieve Wood, vice president of the Communications Family Research Council, said that redefining marriage might be a slippery slope.
"There are people out there ... who want to engage in polygamy, they think that's a good family structure. There are others who think that group marriages are a family structure," Wood added.
CNN correspondent David Mattingly contributed to this report
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday he was "troubled" by same-sex weddings in San Francisco, California, and by legal decisions in Massachusetts that could clear the way for same-sex marriage. But he declined to say whether he is any closer to backing a constitutional ban on such vows.
"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision."
"I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen," Bush said.
He didn't answer directly when asked whether he is any closer to endorsing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, as conservative groups say the White House has assured them Bush will do.
"I strongly believe marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman," Bush said during an Oval Office session with Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage."
"People need to be involved in this decision," Bush said. "Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts. And I'm watching it carefully."
Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and more than 20 states have lined up outside the ornate San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples six days ago. City officials said 172 couples were married Tuesday, a pace that would bring the total number who have taken vows promising to be "spouses for life" to over 3,000 by Friday.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Under the decision, the nation's first legally sanctioned gay marriages are scheduled to begin in mid-May.
Lawmakers are proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and the Legislature resumes its deliberations of amendments on March 11.
I am troubled about US national laws not being applicable in Guantanamo Bay.
A lot of people are troubled about the legitimacy of the reasons originally claimed for invading Iraq.
When did Mr Bush state that he was troubled by DOMA?
And he should be troubled about his statement about being troubled not being sufficient to attract the support of the religious right to his cause in November.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Trefor Heywood
Mark:
The law just passed in France was regarding the wearing of relgious symbols in schools. It is not illegal for them to be worn in public.
Rightly or wrongly the secularist tradition of France has decided that the wearing of headscarves for Muslim girls whilst in public school is inappropriate. They must remove them upon entering the school and may put them back on when they leave. It is not a racist law as such as no crosses or crucifixes may be displayed either.
There are of course some groups who are racist, such as Jean Marie Le Pen's Front Nationale.
Nazism is still illegal in Germany, I think you may be confusing them with the Jorge Heidler Nationalist party in Austria.
And we have some groups in the UK also but they don't get anywhere in the polls apart from a couple of local councillors.
For most people the memories of the horrors of WW2 are still too real and the EU is constructed to attempt to make sure that it never happens again.
I am aware that each state, irrespective of population, gets two senators. I was under the impression, however that the House or Representatives is more representative of the population of each state as are the electoral college votes in Presidential elections.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Sorry, thought it was ALL public facilities, not just schools
Ask a Muslim girl whether its racist or not. You might get a different response.
Actually, the last time I was in Germany (around the 1999 time frame), I saw quite a few political posters up for the "Nationalist" party in Germany, as well -- I've also read quite a few articles in Spiegel about the subject. Remember, when Hitler's crowd took over there, they only had about 20% of the populace.
I am not calling these nationalist parties Nazis in the literal sense, I am using Nazi as a metaphor to compare the level of xenophobia that is growing, particularly in France and Germany. This consituency is being represented by those Nationalist parties (just Nationalist, not National Socialist)
Oh, and by the way, there is no anti-Pakistani feeling in the UK? The growing number of mosques is not causing any concern in your country?
Yeah...right. The Weimar Republic was well constructed as well.The electoral college is divided to equal the number of senators plus the number of representatives. Thus, a sparsely populated state like Wyoming has three electors, even though their population would justify only one elector, if that, if a truly proportional system was used. This, and the fact that all legislation must pass both houses of Congress, ensures that densely populated states, such as New York and California, cannot marginalize the interests of the sparsely populated states, such as Wyoming and South Dakota. One thing that a lot of foreigners don't fully appreciate is that the US is made up of 50 states that have 280+ million people, not simply 280+ million people.
[This message was edited by Mark on February 22, 2004 at 18:39.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Mark:
Funnily enough the response has been mixed and has the support of some Muslims on the grounds that the scarf is a symbol of oppression by men. Others have taken it as some kind of attack on their religion but not as racist. Muslims after all come from a variety of ethnic groups.
But when you think of what some Muslim women are compelled to wear the scarf is a relatively small thing. I have seen Islamic scholars themselves debating the issue on TV and not agreeing.
There might indeed be Nationalist groups in Germany but parties are still illegal as far as I am aware. I cannot claim to be a regular reader of Der Spiegel, but British TV does cover stories about Nationalism in Europe and whereas they cover parties in several countries I have not seen anything about a party in Germany.
There are some groupings in the UK which are anti-Pakistani but they are also anti quite a few groups. There is no panic regarding Mosques as places of worship, only when they have been used by extremists for other purposes.
