• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big Bush

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,280
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

Source: ACU

Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall
On Beacon Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02108


Dear Justice Marshall:

On behalf of the American Conservative Union, its Board of Directors and ACU’s one million members permit me to offer our heartiest congratulations and thanks for almost single-handedly making possible President George W. Bush’s historic election victory.

In considering the innumerable Americans who labored so hard and so long to achieve this singular electoral result – from Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman to the legions of Republican volunteers – it appears self-evident that your alone deserve the lion’s share of the credit for this truly stunning election triumph.

Were it not for you and your fellow liberal activists on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, it is doubtful that 11 states would have been compelled to put measures on their November 2nd ballots to preserve the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Had it not been for your courageous decision to ignore the will of the people of the Bay State, turn your back on 4,000 years of Judeo-Christian moral teaching, and unilaterally impose your own progressive personal opinions on the law, marriage might never have become the defining issue of the 2004 presidential election.

Yes, Justice Marshall, it was your unrestrained hubris that brought about the demise of your fellow Bay State liberal, Sen. John F. Kerry. For had you not sought to foist on your unwilling citizens a bizarre deconstruction of the law, hundreds of thousands of traditional-values voters might not have been mobilized to go to the polls in Ohio to protect marriage from such judicial depredations and to cast ballots to re-elect the President.

So please accept the undying gratitude of ACU and conservatives all across America for single-handedly delivering the election to George W. Bush.

Sincerely,

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]David A. Keene

[/font]
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
You cannot deny Karl Rove is homophobic and a conviving bastard. Go ahead, try.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
heyjoeo said:
You cannot deny Karl Rove is homophobic and a conviving bastard. Go ahead, try.
OK, I'll try. Here goes.

1. It has never been alleged, muchless proven that Karl Rove has an irrational fear of persons who do naughty things to each other; homoxexual, or othewise. If you have proof to the contrary, perhaps you will share it.

2. Baby Karl arrived on Christmas Day, 1950. Since his parents had been married long before St. Patrick's day, 1950, there was no need for the old biddies of the time to be counting the days to make sure that he was 'legit'. However, all was not rosy and a few years later, Momma and Pappa split and Momma took a new hubby, Mr. Rove, who adopted little Karl as his own. Having two poppas should eliminate all doubt.

3. If you take the dictionary definition of the word 'connive', to plot, then you are correct. But wasn't his job to plot the strategy for the campaign to re-elect George Bush? If he did not do that, would he not have been remiss?
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
1. He "plotted" 11 states having gay amendments in state constitutions to get the wacko right wing out to vote against that and for Bush. That in it of itself is justification of his "Bastard" status. And by Bastard I don't mean the actual dictionary meaning of illegitimate child, but as an asshole.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
heyjoeo said:
1. He "plotted" 11 states having gay amendments in state constitutions to get the wacko right wing out to vote against that and for Bush.
If that's what you believe, then you really must credit the man with being a 'super genius'. After all, not all of those eleven states were 'red'. Some of them were 'blue'. How in the world did he manage that?
That in it of itself is justification of his "Bastard" status. And by Bastard I don't mean the actual dictionary meaning of illegitimate child, but as an asshole.
Your choice of words; not mine. If you wish to be more clearly understood, it would be best if you took care to write, with a greater degree of precision, whatever it is that you actually mean since I already have enough difficulty in trying to respond correctly to things that I can understand.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
The meaning of bastard being applied to a child ended in the 1920s and carries much more weight as an insult. Sorry, catch up with the times.

Second, you can call him super genious, I'll call him evil.

However...**Your choice of words; not mine. **
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
heyjoeo said:
The meaning of bastard being applied to a child ended in the 1920s and carries much more weight as an insult. Sorry, catch up with the times.

Second, you can call him super genious, I'll call him evil.

However...**Your choice of words; not mine. **
Re: Your comments pertaining to Karl Rove

The first definition for the word at Dictionary.com is: A child born out of wedlock.

I guess some ought to tell them that they're about 85 years out of date, according to you.

