Politics SHOULD be open to discussion
written by Monkey
Why do we as a nation feel we need to go back to the stone age by making a constitutional amendment to take away someones rights? All they want is to get married. Why should there be an AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION banning this? Churches can ban whatever they want, that's a benefits of religious freedom, which is also in the constitution. However, to force religious beliefs on the general public (be it gay marriage, creationism, or otherwise) is against everything this country was founded on.
They take away our right to privacy, they take away our right to free speech, and now they want to take away our rights to practice our own religious beliefs. Lawmakers in this country today are walking around like they are above the very laws they want to force upon the people that elected them into office, and yet we for some reason continue to elect them again and again.
I wish they would publicly release a list of all the phone logs they've been keeping over the last 5 years so people can see that yes they are directly effected by the things this administration is doing.
5 Comments:
-
I don't know about releasing the phone records but I can tell you that it frustrates me to no end that it's considered impolite to discuss politics. Our very country would not have been founded had this been the general opinion in 1776. In fact, you might have stolen this very topic from me on our way up to see my family.. THEIF! :)
By
By the way, I love your political talk :D Politic me, baby! ;)
Java Junkie, at 9:24 PM
-
I completely agree with your thoughts. You said it very nicely!
By Radioactive Tori, at 10:11 PM
-
The government shouldn't have anything to do with "weddings". Marraige should be replaced in government books with a partnership union which only exists for the purposes of taxes, insurance, and property settlements... etc regarding monetary dependancies. There should be some moderate regulations around this, regarding limitations on change frequency for instance, but it should have nothing to do with religion or sex or even love when it comes to the governement. If people want to have weddings, this is a religious ceremony that is within the realm of their church or other organization no different than a baptism or other religious right of passage.
By mariluna, at 8:04 AM
-
Exactly my point, I couldn't have said it better.
By Monkey, at 8:40 AM
-
First off, I couldn't agree more. How did it become unamerican and unpatriotic to talk politics and question the status quo? The government should only be in the business of providing services that are too big or complicated for states to provide (i.e. national defense, currency, etc). Government should get out of the business of trying to legislate morality or protect us from ourselves.
By
That being said, this latest piece of work is doomed to failure and everyone knows it. They don't have the 2/3 support needed to make it stick. It is solely intended to A) take focus off of Iraq/Iran/Palestine/North Korea/Afghanistan/etc and B) make Bush's ultra-conservative supporters think he is still doing their bidding. He can say "Hey, I tried. But those commie pinko leftist liberal nutjobs don't *like* good wholesome American families!" Enough of the republicans won't support it, so the democrats won't even be able to make much of a political issue out of it. Bush wins, everyone else loses - except for the same-sexers who simply get a reprieve.
"A little revolution, from time to time, is a good thing." Jefferson
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Franklin
"This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in." T. Roosevelt
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure." Einstein
, at 10:40 PM
