California Gay marriage...
 

So does whats going on in California anger and disturb anyone else? Gay Marriage argument aside, you have a Liberal activist mayor breaking state laws and spitting on the will of the people.

2/3's of one of the most liberal states in the country voted for this. Now you have a rogue mayor committing a felonious act by knowingly and willingly breaking state law. This shit is ridiculous, not to mention it sets a horrible precident. Perhaps whats most upsetting is that no one is really doing anything about it.

I don't have a problem with it. I think it is about damn time somebody did something like this.
These actions are akin to sit-ins during the civil rights era, which were also illegal. It's called civil disobedience and ever since the boston tea party it has been as american as apple pie.

For a closer to home analogy, in minnesota, gov pawlenty is willingly violating federal law with his drug reimportation website. No one but the fda and pharmacuetical companies care about that.

while i do think that Gavin Neusome made a move under somewhat dubious circumstance I can't say that i angers me (admittedly this may be due to my pro-gay marriage stance).

San Francisco is making a statement in a national debate -- something that as the default national capitol of homosexuality it has ever right to do -- especially since the city and the surrounding areas overwhelming support gay marriage. Occasionally the people have to rebel against an unjust law and I think this is a case of well placed civil disobedience.

Hehe its ok if they violate the law if its a law you don't like?

I think jail time is in order, it is the proper price of civil disobedience is it not?

Filtherton- It is not civil disobedience when a city government knowingly violates state law. Civil disobedience occurs when citizens, not governments, refuse to follow laws they disagree with. Crooked politics is not the same thing as "good ole' American" civil disobedience popularized by Henry David Thoreau in 1849.

dostoevsky: but there is nothing that people can do to fabricate marriage without the law being involved -- don't you think we need some sort of governmental diaobediance to react in cases such as this?

From m-w.com

Main Entry: civil disobedience
Function: noun
: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government

I see no exclusion for municipal employees and i think your characterization of crooked politics is a little off base. How is this in any way "crooked"?

I'm sure they are prepared to go to jail. That is one of the risks for civil disobediance.
I know you probably subscribe to the "All goverment laws are just platform" ustwo;), but i think that under some circumstances breaking the law is just fine.

I don't agree with strict gun control laws. So when I'm in a position of power I'm going to go and issue a bunch of conceal and carry permits to whoever wants them, as a form of civil disobedience.

Because when a gun's right to equal treatment is outlawed, only outlaw guns will have rights ?

That about sums it up. To make the analogy even more accurate, you'd be issuing conceal and carry permits to people with the knowledge that you might be arrested and also that the permits most likely won't be worth paper they are printed on. Sounds pretty harmful to me.;)

This whole issue nation wide is so ridiculous that it's just pathetic.

Americans are all upset that an institution that they cant keep going 53% of the time is somehow going to be tainted by someone else trying to do better than that.

53% of Americans drop marriage vows faster than a sour apple but they are SO UPSET when these people want to try their hand at it.

I bet you they would do better than regular americans because it's just the type of thing them boys do good at.

Thats probably what it is, americans dont want them showing them up.

Oh lets preserve the sacred right of matrimony so 53% of us can go out there and fuck it all up just because we had a bad year...

Its fucking ridiculous.... the whole thing is biased and prejudice.

How could they fuck it up any worse than it already is???

well put benny.

i'm flabergasted at the selfishness that this issue has brought out in people -- keep marriage just for heterosexualsseems like a safty blanket for those among us who can't accept that everyone isn't just like them.

It's self serving, but that is nothing new with americans.

But it's also socially irresponsible, and that is so ironic in this case because they percieve this as socially corrosive.

It would keep them together, and off the streets. The spread of aids would go down. Their joint spending capacity to support the economy would go up. They ensure no population expansion, something we will have to begin addressing in the near future.

But none of that stuff makes a hill of beans because homophobes just cant let them officialize it, even though they all went to see Liberachie and knew full well he was a flaming flamingo.
He had sumthin they wanted........