My reference to 'super genius' was based solely on the achievments which you credited to him.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
I know that. Where is your argument? You only repeated yourself and gave me a dictionary definition of bastard when I already knew what the word meant. I'm talking about the weight the word holds, NOT its dictionary definition.
 

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
evil or not karl rove is a genious and he helped our president acheive a margin of victory that bill clinton could only dream of. the gay marriage amendments proposed by those 11 states may have helped in the victory but opposition to gay marriage does not translate in to homophobia. the term marriage has been used by religious orginizations for thousands of years to decribe a union between a man and a woman. and because of this in order for the government to allow gay marriage it has to influence religion which is clearly a violation of the first amendment. civil unions on the other hand do not violate any religious institutions and i am sure if you talk to all of the people who are against gay marriage you will find that they have no problem with civil unions. it is not a gay persons right to have the same rights as a married couple but it is the term marriagethat is the issue.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
That is not true. I know many Repubilcans that are against civil unions also.

Personally, I like civil unions, it shuts up those lame people that are worried about the "sanctity of marriage." Plus, they still get the rights under the government. Hell I don't see why the government is complaining, when you get "married" you pay more taxes.
 

Christiaan

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Location
Daytona Beach, Florida
What ridiculousness is this institution of marriage? Love, monogamy, sexual relations, friendship, are not accurate, definitive components of marriage, for they are evident in non-marital relationships. Marriage, then, is quite simply a legal contract ordained by state governments delineating financial responsibilities and "rights" between two individuals. However, the financial benefits and responsibilities that the government(s) confer(s) upon "married" couples are not their's to give. All marriage "rights" can be obtained via private contractual aggreements. It is time for marriage to be placed completely in the private realm. Marriage should be divorced from the State.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Marriage and union are two seperate entities. Marriage is between two people and the established church. Union is the financial bound between two people and the state. People mush those two together all the time.

It's up to that church to accept whomever they want to marry. They should have the right to deny certain people to marry. Hell whatever they please. But the state shouldn't.
 

Christiaan

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Location
Daytona Beach, Florida
Your distinction between marriage and union is purely semantical. For instance, if a man and a woman are stranded on an island (both perfect strangers to one another before their meeting on the island) and fell in love and sealed their relationship with sexual congression and dedicated their undying love to one another, are they married, is their relationship a union? Mind you, the state and church have no dealings in this instance. I would view those two individuals as married, and then it would be up to private enterprises (Disney being a prime example) whether or not to recognize their relationships. union is a "marriage-lite" term used to assuage particular groups of people. But unions possess the same romantic and sexual attributes that marriage possesses. Unions also have the same financial rights that marriages have. Again, your distinction between marriage and union is semantical. Were Adam and Eve married (there was no state, nor a ceremony conducted by a church)? Many examples of two individuals in marriage-like unions that were not recognized by any state or church exist: Aneas and Dido, Cupid and Psyche, Romeo and Juliet. Who would dare say those relationships were inferior to Brad Pitt's and Jennifer Anniston's?

P.S. If marriage is solely in the realm of the Church and not in the realm of the State (by definition, your's that is), how can the State ever deny the right of individuals to marry?
 
Last edited:

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B

The main problem, as it always is, has to deal with state interference and favoritism.

Marriage should not be in the Constitution, as all it does is alter the recognition of those two people by the state. They then file taxes in a different way, which shows the government is discriminating in one way or the other. Either pro-marriage or anti-marriage. Either is discrimination from government and has no place in the Constitution.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Christiaan said:
Your distinction between marriage and union is purely semantical. For instance, if a man and a woman are stranded on an island (both perfect strangers to one another before their meeting on the island) and fell in love and sealed their relationship with sexual congression and dedicated their undying love to one another, are they married, is their relationship a union? Mind you, the state and church have no dealings in this instance. I would view those two individuals as married, and then it would be up to private enterprises (Disney being a prime example) whether or not to recognize their relationships.
The situation you describe is a perfectly legitimate situation and one that has always been recognized by the Catholic Church. In practical terms, more applicable in days gone by, but no less valid today, persons who are located in places where there is a scarcity of clergy and none can be reasonably expected to appear within the next thirty days, who are free of impediments that would prohibit them from entering into a legitimate marriage, can declare their intent to do so with the blessing of the Church, by swearing, before God, their troth for life, provided that at the very first opportunity, their marriage is solemnized by clergy. Folks who were settling the colonies and involved in the early expansion westward exercised this right and rite. Priests, in those days, traveled an extended circuit, ministering to their flock. An essential part of their duty included solemnizing marriages and baptizing the progeny thereof that had occurred since they last made their rounds.

