Marriage Amendment Options

[pebkac]

Laura Bush eschews marriage ban campaigns

WASHINGTON -- Some election-year advice to Republicans from a high-ranking source who has the president's ear: Don't use a proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage as a campaign tool.
Just who is that political strategist? Laura Bush.
The first lady told "Fox News Sunday" that she thinks the American people want a debate on the issue. But, she said, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously."
"It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue -- a lot of sensitivity," she said.
The Senate will debate legislation that would have the Constitution define marriage as the union between a man and a woman early next month, Majority Leader Bill Frist said on CNN's "Late Edition."
President Bush supports the amendment, but Vice President Dick Cheney does not. Cheney's daughter, Mary, is a lesbian and has been speaking out against the marriage amendment as she promotes her new book, "Now It's My Turn."
Mary Cheney wrote that she almost quit working on the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004 because of Bush's position on gay marriage. Asked Sunday about reports that White House political adviser Karl Rove and other Republicans want to use the issue to mobilize conservatives for the midterm election, she said she hoped "no one would think about trying to amend the Constitution as a political strategy."
"I certainly don't know what conversations have gone on between Karl and anybody up on the Hill," she said on Fox. "But you know, what I can say is look, amending the Constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."
But Frist said he would defend the amendment even to Dick Cheney.
"I basically say, Mr. Vice President, right now marriage is under attack in this country," Frist said on CNN. "And we've seen activist judges overturning state by state law, where state legislatures have passed laws defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that's being overturned by a handful of activist judges around the country. And that is why we need an amendment to come to the floor of the United States Senate to define marriage as that union between one man and one woman."

[impala454]

Cheney's daughter, Mary, is a lesbian and has been speaking out against the marriage amendment as she promotes her new book, "Now It's My Turn."

yeah... let me use my position as the vice pres' daughter to make some money on a more than likely shitty book.

[Spectatrix]

yeah... let me use my position as the vice pres' daughter to make some money on a more than likely shitty book.

We saw yesterday that the father of that chick who got snatched/killed in Aruba has a book out... I wanted to barf.

[prefix]

I want to barf whenever they try to put shit like this into the constitution. I mean they can't honestly be serious about this shit. If a state wants to ban it fine but I mean to put anything about marriage in the constitution would be a serious denial of separation between church and state.

[kcroxyoursox]

I want to barf whenever they try to put shit like this into the constitution. I mean they can't honestly be serious about this shit. If a state wants to ban it fine but I mean to put anything about marriage in the constitution would be a serious denial of separation between church and state.

THANK YOU!!!

[M1N10N]

<insert everything that has already been mentioned on this topic here>

[Jim]

Penis.

[GOB]

We saw yesterday that the father of that chick who got snatched/killed in Aruba has a book out... I wanted to barf.

yeah, he had that out like a month ago.

he just couldn't wait to cash in on his daughter's gangbang rape and murder.

[zetec]

jesus christ it's illegal to discriminate for a job by sexual preference, but they want to write discrimination of marraige into the fucking constitution?


MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MINDS.

one or the other, can't have both.

this shit is seriously sickening. if this passes, how long is it going to take before we are able to overturn it? 10 years? 20? 50?

[pebkac]

jesus christ it's illegal to discriminate for a job by sexual preference, but they want to write discrimination of marraige into the fucking constitution?


MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MINDS.

one or the other, can't have both.

this shit is seriously sickening. if this passes, how long is it going to take before we are able to overturn it? 10 years? 20? 50?

Actually, it's not illegal to discriminate for a job based on sexual preference.

[prefix]

Well everyone here can recognize that we are the lowest voting group in the nation, people aged 18-25. So go out there and vote and help get these fucking asswipes out of office.

[woody]

Well everyone here can recognize that we are the lowest voting group in the nation, people aged 18-25. So go out there and vote and help get these fucking asswipes out of office.

whatever, everyone knows voting doesn't mean shit

[FORSAKENR320]

[TeK]

lol


dude your going to burn for that

[woody]

god thats great

[impala454]

I want to barf whenever they try to put shit like this into the constitution. I mean they can't honestly be serious about this shit. If a state wants to ban it fine but I mean to put anything about marriage in the constitution would be a serious denial of separation between church and state.

what does marriage got to do with the separation of church & state?

[Spectatrix]

what does marriage got to do with the separation of church & state?

Generally religious justifications are used for supporting gay marriage ban, so we'd be talking about a religious justification for a civil ceremony.

[rabble]

Generally religious justifications are used for supporting gay marriage ban, so we'd be talking about a religious justification for a civil ceremony.

yes, the act of marriage from a purely legal standpoint means that all assets are shared and the two people are considered to be "one" entity, as in if your wife goes out and spends $100,000 on her credit card, the husband is just as responsible as the wife to pay it back.
Marriage from a faith standpoint is all about "love" and what you "believe"

Because alot of christians believe that marrage should be between a man and a woman, they want to make sure that "their" form of marriage isnt "ruined" because of gay people.

