WASHINGTON (BP)--A marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution was re-introduced in the Senate Jan. 24 with support from Majority Leader Bill Frist and 21 other senators.

Although the amendment was defeated last year, supporters hope it has a better chance of passing this session following a slew of conservative victories on Election Day, when voters in 11 states passed marriage amendments to their respective state constitutions. They passed with an average of 70.1 percent of the vote.

But amendment backers say a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the only permanent remedy. Its name has changed a bit from the last session, when it was known as the "Federal Marriage Amendment." It now is called the "Marriage Protection Amendment."

The amendment is Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 1.

"This legislation is being introduced to protect and defend traditional marriage," the amendment's sponsor, Sen. Wayne Allard, R.-Colo., said in a statement. "We must not stand still when the courts are being used to challenge and distort civilization's oldest, most venerable social institution. We are responding to that challenge."

The federal Defense of Marriage Act -- which gives states the option of not recognizing another state's same-sex "marriages" -- is being challenged in federal courts in California, Florida and Oklahoma. In addition, lawsuits seeking the legalization of same-sex "marriage" are pending in nine states.

Marriage amendment supporters made gains during the 2004 election, as reflected by the list of co-sponsors. Four new senators are co-sponsors -- Richard Burr of North Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota, David Vitter of Louisiana and Mel Martinez of Florida. All four replaced senators who opposed the marriage amendment.

So far, all 22 sponsors are Republican. On a procedural vote last summer, only three Democrats supported the amendment.

Full story: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19969

So far, all 22 sponsors are Republican. On a procedural vote last summer, only three Democrats supported the amendment.

And may all 25 eat **** and die!

And may all 25 eat **** and die!


The amendment last time got something like 48 or 50 or 52 (can't remember) votes.  It's not just 25.  Think about it, it needs 60 votes, and it's got 22 CO-SPONSERS!  I'm feeling good about this.  With some arm twisting of some of the more liberal republicans, and the southern democrats, this bill is good to go.

The amendment last time got something like 48 or 50 or 52 (can't remember) votes.  It's not just 25.  Think about it, it needs 60 votes, and it's got 22 CO-SPONSERS!  I'm feeling good about this.  With some arm twisting of some of the more liberal republicans, and the southern democrats, this bill is good to go.


If I might ask, why are you so against gay marriage?

If I might ask, why are you so against gay marriage?

Don't ask, don't tell!
;)

The Right sure fought like h*ll to stop the Constitution being used to enforce people's rights, but they're hot to trot for it to be used to restrict them.
::)

I really don't think these guys need to be dicking around with the Constitution.

Is this amendment going to make any marriages of convenience illegal?  What about people who marry for money?  Or a green card?  Let's face it folks, straight people have massacred the "sacred" act of marriage for years.  I find it comical that conservatives are so quick to run around calling it something that it isn't, just so they can deny other people rights. 

And I've yet to hear ONE decent argument against gay marriage.  "It's in the Bible" just doesn't fly in a country that believes in anything even resembling the separation of church and state.

Is this amendment going to make any marriages of convenience illegal?  What about people who marry for money?  Or a green card?  Let's face it folks, straight people have massacred the "sacred" act of marriage for years.  I find it comical that conservatives are so quick to run around calling it something that it isn't, just so they can deny other people rights. 

And I've yet to hear ONE decent argument against gay marriage.  "It's in the Bible" just doesn't fly in a country that believes in anything even resembling the separation of church and state.



Well said.

There are people dying in Iraq, millions are out of work, and many do not have health care. Who cares just as long as two people who love each other who just happen to be the same sex can't get legal rights.



Cat

Is this amendment going to make any marriages of convenience illegal?  What about people who marry for money?  Or a green card?  Let's face it folks, straight people have massacred the "sacred" act of marriage for years.  I find it comical that conservatives are so quick to run around calling it something that it isn't, just so they can deny other people rights. 

And I've yet to hear ONE decent argument against gay marriage.  "It's in the Bible" just doesn't fly in a country that believes in anything even resembling the separation of church and state.


That was awesome as hell. Well said, Ash. :)


Heck, in the eyes of some pretty prevalent religions here in the US, MY marriage is invalid.


Ah, another Catholic girl. I'm pretty sure my half-a*sed, married by a reverend (who got her certificate off the Internet), Apache Prayer and Cherokee Blessing wedding ceremony would make the Diocese sh*t where they stand. ;D

  "It's in the Bible" just doesn't fly in a country that believes in anything even resembling the separation of church and state.

