GAY MARRIAGE BAN

[delayjf]

I agree with Bush and Kerry on this issue. Like Kerry, I believe the states should decide this issue. BUT, the states are not being allowed to decide, it's being decided by Activist Judges. In that case, I agree with a Consitutional Admendment.

[andicap]

Wrong.

The states can override a judges decision. In Massachusetts case, the legislature declined to pass a new law banning gay marriages. (Very divided state: very liberal but also very Catholic. A compromise to ban marriages but give rights to gay unions fell short).

It is the judicial branch's job to interpret the laws. In 1954, when the Supreme Court ordered schools to be integrated in the landmark Brown v Topeka Board of Education, the court was criticized by racists as being too "activist" in overturning the 1896 "Seperate But Equal" ruling in Plessy v Ferguson -- Of course seperate was NEVER equal and the court recognized that.)

In short, the law has to keep up with the times. There were many things our Founding Fathers and the writers of state constitutions never envisioned when they wrote those documents. How do you deal with things like free speech and the Internet? Is e-mail spam free speech and thus protected? Certainly, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did not deal with that issue.
That's what courts do.
If you believe philosophically that the STATES not the FEDS should be in charge of social issues like these where local mores are different (New York and Utah for example), then a constitional amendement is the wrong way to go because you're using the Feds. In other words, you're abandoning your states rights, 10th Amendement principles simply because of your stance on this issue.


Constitutional amendments should only be used for extremely momentuous issues -- there have only been 27 or so in the past 225 years. The last time we tried to legislate social activity through an amendment -- Prohibition -- it was a disaster. As Jon Stewart said last night, it led to a decade known as the "Sober Twenties."

Not giving my opinion on gay marriages per se (that gets into religion and such and my mom advised me never to argue about religion), but on the role of the states, the judges, and what a constitutional amendment should be used for.

[Suff]

Originally posted by andicap
W

It is the judicial branch's job to interpret the laws. In 1954, when the Supreme Court ordered schools to be integrated in the landmark Brown v Topeka Board of Education, the court was criticized by racists as being too "activist" in overturning the 1896 "Seperate But Equal" ruling in Plessy v Ferguson -- Of course seperate was NEVER equal and the court recognized that.)

.

point of information only.

3 of the 4 judges that made the Massachusetts ruling are Republican appointments

[Amazin]

Delay

Bush is not in favor of Gay marriages period. He wants a constitutional amendment to ban them alltogether claiming it is of "national importance".

Kerry on the other hand wants it to be up to the individual states to ban or accept them.

Allthough,I am not gay,IMO it's nobody's business if 2 people love eachother and want to make it legal. What's happening is consevative ideology is being challenged of what's "right" and "wrong". People also thought the world was flat. Obviously people like Bush are on the primitive side on many issues.

[ljb]

Delayjf,
Right on! and while we're doing it lets ban them damn interacial marriages. And we all know a women's place is in the home lets put that in there too. Oh and why the hell did we ever let them vote? "Backword means progress." A new phrase for the christian right don't you think?
States rights only go so far as to when they disagree with christian rights. Pun intended.

[delayjf]

Andicap,
the people of the state of California have voted against Gay Marrage. In all probablitly that will be over turned in the courts. Who is making the rules now. This is the only way liberals can push through their agenda, through the courts not the ballot box


ljb,
Thank you for showing me the light. But why stop there, what If I want to marry the Mcquire twins, or what if I want to marry your's or anybodies 13 year old daughter. How about my sister. What if I'm gay and I want to marry your 10 year old son, after all, who is anybody to judge, right? Certainly not anybody from the amoral left. Have I gotten sick enough for you yet??? Have I crossed your moral boundary??? If you've got a problem with God, I suggest you move to Europe.

[Amazin]

Delay quote:"what if I want to marry your's or anybodies 13 year old"

That is not the issue here.It is Gay Marriages. If you want to discuss "other" issues such as those,start a thread and people like LJB and myself will give you an answer.

[cj]

Here is the problem with the "Let the states decide." A "couple" gets married in California (of course, because a bankrupt state should have this at the top of their priority list!) Than, the "couple" moves to Texas and wants the same rights the traditional married couple gets. Texas says they can go get bent. Now what? It is a national issue. It will cause chaos. I don't want to pay for this, which is what always happens in the end. Further, this country was founded on Christian values. What has happened to those in this country?

[Suff]

I'm for abolishing Marriage completely. The ole "back at yea" is at work here.

We as a country intertwined marriage into our Legal system, Tax system, Medical system, Insurance system, foster system, adoption system and on and on. People that are married receive many benefits others do not. Gay or Straight.

