BOSTON (AP) The Massachusetts Legislature has voted to postpone its debate on a proposed gay marriage amendment until after the November general election

Amazing how they now opt to wait until after the election...

After reading this, I wash shocked that a lot of 'closet puritans' want to ban marriages... then why not change the law so that partners in life have certain legal rights accordingly.

There are no longer Christmas decorations allowed in federal buildings, and much more changed in schools; there is literature being banned still; many media and historical literature are baized; and discrimination still goes on.

Are there maybe indications that a handful of those privileged few can determine what is right and what is wrong - and based on what?

What happened to liberty and the pursuit of happiness - maybe not meant to be what it is now, but society has changed and we should be tolerant enough to accept those changes.

Would appreciate your views on this. Thanks.


http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_10_13.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm801YYDE)I think there are many more serious political issues in the world that need more attention and expenditure -

I wonder why these changes have been made in the first place? :cool:

Your guess is as good as mine.

I think the easiest question here is what has NOT changed... the list might be smaller.

I mean, I've asked myself this question esp about Xmas.
Why shudnt we be allowed to have decorations esp in schools. Kids love Xmas it's a festive season, meant to be a jolly one too!

You mean liberty and justice for all who do as I do. In other words if you are not with the mainstream christian way of living you will not be tolerated or allowed a piece of the American pie. If you do not want to go back to the way it use to be no pie for you either. This is a christian based country and how dare you come to America with all these strange ideas that go against my bible and expect a piece of my pie. Let the world change I won't!!

This is the kind of crap I have been hearing and that makes the policy here. I say move over and gimme a piece of that pie, I'm as American as you. Who cares what someone does in his own home?

You mean liberty and justice for all who do as I do. In other words if you are not with the mainstream christian way of living you will not be tolerated or allowed a piece of the American pie. If you do not want to go back to the way it use to be no pie for you either. This is a christian based country and how dare you come to America with all these strange ideas that go against my bible and expect a piece of my pie. Let the world change I won't!!!

This is the kind of crap I have been hearing and that makes the policy here. I say move over and gimme a piece of that pie, I'm as American as you. Who cares what someone does in his own home?

I like the way you talk Tal, we are on the same wave length :)
Couldn't spread the love

AMEN, TAL...

Who's behind the agenda for what gets set before and political party to make a decision on?

Were we asked if we think that a subject, any subject, but his one in particular - that there should be no gay marriages - just because someone close to the top does not like gays and does not want then to have rights?

I know some people who don't like blonds... if they have enough money, can get their issue to the politicians - does that mean that blondes will be banned, or will they have to dye their hair?? Does this sound stupid - well the bill on gay marriages sounds stupid to me too.

I think if you truly love someone and live with someone for a lifetime, you should benefit from the insurance policy he/she placed in your name, should be able to decide where to bury him/her, and should be able to be in the hospital when he/she needs you most. Some same-sex couples even make better parents than some that don't even deserve children (abuse, etc).

Yup, I'm also more confused...

What has politics and waiting until 'after the elections' matter?? Who are they trying to manipulate?

Just my humble but sometimes very frustrated opinion.

Thanks for 'listening'.

It comes down to hatred and intolerance, backed by fear of change and new ideas. The good news change will come, the bad news some will try to fight it

Have you seen Brokeback Mountain yet? It was as well done as they said. I am observing that prejudice of all kinds is beginning to wage some of its last battles, and it has to do with our shrinking world and the dawning of the information age. As a result of those two phenomenal things, it becomes more and more evident that if its to be considered a solution, it must work for all, not just some. I agree with you Tal, it is good news indeed!

However, I contend that we've had a big disconnect between the people and the governing leaders for a long time now in the US so it will be slow to reflect this. I still believe in the powerful Gandhi quote: "I must be the change in the world I seek."

This is going to sound weird coming from me :D but...
I respect the Church and its view on this. It defined its own definition of marriage and it really should not have to rewrite it. I have no problems at all with gays wanting to get same benefits and being in a union together but it should be a civil union. I'm a fair guy, I don't expect the church to change its ways.

BTW, my daughter's godparents are my wife's gay uncle and his partner and my sister. Cool eh?

then why not change the law so that partners in life have certain legal rights accordingly.

Couldn't agree more . It is only fair that legally they should have the same privileges as married couples including hospital visitation etc... all the inequities that are complained about should be addressed.