I am sure you've noticed the Jesus pimps on the Christian Right don't want anything resembling any separation of Church and State.  In fact, they want their church to be the state! 

Cat wrote
There are people dying in Iraq, millions are out of work, and many do not have health care. Who cares just as long as two people who love each other who just happen to be the same sex can't get legal rights.
The Bush Presidency, foreign and domestic, has been a disaster.  So what do you do if you're in their shoes?  Find a minor issue pertaining to a tiny minority, blow it up into a crisis, and use it as scapegoat.  It's distract-arrific!  It may have been the thing that put Dubya back in office, with the help of the gullible and easily led American sheeple!


80s Cheer wrote
Let's not forget about those people who seem to get married on a whim and ultimately end up divorcing.  What was the shortest of Elizabeth Taylor's marriages?  A few days?  Oh, THAT does alot for the "sanctity of marriage"
More like the "sanctimony of marriage" with these conservatives!
::)

Is this amendment going to make any marriages of convenience illegal?  What about people who marry for money?  Or a green card?  Let's face it folks, straight people have massacred the "sacred" act of marriage for years.

It's funny you mention that; I've occasionally pondered getting married just so I can get a better deal on car insurance...

Just remember several things.  First, it takes one he11 of a long time to amend.  Second, the political winds are like a pendulum, and I hope the winds are about to experiance a sea change.  Third, avan may conservatives don't whant to introduce prohibitions into the constitution regardless of what the homophobes and the religious right want.  So be of (guarded) good cheer, and get your passport in order just in case.

Isn't this argument simple?  Think, around two-thirds of Americans are opposed to gay marriage, it's really that simple.  You can't change something for 4% of the country (that the percentage according to CNN's exit polls that are gay in this nation.)

Isn't this argument simple?  Think, around two-thirds of Americans are opposed to gay marriage, it's really that simple.  You can't change something for 4% of the country (that the percentage according to CNN's exit polls that are gay in this nation.)


Saying that two thirds of Americans oppose something isn't a valid argument.  It's you repeating a trumped-up statistic.  Which means nothing.  Where did you hear that two-thirds of Americans are against it?  Even if it was accurate,  I still haven't heard one valid argument for why gay marriage should be illegal.  Why can't they get married?  Why do people care so much?  Why do you care so much?  What are you afraid of?  That if we allow gay people to get married, they're going to "turn" the rest of the world gay?  That if we treat gay people like human beings the world will come to a screeching halt?  I don't get it.  Please, explain it to me. 

.  Where did you hear that two-thirds of Americans are against it?   Even if it was accurate,  I still haven't heard one valid argument for why gay marriage should be illegal.  Why can't they get married?  Why do people care so much?  Why do you care so much?  What are you afraid of?  That if we allow gay people to get married, they're going to "turn" the rest of the world gay?  That if we treat gay people like human beings the world will come to a screeching halt?  I don't get it.  Please, explain it to me. 


I still haven't heard a valid argument from you.

I still haven't heard a valid argument from you.


Well those are some pretty valid points she brings up with those rhetorical questions. Care to answer any of them?

when voters in 11 states passed marriage amendments to their respective state constitutions. They passed with an average of 70.1 percent of the vote.



Simple as that, all 11 states passed ban on gay marriages with massive majorities.

All you've proven is that ignorant fear-mongering biggots make up a massive majority of the voting population  in at least 11 states.  

Fear-mongering?  Bigots?

I think it's every state.  I believe had Massachusetts had a referendum instead of a one-judge majority on that state's supreme court, I believe gay "marriages" wouldn't be legal there.

And I know you didn't imply it, but just to clarify, both the states of Oregon and Michigan passed bans on same-sex "marriages" in those states during the November 2, 2004 general election, and both states went for John Kerry.  So this is not a republican phenomenon.

Fear-mongering?  Bigots?

I think it's every state.  I believe had Massachusetts had a referendum instead of a one-judge majority on that state's supreme court, I believe gay "marriages" wouldn't be legal there.

