Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

[The Hunter]

Hi.
Thanx.

[west]

Any of your characters still alive?


Yeah, and Bush really kicked his own ass by doing that. I was contemplating voting for him, actually. But unless Edwards gets the Dem. nomination I'll vote by not voting at all. I don't really want either Kerry or Bush in office...I don't think Kerry will be much better than Bush, frankly.

[The Hunter]

2 dead. One of them was abducted by "pirates" and killed at sea.

And I don't care who'll be the next US pres, as long as it isn't Bush. Or any Republican really.

[David]

I think any foriegn national outside the U.S. has an interest and a legitimate claim in who will be their de facto imperial leader .

[rklenseth]

I'm against a ban, but then, I never knew it ever was allowed in the US.

This is the 21 Century, time to review our traditional way's. My opinion is: If it doesn't harm anyone, why prohibit it?

But, unlike others here I'm not in favour of abolishing marriage, it has been a "tradition" for 1000's of years and today still has a lot of symbolical value, and hey, it doesn't hurt anybody, does it?

So go ahead, get married, be happy. (And probably get divorced too).

It wasn't until about a month ago when a court in California declared that not allowing homosexuals to marry was unconstitutional. Then there was Vermont and Masschusetts that made it legal for homosexuals to marry and that was a couple of months ago. And now conservatives think that this lead to a landslide to allow incest, etc..... I don't see it so I disagree with most conservatives on that point.

This is the way I see it;

If a religion is going to have marriage then they can say who can be married and who cannot.

If the government is going to have marriage then they cannot say who can or cannot.

Marriage by religion and marriage by the government is two totally different things. One can be married by religion but not be married by the government and vice versa.

[kroner]

Most things that go on in Washington are driven by politics, without regard for what the American people want. They have us buffaloed into thinking that we have a say in what goes on, because we vote and elect politicians. HA! I say. Republican .... Democrat .... Independent .... Green .... Bush .... Kerry .... Edwards .... Nader .... Elkink .... it's all the same. The political machine rolls on, right over the American people.

Sure most descisions are driven completely by politics and most politicians have little interest in helping the people. They do what will get them power and what will keep them in power and that is to try and get votes. What's the best way to get votes? By doing what makes the majority happy. This is how the majority's views are heard and usually heeded. It's not out of altruism that politicians listen to their constituents, but the effect is the same... usually. There is a lot of spin and manipulation and this is where things don't always work so neatly, but overall, the system has a way of generally representing the people. I don't really agree that the machine rolls over the majority. It's more of an unwilling sybiotic relationship.

[David]

Ya Bill O'Riely says Gay Marriage will lead to Beastality Marriage...

[David]

Basically Politicians are beholden to various interests... knowing what those interests are is the thing...

[Nick]

From a Canadian standpoint, I find it rather funny that the States wants to ban gay marriage due to marriage being a "sacred insitutiton".

The States, being the home of J-Lo and Brittney....

[grayjaket]

I don't understand some of this stuff you guys are talking about. You talk about Bush, in as bad a way as possible, you slam the republican party, you slam everyone else who doesn't agree with your viewpoint, and than you proceed to call them, hateful, bigoted, close minded.....am I the only one who sees this? Maybe I'm not being fair, I don't know...but it certainly seems that you guys sure aren't. Also, something at the beginning of this topic, about religion not being a part of government. Religion is a big part of our government, and our world. Our government was founded, by very religious persons, who believed strongly in God. If you look, there are references to God in the Constitution. This may be suprising, but our government was founded with this strange thing called "moral principles" That's why we are the greatest nation in the world.

Edit: P.S. Don't slam the president. He's got a hard enough job as it is....

[Nick]

You think the church should be more involved with the government, Jake?
I have got to say, I am not a fan of antidisestablishmentarianism as you seem to be.
(YES, FINALLY USED THAT WORD IN A SENTENCE!!!)

[kroner]

Close-minded people desrve a bit of slamming. It's only fair.

As for seperation of church and state, that's one of the most important principles that the government is founded upon. Regaurdless of how religious the framers of the US government were, they had the foresight to keep that out of government. What they hated most was the thought of others controlling their personal business. That's why they fought a war for independence in ther first place.
Which brings me back to the topic: the ban on gay marraiges goes against that entire philosophy that the government has no business intervening in people's private lives.

[kroner]

illegal for gay couple's to even be seen in public or to do aything in the privacy of there own home or run the risk of being imprisoned.

The US had similar laws in some states until very recently. Sodomy laws made gay sexual intercourse illegal even in private. This sort of law was only recently ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

[Sho]

Since when has the current neoconservative administration cared about people's private lives?

Moral principles are a great thing. However, moral principles do not necessarily require religion. They certainly do not require that one religion's view of marriage receive governmental protection. Yes, the Constitution, other historical documents and things like the Pledge of Allegiance mention God often, and the Bible is (as far as I know) still a central part of a judicial proceeding. However, this doesn't mean that removing this will bring our entire society crashing down. References to God were an important part of life in the 18th century, but times have changed.

Don't slam the President? Yes, I agree, we don't need partisan mudslinging. However, he does deserve to be yelled at when he does something like this.

The President's speech is not going to have any direct effect on gay marriage. A constitutional amendment is not going to get ratified in 9 months. It might not get ratified in the next 4 years and 9 months, either, if it ever gets ratified at all. The main effect and purpose of the speech was to keep the support of religious conservatives.

Remember, the people on this board are probably not representative of the general American population. For every person who says Bush just lost their vote, there could well be another who says Bush just got their vote. Support for a constitutional amendment blocking gay marriage is split rather evenly.

[grayjaket]

Ok, ok...I don't think I'm the right person to be arguing this....lol....if only someone smarter than me would just come along and begin voicing my point...