Bush `troubled' by S.F. gay marriages

[TheMojoPin]

But he won't say if he'll back constitutional ban (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4251510/)

I know it's cliche, but doesn't this guy have so much more he should be "troubled" about right now?

I hate just out-and-out bashing the guy, but come on...quit fucking pandering. All this talk of family values in this country sliding down the drain...and people desperate to actually GET married is "troubling?" Are you REALLY that troubled by the idea of all those penises not penetrating all those vaginas, George? Grow the fuck up.

ECH.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[billyio]

He'd rather have gays banging the drum slowly in bathhouses than encouraging responsible relationships. Makes good sense.

See Ya!

[Heavy]

AIDS is a big problem.

http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=JohneeWadd
A proportionate amount of props are equally distributed to my nigga's Fluff, Alexxis, CanOfSoup15, WWFallon and Katylina
HORDE KING FOREVER!!!
ORACLE NEVER!!!

[keithy_19]

Hmmm...Could the fact its not natural be the problem?

Note that I'm not criticizing anyone who is gay. I know some people who are gay and are great people.

<img src=http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/kbb_sig.gif>

[Se7en]

It's not just pandering, as I keep telling people who keep bringing this up.

Recent polls show that around SIXTY percent of Americans are NOT in favor of gay marriage.

Regardless of whether you think it's an important issue, it is an issue, and he's speaking for a significant majority of Americans.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/bigosmelt.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">CAST IN THE NAME OF GOD, YE NOT GUILTY</marquee> </font>
</center>

[schmega]

60% is not quite a SIGNIFICANT majority.

i'm more troubled with his ban on stem cell research.

[HBox]

Recent polls show that around SIXTY percent of Americans are NOT in favor of gay marriage.

And recent polls show only 40% of people support an amendment. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html)

Which in any sane world means this should be a non-issue in Presidental campaign. Leave it to the states is what the people say.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[TooCute]

How about his general lack of funding for the sciences, period?

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[Dudeman]

Hmmm...Could the fact its not natural be the problem?


the crap spit out by cars driving 180mph in a circle for 500 miles is more "unnatural."


-the dude is online-

[samnyc]

Why do you want to get married, gay person?

[KC2OSO]

Why do you want to get married, gay person?


I can't imagine why. It can't be for the tax advantages. Maybe it's just to debase another institution. Whatever. Go for it. Nobody cares.

http://www.njmikec.com/Fester1.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

Recent polls show that around SIXTY percent of Americans are NOT in favor of gay marriage.

So?

Most Americans think a conspiracy killed JFK, according to polls.

A ton of polls in various Arab countries have come back with a majority of people thinking Arabs had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Polls can suck my big, fat pole.

And until these people can provide better, LEGITIMATE reasons besides "I don't like it/them," tough shit. From a LEGAL (Which people seem to keep mixing in with religion) standpoint, it's so fucking moot already as an issue.

The majority CAN be wrong. They are here. Bush needs some balls on this issue and should do the right thing. Take a cue from LBJ.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 2-18-04 @ 10:16 PM

[Recyclerz]

How about his general lack of funding for the sciences, period?


Funny you should mention this

Surprise, no $ left for those global warming studies W ordered (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-CLIM.html)

And hey, why leave the science nerds out of the party?

Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html)

I know this is off-topic; I just couldn't help myself. ;)



[b]Sig-less in Gaza[b]

[Yerdaddy]

Why isn't it a basic freedom to marry who you love, and who you choose? Tradition? Lots of things were traditions before the rise of the concept of human rights changed them. Majority opinion? Basic freedoms are to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Natural? There has been homosexuality as long as there has been human history. And is 6 billion people and growing a natural thing? I can't think of a reason for marriage not to be defined as a right that is open to all Americans and defined as a union between consenting adults.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
I'm chatty!

[keithy_19]

Polls can suck my big, fat pole.


Mojo, let's not get carried away.



<img src=http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/kbb_sig.gif>

This message was edited by KeithyBoBeefy on 2-18-04 @ 10:13 PM

[samnyc]

My last post was made under the influence. Brown vs. Board of Education set the precedent that anything "separate but equal" (marriage vs civil unions in this case) is not sufficient. As much as most of us naturally resist the idea, we must accept gay marriage.

[Alice S. Fuzzybutt]

Why do you want to get married, gay person?


Aside from that pesky emotion called, "love," there are legal and financial reasons that are afforded to heterosexual couples that aren't available to homosexual couples.

Health insurance? If you're not legally married, your partner can't always be included on your plan (unless your company recognizes "domestic partners," which few do.)