As to your comment about the Weimar Republic. There is no comparison between that and the EU. It was Germany's first attempt at republican government following unification and monarchic rule. It was in a single country which had to deal with the economic repercussions of the Versailles Treaty. Hitler got in because they thought they could more easily control him by giving him the Chancellorship but there were only 3 other government posts given to the Nazis. They did not expect that Hitler would effectively stage a coup d'etat when Hindenburg died. The EU on the other hand is a federation of nation states from both sides of the conflict of WW2. Naturally being a human and political institution it is far from perfect but its mechanisms are far different from Weimar. We have ten new members due to join in May with other nations having an interest in joining.
I hope I have demonstrated that I am not one of those "furriners" who live in ignorance of how the US works. Here in the UK at least the process is well reported.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
as I was sleeping with my moose of a cat this morning and he rolled over and I couldnt move to get out of bed because of his size. I thought this is not normal.
I ask myself why why is this happening and it dawned on me , I had his balls removed about 12 years ago and he has not been the same ever since.
I bet he thinks I ruined his life. I do think I discriminated against nature itself in his case. but I just didnt want my house to smell like cat pee. I love him , I adore him and he is my best friend but for some kibble and sand he no longer can think about what could have been .
and you think the homosexuals have it bad he seemed to scream.
we all make life choices .
I am stuck with a rather smelly old very fat cat on my bed as a result.
We all have to chose what is right and wrong you call it discrinination I call it making a choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pirate1974
A local father watched his daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and innocent his little girl was.
Suddenly, she just stopped and stared at the ground.
He went over to her and noticed she was looking at two spiders mating.
"Daddy, what are those two spiders doing?" she asked.
"They're mating," her father replied.
"What do you call the spider on top, Daddy?" she asked.
"That's a Daddy Longlegs," her father answered.
"So, the other one is Mommy Longlegs?" the little girl asked.
"No," her father replied. "Both of them are Daddy Longlegs."
The little girl thought for a moment, then she stomped both spiders flat and said, "Well, it might be okay in California, Vermont, and Massachusetts, but we're not having any of that here in North Carolina!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Trefor:
I certainly don't think you're an ignorant "furriner." If I did, I wouldn't waste my time corresponding with you.
As to Nationalist parties in Germany, the "National Socialist" (Nazi) party is illegal. Nazi symbols and actions are illegal. But nationalist parties are alive and well. One that I am familiar with is the "National Democratic Party (NDP)."
I am aware of nationalist parties in the UK (The British National Party), France (National Front), Austria (Freedom Party), Switzerland (Swiss People's Party), and Germany. Italy still has a form of fascist party (the name surprisingly escapes me) that has some significant srength up in the Northern regions. The Greeks have an anti-Albanian movement, although I'm not sure if they've organized into a political party or not. I realize that none of these movements are yet close to gaining power in any national government, but there have been some surprises. The one that stands out in my mind was the almost 20% of the popular vote gained by the National Front in France's 2002 elections.
As far as comparisons between the Weimar Republic and the EU, you are, of course, correct. There are few comparisons. But, as you rightly said, nobody expected Hitler to stage a coup upon Hindenburg's death. My concern with the EU is the fact that the three biggest economic powerhouses are the home to the most viable nationalist movements in Europe. Two of those countries dominate the monetary union. If the trend of immigration continues and a recession hit, there could be some ugly repercussions. After all, as you rightly point out, economic chaos following the excesses of the reparations owed by Germany as a result of Versailles drove a large enough minority of that country into the Nazi camp. That's why the analogy with the Weimar Republic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
poor little spiders.
I wonder how they will ever survive with attitudes like that from such a young child even?
maybe they will have to move to California, Vermont, or Massachusetts to make more spiders.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
AdiosMiCorazon
Hello Trefor!
I am one of those "off the word" people that think gays/lesbians should be allowed to marry and given the same rights that we are.
After all, I have met plenty of heteros who should have NOT been allowed to marry and produce offspring.
So what is the big deal?
Just thought I would let you know that there are people who support your views.
Have a great day Trefor!
Proud to be from Mass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ohmyheart i just felt a lovely breath of fresh air
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
This is statistacally true I believe:
Quote from Mayor Daley:
"Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage," he said. "Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community."
If we all get honest, I think this is true. Heterosexuals marry and divorce at the drop of a hat. If you will notice, alot of these marriages in California are between folks who have been in commited relationships for a long time. I bet they can really appreciate the "sanctity" of marriage alot more than some heterosexuals who marry and then divorce when the sexual passion wears off and the relationship faces any type of difficulty. They are out of there, because it is so easy to get divorced these days.
You can get a divorce on the internet. Wow what sanctity of marriage. Just do it on line.
outofdafog
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
:D-->
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
hi Adios! Thanks for your message of support!
No doubt we can all think about people who should not have been allowed to marry and no doubt everyone is also aware of how much the institution has been abused by some heterosexuals.
