[TheRealVille]

The voters are voicing an opinion on both fronts. It looks like the majority of voters are for the "birth control" thing, and gay marriage. Washington should listen to it's voters, and the bishops should listen to their members. As per other articles, even the Catholic church members disagree with their bishops.

Despite the deep divide between some religious leaders and government officials over contraceptives, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll found most voters support the new federal directive that health insurance plans provide coverage for birth control.

In addition, most voters said they favored some type of legal recognition for same-sex couples, at a time when the New Jersey Legislature is set to vote on gay marriage and after a federal appellate court ruled that Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage in California was unconstitutional.

While same-sex marriage and coverage for contraceptives have generated significant debate this month, the poll suggests that voters do not place social issues high on their agenda. When asked to name one issue that presidential candidates should discuss, most voters, including Republicans who described themselves as primary voters, mentioned an economic problem, like unemployment or the budget deficit. Few said they wanted to hear the candidates talk about abortion or gay marriage, for example.

On contraceptive coverage, 65 percent of voters in the poll said they supported the Obama administration’s requirement that health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control, and 59 percent, said the health insurance plans of religiously affiliated employers should cover the cost of birth control.

In a compromise last week, President Obama said insurance companies could shoulder the costs required under the new federal health care law, but the Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious leaders continue to oppose the rule.

A majority of Catholic voters in the poll were at odds with the church’s official stance, agreeing with most other voters that religiously affiliated employers should offer health insurance that provides contraception. Jennifer Davison, 38, a Catholic from Lomita, Calif., agrees with the federal requirement. “My opinion is that it is a personal issue rather than a religious issue,” she said in a follow-up interview.

Unlike Catholics, white evangelical Christian voters were more divided, with half objecting to requiring the health insurance plans of religious employers to cover contraceptives; 43 percent supported it. “It is a religious issue with me,” said Jessica Isner, 22, an evangelical Christian from Elkins, W. Va. “I believe that providing birth control is O.K. if the hospital is not religiously affiliated.”

Gay marriage is another debate in which the Catholic laity disagrees with church doctrine. More than two-thirds of Catholic voters supported some sort of legal recognition of gay couples’ relationships: 44 percent favored marriage, and 25 percent preferred civil unions. Twenty-four percent said gay couples should receive no legal recognition.

Again, white evangelical Christian voters expressed more conservative views. A majority said there should not be legal recognition of a gay relationship, while 18 percent said they should be allowed to marry and 25 percent supported civil unions.

The nationwide telephone poll included 1,064 registered voters, of whom 226 were Catholic and 238 were white evangelical Christians. The margins of sampling error are plus or minus three percentage points for all voters, plus or minus seven points for Catholics, and plus or minus six points for white evangelical Christians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/pol....html?_r=1

[Hoot Gibson]

Constitutional rights do not change with public opinion. Nor should they. Liberals just do not understand the importance of electing representatives who respect and adhere to the US Constitution. Fortunately, many other voters do get it.

[INDENT]

59% of Catholics Disapprove of Obama’s Job Performance

Catholics strongly disapprove of the job President Obama is doing as the debate continues over his administration’s new policy forcing Catholic institutions to pay for contraception they morally oppose. While the president’s overall job approval ratings have improved over the past couple of months, they have remained steady among Catholics.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of likely Catholic voters nationwide at least somewhat disapprove of the president’s job performance, while 40% at least somewhat approve. But the passion’s on the side of those who don’t like the job he’s doing: 44% Strongly Disapprove versus 19% who Strongly Approve.

[/INDENT]

[RunItUpTheGut]

First of all, gay marriage should never even be brought up.
Its something that doesnt even need to be mentioned or voted on.

[TheRealThing]

The voters are voicing an opinion on both fronts. It looks like the majority of voters are for the "birth control" thing, and gay marriage. Washington should listen to it's voters, and the bishops should listen to their members. As per other articles, even the Catholic church members disagree with their bishops.




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/pol....html?_r=1

We use to play a game in school. The teacher would line up 10 or 15 chairs in a line, side to side. Then she would whisper a message she read off a note she had pre written prior to the demonstration, into the ear of the student in the first chair and tell him to pass it on. Obviously, as we all are already aware, by the time the message was repeated by the last student, no shred of the original message remained.

