Aqua> whew! I was afraid I was pissin you off hun.

>>>>>If we decide that marraige between same sex couples is ok, how about brother and sister, father and daughter, etc? Are we discriminating if we don't allow those either? And as far as I know they are NOT allowed in Canada. <

There is a genetic basis that shows that heavy line breeding can and does lead to mental and physical infirmities. Any mental or physical flaw that is there will be heavilly multiplied. so in the case of genetics I support the no happy birfday uncle dad rulesdoesn't mean I don't like reading about it......

Commenting on the topic of this post ... A Constitutional Amendment.

The proposed amendment is one of only two amendments ever to restrict rather than broaden individual rights (the other was Prohibition and that was repealed). And thankfully, our forefathers had the insight to anticipate politically motivated people like Mr. George Dubya who consistently elevates personal agendas above the people he's been elected (?) to serve.

Amending the Constitution is a very, very difficult process. First, it puts aside any simple majority that might exist in the House and Senate and instead, requires that a full 2/3 of each of these bodies separately vote to amend. In the politically divisive atmosphere that exists, that won't happen 'til pigs fly.

It doesn't stop there ... if the House and the Senate approve the amendment, two-thirds of the states have to ratify it by popular vote.

Personal opinion: This is a mean-spirited, heavy-handed and vile attempt by Mr. No Child Left Behind to force-feed his personal beliefs on a nation. And if his history of administration vendettas against those who disagree with his or his lackey administration opinions is indicative, any or all of you who disagree with his position will quickly be branded as non-patriotic, traitors, and possibly, terrorists.

He may, through administrative and executive order, choose to rape and pillage our wildlands and wetlands, pollute our air, clear-cut our forests, side-step the senatorial process and appoint seedy judges, gut our environmental safeguards, attempt to erode our constitutional rights to freedom and privacy, deplete our national goodwill, personally brand someone a bandit and hold them without access to counsel, lie and deceive the people he's been entrusted to govern, and bankrupt our economy (how long would you like this list to be?) ...

But Mr. Dubya has met his match in the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and others ... the drafters of the Constitution. Thankfully, they foresaw the possibility of some buffoon such as Mr. Compassionate Conservative himself attempting to bend the will of the land to satisfy his personal ego and made it extremely difficult to do so.

Good luck, Dubya - you'll need it.

>>>>Weapons are there too just the liberal media wont report it. Now I do hope your kidding when you said "you know the kind that go out and find people like me and either burn them at the stake for being witches or torture and sometimes kill us for being homosexuals and loving those closer to us." Ain't that pretty much accusing people like myself of doing something immoral and being cold killers? Now I'm sorry to you homosexuals but its been said since the time of Adam and Eve that marraige should only be between a man and a woman.<<<<<



No it's accusing people like you of being guilty of an illegal thing Discrimination. Morals don't have a damn to do with it.Remember, burning at the stake I don't question peoples morals, I can't make you up hold your morals.Hitlers' morals were that anyone not blonde, tall and fair complected was inferior...... well hey I'm a master race then :P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


as for the creation of a child..... the catholics preach that EVERY sexual encounter shoulf have at least a large marginal chance of producing a child, otherwise you have sinned in the eyes of god. but you know I've seen some people who don't need to breed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Always
Kyttn



LILITH wheres that damn mute button I asked for?

Another big reason to not go to the polls...they no longer matter, Bush hasnt a chance in hell and is a moot point. No constitutional amendment will ever pass again in this country, a judge will figure out a way to block it. Congress no longer has any power but to spend money on their pet causes, end of story.

The only problem I have with what is going on in San Fran is that it is against CA law. I do not care what the law is, if you have sworn to uphold it (like the mayor of San Fran did) you in no way break it. Fight it in court, do whatever, but do not blatantly break it. But then again that is where we are in the country.

Judges now rule this country, which means lawyers rule this country which means you can basically do what you want, as long as you have the money or brains to fight it in court....

