Amendment Banning Gay Marriage!!!

[HighlyIllogical]

Now this may not be new news, but Bill Frist (Senator, Republican, Senate Majority Leader) proposed a gay marriage ban as an amendment to the constitution (See: http://www.cnn.com/2...marriage/index.html

). CNN said that "President Bush has expressed support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

In last month's State of the Union address, he said many Americans are "discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage."

The issue played a prominent role in the 2004 election campaign, with voters in 11 states considering amendments to state constitutions codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. The measures passed in each state."

And that "Republican supporters of the constitutional ban insist they are not motivated by the politics of the issue and are solely focused on keeping the matter on the national agenda, hoping they can get closer to 67 votes over the next few years.

Achieving that goal, however, has been complicated by the fact that six Republicans -- including Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- voted against the ban in 2004."(the 2004 ban was "a procedural motion to consider the ban received 48 votes -- well short of the number needed to send it on to the House of Representatives and then to all 50 states for ratification.")

Thoughts?

[Me-Patch]

At 2/14/06 03:18 PM, mackid wrote: Thoughts?

Just another reason for me to vote for McCain if I get the chance.

[bakem0n0]

Yet more proof the seperation of church and state remains difficult to achieve.

[HighlyIllogical]

Yes, because the Republicans (at least many of them) want Jesus to run the government, both figuratively and literally.

[PCpr0gramer]

Doesnt america=freedom? Theres little more to explain. An american leader is taking away someones freedom! Anyone see anything wrong with this picture! Of course you do.

[HighlyIllogical]

America should be the land of freedom and opportunity. So let's give gays the right to have legal unions.

Remember, freedom of speech is essential for everyone, even those you hate. So, conservatives, marriage is a right for everyone, even those you're scared of.

[ReiperX]

While you do have some senators trying to push for it in the consitution, I seriously doubt it'll end up happening.

[bakem0n0]

At 2/14/06 04:04 PM, ReiperX wrote: While you do have some senators trying to push for it in the consitution, I seriously doubt it'll end up happening.

Yea, It's only really being pushed by the extremeists who, for all their hot air, aren't as common as they seem to be.

[ReiperX]

At 2/14/06 04:08 PM, bakem0n0 wrote:

At 2/14/06 04:04 PM, ReiperX wrote: While you do have some senators trying to push for it in the consitution, I seriously doubt it'll end up happening.

Yea, It's only really being pushed by the extremeists who, for all their hot air, aren't as common as they seem to be.

Exactly. Thats one thing that neither side really sees, the extreme left or right aren't all that common, most people would probally lie a little more moderate. But only the extremes get the attention.

[Me-Patch]

I'm all for gay marriage, but Ide'e sure as hell vote against changing our flag to that Rainbow/Stars and Stripes up there.

[bakem0n0]

At 2/14/06 04:17 PM, The_Tank wrote: I'm all for gay marriage, but Ide'e sure as hell vote against changing our flag to that Rainbow/Stars and Stripes up there.

Agreed
<shudder>

[altanese-mistress]

Just more proof that if extreme changes aren't made; and soon; the First Amendment will become little more then writing on old paper.

[HighlyIllogical]

You have to admit that the flag is kinda funny...

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/14/06 03:45 PM, mackid wrote: Remember, freedom of speech is essential for everyone, even those you hate. So, conservatives, marriage is a right for everyone, even those you're scared of.

DURR THAT MAKES PURFEKT SCENTS!

[Elfer]

Whether or not gay marriage becomes reality in your country, I think it's unethical to start using the constitution to ban things.

[Proteas]

I'm about to give you all a peek into the brain of a conservative. You might just want to wrap your head in duct tape before reading this.

At 2/14/06 03:45 PM, mackid wrote: Remember, freedom of speech is essential for everyone, even those you hate. So, conservatives, marriage is a right for everyone, even those you're scared of.

We're not scared of homosexuals, and we don't hate them either. We're pissed because the institution of marriage in this country arose out of Holy Traditions in the Church. While it may be a legal matter these days, trying to change the definition of marriage to being inclusive of homosexuals is tantamount to telling the church what it can and can't do. And as every last one of you rant about, that violates the seperation of church and state.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/14/06 04:59 PM, Elfer wrote: Whether or not gay marriage becomes reality in your country, I think it's unethical to start using the constitution to ban things.

I tend to agree with this point. Unless it's banning income tax.

[AzureFenrir]

At 2/14/06 05:09 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm about to give you all a peek into the brain of a conservative. You might just want to wrap your head in duct tape before reading this.

At 2/14/06 03:45 PM, mackid wrote: Remember, freedom of speech is essential for everyone, even those you hate. So, conservatives, marriage is a right for everyone, even those you're scared of.

We're not scared of homosexuals, and we don't hate them either. We're pissed because the institution of marriage in this country arose out of Holy Traditions in the Church. While it may be a legal matter these days, trying to change the definition of marriage to being inclusive of homosexuals is tantamount to telling the church what it can and can't do. And as every last one of you rant about, that violates the seperation of church and state.