If we allow politicians to change our constitution with the fads of the times nothing of the original document will remain by a relatively short passage of time in my opinion. Think about the bozo's that have been sent to Washington. Some of these guys couldn't tell the truth if a gun were held to their head. Barney Frank, David Wu, Anthony Weiner, Nancy Pelosi. Add any names of Republicans you think are equally as goofy. The point is, the constitution is meant to endure past the tenure's of nitwits like these to survive in tact and serve as our guide for the length of our national lifetime. It's foolhardy in the extreme to change a thing, in my mind.

[TheRealVille]

Constitutional rights do not change with public opinion. Nor should they. Liberals just do not understand the importance of electing representatives who respect and adhere to the US Constitution. Fortunately, many other voters do get it.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

BTW, your "somewhat approve" "strongly disapprove", "strongly approve", "somewhat disapprove" polls can be made to say just about anything you want. Why don't you just post the "approve" or "disapprove" parts? His approval rating is pretty much a dead heat right now. He's at 46%. According to Gallup(you know, the one that doesn't try to ask conservative slanted questions) the opinion of Catholics has virtually not changed over the last few weeks. Catholic approval dropped from 49% to 46%. From July 2011 to Feb. 2012, the Presidents approval line is pretty much flat, in the mid 40's. If you look hard enough, even on your favorite pollster place, you can find the same approval numbers, although I know you love to post the other style of "somewhat" or strongly" numbers. BTW Hoot, I know you are smart and know what you are doing with those poll numbers, you aren't fooling one soul. I posted the picture from your favorite poll place, just in case you hadn't found it(which I highly doubt you hadn't found).



[Image: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plai...4_2012.jpg]


The catholic approval rating is below, without all the "strongly" or "somewhat" bullshit you have to try to wade through on the other site. It dropped from 49% to 46%.



[Image: http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/orig...do-bza.gif]

[TheRealVille]

Constitutional rights do not change with public opinion. Nor should they. Liberals just do not understand the importance of electing representatives who respect and adhere to the US Constitution. Fortunately, many other voters do get it.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

I would love to see where you find that gays getting married goes against the constitution?

[TheRealVille]

First of all, gay marriage should never even be brought up.
Its something that doesnt even need to be mentioned or voted on.

You're right, every single person of age in the US should be able to marry who they choose. It shouldn't even be a question to be able to vote on.

[TheRealVille]

Constitutional rights do not change with public opinion. Nor should they. Liberals just do not understand the importance of electing representatives who respect and adhere to the US Constitution. Fortunately, many other voters do get it.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

Maybe they are looking at this line Hoot.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

"We the people" are included in the US.

[TheRealVille]

We use to play a game in school. The teacher would line up 10 or 15 chairs in a line, side to side. Then she would whisper a message she read off a note she had pre written prior to the demonstration, into the ear of the student in the first chair and tell him to pass it on. Obviously, as we all are already aware, by the time the message was repeated by the last student, no shred of the original message remained.

If we allow politicians to change our constitution with the fads of the times nothing of the original document will remain by a relatively short passage of time in my opinion. Think about the bozo's that have been sent to Washington. Some of these guys couldn't tell the truth if a gun were held to their head. Barney Frank, David Wu, Anthony Weiner, Nancy Pelosi. Add any names of Republicans you think are equally as goofy. The point is, the constitution is meant to endure past the tenure's of nitwits like these to survive in tact and serve as our guide for the length of our national lifetime. It's foolhardy in the extreme to change a thing, in my mind.

Nothing is being changed in the constitution with these two topics.

[Truth]

I have a plaque on my desk at work that says: "Never confuse the will of the majority with the will of God". That statement was never more true than it is in this present age of "If it feels good, do it".

Now, if you don't believe in a hereafter, none of this liberalization of human conduct should be of concern to you. If you believe otherwise, you may have a problem if you support this stuff.

[TheRealVille]

I have a plaque on my desk at work that says: "Never confuse the will of the majority with the will of God". That statement was never more true than it is in this present age of "If it feels good, do it".

Now, if you don't believe in a hereafter, none of this liberalization of human conduct should be of concern to you. If you believe otherwise, you may have a problem if you support this stuff.

The will of the majority is what matters in America. We are not a theocracy, we are a democracy. That's what the christian right can't get through their heads. If they don't want to be in a country that is ruled by the vote of the people, they should move to a country that is ruled by the bible.