Let the Anarchist states of America arise.

who want's to pay more taxes? but i still am from the old school that marrage is for procreation only, but times have changed and with the divorce rate lets see if they can't fix it

Oh, come on now--3 pages and nobody has seen the big difference? Gays and lesbians won't have shotgun weddings! It's all plus for them, no punishment. That's totally unfair!

Come on ppl its all about the MONEY, big companies do not want to pay for the benifits and the government does not want the SS or income tax break burden.

Rosie O'Donnell got married to her *fill in the blank* today on the steps of the San Francisco City Hall.

I am underwhelmed.

Love promise and whatever
 

To everyone a collective wow.

Here is something to consider...Naturally there was a time, actually for quite a long time in our history, that there was no such thing as "Marriage" for anyone.
I have heard it said and I don't know if this is true or not, despite it's plausibility, that “Marriage” arose from a time when it was not possible for a woman to own property or have any rights of their own. Women were basically a form of chattel.
If for any reason a women with a child was to find herself without her mate or “husband” she would find herself in a destitute position and she and her offspring would be at the mercy of the world.
Religious officials and I don’t know which flavor religion it was at the time figured, that if you could form an “until death do you part union” then a woman would be the responsibility of the male and would then they would not become a burden on ether the religious institution or the society in general. If say for instance the man needed to have a new woman cause he didn’t like the old one so much anymore.

Now I guess you can say that we have “evolved” a lot as a species since then. Or maybe you may think that we have not come that far at all and we have a long way to go. But in our current society given the all of the changes in science and law, is this not a regressive consideration that we would need to “defend” marriage? Rather maybe now is the time to provide equal protection to those who can prove that their relationships deserve to be acknowledged for their content. That their pledge of some form of undying intent to love honor and cherish care for until death is honorable pledge. That their personal commitment to each other is valid and that no one from outside of that commitment can put asunder that promise.

YaY, South!

Thanks for the voice of reason :)

Oh! Yes, and if marriage and reproduction are inextricably linked, how about sterile people, can they marry?

Right on Scarecrow!

South: you sure do got a purty mouth...... you know I guess I might make more sense if I didn't just kinda fly off at the mouth but sat back a bit and speculated.... eheheh

You know what really pisses me off?

I cannot abide the way the media deals with gay/lesbian couples when they report something.

An example is when Raymond Burr passed away. The news accounts stated that he left his estate to his lover of 35 years.....You don't see that when it is a hetro couple. The media helps propagate the stereotypical myths about gays and lesbians. That they are only into it for sex ! It really riles me that people only think of the sexual aspect of being gay. For goodness sake, there is nothing wrong with two people wanting to committ to eachother in any way they feel that is right for them.
I would like to know how a marriage between a gay couple will affect in any way a straight person's life and times.


If they don't stick there nose into it.........it won't! :)

Read these stories
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art.../4/152928.shtml

http://newsmax.com/archives/article.../9/170853.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...10/223237.shtml

now you tell me that you liberals are compassionate! You say Bush won't win , so who will win Kerry (God help us all) first thing he will do is cut our military and God forbid another September 11. 3000 dead.
Mrdog, Bushs personal values are what the majority of America believes in.

Read this page to find out the facts about the jo gain in America!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...25/171833.shtml


And for the WMDS this war aint close to being over they could be found tomorrow!

Mrbri-
I have a difficult time equating the Bush administration’s opinion and your personal opinion about the need for the amendment to "defend" marriage.
You have not forwarded an opinion that stands to reason…
Give us some of your thoughts. We already know G.W’s
Hey to be honest I voted for Bush...oh yeah I am a registered Republican and none of that means anything to me when it comes time to address what is rational.
This in my opinion the whole things smacks of an election year ploy and is an irrational distractive attention-getting device.
If you want to flog the “liberals” fine. Please don’t do it here …Can you make a point that doesn’t transfigure your message?
Can you tell us why you feel that Marriage needs to be defended from this “homosexual/ liberal” threat?