Self serving vengeful hateful americans.

Re: California Gay marriage...
 

Anger and disturb? Nope, not one little bit.
More power to them. One day they'll have equal rights and that's ok with me.

Re: California Gay marriage...
 

LOL, from the posts in this thread so far, only the non-californians.

I love it when people get all worked up over something that IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE.

Mojo said:
Unfortunately for Mojo, that's not what californians voted for. They voted to amend section 308 with section 308.5. Let's read the whole thing, shall we?

What does that say? It says that any marriage recognized as valid in any other state in the USA is valid in California, as long as it is between a man and a woman.

PROP 22 SAID NOTHING, NOT ONE WORD, ABOUT MARRIAGE INSIDE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH.

So stop with the "rogue mayor commiting felonies" crap.

I'm all for gay marriage. Didn't we get past "separate but equal" a long time ago? With the divorce rate at 50% or more, how can gays *hurt* the institution of marriage?

Well this isn't even to be classified as civil disobedience.

The mayor is very shrewd in the steps he has taken.

He is saying that any laws on California books are invalid as they violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. As such he has the authority and duty to provide marriage licenses to homosexual couples wishing to be married in the state of California.

Unless Congress can repeal the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. (widespread race riots) AND the full faith and credit clause, AND pass a marriage amendment. Human decency in america just won this battle.

i sure fuckin' hope so

Whenever issues of "marriage" come up as they relate to laws, I have only one view.

IMO, there should only be legal partnerships between people. Some sort of "marriage" or "civil union" is really just a partnership. All the mixing up of religion and medieval social tradition just makes a mess of what is really just a "contract" between people. I don't understand why anyone would need more than that to be recognized by the law - no matter what their gender.

So, as a direct response to the thread - I don't know why anyone would want to get married. That's the only thing that ever "disturbs" me about marriage.

Amusingly no rights are being violated since everyone does have the right to marry. Nor is it a mayors job to decide what state law isn't constitutional. They can challenge in court, but they don't get to decide which law is 'bad' and ignore it.

Also this had done more to hurt gay rights then help, as now states across the country are working to put gay marriage bans into their constitution to prevent such actions. The numbers are on their side as well, even liberal states like Massachusetts, which has elected the most liberal senators year after year the US has been subjected to, can't decide if they should have a total ban, or a ban on gay marriage but allow civil unions.

And as I said, unless the full faith and credit clause and equal protections clause get repealed AND a marriage amendment is inserted into the US constitution, (these all have to be done because a marriage amendment will contradict the wording of those two other parts of the constitution) States can pass gay marriage bans to their hearts content. As long as ONE state allows gay marriage, every state has to recognize them.
So if only one state allows gay marriage, that state will become the gay tourism capital of the United States. Everyone flocks there, (spends billions in tourism dollars) gets married and goes home content that they will be required to be recognized.

Gay Marriage
 

Can someone please explain to me:

WHY is it wrong and such a big deal that Gays get married.

Please do not answer with religion involved, nothing about the bible. god, jesus should be in your answer!!!


thanks
Mr b

I wanted to get married because my then girlfriend wanted to get married, and that was a good enough reason for me.

People would ask after I was married if it felt diffrent or was different and the answer of course was no.

There are a lot of threads on this already I think, but personally, I dont think there is anything wrong with gay people getting married.

Lebell can we get a thread merger because at least three discussions on this are active.

But gay people have never been allowed to marry each other before. That's why it's called marriage. Must obey tradition.

And interracial marriages were illegal until the early 1960's in america. Never before were they allowed to marry.
"Marriage is for humans, Gods children. We shouldn't taint ourselves with lesser beings"


Should we have obeyed tradition then?

**5 threads on this subject, in politics alone, have been merged here**

carry on

Hear hear! Let's allow gays the ability to live the American dream.