[SKINNYPIG]

We absolutely are NOT a democracy my friend. We are a republic! Gee whiz!

[TheRealVille]

We absolutely are NOT a democracy my friend. We are a republic! Gee whiz!

Whatever you want to call it, we vote for our represenatives, and the voice of the voters prevail. Call it whatever the hell you want, but the voters have the say.

It sounds to me like there isn't much difference, unless you are just opposed to the democracy term over the republic term. Feel free to explain your version of the difference in the two. It sounds to me like we are a representative democracy. The people ultimately rule. The people being the voters. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage, so the voting people will make their choices about the subject.

Democracy in its purest or best form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.
The most common form of modern democracy is parliamentary democracy in which the voting public takes part in elections and chooses politicians to represent them in a Legislative Assembly. The members of the assembly then make decisions with a majority vote.

A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch. The word republic is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "the public affair", and often used to describe a state using this form of government.

Lately, from politicians, radio-talk show hosts, and other commentators, we have heard that we should forget about democracy, because the U.S.A. is a republic. But some questions are being posed by democracy advocates: What is a republic? What is a democracy? Should the United States be a mere republic, or a genuine democracy?

Republicans and other democracy detractors point to the U.S. Constitution and bits of history, and say, "See, the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution gave us a Republic. They believed democracies were dangerous and unworkable."

On that, they are partly right, but they fail to mention that democracies and republics overlap. They are not opposites. And they fail to account for the history of American government since 1788, much less the debates that took place in America prior to 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was substituted for the Articles of Confederation.

Democracy means rule of the people. The two most common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. In direct democracy everyone takes part in making a decision, as in a town meeting or a referendum. The specific rules may vary: perhaps everyone must agree, perhaps there must be consensus, perhaps a mere majority is required to make a decision. The other, better known form of democracy is a representative democracy. People elect representative to make decisions or laws. Again, specifics vary greatly.

And, surprise, a representative democracy is a kind of republic. What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government. Representative democracies are, therefor, a kind of republic. Self-appointed governments such as monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies and juntas are not republics. However, this still allows for a wide spectrum. The classic is the Roman Republic, in which only a tiny percentage of citizens, members of the nobility, were allowed to vote for the Senators, who made the laws and also acted as Rome's supreme court. Most people would say that Rome was a Republic, but not a democracy, since it was very close to being an oligarchy, rule by the few. Although the Roman Republic was not a dictatorship (until Augustus Caesar grabbed power), it did not allow for rule of the people. In both theory and practice the Soviet Union, that late evil empire, was a republic (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) because the lawmakers were elected, if only by the Communist Party members.

Beginning with the Constitution's adoption, America has been a Republic. But the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make it into a democracy as well, a representative democracy, also known as a democratic republic. True, the creation of the Constitution itself was partly a reaction against democracy. In states like Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the situation was getting way too democratic for the monied aristocracy that had, since the American Revolution, refused to share power with ordinary men.

The causes of the American Revolution were many, but for the monied class there were three principal aims. They sought self-government: that is, they sought to rule the colonies themselves, to further their own interests. They sought to protect the institution of slavery, which had been endangered by Lord Mansfield's ruling against it in the Sommersett case of 1772. And land speculators like George Washington sought to seize more Native American Indian land, which the British had outlawed.

But to win the American Revolution this predatory elite needed help. Their own rhetoric about freedom and equality led to widespread demands for the right to vote: universal suffrage. In other words, the people began demanding democracy. Even the slaves (white and black alike) demanded to be freed and allowed to vote.

After the British were defeated a centralized, national government was seen by George Washington and company not as a method of extending freedom and the right to vote, but as a way of keeping control in the hands of rich. They wrote several anti-democratic provisions into the U.S. Constitution. Slavery was institutionalized. The Senate was not to be elected directly by the people; rather Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures. The President was not to be directly elected by the voters, but elected through an electoral college. The Supreme Court was to be appointed. Only the House of Representatives was elected directly.

More important to our democracy-versus-republic debate, the U.S. Constitution left the question of who could vote in elections to each individual state. In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation. This is what today's commentators mean when they say America is a republic, not a democracy.