And I know you didn't imply it, but just to clarify, both the states of Oregon and Michigan passed bans on same-sex "marriages" in those states during the November 2, 2004 general election, and both states went for John Kerry.  So this is not a republican phenomenon.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "gay marriage" is a red herring, just like the rest of rightwing social agenda.  Truth be told, the guys who REALLY call the shots on Republican policy priorities--the corporate paymasters--don't give a rip who marries who.
Now, if Exxon stock rose every time two gays tied the knot, the Republicans would be holding rallies on the Washington Mall and declaring "gay marriage" the greatest civil rights battle since 1964!
...and remember, next time the Right tells you the Civil Rights act wouldn't have passed without Republican support, remind them their true predecessor, Senator Barry Goldwater, despised that legislation and voted AGAINST it.  Hmmm....it's funny, Goldwater remarked at the time, "You can't legislate morality.  It seems dubious that if Goldwater were alive today even he would support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
::)

...and remember, next time the Right tells you the Civil Rights act wouldn't have passed without Republican support, remind them their true predecessor, Senator Barry Goldwater, despised that legislation and voted AGAINST it.  Hmmm....it's funny, Goldwater remarked at the time, "You can't legislate morality.  It seems dubious that if Goldwater were alive today even he would support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
::)


Gay marriage wasn't even on the radar during the 1964 presidential election.

Gay marriage was on every American's Gay-dar during the 2004 presidential erection. 

Especially in those flaming-red states.
I don't mean to get off-topic here, but I have this sneaking suspicion that you know GWBush2004. Am I correct??? ;)

Gay marriage wasn't even on the radar during the 1964 presidential election.

No sh*t Sherlock!  I said if Goldwater were alive today...oh, never mind.

I want to know what it is that my marriage needs protection from.  Seriously, what is this terrible disaster that is certain to befall my marriage if same-gendered couples start getting hitched, officially?



That is my question, too.



Cat

No sh*t Sherlock!  I said if Goldwater were alive today...oh, never mind.


I guess we can add the subjunctive mood to the long list of things GW just doesn't grasp.

Gay marriage wasn't even on the radar during the 1964 presidential election.
I think back in 1964, all of the "red states" were too busy fighting tooth-and-nail against INTERRACIAL marriage.

The opposition to gay marriage from The Religious Wrong is based on a number of things:

(1) Writings in the Old Testament that describe how ancient patriarchical Hebrew society was opposed to homosexuality, because (A) their religious leaders told them that their Wrathful And Jealous Male Sky-God-King did not approve of it, and (B) because homosexual sex is not procreative - and procreation, especially of sons who can become warriors and fight in the tribal army, was absolutely vital to that ancient desert society's continued existence.

(2) Some of them do not believe in the doctrine of "eternal security" which states that once you're "born again", you can freely choose to commit any sin you wish and still be guaranteed of salvation in heaven.  Since they believe that their Wrathful And Jealous Male Sky-God-King does not approve of homosexuality, they believe that supporting gay marriage is a sin that angers their Wrathful And Jealous Male Sky-God-King and therefore endangers their own salvation ... and they still have some unconscious lingering worry that maybe their Wrathful And Jealous Male Sky-God-King will look deep into their souls and find something that they themselves aren't consciously aware of which proves that when they said that they accepted JC as their saviour they were not sufficiently sincere enough to satisfy their Wrathful And Jealous Male Sky-God-King ... so ... at every turn, they frantically and fanatically rant and rave against anything in society that tempts them to have a thought in their minds that might anger their Wrathful And Jealous Male Sky-God-King.

Never mind the severe Old Testament proscriptions against breaking the Sabbath, adultry, pork, taking the name of the Lord in vain, mouthing off to your elders, and so on and so on.  I guess as long as the Religious Wrong wants to trot out Biblical condemnation of homosexuality, we liberals will have to trot out all the other Scriptural no-nos!
::)

McDonald wrote:
I guess we can add the subjunctive mood to the long list of things GW just doesn't grasp.
That's right, the "subjunctive mood" it is.  The proper terminology eluded me.  Don't remember all them grammar lessons so good no more!
:D

AL-B wrote:
I think back in 1964, all of the "red states" were too busy fighting tooth-and-nail against INTERRACIAL marriage.
Dang right!  That's unnatural, boy, against God's law don'tcha know? 

Several people have pointed out that none of the neocons have advanced 1 single SECULAR argument against gay marriage.  How does it hurt me, my marriage, my children?  Certainly no more than the 50+% divorce rate - and the inevitable single parant households it creates.  Certainly no more than the frivolous multi-marriage celebrities (like Newt Gingrich) practice.  My guess is that I, as a non-believer, and many others in that category who support gay marriage as a civil right  take our marriage vows more seriously than the majority of our "Christian" friends, who's motto seems to be "do as I say, not as I do".  That at least seems to be the case with those philandering fundamentalist "preachers".  And that raises an interesting question:  They claim that they know the will of God, they have admitted to what they themselves would call sin.  So why would God continue to share His/Her will with sinners against His/Her law?