Adoption? Gay couples tend to have to adopt as a "single" parent, meaning, only one parent gets to be the "legal" parent.

Income tax? Married couples with kids get breaks. (Not sure if single people with kids get better breaks, so I might have stuck my foot in my mouth.)

I don't get it. It's the 21st century. The gay population is out and has been for years. Why deny them? Does Bush think he can "control" homosexuality by not supporting gay marriage?

I'm just baffled how ultra-conservative thinking can even try to defy REALITY.

<IMG SRC=http://atamichimpo.50megs.com/images/deathmetalfuzzybutt.jpg>

She said Jesus had a twin who knew nothing about sin.

[KC2OSO]

There are no financial benefits to getting married! Kids, no kids. You get financially punished for getting married.

http://www.njmikec.com/Fester1.jpg

[HBox]

I'm just baffled how ultra-conservative thinking can even try to defy REALITY.

If I had to choose a motto for the last three years. that'd be it.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[curtoid]

Every day after the "Fastest Hour" I keep WJFK on to see how long it will be until I get disgusted by O'Reilly that I have to turn it off. Some days, it's the moment he opens his yap, and some days I even keep hiim on through a full set, and maybe a little bit after.

TODAY...sheeeeeeesh...what a nightmare.

He was screaming and carrying on that it was ANRARCHY in San Francisco. Just nuts. If they force Bush's hand to back an ammendment it will be the death of his campaign, regardless of how most people feel about it - the party that first brings this up as an issue will die by this issue (radio psychic).

Personally, I don't think he has any plan to do so, but he wants to come across to his base as one of them - unfortunatly, most people today know openly gay folks and when the issue begins being explained with the backdrop of previous civil rights movements, I think they will see those that are violently opposed to this are the extreme right, they will not stand for it, no matter how they personally feel about homosexuality.

Just fucking nuts - such a god damn non-issue.

Only once before have we created an ammendment to the US Constitution to restrict citizen's rights, and that was eventually over turned - is this how Bush really wants to be remembered???



http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/07.jpg
[b]Always trying to be the behind the scenes guy...[b]

This message was edited by curtoid on 2-18-04 @ 10:51 PM

[samnyc]

Ultra conservatives are scared of ultra liberals and get entrenched in their positions to defend themselves. The ultra liberals do the same. Neither side presents a realistics picture.

[El Mudo]

Doesn't the State Law of California ban gay marriages? and yet the city of SF is giving them out anyway? Isn't that basically the same kind of disobedience Roy Moore tried in Alabama with the Ten Commandments issue? And he got absolutely ripped for it....If someone in SF had any guts, they'd throw the book at Gavin Newsom...

Look, I'll be honest, im not really in favor of gay marriages, but I don't want a blanket amendment for or against it. This is a STATE issue, and the federal government needs to stay out of it completely. If the State of Massachusetts wants to allow them, fine. If the State of Maryland wants to disallow them, fine. But it should all be a state matter...

See this is where that Texas sodomy case a few months ago has led us. Now we have the federal government messing around in areas like marriage laws and other things that rightfully should be run by the states...

http://www.oaklandchamber.com/images/oakland_raiders_logo.gif <marquee> RAIDER NATION</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

Can someone give me one good reason why two consenting adults shouldn't be able to get legally married if they want to?

ONE?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[El Mudo]

Because it helps out that evil Trial Lawyers lobby....

*shudders*

http://www.oaklandchamber.com/images/oakland_raiders_logo.gif <marquee> RAIDER NATION</marquee>

[KC2OSO]

... from Merriam Webster (www.m-w.com)


Main Entry: marúriage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

harumph!

http://www.njmikec.com/Fester1.jpg

[Arienette]

this whole thing is driving me crazy. i dont understand why lawmaking isn't a more objective process.

you dont think homosexuality is "natural"? good for you, but what's that got to do with anything? much of our law is about drawing arbitrary lines, and distinctions that are not always natural ones.

married people don't get tax breaks? great! let 'em get hitched and the country makes more money. sounds good to me.

worried about AIDS? well, discouraging homosexual couples from maintaining monogamous relationships is sure the help out with that.

the main reason why it seems that people oppose gay marriage is because they don't "believe" in homosexuality. not allowing gay people to marry is not going to turn them straight. so who are you to stand in the way? you're not going to get what you're looking for, anyway.

... from Merriam Webster (www.m-w.com)


Main Entry: marúriage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

harumph!
see, even webster says it's ok

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/aricheat.gif" height=100 width=300</img><br><br>we all know gold is getting old
the ice in my teeth keep the crystal cold
</center>

[blakjeezis]

Has anyone checked the divorce rate recently? The institution of marriage has become a joke as it is. They ain't gonna screw it up any worse than we heteros already have.