C'mon guys. I was being specious. The weakest argument against gay marriage is that marriage has always traditionally been between a man and a woman. It's no different than offering resistance to any change by saying, "But that's not the way we have always done things." You have to be able to defend the tradition with solid arguments why the tradition is worthy.

I know. I want to just keep ramming home how closely this parallels the entire civil rights movement.

How can you compare homosexuality with child molestors and such like. Those people are abusing people who are to young to be making sexual decisions and causing them immense harm. Homosexuals are having sex with adults who have the right to choose and they want to love the same sex. Where is the harm in that?

I am offended by your comments because I am Gay and I am not evil in any way shape or form.

And anyway who cares 'where they came from' the point is they are here as they always have been in a large number.

Benny, I agree with what you're trying to say, and appreciate your enthusiasm in trying to convey your thoughts, and obviously your heart's in the right place, but there were a few things that you said that bothered me:

Keep them together, and off the streets? I don't think a gay couple's determination to stay together is defined by whether they can marry or not. And off the streets? We're not talking about pushers or pimps here, or punkass teens. I'm was none too little appalled by this comment.

As for the spread of AIDS going down... I think we can all agree that despite of what gaybashers will have you believe, AIDS is as common among heterosexuals as it is among homosexuals. The last I heard, the HI virus can be transmitted via any sexual activity, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anal sex.

Again, I understand the point you were trying to make, but these comments that I'm emphasizing are stereotypes, and quite sickening ones at that. We're all responsible for trying to weed them out of intelligent conversation. We grew up learning these stereotypes, but our children don't have to.

There are a few key differences between homosexuality and child molesters, etc: homosexuality is 1. not just about sex - it's about attraction, affection, passion, etc. It's a normal romantic/sexual attraction that just happens to be directed at someone of the same sex. 2. homosexuality, like many things, is determined in part by genetics, in part by biology, and in part by experience. You could say the same thing about most traits. 3. homosexuality is a consensual relationship between two people - nobody is harmed. Serial killers kill people. Child molesters hurt small children. Necrophiliacs defile the dead. That you can even classify homosexuality with these other acts bespeaks a strikingly misguided perception of what homosexuality actually is. I am bisexual, I have a girlfriend, and I really have to take issue with an expression of love and affection between the two of us being lumped in with the depraved actions of serial killers and child molesters.

Quote:

We all have natural urges that we do not choose, but which we must control. I have the urge to bash in the heads of stupid people who piss me off everyday, but should I do it? Would society be a better place if I acted on my impulses?

Again, the key difference is that if you act on your urge, someone else gets hurt. If two gay people wanna fuck or get married or whatever, nobody is harmed. And don't give me the story about "won't somebody please think of the children!?!" - there's no credible evidence that having homosexual parents is any better or worse for kids than having hetero parents.

Could you please detail the "cost to our civilization" of accepting homosexuality?

There's a lot of evidence that there are several genes that predispose people to homosexuality, and they are differentially expressed depending on the hormonal environment in the womb and depending on experiences after birth. (Just because you have a gene doesn't mean that it's active - many genes have to be turned on or off by various chemical signals produced in response to particular biological inputs produced by experiences). Say you have three brothers, all of whom have this set of genes that predispose them to homosexuality. Brother 1 has less of hormone X in the womb for various reasons and ends up decidedly gay; brother 2 has more of hormone X in the womb and ends up hetero. Brother 2 goes on to reproduce biologically and passes on the set of genes, which may or may not be expressed in the next generation but will probably be carried on. Brother 3 has an amount of hormone X that produces a "middle road" reaction - he might find a man he really likes, might decide he's bi, might never encounter a man he loves and live a decidedly hetero life.

Like I said, not a simple picture.