However ;Marriage is between a man and a women . If the state can't live with that then it should get out of the marriage sanctioning business.

This is going to sound weird coming from me :D but.....
I respect the Church and its view on this. It defined its own definition of marriage and it really should not have to rewrite it. I have no problems at all with gays wanting to get same benefits and being in a union together but it should be a civil union. I'm a fair guy, I don't expect the church to change its ways.

BTW, my daughter's godparents are my wife's gay uncle and his partner and my sister. Cool eh?

It has been proved throughout history that the church and politics should keep a distance - for the better of all.

Seems to me that governments don't always do enough caring or helping those who put them in office in the first place. So... is money doing most of the talking?

OK, I'm having a hormone crisis and there is nothing I as one person can do about what frustrates me today, so I'll get off my soapbox.

Thanks again for the shoulders - very comfy ones at that.

DARN, now I lost my emoticons...

What next.

Seems to me that governments don't always do enough caring or helping those who put them in office in the first place. So.... is money doing most of the talking?

...

What next.

But they DO care Chery ------------ Very, very much...

But only just BEFORE an election...

Once they're in - it's straight to the back of the filing cabinet until the next election.

There is a brilliant cartoon on the Brazilian neswpaper site - o globo - just on this subject...

The interviewer is asking the politician...

" .... and how many of the promises that have got you re-elected 10 times, do you intend to carry out this time ???? "

Just loved it - subtle as a sledge-hammer :D

I will address the core issue, where it was states that "they wish to ban gay marriage"

I would suggest they should not have to ban something that was never allowed or legal in the US to start with. The only reason it is now allowed is that a court, not the public or the law makers, said it was OK.

By law courts can not make new laws, so their ruling is by into itself illegal. For something to have become a law and permitted, the state law makers would have had to vote on it, and pass it as a law, or the voters would have had to vote on it.

By and large in every state where it was voted on, it has failed big time.

Does this mean that they should be denied other equal rights, well not some. Let us say housing, I believe that I should have the right to deny housing to someone who lives a life style I find sickening. It is my house, I own it, where is my rights? In general a sexual life style is not and should not be a protected class. What is next child molester rights, sex with animal rights, there has to be a line somewhere.

Just curious ,Fr. Chuck, How would you know they are gay? Do you ask?

"there has to be a line somewhere" Yes Fr_chuck. It's called the law. We don't allow child molesting or sex with animals. Nice tactic. Relate your opposition to an unrelated but disgusting topic. A point of view impossible to defend.
Are you implying that gay lifestlyes are analogous to molesting or bestiality? Are you saying that there a similar lobby working to free up the laws of such practices?

Yes I understand the appeal of owner control over who he rents to. But I can't believe you don't see the slippery slope. How soon does a person's religion, skin color, ethnic origin work into the "not in under my roof" equation. Very soon we will be back to a heavily segregated society. Just so a homeowner can feel comfortable in his bigotry? America is supposed to be better than that.

Looks to Canada and asks America-- are we paying attention here, we who are supposed to be living in the land of the free and the home of the brave?

It's hard changing the society... ignoring or banning, still can't do anything about it. I may not be familiar with the American law since I come from the Philippines, but I believe changes must start from each of us first. By then, its easy to change society when everyone is changed. Not unless we are united, this chaos will still continue and peace will not be obtained.
What's the best thing we do? As they say, family is the foundation of every society... start the changes within your family.

We can start in America by voting out some of these greedy, close minded, politicians, with all the lobbyist and special interest groups in their back pocket. They should be serving US, we the people, not we serve them and their corporate Fat Cats.

Same problem here in the Phil, although we thought, AMerica has trustworthy politicians than here in our country. But, its already a trend, some tend to be ambitious when in power. Not even a holy man can do anything about it... that's human nature. And besides, its hard knowing who's righteous enough and who's not; who has the interest of serving the people or the other way around. It's tough...

Let me see it is really society changes or a small group of citizens wishing to force their view points on the majority. In every state where this has come up to a vote to the public, gay marriage has been voted down. Only in those areas like MASS, where one judge over ruled the will of the people, do you have it legal.

I don't know what any political has to worry about in Mass as far as over turning a very liberal judges opinion, since it has been proven that the majority of the public do not want it.