I always wondered why I pay more income tax than a Family when they use the schools, hospitals, and public resources much more than I do as a single man. Why am I paying the bills for these people.

I say strip it all out... even the field.

If you want to get married to a woman... go to your church. They'll marry you... but not a gay couple. I'm ok with that. Do whatever you please. When it comes to my Govt passing out rewards for living a certain way... I'm against that.

Why should two gay guys get married and suddenly pay less tax than me? That aint right in my mind.

2 thoughts.

I wonder how Dick Cheney feels when he hears the Pundits calling Homo's sick and perverted? His Daughter is gay. That has to hurt.


Marriage between a Man and a woman is a complete failure in America. I laugh when I see people defending opposite sex marriage in the USA. Most people I know are divorced or on thier 2nd , 3rd or even 4th Marriage. Divorce rate is over 50%...and of the 48% that remain married... half describe themselves as unhappy. So that leaves 25% of marriages that actually work...and of those.. I suspect 1/2 are dissatisfied if not unhappy and living with it....

con on...america.

[Derek2U]

i dont see how it hurts anything. marriage must ALWAYS be
okayed by a State, but there are lots of marriages WITHOUT any
church or religion. Therefore, screw the various religious stuff.
I not talking kids at all --- since thats a whole diff issue. I say
make it all the same --- and while I'm at it, How come religious
property is Tax Exempt? How did that bonanza start?

[ljb]

cj said this country was founded on christian values. I might add one of the key foundations was seperation of church and state. Appears the church is trying to implement state/national laws reflecting their values. Next thing you know they will be condemming those of Jewish faith.
Oh and by the way I think this whole topic is a non-issue. It is being made an issue by the Bush gang in an attempt to get the public's mind off all the other areas he has screwed up. And to muster christian coalition support of course.

[ljb]

Delayjf said:
"If you've got a problem with God, I suggest you move to Europe."
Which God are you reffering to here?
The God of forgiveness and acceptance, or the God of hell fire and damnation. Or perhaps the Muslim God Allah.
Please clarify.

[Suff]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
. It will cause chaos. I don't want to pay for this, which is what always happens in the end. Further, this country was founded on Christian values. What has happened to those in this country?

not you specifically Craig... but just commenting on this common idea you posted.

I find it baffling that people are so prepared to pay with Blood and Bodies to further freedom... but an issue like this that has a cost of understanding, tolerance, patience, and money , people REFUSE to sacrifice.

Trust me.. the 100 Billion in Iraq could easily cover the costs of insuring ALL PEOPLE have equal opportunity and the right to pursue liberty and Happiness as promised.

There is absolulety no DIRECT or Immediatte benefit for 80% of American Citizens to legalize civil unions and give rights to Gay Couples.
But Long Term I think it is what our country is about. Hitler Burned them.. Stalin executed them... I think America should further the cause's of minorities. Thats what I think. And I know that piss's people off .. but wtf .. I'm leaving in a week so I can open up a bit...

I really believe to judge america and its principles... you need to go into our prisons and mental Hospitals.. go to our ghetto's and Poverty stricken areas.. Go to the Gays and Blacks and Immigrants... go to these places... and if you can say that THESE GROUPS have equality and THESE Groups have access to Liberty and Justice and Freedom ....then America is Furthering Humanity.

When Martha Stewart and Rush Limbaugh beat thier case's... to me that is not an EXAMPLE of a FAIR Judical system. But when some poor ghetto kids gets his rights trampled on,,,and the system protects him from over zealous prosecuters... Thats Liberty and Justice for all.

[delayjf]

That is not the issue here.It is Gay Marriages. If you want to discuss "other" issues such as those,start a thread and people like LJB and myself will give you an answer.

I'd say they are all connected. If a society cannot define what is or what is not moral/legal, than nobody can. Like it or not, Morality and our laws are based on judao christian ethics. If the majority of the people are of a certain opinion, courts have an obligation to listen. As much as Secularist may hate the idea that Christian ethics make their way into law, how could one avoid it.
If this is the amoral left's idea of "progress", God help us.

Suff,
I agree with you, but I believe what you decribed is not an indictment on the institution of marrage, but rather on the secular influence or that "Progress mindset" the left embraces. I might be infavor of the Gov getting out of the Marrage Business altogether as well.

[Suff]

Originally posted by delayjf
If a society cannot define what is or what is not moral/legal, .

Like when society beheaded you if a Catholic Married a Protestant? Or like when society labeled you morally corrupt for marrying another race?

