Fairness Campaign

[ycartrob]

Thank you.  I think our states needs to realize you [highlight]can[/highlight] govern people's basic human rights.  This has to stop.

:-?

You mean can't?

[highlight]Excatly[/highlight].

You mean Exactly?  ;)


Just kidding

Oh brohter  :-/

[st. john]

anyone on board actively doin' anythin'bout this?

[vespachick]

Thank you.  I think our states needs to realize you [highlight]can[/highlight] govern people's basic human rights.  This has to stop.

:-?

You mean can't?

[highlight]Excatly[/highlight].

You mean Exactly?  ;)


Just kidding

Oh brohter  :-/

I love you gyus!

[MickeyReds]

JJ!

[meggha]

anyone on board actively doin' anythin'bout this?

you mean about the kentucky state legislation???
if i could do anything, i would, but since i'm in new mexico, i can only worry about new mexico. i'm pretty sure obama wants the gay marriage issue (which should actually be referred to as the issue of civic unions for gays, because of separation of church & state...which most Americans seem to have forgotten about anyway) which means state-by-state we're going to have to vote on it, and there won't be any United States protection of rights for homosexual citizens.
bringing me to another question: is anyone else unhappy with some of Obama's decision-making? I mean, I had this view of him being very tough on issues like this one, but it's not turning out that way. Of course, there's more sides to every issue than I can possibly imagine, but when it comes to our president's decisions on certain environmental and gay rights issues, I'm pretty disappointed.

We all just need to remember that no matter who's president and no matter what the issues are, we must CHALLENGE OUR PRESIDENT and question all authority.

[ycartrob]

anyone on board actively doin' anythin'bout this?

you mean about the kentucky state legislation???
if i could do anything, i would, but since i'm in new mexico, i can only worry about new mexico. i'm pretty sure obama wants the gay marriage issue (which should actually be referred to as the issue of civic unions for gays, because of separation of church & state...which most Americans seem to have forgotten about anyway) which means state-by-state we're going to have to vote on it, and there won't be any United States protection of rights for homosexual citizens.
bringing me to another question: is anyone else unhappy with some of Obama's decision-making? I mean, I had this view of him being very tough on issues like this one, but it's not turning out that way. Of course, there's more sides to every issue than I can possibly imagine, but when it comes to our president's decisions on certain environmental and gay rights issues, I'm pretty disappointed.

We all just need to remember that no matter who's president and no matter what the issues are, we must CHALLENGE OUR PRESIDENT and question all authority.

It's my understanding that Obama has always said He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized. Soooo, sounds like he believes more in civil unions than marriage.

[st. john]

sorry but i need more remedial education -

i believed the american constitution gave everyone equal rights  so  how can states create laws to limit rights for some citizens?

where does the supreme court fit in?

i obviously got something wrong.

my earlier question was really meant for ky citizens on this board. curious if anyone is taking part in any actions.

[ycartrob]

sorry but i need more remedial education -

i believed the american constitution gave everyone equal rights  

The constitution was written during the time of slavery and women were just a step above slaves. So....

[st. john]

tracey - did original specifically exclude groups - women etc?

[ycartrob]

tracey - did original specifically exclude groups - women etc?

women couldn't vote and were considered "possessions" to most, but this isn't written into the Costitution (or stated in the Declaration of Independance)

You can find a text of the Constitution on-line.

[Penny Lane]

sorry but i need more remedial education -

i believed the american constitution gave everyone equal rights  so  how can states create laws to limit rights for some citizens?

where does the supreme court fit in?

i obviously got something wrong.

my earlier question was really meant for ky citizens on this board. curious if anyone is taking part in any actions.

it's not as simple as that. all rights are not equal just because we have equal rights. a 10 year old can't drink a beer just because a 25 year old can. the constitution does not specifically say that everyone is entitled to officially get married under the eyes of the law so it will continue to be a grey area. there is a right to privacy in the constitution but it's all how you interpret it. i mean it wasn't too long ago that sodomy and interracial marriages were not legal.

Fed law (constitution) sets the minimum for states, they are ALWAYS free to make laws that go further  to protect their citizens, but cannot take away any rights that the US Constitution gives them (NJ for example goes very far in making their laws extend further, they have a very active state legislature and have basically amended their constitution once a year whereas some states just follow the fed).


as for the supreme court, it's only their job to interpret the constitution, not make law--however, they do end up making law by deciding some of their cases (roe v. wade?) so there is an ever increasing conflict between supreme court and congress. it's way too much to explain on here.

jeez--sorry. maybe you should wikipedia all this stuff or there are some history/govt teachers that post and can explain better.

[st. john]

thx tracy and pennylane.  does seem a huge subject.

wonder how canada compares. england doesn't have a constitution but does allow gay people and single people to adopt.

looking forward to those historians posting.

thx again.

