I'm not so sure about that. Such an amendment would need to pass 3/4 of the states, which would be what, 12, rounding down? I'm sure there are 13 states that'd vote against such a thing. Vermont Maine Massachusetts Rhode Island New York Connecticut New Jersey Maryland Illinois Washington Oregon California That's 12 right there, and that's without New Hampshire or Pennsylvania.
Not as a democrat; if it had just been the Mass. Supremes, there would have been the pious chest-beating from the neocons and that alone. But Newsom was the nimrod who was the first elected official to break the law, and that gave the GOP the wedge issue they craved. With 'friends' like him, Kerry didn't need too many more enemies. Of course, there's the whole thing about the 'more sensitive' battle against the jihadis Kerry spoke of :|
Don't be so confident. I thought the measures in Michigan and Ohio had a good chance of failing, and they both passed by a crushing margin.
Ways in which the newly elected religious cabal will attempt to change the consitution: Protect prayer in public schools. Ban buring the American flag. Ban abortion and/or stem cell research. Protect the life of a fetus. Ban gay marriage. Protect the teaching of "alternatives" to evolution, like "creation science" in public schools. Limit cash awards for lawsuits to $250k. I'm sure there will be others but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
What my husband and i cannot understand is why there is such fear about gay people being afforded the same rights as straight married people. Is it affecting YOUR marriage? Is it affecting your finances? How does it affect YOU what other people do? Marriage is a religious union. However, marriage in the USA is also a legal contract. A civil union. Not all people get married in a church. Does that mean they shouldn't be able to get married? Should gay people not be allowed a civil union because it isn't a judeo-christian marriage? And if your argument is that you're protecting the "sanctity" of marriage -- why, then, do half of all marriages in the US end in divorce? It certainly doesn't seem to be taken very seriously in this country. Don't most marriage vows include the phrase "till death do us part"? So apparently we're being very selective in just how "sanctimonious" our marriages are. How sad is it that some of my gay friends are going to have to base where they decide to live and work on whether they are in a state where they can get health insurance for their partner? And also, as someone in another thread brought up, how many progressive companies are going to move their operations out of these states because of these policies? How will that impact the growth of these states? Again, we just can't figure out why people are so afraid. If anyone can give me any reasons, i'd be happy to hear them. Because right now it just seems like it reeks of ignorance and bigotry.
I bet you and your tree-hugging husband don't think there's anything wrong with inter-racial marriage too, right? Damn hippies
And holy crap - can you believe we're CHRISTIAN and actually ATTEND SERVICES ON SUNDAYS? We're like the biggest oxymorons on the planet I wonder what all of our "church friends" would think if they knew we were involved in the THEATER! We might get thrown out. Probably shouldn't say anything... keep in on the DL y'all.
It starts with the question why do people get married in the first place? From the religious point of view, it is to create a family. The role of a parent is the single most important role a person can have. I could give a whole bunch of facts about the differences between people who grow up in loving families compared to those who grow up without that, either in disfunctional families or without a family, but I don't think anyone will argue that growing up in a good family gives a child many advantages and has a profoundly positive effect on society. So, if being a parent is so important, than a marriage as a legal union should give those trying raise families help in doing so. Marriage gives privileges to people who are helping society by being good parents. But if a marriage is not based on the desire to raise a family, than what is it for? Why do 2 people, gay or not, who have no intention of being parents and raising a family, need the same privileges as those who are raising families? Obviously, not all marriages between men and women are based on this principle. Many mariages are based on money or sex or politics or something else. This is just as much a dillemna as gay marriage. This is why the divorce rate is so high. Unfortunately there is basically no way to discern between those marriages being based on a family and those based on other things, so there's no way to legislate it. Or at least nobody has come up with one yet. But gay marriage, by definition, is not based on building a family. While it may be based on 2 people with the sincere intent to love and protect each other till death do them part, it in no way contributes to society. It contributes only to themselves. Just by having no children they contribute to a growing problem worldwide (although thankfully this problem is not so severe here in America). And if you don't think having no children is a problem, come back in 50 (randomn number) years or so when "Europeans will be an extinct species," as has been predicted. Regardless, their union is unworthy of any of the privileges, notice I'm saying privileges, that marriages based on family deserve. My views are not based on bigotry or hatred toward anybody. Just on the fact that I believe marriage has a specific and sacred purpose as the foundation upon which our society is based and that gay marriage weakens that foundation, the foundation being the family.