Yet there is still the attitude that somehow heterosexual marriage is a sacred institution. This may come from religous belief or from custom or from upbringing or because of the attitudes than many individuals have toward homosexuals. Certainly I note that every advance in gay rights has been opposed by some people, belittled, complained of but they really do see equality under the law to marry as the last straw.
The Religious Right plan to make this the only issue in the coming Presidential elections no matter how many other important domestic issues should be debated - unemployment or whatever will take second place (if any place at all).
outofadog - I did not know that divorce was now possible over the internet! I am sure that Reno Nevada will be upset about losing business!
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Mark:
For some people the Nationalist parties are ones that get the protest vote but as time goes on they tend to lose support once people see the mask of respectibility slipping.
Most people see themselves as both citizens of a nation and also as Europeans and whilst accepting that the EU is an imperfect institution also see the benefits that this has brought them.
It would be difficult to replicate the economic conditions that Germany experienced when a loaf of bread cost millions of Marks. Countries have a different attitude to each other, the days of the various individual empires have gone.The mechanism is there for a common immigration policy. It is possible that in time a Federal structure will develop. Every institution has its teething problems, there are still some in the US even after 230+ years.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Trefor,
Oh yes, divorce is definately now available over the internet. What isn't?
Laura Bush also said recently that she is sure that many people are "shocked" about this situation in San Fransisco. But she also stated that she felt the whole issue should be debated in our society so that everyone had input. I think this is quite fair of a statement. It should be debated.
But history will repeat itself and ultimately the gay society will gain the rights that they deserve. Just as the blacks and women had to fight for their rightful place in society.
Unfortunately the smokers in our society have allowed the non smokers to fill them with the fear of God and be afraid to be a smoker or admit to that. This is a totally ridiculous issue to me. People have smoked forever. I have know people who never smoked who died of lung cancers, and please don't tell me that it was from second hand smoke. The guy that invented running for a health benefit, died of a heart attack while running. This was the jogger of all times. Running was good for the heart, but he had a heart attack one day while he was running.
I think it is interesting that one person, Madeline O'hara was able to take prayer out of school when the religious part of society did not even stand up and fight. One women took prayer out of school, because those conservative christians did not have the "balls" to stand up and say, Hey this is a democracy or a republic. But all of a sudden, when it comes to homosexuality, the right wing conservatives are spouting the bible verses from Leviticus and Romans. Why didn't you speak up when Madeline was taking prayer out of school because she was an atheist? How does one person change an entire society? Unless the majority of the society remains quiet.
outofdafog
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
I do not know if In a "right wing" but Im a christian and I do not believe prayer should be allowed in public schools .
the definition of " prayer" can get quite outrageous and then who is right and wrong about what it may mean to them.
I know the off shoot I was didnt agree with me, but I think public schools are public and should not involve in prayer. a private can decide what their choice and manner of prayer would include a public shool really can not .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
MJ -- but aren't Christians who wish to pray part of the public too? Should they be denied, and others who are against be recognized?
What if you go to a restaurant, and are denied the right to give thanks before your meal.? Public place -- right?
Prayer should not be forced, yet by the same token, it should not be denied.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
This animation doesn't take long to load and I thought it was very funny:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I don't see why prayer should not be allowed for those who wish to take part.
Enforced prayer is one issue but voluntary prayer is another.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Dmiller
I look at the organization and purpose of public schools .
Who picks and choses? it is a public school . some prayer rituals are not what I think the schools should police, but does that make mine better?
No.
so I think prayer should be out of the agenda all together to avoid offending anyone.
If any person wants to pray I believe they can and do . Prayer is often a private thing. like the christmas decorations having to be without religous ideals because Christ offends some beliefs etc. it is a very choice conscience world we live in and public schools have not the time or place to police all what the public may deem is fair.
The story of the witch(honestly a self proclaimed witch Im not name calling) she raised such a fuss about the christmas songs being against her faith and sued , it cost a small district thousands of dollars to defend their choice of singing a song she felt was wrong. they no longer do any holiday concert .
it is a pity really but public schools are open for those kind of things and that is why I think they can not and probably should not allow prayer. The resources in many public schools are at the limit and can not afford such law suits and problems allowing prayer would bring them.
that is the main reason my child goes to a private school . Public schools must meet the needs of all the public and not offend some for another.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 20, 2004 at 13:49.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
(CNN) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that the marriage licenses San Francisco is issuing to same-sex couples are illegal, after the city sued the state over a law banning such marriages.
"The marriage certificates submitted to the Department of Health Services by the city and county of San Francisco fail to meet legal standards," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on his Web site.
San Francisco on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the state of California, challenging the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman only, the city attorney's office said.