Remember those definitions of what was "Moral"... ?

They sure look silly today... But they were LONG HELD TRADITIONAL beliefs.

[Suff]

I'm really bothered by the "WAR" word being tossed around..

If I hear Bill Orielly or Sean Haniity say "Culture war" one more time I'm going to be sick..

Hey we are all average americans here right? I mean socially anyway... most of us work and own homes and have kids and so forth?

Well I know for a fact that 100% of working class people are concerned with ONE big thing. It consumes about 75% of thier waking hours.

PAYING THE BILLS!

Who exactly is fighting this war. Who or how many people wake up everyday and say...

I think I'll start a Culture War?

Orielly sounds like General Patton getting ready to storm Normandy.... That F'ing guy is mad and a tad paranoid....and Hannity is almost as bad,,, these guys are very very mad.

Freaks me out.

I'm trying to figure out how I can pay N-Star and Boston Gas the Money I owe them before I leave.. I have no time for war. And when I do.. I'm to tired. I surrender.

[Secretariat]

Suff,

I was on the fence on this one, but I think you make a good point.
The federal government interfereing with a religious sacrament seems like government interference between church and state.

Let each church decide what they want to do, and let the feds and state stay out of it. Eliminate marriage deductions, etc. in terms of taxes (which really is what many of these gays are asking for in terms of equal protection as many have already married in various churches). Calling it civil unionsseems to me to be like Clinton's ridiculous Don't Ask, Don't Tell baloney.

Marriage is a sacrament. Each religion has different customs, etc. and we are founded on Freedom of Religion. If the Methodists don't want to permit gay marriage, it is a congregational and local issue, and personal issue. Why the heck should the government get involved in that? Gays can form their own church or affect change in their church.

The government and states should be working to reduce their deficits. This is a non-issue in my opinion which the news people seem to be going nuts over like Janet Jackson. Why is Bush even getting involved in this. He has no vote, no veto power on a constitutional amendment, or the ability to introduce such a bill. His name would be nowhere on a constitutional amendment.

I'm not keen on adding discrimination or bias centering around religious sacraments into the constitution.

Just my opinion, and its not one of the hot issues for me. Personally, I think its an act of civil disobedience which will play itself out in CA. It's already fading from the Massachsetts scene.

It seems another one of those no cost political maneuvering tactics. Just wish the media would deal with signifcant issues.

[Secretariat]

Suff,

You're right on. Just read this on BusinessWeekOnline.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/040225/nf200402256278_db035_1.html

[Suff]

The Unitarion Church.

Founded in 1825... only 50 years into our Judea Christian "ROOTS".

The unitarian Church has been marrying gays for years.

http://www.uua.org/

Over 1000 churchs in the USA and a LONG christian Tradition.

My Sister is an Active member... Her children go to spiritiual education here every sunday. My nephew takes music lessons here. My Sister Mary was Married in this church (straight) and my father was memorialized here...

Now here this. I am Irish Catholic. My Dad was a Non-practicing Catholic....irish of course..

do you know that MANY! More than 10 less than 20... of his long time friends refused to attend because the church was born in a Protestant faith? I shit you not. This was only 4 years ago..

and further.. I had one friend of my dad's reprint his obituary in the Boston Globe one week after I put my dad in the ground and try and hold a Catholic service for him at St Johns on Mass Ave in cambridge just TWO weeks after I buried him..? True.

You want to know what else is true? the service was held at St Johns... 3 days after the the Obituary reprint. But the ass never made it.. because he was not alive when the service was held.

You want to know whats harder than seeing your fathers Obituary in a NewsPaper? Seeing it twice in two weeks..

This is why I don't go to these spots on this board.

[JustRalph]

I am with CJ on this one.........

I think it is more about money than anything else. It is about forcing the majority to tolerate their minority beliefs, so that they can obtain health and other benefits.

Bush was forced to take a stand by San Francisco and Mass.

If you look into the facts of the different cases it seems that monetary issues are underlying motivations by some.

I think this is a cultural disagreement. I don't think it is a war....but it may be elevated to a war very soon. They are going to recall the California Attorney General next...... it is getting ramped up.

I also think this issue is drawn between the heartland and the "progressive cities" Blue versus Red? once again?

The hole in Andi's response in this thread is that the people of the states cannot trust their own courts to enforce laws. You may not have been able to say that a few months back. But you can now.....this forces Bush to ask for the Amendment.

[Suff]

Originally posted by JustRalph
I am with CJ on this one.........