<IMG SRC =http://www.blakjeezis.homestead.com/files/toyjeez.gif>
If I were any better, I'd have to be twins!!
<marquee><font color=red>2%</font> White people are so scared of blakjeezis<font color=red> 2%</font></marquee>
I'm Rick James, bitch!

[newport king]

AIDS is a big problem

funny coming from someone who idolizes a sword swallowing aids infected porn star.



I'm not criticizing anyone who is gay. I know some people who are gay and are great people.

some of my best friends are black!



Polls can suck my big, fat pole.

ok usually i don't agree with what the guy says but that was funny.



disgusted by O'Reilly

this is the same guy that considers ludacris "gangsta" rap.

conservatives and liberals alike make me want to fucking vomit. look i give you my tax money, way more than i feel appropriate, you pass laws andmake policies that i rarely agree with. i hate this country's foreign policy but no candidate is offering one that sounds good to me (lets start taking care of our own shit and stop getting into other people's affairs). so please is it too much to ask of the united states government to STAY THE FUCK OUT OF PEOPLE'S BEDROOM!!!!

<img src="http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/npk_sig.jpg">

[RocOutWithYACockOUT]

Haven't republicans in this country made it a point of saying they are in favor of a smaller government. I remember when Newt Gingrich first took office and he came out with with " The Contract with America" and they said such things as there's too much government in our life. When did the government decided it would be come a moral authority. I mean it's president bush not reverend bush. When it comes to things like this I think the government should be completely neutral. We all know how poorly things work out when the government tries to regulate morality .

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/rockoutsig.jpg
A Special Kat make this for me

[BoondockSaint]

I hear Jeter and A-Rod are on an express flight to SF.

http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v11/squrl/bs_sig.jpg
Thanks to monsterone for the sig!

[Se7en]

Recent polls show that around SIXTY percent of Americans are NOT in favor of gay marriage.

So?

Most Americans think a conspiracy killed JFK, according to polls.

A ton of polls in various Arab countries have come back with a majority of people thinking Arabs had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Polls can suck my big, fat pole.

And until these people can provide better, LEGITIMATE reasons besides "I don't like it/them," tough shit. From a LEGAL (Which people seem to keep mixing in with religion) standpoint, it's so fucking moot already as an issue.

The majority CAN be wrong. They are here. Bush needs some balls on this issue and should do the right thing. Take a cue from LBJ.


Look, whether you believe it or not, I'm with you. I support gay marriages, and I think the issue is silly too.

But at the same time, I get a bit frustrated when those who do support gay marriage seem to marginalize those who don't - it's not a small minority who oppose it, it's not as if Bush is speaking only for interests groups on this issue, and it's not - as many liberals seem to expound - that religious institutions are the cause of all this anti-gay-marriage sentiment.

The simple fact is, MOST people in this country are TRADITIONAL. They define marriage as only between a man & a woman. MOST don't hate gays, don't dislike gays, would probably get on board with civil unions - but marriage is the line in the sand, because it has connotations to the practice far beyond the religious implications which people bring up. Most Americans claim a belief in the judeo-christian God, but does that mean that a majority of those who oppose gay marriage do so for religious reasons? No. It's that in their hearts & minds marriage equals mom & dad; marriage equals some fairytale ideal of two heterosexual lovers unifying their love. They aren't willing to accept homosexuals into that definition.....yet.

Are they wrong? Yeah, I believe so, but I accept the fact that it's a MAJORITY opinion, because I feel one HAS to - because if you're for gay marriage, this is what you're up against. It's not just a small number of Americans whose hearts & minds you have to change, it's hundreds of millions.

And unfortunately, I don't think that homosexuals are doing themselves any favors in the fight - watching them get married (illegally) only infuriates people who oppose such unions more. I can't say I blame those couples for doing it, but it doesn't make the struggle any easier.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/bigosmelt.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">CAST IN THE NAME OF GOD, YE NOT GUILTY</marquee> </font>
</center>

[newport king]

http://www.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/24/survivor.winner/link.rudy.apcbs.jpg
"swear to god biggest collection of queers i've ever seen, all of ya."