Fortunately (for the democrats), the early federal government was not very powerful. In state after state it became easier for white males to qualify to vote. And slowly, decade after decade, our republic became a democratic republic.

At the national level the major steps toward democracy can be marked by amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights guaranteed limits to the power of the federal government. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment effectively extended the vote to all adult male citizens, including ex-slaves, by penalizing states that did not allow for universal male suffrage. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave the right to vote to former slaves. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not extend suffrage to women, a vigorous campaign for the vote was launched by women, who received the vote through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

But the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a mere republic to being a true representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic.

There will always be anti-democratic forces in any society. The most blatantly undemocratic feature of U.S. government in the 20th century was the unconstitutional but systematic disenfranchisement of African-American and other non-white citizens. This came to an end in the 1950's and 1960's with a series of Supreme Court decisions against segregation laws, the passage of Civil Rights Acts, and the passage of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment outlawing poll taxes. We even lowered the voting age to 18 with the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1971.

There are no longer any voter-qualification impediments to democracy in the United States. But many have noted that the will of the people has tended not to prevail, and that a majority of people eligible to vote are so discouraged that they do not vote. The main reason for this is the buying and selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class of citizens and their special interest groups. A year or more before elections take place, the winner is decided by those who vote with dollars. But this is a defect in democracy, not a reason to abandon it. The answer is to cure the defect, not to attempt to destroy our representative democracy.
http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html

[TheRealVille]

We absolutely are NOT a democracy my friend. We are a republic! Gee whiz!

One thing's for sure, we are not a theocracy. Luckily, in 20 years, this equal rights thing won't be an issue. The people are speaking. Now, if "we the people" can get to working on, a person being able to smoke a little herb in the privacy of their own home, legally.




That's what I don't get about republicans. They don't want the government or anybody else to get in their business, yet they want to get in everybody else's business.

[TheRealThing]

Nothing is being changed in the constitution with these two topics.

This is what you posted-- "It looks like the majority of voters are for the "birth control" thing, and gay marriage. Washington should listen to it's voters, and the bishops should listen to their members. As per other articles, even the Catholic church members disagree with their bishops."

I thought you were suggesting the Catholic Bishops should change their beliefs, or at least violate their beliefs, thereby compromising the church. You knew the Catholics consider the Pope to be incapable of error didn't you? Since the Pope is never wrong, and the Bishops always line up with the Pope, how can they moderate in their convictions to appease their members without in effect, ceeding the mantle of leadership of the church to the members of the church? I assumed you were equating listening to voters and listening to members as the same concept.

Saying we are not changing the constitution, while we are in the process of redefining the meaning of the constitution is a smoke screen. Why change the wording of the original document when we can just debate it's meaning to arrive at the desired destination, right? This is the 'modus operandi' of the hyporcrites, which make up the Obama administration. Following the lead of the ACLU lawyer named Leo Pfeffer, who was responsible for masterminding the plan to turn the true meaning of "seperation of church and state" on it's head, and, having first used this very method in 1947, in the Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township. Democrats use guile to misinterpret law to get their way. This frames and defines perfectly, the very nature of the fight between the liberal dems of state and federal government, and the repubs. The liberal dems are arguing for change or, reinterpretation, of the constitution, while the conservatives represented by the repubs, are arguing against change. What people want today will be passe tomorrow. The more we reinterpret the meaning of what our founding fathers originally set forth in the constitution the more we will eventually wind up with the same result as the "pass it on" game I used to introduce this argument. It would be like trying to drive to Sacramento, California but, insisting on endlessly changing the road map during the trip, not much hope of getting to Sacramento is there? The constitution wasn't authored to be endlessly edited and reinterpreted, rather it is to be adhered to in it's original form to guarantee American's the best chance of remaining a free people.

[TheRealVille]

This is what you posted-- "It looks like the majority of voters are for the "birth control" thing, and gay marriage. Washington should listen to it's voters, and the bishops should listen to their members. As per other articles, even the Catholic church members disagree with their bishops."

I thought you were suggesting the Catholic Bishops should change their beliefs, or at least violate their beliefs, thereby compromising the church. You knew the Catholics consider the Pope to be incapable of error didn't you? Since the Pope is never wrong, and the Bishops always line up with the Pope, how can they moderate in their convictions to appease their members without in effect, ceeding the mantle of leadership of the church to the members of the church? I assumed you were equating listening to voters and listening to members as the same concept.