It is about forcing the majority to tolerate their minority beliefs,



force? force what? think what you want. Andf FYI. I'm straight and that places me in the Majority... so I'm doubly confused why you would even care if a Gay Couple gets the same benefits you and your wife do.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Suff
force? force what? think what you want. Andf FYI. I'm straight and that places me in the Majority... so I'm doubly confused why you would even care if a Gay Couple gets the same benefits you and your wife do.

Because it will cost me more for my benefits.....plain and simple.

This is an end run around the rules........we had this problem in Columbus Ohio. The City wrote a law requiring benefits to
" domestic partners" There were several businesses that threatened to leave the city because there was no definition legally speaking for "domestic partners" The law was killed. The businesses were afraid the courts could interpret the phrase "Domestic Partner" to include anyone in the domicile. Opening up coverage to anyone the employee wants to move into their home. The possible interpretations are what is feared. Lawyers and Courts dictating thru passive gotcha's, once again. It is what they might do, that has more influence sometimes.

There are other studies that show the costs were not that much different than for heterosexual couples. But those studies differ based on the location where the study is conducted. The other side of the coin is; some studies found that Homosexual couples engaged in more high risk behavior and their relationships did not last as long as "traditional" marriages or couples. This was also based on Locale. The insurance companies that were consulted in this area said that they didn't care about couples changing partners, per se, but it added to the administrative costs. Throw the AIDS issue into the mix, and you might be onto the real reason some Insurance companies are against it. You may be onto the reason the other side is forcing the issue also. I doubt that though........I believe it is much more encompassing.

I think that the true Religious followers find the AIDS issue as a reason to balk. They think that contracting AIDS is the result of high risk behavior. Covering AIDS patients will obviously force insurance companies to raise rates, for everyone. Therefore forcing one group to pay for the high risk behavior of another. I think the jury is still out on that, and I don't know enough about that issue to comment. But I have seen it cited as a reason to be against the monetary issues that surround this debate. Prove to me that it won't cost me more, that it isn't an end run for monetary issues, and I will re-examine the issue.

[JustRalph]

I got cut off in editing...........


continued.........

The U.S. Supreme Court will probably rule with the Mass Supreme Court on strict constitutional grounds. They have already ruled that sodomy is a protected act. And I agree with that. It falls under not caring about what goes on in your own home etc. I agree if the court makes a ruling on homosexual marriage......it is the law of the land and so be it. But I think at that point the Homosexual community loses big time. The backlash will be huge. It won't hurt Homosexuals so much in New York and San Francisco........but in the heartland........the backlash will be huge. Most people don't care at all what happens in the privacy of ones home, but if it starts costing me money or effects the benefits my family receives (not me personally, no kids here) you can bet the feelings towards the Homosexual community will take a giant leap back to the bad old days.

[cj]

First, I will say this...of all the problems this great country has, gay marriage should be about 9 millionth on our priority list. If politicians want to make a difference, get people jobs who want them, get homeless, hungry people off the street, fix the ridiculous cost of health care, get me gas that doesn't cost $2.00 for a gallon, address the 10% or more of the people in our country who are drug users, find out why most never finish college, etc, etc, etc. I think that is my biggest problem with this whole thing. In the end, however this plays out, it won't mean much. Its always about the money. Many lawyers and lobbyists will get rich fighting this. Many politicians will make a career from this. Most of them couldn't care less what happens. Its a battle that stirs peoples emotions, but in the long run, it doesn't affect most people's day to day lives one way or the other.

What gay marriage does do, however, is say that homosexuality is acceptable. My kids are old enough to know what being gay means. They know my wife and I think it is wrong. Now, our society might tell my children it is OK for John Doe to marry Bill Jones, and the acts that go along with it. I think that is wrong.

[Tom]

Regarding andi's comments on the jusdical branch having to deal with issues that our founding father's could not envision-I don't wnat a bunh of political appoinments that do not answer to the voters being the ones to intiaite the changes THEY perceive. If our founding fathers could not envisions theses situation,s then they are important enough to take out of the hands of judges.

As far as gay marriages and a constitutional ammendment, don't we have bigger fish to fry?
Come on George, focus.
It's not about gay marriages.
It's not about drugs in sports.
It;s about safety.
It's about the economy.
It's about health care.
Focus.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
What gay marriage does do, however, is say that homosexuality is acceptable. My kids are old enough to know what being gay means. They know my wife and I think it is wrong. Now, our society might tell my children it is OK for John Doe to marry Bill Jones, and the acts that go along with it. I think that is wrong.