It makes me profoundly sad that there is so much hatred and misunderstanding directed at gay/lesbian/bi etc people. We're people - we love, hurt, have jobs, do stupid things, turn into assholes, commit crimes, want to get married, have bad parents or good parents. The only difference between me and a straight woman is that when I see another woman I might be attracted to her, and if she's compatible I might even fall in love with her. I can't really understand how such a simple thing could be the downfall of civilization as we know it. It doesn't fit into an "either/or" paradigm that's easy for people to digest, which makes it frightening for some people. I hardly think that an entire population should be punished simply for not fitting into your neat little concept of how the universe ought to work.

You guys are not answering my question....
Why do so many people feel that it is bad....besides the biblical christian crap that this society is wrapped around?????

Mr b

Marriage is a religious matter, and religion prohibits homosexuality. So, needless of what the government says finding someone to marry two homosexuals is going to be hard. But,I think that the government has no right to tell homosexuals what they can/cannot do, its discrimination and illegal. If homosexuals can adopt a kid and raise them, why cant they get married? The law should say that anyone can get married, whether they like men or women.

Some religions do recognize homosexual marriage. Ironic that those who oppose it in the name of religion are in turn attempting to infringe on the religious rights of those who have no problem with it.

Working and living in San Francisco, having a gay housemate and gay co-workers and gay neighbors and gay local business owners--it gives me the benefit of seeing how boringly normal gay people actually are. They're happy, sad, talkative, quiet, artistic, scientific, brave, cowardly, thin, fat, yadda yadda. Some have "femenine" tendencies towards cleanliness and courtesy, others have "masculine" tendencies towards beer and football, male or female.

I think it's this switch of gender expectations that throws most people off, of course. You don't expect a man to want to vacuum several times a week, dust, go shopping, have good taste in clothing and interior decoration (all stereotypes, of course, it's always more subtle than that). You don't expect a woman to hoot and whistle at other girls, use lots of salty language, swagger, and chuckle. This strikes a bad chord deep inside a lot of people.

But that chord strikes not because what you're seeing is wrong. It's because you're simply not used to seeing it.

And if anything is statistically more rare than a gay person, it's two gay people getting married to each other. So it's no wonder that entire communities feel this chord struck as a group, like a church bell between their ears. It's no wonder that people recoil at the thought of two women or two men at the altar and go running to religious or political explanations of why it's Not Right.

But the answer isn't inside a religious text or a civil code book. It's inside each and every one of you. That's where the chord is striking from. It's not striking from the bully pulpit or the governor's office. That sound is just someone else's confusion and rhetoric. That sense of rightness you may feel in agreeing with their emotions is just you verifying that someone else feels just as wierd about it as you do.

But you don't get any closer to the truth.

The truth is in pictures like this.

My view can be summed up easily, who are they to impose a way of living upon me?

Who's imposing anything on you?

I thought the whole purpose of gay marriage was so that these couples now have the drive to approach random people on the street and sandwich hump them.
What do you have to say to that lurkette? Huh? Tell me how that DOESN'T impose a way of living on me.

That and all the good wedding rings will be sold out when my fiancee and I go to pick them out next month.
I'll have to settle for a cheap silver ring with dolphins etched into the band.

Same thing with the uppity negroes. Now I have to share the same water fountain as them. (ew, gross!) I don't get the good seat on the bus anymore. They want to actually COACH our football teams and I'm sick and tired of them getting the last piece of Boston Creme pie at the diner!

Color me naive, but how does gay marriage affect you, in the least little bit? No one is imposing a damn thing. All these people want, are the same rights and dignities that you and I enjoy. Is that asking so much?

There are tons of options for finding someone to marry you... outside of the church (and there are actually a good number of churches that will happily marry two people reguardless of sexual orientation) you've got the obvious justice of the peace, the las vegas wedding or having a friend officiate -- you don't need to be married by a religious figure for the government to recognize your union.

The Episcopal church is on track to start marrying homosexuals as well, having not too long ago confirmed an openly gay man as a bishop.

Pardon the inadequate grammatical clarity on that one, assume I'm gay and, being pro-gay marriage rights and all, the sentence will make sense.