The suit came a week after newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the county clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Nearly 3,000 couples have taken advantage of it, despite the filing of two lawsuits to stop the practice.
San Francisco's city attorney Dennis Herrera said his city and county are "going on the offense" with the lawsuit. "Mayor Newsom took a bold step last week, and we fully agree with him that his position is justified,"
Herrera said the city's case will assert that the state law banning same-sex marriage goes against California's constitution because it violates the equal protection and due process clauses.
Schwarzenegger's statement said California citizens generated, and passed, Proposition 22 -- the marriage law -- and it will be defended.
"The attorney general has assured me that he will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law in the case brought against the state by San Francisco," the governor's statement said.
Herrera said he hopes to consolidate the cases against same-sex marriage pending against the city with the city's lawsuit against the state. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for Friday at 11 a.m. PT (2 p.m. ET).
"I would anticipate that this case is going to have a long life," Herrera replied when asked about the national ramifications of the city's move.
Separate suits
One of the suits against the city was to resume in San Francisco County Superior Court at 2 p.m. PT (5 p.m. ET) Friday. Judge Ronald Quidachay had continued the case from Tuesday.
That lawsuit was filed by the Campaign for California Families and the Alliance Defense Fund, which contend the city's issuing of same-sex marriage licenses violates current state law. They asked the judge to stop the practice immediately.
A separate suit, filed by the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, was continued until March 29 to allow city attorneys time to prepare to show cause as to why Newsom's action is allowable.
Across the street from the Superior Court is City Hall, where lines of people snaked out the front door and down the steps as gays and lesbians from inside and outside the state hurried to get their relationships validated in the eyes of the law.
Newsom has said that marriage between same-sex couples is "inevitable" and that anything less is "fundamentally wrong."
Almost two-thirds of Americans do not think same-sex marriages should be recognized as legally valid, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
But the 1,006 people polled on Monday and Tuesday were almost split over whether individual states or the federal government should determine laws regarding marriages between gays or lesbians.
President Bush Wednesday repeated his belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples, adding that he was "troubled" by what was happening in San Francisco.(Full story)
Supporters of same-sex marriage say denying gay and lesbian couples marriage licenses denies them basic rights.
"We're talking about state inheritance, we're talking about state property issues, we're talking about children's issues, we're talking about power of attorney," Ralph Neas, president of the group People for the American Way, said.
Critics of same-sex unions say those rights can be afforded through other means, and homosexual couples don't need a marriage certificate to validate them.
Genevieve Wood, vice president of the Communications Family Research Council, said that redefining marriage might be a slippery slope.
"There are people out there ... who want to engage in polygamy, they think that's a good family structure. There are others who think that group marriages are a family structure," Wood added.
CNN correspondent David Mattingly contributed to this report
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Where is your states position on this topic?
MA as we know has a court ruling striking down ban on same sex marriages.
------------------------------------------------------
States with official state/distrrict registries for same sex couples are:
Alaska (hello Johnny Lingo and why are so many homosexuals bothering you? )
Also California
and the district of Columbia.
----------------------------------------------------
Civil Unions are legal in one state VT.
--------------------------------------------------
States WITHOUT LAWS that ban same sex marriages
OR, WY, NM, WH,NY, NH,RI, CT,NJ, MD.
----------------------------------------------------
ALL OTHER STATES have a LAW that BAN same sex marriage!!!!
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 20, 2004 at 14:16.]
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 20, 2004 at 14:27.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday he was "troubled" by same-sex weddings in San Francisco, California, and by legal decisions in Massachusetts that could clear the way for same-sex marriage. But he declined to say whether he is any closer to backing a constitutional ban on such vows.
"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision."
"I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen," Bush said.
He didn't answer directly when asked whether he is any closer to endorsing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, as conservative groups say the White House has assured them Bush will do.
"I strongly believe marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman," Bush said during an Oval Office session with Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage."
"People need to be involved in this decision," Bush said. "Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts. And I'm watching it carefully."
Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and more than 20 states have lined up outside the ornate San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples six days ago. City officials said 172 couples were married Tuesday, a pace that would bring the total number who have taken vows promising to be "spouses for life" to over 3,000 by Friday.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Under the decision, the nation's first legally sanctioned gay marriages are scheduled to begin in mid-May.
Lawmakers are proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and the Legislature resumes its deliberations of amendments on March 11.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I guess I have the same effect on them that I do women!
;)-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I wonder how successful Arnie will be at Terminating the SF arrangements?
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Mr Bush might be troubled.
I am troubled about US national laws not being applicable in Guantanamo Bay.
A lot of people are troubled about the legitimacy of the reasons originally claimed for invading Iraq.
When did Mr Bush state that he was troubled by DOMA?
And he should be troubled about his statement about being troubled not being sufficient to attract the support of the religious right to his cause in November.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.