Saying we are not changing the constitution, while we are in the process of redefining the meaning of the constitution is a smoke screen. Why change the wording of the original document when we can just debate it's meaning to arrive at the desired destination, right? This is the 'modus operandi' of the hyporcrites, which make up the Obama administration. Following the lead of the ACLU lawyer named Leo Pfeffer, who was responsible for masterminding the plan to turn the true meaning of "seperation of church and state" on it's head, and, having first used this very method in 1947, in the Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township. This frames and defines perfectly, the very nature of the fight between the liberal dems of state and federal government, and the repubs. The liberal dems are arguing for change or, reinterpretation, of the constitution, while the conservatives represented by the repubs, are arguing against change. What people want today will be passe tomorrow. The more we reinterpret the meaning of what our founding fathers originally set forth in the constitution the more we will eventually wind up with the same result as the "pass it on" game I used to introduce this argument. It would be like trying to drive to Sacramento, California but, insisting on endlessly changing the road map during the trip, not much hope of getting to Sacramento is there? The constitution wasn't authored to be endlessly edited and reinterpreted, rather it is to be adhered to in it's original form to guarantee American's the best chance of remaining a free people.

I don't expect the bishops to change their mind, I was just stating that their parishioners are against them on this issue, for the most part. This still goes back to the fact that the bible, nor the roman catholic church is the rule of the voting public. What is funny is, that you Christians don't even count the catholic church as anything other than a non christian cult. It's kind of the same as the bootleggers and the church siding with each other on an alcohol vote. The Christians don't really care if the bootleggers are peddling stuff they disagree with, the important thing is that they are voting the same way as the church. Nothing on these two topics are covered under the Constitution, therefore the voting public will make the decision. I know you are a Christian, but aside from that, what don't you get about the gay couple being treated equal to other couples? The constitution doesn't define marriage, as never should. All couples should be treated equal, regardless of your christian stance. As I said, we are not a theocracy. Surely you can see that all people should be treated equal, even under clouded eyes?

[Hoot Gibson]

I would love to see where you find that gays getting married goes against the constitution?

I don't need to find it in the Constitution. If the Constitution is silent on the subject, states have the right to define marriage any way that they want. Arguably, Congress also has the right to define marriage, which they have done with the DOMA, based on the interstate commerce clause. (Although I don't like the over reaching that the federal courts, including the Supreme Court has done, using that commerce clause for cover.)

So, do you support the right of Californians to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, as the did when they approved Proposition 8? Or do you support the federal court's decision to thwart the will of the people in that case?

[TheRealThing]

One thing's for sure, we are not a theocracy. Luckily, in 20 years, this equal rights thing won't be an issue. The people are speaking. Now, if "we the people" can get to working on, a person being able to smoke a little herb in the privacy of their own home, legally.




That's what I don't get about republicans. They don't want the government or anybody else to get in their business, yet they want to get in everybody else's business.

RV, you're coming in the back door and declaring the house is laid out backwards. Republicans are not trying to get in anybody's business. They are resisting all this change we've been talking about. Gay rights is a new concept, abortion rights is relatively new as well. Just because liberal activists got a 5/4 decision out of the Supreme Court in 1973 doesn't mean main stream America has ever accepted the validity of that decision. The dubious rationale behind the ruling has been the stuff of consternation from the vast majority of folks to this day. The argument that a fetus is not actually a human life until about the 7th month of pregnancy seemed absurd to all but, you guess it, the liberal crowd.

Here's what I don't get about Democrats, why would State and Federal judiciary think they are qualified to make law concerning moral issues that are already clearly defined in God's Holy Word, and after all, He is the authority on these matters. Let the judges judge the law, let God define right and wrong.

[TheRealThing]

I don't expect the bishops to change their mind, I was just stating that their parishioners are against them on this issue, for the most part. This still goes back to the fact that the bible, nor the roman catholic church is the rule of the voting public. What is funny is, that you Christians don't even count the catholic church as anything other than a non christian cult. It's kind of the same as the bootleggers and the church siding with each other on an alcohol vote. The Christians don't really care if the bootleggers are peddling stuff they disagree with, the important thing is that they are voting the same way as the church. Nothing on these two topics are covered under the Constitution, therefore the voting public will make the decision. I know you are a Christian, but aside from that, what don't you get about the gay couple being treated equal to other couples? The constitution doesn't define marriage, as never should. All couples should be treated equal, regardless of your christian stance. As I said, we are not a theocracy. Surely you can see that all people should be treated equal, even under clouded eyes?