<img src="http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/npk_sig.jpg">

[HBox]

Look at these horrible people. It's just sick. How dare these people defile our most sacred institution. It makes me want to vomit. (http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried)

And se7en, I don't think anybody is really questioning how opposed this country is to gay marriage. But I and a lot of people view this as a civil rights issue, and in that case the majority opinion doesn't matter. It's easy for us to sit here and say that homosexuals are pushing this too fast, and if they'd just tone it down a bit, their rights would come in time. Frankly, I don't really give a fuck if people are "uncomfortable" with this. Screw them, they aren't being denied their rights. And I really don't think this is a major issue with most people either. They don't like it, but there's tons of stuff America does that people don't like.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[A.J.]

Let's interpret religious texts literally!

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[HBox]

The Attack of the Gay Agenda! (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0407/fiore.php)

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[high fly]

Of course Bush is troubled. Mention gays and he just sits there, thinking about what it looks like..............then he thinks about how it must feel................then he thinks about what he would do...............and before you know it, he's on the internet, ordering himself a costume like one he saw on Rob Halford....

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

This message was edited by high fly on 2-19-04 @ 6:22 PM

[DJEvelEd]

Has anyone checked the divorce rate recently? The institution of marriage has become a joke as it is. They ain't gonna screw it up any worse than we heteros already have.

Gay couples tend to stay together for life, therefore the divorce rates should IMPROVE. Only divorce lawyers should be upset about gay unions.





It still bothers me when I'm shitting in a stall, and a gay guy smells my perfumy F‘cesT and hits on me. I'm a nice guy so I never flush for the gays.

Thanks Katylina, Monsterone, you make the shittiest sigs.
<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=djeveled">
SPONSORED BY: "THE F’CESTOF C’SAR" BY ’SOP c464 B.C.

[high fly]

If you drop Bush's copy of Sean Hannity's book on the floor, it opens right up to the part about "fisting".

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[zoom2457]

Hmmm...Could the fact its not natural be the problem?


What if people said,

Hmmm...I think people with MS are not natural. Maybe we should not allow them to get married or do anything else?

Not that I'm against anyone with MS, some of my friends have it and they are great.

I'm just trying to make a point to Keith in a way he might understand it better. I'm really, really not picking.

"Excuse me, excuse me I believe you have my stapler"

This message was edited by zoom2457 on 2-19-04 @ 7:58 PM

[HBox]

That's REALLY not cool.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[TheMojoPin]

When civil rights in opposition to racial segregation were enacted, polls showed the majority of the country clearly opposed such actions.

These people were wrong.

The people opposing gay marriage now are wrong, period. You're right, I don't care how many of them there are. They're wrong if there's only 10. They're wrong if there's 10 million.

LBJ told MLK and his supporters to "calm down and wait for their chance" until he had handled Vietnam. Guess it's a good thing they didn't settle for THAT option. They stuck to their guns, continued their protests and marches (Despite a WRONG majority opposing them), and forced LBJ's hand in using his power to push his civil rights bills through Congress sooner than he planned. Sometimes change MUST be forced, whether people want it then or not.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Se7en]

LBJ told MLK and his supporters to "calm down and wait for their chance" until he had handled Vietnam. Guess it's a good thing they didn't settle for THAT option. They stuck to their guns, continued their protests and marches (Despite a WRONG majority opposing them), and forced LBJ's hand in using his power to push his civil rights bills through Congress sooner than he planned. Sometimes change MUST be forced, whether people want it then or not.

But the situation between this and the civil rights movement of the 60s regarding African Americans are not the same.

For one, many people don't view homosexual as a civil right, especially since there's no *definitive* proof that it's anything other than a lifestyle choice.

Our own laws - at the federal and state level - offer ZERO protection for homosexuals specifically BECAUSE it's not considered a civil right.

I don't know. I just don't see the mainstream support for gay marriage coming any time soon. And in the mean time, we may have every state trying to codify anti-gay-marriage legislation (if it they haven't already done so before). Plus you have the Defense of Marriage Act......It's all just a big mess, really.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/bigosmelt.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">CAST IN THE NAME OF GOD, YE NOT GUILTY</marquee> </font>
</center>

[TheMojoPin]

Why would it matter even if homosexuality WAS a choice? That implies marriage is something that's supposed to be genetically defined. And unless all hetero couples biologically are fit (And this goes beyond just "tab A fits into slot B")for each other, isn't that line of thinking ridiculous?

Marriage has never been defined by the ability to procreate. Marriage is not defined by how people specifically engage in sex. The pretext of marriage only being "legal" between a woman and a man is so vague and flimsy, it's not even funny.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Furtherman]

For one, many people don't view homosexual as a civil right, especially since there's no *definitive* proof that it's anything other than a lifestyle choice.


Oh c'mon. Maybe one day the "gay" gene will be discovered, but it obvious that people are born that way. Homosexuality has always been around, probably in every species since the beggining of time. You just see more of it now because there are more people.