Heartland issues. CJ..... I guess your kids don't watch queer eye for the straight guy? How about Will and Grace? I think that falls under the same category as your post. I am not a religious person at all. In fact I would describe myself as anti-religion in some situations. But I don't care what goes on in your house or any house for that matter. But when you start trying to advance an agenda via the public air ways.....you are developing a platform for advancement. Example: Will and Grace........
every Gay person is like Jack or Will and People like CJ are just intolerate. That is their message. And they are selling it every thursday night to millions of young people.

[Tom]

Before ammend the constituion to reduce rights of citizens, why not work an amendment to ensure that all citizens get the same
helath care package that congress gets?
How can a nation call itself great when its senior citizens have to supplement their diet with cat food?
When we have the world's best medical science available to use and yet people have to drive to Canada to buy medicine?
When we let people die because they don't have enough money to pay for life-saving operations?
When we break our promises to our verterens and leave them out in the cold?
When we have people on death row that might be innocent, and now we have DNA technology available to prove it, yet we don't automatically do it for everyone to be sure?
That Bush and Kerry are the best we can come up with?
I don't have my dictionary handy, but these don't sound like the traits of greatness.

Gay marriages pose a greater threat than the above?
Focus, W, focus.
P-R-I-O-R-I-T-I-E-S.

[Suff]

Gay Shadows.



If we shadows have offended,
Think but this (and all is mended),
That you have but slumber'd here,
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend.

William Shakesphere
A Midsummers Night Dream.
Performed in Full Nudity, 17th Century.

[Secretariat]

My God. Tom and I agree. There is some common ground. Let's get to the real issues.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
My God. Tom and I agree. There is some common ground. Let's get to the real issues.

Sometimes issues that are important are not urgent. For a long time, the war on terror was urgent. SS was not. the economy was not.

They are heating up and after that huge blunder by Greenspan today, they are back on the front burner. This country was founded from a tax rebellion. It would well end from one.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Amazin
That is not the issue here.It is Gay Marriages. If you want to discuss "other" issues such as those,start a thread and people like LJB and myself will give you an answer.

I almost spit out the soda I was drinking I laughed so hard at that one Amazin!! Look at the various threads in off topic that you and LJB have participated in, and lets see which threads you made sure STAYED ON TOPIC.....LOL


Very, very funny!

[kenwoodallpromos]

Marriage used to for legal lineage for property and land tax. And for preventing disease and health problems (small birth canal-age; mental-close relatives; VD- gays). / Aids and VD are still problems for gays until they prove it under control. / Taxes and financial considerations now go far beyond just land tax, so we have to have a specific contract for Any adults living in 1 household long term for certain privileges, but including not only those unrelated in romantic relationships but also blood relatives making a house for mutual benefit. We should keep marriage for het cpls; but why should same sex lovers get more rights than a grown mother and son or 2 sisters living in the same house for mutual benefit? These legal questions should be based on positive reasoning, not romance and emotionalism. / That way we can insure some group are not just trying destroy our society!

[trying2win]

I don't usually like to discuss politics too much in this section, because a lot us of go from being a Dr. Jekyll to a Mr. Hyde type in a short time on some topics. However, some things I just feel compelled to take a stand on.

Good for President Bush for taking a stand against the gay and lesbian marriage issue. I commend him for that.

Awhile ago, gays and lesbians were able to get married in Ontario and one other province ( I don't know which one the other one was) here in Canada. At that time, Canada must have become the laughing stock of the world. Now I see the same thing is happening in some U.S. States.

Some court here in Canada ruled in favor of gay and lesbian marriages. If I recall correctly, our Federal Government
wimped out on this issue and caved in to the courts. I thought our Federal Government was supposed to listen to what the majority of our Canadian citizens want, when making the laws in areas like this. Fortunately, our own Premier of Alberta refuses to give in to these court decisions, and I commend him as well for taking a stand.

--I've spoken about this issue in newspaper editorials before, and got branded as being a redneck and intolerant. I don't care, I just find all this gay and lesbian stuff disgusting, when I see it glorified on TV and in the newspapers etc.

--At one time we had a lot of good family shows on TV. Now it's been infiltrated by shows like Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Rosie O'Donnell Show, Ellen Degeneres Show, celebrities "coming out of the closet" on talk shows, gay contestants on the "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" introducing their "partners'' in the audience.

--Then there was the case awhile ago about some gay high school student, who took his case to court because his school didn't approve of him wanting to bring his "boyfriend" to the school prom as his "date".

--Even in our own city of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, our mayor for many years refused to declare a "gay pride day" in our city. That is until some gays or their lawyers, threatened a lawsuit last year. So he caved in. Pretty sad! As one prominent psychologist said awhile ago about these so-called "gay pride days"... "What's there to be proud of?"

