Lincoln, Nebraska - progressive? (Omaha, Western: tax, trailer, friendly)

[mattpoulsen]

I'd also add that I completely concur with your pigeon-hole comment:

I'm an agnostic fiscally conservative socially liberal republican who is for gay marriage but is 95% pro-life (I say 95% because there are situations where I believe its warranted...incest, rape, harm to mother...etc.).

I'm curious as to what group I'm classified?? In the end...I just tend to pi$$ everyone off.

I'm still holding out hope that out of the mess that is the republican party will emerge either a 3rd party or a revamped republican party that casts off its fundamentalist aspects. Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism would resonate strongly with most in this country. I'm not sure where it says in order to expect a small non-intrusive government you also have to hate gays. I simply do not get it.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

I have read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Anti-federalist response, and transcripts written by Madison of the Constitutional Convention.

And learned absolutely nothing, apparently.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Further, I have actually studied constitutional law...NOT just heard about it from Glen Beck.

What is it, then, about "constitutional law" that makes law students forget about the Constitution?

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Further, at NO point did I say the Founders want to outlaw religion.

That's great, Poulsen. At NO point did I say that you said the Founders wanted to "outlaw religion". If you read the Constitution as sloppily as you read my posts it's no wonder you're still clueless.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

At this point, it is clear you have no understanding of the Constitution or the federal government.

At this point, it is clear that you cannot refute my arguments and would rather carry on like a third-grader.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

And as far as who said YOUR right to live in a non-gay world is superseded by a gay person's right to marry....ummm....I didn't say so...the Iowa Supreme Court did.

Well that settles it then! It must be true! Courts never lie!

This is your brain on atheism, kids.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

As far as your "reasons" for banning gay activity...all I can say is "are you serious???"

Yes, I am very serious, and for those whose common sense disappeared while studying constitutional law, there are mountains of stats to back up every claim.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Good riddance...enjoy your bigotry and please keep it out of Nebraska.

I am liking Nebraska more and more every day. I think perhaps you belong in my state and I belong in yours. A man with such contempt for the religious and moral beliefs of his fellow Nebraskans would feel more at home in Berkeley or North Hollywood.

[MICHAEL J]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for just a moment. Most traditionalists would like to define marriage as "between one man and one woman". Would others with a differing view please post their ideal definition of marriage? Again, just playing devil's advocate, not giving an opinion.

[mattpoulsen]

Some states actually have defined it as "between two people."

[mattpoulsen]

Pilgrim,

I'm "clueless" because I disagree with you? Sorry...but every reading of the Constitution that is NOT based on prescription to fundamentalist religion leads the version I have described.

Its funny...the same people who claim the Courts should NOT step in gay marriage tend to be completely fine with the recent supreme court 2nd amendment ruling, which FOR THE FIRST TIME IMPARTED INDIVIDUALS the right to bear arms. They also don't have a problem with a right to privacy. Or the right to marry. Or the right travel freely. Need I go on?

The bottom line...you ONLY take issue with this interpretation of the constitution when it cuts AGAINST your preconceived notion of the world. You are entirely inconsistent.



Can you be any more pompous?

I have no contempt for the religiousness of morality of Nebraskans. But I don't have to be a zealous fundamentalist to live in Nebraska and to respect religion. Rights to gays and respecting religion are only mutually exclusive in YOUR small ignorant view of the world. I need not hate gays in order to respect those who are religious.

Again, all these arguments you make are the EXACT same arguments that whites in the South made to strip blacks of their rights. I mention the South because if left ONLY to public vote...they would still be segregated...that is not the case in the Northern states. And that is why it is appropriate for Court action.

And your "stats" come from a group trying to rationalize anti-gay stances. It is NOT an objective analysis. For christ's sake...the very first line of the so called "report" essentially says that gays are after children! Its so intellectually dishonest it makes me want to puke.