Do not confuse these events with what are known as common law marriages in which two people decide to conveniently shack up.
union is a "marriage-lite" term used to assuage particular groups of people. But unions possess the same romantic and sexual attributes that marriage possesses. Unions also have the same financial rights that marriages have. Again, your distinction between marriage and union is semantical. Were Adam and Eve married (there was no state, nor a ceremony conducted by a church)?
Does your question discount the presence of the ‘number one Clergyman of all eternity’ in the vicinity of the Garden of Eden?
Many examples of two individuals in marriage-like unions that were not recognized by any state or church exist: Aneas and Dido, Cupid and Psyche, Romeo and Juliet. Who would dare say those relationships were inferior to Brad Pitt's and Jennifer Anniston's?
If you are asking for an opinion, who, indeed? If anyone at all, only an addle pated lunatic would dare say so.

I don’t recall that any of the mythical of literary figures you mentioned considered their relationships so vacuous as to be worthy of lasting only until a cuter hunk or sexier fox ambled by. How many ‘marriages’ do the Hollywood darlings count thus far in their young lives? How many more will there be until their stars of fame set?
P.S. If marriage is solely in the realm of the Church and not in the realm of the State (by definition, your's that is), how can the State ever deny the right of individuals to marry?
All discussion of semantics aside, thus far, on the subject of same-sex marriage, the electorate in twelve states, out of twelve, have spoken to their legislators in a loud and clear voice, haven’t they? And legislators, who know full well who it is that is buttering their bread, as it were, are paying close attention, aren’t they? Since the election, it would seem as if this once widely heralded issue has fallen completely off the political radar screen, wouldn’t it?
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Sorry I made that a little too black and white for you Christiaan. There is always that third option. My bad. :p

Fant, twelve states out of twelve electorates. That means the majority in each state are against Gay Marraige. However, it doesn't mean we should apply the majority opinion into legislation simply because "the people want it!" Marriage has no place in government, and we REALLY should focus on more important issues going on in our world today.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B

heyjoeo said:
Marriage has no place in government, and we REALLY should focus on more important issues going on in our world today.
/agreed! :D
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
heyjoeo said:
Sorry I made that a little too black and white for you Christiaan. There is always that third option. My bad. :p

Fant, twelve states out of twelve electorates. That means the majority in each state are against Gay Marraige. However, it doesn't mean we should apply the majority opinion into legislation simply because "the people want it!" Marriage has no place in government, and we REALLY should focus on more important issues going on in our world today.
I see. What you are advocating is that we should not apply the majority opinion simply because "the people want it!", but we should apply the minority opinion into legislation simply because "the people want it!"

Since the family is the basic societal unit, what is more important than that?
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
We should provide legislature that doesn't restrict anyone's rights. Even if the public is a bunch of homophobes, we shouldn't pass anti-homosexual legislature because "the people want it."

Who are you to say that a gay couple can't be a "family?"
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B

heyjoeo said:
We should provide legislature that doesn't restrict anyone's rights.
And the way to do that is to leave the legislation out of the matter!

Legislation = restriction
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
heyjoeo said:
We should provide legislature that doesn't restrict anyone's rights. Even if the public is a bunch of homophobes, we shouldn't pass anti-homosexual legislature because "the people want it."

Who are you to say that a gay couple can't be a "family?"
I've never said that a gay couple can't be a family. Of course a gay couple can be a family. All it takes is a homosexual husband married to a lesbian wife. They can have a civil or religious ceremony; whichever they want.

What's wrong with that?
 
Top Bottom