Tell that to gay "couples" who have adopted children and raised them to be honest, sincere and highly successful contributers to our society...just like those kids who were raised by "marriages" between a man and a woman.
My wife and I have been married for 15 years, but we've never had children, nor will we ever have children. Our marriage is not based on raising children, it is based on our love for each other. Nothing more, nothing less. 15 years and no divorce, and I can't imagine living a single day without her, nor can she imagine living a single day without me. I know divorced couples who have had kids. In your viewpoint should my wife and I have different legal rights than other married couples who have children? Should couples who have kids be prevented from getting divorced because their marriage is based on raising children? Which is worse? A married heterosexual couple who have no kids? A married heterosexual couple who have kids getting a divorce? A gay couple who want to get married and raise children? A heterosexual couple who have kids but never get married? I'm just wondering which fvcked up view of morality all Americans should strive to adhere so that you and your ilk won't be offended.
Dude, kids raised by homos will never contribute anything to society. I mean, they were raised by homos, fer Chrissakes!!!!
So, according to your beliefs, no one should get married if they are not going to procreate. All right. All those people who decide not to have children before they get married should not be allowed marriage rights? All those people who find that they cannot have children once they get married should no longer have rights? If the people who can't have children can't afford in vitro or adoption, should they not have rights anymore? Do they have to get divorced? And so, just the fact that you're married automatically elevates your status as a "good parent"? It's better for a child to grow up in an abusive home with "married father and mother" than with good "unmarried" people, be they gay or straight? And should a mother have to give up her children or marry the day after her husband dies? I understand where you're coming from, but there's just too many arguments to negate your "family" model. This is 2004 after all, not 1004.
Bullshit. Tell me where in the Bible it says the primary purpose of marriage is to raise children or that husband and wife should honor their children above their love for each other. And after you fail to do that, I'll show you all the citations that prove the converse. You Bushies are as ignorant about your religion as you are your politics.
A good point. Why should couples of either type be given tax breaks, 1/2 price insurance, or any other benefits. This place sure has a lot of singlephobes.
I know it's off topic, but I'm very curious about the thinking behind these statements. 1. What, exactly, is this "growing problem" worldwide that is not so severe in America? There's no evidence suggesting that the earth is underpopulated. 2. I'm not even going to bother asking you for a link- we'll just deal with what you've written here. If, as you suggest, Europeans will be an extinct species (more on this in a moment) within a random number of years, there are six continents left, five of which have lots of people living on them. You'll have to explain why this is a problem- in the unlikely event that it's even a probability. BTW- Europeans aren't a species. But I'm interested in knowing if that was a typo, or an actual opinion you hold.
That Europeans being extinct idea comes from the same Buchannan book that says all our grandkids will be 1/2 Mexican. I started the book but couldn't quite finish it for some reason.
Thanks. I never would have made the connection. Obviously, this clown (sokol) isn't worth pushing over a cliff. I guess I should have asked him for a link after all- I'd have known not to bother dealing with a mental invalid. I can imagine. I wouldn't have finished it myself, if that's the kind of filth that he's writing.
2. I'm not even going to bother asking you for a link- we'll just deal with what you've written here. If, as you suggest, Europeans will be an extinct species (more on this in a moment) within a random number of years, there are six continents left, five of which have lots of people living on them. You'll have to explain why this is a problem- in the unlikely event that it's even a probability. BTW- Europeans aren't a species. But I'm interested in knowing if that was a typo, or an actual opinion you hold.[/QUOTE] I wasn't even going to go there in my last post.. but... I'm thinking this is an "anglo" reference. (and i could be wrong -- original poster -- if you'd like to refute it)
Then why did he endorse your candidate? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, I forgot, because Karl Rove made him do it.
I'm never afraid to go there. If Danwoods is right and sokol is quoting Buchanan's book, then his concerns are about European/Anglo extinction and not human extinction as a whole. He can be dismissed as a supremacist idiot. But why did you quote me and not sokol?
Exactly my thought. As long as there are no kids or animals involved in the fvcking, and both (or all) people agree to the fvcking, I have no problem with it. In other words, everyone should be equal under the law. That's why thousands of people CAME to this country. To get rights they couldn't get in their native countries. Welcome to America. The land of freedom and equality. Except if you're gay, or you want an abortion, or you could benefit from stem-cell research, etc.