But why am I wasting my time on this crap?

A none related point.  On a number of threads I have answered questions from our neocon friends, but have not recieved answers to questions I have asked.  Why is that?

I think back in 1964, all of the "red states" were too busy fighting tooth-and-nail against INTERRACIAL marriage.


I think not, interracial marriage, if I remember correctly, was legalized in America in the 1940's.

I think not, interracial marriage, if I remember correctly, was legalized in America in the 1940's.


You remember incorrectly.  It was in 1967, by a Supreme Court ruling, that the remaining interracial marriage laws in the US were struck down. 

I think not, interracial marriage, if I remember correctly, was legalized in America in the 1940's.
Yeah, and I'm sure that back in 1964 a black man could walk down the street in Birmingham, Alabama holding hands with a white woman and no one would even so much as bat an eye at them.

You remember incorrectly.  It was in 1967, by a Supreme Court ruling, that the remaining interracial marriage laws in the US were struck down. 


Key word: remaining.

Especially in those flaming-red states.


So what do you have to say for Oregon and Michigan?

Key word: remaining.


I agree, although I may interpret it differently than you.

The Loving VS. Viriginia decision abolished interracial marriage & dating laws in more than a third (17) of our states:  Delaware, Maryland, Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana, Virginia and West Virginia.

In 1964, the year that was being discussed, such laws still existed in 19 states -- the seventeen states already mentioned, plus Indiana and Wyoming.

You said you thought interracial bans were abolished in the 40s.  The fact is that only one state lifted its ban on interracial marriage in the 40s, but it was an historical event, so that's probably why you associated the 40s with a nationwide lift of the ban.  In 1948, California became the first state since 1883 (when Maine and Michegan lifted their bans) to lift a ban on interracial marriage.  Between 1883 and 1948, the number of states with bans on interracial marriage changes only because of states being added to the union or because states who had no such bans enacted them. 

At the end of 1949, more than 2/3 of the states (29 of our then 48 states)  still had laws against interracial marriage:  those states include the nineteen states already mentioned, plus Colorada, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho & Oregon. 

Only 9 states and the District of Columbia never had interracial bans:  Wisconsin, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Hawaii, Alaska and Minnesota

If you want to look at a map that shows, year by year, when states enacted or overturned interracial ban laws, go to:  http://www.lovingday.org/map.htm  It's quite interesting to watch the map as you scroll through the years.

You remember incorrectly.  It was in 1967, by a Supreme Court ruling, that the remaining interracial marriage laws in the US were struck down. 

Loving vs. Virginia, 1967
http://www.blackseek.com/bh/2001/113_Loving.htm

Marriage of blacks and whites was known as "mscegenation."  A Latin compund appropriating "msicere" (to mix) and misappropriating "genus" (race).  We are all biologically one race--human--regardless of differential ethnic features.  Your standard KKK-type idiot today more likely uses the term "race-mixing."  Miscegenation is arcane and too durn hard to pronounce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

Miscegenation seems to have been applied chiefly to whites and blacks.  I don't know if and where the laws applied to or were enforced against, say, whites and asians, blacks and latinos, or other combinations.

Don Carlos wrote:
Several people have pointed out that none of the neocons have advanced 1 single SECULAR argument against gay marriage.  How does it hurt me, my marriage, my children?  Certainly no more than the 50+% divorce rate - and the inevitable single parant households it creates.  Certainly no more than the frivolous multi-marriage celebrities (like Newt Gingrich) practice.  My guess is that I, as a non-believer, and many others in that category who support gay marriage as a civil right  take our marriage vows more seriously than the majority of our "Christian" friends, who's motto seems to be "do as I say, not as I do".
If you'd bother to show up at church once in a while, my heathen friend, you would learn that Christianity is not really about living a moral and unselfish life, it's about passing judgment on other people.  But you're too busy sleeping off Sunday morning hangovers to know what a lot of fun being a Christian really is!
:P
And who needs your messy "secular" arguments, when you're a Christian, you can just say, "The Bible says it, I believe, and that settles it."  You can get that bumper sticker at the twoferabuck sale at your local Christan bookstore along with "It's better to be saved than sorry."
:D

Definition of marriage: The union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Does allowing interracial marriages conflict with that definition?

BUT, does allowing same-sex "marriages?"

So, what about a "marriage" of 2 concepts or actions? i.e. A "marriage" of beauty and convenience?