Just a quick picture to share. How can you look at this and see anything wrong with two people making a committment to each other?

http://ephemera.org/sets/justlymarried/22.jpg

More here:
http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried&img=1

Just for all your information. Ohio just recently passed a Defense of Marriage Act. Governor Taft signed it.

Next month, the Ohio Legislature will pass legislation refusing to recognize sunrise and sunset.

maybe i am a secularist that is out to destroy all american values and morals and everything decent...sorry, from oreilly and his war in america...Ok, i'm not, i still have a strong sense of what's right and wrong, and that doesn't strike me as "Wrong"



but i see that pic and all i see are 2 happy people, why deny them that.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAL2SQMWQD.html

New Mexico is marrying gay couples now as well.
That's Two states. Good start.

This time though, New Mexico has no clear laws on the definition of marriage. There it is "two consenting parties"

Why is it so hard for this country to be open to anything? We say this society is based around a constitution that was written a few hundred years ago, when it is really based around a black book that was written 1000s of years ago.

I DON"T GET IT!!!!

mr b

I am ashamed that this isnt even a debate in the UK, the church will bless gay couples, but the state wont let them marry... which is direct defiance of the European Union constitution on human rights.

Proof, again, that despite the myth of America as a right wing country, it is actually a very radical country.

Gay marriage should be allowed and no one else has the right to say it shouldnt, I may be biased, since my mum is gay - and I see no reason why her relationship with her girlfriend should be devalued or treated as less serious by the state.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...22/SAMESEX.TMP

The California attorney general is refusing to follow ahhhhnolds orders that he do something about san francisco. he's my new hero.

the double standards, straw-men, and appeals to emotion are beginning to crowd me.

heh, i do find it hilarious the ahhnold was able to dodge out of the problem by dumping it on a potential candidate...so now he can say, "I ordered the attorney general to act and he didn't" and that makes his position that much stronger and his competition's that much weaker...
hilarious..if it wasn't so freaking scary..

seriously, i'm beginning to see this whole issue as a wag the dog scenario....

I don't get it, are you for or against gay marriage?

I find it ironic and disrespectful for Bush to call for a constitutional amendment to Gay marriage from the Roosevelt Room today.

Roosevelt was the first progressive president, he fought successfully against xenophobia and bigotry.

The man was a catalyst for progress.
Roosevelt would not be pleased.
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...lt-349x292.jpg

I find using Roosevelt makes this action even more despicable. And he appears pathetic, and infantile with such a strong, good figure pictured behind him.

Bush is right to call for an amendment banning homosexual marriage. He is not trying to take/keep rights from gays, he is trying to protect one of our most oldest, sacred, and fundamental traditions. All he is doing is asking for MARRIAGE to be defined as between man and woman. He is leaving it up for the states to vote on civil unions and legal arrangements granting homosexuals the rights they seek.

WRONG! He is not leaving it up to states to determing civil unions. The anti-gay ammendment is designed to not only define marriage as between a man and a woman but to also deny all benefits that go along with marriage to civil unions. So a state can give a civil union to a gay couple but they will gain no rights from it. Instead it could usher in an era of discrimination where it will now be legal for.. say... landlords to evict a gay couple.

Got documentation to back that claim up?

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2003_11_1...Law Professor?

Jack Balkin

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

This is so unconstitutional it hurts my heart. I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out why people want to do this. How does the union of two people affect your commitment to your own union? The Constitution should never be used to LIMIT rights.

Maybe we should protect all the older rights the constitution implies.....hell I could use a couple slaves. maybe I could get you for a good price.

I think, the only amendment that comes close to the type of action this is taking is the Prohibition Amendment. Which was followed closely, two amendments later, by the repeal of the Prohibition Amendment.

I...what? Just...what? I think you need to follow up a little bit there, cowboy. The Constitution doesn't provide the right to own slaves. It just didn't allow the rights of all people equally, which is what I'm bitching about...what? Seriously, what?