<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

[angrymissy]

There are no financial benefits to getting married! Kids, no kids. You get financially punished for getting married.

There are definitely tax breaks, especially if you have kids. You get a $1500 credit per kid.

<BR><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/missy2.gif" width="300" height="100" border="1">

[zoom2457]

For one, many people don't view homosexual as a civil right, especially since there's no *definitive* proof that it's anything other than a lifestyle choice.


My favorite color is blue. Is that a choice? Is there some sort of gene that makes me like blue? Is there any type of definitive proof that proves that blue is my favorite color? Can anyone describe why they like a certain color over the other colors?

Being gay is the same thing. You don't know why you like people of the same sex, you just do.

"Excuse me, excuse me I believe you have my stapler"

[zoom2457]

Doesn't the State Law of California ban gay marriages? and yet the city of SF is giving them out anyway? Isn't that basically the same kind of disobedience Roy Moore tried in Alabama with the Ten Commandments issue? And he got absolutely ripped for it....If someone in SF had any guts, they'd throw the book at Gavin Newsom...


The State Law of California also prohibits any type of discrimination. So which law do you follow? One law cannot contradict another law.

"Excuse me, excuse me I believe you have my stapler"

[A.J.]

There are definitely tax breaks, especially if you have kids. You get a $1500 credit per kid.


Sure: punish childless, loners like me!

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[Yerdaddy]

Sure: punish childless, loners like me!

Abolish the hooker tax!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
<marquee behavior=scroll>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/pythfish.jpgI'm chatty!-----http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/mulletfish.jpg<font color="white"> Nice tailfin. </font>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/pythfish.jpg</marquee>

[Se7en]

Why would it matter even if homosexuality WAS a choice? That implies marriage is something that's supposed to be genetically defined. And unless all hetero couples biologically are fit (And this goes beyond just "tab A fits into slot B")for each other, isn't that line of thinking ridiculous?

Yes, it is, but you have to follow the progression of the law in this country - it was determined in Loving v. Virginia (you might be familiar with the case) that marriage is a right protected by the Constitution - it falls under the penumbra of "right of privacy", in that people are free to associate, or in the case of Loving (where an interracial couple had been put in jail simply for choosing to marry outside their race), marry, with whomever we choose.

BUT that right hasn't been applied to homosexuals yet, because homosexuality has only recently gained even a modest amount of mainstream acceptance and is still, to this day, not considered a civil right - largely because it's viewed as a lifestyle choice, and not a natural condition.

So then - you know that it shouldn't matter if gays want to marry each other than, and I know that, but the law has been slow to recognize it. And that's the problem we're facing now - people want social change, but the law is very slow in reflecting it. Sound familiar? It's the 60s all over again, in a sense, only it's NOT, as we're presented with the possibility that people are going to really get fed up with the whole gay marriage thing and pass some sort of gay marriage ban amendment.

I'm kind of nervous now. I wasn't before, but I am now. Something's going to happen soon - either people are just going to go numb and say, "I don't give a shit, let the states decide what's what", or they're going to go crazy and let an amendment pass.

Marriage has never been defined by the ability to procreate. Marriage is not defined by how people specifically engage in sex. The pretext of marriage only being "legal" between a woman and a man is so vague and flimsy, it's not even funny.

Goddamn, you should have been in my Family Law class last semester. I know you're just asserting your beliefs here, but you're actually halfway there to making a compelling legal argument. :D

The State Law of California also prohibits any type of discrimination. So which law do you follow? One law cannot contradict another law.

It depends upon whether homosexuals are listed in the state's anti-discrimination statute as being a member of a protected class. In general, homosexuality isn't concerned a suspect / protected class. It isn't covered under Title VII, for example.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/bigosmelt.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">CAST IN THE NAME OF GOD, YE NOT GUILTY</marquee> </font>
</center>

[sleepyeyed_Jynx]

I may be a liberal, but I by all means don't back homosexual marriages. This is not against their constitutional rights since the founding fathers built this place on the christian faith. Say what you will about me, but I'm not with it at all.

<IMG SRC="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/thejynx2.JPG">
"The Revolution will not be televised!"

[HBox]

This is not against their constitutional rights since the founding fathers built this place on the christian faith.

Read the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797. (http://www.cjnetworks.com/~ggarman/tripoli.html)

The relevant portion:

Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Arienette]

This is not against their constitutional rights since the founding fathers built this place on the christian faithever heard of a little thing called the first amendment freedom of religion? yeah, you don't really have to be christian anymore to have rights. and, considering how many priests are out there fucking little boys, i should think that people would be just a little hesitant to rest any argument on something like this.

