Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment requested of Congress.

[PatPatriot]

X..you must have red hair,I love your fire and passion.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The last thing you and people like you want is for gay public displays of wedded affection to be commonplace. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll admit to you, to me its like watching a train wreck....but that has nothing to do with it.Society just can't keep changing laws and definitions that are the mood of the day.
To me homosexuality is a genetically influenced defect like say aixelsyd...err dyslexia or diabetes or somthing like that.
Marrige means man and woman. Dog means dog not cat or ardvaark but dog.

 

[FloydGondolli]

One thing that I do believe is that under the same logic that many are using to argue in favor of gay marriage, you should also have the right to marry more than one person. If it is discriminatory to put a geder restriction on marriage, then it would also be discriminatory to limit the number of wives or husbands you can have. Further, under this logic, should you not be legally allowed to marry your brother or sister, or mother, or even you dog?

 

[PatPatriot]

Floyd, absolutley, it also means that NAMBLA's stock has gone through the roof also.

 

[xpanda]

Floyd: I would argue in agreement with you on the ability to engage in bigamy or polygamy, especially where a religious belief is in practice. With regard to marrying siblings, pets, etc ... one could almost lift those bans and societal taboos would be enough to keep them at bay. History shows that only those societies where teh survival of their group is at stake do incestuous relationships occur. As for marrying a dog, our disdain of sexual relations with animals are designed to protect the animal, who cannot speak for itself. In gay marriage or polygamy, this protection need not apply.

Pat: thank you, I think. And, yes.

 

[xpanda]

Never forget your history:

"The state of Alabama continues to ban black-white marriages, although the issue comes up for vote in the year 2000. Legally, the Alabama law runs counter to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, so the state's ban is technically unconstitutional. State laws keeping interracial marriages illegal survived the changes of the Civil Rights Movement. They were finally overturned by the case of Loving v. Virginia, which was decided by the highest court in 1967 after nine years of trials and appeals. The case concerned an interracial couple who had been arrested in 1958 for being married. A Virginia judge ruled that "God did not intend for the races to mix."

At the time of the 1967 Loving decision, sixteen Southern states prohibited marriage across the color line. Surprisingly, other states had only recently removed the ban: South Dakota in 1957, Nevada in 1958, California in 1959, Arizona in 1960, Nebraska in 1963, Indiana in 1965, and Maryland in 1967. It seems clear that although white America, after enormous pressure, was willing to go along with the desegregation of public schools, transportation, and the voting booth, tolerance for racial integration did not extend to personal relationships."

link

Why is Bush so afraid to have this very similar case taken to the Supreme Court, as it was in the above-mentioned case? Methinks his 'will of the people' credo is crap.

 

[barman]

You notice that Bush does not call for Congress to pass a new law on this topic.

He instead calls for a Constitutional Amendment?


Think carefully. Perhaps, even slowly for a moment.

WHY would it be neccesary for us to amend the Consitution for any topic, much less gay marriage?

Answer: Because to make a law against it would VIOLATE THE CONSITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Bush knows that making gay marriage illegal is wholly unconstitutional. That's the same thing the MASC recognized and what the California Supreme Court will soon acknowledge as well.

Bush is quite simply receiving solid legal advice which tells him that the current Constitution of the U.S. will force courts in every state to knock down each and every law which currently bars gays from marrying.


Finally, consider that in calling for a C.A., Bush is saying, "We'll write up the new law and send it to the states so they can each ratify it."

What about those states which don't ratify? That's a clear indication that the populace of that state is not willing to tinker with the very fabric of our society simply to give relief to what is in the end, simply a virulent fear of people who love in a different way than they do.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

barman,

The Constitution can theoretically have anything in there as long as it has at least the minimum amount of support which would include banning gay marriage. I don't see it as a religious encroachment like most others but rather a common decency initiative. Two homosexuals that I know told me that they didn't want those so-called civil unions because they feel it degrades them. I wish that this entire issue would just die. I'm sick and tired of hearing the "What about separation of church and state?" rhetoric being tossed out. Yet two sentences later they're talking about the lingerie/sex toy parties that they attend. I was going to put in the vomiting avatar but I see that it's gone. Oh well.