Let me see it is really society changes or a small group of citizens wishing to force thier view points on the majority. Dude, I hear you, I feel the same way about the Jehovah's Witnesses ringing my doorbell. They actually COME TO MY HOUSE, UNINVITED! At least the gays aren't doing that.

My solution to this whole thing would be for each state to have a voter referendum allowing "same sex civil unions" That would give the gay people access to the wonderful world of divorce court and spousal maintenance. I think that a majority of voters in most states would support such a measure. Just don't give it the official title of marriage, which should keep the church people happy. Then we could move on to the many really important issues before us.

There is no more important issue than how humans treat each other. When we solve that problem we'll have a chance with the others.

I agree that how humans treat each other is very important in a civilized society. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as one may view it; it is not the function of government to mandate that people are nice to one another. It is their job to insure that all people are treated equal under the law, and to protect individuals from criminal acts by others. Society as a whole has that responsibility. Mankind has a very poor track record in that regard. To me it seems that the Seven Dealy Sins have been present for a long time and will not be eliminated by government fiat. The point that I tried to make is that there are many life and death issues that the government must address: food, disease,fuel,terrorism, nuclear proliferation, global warming... need I go on? If we expend all our time and energy debating same sex unions we might all be dead.

I read somewhere, from a credible seeming enough source, that 40% of the world's population does not have indoor plumbing, which frankly blew my mind a little at the time. Not that a bathroom is any kind of benchmark of civilization but... it suggests a kind of obvious risk to disease on the most fundemental level that caused me to think "holy cowabunga, we have a loooooooooooog way to go before we get to the dawn!"

Maybe we need to start a "Commodes for Civilization" movement here?

If we all were committed to treating each other the way we wanted to be treated, We wouldn't have any problems. Would you let your brother sit in filth? Would you let his children starve? How we treat each other is a testiment to society, not the price of gas! Equal under the law means we all entitled to the same treatment by government. Gay straight black white jew gentile.., need I go on??

If if's and but's were candy and nuts then we'ed all have a merry Christmas. Dear Talaniman, I am doing my best to find some common ground with you, but you continue to vent wishes that may not be based in reality. I thank you for agreeing with my statement that we should all be treated equally under the law. Your... Jew, Gentile gay, straight adendum was redundant. Even though we all deserve equal treatment by government, the results of our efforts are not guaranteed equal results. We all regret starving children and misery in the world, and do our best to improve their lot. It sounds like your suggestion would be to pass a law eliminating all such misery. It is too bad that the government is not a "horn of plenty" that can solve all of the world's ills; only society through the work and toil of its members can provide relief. Your statement that "how we treat each other is a testament to society" is correct. The price of gas is a function of government.

If you wish to continue a spirited debate on this topic, please pick out any and all statements that I have made thus far, and feel free to provide rebuttals to them. Point out errors in logic or fact. Please do not recite platitudes such as "can't we all just get along", or "workers of the world unite, and throw off your shackels". I am still trying to figure out what you found so offensive in my "solution" to the same sex civil union debate.

Until the country can do a better job of holding elections, we better not try any referendums.

You have to excuse me D, I was on my save the world soapbox and as you can see I do the rant thing, now and again. Actually I agree with your same sex marriage solution, but honestly there are already solutions and options already in place for gay couples, that are already recognised by the courts its called a contract. Even though a state doesn't recognise their marriage the business end cannot be ignored. Most gay couples already have some form of contract, or will, documenting how health care and property division will occur in case of illness and death. Its valid all over the country. More laws in this area is redundant and useless. As far as being married in a church and having that union recognised through out the states? Most states have already voted No on every referendum that has come up so far. Sorry for the rant though, I get like that now and again. More room out than in.

Most gay couples already have some form of contract, or will, documenting how health care and property division will occur in case of illness and death. Its valid all over the country. More laws in this area is redundant and useless. I don't think that's the case Tal. If you ask a good number of same-sex couples who are living together I'm sure they have no idea of this supposed contract. Of course a will doesn't enter into this discussion because that only applicable after death.

The ones I know are a bit older and have been together for decades that may be a difference, as far a health care they each have their own insurance. Hm This contract goes beyond gender as a lot of older couples who live together have similar contracts to ensure their partners are protected in case of emergencies and family members swoop in and kick the partners out. A talk with a lawyer is all anyone needs to do to get a binding contract written up and notarized.

