-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alright, you've hit home, so I'm done ignoring this thread...
On Thu, 17 May 2007 20:21:53 -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 04:25:26PM -0700, Michael M. wrote: > > > > Given the current status of gay marriage in the U.S., we plainly do > > not have an unambiguous right to the pursuit of happiness Gay marriage is the least of it. What about the working poor? What about the unmarried heterosexual couples that are affected by the boneheaded "marriage laws" on the books in several states? What about these laws' effect on domestic-violence cases? I am at a loss as to how to feel about the future of this country. I firmly believe that we need a real political left in this country, not the tepid "liberalism" that simply plays Colmes to the right wing's Hannity. I feel mildly optimistic at the mid term elections and the prospects for 2008, but I see Democratic control as only making things less bad. I think to really save this country the left needs to become a serious force to be reckoned with. > A few points: > > - There is no *scripture* that can be used in support of preventing > interracial marriage. The words of the judge that you quoted are > certainly *not* the words of God. So the Bible is the be-all-end-all when it comes to current issues? Wow. I don't want to live in your ideal society. > - There *is* scripture that clearly illustrates that God hates > homosexual relationships: > > "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both > of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to > death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13 I don't care. I'm not a Christian, why should I be restrained by what you believe your god hates? You do realize that Leviticus prohibits and mandates a hell of a lot of other stuff that the wingnuts are fairly quiet about (or the more self-aware ones attempt to conveniently interpret loosely). > - Why the virtiol against Bush? What about the amendent proposed by > Steny Hoyer (a *Democrat*) two years ago that would repeal the > two-term limit for serving as president? Clearly he wants another > term of George W. Bush administration. Bullshit. I would imagine Mr. Hoyer did this at the prospect of Bill Clinton serving again, and while I'm at best a tepid fan of the serial-triangulators Bill & Hiliary, this country would be much much better under Clinton leadership than the current administration or any last one of the Republican presidential candidates. > BTW, Bush did not propose > the amendment. Someone in congress did. Bush gave his endorsement. Clearly you have no idea of how Washington, or in particular, this administration, works. Just because a particular Congressman introduced a bill says nothing about whose idea it was or what right-wing think tanks talked up the idea before it was proposed. > - What about how three of the seven times that amendments were > proposed that would invalidate Roe V. Wade and make abortion illegal > it was propsed by Democrats? Were *they* pandering to "typically > bigoted and intolerant Christian base" of the Democratic party? They lack the courage to stand up for what they believe in. They have been whipped into submission by the conservative narrative of the past 30 years and the torrent of Republican talking points that now pass for conventional wisdom in the press. The Democrats deserve plenty of blame for not standing up for what they believe in, but don't leave out the other half of the story: the Republican bully machine that created the situation in the first place. > Regards, > > -Roberto > - -- Andrew J. Barr X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.12; powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu) Ronald Reagan: America's answer to Inspector Clouseau -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGTP2uhuM+Z62a52oRAtxwAJ4o6q2tTjEHeWPBPcOY0zANE9sa+gCeLS3M YRAEYTBEoFbIbW0NcJ41YUs= =ZSM8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
