Frankly, I would prefer it if you people could refrain from imposing all your religious judgements on my Civil Law. I believe that's the way our Constitution is written. I should be just as free to ignor your religion as you are to practice it. To that end all "Marrige" should be outside of Civil Law. You and your religion define it any way you want and practice it anyway you want. If a majority of the people see the need for a defined Civil Union that allows for rights of survival, shared benefits, power of attorney for the disabled, alimony etc. fine; but it should be available to all citizens equally. And yes that includes bigimist and polygamist provided that a clear definition of decision making hiearchhy is provided. ( A bigimist dies, one wife wants burial the other cremation)
I just told RM95's Girl that I was never planning on asking her to marry me. There's simply no point to doing it if San Francisco and Masschusetts have their way.
I vehemently disagree with Herbert here.... I think a strong majority of men and substantial numbers of women (gay, bisexual) love to see two or more women kissing Now men kissing, different story.
My favorite new congressman is Jim McDermott of Seattle who has been in the House since 1989. House of Representatives - February 25, 2004 Mr. Speaker, the President's presidential prayer team is urging us to ``pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles.'' With that in mind, I thought I would remind the body of the biblical principles they are talking about. Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. That is from Genesis 29:17-28. Secondly, marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. That is II Samuel 5:13 and II Chronicles 11:21. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. That is Deuteronomy 22:13. Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. That is Genesis 24:3. Finally, it says that since there is no law that can change things, divorce is not possible, and finally, if a married man dies, his brother has to marry his sister-in-law. *** if you're into e-mailing people random stuff then please forward this to someone (the congressman was only alloted 1 minute to speak but this is what he based it on):
Done. GWB better keep this kind of blantant discrimination off of our Constitution. Although I suspect this is just meant to get the hardcore social conservatives out to vote.
outlaw or subtomic, can you e-mail that to me at giff@corp.swirve.com ? I'm having some weird cutting and pasting issues. Thanks.
Here is something that Thomas Jefferson said. I think it fits perfectly with the debate we are having. Are going to continue to define marriage by the definition used by our barbarous ancestors. This is an inscription from the Jefferson Memorial. Hopefully we have progressed far enough to stop the prejudice against homosexuals. "I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
The biggest difference seems to be forward thinking. Jefferson is saying that there will be new discoveries, and truths, and that policy should change to reflect that. He was thinking ahead. He didn't believe that what was going on then should be set in stone one particular way forever. Today leaders go by polls, or in the case of the marriage amendment, trying to turn back the clock, rather than looking forward. People have talked about interracial marriage, and segregation and how people looked at that fifty years ago, or less. I've seen polls that show young people are in the majority for gay marriages. That is the future. LBJ did it with civil rights during the sixties, and someone needs to make some real progress on these issues now. Turning the clock backwards is not the way to go.
Cheney, reversing himself (sort of)... via CNN. I'm glad Bush and Cheney are principled. Now that I see the courage of their convictions, I may need to rethink who I'm supporting in November. __________________ "Cheney: The president's made a decision, partly because of what's happened in Massachusetts and San Francisco, that the administration will support a constitutional amendment -- and uh, that's his decision to make. "Blitzer: And you support it? "Cheney: I support the president. "Blitzer: I don't hear you say you believe there should be a constitutional. . . . "Cheney: I support the president. Wolf, my deal with the president is that I get to advise him on the issues of the day. I never discuss the advice I provide him with anybody else. That's always private. He makes the decisions. He sets policy for the administration. And uh, I support him and the administration."
Gary Bauer admits the amendment is merely a ploy to get right wing fundamentalists to the ballot box. http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1078415435236460.xml . . . In comments later to The Press, Bauer said President Bush declared a cultural war with his decision to back a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, an issue intended to rouse Christian conservatives who otherwise may sit out the election. Bauer agreed there is a deep reservoir to be tapped of religious conservatives who did not vote when he ran in 2000 -- as many as 4 million, according to Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove. . . .
And I imagine there's some people like me who voted in 2000, but who are uncomfortable with this whole "culture war" thing and may just stay home this year. Not that it matters here in Texas, but I can't imagine I'm the only one like this.
I agree and that's part of the calculus of modern campaigning. They make elections nasty and a small segment that is both motivated and not turned off by the this sort of junk goes to vote, and in the end extremists determine what the policies are.
Maybe the "free" in "Land of the free" just got out of hand? Where did you think freedom would lead eventually? Everyone's going to start doing whatever the hell they want. So you can't get married, big deal. Have a private ceremony with the blessing of whoever it is that you look upto most in your life. A whole country constituting of 100's of millions of people won't agree with one man's decision. Everything in the world is getting split up and going in seperate directions, and marriage is one of those things. Bush is trying to throw a speedbump in there to slow down the inevitable. That's all that's happening. How long do you think this ammendment will last if the majority of people oppose it?
a-hem...cough, cough. yeah..i'm guessing you're not the only one like this. i'm pretty sure of it, actually.
It's been 4 weeks since the first wedding.... 4,161 couples That's the number of licenses that have been granted in San Francisco alone for same sex marriages. Has your life changed? Has your marriage crumbled to dust? Have your children decided to become gay? Has the planet imploded? Are naked gays running wild through your neighborhood? Seems like it's still the nasty ol' world we've always had.