Dear Talaniman,

I wish to extend to you a sincere apology for my previous answer to you. Upon rereading it in the clear light of day, I realize that it was unduly harsh, and uncalled for. As you pointed out, we are all capable of going on a rant.

Dr. D

Forget it, I know it felt good

There are so many important topics in this world I cannot understand why people dwell on same-sex couples- and same-sex couples are the main culprits with all their parades and publicity stunts.

Important topics like, Is Elvis alive? And Where is he living? :-)

Here's the problem with allowing gay-marriage. Where does it end? If the same-sex can get married how can you keep the right of marriage between one man and two women, or one women and two men? Oh, wait, a 16 year old boy wants to marry a 19 year old women. Can we say no? He ca be convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison, but he can't get married?

Of course I am not and advocate of any of these scenarios, but it has been shown that if we keep protecting these "special classes" we will end up in dissolving the rules we have lived by for decades.

Furthermore, why is it that every liberal calls me intolerant or a hater if I am against gay-marriage. I am not arguing against it in ignorance, I have just chosen my side. I agree with chuck completely. Why can't I stand up against homosexuality because I think it is disgusting and wrong? As a matter of fact, now that we have practically labeled gays as a preotected class, they are now discriminating against straight people. I have read articles about towns with high populations of gays where they verbally abuse straight people.

Look in Europe. Chery said the state and church should be completely separated. I agree but it is not going to happen. There are ministers in countries that have been imprisoned because on the pulpit they preach against homosexuality. Not in the sense of hate 'em all, kill 'em all. But instead, just preaching that it is wrong and sinful. THEY WERE PUT IN JAIL. How ridiculous. I thought church and state couldn't mix.

Well man-women marriage has been going on a long time, how come your 16 yearl nboy - 19 year old woman scenario hasn't surfaced? Because there are rules in place that don't allow that. Same with all your other scenarios. They made an amendment for same-sex but keep all the other rules in place.

There are so many important topics in this world I cannot understand why people dwell on same-sex couples- and same-sex couples are the main culprits with all their parades and publicity stunts.

Important topics like, Is Elvis alive? and Where is he living? :-)



Elvis is alive and well and living in a doublewide off Signal Butte near the I-90.


http://www.elvispresleynews.com/images/Pres03Sm.jpg

M:)RGANITE

Well man-women marriage has been going on a long time, how come your 16 yearl nboy - 19 year old woman scenario hasn't surfaced? Because there are rules in place that don't allow that. Same with all your other scenarios. They made an amendment for same-sex but keep all the other rules in place.

Wait one second. If you want to use history as an example, than homosexuality was shunned for a very long time, why does that one rule become null without having any impact? Laws are progressive in nature and always have been. Just look at voting rights. First, white male land owners, and after two centuries of progression everyone is finally able to vote. You cannot say that absolving the rules against gay marriage (social rules) and sanctioning gay marriage by law will not lead to the legalization of polygamy, pedaphilia, child pornography. Maybe you didn't realize this but this is onel of the ultimate goals of some of these uber leftist interest groups. NAMBLA, who is supported by the ACLU who by the way is in favor of polygamy. You think they will stop with gay-marriage. No way in hell, will they ever stop their bombardment on the traditional status quo. SO don't give me your pontificating ramble on the fact that we have rules in place that can't be broken because to do so would be against the current american ideal and.. uh.. and.. uh.. we have rules.

You cannot say that absolving the rules against gay marriage (social rules) and sanctioning gay marriage by law will not lead to the legalization of polygamy, pedaphilia, child pornography. Why yes, I am saying exactly that. Using your voting example, are you suggesting that giving the vote to african americans and women is a step backwards and the vote should return to white males only? Of course not, it was a progressive decision. There are rules everywhere that reasonable people follow to maintain a safe and respectful society, is this not something you agree with? I don't really understand why you attack me on the facts that there are rules and laws. :confused:

As people change, so should the laws. We have already removed outdated laws and trying to change the ones on the books that reflect the limits society has deemed too restictive. This is an on going natural progression of people as they evolve. Drugs have been around for as long as man has and no amount of lawmaking or imprisonment will change the fact that it is very lucritive to criminals. (As opposed to getting a real job legally) As we have seen gays are doing what they have been doing for centuries and whether same sex marriage is legal or not, will not stop it from happening. As society changes the laws will change to reflect the tolerance for the rights of others against the abiity to enforce them.

