[CBRVFR]

So the President thinks we need a Constitutional amendment to keep gays from getting married.. What do you think?

[Bacchus]

Well, since none of the other voters fessed up, I will admit that I voted for #2, although it was an extremely tough choice considering #1 . This is a real sticky wicket, but I stand by my choice.

edit: Oh, and forgot the most important part here - no, ND4, I am not gay

[OntheEdge]

I just don't understand why people would care if gays get married. How could it possibly affect their lives. It won't change anything except promote more money to be spent on marriage license's and on party's, ect.

[BDA116]

I won't vote on this completely biased poll. The fact is, this is not a Bush proposal or political stake out. Amending the Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman has been talked about for years, even before klinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Was that just a klinton political ploy? Where was all the whining then? Oh yeah, the good old leftist double standard applies.
Bush is saying that he backs the Resolution - first written under klinton but receiving multiple revisions since then. How is that his political ploy? How is it a Bush plan or agenda? All he is saying is that he thinks it's a good idea. Even if it goes further it will be at least 6 years down the road before it is ratified. Then, the extremist activist judges that have no authority to legislate from the bench, but do so anyway will do everything they can to kill it.
This current outcry is nothing more than a political act by the gay community. Why is it suddenly a major issue for them to get different rights than everyone else? Why do they suddenly want to make a big deal of marriage?
Why didn't they fight klinton when he signed his Act? Was marriage just not a big issue to them then?
This is nothing more than the latest ploy for them to get press and favoritism, period. It has nothing to do with equal rights, everything to do with attention.

Either way, I personally don't think it is a matter for the United States Constituion. It should be a state matter, and if states want to amend their Constitutions, more power to them.

Oh, but I did vote in the dem primary today. I can't wait to see Kerry whine, bumble and weasel his way out of defending his past. If we can't have fun with Dean, Kerry is the next best thing. Got to get him every vote we can.

[nomad]

What's the motto? Live free or die. Hmmmm... Maybe Bush wants to change it to "Live free or die unless you are gay in which case you are only allowed to die."

[BrianG]

OK, how about "marriage is a spiritual convention created to protect the natural heterosexual cycle of procreation". Give the homosexuals the civil equivalent, so as to protect their human rights, that they deserve as citizens; but call it something other than "marriage", because it IS something other than marriage.

[OntheEdge]

Originally Posted by BrianG

OK, how about "marriage is a spiritual convention created to protect the natural heterosexual cycle of procreation". Give the homosexuals the civil equivalent, so as to protect their human rights, that they deserve as citizens; but call it something other than "marriage", because it IS something other than marriage.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>


It seems number 2 falls into the definition. I don't see anywhere in there anything about religion do you.

[Newfie TLR]

Originally Posted by BDA116

This current outcry is nothing more than a political act by the gay community. Why is it suddenly a major issue for them to get different rights than everyone else? Why do they suddenly want to make a big deal of marriage?

My feelings exactly. Attention and the "Why can't we attitude". I believe in freedom in alot of things, but I'm sorry, gay just ain't there. I just have a real issue with seeing anything natural about "GAY", but that's just my opinion.

[roadrunner954]

They can do whatever the hell they want, but it will never be called a marraige. I'm all for chicks getting with each other!

[tbeemer]

I say no, just because I think it's a misuse of the Constitution to amend it for something like that. Did we have to amend it for the whole disability issue? No, they came up with the ADA. Propose an Act, and see if it passes. No need for a Constitutional Amendment, IMHO.

Tom

[Serial Thriller]

I say no, but for a different reason than that given in the poll. I think marriage is between a man and woman, but I also think it's a bad idea to mess with the Constitution over something like this.
This is not a new issue, it's just the hot thing right now. Let's see what's happening a few months from now...

[MACI4LIFE]

Love the avatar Tbeemer!!

I vote #2. Freedom of choice in my books

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by BDA116

I won't vote on this completely biased poll. The fact is, this is not a Bush proposal or political stake out.

Your chain is showing. Matter of fact, it is being yanked really hard as we speak .

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by tbeemer

I say no, just because I think it's a misuse of the Constitution to amend it for something like that. Did we have to amend it for the whole disability issue? No, they came up with the ADA. Propose an Act, and see if it passes. No need for a Constitutional Amendment, IMHO.

Tom

Again, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed and signed into law in 1996.
Brief summary:
Defense of Marriage Act - Amends the Federal judicial code to provide that no State, territory, or possession of the United States or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other such jurisdiction or to any right or claim arising from such relationship.

Establishes a Federal definition of: (1) "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife; and (2) "spouse" as only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

Number one, why no outcry in 1996?
Number two, extremist activist judges have proven that they will destroy at will the legislation brought into law by a government representative of the people. These judges don't care about the people, their representatives or the law and trash the Constitution at will.
The only way to keep it from happening is to take what has already been passed into law and bring it into the Constitution itself.
Again, I feel it should be a state issue, but the issue needs to be cleared for what it is. It is a political ploy not by Bush or the republican party, but by the gay community. This is already law, what Bush said he backs is nothing new and would not change the legal status of already written law, only further solidify it.
Why is the mainstream media forgetting the Defense of Marriage Act?
Why are they acting like someone is starting some new off-the-cuff legislation, and saying it is specifically Bush starting it all?
It is neither Bush starting it, nor is it new, It is simply a way to stop the extremist judges from illegaly and un-Constitutionally legislating from the bench.
The fact is, thanks to illegal extremist judicial decisions like those from the 9th Circuit Court, Acts passed by Congress and written into law are meaningless unless it suits them.