Ha ha! I also think its pretty comical that you somehow think you're more educated in constitutional law than anyone who has sat on the Supreme Court. Even Scalia, the most originalistic justice on the Court, recognizes that the Courts "make" law and add content to the constitution. My god...he delivered the opinion in the recent D.C. Handgun regulation.

My point. I'm fine with you being against gay marriage. My issue is when you try to wrap that belief with the Constitution, somehow trying to claim that the Constitution justifies (even mandates) your view. The very existence of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution. Further, the Constitution EXPLICITLY does NOT limit the People's rights to the enumerated rights. There was LONG debate when ratifying the Constitution that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights would be interpreted as a cap on said rights.

Well this was fixed with the 9th amendment, which, in sum, states that rights exist that are NOT listed.

How can you rectify this?? The Court is to interpret the Constitution, but the Constitution explicitly states that there are rights that are NOT written on the face of the Constitution. How can this be?

Answer: The Court must, in some cases, determine what rights are fundamental. And because of this you now have a right to privacy, an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, and a fundamental right to marry!! And, soon, once your breed dies out...gays will have a right to marry.


Finally, its Dr. Kid to you.

[itsMeFred]

Originally Posted by MICHAEL J

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for just a moment. Most traditionalists would like to define marriage as "between one man and one woman". Would others with a differing view please post their ideal definition of marriage? Again, just playing devil's advocate, not giving an opinion.

Legally speaking, marriage is a contract between two adults who meet the requirements for getting married. Ie, age, no other spouses, etc.

Too often people forget that marriage only recently had anything to do with religion, love, etc.
Historically speaking, it was a way to re-home daughters, aquire property, gain a help-mate and/or wife to bear children, establish power and influence, and so on. It was a legal contract that just happened to have a religious ceremony to accompany it.
Sometimes.

And anyone who tries to say the one man/one woman definition of marriage is the Biblical one obviously hasn't read their Bible.
Most of the patriarchs had multiple wives...

[Bosco55David]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

There is no disrespect meant. But I think religion is for the most part invented by man. "Your god" is meant to mean his "version of god."

Meaning there either is or isn't a god...if there is a god no one possibly has a perfect description of what it expects from humans. So any religion that proclaims to know, by definition, has to be invented by man.

My point is his version of god (you know the one that demands we gather up all the gays and burn them at the stake) is a myth...created and perpetuated by small minded people like himself.

As a disclaimer, my wife is a devout Catholic...however she is a Catholic who believes in gay rights.

On a side note, it is worth noting that just because I don't believe what one religion believes doesn't mean I'm being disrespectful. I don't have to be silent in order to respect your beliefs. I respect them greatly...but it doesn't mean I agree with them. My wife and I have this conversation on a weekly basis it seems.

Just to note, the bible itself actually condemns religion.

Even though I'm a believer, I avoid churches like the plague (only been to 2 services in my life) because of so many misguided teachings. The two people in my life who have been very influential in my spirituality are the exact same way.

[Go Ne]

Originally Posted by DTO Luv

Where was the disrespect? All religions (not just the ones with jesus) are mythology. There wasn't anything negative in their.

You cry out for tolerance but it seems to be a one way street doesn't it? Respect goes along way.

[Go Ne]

Originally Posted by DTO Luv

4. Do you know what else reduces rampant pregnancies and large families? EDUCATION and INTELLECT! People with higher levels of education and IQs have less children than those with out. Do you know who the biggest breeders are in this country? The religious. Do you see a connection? I sure do. As have many scientists over the last few years.

Hmmm......
1. What do you consider a large family?

2. How many children should a family have?

3.Should it be enforced by law?

[mattpoulsen]

I find it interesting that the moderator cut out places where I used words like "jesus" "christ" or "jesus christ" and then they state the reason is because those words were deemed as "profanity."

Really?

You're telling me its not okay for me to say those things but it is okay for a guy to come on here and basically state that gays are disease invested and their lives should be outlawed? Really?

Those words are not obscene! They may be blasphemous if you prescribe to that idea, but I and many others don't.

Give me a break.