Marriage has never been defined by the ability to procreate quite true.. if it were, then we'd be able to tell heterosexual couples that for some reason were unable to have kids that they couldn't get married, either. how would you all feel about that?


<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/aricheat.gif" height=100 width=300</img><br><br>we all know gold is getting old
the ice in my teeth keep the crystal cold
</center>

[HBox]

Another example of the majority opinion being hopelessly wrong. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4353934/)

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Se7en]

Sigh. It was bound to happen. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-24-bush-marriage_x.htm)

I'm againt it, but at the same point, I'm more that 51 percent of the mindset now that the liberals / homosexual community pushed the issue so strongly these past few weeks specifically in order for Bush to have to make a decision on this, which may very well come back to haunt him when the election rolls around.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/bigosmelt.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">CAST IN THE NAME OF GOD, YE NOT GUILTY</marquee> </font>
</center>

[TheMojoPin]

This is so dreadfully important right now.

Really, it is.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Furtherman]

Why anyone would care what other people with other lives do is what I find troubling.

Why would you "be against it" or even "not back it". The gays have their own lives - let them live it and Bush and all who agree with him get their asses out of their collective conservative asses.

Lighten up.

<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

[TheMojoPin]

Shhhhhh. Not now.

Let the man pointlessly pander in peace.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Furtherman]

You're right. I entertained his ignorance, which is a mistake.

<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

[Yerdaddy]

now that the liberals / homosexual community pushed the issue so strongly these past few weeks specifically in order for Bush to have to make a decision on this
These people didn't get married in order to hurt Bush's reelection chances, they got married because they wanted to get married. If there are strategists in the gay rights movements who have tried to guide actions in this direction to make it an issue during the election year their purpose is to allow gay people to get married, not to hurt Bush. If Bush chooses to try to alter the Constitution in order to limit the freedoms of Americans then that's his choice. He has to take responsibility for it whether he would have wanted to address the issue or not, and whether he benefits or suffers politically from that decision.

In fact I don't see why this would hurt him. It's his base that is more settled on the issue, so he satisfies them with a hard stand against gay marriage. The democtatic base is more divided on this making it more costly for Kerry to take a strong stand on either way.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
<marquee behavior=scroll>I'm chatty!-----http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/mulletfish.jpg</marquee>

[Se7en]

In fact I don't see why this would hurt him. It's his base that is more settled on the issue, so he satisfies them with a hard stand against gay marriage. The democtatic base is more divided on this making it more costly for Kerry to take a strong stand on either way.

It won't hurt him to be against gay marriage, because most Americans are against it, and hell - so is John Kerry, provided he doesnt flip flop on the issue between now & November.

But it'll hurt Bush specifically for the reason you stated - he's changing the constitution in order to deny this right to homosexuals. While the Dems' main party platform might be against gay marriage per se, they'll slam Bush as an extremist for actually going the extra step and forbid it with the highest law of the land.

Bush needs to soften this, perhaps by contrasting this with some sort of intiative supporting / instituting civil unions.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/bigosmelt.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">CAST IN THE NAME OF GOD, YE NOT GUILTY</marquee> </font>
</center>

[HBox]

I thought him endorsing the amendment would be going overboard, and it looks like that might be the case. There are many problems Bush has with this. First, he was acting today like this was a response to San Francisco, when in fact this amendment was written before that, and he had offered support for the amendment solution even before that.

Two, He says his position that he wants to "protect" marriage, and that states should be left to offer civil unions if they want, but if you read the amendment, it certainly seem like it outlaws civil unions.

Three, he said he wants end "uncertainty." But here's what you're gonna get if this amendment passes: unending legal challenges. Beyond defining marriage as between a man and a woman, the amendment is murky and vague. I think it outlaws civil unions, but it certianly do that clearly, and would probably be open to legal challenges.

Im just depressed right now. I knew this was coming, but I honestly thought this country was beyond this kind of stuff. This just turned into an important issue to me. Now Bush wants to stain our constitution with this crap. It just pisses me off to no end.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Doomstone]

"I'm a uniter, not a divider." -Dubya



<center><b><font size=8 color=black>THIS SPACE FOR RENT</b></font></center>

[Tall_James]

As a conservative living in Massachusetts, I'm an endangered species.

I also have no problem with gay marriage. I have more problems with the church groups that picket and give hateful signs to little kids so they can picket as well. That's a horribly unchristian thing to do, fostering hate in a brand new generation.

I'm sure that these gays getting married are taking it a lot more seriously than idiots like Britney Spears (55 hours). Why should that knucklehead have more rights than a hardworking homo?