--What's happening to Canada and the United States, when courts are deciding against some of our traditional Christian values, such as marriage is a union between a man and woman?
What's next? Is some gay and lesbian going to hire a lawyer, to
force dictionary companies in some provinces and states to change their definition of marriage in their books?

--I thought marriage was supposed to be for people with names like Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, or Madam and Eve.

--I wonder what special interest group is going to try and force their agenda on our Federal Government next?

T2W

[doophus]

Originally posted by trying2win
..............

--I've spoken about this issue in newspaper editorials before, and got branded as being a redneck and intolerant. I don't care, I just find all this gay and lesbian stuff disgusting, when I see it glorified on TV and in the newspapers etc.................................T2W

It's an honor to be recognized as a redneck. Welcome to the club.

Seriously, at some point(s) during life we MUST "take a stand." The fact that others may disagree isn't germaine at all, i.e., the "progressive" interpretation that US Courts have applied to the US Constitution among others.

Concerning the gay marriage thingee, were the Egyptian eunuchs really gays who were punished?

Could the ones who neutered Egyptian men during the Pharoah days be classified as manufacturers? lol


George, The Proud Redneck

[Amazin]

It wasn't until 1970 that the first film to focus on gay men and their issues came out with "Boys in the Band".It was groundbreaking at that time.The Gay Marriage issue is just a natural evolution from that time of Gay's starting to come into their own. Women only got the right to vote in 1920. In 1865 slavery was abolished,but even today,blacks and women are not treated equally in society.

The arguments against granting the oppressed group their equal rights in various issue's are allways false and found to be ludricous in History.There is a long way to go before homosexuals unions are treated with the same dignity and respect as heterosexual unions, both in the law and society in general.

[JustRalph]

I just read that Rosie O'Donnell is getting married in San Fran either today or tomorrow. She referred to her partner as "my wife" during her trial. I say charge her with Perjury LOL :D

[Speed Figure]

Originally posted by JustRalph
I just read that Rosie O'Donnell is getting married in San Fran either today or tomorrow. She referred to her partner as "my wife"
The does look like the man!:eek:

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
The arguments against granting the oppressed group their equal rights in various issue's...

You are of course assuming that they have that right to begin with. I question that assumption.
Let's assume you are correct.
Next step is why can't I find a partner soley for economic reasons and for a "partnership?"
And the talk about other form of marriage you object to are preciesly on topic. What if a brother and sister wnat to get married? How can you say that a gay couple has that right while the sibling do not? You cannot use any religious basis to argue this. What basis can you use?
What if a mother/daughter wanted to marry? What objective basis do you have for denying them?

[Speed Figure]

Originally posted by Speed Figure
The does look like the man!:eek:
What in the hell did I write? It should say, She does look like the oh! forget it. :o

[Suff]

Upstate NY County just announced they will begin marrying gays in defiance of the current law. Thats 3 States. NY, Cal and Ma.

3 big ones.

[Tom]

This goes wtih what you posted about that handgun felon.
If you aor I decided to violate a law we didn't agree with, we'd be having dinner with Bubba. But these three sates blatantly deft the law theyare supposed to uphold.
I say the lid id off. All laws in NY,CA, and MA are now null and void.
Why should we obey lawbreakers?
Fellow posters in those states, this weekend.....
RUN AMOUCK!

[Derek2U]

calif ... ma ... ny .... a lot of electoral votes .... its good to see some
display of BallS by anyone. most peeps are brownosers in one
way or another .... and I hate Brownies. well off to Wall St where
the truely righteous god-fearing law-abidinG folks gather. O give
me another REIT dear Lord just 1 more good one. And Suff ...
take time out from ur gay crusade & correct my score making me
15th or so ....

[Suff]

Originally posted by Tom
This
RUN AMOUCK!

I just want to enforce the law that says if you rob banks and go to prison you can't manufacture and sell guns. Thats a Good law to start with. When that one gets enforced I'll buy the nation of laws idea a little easier.

[ranchwest]

I don't really want to spend time arguing this issue at this time, but I do want to point out something important.

Most (all?) states have laws stating that marriages in other states will be recognized. Years ago, I recall a lot of young people crossed state lines to get a legal marriage and then return to their home state to live. The same can now be down with gays being married.

My point here is that this cannot actually be a states' rights issue. The states already have laws that circumvent their rights in this matter.

[doophus]

Originally posted by ranchwest
I don't really want to spend time arguing this issue at this time, but I do want to point out something important.