 

[Oceans11]

He doesn't have a cat in hells chance.

But it makes for good publicity, drawing in the bigoted righteous righties section of the vote.

The God loves ya unless yer a gayboy or a communist brigade will like it.

 

[barman]

UNCLE M, you are correct about what can be contained in the Constitution.

What I'm stating is that the reason Bush proposes using a Constitutional change is that he fully realizes (via his competent legal counsel) that any attempt to ban marriages for gays via a simple law change from Congress, violates the Constitution as it is currently written.

In other words, it's not 'liberal, activist judges' who are forcing this issue out of the closet, but rather judges who accurately read the Constitution as it is currently written.

Thus, Bush, and anyone else who wants to create a binding ban against gay marriage have no other outlet than a Constitutional amendment.

 

[PatPatriot]

I doubt if this will be actually be pushed through...it will take a few years plus the real purpose of this is to force the 2 reamining dems to take a stand.(Kerry and Nader)Kerry almost has to agree with the Nader people and Nader will surley be for gay marriage.
Kerry can't be wishy washy because it will just add fuel to his already wishy washy voting record...If Kerry agrees with Nader than it will just add to his liberal label.If Kerry agrees with Bush than the he will lose votes to the Naders.

 

[xpanda]

Had CNN on in the background last night ... saw two separate Kerry interviews. In one, he says he would favour a CA if that's what it took, in another, he says he thinks the states should decide. The latter came after Edwards made that same pronouncement.

Question (because I don't understand your voting system) ... is the DNC bound to the winner of the primaries and caucuses? I don't mean what should they do, but what they must do.

 

[PatPatriot]

Yes and No, if it looks like a clear cut consensus,which it does right now the delegates will honor the votes of the people if it was really close than a lot of horse trading goes on...you can throw a blanket over edwards and Kerry on the issues (who knows what they believe in)....barring some sort of scandal on Kerrys part then look for Hillary to come in and steal about a years worth of campaigning from the two Johns.

 

[winkyduck]

so gay couples are "ruining" the institution of marriage, are they? hmm - would that be the same institution that has OVER a 50% divorce rate? if so - it seems to me "normal" couples are doing a damn fine job ruining this institution all by themselves.

life is short. if it makes someone happy to be with someone of their own sex - where's the harm in that?

i'm tired of these "holier than thou" people telling me why gay/lesbian couples getting married is so wrong. why?

look - i have ZERO desire to "marry" a man and the thought of 2 men being together repluses me. but ya know what - it is THEIR life - and if THEY are happy together - why should we stop them. i'm positive there are things we all do they find disgusting - but we do them anyway. so why not let these people have their enjoyment in life and live with whoever they want to live with - regardless of sex.

unless my teachers lied to me - and everyone else - the pilgrims left britain to escape all sorts of bullshit they had to put up with. yet here we are several hundred years later and the same bullshit the pilgrims tried to flee is now what we accept in our lives.

as i said before - living with a man repluses me to no end - but if it makes 2 men happy to be with each other - LET THEM DO IT! they aren't hurting or harming anyone and if it makes their life better - why should we care!

 

[UncleMoneybags]

Winkyduck,

The Puritans left England mainly because of religious persecution. I can assure you that they punished homosexuality, adultery, murder, etc. without compromise. Most people today wouldn't survive living with them because they would either be dead or a slave.

My biggest problem with gays is that they favor getting in my face and forcing issues. I have no problem with using violence to resolve my situations. Where I work is even worse because the employer is always worried about discrimination lawsuits that are threatened on a semi-regular basis. Someone once told me to work where I do you have to be a fruit. I didn't realize the sheer #'s of it until 2 years later: 28%

I think the national average is less than 10% of people are gay or say they're gay.

