Only Kucinich and Gravel were 100% behind gay marriage. I thought Edwards and Obama did fairly well. Hillary was far and away the most comfortable and articulate of the group. Bill Richardson was abysmal.

"Sen. John Edwards, who has expressed religious concerns about same-sex marriage and who, according to a former consultant of his, once said about gays, "I'm not comfortable around those people."

Hey John, here's a clue for you: America is a non-secular country (in theory). This is an issue of civil law and and the ability to forge a legal contract. Marriage in the eyes of the State is nothing but a contract with a license. Why should same-sex couples be denied this legal arrangement?

TFB if you are "uncomfortable" around gays. There are certain people I am "uncomfortable" being around. That does not imply that I am going to deny them what I have and enjoy, from a legal sense that is.

Only Kucinich and Gravel were 100% behind gay marriage. I thought Edwards and Obama did fairly well. Hillary was far and away the most comfortable and articulate of the group. Bill Richardson was abysmal.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-08-10 08:57 AM | Reply


Yeah You would be comfortable too if You talked out of Your asshole.

Larry

Zot - Edwards has said on several occasions, and said again last night that the report that he said he wasn't comfortable around "those people" was false. Other people who were present when this supposedly happened have also said it didn't happen.

"Why should same-sex couples be denied this legal arrangement?"

To be fair, all of the candidates support giving same-sex couples all the same legal rights and privileges as heterosexual married couples. The sticking point seems to be over the terminology.

"Yeah You would be comfortable too if You talked out of Your asshole.

Larry"

Be that as it may Larry (and you know Hillary is not my candidate of choice), she knew her facts, had a handle on the issues, and expressed her views much better than the others.

BTW - where were Dodd and Biden?

I'm not sure straights should be allowed marry either. Make it a purely religious ceremony and keep the state out of it completely. This also means no special status for breeders/marrieds.

Hard telling SanAntonioRogue. Hard telling where they were.

Larry

I've got to agree with Visitor on this one. Marriage should be 100% within the boundries of religion. There should be no legal recognition of the institution at all.

Agreed. The state should only be involved in the legal aspects of a contract between 2 consenting adults. Let the various religious bodies decide for themselves whether or not they want to recognize and bless same-sex unions. It should have nothing whatsoever to do with the civil/legal rights guaranteed to ALL Americans.

Wait a minute... Clinton, Edwards and Obama all oppose gay marriage? really?

How the fuck do you libs rail against President Bush for opposing gay marriage... and then your top three candidates agree with the president? And another prominent candidate even went so far as to say being a Homosexual was a choice!!

"okay I know I know.....its a bad joke but how many?"

None

Calling it 'marriage', rob.

I'm all for civil unions if they give the same EXACT same rights as a marriage.

We can change the name later.

Let me know when any of those "libs" wanna amend the constitution to discriminate against gays, bushlover...

"How the fuck do you libs rail against President Bush for opposing gay marriage... and then your top three candidates agree with the president?"

Which one of the Democratic candidates supported an Amendment enshrining discrimination into the Constitution of the United States by banning same-sex marriage equality, thus removing it from the jurisdiction of the states?

Oh yeah, that was President Bush.

Rob,

The four you mentioned are wrong in their stance. Simple as that.

Many Christians see marriage as a sacrament that symbolizes Christ and the Church, therefore their discomfort with gay marriage as a religious ceremony.

These particular Dems are very strong in their faith and prefer gay marriage as a civil ceremony.



BLT, The answer is 42. 42 purses hit the stage.

I'm all for civil unions if they give the same EXACT same rights as a marriage.


The president has no problem with it either! He just wants that left up to the states.

Calling it 'marriage', rob.

I'm all for civil unions if they give the same EXACT same rights as a marriage.

We can change the name later.


I've been saying for a couple of years now that the gay crew should fiercely adopt the term 'Civil Union'. They'll garner much less resistance from moderates in doing so. Once Civil unions are on the books, THEN worry about calling it 'marriage'.

Baby steps.

"How the fuck do you libs rail against President Bush for opposing gay marriage... and then your top three candidates agree with the president? And another prominent candidate even went so far as to say being a Homosexual was a choice!!"


Because the dems at least support unions and didn't push a constitutional amendment that not only took the issue out of the state's hands, but effectively denied any form of equal treatment under federal law (regardless of what you call it--union/marriage/etc.).

I'm quite suprised at Richardson's answer.

okay alexandrite...........I will........
and I will tell you when a conservative wants to descriminate too......and this "AINT ONE OF THEM"..


believeing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not descriminating against anyone and no amount of liberal bullshit about it will change my mind because for a long time I have known what goes where and why......

and putting 'that thing' in 'that hole' isnt one of them.

and so I guess you also are against the descrimination of people who do the same thing with animals.......I mean....why should we descriminate againt all of the people who sodomized monkeys in africa, for instance.......just because it brought aids to the world...........

if I can marry a man, why cant I marry anyone or anything..........
hey....my cousin is pretty good lookin......and filthy rich too.............hhhhhhhhhhhmmm
mmmmmmmmm

JeffJ,

In prinicple, I'll agree with you. There is a problem with the idea of going for "civil unions" first:

By calling the institution something different, it becomes easy for the laws revloving around "civil unions" to keep certain rights and privilages from those...civilly united, I guess...that are readily avilable to married couples. If there was a law (and it would HAVE to be federal) requiring civil unions to be idenitcal to marriages in everything except name, I'd be okay with that.

That won't happen though, at least not for a while.

As far as my personal belief, I'm an all or nothing kind of guy. Either everyone should have the same rights to marry their chosen parter, or no one. (Actually, as I said above, I lean more towards the "no one" idea.)

"Baby steps.

Posted by JeffJ"

I gotta agree Jeff. Blacks and women didn't achieve full civil rights overnight. It was done in increments as the country was ready to move forward.

The percentage of Americans who support full and equal rights for the GLBT community has been steadily increasing for the past 10 years. The percentage of the 18-35 group who are fine with same-sex marriage is at nearly 60% now. Eventually the country will be ready for another step forward on the evolutionary path.

Rob--you can't just "leave it up to the states"---one of the most significant issues with gay marriages/unions is the gift tax issue. You cannot run a gay household without running afoul of gift taxes. If you own a house together and contribute different % of the down payment--you have gift taxes. If one makes significantly more $$ than the other and makes all of the mortgage payments or buys the other a car--gift taxes.

The fact that each of the two are considered to distinct taxable individuals causes SIGNIFICANT problems that CANNOT be dealt with via contract.

"Many Christians see marriage as a sacrament that symbolizes Christ and the Church, therefore their discomfort with gay marriage as a religious ceremony."

And the Christian community can do with it whatever they choose to do with it. In my town, there is a Christian church that openly accepts gays, in fact, encourages their membership because they are turned away from other religious organization.

"These particular Dems are very strong in their faith and prefer gay marriage as a civil ceremony."

A religious marriage rite has no legal status with the State.

A legally-stamped civil union has no religious status with the church.

The only problem I see is the continued and irrational denial of a legal civil union between two consenting adults based purely on religious bias.

And Jeff--i too agree. Get the rights now, worry about the title later.

Rob,

The four you mentioned are wrong in their stance. Simple as that.

Posted by RevDarko

You know if Gays, and even African Americans really, wanted to make real progress in their communities they would stop voting practically unanimous with one party, in this case the Democrats. When 90%+ of a group votes religiously with one party, then they are completely written off by the other party and in fact turned into a wedge issue and a reason to vote for against that group.