Why yes, I am saying exactly that. Using your voting example, are you suggesting that giving the vote to african americans and women is a step backwards and the vote should return to white males only? Of course not, it was a progressive decision. There are rules everywhere that reasonable people follow to maintain a safe and respectful society, is this not something you agree with? I don't really understand why you attack me on the facts that there are rules and laws. :confused:

Its not a debate on whether the progressive nature of laws is counter-productive or not. It doesn't matter if I agree with allowing everybody to vote, which I do. It's about the fact that by lawfully sanctioning gay-marriage can and probably will lead to polygamy, child porn acceptance, etc because that is what the extreme leftist interest groups want. You must not be from America because you don't seem to get how interest groups fit into our political system. Furthermore, reasonable people do not maintain a safe and respectful society because these reasonable people more often than not elect representatives that are not so reasonable.

Furthermore, reasonable people do not maintain a safe and respectful society because these reasonable people more often than not elect representatives that are not so reasonable.If you are referring to Bush then I agree!

If you are referring to Bush then I agree!

Again, you have proven yourself to not understand America. Bush is as liberal as he is conservative. I mean people like chuck shumer, ted kennedy, newt gingrich, ralph nader, and thelist goes on including most every person elected NOT JUST BUSH!! Stop acting like a far left moonbat and actually consider the words I am typing. Liberals get so caught up with Bush they forget there are 535 other elected politicians in just congress.

There we go conservatives, liberals ,alcoholics. Everybodies got a name to spread around and beat their morality into the masses outside their group. That's what's wrong with America, too many groups and no real Americans.

There we go conservatives, liberals ,alcoholics. Everybodies got a name to spread around and beat their morality into the masses outside their group. Thats whats wrong with America, too many groups and no real Americans.

Last I checked America was always about groups of people that unite under the upholding of life, liberty , and property.

There we go conservatives, liberals ,alcoholics. Everybodies got a name to spread around and beat their morality into the masses outside their group. Thats whats wrong with America, too many groups and no real Americans.



Oh, come on. There is no such animal as a uniform "REAL American."

Americans come in different shapes, sizes, Colours, faiths, political hues, and a host of other discrete characteristics that no one group and no one person can be said with honesty or accuracy to be a "REAL American" that is representative of all other Americans.

The greatest danger to American society are those who have in their minds a profile of what constitutes a "REAL American," and who disrespect all others who stand outside their artificial paradigm.

Time was when the Irish, the Chinese, Roman Catholics, Jews, and non-white, non Anglo-Saxon, non-Protestant, etc, were not considered "REAL American," and look at all the troubles that lunatic perspective has caused.

A person has to be some kind of nut not to accept that America, like every other nation under the sun, has many groups each representing their particular interests, and provided that their interests do not include persecuting any other groups they do little harm. Trying to prescribe what constitutes a "REAL American" of necessity distances all those that you believe do not deserve to be considered as "REAL Americans," and that leads to internment (after the Japanese-American WW II model), identification by special clothing or tattoos (after the Nazi anti-Juden model), and all other manifestations that operate on the principle that some people are less eligible to be considered as "REAL American" on grounds more consonant with fascistic-eugenic progroms than with science, sociology, religion, or simple humanitarian principles, etc.

Look at the administration's efforts to bomb and beat their morality and political system into foreign nations, who do not measure up to its "REAL American" democratic model.

America has been called "The Mixing Bowl," but it is to be a salad with its components identifiable in a diverse dish, rather than the muddy color produced by fully mixing all the colours of the rainbow into a uniform drab color.

All Americans should welcome the diversity, because it is diversity that has produced the RICH tapestry of American society, and efforts to "Sovietize" America through Stalinesque imposition of "REAL American" culture is a dangerous step that leads away from freedom and into a slavery that includes forcing government approved, or interest group, cultural and linguistic laws on everyone.

And where then is freedom, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness? Gone to blazes, that's where.


M:eek:RGANITE

Sweet post Marganite. I agree with you.

