GOP to back ban on gay marriage

[Guest MikeSC]

Does Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution have any comment on this matter?

Part of the reason the amendment is desired. You can choose to recognize them --- but nobody else is required to do the same. Why do you think DOMA was passed?

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

It's not who you sleep with. It's who you marry.

          -=Mike

Okay, Mike. I got a new idea.

 

How about we let the states decide if blacks can marry? And then if a black couple gets married in a state where they let them do that kind of thing, and then wants to move on down to a state where the people said black people can't get married, then they are considered not married anymore.

 

Oh, and only white people should do the decidin' about if black people can marry in each state.

 

 

 

Hey, wait a minute, this doesn't sound very fair.....

I really feel that the gay marriage issue is something that in due time will be legal, and everyone that hates gays or opposes them being married will magically find it NOT that hard to move on and keep living their own fucking private lives in a manner NO DIFFERENT then before, and they will find a new group of people or issue to take up as "against god" or "immoral" or "against the funadamental fabric of our country" or whatever bullshit they can think of next. This is just an issue that the opposition is going to ride out as long as they can, probably knowing full well that eventually they will lose.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's not who you sleep with. It's who you marry.

          -=Mike

Okay, Mike. I got a new idea.

 

How about we let the states decide if blacks can marry? And then if a black couple gets married in a state where they let them do that kind of thing, and then wants to move on down to a state where the people said black people can't get married, then they are considered not married anymore.

 

Oh, and only white people should do the decidin' about if black people can marry in each state.

 

 

 

Hey, wait a minute, this doesn't sound very fair.....

I really feel that the gay marriage issue is something that in due time will be legal, and everyone that hates gays or opposes them being married will magically find it NOT that hard to move on and keep living their own fucking private lives in a manner NO DIFFERENT then before, and they will find a new group of people or issue to take up as "against god" or "immoral" or "against the funadamental fabric of our country" or whatever bullshit they can think of next. This is just an issue that the opposition is going to ride out as long as they can, probably knowing full well that eventually they will lose.

Hey --- I feel the same way about abortion.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

It's not who you sleep with. It's who you marry.

          -=Mike

Okay, Mike. I got a new idea.

 

How about we let the states decide if blacks can marry? And then if a black couple gets married in a state where they let them do that kind of thing, and then wants to move on down to a state where the people said black people can't get married, then they are considered not married anymore.

 

Oh, and only white people should do the decidin' about if black people can marry in each state.

 

 

 

Hey, wait a minute, this doesn't sound very fair.....

I really feel that the gay marriage issue is something that in due time will be legal, and everyone that hates gays or opposes them being married will magically find it NOT that hard to move on and keep living their own fucking private lives in a manner NO DIFFERENT then before, and they will find a new group of people or issue to take up as "against god" or "immoral" or "against the funadamental fabric of our country" or whatever bullshit they can think of next. This is just an issue that the opposition is going to ride out as long as they can, probably knowing full well that eventually they will lose.

Hey --- I feel the same way about abortion.

-=Mike

Silly MikeSC, Abortion ALREADY IS legal.......

[Guest MikeSC]

Hey --- I feel the same way about abortion.

-=Mike

Silly MikeSC, Abortion ALREADY IS legal.......

It will eventually not be. It will go down as an evil on the level of slavery.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Hey --- I feel the same way about abortion.

-=Mike

Silly MikeSC, Abortion ALREADY IS legal.......

It will eventually not be. It will go down as an evil on the level of slavery.

-=Mike

well, if you believe our country will go backwards.......

[NoCalMike 0]

Hey --- I feel the same way about abortion.

-=Mike

Silly MikeSC, Abortion ALREADY IS legal.......

It will eventually not be. It will go down as an evil on the level of slavery.

-=Mike

well, if you believe our country will go backwards.......

actually, one of my main problems with many prominent abortion foes is the fact that they don't even really believe the shit their shoveling. They know who their base is, and they cater to it. They know damn well that the wealthy and well off folks can care less if abortion is legal or not, because they can still get the procedure done if need be. Like Bob Barr paying for his mistresses abortion, while being a huge anti-abortion activist. I understand the disdain and dislike for the few women that use abortion as birth control, but that is not the majority of abortion cases, and 9/10 times, it is a very difficult and well thought out decision. I know personally, two people who had to go through that decision and each took the opposite route, and I supported both decisions. I don't really view either decision as "wrong" Moreso as a personal decision between a Doctor and Patient.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That would be unfair --- as they would not permit the legal description of a married couple (man and a woman) to get married.