If gays and Blacks and all other minority groups were to begin voting equally or at least around there, to both parties, then both parties would listen to them because losing 50%(+/-) of a group could cost you the election. Right now, its not like the GOP is going to cater to gay rights, or issues in the black community... at best what could we hope for? 15% of the vote? And the Democrats like in this debate are going to show that they really don't give a fuck about their concerns, because its not like these groups are going to vote republican so these top 3 don't have to take risks to win their vote.

Its why you see the GOP going so heavily after the Hispanic vote... at least we have a possible chance of getting a percentage of their votes.

Let me know when any of those "libs" wanna amend the constitution to discriminate against gays, bushlover...

Posted by Alexandrite

I didn't know the constitution discriminated against anyone. When was it changed?

-denial of a legal civil union

I believe that these candidates support legal civil unions.

Rob--you can't just "leave it up to the states"

Well, that's your best option... the GOP isn't going to propose Marriage at the federal level and the Democrats are clearly just paying lip service to gays.

"and so I guess you also are against the descrimination of people who do the same thing with animals...."

That is probably the stupidest argument that can possibly be made in this debate, and certainly not worthy of you BL2.

We are talking about relationships between 2 consenting adults. That means 2 human beings who are in all other ways, capable of entering into any legally binding contract.

If you believe marriage is between a man and a woman then fine, I respect that. But that is a religious construct and should have no bearing on the civil/legal rights of honest tax-paying American citizens.

Sniper--they pushed a constitutional amendment that would, for the first time, actually codify discrimination. Thank goodness it failed.

"The percentage of Americans who support full and equal rights for the GLBT community has been steadily increasing for the past 10 years. "

Gays and lesbians have always had the same rights as everybody else. The difference is that there has been a certain level of denial of equal rights based on the innate homophobia of the majority of the American public.

Marriage though is not a right, thus the debate.

"It's a choice," Richardson said - a view that is contrary to the position of many gay rights advocates."

Neeeeep!

Wrong Answer. Thanx fer playing.

Don't let the door hit ya
where the dog shoulda bit ya!

Somebody was asking earlier why Richardson wasn't being considered as a serious candidate fer the Dems.

Look no further.

After eight years of Dumbya nobody needs that level of ignorance again.

Obama, Edwards and Clinton all support equal rights and a civil union with all the rights of marriage but they don't want to use the term marriage.

Prolly because in a political sense it's an easier case to argue from an equal rights angle.

Mellissa Etheridges comments that the gay and lesbian community felt like they had been "thrown under a bus" by the Clinton in their 8 years in office was well taken.

Be Well,

"I didn't know the constitution discriminated against anyone. When was it changed?

Posted by Sniper"

Alex didn't say it had been changed. But Bush and the Republican Party have pushed for a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage.

Thanks for playing, anyway. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

"Marriage though is not a right"


But Equal Protection Under the Law is.

We are talking about relationships between 2 consenting adults. That means 2 human beings who are in all other ways, capable of entering into any legally binding contract.

Why does it have to be only 2? And why does it have to be adults? In fact, define adult? And what about between siblings?

Why should "civil union" laws be able to discriminate against all the the other types of intimate relationships that might exist?

"Thanks for playing, anyway" San Antonio Rogue 09:48

"Thanx fer playing" dethspud 09:48

Spooky!

Be Well.

"It's a choice," Richardson said - a view that is contrary to the position of many gay rights advocates."

Neeeeep!

Wrong Answer. Thanx fer playing.

Don't let the door hit ya
where the dog shoulda bit ya!

If the top 3 candidates really truely thought being Gay was a biological fact of nature they would have no problem with Gay Marriage.

Richardson should get points for being honest, but in this crazy country's politics, being a sleazy hypocrite like Obama, Clinton and Edwards is what gets you elected.

"And why does it have to be adults?" Because, Einstein, that would be the definition of "capable of entering into any legally binding contract".

Can children or animals do that?

"Why does it have to be only 2?"

Perhaps it doesn't. Again, if all parties meet the criteria, and no one is forced or coerced...

I always find it funny the Straights always declare being gay is a Choice if that is so when did the straights choose to be straight??

Larry

Why does it have to be only 2?

Cos this aint Saudi Arabia or Utah back a few years.

And why does it have to be adults?

Because kids can't afford the rings

In fact, define adult?

18 yo.

And what about between siblings?

C'mon. We don't want everybody on the planet to resemble Prince Charles.

Anymore stupid questions?

Be Well.

sarogue............I guess I was referring to gay sex rather than some high faluting idea of marriage between two of the same sex......

its clear that making it official is little more than a political ploy to push an agenda in the country and thats one of my reasons for being opposed......that and it is not natural.....and here is where some of you drag out the ole.....well there are gay penguins or some bullshit like that.....


and of course the best line on it is also a pun.

the left will not push gay marriage down my throat............get it......get it......

that would be the definition of "capable of entering into any legally binding contract".

But then define adult/ For example, the Democrats support allowing minors engage in a contract with a doctor to perform an abortion on them without parental consent, so why wouldn't democrats allow minors to similarly engage in a "civil union" without parental consent?

"Why does it have to be only 2? And why does it have to be adults? In fact, define adult? And what about between siblings?"

I have no problem with polygamy--so long as all of the adults are willing participants.

Under current law--i believe in most states the age of consent is 18. Do you have an argument that says it should be higher or lower?

Sibling marriage brings in a significant increase in birth defects. But i have heard that may not be true--and if it is not true, without any form of justification to ban marraige between people related by blood--i'm not sure we should ban it. The "ewww, that's gross" isn't, in my mind, enough to enact laws.

uh larry.....I think straights CHOSE to be straight...

oh lets see.....how about since the beginning of time, perhaps???????????

It would be very interesting to read the debates regarding inter-racial marriage during the first half of the 20th century and look at all the parallels we see today w/gay marriage.

At least we didn't have to listen to any divorced individuals talk about the sanctity of marriage during the debate. There's not much worse than that (except, maybe hearing a pro-war 20 year explain why doesn't want to serve in the military).

If they were serious about preserving the sanctity of marriage, maybe they should sponsor a bill to only allow divorce in the case of abuse.

how about since the beginning of time, perhaps

BLT chose to be straight back at the "beginning of time"?

Wow, Spud never knew that about BLT!

Did you take any pictures?

Was it really a BIG BANG or was that just hype?

On the way back to the present did you stop off in the time of the dinosaurs and feed the raptors?

Was there a gift shop?

Spud'll stop now.

Be Well.

"that and it is not natural"

Define natural...

"Present in or produced by nature"

Yup

"Not acquired; inherent"

Yup

"Not produced or changed artificially"

Yup



I'm sure you can find a few definitions of "natural" to fit your narrow view. I'd say your previous divorces are "unnatural" and you should be forced to live with your ex-wives.

"I think straights CHOSE to be straight..."

Did you BL2? Please describe at what point in your life you weighed that decision. When did you go..

"Hmmm... that dude over there is really hot and I really think I'd like to get with him."

But then went...

"Oh, I guess not, I'll just be attracted to that woman over there instead."

Well BLT it stands to reason that there were Gay people at the very begining of time. You know it's funny that Europeans that came over here declared the Native Americans as Barbaric but even THEY honoured Gay and Lesbians in their tribes. Imagine THAT.

Larry

I think I get it now. "Bowa" must be Nigerian for "obtuse".

Spuderick I think BLT is so old He can't remember back to the begining of time. I imagine that "Big Bang" was His Mother whipping His ass with a stick. Poor guy You ALMOST feel sorry for Him.

Larry

Richardson should get points for being honest

Ordinarily, Spud would agree but in this case he's being honest about his ignorance and that's a bad thing.

Spuderick I think BLT is so old...