My argument was presented clearly. The constitution is not up for redefinition or re-ratification and, God's law is clearly outside of man's voting privileges.

[TheRealThing]

I don't expect the bishops to change their mind, I was just stating that their parishioners are against them on this issue, for the most part. This still goes back to the fact that the bible, nor the roman catholic church is the rule of the voting public. What is funny is, that you Christians don't even count the catholic church as anything other than a non christian cult. It's kind of the same as the bootleggers and the church siding with each other on an alcohol vote. The Christians don't really care if the bootleggers are peddling stuff they disagree with, the important thing is that they are voting the same way as the church. Nothing on these two topics are covered under the Constitution, therefore the voting public will make the decision. I know you are a Christian, but aside from that, what don't you get about the gay couple being treated equal to other couples? The constitution doesn't define marriage, as never should. All couples should be treated equal, regardless of your christian stance. As I said, we are not a theocracy. Surely you can see that all people should be treated equal, even under clouded eyes?

Am I supposed to take this as a serious question? I guess by that criteria a blow up doll and the bozo that bought it is a couple, and therefore have rights?

[Hoot Gibson]

BTW, your "somewhat approve" "strongly disapprove", "strongly approve", "somewhat disapprove" polls can be made to say just about anything you want. Why don't you just post the "approve" or "disapprove" parts? His approval rating is pretty much a dead heat right now. He's at 46%. According to Gallup(you know, the one that doesn't try to ask conservative slanted questions) the opinion of Catholics has virtually not changed over the last few weeks. Catholic approval dropped from 49% to 46%. From July 2011 to Feb. 2012, the Presidents approval line is pretty much flat, in the mid 40's. If you look hard enough, even on your favorite pollster place, you can find the same approval numbers, although I know you love to post the other style of "somewhat" or strongly" numbers. BTW Hoot, I know you are smart and know what you are doing with those poll numbers, you aren't fooling one soul. I posted the picture from your favorite poll place, just in case you hadn't found it(which I highly doubt you hadn't found).



[Image: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plai...4_2012.jpg]


The catholic approval rating is below, without all the "strongly" or "somewhat" bullshit you have to try to wade through on the other site. It dropped from 49% to 46%.



[Image: http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/orig...do-bza.gif]

:lmao: Sorry that the Rasmussen Reports poll confused you. It shows that 41 percent of likely Catholic voters approve of Obama's job performance versus 46 percent approval by Catholics (no mention of likelihood of voting listed in the survey methods) in the Gallup poll results.

FYI, the intensity of approval and disapproval is as important, if not more so, than the total approval and disapproval numbers. Rasmussen conducts the presidential approval survey every day, except for a few holidays. He did the same during the Bush years. The roughly 40 percent of likely voters who strongly disapprove of Obama's job performance are very unlikely to change their mind before the election, as are the 29-percenters that can find no fault with the worst president in history. They may move from the "strongly" to the "somewhat" categories but in most cases their minds are already made up.

This whole issue is a campaign stunt by a desperate incumbent president. Picking a fight with the Catholic Church and pretending that it is a women's health issue was just a means to an end. What they really wanted to do was mischaracterize the issue as Republicans wanting to deny women access to contraceptive services, which is an outright lie. I have not heard a single Republican candidate proposing to outlaw contraception in this country and none of those running have any plans to do so. But that is the implication that Democrats want to imprint on the miniscule minds of the 29-percenters, who cannot even name their own VP.

[TheRealVille]

I don't need to find it in the Constitution. If the Constitution is silent on the subject, states have the right to define marriage any way that they want. Arguably, Congress also has the right to define marriage, which they have done with the DOMA, based on the interstate commerce clause. (Although I don't like the over reaching that the federal courts, including the Supreme Court has done, using that commerce clause for cover.)

So, do you support the right of Californians to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, as the did when they approved Proposition 8? Or do you support the federal court's decision to thwart the will of the people in that case?