 

You're trying to change the definition.

          -=Mike

No one is changing the definition. We're talking about civil unions here. What I'm saying is the government had to set some national ground rules for marriage that all states had to follow, and it needs to do so here.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Forget about homos wanting to get hitched. There are bigger divides within the GOP here...

 

By Jeannette Walls

MSNBC

Updated: 2:48 a.m. ET Aug. 26, 2004

Some GOPers have a message to Britney Spears: Stay home.

 

The belly-baring pop star is being courted to attend the Republican convention in New York next week, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, and that has sparked outrage among some conservative groups.

 

“Through her immature antics, Spears has probably done more to undermine sexual morality than all the misguided legislation introduced in the United States over the last decade,” the Illinois Family Institute wrote in an e-mail to members. “It would be the height of hypocrisy for a party that claims to represent wholesome values to celebrate her.”

 

Citing Spears’ “lesbian” kiss with Madonna, her “general immodesty,” and her annulled marriage to a childhood friend, the group is urging Republicans to call the GOP’s convention hotline to protest any appearance by Spears.

 

Response to the e-mail has been “overwhelmingly positive,” the group’s executive director, Peter LaBarbera, tells The Scoop, though “a few people have argued that the Democrats have all the Hollywood celebrities so we need her star power, but I think that could be played to the Republicans’ advantage.  . . . [Many] Americans are sick of celebrities’ political views being shoved down their throat.”

 

The IFI isn’t the only conservative group that wants Britney to stay away from the GOP convention. “I do hope she won’t be there,” Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition tells The Scoop. “If she is there, I doubt that she’ll be gyrating on stage. And I hope she doesn’t have a wardrobe malfunction.”

[Guest SP-1]

I have to agree. Britney has served to damage the national perception of marriage quite a bit. The crap she, and other celebs have done recently with marriage and family has only served to heighten the perception that marriage is ultimately unimportant.

 

Which is most certainly not true.

[Guest Paul H.]

Abortion is a woman's thing and god knows we can't fuck with that.Regardless it won't go away cuz it's a measure population control.

 

Gay-marriage...ewwww..NO,it's not right. Any way you slice it marriage is between a man and a woman.I beleive they shouldn't be restricted from adoption but marriage is taking too far.While their at it they might as well get rid of sex-changes too.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Britney has served to damage the national perception of marriage quite a bit.

Pfft. Brit's 5-minute marriage was merely a blip on the radar screen. The majority of the country has probably even forgotten about it by now.

[Guest wrestlingbs]

I'm pretty sure most hardline republicans' reasoning has to do with the very real fear that a gay man or woman will drug/kidnap them and then proceed to marry them. Drive-by gay marriages could become a very scary problem in America.

 

No wait, that won't happen at all.

 

And if Cheney says that's it should be left up to states as to whether or not gay mariage is legal why is his party trying to get a nationwide ban on gay marriage?

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm pretty sure most hardline republicans' reasoning has to do with the very real fear that a gay man or woman will drug/kidnap them and then proceed to marry them. Drive-by gay marriages could become a very scary problem in America.

 

No wait, that won't happen at all.

 

And if Cheney says that's it should be left up to states as to whether or not gay mariage is legal why is his party trying to get a nationwide ban on gay marriage?

Because there is no way the courts will PERMIT the states to make the decision.

-=Mike

[Skywarp! 0]

I really feel that the gay marriage issue is something that in due time will be legal, and everyone that hates gays or opposes them being married will magically find it NOT that hard to move on and keep living their own fucking private lives in a manner NO DIFFERENT then before, and they will find a new group of people or issue to take up as "against god" or "immoral" or "against the funadamental fabric of our country" or whatever bullshit they can think of next. This is just an issue that the opposition is going to ride out as long as they can, probably knowing full well that eventually they will lose.