You'll have to settle for a civil union of "beauty and convenience."
;)

Looks like the federal government doesn't reconize the same-sex "marriages" that took place in the only state that allows them, Massachusetts:

(excert)

BOSTON (AP) — As if tax season isn't stressful enough, homosexual "newlyweds" in Massachusetts have a new question to consider: Do they check "married" or "single" on their federal tax forms?
    A landmark court ruling made Massachusetts the first state to sanction same-sex "marriage" nearly a year ago, but homosexuals will have to untie the knot in April — on paper at least — because the federal government doesn't recognize their unions.
    But some aren't ready to declare themselves "single" to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
"I fully intend to file a married joint return, regardless of the fact that we're not supposed to," said Arthur Henneberger, 46, of Springfield. "If they kick it back, fine; we'll go to court."
    Although Mr. Henneberger might expect to get the full backing of homosexual rights groups, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders isn't looking to pick a fight with the IRS.
    "It's not something that should be done quickly or precipitously," GLAD spokeswoman Carisa Cunningham said. "We wouldn't advise anyone to try to do it alone."
    Instead, the group is advising the state's estimated 4,900 same-sex couples who "married" in the past year to file federal returns as if they are single but to note — either through an attached letter or on the return itself — that they were "married" in Massachusetts.

Full story: http://washtimes.com/national/20050126-114921-7399r.htm

Loving vs. Virginia, 1967
http://www.blackseek.com/bh/2001/113_Loving.htm


If you'd bother to show up at church once in a while, my heathen friend, you would learn that Christianity is not really about living a moral and unselfish life, it's about passing judgment on other people.  But you're too busy sleeping off Sunday morning hangovers to know what a lot of fun being a Christian really is!
:P
And who needs your messy "secular" arguments, when you're a Christian, you can just say, "The Bible says it, I believe, and that settles it."  You can get that bumper sticker at the twoferabuck sale at your local Christan bookstore along with "It's better to be saved than sorry."
:D


Too funny, but the hangover remark is inaccurate.  Truth is I'd rather "snuggle" with Cat and stay warm and cozy than be bored for an hour by some holier-than-thou hypocrit.

Definition of marriage: The union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Does allowing interracial marriages conflict with that definition?

BUT, does allowing same-sex "marriages?"




Definitions change over time.

Interracial marriages didn't conflict with that definition during the long years when they were illegal in most states.

Looks like the federal government doesn't reconize the same-sex "marriages" that took place in the only state that allows them, Massachusetts:





Seems to me that the "full faith and credit" clause would give these folks a strong case.

Definition of marriage: The union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Does allowing interracial marriages conflict with that definition?

BUT, does allowing same-sex "marriages?"




To Hell with that definition. Where do you come off telling two men or women they can't get married? I'm tired of this religious crap. Bollocks to the f**king Bible. I think I am actually going to burn one in protest, one of these days. I'm tired of the double standard which says that secularists have to respect the people who are trying to coerce everybody into living according to their beliefs, while they continue to denouce us and work for the demise of religious freedom. Here's a free gift for you
http://w5.montreal.com/mtlweblog/no-conv.gif

To Hell with that definition. Where do you come off telling two men or women they can't get married? I'm tired of this religious crap. Bollocks to the f**king Bible. I think I am actually going to burn one in protest, one of these days. I'm tired of the double standard which says that secularists have to respect the people who are trying to coerce everybody into living according to their beliefs, while they continue to denouce us and work for the demise of religious freedom. Here's a free gift for you
http://w5.montreal.com/mtlweblog/no-conv.gif


Well said!

To Hell with that definition.


And to hell with what you want it to be.  It must really bother you that the majority of Americans think that changing the definition would be a stupid mistake, and that most Americans don't want to look like Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, or Massachusetts.  If the EU is so much "better" socially then America, why haven't they legalized this garbage yet?

Let me guess, you're 15-19, right?  This is, I think, the third or fourth time you've written an emotional, childish, rant attacking people that dare disagree with you, on Christians, republicans, and conservatives.  Grow up.

Hey, DC, you need to change the pic in your sig line...



I have been bugging him about that too but it is strange because sometimes it is on and sometimes it's not.



Cat

Let me guess, you're 15-19, right?  This is, I think, the third or fourth time you've written an emotional, childish, rant attacking people that dare disagree with you, Christians, republicans, and conservatives.  Grow up.

"an emotional, childish, rant attacking people that dare disagree with you"?