[ycartrob]

thx tracy and pennylane.  does seem a huge subject.

wonder how canada compares. england doesn't have a constitution but does allow gay people and single people to adopt.

looking forward to those historians posting.

thx again.

England also has a "royal family" which I always found to be a bit silly.

So did these chaps

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeP220xx7Bs[/media]

[st. john]

tracy, i'm not saying england is better. i do not live here by choice and bitch night and day about it.

loads more than just the royals that is silly here.

only meant that there seems to be no perfect place. and you'd think that by now we'd have all learnt to let people be.

not being american, i like to fantasise that it just might be the perfect place till things like ky come up or i remember that there is no universal health care. that one real scares me. hope for u guys that the new guy gets it done.

canada seems good except that it's weather can kill and it is mighty boring. i'm allowed that one.

so trace where do u nominate as ace? shangri la no go.

[ycartrob]

so trace where do u nominate as ace? shangri la no go.

I have no idea what you're saying.  :-/

[st. john]

no problem tracy. have a good one.

[ycartrob]

no problem tracy. have a good one.

thank you

[ALady]

anyone on board actively doin' anythin'bout this?

you mean about the kentucky state legislation???
if i could do anything, i would, but since i'm in new mexico, i can only worry about new mexico. i'm pretty sure obama wants the gay marriage issue (which should actually be referred to as the issue of civic unions for gays, because of separation of church & state...which most Americans seem to have forgotten about anyway) which means state-by-state we're going to have to vote on it, and there won't be any United States protection of rights for homosexual citizens.

Everyone seems to forget that "marriage" is not necessarily a religious issue. If you are married in a courthouse by a judge, that's a civil marriage, not a civil union.  Religion has nothing to do with it.  

The term "civil union" is merely an obfuscation, IMO.

[el_chode]

anyone on board actively doin' anythin'bout this?

you mean about the kentucky state legislation???
if i could do anything, i would, but since i'm in new mexico, i can only worry about new mexico. i'm pretty sure obama wants the gay marriage issue (which should actually be referred to as the issue of civic unions for gays, because of separation of church & state...which most Americans seem to have forgotten about anyway) which means state-by-state we're going to have to vote on it, and there won't be any United States protection of rights for homosexual citizens.

Everyone seems to forget that "marriage" is not necessarily a religious issue. If you are married in a courthouse by a judge, that's a civil marriage, not a civil union.  Religion has nothing to do with it.  

The term "civil union" is merely an obfuscation, IMO.

Certain advocates of controlling other people's lives have intentionally intertwined the two to keep people confused.

In all honesty, I'm just surprised that congress hasn't declared marriage a federal issue as a matter of commerce. You'd figure that marriage could and would have a significant effect on interstate commerce.

I think the main hurdle regarding this is that most states have laws on the books saying "if you're married officially in state x, then you're all set here in state y" so even if a state does not have common law marriages (California), they will recognize someone so married in another state if the couple met the law at the time the law existed (like Utah).

So, switch things around and let's say Massachusetts allows gay people to get married and the union is as civil and identical to any other marriage in that state. Then, the couple decides to go to a more conservative state that has the law saying they will recognize all marriages. Except, as a matter of the democratic process in this new state, the people have chosen not to recognize said marriage.

Uh-oh. Suddenly we have people marrying horses and polygamy runs rampant. Or something.

However, I do not believe we want this to be a federal issue, at least not strictly. It would be an instance of opening the door to let in a single butterfly, but also a thousand wasps with the expansion of federal powers.

[jrat]

canada seems good except that it's weather can kill and it is mighty boring. i'm allowed that one.

Our weather is deadly if you go outside naked in the winter. Plus, if you look at the size of the country, youd realize the many different ecosystems and climates are found up here. Vancouver rarely sees any amount of significant snow and is home to the worlds only temperate rainforest, but if you drive 5-6 hours east, your in the mountains where snowfalls frequently reach upwards of several feet. The prairies......hardy folk......minus 40 degrees celcius is not uncommon during january and february.

The summers in southern ontario are swealtering because we get weather systems from the Gulf of Mexico. Typical max temperature range for Ottawa(capitol city) is about -25( low of minus 39 w/ windchill this year) in the winter to about 33 degrees in the summer and humid ( low 40's humidex not uncommon).

As far as boring goes,id debate that too. But it depends on what you like. Outdoor sports abound year round. If you get stuck in a shitty northern canadian town...than yeah its boring as fuck, if your looking for Rodeo drive shopping, but why not grab a rod and go catch some pike! But cities like Montreal and TO and Vancouver rock! or if youd like, howabout the oldest city in North America, Quebec city. Place is gorgeous!

And we got the best WEED man!

but alas, we arent perfect either