I'm amazed that so many concervatives that supposedly support smaller government are so willing to invite the government into our bedrooms and personal relationships.

How would all of the pro-amendment folks feel aobut the government furhter legislating *your* marriage? what if we made it impossible to get a divorce without a 3 year waiting period? what if we passed a law that made marriage valid in the eye of the government only if you were married in a church?

You say yourself that it is a "sacred" tradition, and if your religious beliefs are that marriages between same sex couples are wrong, then fine, but the government has no business in that issue. To ban gay marriage on a government level is discrimination.

I'm not sure ...but I think it was the state of georgia, that recently amended its constitution to allow for bi- racial marriage. I guess we give some rights, and take others away but discrimination is ugly no matter how it is worded.

By the way....the slave comments were a joke, and I find it hard to believe anyone would mistake that type of comment for anything else.

Frankly I don't care, let Adam and Steve get married in the eyes of the law I'm all for that. But soon enough that won't be enough for them, pretty soon they'd be going after any church that wouldn't marry them. Ofcourse then the "progressive" 13th circuit quasi-liberal facsists would find in favor of the gays.

Are you incapable of making your argument without this?
http://www.benandjoebroughton.co.uk/...pperysmall.jpg
Are you in this just to make people squirm?
If you are all for it, then be all for it. Don't assume other things will happen.
Churches are private institutions, as long as they do not accept federal funds they do not have to marry gay and lesbian couples. That is the law and that will stand in court. There is a mountain of prescedent for it. Gays and lesbians will be welcome in the majority of american churches, the fringes and the baptists can do whatever the hell they want. Once gay marriage becomes lawful and it starts happening widespread public perceptions will sway heavily in favor, pressure will be placed from the inside and the major, non-radical sects of christianity will bow or face a mass exodous to a tolerant religion that will.
This will all change on the "free market" No need for government regulations.

I don't think gays want to be baptist anyway.

Yeah, really. Which member of a gay marriage would be obliged to "gaciously submit" to the husband's leadership? Would they both submit?

It would just complicate things.;)

Something you'd do well to keep in mind is we're not in your head and can't hear the sarcastic tone of voice you apply to those words. Just throw in a winking smiley or something to make it clear; it may be hard for you to believe, but your assumption sure confused the hell out of me.

God damn pushy gays! Give them an inch and they'll take a yard! Soon they'll want to be in the same schools with white...er...straight children.

The gross misunderstanding of gays lies in the fact the media chooses to whip out the camera when they're dressed like fetish clowns or leather men, and mainly portray gays as deviant individuals. I think most gays are normal ppl. They want a house, car, marriage, even kids. Totally normal ppl and the same as all of society save one detail.

Allowing gay marriage can only be a god thing. Like it's been said in the thread already 50% of marriages end in divorce and most in the first 7 years. Marriage is in crisis and it's straightppl's fault since gays aren't allowed to be married. Straights fucked the institution all by themselves.

I bet gay marriages would end in divorce less, and that's what scares the Babble thumpers. Most gays I've met are very together ppl...they've had to overcome a lot of crap to be out and they end up being very well adjusted savvy ppl. Sure some do gloryholing and baths and shit, but they're only 10% of the population and straights aren't in the spotlight for promiscuity since that's "ok" so their behavior is largely not called on them. The gay ppl I've met are very careful on who they call a bf and who they commit to. I think they have to, knowing there isn't nearly as many gay fish in the sea to pick from.

As far as the Amendment is concerned, Amendments shouldn't be wasted on bullshit like this, and his lame attempt to bring xian beliefs into the Constitution should be grounds for impeachment. I really hope I die before this country becomes a Christian police state. Keep your Babble out of the lives of americans...many of us don't want it or need your twisted message of hate and intolerance in the name of Gawad.