He seems to have all the retention and mental faculties of a goldfish with alzymheimers.

You almost feel sorry fer him

Almost?

Spud feels really sorry-- but mostly fer the folk who have to deal with him on a regular basis.

Be Well.

ah spuds.....you ruined it with that last shit for brains post......

the beginning of time stuff and big bang shit....not that was funny.....the last was just mean.....too bad, but not surprised.......its that larry guy......his influence has ruined you......

yuk yuk.

Ordinarily, Spud would agree but in this case he's being honest about his ignorance and that's a bad thing.


But the other three are just liars. If they thought being gay was biological and not a choice then why would they be against Gay Marriage. It would be like saying Blacks can't get married because like skin color being gay would be out of our control. So clearly Obama, Edwards and Clinton think being gay is a choice, but aren't willing to say so.

At least Richardson is honest.

Now there is a disturbing thought. Me influencing ANYONE to do ANYTHING. I think I am scared now.

Larry

"the beginning of time stuff and big bang shit....not that was funny..."

BL2, actually, it was hilarious. It was a good thing that DethSpud stopped when he did or I would have needed resuscitation from laughing too much.

Seriously though, did y'a get any pictures? I'd be willing to pay for prints. And how was the gift shop? Were the Chinese filling the stores with junk even then?

"But the other three are just liars. If they thought being gay was biological and not a choice then why would they be against Gay Marriage. It would be like saying Blacks can't get married because like skin color being gay would be out of our control. So clearly Obama, Edwards and Clinton think being gay is a choice, but aren't willing to say so."

No Rob, that is only your opinion. They don't necessarily believe being gay is a choice. In fact, all three of them are intelligent and educated enough to know that it is not.

However, it is certainly obvious that they are still trying to play it politically safe by embracing equal rights, but hedging on the "marriage" semantic. I don't particularly like it, but like Jeff said... baby steps.

and again.....none of your little liberal bullshit ramblings wont change the facts..

this is not about rascists events from the 60's and you insult all of the civil rights workers when you do.
this is not about me being afraid or some sort of phobia......I was in the music business for over 40 years so I am not unaware of anything gay and I am trying to avoid saying that a lot of friends of mine are gay because just like when saying that about blacks, who I came to know through playing jazz......it is so disengenuous because they are my friends and the other just doesnt make a shit about anything.........and my friends will tell you that I would give them anything they really needed if they need it and who they dick or what they suck or what color their skin is doesnt mean a god damn fuckin thing............
they know how I feel about this subject and it doesnt get in the way of anything..
we all lose at the track or explode with emotion at anything mozart with the same appreciation regardless.....
so keep your liberal nonsense to yourself.

a man should marry a woman and vice versa.......period and stop!

I see Rob is teachin' a class in convoluted logic again today.


Keep up the good work.

zot.........errata on not......should have read..

NOW that was funny.....thought it was too.......


and just remember........you too will get old some day..........hee hee

well better go.....its time for the geritol treatments

and since they just took my girlfriend....'LUCY' back to africa, its been lonely around here lately...



( only people who know who lucy is will get that joke.....so lets see just how smart some of you are)..............

""a man should marry a woman and vice versa.......period and stop!""

Oh thank you BLT, we needed your pompous, holier than thou opinion....so we could laugh at your narrow mind. You are an example of why lots of Americans think Texas is synonymous with ignorant bigot.

""( only people who know who lucy is will get that joke.....so lets see just how smart some of you are)..............""

Too easy. Not even worthy of being a Trivial Pursuit question.

No Rob, that is only your opinion. They don't necessarily believe being gay is a choice. In fact, all three of them are intelligent and educated enough to know that it is not.

Then they are biggots? Since they feel that people should be discriminated against for reasons that they cannot control? How is there position any different from saying a Black man can't marry a White woman 50 years ago?

"this is not about rascists events from the 60's and you insult all of the civil rights workers when you do."

No BL2 - you insult them when you don't.

"This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.

Some say let's choose another route and give gay folks some legal rights but call it something other than marriage. We have been down that road before in this country. Separate is not equal. The rights to liberty and happiness belong to each of us and on the same terms, without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation.

Some say they are uncomfortable with the thought of gays and lesbians marrying. But our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others. Our rights depend on us being Americans."

-Congressman John Lewis (who marched side by side with Dr. King)

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people,"

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."

"Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

"I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible." Like Martin, I don't believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others."

- Coretta Scott King

Like Martin, I don't believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.


Why does Coretta Scott King think Barak Obama is a biggot?

Why BLT You have kept flirting with Me for a while now. Live on the edge. You know You want Me. Come on Big Daddy what are You afraid of. We could be a Couple You and I.

I can cook I can clean
I am not somebody sixteen.
No need to worry no need to pout
For You love Me there is no doubt.
Come on Big Daddy what do You say
Let's make a love connection this day.


Larry


PS I think I am gonna be sick now.

"Why does Coretta Scott King think Barak Obama is a biggot?"

Mrs. King passed away a while back so she doesn't think much about Mr. Obama.

Mrs. King passed away a while back so she doesn't think much about Mr. Obama.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


Nobody should... cuz he's a biggot.

I'm tired of seeing Democrats claim that their position is different from that of Republicans because they supposedly support civil unions. Show me some legislation introduced to that end, if that is what you support. Why haven't any of the Democrats that supposedly support civil unions instead of gay marriage done anything to make that a reality? Until they prove they are for civil unions by actually doing something, they are no different than the other bigots and should be treated as such.

Chicken - perhaps someday, when you're a bit older and the braces come off and the acne clears up a bit some nice young boy or girl will actually like you too and ask you to the spring dance.

Too easy. Not even worthy of being a Trivial Pursuit question.

Posted by danni at 2007-08-10 10:39 AM | Rep


come on now girl.........with the talk of my being around for awhile........it was funny.....come on you can admit it.............


larry..........you can stop dreamin about me now.....

just ask lisa and she will tell you......

I am too much man for both of you..........

danni....you are gonna REALLY hate reading this but it sounds to me like you and me are kindred spirits in one area.....

got screwed on divorce..........NO THAT CANT BE RIGHT>...
because its the man who ALWAYS GETS SCREWED IN DIVORCE......

yuk yuk........

and citing vegas as mainstream is pushing it a little dont you think?

Some just choose to deviate and be a useless fudgepacker or carpetmuncher.




Posted by ChickenInOven at 2007-08-10 10:45 AM | Reply

Assmuning You are Male. Have You ever had anal sex with a Woman?? Ever received a Blow Job?? Ever Orally Pleasured a Woman?? All of those is a Diviation from what Procreation is all about. You can't get Pregant from swallowing Sperm. You can not impregnate someone anally. You can not help a Procreation along by Orally stimulating the Female Vagina. So if You have done any one or all of those things You can not condemn Same sex Couples for doing the EXACT same thing. If You do it in any other fashion than Missionary Position You are a Sexual Deviant as far as YOU are concerned.

Larry

You have a point Joe. I think the first step we'll see with a democratic president is a ban on gay discrimination at the workplace and housing. That would be a step forward. Equal rights is a slow process. It may not move as fast as it should, but progress is progress.

Seriously, who would have thought even 4 years ago that we'd have presidential candidates engaging in a debate SOLELY on gay issues?

I tell you, i'd PAY to see this debate by the republicans.

I am too much man for both of you..........


Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-08-10 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

If You were any Man at all and totally secure in Your own sexuality You would not have a problem with 2 Males marrying each other or 2 Females Marrying each other. That's a fact.

Larry

"Assmuning You are Male. Have You ever had anal sex with a Woman?? Ever received a Blow Job?? Ever Orally Pleasured a Woman??"

