misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 1:18 PM

No the question is, if the people of State A want to grant gays the right to enter into a marriage union contract, what business is it to the Federal Gummint.

misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Why should gays have to ask your permission to marry?

Where do you derive the presumptive authority to segregate the dictionary?

Do you think that words can be ‘owned’ and therefore have their usage constrained by law?

Why exactly shouldn’t queers be able to marry each other?

Ares on June 27, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Wrong question. The question is, why should they be?

The liberal agenda has wreaked havoc on America and the family. Why in the world do we want to advance yet another item of the liberal agenda? Why is it up to opponents of the liberal agenda to justify their position?

To the fools who think this can be decided on a state-by-state basis, do I have to explain how group marriage is now possible again?

corona on June 27, 2008 at 12:18 PM

Selective Federalism….

nice

I suspect the significance of this is lost on most people.

Ron Paul had a point when he mentioned something about fascism carrying a cross….

I still have not read anywhere in The Constitution there’s a right to marriage

Did you manage to read all the way down to the 9th amendment?

Exit question: If he’s going to redouble his efforts to woo values voters, what was the point of meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans?

That’s probably why the meeting was secret, but they are still Republicans.

Voters do NOT want social and behavioral issues addressed in the U.S. Constitution, period. They view any effort to do so as too extreme. The quickest way for Republicans to lose the few independent voters we have left is to demand a Constitutional amendment on marriage. It is far better to take it on state by state, and only in response to judicial fiats which can rally people to be outraged by courts acting anti-democratically.

David Brody thinks it’s a big deal, and that it’s “not a pander at all”

Not a pander? So in other words “no guys, he really is a bigot like us!”

The only way to stop the State Supreme Court Justices, and the 9th Circuit Court of appeals is by Constitutional Amendment.

Let the states decide. This does not belong within 20 feet of the US Constitution.

The state of california decided not only in their constitution but also in a vote that gays were not to be married legally. The judges overruled that..and I hope the voters keep voting it down to send a message to these judges that they can’t keep overruling the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

diaphanous on June 27, 2008 at 5:21 AM

The only way to stop the State Supreme Court Justices, and the 9th Circuit Court of appeals is by Constitutional Amendment. Yet, McCain won’t support that, instead hoping to keep it in the Status Quo. That means the mess we’re in now. So Republicans can keep using Gay Marriage as a way to turn out the base in November, and the Democrats can keep using Gay Marriage to turn out the Base in November. The same with Abortion, and Gun Rights.

Both of them play with our emotions and neither of them fix anything, instead doing everything they can to keep from fixing anything.

Then the Press acts surprised when the polls show that both parties are detested by the public. Gee, I wonder why?

No, McCain won’t go that route, he won’t support that plan, it’s too hard to do that. Instead he panders to the base by supporting State Constitutional Bans, so we have the screwed up issues we have now. Where Gay Marriage is allowed in some states but not others, and when a couple does get married in say, California, they can’t get Divorced in Arizona where it’s prohibited.

I still say McCain is a jacka$$

what was the point of meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans?

To tell them to join the boarder security Republicans on his list of voters who can “Get Bent”.

Is that believable?
- George Will

Only to those who believe in six impossible things before breakfast, George. Only to them.

The amendment, written to punish wealthy, self-financing candidates, said that when such a candidate exceeds a particular spending threshold, his opponent can receive triple the per-election limit of $2,300 from each donor — the limit above which the threat of corruption supposedly occurs. And the provision conferred other substantial benefits on opponents of self-financing candidates, even though such candidates cannot be corrupted by their own money, which the court has said they have a constitutional right to spend.

Declaring the Millionaires’ Amendment unconstitutional, the court, in an opinion written by Alito, reaffirmed two propositions. First, because money is indispensable for the dissemination of political speech, regulating campaign contributions and expenditures is problematic and justified only by government’s interest in combating “corruption” or the “appearance” thereof. Second, government may not regulate fundraising and spending in order to fine-tune electoral competition by equalizing candidates’ financial resources.

The court said it has never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different financing restraints on candidates competing against each other. And the Millionaires’ Amendment impermissibly burdened a candidate’s First Amendment right to spend his own money for campaign speech.

This ruling invites challenges to various state laws, such as Arizona’s and Maine’s, that penalize private funding of political speech. Those laws increase public funds for candidates taking such funds when their opponents spend certain amounts of their own money or receive voluntary private contributions that cumulatively exceed certain ceilings. Such laws, like McCain-Feingold, rest on the fiction that political money can be regulated without regulating political speech.

The more McCain talks — about wicked “speculators,” about how he reveres ANWR as much as the Grand Canyon, about adjusting the planet’s thermostat, etc. — the more conservatives cling to judicial nominees as a reason for supporting him. But now another portion of his signature legislation has been repudiated by the court as an affront to the First Amendment, and again Roberts and Alito have joined the repudiation. Yet McCain promises to nominate jurists like them. Is that believable?
- George Will

Finally, something good from the Maverick

Roger Waters on June 26, 2008 at 11:40 PM

What? He’s dropping out? We’re getting a real candidate? Oh..sorry. Just woke up..must have been dreaming. And Roger, a Republican calling McCain ‘Maverick’ is like coming up with a petname for the guy that’s giving your wife better sex than you; you’re degrading yourself. McCain got that nickname for p*ssing on his own party. That’s why some call him ‘backstabber’; my personal nickname for him is ‘Backdoor John’. I even made up a song.

Nonfactor on June 27, 2008 at 12:16 AM

Tend to agree with you there. I have a hard time seeing California flipping to red for someone like McCain. Stranger things have happened, but I don’t see this as a miracle on 34th street kind of year.

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 10:50 PM

If you think McCain is going to get within 10 points of Obama in California you’re kidding yourself.