'Nuff said.



<img src=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/tj_sig.jpg>

Why am I always on a plane or a fast train
Oh what a world my parents gave me

[Yerdaddy]

hardworking homo

that would make a sweet bumper sticker

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
<marquee behavior=scroll>I'm chatty!-----http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/mulletfish.jpg</marquee>

[A.J.]

hardworking homo

Or "dilligent dyke".

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[curtoid]

Im just depressed right now. I knew this was coming, but I honestly thought this country was beyond this kind of stuff. This just turned into an important issue to me. Now Bush wants to stain our constitution with this crap. It just pisses me off to no end.

Just know and have faith that history will remember this as one more black mark (one of many) on one of the worst Presidential administrations ever . History will not be kind.



http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/45.gif
[b][i]Much thanks to M1 for the siggie...!i][b]

[Se7en]

Just know and have faith that history will remember this as one more black mark (one of many) on one of the worst Presidential administrations ever . History will not be kind.


Oh PLEASE.

There isn't a big enough shovel for me to use on all of that horseshit you just spewed.

Rewind just a few years ago, and Republicans were saying much the same thing about Bill Clinton. It wasn't true about Bill, it's not true about Bush now.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/bigosmelt.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">CAST IN THE NAME OF GOD, YE NOT GUILTY</marquee> </font>
</center>

[HBox]

Tom DeLay comes out against the amendment?!?! (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2417678)

"This is so important we're not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this," Delay said. "We are going to look at our options and we are going to be deliberative about what solutions we may suggest."

It's not a good sign for Bush when TOM DELAY looks like a voice of reason in comparison.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[TheMojoPin]

If this amendment passes, it will only be the second amendment in our history to actually LIMIT civil liberties, as opposed to supporting or strengthening them.

The first was prohibition.

I think that even if this new one passes, like it's predecessor, it will eventually be turned down.

Bush should realize this and do the right thing.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[A.J.]

If this amendment passes, it will only be the second amendment in our history to actually LIMIT civil liberties, as opposed to supporting or strengthening them.

Shit, let's add the anti-flag burning amendment while we're at it. This is ridiculous and upsets me as a Republican: I thought the GOP was all about state's rights. So instead we're going to amend the Constitution to institutionalize discrimination against an entire group of our society?

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[TheMojoPin]

This, drugs, guns, abortion...ALL should be the focus of individual STATE legislation...but no, AGAIN, no dice.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Johnathan H Christ]

<IMG SRC=http://whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/images/quiet-faggot.jpg width=300 height=442>

<IMG SRC=http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/logo width=300 height=100>
SHUT YOUR GODDAMN MANPLEASER
"his very conception was an act of animosity, why shouldnt his entire life be one as well?"

[Furtherman]

An Unusual Love Story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4352011/)

Birds do it... Bees do it.... Even Penguins.

<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

[Skellington]

<img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/kriegweasel/stupidshitforlj/constitution.bmp" alt="const" />

<IMG SRC="http://photos.imageevent.com/kriegweasel/stupidshitforlj///halfmonkey3.jpeg">
<marquee>There's nothing duct-tape and a Sharpie can't fix......</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

Oregon county bans all marriages - period (http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002/20040323/2128901416.htm)

So THERE!!!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[A.J.]

Oregon county bans all marriages - period (http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002/20040323/2128901416.htm)

So THERE!!!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Gay people ruin EVERYTHING.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[curtoid]

I had to laugh - this week, the day after gay marriage passed up there in New England, the front pages of all the major newspapers, including The Washington Times (an ultra conservative paper run by Sun Yun Moon of "The Moonies" fame) ran lead articles on it.

The big difference (and this is why I gotta love the neo-cons and the religious right controlling the direction of the GOP these days; they are so unexpectedly amusing!) is that The Washington Times used quotes where ever the word MARRIAGE appeared.

Gay 'Marriage'

Very funny, yet sad, but still funny.



http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/45.gif
[b][i]Much thanks to M1 for the siggie...!i][b]

[Yerdaddy]

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/specials/gaymarriage/" target="_blank">Proposed ammendment banning gay marriage fails to get a simple majority in Senate today.</a>

Is this the most important thing the Senate has to deal with right now? It was just a couple days ago the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the report saying the country's intelligence services are seriously fucked up. Wouldn't it be a better use of their time to be coming up with ways to fix the flaws in the intelligence community? I can think of a hundred things that are more important than making sure gay people don't get married. I think this was a ploy by the republican leadership to try to bring an advantageous issue to the president in the election. I think it disgraces the Constitution to use it to leverage an election for partisan gains. And I also think that the right of gays to marry should be debated in terms of the FREEDOM to choose who one marries instead of the "redefinition" of marriage that debate is confined to now, (there are seperate laws outlawing pedophilia, bigamy, and bestiality, so spare me the slipery-slope arguments around that horseshit.) I think we would have allowed gays to marry long ago if we, as Americans, were as committed to the progress of freedom and human rights as we were to our political ideologies and parties.