No Larry, he's never even touched a boobie over the sweater.

Sanctity of marriage my ass.

Posted by danni

Yeah. So because some slimy fucks run 15-minute marriage drive-thrus to cater to the multitude of drunk, impulsive dumbasses in Las Vegas, that must mean that marriage is an all-around big joke. Okay.

Next you'll be throwing out the divorce rate percentages. Ever consider the fact that these numbers and facts may have more to do with the irresponsible and selfish nature of the invdividuals entering into these unions, than this supposed lack of sanctity of marriage?

No Larry, he's never even touched a boobie over the sweater.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-08-10 11:03 AM | Reply

Thanks there went My Dr Pepper all over everything. Thanks alot.

Larry

and let me ask all of you something.

for a long time the roman empire ran a large portion of the world......so where is it now.......why are the biggest tourists sites now ruins........
just what happened.....will you tell me that george bush in another life was a ceasar and he ruined it.....or what?
a lot of factors maybe.......I am seriously asking the question so if all you got is a fuck you stupid rune comment save your effort for someone who gives a shit about that.

tell us what happened and was it society that was at the front of that collapse or politics......as in liberal politics.........

and do you see the point I am trying to make......

will come back later to get my 'education'......

If You were any Man at all and totally secure in Your own sexuality You would not have a problem with 2 Males marrying each other or 2 Females Marrying each other. That's a fact.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-08-10 11:02 AM | Reply


larry..........this post is bullshit in highform..

now your previous post to this one....

wow.....it got me hot!!!!!!!!

Can anyone actually describe what they mean by "sanctity of marriage"?? I'm looking towards the right here...

Next you'll be throwing out the divorce rate percentages. Ever consider the fact that these numbers and facts may have more to do with the irresponsible and selfish nature of the invdividuals entering into these unions, than this supposed lack of sanctity of marriage?


Posted by ChickenInOven at 2007-08-10 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

It IS their Irresponsibility that Destroys the Sanctity of Marriage. If they didn't have a Selfish Nature to them they would concider what they were getting involved with BEFORE they entered into Marriage. By them having selfish motives they disparage the Sanctity of Marriage.

Larry

"Next you'll be throwing out the divorce rate percentages."

Speaking of that, it is a well known fact that Jesus never said a word about same-sex relationships. In fact, the only important pronouncement he ever made about marriage was to prohibit divorce.

Since we are a "Christian" nation, shouldn't you folks be frothing at the mouth trying to pass a Constitutional amendment banning divorce. There are far more divorced straight people than there are total GLBT's. Seems to me your concept of Christian morality and sanctity of marriage bloviation is completely misplaced.

No BLT if You was Secure in Your Manhood You wouldn't have ANY problems with who married who. But I do detect a slight lack of Male Security within You that Prevents You from having a total and complete Mastery of Your Male Self security. It's alright BLT You can get through this.

Larry

You ever had anal sex with a Woman?? Ever received a Blow Job?? Ever Orally Pleasured a Woman??

I'm not going to give you material to jack off too tonight, Larry.

The pleasure aspect of sex is definitely important, and there's nothing wrong with engaging in it for that purpose. But primarily, its function is to procreate. Whether you believe in ID or evolution, procreation is the ultimate goal of ANY species.

Gay sex is just... pointless, mindless fucking.

"Gay sex is just... pointless, mindless fucking.

Posted by ChickenInOven"

Are you married? Do you love your spouse? Do you enjoy spending time with that person? Do you plan to spend the rest of your life with this individual? Would you be less of a person alone than you are now with that person by your side? Is your life richer for having this person as a partner in life?

If you couldn't have sex anymore would all of the above go away?

Think about your "mindless" comment for just a minute.

Since we are a "Christian" nation, shouldn't you folks be frothing at the mouth trying to pass a Constitutional amendment banning divorce. There are far more divorced straight people than there are total GLBT's. Seems to me your concept of Christian morality and sanctity of marriage bloviation is completely misplaced.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Keeping people together that got married irresponibly and have no business being together would solve nothing.

Unfortunately, more and more people will continue to marry before they're ready or to the wrong person, figure out it's not going to work, divorce, and give all of you fools more ammunition to attack the "sanctity of marriage" with.

I'm not going to give you material to jack off too tonight, Larry.

The pleasure aspect of sex is definitely important, and there's nothing wrong with engaging in it for that purpose. But primarily, its function is to procreate. Whether you believe in ID or evolution, procreation is the ultimate goal of ANY species.

Gay sex is just... pointless, mindless fucking.


Posted by ChickenInOven at 2007-08-10 11:20 AM | Reply


Translation: You are a Sexual Deviant by Your own admittion therefore You can not condemn two Lesbian Couples getting Married and You can not condemn two Gay Men from getting Married. Oh and Straight Sex can be just pointless Mindless fucking too. Do You realize this?? Ever hear of a fuck buddy?? That is all that is Pointless Mindless Fucking just to "Get off"

Larry

"Gay sex is just... pointless, mindless fucking."

Attention childless couples. You may believe you are in love with your mate, that you value your marriage, etc. but no, you don't, you just mindlessly fuck each other.

Real nice Chiceninoven.
Is that the way everyone in the trailer park talks???

BLT:

Very interesting to me that when you think of the 'GAY ACT' the first place you go is:

"...and who they dick or what they suck or what color their skin is doesn't mean a god damn fuckin thing..." Seems to me you forgot about all the muffy-muff divers you dream about in your porno-mags. You know - Lesbos!


And BTW the music Business is one of the most homophobic work places of all. It's HYPER-HETERO MASCULINITY is neccessary for a band and it's product to sell...and if you really worked there, you'd know it!

I was in the entertainment business for over 25 years. And I was forced to HIDE my sexuallity in order to keep my job, whether I was a 'go-fer' or a 'lead-writer'.

So don't pretend. But Here's what REALLY PISSES ME OFF:

This IS about "... rascists events from the 60's and...insult all of the civil rights workers when you do...".

Gay men and women, White and Black PROUDLY MARCHED with MLK and were part of the Civil Rights March for blacks AS WELL AS their own LGBT causes. You might want to google Mattachine Society as a START to understanding LGBT history. But saying our struggle is NOT the same, is a flat out historical lie.

To impy that discrimination against blacks was worse than gays when both sets of peoples were being dragged under cars, hung from trees or pistol-whipped while tied up against fences is a bald-faced LIE.

In the past:
Like Blacks, GAYS got/get fired from JOBS, by bigots - WHEN said bigots discover their workers are Gay.

Like Blacks, Gays were/are randomly beaten and killed for who they are, even when the slimmest presumption of being gay is detected by bigots.

Like Blacks, Gays were/are unable to participate in the military.

Like Blacks, gays were/are prohibited from Marrying the PERSON OF THEIR CHOICE.

Like Blacks, gays were/are the persecutory political play things of religious WHITE STRAIGHT EVANGELICAL MALES and those they wield dominion over, like their wives or children who grow up perpetuating the hate....And some of those WSEM's turn out to LOOOOVE some Cock and Sperm in public bathrooms. Cop Fettish, No?

Now, Time has corrected many of the abuses against people of color, but not without the continuous bleeting struggle from people LIKE YOU. Time is attempting to correct the abuses against gay people, but TOTALLY NOT without the continous bleeting struggle from people LIKE YOU.


Marriage rites were invented BY GAY PRIESTS in the middle centuries to wed themselves to each other and Christ. Marriage rites for gays have existed for centuries amongst other religions and traditions as diverse as Armerican Indian to East indian. From Muslim, to Japanese Samarai.