What I ultimately get from your post is that if they want to marry and live as a married couple, move to the Netherlands or Canada just like the Puritans moved.

 

[JudgeWapner]

I just don't see where this would warrent and amendment to the Constitution.

 

[barman]

Moneybags, you say that gays 'get in your face and force issues.' Please elaborate.

You further admit that when faced with someone 'in your face' that you resolve the incident by using violence.

After elaborating on the first comment, tell me again why I should be interested in following the lead of someone who elects to use violence to settle verbal or civil disputes?

 

[winkyduck]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Uncle Moneybags:

My biggest problem with gays is that they favor getting in my face and forcing issues. I have no problem with using violence to resolve my situations. Where I work is even worse because the employer is always worried about discrimination lawsuits that are threatened on a semi-regular basis. Someone once told me to work where I do you have to be a fruit.

What I ultimately get from your post is that if they want to marry and live as a married couple, move to the Netherlands or Canada just like the Puritans moved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

as for moving to some other country - NO! why can't they live here?

as for gays getting in your face - once again - how does that differ with the never ending bible belt thumpers we get who push religion. tell ya what - one of the biggest problems we have today is from all of these "jesus freaks" telling me i am going to hell if i don't and believe like them. THESE people are the ones we need to worry about! these people are the ones who go to their own extremes - usually worse than anything most of us ever dream of. when i get people like the latter day saints come to the door, i simply tell them i appreciate what they are doing - but i have zero interest in what they have to say and would appreciate it if they respected the same rights i give them to do their own thing and just go to someone else's house. i tell them it will save us both a lot of time. i do it in a nice manner and usually they are cool and respect these wishes - unlike most jesus freaks who are insistent on shoving their value and beliefs down my throat - but don't really care to hear my opposing side since it is not what these people were brainwashed into thinking.

 

[wilheim]

I posted this by itself in a separate thread, should have posted it here.

With his re-election campaign barely started and his conservative base already demanding tribute, President Bush proposes to radically rewrite the Constitution. The amendment he announced support for yesterday could not only keep gay couples from marrying, as he maintains, but could also threaten the basic legal protections gay Americans have won in recent years. It would inject meanspiritedness and exclusion into the document embodying our highest principles and aspirations.

If Mr. Bush had been acting as a president yesterday, rather than a presidential candidate, he would have tried to guide the nation on the divisive question of what rights gay Americans have. Across the nation, elected officials and others have been weighing in on whether they believe gays should be allowed to marry, have civil unions, adopt, visit their partners in hospitals and be free from employment discrimination. Except for a throwaway line about proceeding with "kindness and good will and decency," the president's speech was a call for taking rights away from gay Americans.

President Bush's studied unwillingness to talk about the rights gay people do have is particularly significant given the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment now pending in Congress. It calls for denying same-sex couples not only marriage, but also its "legal incidents." It could well be used to deny gay couples even economic benefits, which are now widely recognized by cities, states and corporations. Such an amendment could radically roll back the rights of millions of Americans.

In his remarks yesterday, President Bush tried to create a sense of crisis. He talked of the highest Massachusetts court's recognition of gay marriage, San Francisco officials' decision to grant marriage licenses to gay couples and a New Mexico county's doing the same thing. He did not say the New Mexico attorney general found that gay marriages violate state law, the California attorney general is asking the California Supreme Court to review San Francisco's actions, and Massachusetts is considering amending its State Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. The president, who believes so strongly in states' rights in other contexts, should let the states do their jobs and work out their marriage laws before resorting to a constitutional amendment.

The Constitution has been amended over the years to bring women, blacks and young people into fuller citizenship. President Bush's amendment would be the first adopted to stigmatize and exclude a group of Americans. Polls show that while a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, many would prefer to allow the states to resolve the issue rather than adopting a constitutional amendment. They understand what President Bush does not: the Constitution is too important to be folded, spindled or mutilated for political gain.


NY Times 25 Feb. 2004.