Ok my opinion on the marriage issue is that it should be between a man and a woman, I also believe that is the way it was intended. I guess I did go off. I also belive that the SF mayor should be arrested and put away for awhile, he did break the law. But something has to be done whether its an amendment or not. Another thought I have on this issue is I belive this is going to lead to other issues that are going to be just as illegal as gay marriage. Such as people marrying animals, a child marrying a parent etc. So if a liberal wins the white house this november wouldnt they make these things legal to buy votes. Well you asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. So if that does not stand to reason well so be it , thats what I think.

D E M O C R A C Y - n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Americans live in a democracy. We vote, and the majority with the most votes prevails. (in general, please don't interject the last Presidential election into this...)

Overwhelmingly, the majority of people in the U.S. (and even California) have voiced that "marriage" should be the "union of one man and one woman". Wide margin. No hanging chads. So be it. Done. Democracy in action.

Also in America, there are the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. The individual is entitled to equal protection under the law.

Marriages are reserved for the union of one man and one woman. Civil unions are the union of two consenting adults.

Why not grant (through normal legislation) spousal privileges, tax benefits, and recognition to Civil unions and be done with this mess?

The mistake that the mayor of San Francisco made is promoting anarchy instead of social change. Showing gross disrespect for the law is not promoting his cause, no matter how noble and honorable his intentions are. Sorry, he ain't no Ghandi.

I'm getting weary of the tendency in this country for the tail to wag the dog in this country. If you want to affect change, persuade those around you, follow the legislative and judicial procedures, and create a majority. It's been done with women's suffrage, alcohol prohibition, and civil rights. With instant communication ,mass media, and lawyers in the thousands, this process can happen faster than it took in the past.

And another thing, I am getting weary of every issue in America becoming another reason to hate George Bush, or bash the liberal establishment. State your argument, and quit trying to demonize somebody.

*steps off of soapbox*

I'm seeing some serious conflicts between points four and five of that definition. What if the majority don't respect the individual or social equality?

I have an opinion on this but I am not going to state it.The Judge,
in the SF case,is an addmitted homosexual.In my opinion,he should have disqualified himself from this case. Irish
P.S.My $.02.Frankly,I personaly,don't see that politics has anything,to do,with this case,except for an excuse, for everyone,
to bash anything that goes against their beliefs!

Irish..

You gave in before me... neener neener neener :)

I too am keeping my opinions to myself.. not gonna say either way... this... like religion and politics are too hott for me to touch..

Tess....Good post above with one major flaw.

The U.S. isnt a democracy, we do not rule by majority of the people. It is a representative republic, we send people to vote for us. Major differences in how things work. Those less than 1000 men and women in Washington for the most part do not represent their people, they represent themselves and their interests, all parties all lines, with only a few exceptions.

Woah! could you imagine if the majority actually did rule?
That would scare the bejesus out of me...

What if they were steralized and had kids only by adoption like gay couples, then would it be ok?

Right you are, STO, we are a democratic republic, but the principles are still the same. The majority rules. The elected officials are elected by the majority in their state or district, and the majority of the lawmakers prevail in legislative matters.

But the key difference is that they dont have to listen to the majority if they dont want to. 99.9% of the people in a state could ask for something and if the representative disagrees, he can vote against it. Sure he/she risks not being re-elected, but that is the distinct difference.

This is an issue of equal rights. Rights all American's are entitled to, or at least should be. For years blacks weren't allowed to vote, they also weren't allowed to eat or even piss in the same place as a white person. They weren't even allowed to sit in the front of a bus. Breaking an unjust law is sometimes necessary to bring about change, as long as it does not hurt anyone. I applaud the Mayor of San Francisco for being bold enough to challenge a ridiculous law. Ridiculous that is, if you believe this is the land of the free.