Marriage is NOT a male/female tradition. It is only ONE of the traditions. So stop lying to yourself. We GAY PEOPLE know what really is in your heart. We're here to STOMP IT OUT before you teach another generation to hate.

AND BTW:

My Husband and I were disgusted by last night's debates.

We thought, except for Kucinich, that ALL the candidates were weak, smarmy and NOT working in our best interest. (ARE YOU LISTENING HILLARY? You've lost our vote, sweetie).

BTWxs2:

"...Bill Richardson said, that he believed that sexual orientation was a "choice."

...Later Richardson issued a statement through his campaign office.

"Let me be clear - I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice," Richardson's statement said.

"But I'm not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law."

The pleasure aspect of sex is definitely important, and there's nothing wrong with engaging in it for that purpose....unless you're gay....cuz an ignorant buffoon says so.

I have a friend who's spouse equivilant has HIV. They are a loving couple that support each other more than some heteros I know would under the same circumstances.

It is the weak-minded bigots among us that think that gays are more about sex than love.

""We thought, except for Kucinich, that ALL the candidates were weak, smarmy and NOT working in our best interest.""

But, hasn't that been the case on other issues as well. Kucinich is brushed off as a third tier candidate by the MSM but everyone I talk to who hears him thinks he's the man. I think the corporations who own the media are determined to marginalize him because they are afraid he really will change things.

"a man should marry a woman and vice versa."

Posted by bushlovertwo

That's an opinion.

But what is the rationale against allowing a gay couple to have legal status equal to a het couple?

How does a gay couple having the same legal benefits you have ultimately affect you?

What possible quantifiable difference will it make in any het's life?

If 50,000 gays got "married" today (i.e., obtained legal status from the State), it would not make one iota of difference in my day-today life. Why would it in yours?

The churches can accept or not accept: that is their right as private, non-taxpayer-supported organizations. Nobody is attempting to force the Church to accept gays.

Good points Dumpling. See my 10:41 post for comments about gay & civil rights from REAL civil rights leaders, vs. various and sundry music "moguls" and Jerry Falwell clones.

"...Since we are a "Christian" nation..." -Posted by SanAntonioRogue"

Although Iagree with your points in regard to this post, I have to disagree with your notion. This is NOT a christian nation and NEVER WAS intended to be a 'chistian ntion'. The founders of America were clear about that. So STOP perpetuating the lie. You may really, really want to believe it to be true.

But you are lying to yourself. We demand better scholarship from you SanAntonioRogue.

Yes, Sanantonio, I think you actually captured the concept BETTER than I did. Where as mine were emotional appeals, yours were succinct in historical context. I partially remove my "Scholarship" swipe!

Begging forgiveness.

Dumpling...

I DON'T think this is, or was intended to be a Christian nation. Hence my placing the word Christian in quotation marks in my post.

You obviously don't know me or my views on this topic that I have posted many, many times.

Dumpling,

With respect SAR's use of "Christian Nation" was not an espousal of his personal feeling but a quotation of how the fundies view America.

PARTIALLY removing the scholarship swipe?????

There are Plenty of churches that accept the concept of Gay Marriages.

There are others that are driving a wedge between their parishoners over the issue, and in some cases (Angelican) beating a path away from their traditional association with world-wide councils, which have decided to mend ties with their gay leaders and followers.

Even the churches' can't get it 'straight'.

If you couldn't have sex anymore would all of the above go away?

Good point, and no, it would not, IF we had been together a significant amount of time, and IF there had been physical intimacy for at least some portion of the relationship.

A relationship without some instance of that physical intimacy is nothing more than a friendship.

The greatest way to show love to another person is to conceive a child with them. Nothing can top that. If I'm involved with a person, and for whatever reason we lose the ability to have a child, I know in my heart that they possess the means to partake in this act of love with me, and the only thing preventing us is this disease or defect or what have you.

In a gay relationsip, there is no way to EVER show this kind of love to your partner. The best they can do is sexual pleasure. That's why I call it mindless.

I gotta get some work done.

Okay, SAR, totally My Bad. Full remove of Scholarship swipe, due to demands from S.T.U., has been completed.

S.T.U (Sarchastic Terminology Universty (TM) )

In a gay relationsip, there is no way to EVER show this kind of love to your partner. The best they can do is sexual pleasure. That's why I call it mindless.



Wait--so if you can't share the love by creating a child (which, btw, gay couples CAN do)---then they don't/can't share any of the other forms of love and their relationship is, in your mind, reduced to mindless f$%king?

Wow.

"...The greatest way to show love to another person is to conceive a child with them....


In a word: BWBWHAHAHAHAHAH

Where the HELL did you get this shit? From the 'Love Won Out' annual (anal) Conference?

I suppose Childless STRAIGHT couples can NEVER,EVER,NEVER,EVER,NEVER,EV
ER,NEVER,EVER,NEVER,EVER,NEVER
,EVER,NEVER,EVER,NEVER,EVER,NE
VER,EVER,NEVER,EVER

know TRUE LOVE, the GREATEST LOVE....That would be news to them.

EVEN RATS HAVE BABIES. I SUPPOSES CHILDLESS RATS CANNOT KNOW THE GREATEST LOVE????

Chicen: YOU...ARE AN ASS and a tautological infant.

"In a gay relationsip, there is no way to EVER show this kind of love to your partner. The best they can do is sexual pleasure. That's why I call it mindless."

That is so utterly wrong. If it were true then any straight couple who couldn't have children would fall into your "mindless sex" category.

And by your logic couples should split up after the woman passes child bearing years.

"The best they can do is sexual pleasure."

No, the best we can do is have love and companionship, and all of the things I mentioned above. Sex is a nice fringe benefit that won't last forever, just like in a straight relationship.

Apology accepted Dumpling. We're on the same side here!

I suppose Childless STRAIGHT couples can NEVER,EVER,NEVER,EVER,NEVER,EV


Let me clarify. I said, in a straight relationship, that just the KNOWLEDGE that they possess the physical means to create a child is the basis for this love.

Childless, unable to conceive, beyond child-bearing years, doesn't matter... their anatomy is designed to procreate. It fits together. It compliments each other.

Knowledge?

That is the most retarded statement i've seen in a while. You've really argued yourself into a hole here. Best throw in the white flag, acknolwedge you made a bad argument but stubbornly stick to your ultimate conclusion that gays are horrible people that don't deserve equal rights.

An anvantage of being gay is you don't need to get married.

Childless, unable to conceive, beyond child-bearing years, doesn't matter... their anatomy is designed to procreate. It fits together. It compliments each other.

Posted by ChickenInOven at 2007-08-10 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Well Hells bells I guess an asshole can not accept a Male apendage huh. Damn Now You tell Me. I guess one hole is good but the other hole ain't. a hole is a hole and a rod fits into ANY hole quite well THANK YOU very much.

Larry

Hmmm. Chicken, you're really good at making up rules, then moving the bar when challenged.

I wonder how many people who are married or planning to marry would say that the knowledge they possess the means to create a child is the basis of their love? That is sooooo romantic!

I'm guess pretty darn few.

"An anvantage of being gay is you don't need to get married."

Nobody "needs" to get married. They choose to because they want to and they see advantages to doing so. straight, gay, makes no difference.

"Gay sex is just pointless, mindless fucking"

How could you know that unless you've had gay sex yourself?

equality = everbody gets the same options.

bl2 and his monkey love theory is bullshit since sex with animals is illegal... so is sex with kids
is being gay illegal? NO

personally i would never let the church or the state have any say in my love life. my marriage is between my wife, myself and our belief in the creator... no need for a contract
but for those who think they need validation.. it should be applied with equality for all

Where are Taxman, TonyRoma and Boyd... I'd love to hear their opinions of Senator Obamas biggotry.