Of course, getting divorced 2 years into a marriage doesn't ruin anything so to me its a double standard.

Its just a fucking word anyway, call it a fucking civil union and give everyone the same rights, that way little baby gaygay can have their "marriage" and little baby biblethumper can keep their so called sanctity of marriage.

[impala454]

Because alot of christians believe that marrage should be between a man and a woman, they want to make sure that "their" form of marriage isnt "ruined" because of gay people.

yeah, because christians are the only people on the earth that believe marriage should be between a man and woman.

I'm also positive that the founding fathers were thinking while writing the constitution, man we better put this in there just in case a bunch of guys wanna get married.

[Spectatrix]

yeah, because christians are the only people on the earth that believe marriage should be between a man and woman.

I've heard:

1) "The Bible/the Koran/whatever forbids it". Fine, whatever, but that's not a valid legal justification.

2) "I just don't like it. Marriage should be between a man and a woman." No rationale given, fine, whatever, but that shit doesn't hold up in court.

I have YET to hear a rational non-religious justification for banning gay marriages. I don't like paying taxes, but you don't see THAT written into the constitution, now do you?

[impala454]

1) "The Bible/the Koran/whatever forbids it".  Fine, whatever, but that's not a valid legal justification.

have ya ever had the inkling there could be people with no religious beliefs at all that are against it as well? i bet the number is a lot bigger tha you'd think. and who out there in the political community has come out and said, "because of my religion i'm against it" as a reasoning? this kinda crap is just a bunch of losers using politicians personal beliefs to cry about their policy.

2) "I just don't like it.  Marriage should be between a man and a woman."  No rationale given, fine, whatever, but that shit doesn't hold up in court.

So how come we have to cover our genitals in public? What's the rationale there except for "people should cover up their genitals"?

I have YET to hear a rational non-religious justification for banning gay marriages.  I don't like paying taxes, but you don't see THAT written into the constitution, now do you?

moral issues aren't rational. what's the legal rationale for allowing marriage in the first place?

[Spectatrix]

have ya ever had the inkling there could be people with no religious beliefs at all that are against it as well? i bet the number is a lot bigger tha you'd think. and who out there in the political community has come out and said, "because of my religion i'm against it" as a reasoning? this kinda crap is just a bunch of losers using politicians personal beliefs to cry about their policy.

Yeah, I know there are such people. I mentioned that in the second part of my post. Any politician who has talked about gay marriage undermining the "sanctity of marriage" is espousing a religious belief, imho.

So how come we have to cover our genitals in public?  What's the rationale there except for "people should cover up their genitals"?

Fuck if I know. Seems like a pretty stupid law. There are a bunch of dumb laws on the books, I just don't want to see any more written, ESPECIALLY in the constitution.

moral issues aren't rational.  what's the legal rationale for allowing marriage in the first place?

There's no reason why moral issues can't be rational. Most of my morals consist of "well shit, I don't want XYZ to happen to me, so I'm not going to do XYZ to someone else either", e.g. murder, rape, etc. The legal rationale for marriage, as I understand it, is to make a simple default contract that helps facilitate things like child custody (especially in case of death of one parent), division of property, inheritance, etc. Many of the things covered as a result of a marriage license could just as easily be written up in a regular contract, but it's easier and cheaper to have this one "contract" that neatly wraps up all these little things that most couples would want to be covered.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

Yeah, I know there are such people. I mentioned that in the second part of my post. Any politician who has talked about gay marriage undermining the "sanctity of marriage" is espousing a religious belief, imho.

couldn't disagree more. Im not religious and i believe the same thing (sorta). Has nothing to do with religion at all.... More the functionality of marriage in our culture. I can see how any sex marrying any other sex basically taking marriage to a contract. Because then if there are benifits to marriage in a certain light (tax wise or whatever), roommates could simply "get married" at the justice of the peace and recieve the benifits til they move on, and simply get the divorce. So that could prompt new laws etc.

Mostly to me i see it as a huge new legal avenue that will cause problems. Now is that enough to say it SHOULDN'T be done?... well personally i could care less either way, but i can see the yes and no of each. I'd say i'd lean more towards allowing though because, hey, more law for me to maybe make money from.

[Throwdown]

I've heard:

1) "The Bible/the Koran/whatever forbids it".  Fine, whatever, but that's not a valid legal justification.

"the bible/koran/whatever forbids it" is also a legal justification for ohh murder, theft, lying in a court of law....

maybe we should throw those laws out too? or maybe we should throw out our entire legal system, since 99% of laws are based on religious beliefs and teachings

or maybe you're just an idiot

[Spectatrix]

"the bible/koran/whatever forbids it" is also a legal justification for ohh murder, theft, lying in a court of law....

maybe we should throw those laws out too? or maybe we should throw out our entire legal system, since 99% of laws are based on religious beliefs and teachings

or maybe you're just an idiot

There are rational justifications for prohibiting murder, theft, etc. beyond religious ones. Just because a religious viewpoint supports a law doesn't mean that the law is invalid or bad... I have a problem when ONLY religious viewpoints support a proposed law.