That is, of course, true, although Marriage is now a rather universal term that carries with it more than simply the Christian union of a man and woman. After all, Athiests, Muslims, Hinuds, Satanists, and people of tons of other religions marry, and do they automatically become Christians after marriage, or have accepted the Christian ideals?

While what you said is true, in this case, Marriage should simply be redefined as a civil union so that it doesn't involve the church. After all, if marriage is still a Christian ideal, then the government giving benefits only to people who partake in a Christian tradition is also violating the separation of Church and State.

Besides, "civil unions" exist everywhere, even in places at times when they weren't touched by Christianity. Is it then right for Christianity to monopolize such a tradition in a open-religion nation simply by having its word attached to this action?

Finally, this thread is arguing about placing such a ban in the US constitution. Would you think it's right to add to the constitution that Christmas cannot be celebrated by non-Christians, or that the church and its priests cannot give presents to non-Christians? After all, our Christmas is based on Christian ideals (even though the Christians borrowed it from pagan rituals, our version is still based on the Christian version), so it should be practical, right?

[Freemind]

I think that gay people should be able to get civil unions, but not marriages. Marriage is a religious institution, even though I may not agree with what christians are doing, but I have and want no say with their religion and neither should the government.

[MoralLibertarian]

Look, folks, you're all missing the point. The public has the sovereignty to decide its laws and definitions. No one had any moral qualms when states outlawed polygamy, did they? Same deal: even though the polygamist is getting screwed (not by his two wives, because he only has one), the public still retains the right to choose what the definition of marriage is.

[bakem0n0]

At 2/14/06 05:52 PM, seth_brown wrote:

At 2/14/06 03:20 PM, bakem0n0 wrote: Yet more proof the seperation of church and state remains difficult to achieve.

actually, i just find gayness(hint: NOT gay people) to be evil. And besides, marriage is stated in a dictionary as A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.
case closed.

I'm just curious: why did you choose my post to sully with your foolish reply?

[TheBlueBullet]

At 2/14/06 04:28 PM, mackid wrote: You have to admit that the flag is kinda funny...

Thats no even close to funny. Its a disgrace.

What they should do is define marriage as one man and one women then define civil unions for the gays.

[LoneFalcon1989]

Why should the government be worrying about some fags after tax returns at a time like this? There is no point for homosexuality other than for some fags to fullfill thier dreams of lust over eachother. Im not for hating and I support loving of everyone but why do people think they have to sleep with someone to love them?

[altanese-mistress]

At 2/14/06 06:11 PM, LoneFalcon1989 wrote: Why should the government be worrying about some fags after tax returns at a time like this?

No, we're after equal rights just like a m-f couple.

There is no point for homosexuality other than for some fags to fullfill thier dreams of lust over eachother.

Its not just about lust. In fact, thats only a small bit of the bigger picture. You know, love? That thing that people who like each other more than anyone else feel?

Im not for hating and I support loving of everyone but why do people think they have to sleep with someone to love them?

Why do you think people feel that way?

[intrepidus6]

Marriege is a right that everyone deserves, regardless of sexuality.

I hate republicans.

[thecheeseisblue]

At 2/14/06 05:41 PM, Freemind wrote: I think that gay people should be able to get civil unions, but not marriages. Marriage is a religious institution, even though I may not agree with what christians are doing, but I have and want no say with their religion and neither should the government.

Why shouldn't gays be able to get married? I've seen many marriages with people who aren't exactly upstanding religious citizens. If gay people are only allowed to get civil unions then shouldn't people of other faiths be limited to them also, or those who are only Christian because they say they are, and never go to church anyway? Although marriage is defined as a religious institution, if it truly is then it should not be allowed to all people who do not follow that religion, instead of discriminating against people simply because they are the same sex.

[bakem0n0]

At 2/14/06 06:30 PM, vulcanus_1313 wrote: Marriege is a right that everyone deserves, regardless of sexuality.

I hate republicans.

Now, you shouldn't say that. There are intelligent republicans. A small precentage, granted, but to assume that all are stupid would make you sound like . . . a republican . . .

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/14/06 06:36 PM, bakem0n0 wrote: Now, you shouldn't say that. There are intelligent republicans. A small precentage, granted, but to assume that all are stupid would make you sound like . . . a republican . . .

In general, republicans have twice the intellectual prowess than you light-weights.

[bakem0n0]

At 2/14/06 06:38 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 2/14/06 06:36 PM, bakem0n0 wrote: Now, you shouldn't say that. There are intelligent republicans. A small precentage, granted, but to assume that all are stupid would make you sound like . . . a republican . . .

In general, republicans have twice the intellectual prowess than you light-weights.

Doubtful, as liberals have a slightly higher average IQ . . . really neither side is more intelligent.

That was meant as <sarcasm>

[thecheeseisblue]

Now personally I am not in favor of the Republicans, but saying they are all stupid just because their president isn't doing great is stupid. They are all still intelligent people and have to be to get there. You all can talk shit on the Republicans when you become a Senator of governor.