Most (all?) states have laws stating that marriages in other states will be recognized. Years ago, I recall a lot of young people crossed state lines to get a legal marriage and then return to their home state to live. The same can now be down with gays being married.

My point here is that this cannot actually be a states' rights issue. The states already have laws that circumvent their rights in this matter.
Article IV, Section 1, the "Full Faith and Credit" clause reads:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

The above is the reason those marriages were honored when the kids returned home. Once a single state legalizes homo-marriages, the same will be honored by the other (49) states.

[delayjf]

AMAZIN
The arguments against granting the oppressed group their equal rights
I love this, all these so called "Rights" liberals think they have. Show me in the Constitution where you have the "RIGHT" to get married. You have the "RIGHT" to pursue happiness, but it is certainly not absolute. You may love sex and want to make a living doing it, but you have no "RIGHT" to be a prostitute. You may love smoking pot, but you don't have the "RIGHT" to grow or import pot. I may love playing football, but I don't have the "RIGHT" to play for the Dallas Cowboys. I don't have a"RIGHT" to a level of wealth or lifestyle.

Here's the difference between Civil Rights and Gay rights. In the case of Blacks and women, rights emplictly mentioned in the Constitution were being denied based solely on race. Gay rights are based soley on behavior.

It is not unconstitutional to discriminate based on behavior, hense our Prison population. Being of one sex or race is not immoral, homosexuality as viewed by the majority of this country is immoral.

SEC
Let each church decide what they want to do, and let the feds and state stay out of it. Eliminate marriage deductions, etc. in terms of taxes (which really is what many of these gays are asking for in terms of equal protection as many have already married in various churches).

I agree with you, but the Gay movement is not happy with Civil unions


ljb
".I might add one of the key foundations was seperation of church and state. Appears the church is trying to implement state/national laws reflecting their values. Next thing you know they will be condemming those of Jewish faith.

The term, "Seperation of church and state is never mentioned in the Constitution" What is said is that "Congress shall make no law". The idea was to keep Gov out of religion, not the other way around.


ljb
Which God are you reffering to here?
take your pick, perhaps a trifecta box would be in order.



Heartland issues. CJ..... I guess your kids don't watch queer eye for the straight guy? How about Will and Grace? I think that falls under the same category as your post. I am not a religious person at all. In fact I would describe myself as anti-religion in some situations. But I don't care what goes on in your house or any house for that matter. But when you start trying to advance an agenda via the public air ways.....you are developing a platform for advancement. Example: Will and Grace........

I agree, Gays may be tired of the "hate", straights are sick of the perversion. This is not about doing what one wants in your bed room. This is about social acceptance. Gays rue the day when our society "progresses" to the point that two mother watching their infant sons playing in the playground can blissfully wonder as to the chances of their sons "getting together

[Suff]

Originally posted by delayjf
AMAZIN

I love this, all these so called "Rights" liberals think they have. Show me in the Constitution where you have the "

repeating what was posted earlier. 3 of the 4 Judges who made the Massachusetts ruling were Republican Appointments.

Ree-Pub-LA- CAN! Stop with liberal.

[bettheoverlay]

I would suspect that 50 years or so from now all this uproar will be forgotten, gays being about 10% of the population and a significant voting bloc, wooed by conservative politicians, thinking that they were the ones that granted them expanded rights.

Maybe not, as homophobia among males (including myself) runs deep. But the younger generations seem much less threatened by alternative lifestyles, and like it or not, the world is constantly changing.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by bettheoverlay
I would suspect that 50 years or so from now all this uproar will be forgotten, gays being about 10% of the population and a significant voting bloc, wooed by conservative politicians, thinking that they were the ones that granted them expanded rights.
The gay population is no where near 10%. That's a number the gay activists came up with -- it's really around 2-3%...

[bettheoverlay]

Actually it is the Kinsey Report from the late 40s that popularized the 10% statistic. I realize some conservative publications dispute it.

[Suff]

Originally posted by GameTheory
The gay population is no where near 10%. That's a number the gay activists came up with -- it's really around 2-3%...

source?

[Larry Hamilton]

why does it not surprise me that this group would quote the Kinsey Report.

GOP lawmaker balks at Kinsey sex study funding


By Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

much deleted

The Kinsey Reports have been criticized for methodological flaws, including an unrepresentative sample that included hundreds of prison inmates. Those criticisms intensified after the admission by Kinsey Institute officials that the reports' information about children's sexual behavior was based on "research" by sex offenders.
Judith Reisman, author of two books on Kinsey, said the Kinsey Institute was continuing "its 55-year history of child exploitation by filching" NICHD money intended for children's health research. Mrs. Reisman said Congress should "investigate Dr. Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute for crimes against children and conspiracy to defraud the state."