Oh, and Kerry was one of only 14 Senators that voted against it.
Senate voted 85-14 in favor, House 342-67 in favor.
Passed by a landslide, signed by one of their own, yet still meaningless to the extremists.

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

Your chain is showing. Matter of fact, it is being yanked really hard as we speak .

What's your point? And the fact that you think I care is what's really funny.

[BrianG]

OntheEdge:

(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

From that definition I'd especially note "...like that of a traditional marriage " as being the operative part of (2). And that's what I said.... traditional marriage is a covenant with God, so give them something "....like that of a traditional marriage." to serve their civil rights, but call it something that won't confuse it with the real thing.

Would it be too long a reach to suggest that the term "traditional marriage" was the definition's reference to the religious origination of "the state of holy matrimony"?

[DRider]

I find it hard to believe it can even be considered a state's issue. If they found someone they want to be in a monogamous relationship with they should be afforded the same rights as straight people, period.

An another note. I'm all for ammending the constitution as long as it also deals with adultary and divorce. If you're out to preserve the sanctity of marriage this shouldn't bother you. On the other hand if you're doing this because you're homophobic well...

[OntheEdge]

Originally Posted by BrianG

OntheEdge:



From that definition I'd especially note "...like that of a traditional marriage " as being the operative part of (2). And that's what I said.... traditional marriage is a covenant with God, so give them something "....like that of a traditional marriage." to serve their civil rights, but call it something that won't confuse it with the real thing.

Would it be too long a reach to suggest that the term "traditional marriage" was the definition's reference to the religious origination of "the state of holy matrimony"?

Well if marriage is a covenant with God then no government should recognize it because of the seporation of church and state.

You said "call it something other than "marriage", because it IS something other than marriage. " I just pointed out the it is part of the definition of marriage weather you want to admit it or not. Tradition doesn't mean crap. Traditionaly women stay home and men work. Does that mean that you can't call a woman an employee. I still want to know how this could negitivey affect you. What good reason do you have. Just remember you can't use religion as an excuse because I already noted that the you can't legally use that to make a law. That is in the constitution.

[Jungleboy]

I would say yes they can do what ever they liked as it doesnt affect me, if it were not for the fact that if you let them marry you would then have to allow them to adopt children! which I dont think is very fair on these children who have no say in the matter and who have already had a difficult start to their young lives, as I said in another related post many (not all) adopted children already have a difficult time coming to terms with their situation as it is, it doesnt need to be anymore difficult for them having another issue to deal with!

[Johnny Diablo]

All this legal crap is doing nothing but making work for lawyers and polititians!

Push them back in the closet and all is well again!

[HondaGal]

Whatever happened to government for the people by the people? Bush seems to be forgetting that little part. He has no right to make decisions based upon his own thoughts and ideas. He's supposed to be representing the people and there are alot of people who do not agree with his ideas on this issue.

Making this issue part of his political agenda is very foolish. No good is going to come out of this for him. His approval % is already and it's going to be if he doesn't ease up on trying involve mix church and state issues.

[ND4SPD]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

edit: Oh, and forgot the most important part here - no, ND4, I am not gay

I love how people automatically assume I'm gonna say stuff

[MacMan]

Originally Posted by Tombstone

Push them back in the closet and all is well again!

Busted a gut on that one...lol

I'm sorry but I have a problem with it. I was brought up believing that marraige is between a man and a woman. I feel that I am open changes and different things in life but when daddy is cooking dinner and daddy-O is in the bathroom giving junior his nightly bath...well

Honda gal..I could have sworn that I heard on the news this morning that 2/3 of the American people are against gay marriage. Correct me if I am wrong but that is the people speaking.
Yup, I'm from the old school and it is what it is but their trying to make it what it's not.

[RaggedEdge]

All of this hand-wringing, religious invocation, and calls to uphold tradition by so-called opinion makers on the Right has the same overpowering stench as too often seen in America's past history of racial intolerence. I wonder how many times did a plantation owner point at one of his black slaves and intone something to the effect that Negroes are only good for farming and menial, domestic work, and suggest that slavery was a fine and noble American tradition. How many people right up through the 1960's called for the continuing repression of Black Americans' rights under the guise of civil order or tradition? How many Southern white men pointed to their precious Bibles in order to justify their slavery practices, rather than recognize the inherent equality of ALL humans and their right to be truly free? I don't see the current rising tide against gay marriage as being any different. And the pretext being utilized is dubious at best: the protection of heterosexual marriage as an institution for the sake of the children. What an incredible pile of festering ****! For me it boils down to simple, fundamental human rights. If one acknowledges homosexuality as an inherent quality in some people, and not a learned response, then one should also accept the possibility that two men, or two women, might wish to commit to each other for a lifetime. That sort of relationship is called a marriage, not a partnership, nor a civil union, although they can be both of those things as well. Most preposterous for me is the claim that marriage as we know it will forever be changed, at best, or destroyed, at worst, if marriage by two homosexual people is sanctioned by state and/or federal governments. Another thorn in my side is the usual litany of slippery slope arguments being proffered where rational thought fails to justify (from my perspective) the conservatives' slant on the matter, asking "where do we draw the line". It is virtually no different, it seems to me, from the approach slave owners used to justify slavery.

I'll stop now.