The answer is 42. 42 purses hit the stage.

Posted by Corky at 2007-08-10 09:31 AM

Give Corky her purse back damnit

Wait a minute... Clinton, Edwards and Obama all oppose gay marriage? really?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-08-10 09:23 AM

They need the god damned homophobic vote... and that state of paranoia sure as hell crosses party lines, though the GOP owns it.

A few years ago I had two major surgeries and my live in, my best friend, signed in at the hospital as my wife... so that she wasn't denied visits when I was in critical condition.

As for making marriage a strictly religious thing ?
For starters, us pore old atheists would be left out, boo hoo !
I could care less if there was a federal law allowing civil unions.

With something like 55% of first marriages going in the shitter I have to love all that GOP snivel about marriage. About as sincere as their "sanctity of life" stance.

homophobic

This word bothers me...

My wife could easily be described as an arachnophobic person. She sees any type of spider and she screams, runs away and is freaked about it for a few minutes... I have a sister who just completely shuts down at heights...

I've never noticed this type of behavior in straight people around Gays. So I've never really understood why it was called Homophobia, instead of just biggotry. When people tried to deny rights to Blacks they weren't called Blackaphobics just biggots.

""I'd love to hear their opinions of Senator Obamas biggotry.""

I just love the pretense of belief in Obama's bigotry. Any fool knows why they won't come out in favor of gay marriage and most gay people understand too. Then the righties, who themselves oppose gay marriage (or almost any rights for gays) pretend moral outrage at politicians like Obama who can't come out in favor of gay marriage and still get elected. There was a time, in the fourties and fifties when politicians who favored equality for black people realized they would have to do it incrementally because it takes time to educate people and eliminate bigotry. Slowly, things change, and one day gay marriage will be considered a right that no one will question. Til then, presidential politicians are almost forced to play along.

Slowly, things change, and one day gay marriage will be considered a right that no one will question.

Barak Obama will

Danni - why do you even bother?

SANANTONIOROGUE I don't know, bored I guess.

a man should marry a woman and vice versa.......period and stop!

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-08-10 10:34 AM

Because I'm naturally a generous person I give these enlightened souls about 42% of the '08 vote.

Like Edwards and Clinton, Obama emphasized his support for civil unions that offer full marriage rights - without calling the arrangement marriage - for same-sex couples.


This makes sense, actually. What they are advocating is marriage in every legal sense except name.

I've long said this is the strategy the gay crew should adopt. It has a greater likelihood of success than re-defining the current definitions of marriage, already on the books.

Marriage is a legal contract. Religion is NOT involved in making marriage legal. All churches get their RIGHT to perform LEGAL marriages from the government.

Marriage is a legal contrzct. No reliious person is necessary to make it legal, and no religious person is necessary to end it.

Want to stop the controversy over marriage---get the religious whackos out of it and take away their right to marry ANYBODY, and make all marriages legal only if performed by non religious entity--like a Justice of the Peace---or Notary Public. Threaten the religious nuts with that and I'm sure they wouldn't mind marrying a few gays now and then.

the current definitions of marriage, already on the books.


Posted by JeffJ at 2007-08-10 02:14 PM


You mean the definition put there by activist judges?

You mean the definition put there by activist judges?


No, I mean the defition put their by the various state legislators.

"In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide on marriage equality and it will base its decision on the U.S. Constitution, not anything in any of the state constitutions."

That is probably correct.


Do you see anything in the Constitution about gay marriage? I think you'll need your activist judges then.


I believe you are mistaken.

It'll shake down like this:

A case will make its way to SCOTUS alleging that a state law defining marriage as the union between 1 man and 1 woman violates the Constitution. Granted, I am no Constitutional scholar, but in following arguments presented (both ways) in this vein, I don't view these legal definitions to be in violation of the Constitution.

Jeff J

See anyplace in the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Can you see what the activist judges will see?

BLT, The answer is 42. 42 purses hit the stage.

Posted by Corky at 2007-08-10 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag

I knew it was a # between 41 and 43.

Gay sex is just... pointless, mindless fucking.

Thanks for sharing your personal experience with us, chicken.

See anyplace in the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Can you see what the activist judges will see?


The Constitution was never intended to address each and every conceivable scenario in our society. If it did, we wouldn't need the legislative branch.

Of course gay marriage isn't defined or addressed in the Constitution. A lot of laws that are passed aren't specifically addressed in the Constitution.

What has to be proven is that these marriage laws VIOLATE the Constituion. Based on the arguments I've seen stating 'yay' or 'nay', my conclusion is that these marriage laws are not unconstitutional.

"It is always wrong to put basic rights up to a popular vote,"

Matt Foreman


I agree---abolition of slavery would never have happened with a popular vote. Womens right to vote would never have happened with a popular vote. Black voters rights in the south would never have passed with a popular vote.

"It is always wrong to put basic rights up to a popular vote,"

Matt Foreman

Jeff J

"What has to be proven is that these marriage laws VIOLATE the Constituion. Based on the arguments I've seen stating 'yay' or 'nay', my conclusion is that these marriage laws are not unconstitutional."

I would say the 14 Amendment with its equal protection clause should be enough to strike down any state laws against gay marriages.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It says all citizens should have the same opportunities for life, liberty, and property and doesn't say a thing about what sex they are. It says they should have equal protection. Since marriage laws deal quite specifically with property, I would imagine that the court should see that gays have the right to do with their property as they see fit as defined by the 14th amendment. To deny them this right is not equal protection.

But then I'm sure the activist judges on the USSC will see that the 14th amendment says "except homos", as do you.

abolition of slavery would never have happened with a popular vote.

Slavery wasn't found to be unconstitutional. Thus it took the following ammendment:

Article. XIII.
[Proposed 1865; Ratified 1865]
Section. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

But then I'm sure the activist judges on the USSC will see that the 14th amendment says "except homos", as do you.


No, that's not the argument I am making.


A gay man is free to marry any woman who will oblige him.

Thus, he isn't being denied equal protection.



I don't think SCOTUS will find these laws unconstitutional.

Jeff - when a black man was free to marry any black woman who would oblige him, but not a white woman; or a white woman was free to marry any white man who would oblige her, but not a black man were they being denied equal protection under the law?

Jeff J

"Slavery wasn't found to be unconstitutional. Thus it took the following ammendment"

So? The point was----it shouldn't be left to a popular vote.

A gay man is free to marry any woman who will oblige him.

Thus, he isn't being denied equal protection.



I don't think SCOTUS will find these laws unconstitutional.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-08-10 03:50 PM |


If a gay man can't dispose of his property---or control his property the same as every other citizen---he doesn't have equal protection.






Now where in the Constitution does it mention marriage at all? Your statement that a gay man can marry any woman who will oblige him is WHERE in the Constitution?

So? The point was----it shouldn't be left to a popular vote.


Very little of our legislation is via a popular vote.

It's predominantly through the legislative process.

My point being, it took elected legislators to pass the Emancipation proclamation. It wasn't an all-powerful court that tortured the English language to a point where that right could be found in the Constitution.

when a black man was free to marry any black woman who would oblige him, but not a white woman; or a white woman was free to marry any white man who would oblige her, but not a black man were they being denied equal protection under the law?


I am not familiar with the specifics of what you are talking about. Please expound a bit - the logical construct of your argument may alter my opinion on this.

The pleasure aspect of sex is definitely important, and there's nothing wrong with engaging in it for that purpose. But primarily, its function is to procreate. Whether you believe in ID or evolution, procreation is the ultimate goal of ANY species.