[Suff]

gay conduct is somewhat revolting... no doubt..
The whole thing gives me the creeps...

and people that live in Major cities see the real whackos that the Gay community produces..

Believe me... I have to really work hard to stick to my guns..

It isn't hard to say..

Its sick, its wierd, its edge, its behavior, and so on...

I reach for my higher self to decide where I stand on issues of the day.

By most people accounts , the way I conduct myself day to day I am a

1. Racist
2. A bigot
3. Anti-semitic
4. Chauvanist.

I'm constantly blasting the Blacks, the Gays, The jews and The women in my day to day debates with friends and co-workers.

[GameTheory]

There are dozens, but I don't have any at my fingertips. I'll try to find some. If the activists are holding on to a 60 year old study and ignoring the hundreds of more recent ones, though, that should tell you something. I'm not taking a side here, just pointing out a fact. Everyone's own experience should tell them that 10% is way too high.

I think the 10% might come from asking questions like, "Have you EVER done ANYTHING homosexual in nature?" So if a couple of curious boys groped each other when they were 8 years old, which is pretty common, they would be in the 10%. So maybe 10% engaged in what might be called homosexual activity at one time or another, but that is much different from 10% of the population being gay.

[GameTheory]

Ah... prisoners -- didn't think of that one...

[kenwoodallpromos]

Suff- no wonder you like Iraq!lol! / States- Not true about states reconizing non-traditional marriages! No other state recognized polygamy in Utah; Jerry Lee Lewis' legal marriage to his young cousin got him jailed when he crossed the state line; the Ca. Health Dept refuses to recognize gay marriages. / This is all people playing house in hopes that if enough same sex marriages happen straights will think it is no big deal and it can be legalized. / The news media here in the SF area have been showing close-ups of gays and lesbians kissing every night as "news" and it is getting very disgusting because of the in-your-face manner it is done, but liberal radicals and their media supporters like the in-your-face stuff. / Meanwhile, the same SF area TV news stations have and still send black reporters to do stories about black subjects, hispanics for hispanic subjects, etc...

[delayjf]

Maybe not, as homophobia among males (including myself) runs deep.

Here's another one I really love, homophobia. Some Gay wacked out Harvard Professor comes up with this term and wala, a new mental disorder. So let me get this straight, Homosexuals can run amuck in the bath houses of SF, and they think I'M THE SICK ONE. What a joke. So, if I go postal at the NAMLBA hq I can get off on an insanity defense, because, after all I'm sick.

If the Gays win, 10 years from now these same "progressives" will be labeling me a pediophobe, or a beastelphobe or a incestualphobe or a paligmialphobe. You gotta love those "forward thinkers".

I wish the Mayor of SF would start marrying groups or relatives or Minors, lets get this thing out in the open and show Americans where this is going.

[sq764]

What's funny is reading these posts (all of them in the thread), my mind has changed 5-6 times as to which way I feel about gay marriages

[ljb]

Previous posts
ljb

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which God are you reffering to here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delayjf
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
take your pick, perhaps a trifecta box would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methinks thou doest fool thyself.

[trotter]

Gentlemen:
According to the US census bureau, homosexuals comprise about 2% of the population and they get more press than the other 98%. This is just one more attempt by the radical left to change our language and our culture. Don't say Merry Christmas because you might offend someone but it's ok for that vulgar Rosie O'Donnell to tell me how i should think.
Gay means happy and marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Two men or two woman can live together, love each other, care for each other and do whatever they want with each other but by definition they can never marry.
Marriage is not a civil RIGHT but the union of one man and one woman...end of discussion.
The special interest groups in this country don't want equal rights...they want SPECIAL rights. We are a nation of laws and since 1964, every citizen has equal rights and if those rights are being violated, contact local and/or federal law enforcement.+
I'm a gay (happy) guy but I'm no homosexual and I'm not homophobic either.

[doophus]

Trotter.....

Here! Here!

Only (7) posts from you in the last (16) months? We need more posting from you.

George

[delayjf]

ljb
Which God are you reffering to here?

delayjf
take your pick, perhaps a trifecta box would be in order.

ljb
Methinks thou doest fool thyself.

I can't believe it, I give you the most sure fire, iron clad, mortage your house and bet it all on- trifecta box and your mock me. Or did you want to turn this into a discussion on religion.
:D

[ljb]

Delayjf,
You are the one that brought God into the topic.