Its not a debate on whether the progressive nature of laws is counter-productive or not. It doesn't matter if I agree with allowing everybody to vote, which I do. It's about the fact that by lawfully sanctioning gay-marriage can and probably will lead to polygamy, child porn acceptance, etc because that is what the extreme leftist interest groups want. You must not be from America because you don't seem to get how interest groups fit into our political system. Furthermore, reasonable people do not maintain a safe and respectful society because these reasonable people more often than not elect representatives that are not so reasonable.

I would like to see how you work out "the fact that by lawfully sanctioning gay-marriage can and probably will lead to polygamy, child porn acceptance, etc because that is what the extreme leftist interest groups want."

How can sanctioning one course, lead to sanctioning unrelated courses of action? What evidence do you have that gay married couples are the engineers of polygamy and/or pedophiliac pornography? There might be a link, but I do not know it and you don't explain it. What am I missing?

Whether my position is on the extreme left or not is up for discussion, but my fears are that the far right have a series of agendas that will steal hard-won freedoms from ordinary citizens. The right of Habeus Corpus was wrested from the tyrant and usurper King John to secure the safety of the barons, but the principles is enshrined into the laws of every civilized nation in the world. It is alarming that Americans are willing to give up that right.

Sir Winston Churchill said:

"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge that "power of the executive" through the use of habeas corpus laws. Habeas corpus is roughly Latin for "hold the body," and is used in law to mean that a government must either charge a person with a crime or let them go free.

A year ago U.S. Senate Republicans (with the help of five Senate Democrats) passed a bill that would begin to take down that right. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in proposing the legislation, said, "It is clear to me from Abu Ghraib backward, forward, and other things we know about, that at times we have lost our way in fighting this war." Few would disagree. "What we are trying to do in a series of amendments," Graham added, "is recapture the moral high ground and provide guidance to our troops."

But destroying habeas corpus will not "recapture the moral high ground" or "provide guidance for our troops." It may, however, throw our troops (and citizens) into a living hell if they're captured by other governments that have chosen to follow our example.

This attack on eight centuries of English law is no small thing. While their intent was to deny Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp detainees the right to see a judge or jury, it could just as easily extend to you and me. (Already two American citizens have been arbitrarily stripped of their habeas corpus rights by the Bush administration - Jose Padilla is still languishing in prison incommunicado and Yasser Hamdi was deported to the police state of Saudi Arabia where every Friday they conduct public floggings and executions.)

Section 9, Clause 2, of Article I of the United States Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Abraham Lincoln was the first president (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina. Those are the only two fully legal suspensions of habeas corpus in the history of the United States (and Lincoln's is still being debated).

The United States hasn't suffered a "Rebellion" or an "Invasion" Lincoln's and Grant's administrations. There are no foreign armies on our soil, seizing our cities. No states or municipalities are seriously talking about secession. Yet the U.S. Senate wants to tinker with habeas corpus.

Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said:

"38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

"39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

This was radical stuff, and over the next four hundred years average people increasingly wanted for themselves these same protections from the abuse of the power of government or great wealth. But from 1215 to 1628, outside of the privileges enjoyed by the feudal lords, the average person could be arrested and imprisoned at the whim of the king with no recourse to the courts.

Then, in 1627, King Charles I overstepped, and the people snapped. Charles I threw into jail five knights in a tax disagreement, and the knights sued the King, asserting their habeas corpus right to be free or on bail unless convicted of a crime.

King Charles I, in response, invoked his right to simply imprison anybody he wanted (other than the rich), anytime he wanted, as he said, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis," which roughly translates as "I am the Decider!" which is essentially the same argument that George W. Bush makes for why he has the right to detain both citizens and non-citizens solely on his own say-so: because he's in charge. And it's an argument now supported by Senate Republicans and five Democrats.

As The New York Times noted in a November 12, 2005 editorial, "according to government and military officials, an overwhelming majority [of the Guantanamo concentration camp detainees] should not have been taken prisoner in the first place."

It may well be that the only reason these Republicans are so determined to keep our Guantanamo prisoners incarcerated is to avoid the embarrassment and negative political fallout that would ensue if they were released and told the world's media their stories of false arrest, torture, illegal imprisonment, and hunger strikes.

The Founders must be turning in their graves. As Alexander Hamilton - arguably the most conservative of the Founders - wrote in Federalist 84:

"The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ...[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [British 18th century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:

[Capitals all Hamilton's from the original.]