[Spectatrix]

Because then if there are benifits to marriage in a certain light (tax wise or whatever), roommates could simply "get married" at the justice of the peace and recieve the benifits til they move on, and simply get the divorce. So that could prompt new laws etc.

What's to prohibit opposite sex roomates from doing the same damn thing now? Nothing, but you don't see that happening (at least on any regular basis), now do you?

[Spectatrix]

In ANY case, even I thought gay marriage was OMG BAD, I wouldn't support it being banned in the constitution. Laws on marriage have been the domain of the states for ages and I see no reason to screw up the balance of power between state and federal government. The states seem to be doing a damn good job of banning gay marriage themselves...

[rabble]

I get tired of people pigeonholing gay people as these promiscuous people who have gay parties and orgies and shit. They are normal fucking people like everyone else, they are capable of loving one person for the rest of their life.
Its the same thing as saying that you look like a redneck so you must own a truck, have a heavy southern accent, drink alot of beer, and beat the crap out of your wife/girlfriend everyday.

[koreanp1e]

a rationale of banning gay marriage: they cannot reproduce and this eventually lead to extinction of human species !!

[rabble]

a rationale of banning gay marriage: they cannot reproduce and this eventually lead to extinction of human species !!

so we should also ban marriages of people who cant get pregnant/sterile

[pebkac]

"the bible/koran/whatever forbids it" is also a legal justification for ohh murder, theft, lying in a court of law....

maybe we should throw those laws out too? or maybe we should throw out our entire legal system, since 99% of laws are based on religious beliefs and teachings

or maybe you're just an idiot

If I murder someone, I'm hurting them. Lying in a court of law ties up the legal process.

Really, how does allowing gay marriage hurt anyone? And what is the pressing state need to make it illegal?

I get tired of people pigeonholing gay people as these promiscuous people who have gay parties and orgies and shit. They are normal fucking people like everyone else, they are capable of loving one person for the rest of their life.
Its the same thing as saying that you look like a redneck so you must own a truck, have a heavy southern accent, drink alot of beer, and beat the crap out of your wife/girlfriend everyday.

Sadly, there's a little bit more truth to those allegations than we'd like to admit. However, it's been proven that when in a monogamous (yeah, I prolly fucked up the spelling) relationship, gay relationships aren't all that different from straight ones. This includes amount of sex partners and incidence of AIDS.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

What's to prohibit opposite sex roomates from doing the same damn thing now? Nothing, but you don't see that happening (at least on any regular basis), now do you?

true, but right now its only between a man and a woman, so you can't just tell a future person you want to marry "yeah sure i was married... but its cuz we were roommates", and who knows if you could pull off the "nah i WASN'T really gay when i married him, just wanted gay marriage rights". All im saying is it could get to that point, doubtful, but possible i suppose.

But as i said, im more leaning towards allowing just for the fact of it won't personally effect how I VIEW marriage, but i do fear it could warp future childrens view of it... but new marriages are ending in divorces anyway, so why try to keep it as is. Might the next arguments be about why 3 people can't love each other just as much as 2... maybe. Meh, its not a world changing thing either way.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

a rationale of banning gay marriage: they cannot reproduce and this eventually lead to extinction of human species !!

nah, gays = more chicks for me

[pebkac]

a rationale of banning gay marriage: they cannot reproduce and this eventually lead to extinction of human species !!

You know, if I remember it correctly, I think Rocky said it best:

Fuck mother nature. Have buttsex every day.

[pebkac]

true, but right now its only between a man and a woman, so you can't just tell a future person you want to marry "yeah sure i was married... but its cuz we were roommates", and who knows if you could pull off the "nah i WASN'T really gay when i married him, just wanted gay marriage rights". All im saying is it could get to that point, doubtful, but possible i suppose.

But as i said, im more leaning towards allowing just for the fact of it won't personally effect how I VIEW marriage, but i do fear it could warp future childrens view of it... but new marriages are ending in divorces anyway, so why try to keep it as is. Might the next arguments be about why 3 people can't love each other just as much as 2... maybe. Meh, its not a world changing thing either way.

I don't see what would be wrong with that either.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

I don't see what would be wrong with that either.

lol which part?

[pebkac]

lol which part?

The allowing multiple people to marry part.

[Spectatrix]

I really doubt that many people would marry JUST for the tax break.

I support polygamy too, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

[woody]

I really doubt that many people would marry JUST for the tax break.

they're called mexicans

[chook]

nah, gays = more chicks for me

I think that is arguement enough!!

[Spectatrix]

they're called mexicans

I have a really hard time imagining a Mexican "marrying" someone of the same sex for a tax break... seems to me there would be quite a stigma about being gay amongst hispanics... even if they wouldn't really be gay, they'd have the appearance of such.