Gay sex is just... pointless, mindless fucking.

Posted by ChickenInOven at 2007-08-10 11:20 AM | Reply



I suggest that you go to the library and look up any physical anthropology textbook on "sexual selection". Jared Diamond wrote a very interesting book a few years ago on the subject.

National selection and sexual selection go hand-in-hand (something that Darwin never really understood). Evolutionarily speaking, there are many animals that put their resources towards assisting their kin (ie, Grandmother theory explaining menopause, etc.) in reproduction instead of themselves. For many animals, it's often better to invest in helping your siblings reproduce than yourself. This is especially common in birds.

There are many evolutionary theories regarding human homosexuality. The argument that it's "not natural" is complete BS.

I've got to agree with Visitor on this one. Marriage should be 100% within the boundries of religion. There should be no legal recognition of the institution at all.

Posted by RevDarko at 2007-08-10 09:19 AM

I've got to disagree, because we will have laws that affect and effect marriage. Bigamy comes to mind. I think marriage should be marriage for all, government sanctioned. However you can take it 'beyond' that and get married in a holy union in a religious ceremony.

As to the arguments that it isn't an equal rights issue, you are being obtuse on purpose. If you can't marry your partner you aren't getting equal rights. I can here the cat and dolphin arguments now too, when was the last time they could enter a legal contract?

If a gay man can't dispose of his property---or control his property the same as every other citizen---he doesn't have equal protection.


Which is no different from someone who chooses to be single. Once dead, their estate goes into probate, unless spelled out otherwise in a will.

Just throwing this out there.....


What if a 35-year old billionare wanted to marry a 6-year old poor girl and her parents consented?

"All rights come from the State."

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Gotta disagree with y'a on this point.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Jeff- throw it back.

Since we are a "Christian" nation, shouldn't you folks be frothing at the mouth trying to pass a Constitutional amendment banning divorce.
Posted by SanAntonioRogue
* * * *

That's not a bad point, actually. My compliments for the first novel argument in a long time.

The problem here is...marriage has become a religious/legal institution. The same word is used for both.

Alex,

I threw that wrinkle out there to try and explore the scope and reach of the equal protection clause.

"marriage has become a religious/legal institution"

Perhaps. But one does not legitimize the other in either the eyes of the Church or the State.

"when a black man was free to marry any black woman who would oblige him, but not a white woman; or a white woman was free to marry any white man who would oblige her, but not a black man were they being denied equal protection under the law?

I am not familiar with the specifics of what you are talking about. Please expound a bit - the logical construct of your argument may alter my opinion on this. Posted by JeffJ"

Jeff - until fairly recently there were miscegenation laws in many states that prohibited interracial marriages. Were those people who wished to marry outside their own race provided equal protection under the law?

Jeff J

"Very little of our legislation is via a popular vote."

Then why make gay marriage any different?



"It's predominantly through the legislative process."

Excpt for gay marriage.



"My point being, it took elected legislators to pass the Emancipation proclamation. It wasn't an all-powerful court that tortured the English language to a point where that right could be found in the Constitution."

So that is your point.

My point is that basic rights shouldn't be up for popular vote. People are bigots.

My point is that the 14th amendment clearly states that property rights should be treated equally among citizens. Gays property rights are being violated in that they can't decide for themselves how they would like to operate their property rights, or control what happens to them when they die. Also gays do not have the same liberty to marry who they love as other Americans do.

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution---that means marriage laws are left to the States---as long as those laws don't violate the Constitution. Violating the 14th amendment is against the Constitution. That isn't "torturing the English" language a bit. It is reading the Constitution for what it says. But as stated, I'm sure the new activist judges on the USSC will see "except homos" as do you.

If marriage is a religious ceremony why cant we have religious marriage and regular marriage. Gays should have the same rights as everyone else. They pay the same taxes they have to follow the same laws they should have the same protection. The only problem I see is the Government has no right to force churches to marry same sex couples. We also have no right to define marriage as we have no right to define a Bar Mitzvah or a holy communion. If we start defining marriage will we then start defining other religous ceremonies. We do as a country have every right and responsibility to make sure each of us has the same equal rights. If marriage is viewed as a religious ceremony then it should be called a religious marriage

Zot- no, but it makes the situation more complicated.

All gays want is the same LEGAL rights in coupling that heteros take for granted with their marriage license.

I don't think they really give a shit if the church approves. Nor should they, given most churches stance on gays.

There is simply no good moral or legal reason to deny two consenting adults the 1000 extra rights they get from that marriage license....just because someone like Bob Allen thinks it's icky that he blows people.

My point is that the 14th amendment clearly states that property rights should be treated equally among citizens. Gays property rights are being violated in that they can't decide for themselves how they would like to operate their property rights, or control what happens to them when they die. Also gays do not have the same liberty to marry who they love as other Americans do.


In regards to property rights, gays are treated no differently than someone who chooses to be single, or someone who is widowed.

until fairly recently there were miscegenation laws in many states that prohibited interracial marriages. Were those people who wished to marry outside their own race provided equal protection under the law?


Marriage itself was still defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman - so a heterosexual couple WAS being denied equal protection. That's not precisely the same thing that is being discussed here. Nevertheless, it's an interesting point you are making and gives me pause as to how the Equal Protection Clause applies in the gay marriage scenario.

"someone who chooses"

Now Jeff, you KNOW thems fightin' words.

Rogue,


Homosexuality is a choice.

Deal with it! ;-)


Seriously though, It would be very interesting to see how SCOTUS would rule in this scenario.

I agree Jeff. It seems to me that it might actually come down to the question of choice or not. Assuming that it is not a choice (and it isn't, so there)I don't see any way they could rule that Equal Protection doesn't apply.

Would be interesting to speculate as to where the burden of proof would lie... that is IS a choice or that it ISN'T a choice (and it isn't, so there).

Jeff J


"In regards to property rights, gays are treated no differently than someone who chooses to be single, or someone who is widowed."


Posted by JeffJ at 2007-08-10 04:28 PM | Reply

You seem to miss the point. The Constitution is supposed to apply equally to all people in all circumstrances. When gays don't CHOOSE to remain single---they are not treated equally in that they can't marry who they love, and they can't operate or dispose of their property as they see fit. A clear violation of the 14th amendment. You see---except homos---written there someplace, and I suspect the new activist judges on the USSC wil agree with you.


Now, can you tell me how gay marriage would negatively affect our society or anyone in our society---and why hasn't it done those negative things in the countries that have legalized gay marriage? I don't see riots in Massachussetts.

"Marriage itself was still defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman"

No state law stated that marriage was between one man and one woman---not one, before 2000

With all the negative aspects---I doubt one can CHOOSE to be a homosexual. If it is a choice---could you CHOOSE to be a homosexual?

Homosexuality is no more a choice than race. Michael Jackson aside.

I doubt this will reach the USSC with the make up of this court. Chances are they will wait till a dem has the opportunity to appoint a couple of Justices and bring some sanity and a flavor of America back to our system of Justice.

Gay's have one choice. Stay in the closet or come out.

Stay in the closet or come out.

Some choice.

No state law stated that marriage was between one man and one woman---not one, before 2000

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-08-10 04:56 PM |



Under pressure from New Jersey's highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to multi-sexual-oriented couples, groups, and associations, the state Legislature voted last week to make New Jersey the third state to allow civil unions. "This is a huge step towards progress," says M.S. Punchenko, who has been waiting more than four years to enter into an official legal relationship with a toaster named Helen

Democrats don't have any intention to help Gays at anything especially Gay Marriage. They only make nice speeches and use the issue to make it seem like Republicans are biggots. But, at the end of the day Democrats won't back Gays because the lib Dems are phony to the core.