Yup. Eventually gays being married will be the norm. Just like blacks being allowed in white places almost half a century ago, this is a common sense civil rights issue who's proper solution is inevitable.

 

"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them."--Mark Twain

[Guest Loss]

Any and all opposition to gay marriage is fueled by hate. If you don't support it, you're a backwoods, prejudiced bastard who needs to mind your own business. I know that's harsh, but there are NO reasons to support a ban on gay marriage that aren't grounded in prejudice and hate. At least now we know more clearly what type of people we're dealing with -- we have a party full of old fascist white men controlling a world which has truly passed them by and that they no longer understand.

[Skywarp! 0]

Any and all opposition to gay marriage is fueled by hate. If you don't support it, you're a backwoods, prejudiced bastard who needs to mind your own business. I know that's harsh, but there are NO reasons to support a ban on gay marriage that aren't grounded in prejudice and hate. At least now we know more clearly what type of people we're dealing with -- we have a party full of old fascist white men controlling a world which has truly passed them by and that they no longer understand.

This is true. It really comes down to nothing more than being irked by something going on in someone's bedroom which doesn't turn you on. People care way too much about things that aren't their business.

[Guest Loss]

Allow me to rephrase something key -- "if you are opposed to it" in place of "if you don't support it" ... two different things.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Because there is no way the courts will PERMIT the states to make the decision.

-=Mike

Courts didn't let the states make the decision on interracial unions either, and that helped cement the acceptance of those kinds of relationships. Of course, back then, people trusted their courts to make the right decisions instead of shouting about judicial activism the moment the judge makes a decision they don't agree with.

[Guest Paul H.]

It's NOT the same as Black folk.

 

Gays aren't being hung or banned from establishments.Don't compare the two. One is race the other is a sexual perfrence and just cuz it will be normal "in the year 2000" doesn't make it right.So many people do drugs would you consider that the "norm" and ok?No you wouldn't.

 

Legalizing Gay marriages will lead to all types of queer shit.I support Bush on this one.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

many people do drugs would you consider that the "norm" and ok?

(...)

Legalizing Gay marriages will lead to all types of queer shit.

[Guest MikeSC]

Any and all opposition to gay marriage is fueled by hate.

Wow, that's a pretty blatant attempt to silence discussion.

If you don't support it, you're a backwoods, prejudiced bastard who needs to mind your own business.

Or somebody who sees a possible social problem --- but hey, the First Amendment is only applicable to some people, apparently.

I know that's harsh, but there are NO reasons to support a ban on gay marriage that aren't grounded in prejudice and hate.

Not even a legitimate concern about the further breakdown of marriage? Not even a legitimate concern that the courts are trampling on the entire concept of federalism?

At least now we know more clearly what type of people we're dealing with -- we have a party full of old fascist white men controlling a world which has truly passed them by and that they no longer understand.

At least you aren't blinded by hatred.

Courts didn't let the states make the decision on interracial unions either, and that helped cement the acceptance of those kinds of relationships. Of course, back then, people trusted their courts to make the right decisions instead of shouting about judicial activism the moment the judge makes a decision they don't agree with.

Of course, that is different as they treated M/F couples differently.

 

Not the case here.

 

Keep trying, though.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Any and all opposition to gay marriage is fueled by hate. If you don't support it, you're a backwoods, prejudiced bastard who needs to mind your own business. I know that's harsh, but there are NO reasons to support a ban on gay marriage that aren't grounded in prejudice and hate. At least now we know more clearly what type of people we're dealing with -- we have a party full of old fascist white men controlling a world which has truly passed them by and that they no longer understand.

Good to see you gleefully ignore that the majority of opinion polls taken on gay marriage show that the majority of Americans - at least around 60% is the consistent number - do NOT SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.

 

I guess those tens of millions of people are just ignorant, backwoods hatemongers. Or they're all Republicans. Or wait, is that just being redundant?

 

Face reality - most Americans don't support gay marriage. Are they wrong? Yes - but that does NOT make them all bigots who hate gay people. Trying to make this just an issue about Republicans is utter crap too, because it transcends party lines.

 

The only thing that is going to change those people's hearts & minds is time. In time, they'll become more accepting of homosexuality and gay marriage will become a reality.