There are times I am totally ashamed to live in this country and be represented by the likes of George Bush. What is all this freedom bullshit we've been hearing for the past four years? Is it exactly that? Bullshit?...The guy is an ultra-hypocrite on so many levels. "Hmm let's see here, freedom for you and you, oh and that guy over there...What? Those people? Nope, none for them".
If this talk about a new ammendment proposition doesn't get people off their asses come voting time, we are more screwed than I had thought.

I'll actually contribute something worthwhile to this thread, when my brain stops reeling from the past few days events.

this is one of the main reasons i finally decided to stop being an apathetic youth and registered to vote.

Do we want a government that dictates to us the choices we are allowed to make in our lives? Is this what we envision when we think of that oft-used word, "freedom"?

I find it frightening that we are willing to deny these choices to a segment of our population because we are uncomfortable with the way they live.

Of all the caterwauling I hear from those deeply threatened by the thought of two men saying "I do" comes the most commonly used defense of denying marriage rights to homosexuals: We need to protect our traditional family values!

Will someone please define for me just exactly what these values are? I hear the words used quite often in conjunction with certain topics but have yet to grasp exactly what is meant by them.

This may have been brought up already but it just occurred to me.

If you believe marriage is a solely religious event then the first amendment applies to it. Congress cannot make an amendment regarding it.

This is why Bush needs to explain his reasoning, or be forced to. If it is religious reasoning he has no right to make a law limiting marriage to heterosexuals (since some christian groups disagree with homophobia and bigotry.)

If it is not...well he just loses because there are no good non religious reasons.

Wow, you know Bush fucked up when he's managed to turn the ultra-conservative (albeit gay) Andrew Sullivan into a Kerry voter:

He also linked to this cartoon off his blog:

http://www.comics.com/editoons/lucko...2200040225.gif
(not putting in an img tag because just saw the notice on political cartoons)

This is just the latest in a long string of acts designed to kowtow to his religious right fanatics. America is better than this, I know in my heart it is.

So because people aren't wishy-washy in their convictions and beliefs they are fanatics? Wow you really are a model of tolerance.

That's quite a non sequitur you've got there. But yes, as long as they remain intolerant homophobes, so shall I remain intolerant of them.

right on! it is all about voting. pass it on, brother. pass it on. a lot of blood has been spilled so we can vote.

real time with bill mahr tonight was brilliant on the gay marriage issue. if you don't get hbo, it's worth it for that one program.

laws like this come up in election years to suck up to small minded people, but small minded people vote because they like to push other people around and they tend to form packs out of some kind of insecurity. if they get through, they always get knocked down later.

look at how fast the dominoes are falling, they will never get three quarters of the states to ratify, even if it could get through the house and senate.

meanwhile, what we really need is an amendment to protect personal privacy. i don't think the founding fathers could have even dreamed of cel phone taps and dna sampling when they were just trying to stop search and seisure. the best way to shut down spying on americans is an ammendment. it's personally based, not for the "collective" so i would expect that real conservatives would have to support it, or go against the fundamental plank of their belief structure. liberals would go for it in heart beat, but middle roaders and brain washed facists who like giving their tax dollars to halliburton would be against it.

"The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which 'the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race' are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs." - Hannah Arendt, Dissent, Winter 1959.

There really isn't anything I can add to this, but I do hope it gets some people thinking.

Based on the laws of the United States and the Constitution there is nothing that makes gay marriage wrong or illegal. The only basis anyone has for making it illegal is religous beliefs. There is nothing wrong with having religous beliefs but they should not influence law making. The constitution declares that we are all created equal and we all are entitled to equal rights. As a result, it would be unconstitutional, and therefore un-American to make illegal gay marriage.
Regardless of your relgious beliefs you must admit that a law banning gay marriage would be unconstitutional.

Ok, let’s go through the steps to figure this one out.

Ask anyone who has a problem with same-sex marriage these questions.

A) Is marriage a religious matter?

Y) Go to question B
N) Then, same sex marriages are fine, not a religious matter thus, a legal one where everyone's rights should be the same.