As the states are doing as we speak. But, where does it state that states can make laws that discriminate? No, I support the right of all citizens to be treated equal regardless of sexual preference. I don't agree with any state making it a man/woman thing. I agree with the federal government treating all peoples equal. Absolutely I do not agree with making it between a man and woman only, under any circumstance. It is unconstitutional to discriminate based on sexual preference.

[TheRealVille]

Am I supposed to take this as a serious question? I guess by that criteria a blow up doll and the bozo that bought it is a couple, and therefore have rights?

Yes, as far as American citizens being treated equal, yes you should. The other sentence is so stupid, I won't even respond.

[TheRealThing]

^Alright, again back to my point. The idea of "couples" throughout our recorded national history has applied only to a man and a woman. This is what neccessitates the redefing process the Republicans oppose. It really isn't a very complex situation.

[Hoot Gibson]

As the states are doing as we speak. But, where does it state that states can make laws that discriminate? No, I support the right of all citizens to be treated equal regardless of sexual preference. I don't agree with any state making it a man/woman thing. I agree with the federal government treating all peoples equal. Absolutely I do not agree with making it between a man and woman only, under any circumstance. It is unconstitutional to discriminate based on sexual preference.

So, as you pointed out, the US Constitution is silent about what constitutes a marriage, and you support the rule of the majority, but you support a few men thwarting the will of the majority on Prop 8 because the outcome was not to your liking. As I have said before, liberals read things in the Constitution that are simply not there when it is convenient and ignore little things like the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, etc., whenever they deem it necessary to advance a political agenda.

Barring gays and lesbians from marrying is no more a case of discrimination than banning polygamy is. They have the same right to marry the person of their choice of the opposite sex just the same as heterosexuals have and they have the right to behave as if they are married if they prefer to remain single. The people of California have spoken and their decision should be respected.

[TheRealVille]

So, as you pointed out, the US Constitution is silent about what constitutes a marriage, and you support the rule of the majority, but you support a few men thwarting the will of the majority on Prop 8 because the outcome was not to your liking. As I have said before, liberals read things in the Constitution that are simply not there when it is convenient and ignore little things like the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, etc., whenever they deem it necessary to advance a political agenda.

Barring gays and lesbians from marrying is no more a case of discrimination than banning polygamy is. They have the same right to marry the person of their choice of the opposite sex just the same as heterosexuals have and they have the right to behave as if they are married if they prefer to remain single. The people of California have spoken and their decision should be respected.

No. California had no right, vote or not, to "lessen the status and human dignity" of gays, just like the court said. Some things are not debatable, nor left up to the voting public to define. The constitution has no language that gives states the right to take away citizens having equal rights. Just like the conservatives reading things into the constitution that gives states the right to take away citizens rights to be treated equal? No state has a right to define marriage, if it treats American citizens as lesser, unequal citizens. We will see where this goes, when it reaches the Supreme Court. BTW, when did you leave the computer business and get into constitutional law. I would say that there are 9 justices that will disagree with your supposed knowledge. We will see.

[TheRealVille]

^Alright, again back to my point. The idea of "couples" throughout our recorded national history has applied only to a man and a woman. This is what neccessitates the redefing process the Republicans oppose. It really isn't a very complex situation.

Where is that view in American law, or the Constitution or it's Amendments? Or, on paper anywhere on a US law level? It just hasn't been pushed before. But, it is now.

[vundy33]

Gay marriage needs to go ahead and be allowed in our country. Times change, it's not 1940 anymore. Let them do what they want. It doesn't effect us, straight people, at all...so who are we to tell people what they can or can't do when it comes to marriage?

And the birth control thing...not really my place to give judgement on that.

[vundy33]

moral issues that are already clearly defined in God's Holy Word, and after all, He is the authority on these matters. Let the judges judge the law, let God define right and wrong.

Who the hell are you to say what's clearly defined in God's "Holy Word"? His Holy word changes with how each person interprets it...not to mention all the different versions of it.

And not even going to comment on your views about gay people and marriage. It's too ridiculous to argue with.

[TheRealVille]

My argument was presented clearly. The constitution is not up for redefinition or re-ratification and, God's law is clearly outside of man's voting privileges.

Right. The constitution says nothing about marriage being between a man and woman. And it shouldn't be made to say that. What it does lay out though, is citizens right to equal rights. God's law means nothing in the US,as far as law goes.