Frist Endorses Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage

pretty sure you pulled that out of your a$$...

 

No, I can't.

I agree, to be consistant, this should be a state matter.

I don't feel overly strong about this issue, and if the majority of citizens want to redefine marriage, I will bend.

 

So? Homosexual marriage is not for procreation, so why is that relevant?

 

Ewww...that's enough to make me straight right there

 

We may be on to something here. Nude photos of Newt Gringrich may solve this problem.

Oh wait, I forgot. If Barney Frank doesn't turn gay men straight, then I guess homosexuality is here to stay.

 

Outlaw - surely the combination of 2 gay people's fashion sense and music taste can be extremely dangerous to society


This is sooooooooooo bucked up, what's next will the ban people from having any contact with anybody from the same sex.

I'm with RM95, if this goes through, I'll move to Australia, at least in Australia they treat the indigenious inhabitants worse than gay people.

 

MONEY!
If you allow 2 men and 2 women to get nmarried
they get those nice Married Tax breaks
and companies have to get their significant others
those Spousal benefits
blah blah blah

Corp America using American Religious beleifs to do something
they want done.

I don't think Marriage should have ANYTHING to do with the
law or government. I don't think marry folx should get any more
breaks of benefits than unmarried folx
ESP when the government decided what constitutes A MARRIAGE
[no bigamy etc. . .to me. . that is their business!!!]

Rocket River

 

Does something like this even belong in the Constitution?

 

A CONSTITUTIONAL amendment? Good grief.

Marriage is something special between two people -- a relationship that THEY define. The government should not have anything to do with it.

And the "marriage is sacred" argument just doesn't hold water. People get married because of love, but also because they get knocked up, they're desperate or might be deported -- these aren't sacred reasons. Should we also ban marriage between two people who can't have children? Who aren't Christian or who are desperate? Why not -- it's just as random.

 

i agree that a constitutional amendment seems a bit overboard...but i don't agree that marriage is just between two people with no real implications for society at large...particularly in a country with a tax code like ours...or with benefits for married couples different than those who are single...

consider..you have to have a license from the state to get married.

 

That was beautiful Smeg...you deserve some kind of prize.

 

That is the answer I feared.

I don't know how to respond, lol.

 

That ****ty Party of Abe Lincoln, eh?

 

Why should you? Other than tax-filing status, why should anyone else care?

And FWIW, they'll pay MORE taxes when married anyway.

 

cohen - you don't have to...you can just live together..ultimately the state will recognize that, too. but if you want the state to recognize your marriage right away, they ask you to fill out the paperwork for a license.

 

johnheath is 100% correct on this issue. Marriage has a definition -- the union of a man and a woman. Using that definition, I can not get "married" if I go out and saw vows to a dog. Similarly, I can not get married to a cow or a lamp or a window.

While the lunatic fringe liberals attempt to portray a situation in which Frist's view are extremist, I'd wager to guess that the split is about 50/50 for his proposal. He certainly represents his conservative constituency when he stands up for what he believes in on this issue. I commend him for doing so in the face of criticism. That is courage.

 

So, sex with my wife isn't for procreation either. So how is this relevant?

 

Most current Republicans can't spell Abe Lincoln, let alone know what he stood for. The Republican Party of 2003 has as much in common with Abe Lincoln as the Democratic Party of 2003 has in common with Ulysses S. Grant...absolutely nothing.