 

Really, you need to come down - it's hard to see you way up there on that high horse of yours.

 

Vyce

---Who has suspicions that you probably think the real reason McGreevey is leaving office is because he's gay.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Of course, that is different as they treated M/F couples differently.

 

Not the case here.

That doesn't matter. The government sets federal guidelines for M/F unions, why should they not set any for M/M or F/F unions as well?

[MrRant 0]

I've already commented on this in this thread which I would copy and paste but it would be hellishly long:

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...hl=gay+marriage

[Styles 0]

Of course, that is different as they treated M/F couples differently.

 

Not the case here.

That doesn't matter. The government sets federal guidelines for M/F unions, why should they not set any for M/M or F/F unions as well?

Why not M/M/F unions or F/F/F unions. Where does it end?

[Styles 0]

I've already commented on this in this thread which I would copy and paste but it would be hellishly long:

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...hl=gay+marriage

Man gotta love Kamui trying to make a comeback. Thanks for bringing that up, as everything from that thread will just be repeated. Here's my stance on the issue reposted from that thread:

 

Shit, I missed Kamui. This is what I get for having to work/do other things and not sit online for 2 days.

Oh well, I'm sure he'd be interested to know that as my deity, Jeff Jarrett condones of gay marriage....I mean just LOOK at some of the clothes the man wears!!! 

 

I've got to agree totally with KKK here. I have no problem with civil unions if gays feel theyre excluded from certain tax breaks and legal rights, but marriage is traditionally in all cultures understood as a man and a woman. You can't just change the definition of things to suit everyone's needs. It might sound insensitive but a blind person can't drive a car, a wheelchair bound person can't run in a marathon, a white person can't apply for affirmative action, a person who can't speak English can't hold a lot of jobs, and a man and man can't be "married". It's just the way it is. It has nothing to do in my mind with god, religion, grossness, or anything else. For the sake of stability we can't go around changing around the definition of things to please everyone when it doesn't make any sense. If the gay activists are too stubborn to accept civil unions which would give them every equal right status they want, without the label "marriage" under the law, then tough.

 

Kamui's point about somehow calling them "marriages" would make everything all peachy in the eyes of people who don't like gays is such bullshit, call it what you will, but people will STILL look down on you, it's the way the world is. If you want to call it a marriage in your privacy, no one will stop you, but the spirit of the law needs to be upheld. You couldn't just "do away with the marriage label altogether" anyway since the taxcode is literally impossible to re-write and "marriage" is already etched in stone in that document. It would be far easier to just add "civil unions" than trying to take out anything already defined.

 

Anyway, that's my opinion, I'm entitled to it. I don't think Im insensitive, and I like equal rights but I think this is much ado about nothing.

[Guest SP-1]

Any and all opposition to gay marriage is fueled by hate. If you don't support it, you're a backwoods, prejudiced bastard who needs to mind your own business. I know that's harsh, but there are NO reasons to support a ban on gay marriage that aren't grounded in prejudice and hate. At least now we know more clearly what type of people we're dealing with -- we have a party full of old fascist white men controlling a world which has truly passed them by and that they no longer understand.

Please, Loss.

 

Give me one instance where I've demonstrated a hatred for a homosexual. One. I dare you. And don't say it's simply because I oppose gay marriage. Considering I have gay friends who know I don't support it yet who I maintain friendships with, I find it hard to believe that I hate gay people.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Why not M/M/F unions or F/F/F unions. Where does it end?

This is the retarded slippery slope arguement that appeared in the last thread about marriage (or civil unions) and there's two questions:

 

(1) What about gay marriages somehow changes the playing field for that? If Americans really wanted 3-people marriages, there'd be heavy lobbying and campaigning for it.

 

(2) The government has a problem with multi-person marriages because then people get "married" into a group for big tax breaks.

 

But it doesn't even matter because this hasn't appeared as a viable probem at all in the debate about gay marriage, except perhaps as talk radio shit.

 

edit; Wow. I posted this comic in Rant's old thread. Shit.

Edited August 28, 2004 by Jobber of the Week

[Guest Paul H.]

I don't have gay freinds and i'm against gay marriage.Yes.