B) Do you have a problem with non-religious people getting married, (leave it male and female)?

Y) Many non-religious people get married each year (Vegas anyone), and it's legal, why not same sex?
N) Then it isn't a religious event, thus Same-sex couples can marry and enjoy the same legal rights as everyone else.

Also, if they insist that it IS a religious matter, that’s ok. If it is a religious matter then how about no constitutional amendment because that would break separation of church and state.

(feel free to poke holes in or fix anything)

Tom Tomorrow's cartoon today:

http://workingforchange.speedera.net...MW03-03-04.gif

Now, WHAT city is he mayor of? If you looked at their poll of what they voted for, you would probably see a radical difference.

And i must say, the homophobia (a psychological disease) in this country is rampant!
If a couple of guys getting married, or two womyn getting married makes your dick feel small, buy a bigger SUV.

I for one am married to my wife and when i find people who share the passion and commitment to their significant other that i and my wife feel for each other it brings me hope. this includes the wonderful long-term gay and lesbian couples i know.

This country is not going to pot because of liberals. it is because of self-centered people in general! Looking beyond one's self, thinking of other people (wow! it's a Damned CHRISTIAN value: USE IT ASSHOLES!) will turn this country around. Why do other countries hate us? Because our wants are paramount. Do you see the pattern? Quit this selfish cycle and things can change. ok... wow. that was a rant...

We christians don't hate the homo's, we dissapprove of the homosexuality.

Speak for your self. I know many christians who are like you. I feel that they are my friends. i _hear_ more christians, more often. who sew hate pointed towards homosexuals. These are the assholes that i am talking about. I doubt that you would enjoy them either.

If you had any respect for homosexual you'd refrain from referring to them in such a derogatory manner.

Since sexuality is one of the main things that defines a person hating someone's sexuality is akin to hating the person.

Please speak for yourself.

I am a Christian who doesn't believe there is anything sinful about homosexuality.

Yep, a distinction must be made between homosexuality and homosexual behavior; the former cannot possibly be sinful. And then there are Christians like me who don't believe that the latter is sinful either. (Did you mean the former, or both, Lebell?)

I'm a Christian as well, and I don't see the distinction, just like I don't see the distinction between heterosexuality and heterosexual behavior.

Inclination to behave in a particular way versus behaving in that particular way. Generally, heterosexuals don't have the inclination, although it's certainly possible for them to engage in the behavior.

Denying the urge to love someone? is that considered healthy? How can love (yes, i know what real love is and have seen it in gay couples) be bad for you when it it mutual?

In a nutshell, my thought process goes like this:

There is pretty good evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
God doesn't make things sinful by nature.
Therefore homosexuality isn't sinful.

That's why I support homosexual marriage.

from what i have read homosexuality can be plotted like this:
A subset of the culture is predisposed to possibly be gay (bi), but factors effect the final move into homosexuality.
1. Molestation/rape
2. Poor relations (abuse) with father (gay) or mother (lesbian)
3. communication about subtle feelings for same sex frowned upon and quieted (festering guilt)

Not all of these need to be present, but often are. The personalities were based on a modified Myers-Briggs test.

in talking with all of my gay friends (mind you, they had to all be drunk at one of my cast parties) almost all of them had poor relations with their same sex parents and at least 4/5ths were admitting to being molested or raped at the time.

just for thought.
btw, i consider myself emotionally bi, i have the personality and one other trait.

To give you guys an idea where I'm coming from:

Life is God's most sacred gift. Life is a foundation of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Great, go ahead and believe that -- but it's not an argument against the legality gay marriage if it's based on religion.

Like I've stated before I could care less if somes gays want to get married, I agree with everyone when they say that they are entitled the same rights and protections under the law as everyone else.

I'll have to quote Jon Stewart...are they going to make us marry gay now. Just poppy cock this whole thing, let two people love each other with the same protection and rights as any other heterosexual couple

But that might make us all gay. :lol: