I agree and leaving marriage up to the states it should then be left to the state to develop an equal standard in regard to marriages from other states and under the 14th Ammendment and most states own equal protection clauses that would apply. That's pretty obvious. I'm just saying there is a Constitutional compromise solution.
marriage may not be, but sperm is, in fact, every sperm is sacred, and you know how those gays feel about sperm! the governement should not be in the marriage business. period.
I can't believe he used a line like this to defend his position. But he's right. What really bugs me about this (aside from the whole concept of legislating descrimination) is that no one expects this to pass. So they're wasting their time and our money debating it.
In reference to another thread, I wonder if anyone in the White House is aware that today is the 25th Anniversary of the first official reference of the disease that would become known as AIDS?
Like adultry. If you cheat on your wife, the woman should be able to leave with all the assets and get alimony.
i'm sure they are- Bush has actually raised funding to combat aids in africa...just as long as they didn't acquire it from hot sweaty gay ass ****ing...
Nobody is talking about a law for brothers to marry sisters. We are talking about the bigotry involved in preventing homosexuals from marrying the people they love and want to spend their life with. We are talking about a proposition that would make that bigotry part of our nation's constitution.
A quick trip over to FreeRepublic and it looks like the base might not be falling for it this time. Sorry li'l t. TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections KEYWORDS: AMENDMENT; GAYMARRIAGE; HOMOSEXUALAGENDA; SOCIETY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Navigation: use the links below to view more comments. first 1-50, 51-100, 101-104 next last -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Political Gamesmanship...Would someone please explain to me how allowing two gay men or women to participate in a ceremony to show their love and lifetime devotion to one another in any way detracts from my marriage, my career, my property, or my life. Besides, I thought issues like marriage were the pervue of the states, not the federal constitution. 1 posted on 06/05/2006 6:58:24 AM PDT by Small-L [ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L gamesmanship indeed... maybe even a distraction from other news?? 2 posted on 06/05/2006 7:00:36 AM PDT by fhlh (Polls are for Strippers.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L Would someone please explain to me how allowing two gay men or women to participate in a ceremony to show their love and lifetime devotion to one another in any way detracts from my marriage, my career, my property, or my life It wouldn't seem to, however it is an objective historical fact that civilizations that did not protect marriage in this way were generally destroyed shortly thereafter. History suggests we not take that course. 3 posted on 06/05/2006 7:01:14 AM PDT by JamesP81 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L Would someone please explain to me No one is blocking them from participating in a ceremony, or from getting married. They have been doing it for years and will continue to do so in the future. The issue is whether or not the government will give such a marriage a legal standing. If that were to happen I'd hate to think of what would happen to a lot of pension plans, or social security, or taxes in general. 4 posted on 06/05/2006 7:01:50 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L Sure. This is not about two men wanting to spend the rest of their days together enjoying Barry Manilow. That is the red herring. This is a well funded movement stemming from David Mixner's foundation monies that connect with George Soro's Gay.ru, NGO push status and data purging from the NGO push status and policy implementation. 5 posted on 06/05/2006 7:02:42 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Calpernia can we get back to the immigration issue? 6 posted on 06/05/2006 7:10:11 AM PDT by Blue Turtle [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L This is the last issue on my mind. I'd like to hear how much the Canamex superhighway is going to help our immigration problems. I'd like to hear more about the Mexican customs agents in Kansas City. I'd like to hear about lots of things, but nooooooo...... our pandering pols are back on homabortflag amendments. 7 posted on 06/05/2006 7:16:18 AM PDT by OpusatFR ( ALEA IACTA EST. We have just crossed the Rubicon.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Calpernia If marriage is OK between two men or two women then why stop there? Let's marry a man and two women or three men and two women. How about a man and his cocker spaniel? Expanding marriage from the traditional one man/one woman cheapens the institution and further erodes our culture. I'm surprised to find the type of comments supporting gay marriage on a conservative site. Have we forgotten what it is to be conservative? Maybe all of us should go back and read Russell Kirk's Enemies of the Permanent Things. 8 posted on 06/05/2006 7:16:37 AM PDT by Russ [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Blue Turtle Considering the human trafficking issue overlaps with slave auctions, and sex tours; yes, you can get back to the immigration issue. It overlaps. Money wise too. 9 posted on 06/05/2006 7:16:48 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L It is a distraction, an opportunity to whoop up the masses so that we don't notice the lack of progress on the domestic agenda- tax reform, SS reform, immigration reform, etc. 10 posted on 06/05/2006 7:17:13 AM PDT by oblomov (Join the FR Folding@Home Team (#36120) keyword: folding@home) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L It is not a "ban on gay marriage", it is prevention of a redefinition of marriage to be something it has never been. 11 posted on 06/05/2006 7:17:41 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Russ Are you posting to me? Or in general? 12 posted on 06/05/2006 7:17:47 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Calpernia Sorry, that was meant to be "in general". 13 posted on 06/05/2006 7:19:41 AM PDT by Russ [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Unam Sanctam The bill will never pass. 14 posted on 06/05/2006 7:19:59 AM PDT by conserv13 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L Totally transparrent ploy, so transparrent it is insulting. The "smart people" really are not all that smart. 15 posted on 06/05/2006 7:20:17 AM PDT by jpsb [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Russ Then I will bump that rant! Bump 16 posted on 06/05/2006 7:20:29 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Calpernia This is not about two men wanting to spend the rest of their days together enjoying Barry Manilow. Correct. Think about this: there are millions of homosexuals in the US. For their whole lives, for decades, they were "not allowed to marry". Then, all of a sudden, in places like Mass., that "restriction" was taken away! Think of it! Decades of pent-up frustration, lifted! Now, they could finally achieve the union that had for so long been denied to them! Ahem. How many actually went out and got married? And how many of those who did, are now divorced? The first number is not large. The second number is not nil. This is not about two men wanting to spend the rest of their days together enjoying Barry Manilow. 17 posted on 06/05/2006 7:20:58 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (I face pressure! You face pressure!) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Russ what we are trying to say is that we are tired of the GOP bringing out this one trick pony every election cycle. We control the house, senate and have a Republican president. If this was such an important issue (as we heard in 2004) why didn't they pass it in 2005? They don't want it to pass, they want to rally the troops every 2 years on an issue, that will effect less than 1% of the people. 18 posted on 06/05/2006 7:21:01 AM PDT by jern [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L "Would someone please explain to me" Annal sex is filthy, disgusting and public health hazard. To not expect any normal person to condone it. 19 posted on 06/05/2006 7:23:43 AM PDT by jpsb [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: jern You must have missed what happened with the UN NGO vote. This is not a one trick pony issue. 20 posted on 06/05/2006 7:27:57 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Calpernia Do you think this bill will be passed by the Senate? It doesn't have a chance. 21 posted on 06/05/2006 7:29:51 AM PDT by conserv13 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L Maybe it doesn't affect you personally, but it does cheapen marriage as it is now defined. It's just like counterfeiting money, to the point where real money is worthless. Besides, polygamy has been illegal for many years. Why shouldn't gay marriage? 22 posted on 06/05/2006 7:31:40 AM PDT by shekkian [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L Do a search on Stanley Kurtz, read several of his articles especially his latest, and if you have an open mind, you'll change your mind. 23 posted on 06/05/2006 7:32:44 AM PDT by little jeremiah [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Russ There are a lot of non-conservatives on FR. Some volunteer, some professional. 24 posted on 06/05/2006 7:33:54 AM PDT by little jeremiah [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: conserv13 I think it all depends on how the investigations have been progressing concerning the victoryfunds implemented by Mixner. 25 posted on 06/05/2006 7:35:46 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: little jeremiah I don't think changing the Constitution over this issue is 'conservative'. 26 posted on 06/05/2006 7:35:47 AM PDT by conserv13 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Calpernia What? 27 posted on 06/05/2006 7:36:12 AM PDT by conserv13 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Russ Perhaps you've forgotten, or never understood the purpose of the US Constitution. Here's a primer: The US Constitution circumscribes the realm, within which, the Federal Government may legitimately exercise authority. It was never intended to "...regulate every species of public and private concern..." (James Madison, Federalist No. 84) Just as James Madison warned against "...an injudicious zeal for a bill of rights..." because they could "...serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers..." we too must resist the urge to amend the constitution for this purpose; thereby conferring a power on the Federal Government to regulate marriage by implication. A Constitutional amendment will not wrest troubled marriages from the jaws of divorce. It will do nothing to "strengthen" traditional marriage. It will distract the easily lead from the abysmal performance of the Republicans: their failure to advance fundamental tax reform, socialist insecurity reform, and their abysmal performance on the ILLEGAL immigration issue. Don't fall for it. It's an election year pander; the political equivalent of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." 28 posted on 06/05/2006 7:36:14 AM PDT by Conservative Goddess (Politiae legibus, non leges politiis, adaptandae) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: conserv13 David Mixner is a Democratic Political Consultant that has been a strong influence on the Gay Agenda. Especially in political offices. He started VictoryFund.org David Mixner was also a key member in the Antiwar Movement, The Vietnam Moratorium Committee (VMC) along with Ramsey Clark, John Kerry, Bill Clinton and the US Communist movement. 29 posted on 06/05/2006 7:39:30 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: jpsb The fallacy in your argument is that if we don't support a Constitutional Amendment, that we therefore support Gay "marriage." False. Some simply do not want to allow this expansion of Federal power and further damage to fundamental Constitutional principles. 30 posted on 06/05/2006 7:40:27 AM PDT by Conservative Goddess (Politiae legibus, non leges politiis, adaptandae) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L The first sentence of that article needs a little editing.... "President Bush on Saturday backed a resolution to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman BECAUSE the idea has little chance of being passed in the Senate." There. That's more accurate. 31 posted on 06/05/2006 7:40:34 AM PDT by linda_22003 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: jpsb "Annal sex" What the hell is that? Sex that only happens once a year? 32 posted on 06/05/2006 7:42:12 AM PDT by linda_22003 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Conservative Goddess Exactly right! (applause) 33 posted on 06/05/2006 7:43:21 AM PDT by linda_22003 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L While I am apposed to gay marriage I agree that this is almost certainly political gamesmanship. It ticks me off too. Its clearly an attempt to get the conservatives on their side. But some conservatives are conservative for reasons that go beyond simple moral reasons. Some of us actually belive in limited government reduced taxes decreased regulation controlled spending and all other manner of things "conservative" My support isnt dependant on whether the president comes out and mouths platitudes in support of something that isnt going to happen (i.e. federal marriage ammendment) I want meaningful action on other items like taxes, spending and securing our borders. 34 posted on 06/05/2006 7:46:09 AM PDT by Prysson [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Conservative Goddess I am not arguing in favor of ammending the Constitution, in fact I do not believe the Constitution should be ammended. Personally I think government should get out of the marriage busness completely. The only reason government is in the marriage busness is income taxes. End income taxes and get government out of the marriage business. 35 posted on 06/05/2006 7:48:46 AM PDT by jpsb [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: linda_22003 Thank You. 36 posted on 06/05/2006 7:48:54 AM PDT by Conservative Goddess (Politiae legibus, non leges politiis, adaptandae) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: P-40 I do agree with you, but do you not know of "married" people who have not been living together for years, and do not finalize their divorce to keep the benny's rolling in? I know a few couples who do or have done this. And they are now living with a different mate with no intention of getting married and going of the gravy train. 37 posted on 06/05/2006 7:49:04 AM PDT by synbad600 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: synbad600 do you not know of "married" people who have not been living together for years I've known of situations like that. It seems that insurance fraud is what ends up doing them in. 38 posted on 06/05/2006 7:50:54 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L Would someone please explain to me how allowing two gay men or women to participate in a ceremony to show their love and lifetime devotion to one another in any way detracts from my marriage, my career, my property, or my life. Tell that to Lot. 39 posted on 06/05/2006 7:53:43 AM PDT by DungeonMaster [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Small-L You're preaching to the choir with me. This is absolute base pandering. Bush is so weak he and the Congress must turn their attention away from the War in Iraq, Immigration reform, the budget crisis and many other important issues to this country to push a completely unnecessary constitutional amendment. Listen to the hyperbole. It is full of misstatements and outright lies. But the few who are pushing this are hoodwinking the majority by telling them marriage is under attack and this amendment will save it. Look to see who truly is pushing this amendment. It is far more about general anti-homosexuals than it is about pro marriage. The sad thing is that a President who could have the courage to fight terrorism as Bush has done, could fall so low simply to salvage the November GOP chances for reelection. 40 posted on 06/05/2006 7:54:47 AM PDT by MACVSOG68 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