Here's the text of the ammendment:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Should the Senate be trying to deny states the right to make this decision, if the majority of citizens of a state were in favor of allowing gay marriage? (I'll put El Mudo down as "no", but what about the rest of you crazy crackers?)

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[TheMojoPin]

It's a state by state issue, all the way.

Of course, like so many things that SHOULD be state issues, it won't be treated as such, and will be propped up to be a much bigger deal than it actually is.

Personally, I find the fact that so many people in this country are OK with this ammendment being the first in our history that would actually LIMIT civil rights reprehensible.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[HBox]

I would comment on this, but now all my kids wanna go out and get gay married and be all gay.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[Se7en]

It failed.

I'm shocked.

I only said that it would months ago.

Memo to Congress: Time to move on to more important business, gentlemen.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/7_sig.gif" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Don't blame me....I voted for Kodos.
I look forward to an orderly election that will eliminate the need for a violent bloodbath. </center>

[TooCute]

I think the fact that it got 48 votes or whatever it was in the first place is pretty scary... not as scary as the fact that it even got so far as to be voted on in the first place...

What's worse is that you just know all those anti-gay, largely religious whackjob types ar egoing to come crawling out of the woodwork to vote solely for the fact that Bush has made such a stand against this.

Well, that is, I suppose, if we have a vote at all.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[Mike Teacher]

SO!

With Wars...

Poverty...

AIDS Explosions around the Globe...

The Sudan...

Education.... Crime....

with all of that and more what does the Hill do for two days? Debate this utter tripe.

This is why I loathe both parties. The whole system stinks. I'm voting for Ron.

Maybe Fez.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/buzz">

[LiquidCourage]

About 90% of the country is "troubled" by gay marriages.

[HBox]

You are overstating that quite a bit, but frankly, its none of their business anyway.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

This message was edited by HBox on 7-16-04 @ 4:43 PM

[TheMojoPin]

LC's got both feet firmly planted in fantasy-land.

And it's ridiculous in this case, since a majority of the country IS "troubled" by the specific idea of gay marriage (Which does NOT necessarily mean they feel the same about a civil union between homosexuals), about 55-60%. So even when he's technically "right," he feels the need to just make something up.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[LiquidCourage]

I definitely made that stat up, but I'm just that there's no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the country is opposed to gay marriage.

[DemonPenquin]

Hmmm...Could the fact its not natural be the problem?

Why am I one of the only ones to find this comment vastly ignorant?

<a href="http://www.stopfcc.com"><img src="http://67.18.37.16/463/63/pip/banner1.jpg" alt="Fight The FCC" border="0"></a>

[LiquidCourage]

Gay marriage is one of those things that I dont' really bother arguing anymore, since I know I'll lose in the end anyway.

[Lumber]

I`m not a Homophobe...Just don`t touch me. My ass is a 1 way street.

<IMG SRC=http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:MMCU_gW497cJ:www2.bumfights.com/indecline/pics/1.jpg>

[TheMojoPin]

60% of the country is "overwhelming?"

Most people are opposed specifically to gay MARRIAGE...the insitution itself, in a church, "in the eyes of God," etc.. I'd lay money a good chunk of those people wouldn't give as much of a damn if all that ended up happening was that homosexuals could form a legal union, like before a justice of the peace or something.

Gay marriage is one of those things that I dont' really bother arguing anymore, since I know I'll lose in the end anyway.

In a thread like this, you always gotta look out for the cheap jokes!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[LiquidCourage]

Exactly, gay MARRIAGE they're opposed to, and I'm sure it's much higher than 60%. I saw some figures for Massachussets that said that that state had 60% supporting gay marriage. If MA is at 60%, surely the national average has to be higher. I support gay civil unions all the way, marriage I'm against all the way though.

[HBox]

What difference does the name make? A civil union is the same thing as a marriage. Nobody is ever going to make churches recognize or perform gay marriage ceremonies.

And, BTW, this particular amendment was not supported by a majority of people in polls (it was about an even 50/50 split) and it would have outlawed civil unions.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[TheMojoPin]

First amendment in our history to actually LIMIT civil rights...

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."