Now a question for mrbri... Is this statement meant to infer that a gay marriage is the same as marrying an animal? You also have yet to post a logical reason why gays should not marry. Just because you think it should only be for hetero couples and you believe it was intended that way is not a logical argument.

I did not mean it in the same way I was trying to think of other situations that would be illegal. Maybe there is no logical reason they should not marry, but why can't they marry a person of the opposite sex, what drives them to be a homosexual? Again when I said that I thought marriage should only be for hetero couples I was only stating my opinion and my belief. What is a logical argument that says a homo couple should be married?

IMO....They should be allowed to marry or form a union or whatever for the exact same reason hetero couples do. Why do hetero couples marry????

Just watched "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO, and one of the guests was Ian McKellan. (Sharni, you would have been proud of him :) )

The subject of gay marriage came up, and Ian McKellan recited this inscription from the walls of Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

(in a letter to George Washington from Thomas Jefferson)

Again, the extraordinary wisdom of the Founding Fathers is shown. I think this helps put this whole discussion into focus.

But why if I'm not attracted to a man should I be forced to live next to a sleeping shitting walking working hardon? I prefer women, my preference for women "drives" me to be homosexual.


Do you think that my personal happiness is any less important than yours? Do you think that I love any less, that I don't worry about the people I hold dear?

that which you do unto the least of my people you do unto me..... or somethin like that right? you know most christian based religons profess you should "see Jesus in everyone" and "treat others as you would like to be treated" how would you like it if I said you can't marry a woman, and i think you're going to hell if you're attracted to a woman? my opinion, my beliefs.....

okay anyway

Kyttn

To have the right and responsibility to choose just like hetro couples. What makes their love any less important than anyone else? If you were gay wouldn't you want the same rights as anyone else and the freedom to make choices to suit your needs and wants?

One could say (and I don't advocate it, I'm using this to proove a point...bear with me) that with the advent of women's rights in this country of ours...logically, there's no purpose to anyone being married. Women no longer need the protection of a man, financially or practically. Children no longer need to be "legitimate" to claim their rights from both parents. There are even financial dangers in marrying someone....heaven help you the day you realize that your beloved spouse is leaving you after having maxed out your joint credit cards (my poor dad...not a good day). Frankly, it's not logical to need this legal or social reinforcement of what's now primarily an emotional bond.

Nonetheless, this archaic institution is still woven into the fabric of our society. Spouses get special priveleges, ones too numerous to be conveniently indexed. And not all of them legally binding. Nonetheless, we could as easily settle this dispute, make everyone equal...by abolishing the institution of marriage altogether. It is, in actuality, the "logical" answer....if logic really is the problem here. I don't think it is.

Heterosexuals (SOME of them, by no means all) want to get married. Hell, _I_ want to get married someday. Not just because it makes getting a mortage mroe straightforward, but because it's a way to confirm our relationship in front of the world....and to make the world recognize that it exists. Add to the emotional need to formalize emotional coupling the economic and legal benefits given to a spouse. Not only does it, in some cases, change your tax status (and for the record, not always for the better)...but mortgage companies look more favorably on married couples. Having tried to buy a house with a close friend/roommate....this I know to be true. Medically, there's a hell of a lot of difference between "life partner" and "next of kin." Legally, my partner (if I had one) can be forced to testify against me because they're not a spouse. Beyond emotional and financial benefits, you've got purely social ones. And these are the hardest ones to talk about, because here practicality and logic go out the window. Anyone who's gone from bf/gf to fiance or spouse knows that it changes your social status. In the most trivial example I can think of, a spouse can get me out of a class to come to the phone when I'm needed....a boy friend cannot. And when necessary, my bf uses "husband power" to get things done. Husbands can talk to bank managers about my missing debit card, bank managers won't talk to boyfriends. Illogical, but a real life example. In a much more serious example...the business I work in requires me to relocate a lot, universities will bend over backward to help a spouse find a job in the new location. They will not do the same for a boyfriend. Note, it's a purely social distinction, they're under no legal obligation to do either. They just assume that my spouse getting a job is a deal breaker, while boyfriends are more temporary and therefore I might leave them behind. Afterall...if I was really serious about the relationship....I'd have married the guy, right? There are loads I'm missing out on, I know...but it's just a quick cross section of why this token hetero wants to be married. And I see no reason here that wouldn't be equally applicable to a homosexual.