"I know, indeed," Jefferson said in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, "that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough. But, Jefferson said, our nation was "the world's best hope," and because of our strong commitment to democracy, "the strongest government on earth."

The sum of this, Jefferson said, was found in "freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.

"The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Number 8:

"The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free."

We must not make the mistake that Jefferson and Hamilton warned us against. Contact your U.S. Senators (the Capitol's phone number is 202 225-3121) and tell them to stop this assault on eight hundred years of legal precedent by leaving our habeas corpus laws intact and quickly moving to ensure that the captives in our Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camps (and other, overseas, secret prisons) have the fundamental human rights of habeas corpus our Supreme Court has already ruled they should be accorded.


M:)

One Voice

Make Poverty History- By Get Things Done

Open to public Lets talk. Corruption, Mismanagement, Poor Governing basically bad politics.
We can make poverty history by get things done on time on figment of the imagination and mission. What is poverty? How do you define poverty? Poverty define as source of powerless and inability, to execute basic needs. It escalates terror, Violence and distraction. The world could ask most powerful nations to eliminate the debts, eliminate the pledge but increase the funding for betterment of man kind. But will that make poverty history? I ask the world, I ask the man kind to observe what we can do from What we have and What we get! The Five Elements are

We must eliminate the waste,

We must eliminate the unproductiveness,

We must eliminate indefensible accountability

We must eliminate the negligence of Funds.

We must eliminate the emptiness of human strength in incapability to standup for his rights for his needs.


“As One Voice, We must asked the world to make things happen by get things done”.

Amazing how they now opt to wait until after the election....

After reading this, I wash shocked that a lot of 'closet puritans' want to ban marriages...then why not change the law so that partners in life have certain legal rights accordingly.

There are no longer Christmas decorations allowed in federal buildings, and much more changed in schools; there is literature being banned still; many media and historical literature are baized; and discrimination still goes on.

Are there maybe indications that a handful of those privileged few can determine what is right and what is wrong - and based on what?

What happened to liberty and the pursuit of happiness - maybe not meant to be what it is now, but society has changed and we should be tolerant enough to accept those changes.

Would appreciate your views on this. Thanks.


http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_10_13.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm801YYDE)I think there are many more serious political issues in the world that need more attention and expenditure -
I have nothing against Gay and Lesbian life styles. But Marriage is different. It is not the marriage is matter the after life of marriage.

How do you bring legislation on legal separation, custody battle, and divorce and so on.

All Gay and Lesbians fighting for Marriage certificate do any body talk about their devices, separation, abuses?

How dose the court law write new law in to this.

Trust me we are living in complex society. Dragging children along with them?

Please live to-gether like any other Straight couples. Today 65% of the Couples having children and living together. Why not Gays and Lesbians too.

Matter of fact you have right to live with any body but your choice is not our choice.
In future people who are living with their Pets like a family will come forward and parade for marriage license to marry their pets too.

I have nothing against Gay and Lesbian life styles. But Marriage is different. it is not the marriage is matter the after life of marriage.

How do you bring legislation on legal separation, custody battle, and divorce and so on.

All Gay and Lesbians fighting for Marriage certificate do any body talk about their devices, separation, abuses?

How dose the court law write new law in to this.?

Trust me we are living in complex society. Dragging children along with them?

Please live to-gether like any other Straight couples. Today 65% of the Couples having children and living together. Why not Gays and Lesbians too.

Matter of fact you have right to live with any body but your choice is not our choice.
In future people who are living with their Pets like a family will come forward and parade for marriage license to marry their pets too.


I have two dogs that any man would be lucky to be married to. :)

Ish_M:)RGANITE

Matter of fact you have right to live with any body but your choice is not our choice.
In future people who are living with their Pets like a family will come forward and parade for marriage license to marry their pets too.
I don't understand what the right to marry amongst humans has to do with animals. Do we stop flying because a plane can crash? Such analogies lead me to believe that Fear is involved in the reasoning of those who oppose change or dealing with the different. This is sort of like those that oppose the decriminalization of drugs, fear a nation of dope heads so everyone who uses drugs is a criminal. Imprisonment, Ostracisation, and Humiliation have done nothing to stem the tide of drugs or stopped gay people from doing what they do and we are talking centuries of trying. Yes gays and drugs can be driven from the corner and out of sight but by no means should anyone think it will go away.