Bill Clinton came up with Don't Ask Don't Tell. He could have had principles and held the line to allow Gays to be "out" in the military but he cared about his political career and popularity first. Add Hillary and Barrack to that list. I have no idea why any Gay person would support Democrats.

I have no idea why any Gay person would support Democrats

Cos in direct comparison the GOPhers are far, far worse.

Yer point that gains fer the GLBT community under the Dems have been limited and in many cases were pure rhetoric are well taken.

As Mellissa Etheridge herself, sed in the article (to Hillary) she felt like the Clinton admin had thrown their cause "under a bus".

But to think that the GOPhers are the cure rather than the disease here is nonsensical.

Be Well.

I don't think you can really can say that the Dems are better than the GOP on the issues of gays. I know lots of Dems who won't support gay marriage and that includes Hillary and Obama.

There are a lot of religious Dems who won't back gays on anything. They still see homosexuality as a moral issue. That's why even a big lib Dem state like California won't support gay marriage. Look at all those blue states that won't back gay marriage either. The idea that the Dems are more gay friendly is just a myth and a big Dem lie.

Utastaff

Are you saying the Reps are more for gay rights than dems? Do you say that because Bush is bi-sexual? That makes no difference.

Facts are all the rhetoric against gay freedom comes from the right. Fact are, all the rhetoric for gay freedom comes from the left.

Utastaff

Do you think being gay is a choice?

"I don't think you can really can say that the Dems are better than the GOP on the issues of gays."

Why yes, they are. Not perfect by any means, but you might want to educate yourself just a bit on voting records on GLBT issues by Democrats.

And, the last time I checked, the Democrats weren't trying to legislate anyone into 2nd class citizens through the first Constitutional amendment in history to limit rather than expand civil rights.

Unlike Democrat Bill Richardson, I do NOT believe that being gay is a choice. I am conservative but I do believe in gay rights including gay marriage and ALL of my Republican friends feel the same way. That's more support than Hillary and Obama!!!

Dems only support gays with words. Don't be fooled to into thinking that the Dems will really get behind a constitutional amendment for gays. They may SAY it but won't seriously back it. Kind of like how they said they would defund the war but funded it anyway. If the Dems won't stop Don't Ask Don't Tell they sure as heck won't be behind a constitutional amendment to protect gays. It won't happen. The Dems are just using gays just like they do blacks. Stop being so naive.

"Don't be fooled to into thinking that the Dems will really get behind a constitutional amendment for gays."

What the heck are you talking about? There has never ever been any discussion of a "constitutional amendment for gays". There is no need for one - only the need to equally apply the existing constitution to all American citizens.

It is the Republicans who have consistently backed a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage and relegate an entire class of Americans to 2nd class citizens.

If anyone is naive my friend, it is you. While I applaud your stance on gay marriage, I don't think you fully understand how Republicans have used that issue and the "homosexual agenda" to create fear and distrust to divide America and rally their base.

My point is that the Democrats have no desire to help gays in any way. Bill Clinton said he would help gays and then had 8 years in office and did nothing except Don't Ask Don't Tell and that was pathetic.

Here is the harsh cold reality for gays. The DEMOCRATS like Hillary and Obama and others have been playing the Bible-thumber game recently to win over Bush's religious right which is an enormous voting block. That vote is anti-gay period. That is why you are seeing the Hillary and Obama coming against gay marriage. They want to win and will NOT let supporting gays get in the way of a win. Democrat or Republican gays will lose. Harsh but true.

Utastaff

I have trouble believing you have the intelligence, compassion, or understanding to really have the stance you stated on gays.

I think you lie.

ROBERT NOVAK You are using Robert Novak to make a case Lokisfur?? Too fucking funny.

Larry

"supports the homosexual agenda"

"homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral,"


And you can bet that's how they phrased and framed the question. Change it to "Do you believe in the following: All men are created equal, and watch how the results change.

"I don't think you can really can say that the Dems are better than the GOP on the issues of gays."

Let's see...

All the Dem candidates are on record as supporting, at a minimun, equality for gays.

The Republicans most recently are on record trying to pass an Amendment to the Constitution codifying gays as second-class citizens.

And you "don't think you can really can say that the Dems are better than the GOP on the issues of gays"?!?!?

What planet do you live on?

And when's the Republican candidates forum on gays?

You cannot have something as wholesome and traditional as marriage associated with lifestyle that, lets be honest, gives people the creeps

Its not a good match -- no pun intended

How pathetic!!

To watch the Dems pander to a fringe group that represents 3-5% of the population that are all going to vote Deomocrat anyway

Whats the point--you already have the gay vote!

Buffalo Bob, you don't know me. I may be a Republican but I have had lots of friends who were gay and they have been some of the nicest and most supportive friends that I have had. Heck, one of my friends who is a married Repbulican took his wife and they went to a gay pride parade to support their friends. My friends who were gay who went to mainsteam clubs with me asked that I go to theirs and I did to be supportive. Heck my boss is gay and he is a Republican (absolutely the truth)!!! I am a supporter of Gay marriage.

I can honestly say that the overwhelming majority of Democrats I know are homophobes. This is why Hillary and Obama take the stances they do against Gay marriage because they will not jeopardize support from their base. Democrat Bill Richardson thinks being Gay is a choice!!!! Face it. There is not a lot of support for gays from either party. This is NOT a Republican biggotry issue. Lots of that on the other side of the Democrat aisle too.

Do not think for one second Mr. UTASTAFF that the democratic party's s stance on Gay Rights comes anywhere close to the filth and hatred and damning posturing that comes out of the Republican Party.

I have been battling against republican bigots for the past 30 years. They have not only NOT CHANGED their stance, but gotten worse with the vitriolic and loathing they have for gays. I DOUBT very much that the 'Majority Of Democrats' you know are Homophobes. That's just plain crap. Yes, I don't know you, and as a gay man, I never would want to know you.

The only reason why the 'Obamaries' have taken a stance against gay marriage is to get elected. Once He/She is president (and they will be) you watch exactly how the house of cards comes down on the anti-gay crap.

If there is no hope for a second term, either will eliminate 'Don't ask, Don't Tell' AND DOMA in the first term.
If there's hopes for a second term, they will wait until after the election and put and end to all this homophobic nonsense.

It's not an issue of support from either aisle, UTASTAFF...It's about Constitutionally guarenteed Equal Rights. Saave?

Now here's a game for all the Heterosexuals out there who made the choice to be Heterosexual:

We give you a Million Dollars to be Gay for a week. Not only do you have to stay with a man, you have to have sex with him, both Submissive and Dominant. With a little oral exchange thrown in.

And you have to ENJOY IT. Like it, really look forward to doing it again. All of it. Even the Loving-kissing-cuddling part.

Can you do it all? If not, you are straight.

But if you answer yes, you could do it ALL AND ENJOY IT.

Guess what? YOU'RE GAY.

Said Game example above applies to Heterosexual women as well, Ladies? What sayest thou?

Utastaff

I doubt your post has two words of truth to it.

I don't have to know you to know you are lying through your keyboard.

I will make myself quite clear then you can take your lying ass down the road.

You are a liar.

BBob,


Now, can you tell me how gay marriage would negatively affect our society or anyone in our society---and why hasn't it done those negative things in the countries that have legalized gay marriage? I don't see riots in Massachussetts.


I think you are misconstruing my position.


I support gay marriage and would vote in favor of it, given the chance.


I DON'T think that the existing marriage laws violate the Constitution.