The emotional desire to acknowledge one's relationship is part of human nature...and homosexuals are all too human. They want the acknowledgement. Could that be given to them with a civil union? It could, but only with the undesirable reminder that they are different, and in the eys of many....not "really" married. The financial pressures to be married are all part of living in this country and wanting the best life you can get for yourself. There's no logical reason why these shouldn't apply equally to homosexual people. Could they be granted with a civil union. Honestly, not easily. Seperate but equal didn't work in the segregated south purely because seperate institutions implied that one group was better than another...and therefore got consistently better treatment. Even before desegregation...black americans had to fight to maintain the equal part of "seperate but equal," and never really got it. There might be similar stuggles with banks, insurance companies, HMOs, adoption agencies, benefit agencies, etc. ad naseum to establish that in each case "yes folks, civil unions are the same thing HERE too." It's not logical to put the country through that when the simplest answer is to give these people the same protection everyone else has just by lifting the ban on marriage. The social pressures to marry, well....there's the problem. Of course gay couples feel them....but it's more than that, because granting the title of "marriage" to a gay union implies they deserve the same social acceptance as "hetero" couples. They don't see themselves as different (nor do I, for that matter), but the people who resist sharing their instutuion need social affirmation that homosexuals _are_ different. And both sides are right insofar as extending this social status to gay marriages is going to be a step towards allowing them into our precious concept of what's normal. It thrills some, scares others, and has propelled us into another age of social change and education. The only thing we can do is keep talking about it...and thank the brave people who force us to have this issue in front of our eyes as much as possible. However they choose to do it, civil disobenience is civil disobedience....and laws frequently get broken.

I'm not going to go into what makes a gay person gay here...there's too much, and this is already far too long. God knows if you're still reading I owe you a beer. But here's my problem...the constitution was intentionally written to be as inclusive as possible in its era. We've gone through several waves of broadening in this country, admitting that our founding fathers didn't get the details right the first time. But boy oh boy did they get the basic principle right....all citizens have the same rights. For better or worse, none of us are special, and there should be no second class citizens. By that logic, because the gay communities are good, tax paying Americans...they already have the right to marry. They're just demanding that right be enforced.

And honestly, I think it will be. Eventually. And my kids will be just as amazed as I was to learn that racial segregation was ever considered normal...or as my mom was to learn that people used to think that women couldn't handle money or be trusted to vote.

Much more than my 2cents. Sorry...it's been building up for a while.

Very well articulated, Ginger. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it :)

*hugs*

Thanks Bel....I officially owe you a drink ;). Let me know when you'll be by to collect.

There was a time in this country that it was believed that people of different races or religions should not be permitted to marry. But we evolved.

I will not give my personal views here,but I will say that if you don't like the laws,CHANGE THEM.I'm not one that believes in every law.As you probably know,I'm the one that always says that nothing is illegal unless you get caught doing it.If a law,is fair
or not,is not the main question.It is the law & therefore gives you a record if you break it.Changing the law,isn't instantaneous(sp?),
but it can be done.It should be considered! Irish
P.S.Also,my $.02.

>claps for Ginger<

slipery slope if the law is to resrict my freedoms to say that
my rights dont count is dangerous what next out law interatial
relationships or maybe only allow gays to live in areas you
want only sit at the back on the bus only have certain type of jobs or even beter make us wear a brand so you know who we are hell just stick us in a camp so you wont have to deal with us at all . freedom has to include every one or is is not freedom
:mad:

truer words have not been spoken here