A proposition that is, as almost everyone from both sides can likely agree on, a political ploy. Someday, the bigotry faced by homosexuals will be gazed at through the lens of history as another terrible thing that this nation allowed, until it woke up, and smelled the coffee. Like the "Whites Only," signs I saw as a kid in the '50's, on the restrooms of city parks... freakin' city parks, people, this too, will pass. I have no doubt that my kids will see it pass, and that their kids will read about it in history class, in baffled wonder that this country was ever so stupid. In the meantime, we have to watch this sickening political display by Bush and the Republican Congress, and watch too many Democratic candidates stupidly dance around the issue, when they should stand up and denounce this treatment of homosexual Americans as second class citizens. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
Lou Sheldon of Traditional Values Coalition slams Federal Marriage Amendment Lou Sheldon, head of the conservative Traditional Values Coalition has issued a statement, obtained by PageOneQ, condemning the Federal Marriage Amendment (recently renamed the Marriage Protection Amendment) as "a hollow gesture when it comes to protecting marriage." Sheldon's statement follows... – The Traditional Values Coalition will not attend the White House ceremony today to promote the Marriage Protection Amendment because it puts in the U.S. Constitution the right to civil unions and other forms of counterfeit marriage, which are one small step from full marriage rights for homosexuals. “This amendment is a hollow gesture when it comes to protecting marriage,” said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. “It does not ‘fully protect marriage’ but it amends the Constitution to allow civil unions and other forms of counterfeit marriage in all 50 states.” “I am disappointed in the White House, but I am even more disappointed in those social conservative leaders who have misled the American people into believing that the Marriage Protection Amendment will stop homosexual marriage. Promoting a civil unions amendment disguised as a marriage protection amendment is shameful. “No reasonable person will deny marriage to homosexuals once a Constitutional right to a ‘civil union’ is established. And this amendment is not compassionate conservatism, this is unprincipled relativism. “President Bush deserves the support of the American people, but the White House is wrong when they claim that the amendment would ‘fully protect marriage from being redefined.’ “But another disappointment in all of this is the group of prominent religious conservatives who traded civil unions for some empty marriage protections, knowing very well that this civil unions amendment will fast track homosexual marriage across America. “These people are supposed to dig their heels in and refuse to compromise when it comes to principle. They are supposed to be the voices for those working people across America who can’t come to Washington to be heard. But that’s not what they did. They have acted like auctioneers who have tried to make the best deal for votes and, in the end, they have abandoned the principled defense of marriage and are still nowhere near the votes needed to pass this amendment. “They talk tough rhetoric and bluster about changing Washington but, where it counts, Washington has changed them.” http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/tvg_060506b.html
Quote: Originally Posted by Sishir Chang I have to say this is probably the best suggestion here. Marriage isn't a federal issue but a state issue and should remain one. So you could be a married couple in California....but not in Georgia? Very interesting. If you move from a place where you were legally married, to one in which you are not...have you divorced? Or are you simply on a break? I would think this would be a violation of the full faith and credit clause; Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
That's an interesting point and I'm not sure how that would play out. Full faith and credit doesn't apply to all things since obviously licensing for things like guns and professions aren't granted full faith and credit along with a whole hosts of other laws and regulations particular to each state.
Question: and this is not a diversion If we allow Gay Marriage what is the argument against Bigamy If the argument is consenting adults Why stop at Same Sex . . . .. . Why not allow people to marry multiple people? Rocket River
Exactly - you are quite correct. If it is a religious thing .. .. the government has no place in it. Question: What is the benefit of being able to be Married? Rocket River
I was about to ask the same question as RR. I'm against any ban of gay marriage being put into the Constitution. I'd even vote to allow gay marriage if Texas had a vote on it. That being said, what's the big deal about saying you're married legally? I know plenty of straight couples that choose not to get married but do everything as a married couple. They don't seem to mind. I know, I know 'they had a choice, blah blah blah.' I just don't know what the big deal is with saying you're married. I'd even be in favor of something from the government along the lines of civil unions for EVERYONE and saving marriage for the church/etc.