What where you shaving when you wrote that?  Must have been looking in the mirror!
::)

I wouldn't slash out the bible, just the Christo-fascist interpreters of the bible and their sheepish, conformist minions!

Marriage is a legal union between two mutually consenting adult persons



Oh sure, you say that now.  But it is just the first step in a series where marriage will end up being defined like this:

Marriage:  The union any amount of people, things, animals, etc., consenting or not, dead or alive, with any amount of other people, things, animals, etc.

The real definition:

Marriage (mar'ig) n.
The social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

- Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary, 2004.

This topic always makes for heated discussion. Let's keep it civil folks.

It must really bother you that the majority of Americans think that changing the definition would be a stupid mistake, and that most Americans don't want to look like Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, or Massachusetts.  If the EU is so much "better" socially then America, why haven't they legalized this garbage yet?

Discrimination tends to get on my nerves, no matter who the culprit or victim. I ceased caring long ago what most Americans "think" (and I shudder to even call it that). 20 years ago, Ronald Reagan thought that AIDS was a gay disease and a divine punishment for a lifestyle. Most Americans agreed with him and they were wrong. 40 years ago, most Americans thought that Vietnam was a necessary and vital conflict and that we would win... they were wrong. 50 years ago, most Americans were racist sons of bitches (especially around your area) who thought segregation was necessary and would last "forever"... wrong. Most Americans once thought that women were inferior and didn't deserve the vote, that Blacks didn't deserve the vote, that Blacks were like animals and the institution of slavery was for their own good... WRONG WRONG WRONG! Do I need to illustrate further how "most Americans" are consistently wrong about everything?


Let me guess, you're 15-19, right?  This is, I think, the third or fourth time you've written an emotional, childish, rant attacking people that dare disagree with you, on Christians, republicans, and conservatives.  Grow up.


Ooh, that's some guessing power you've got there... Especially since I've never hidden my age, it's right on my profile and I've even mentioned it several times. It's not dissent that angers me, Cletus, it's simple-mindedness. It's the mob mentality that suggests to people that just because they are in a majority somewhere, then everyone else isn't as important. People who don't recognise that in order to protect their own rights, they have to refrain from taking rights away from others. And please spare everyone your self-victimising techniques. They're weak!  You are so quick to lump everyone on your side... Not all Christians agree with you. A lot of Christians don't take the Bible literally, and a lot of them don't think that their beliefs should be pushed onto others via legislation. And they are free to think these things because Christianity isn't about control and exclusivity... it's about love, brotherhood, and freedom. I don't expect you to recognise that.

Is there a problem with my frustration? If I wanted to go to the middle of a park where there are public grilles for barbeques, douse a Bible with lighter fluid and set it ablaze in protest of all the butts who are trying to use it to control my life and steal my freedom... is there a problem with that? Does that make me a whiney little baby? No, I think it doesn't. I'm not saying that I'm going to do this... I won't. I have too strong convictions against book-burning. And I also have too much respect for mythological texts as objects of study and scholarship (not as weapons in political war games). I put the Bible right where it belongs (IMHO)... with the Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, Talmud, Vedas and Upanishads, Greek Mythology, the Norse Eddas, Celtic Mythology, and all the other great stories that have become part of literary history. But I'm not going to live my life according to its (often ridiculous) rules and nobody can make me, not even the government... (the Constitution says so).

GW, the Right wing are both frustrating and amusing... because throughout history, they've never fully succeeded in anything long-term. The natural progression of Western society is toward Liberalism, just take a look at history. All this crap we're bickering over... gay marriage, death penalty, abortion.... in the due course of time it will all go our way, it always has. All the Right can do is slow it down, which means they are engaging in a Sysiphean task and their efforts are futile. This makes it frustrating because you are delaying the progress for everyone, and amusing because no matter how hard you fight to pull us backward, you're just going to lose in the long run anyway. People want to be free, and I mean really free... not the saccharine free you're looking at.

GW, the Right wing are both frustrating and amusing... because throughout history, they've never fully succeeded in anything long-term. The natural progression of Western society is toward Liberalism, just take a look at history. All this crap we're bickering over... gay marriage, death penalty, abortion.... in the due course of time it will all go our way, it always has. All the Right can do is slow it down, which means they are engaging in a Sysiphean task and their efforts are futile. This makes it frustrating because you are delaying the progress for everyone, and amusing because no matter how hard you fight to pull us backward, you're just going to lose in the long run anyway. People want to be free, and I mean really free... not the saccharine free you're looking at.

As Ralph Nader points out, the Right has been dragged kicking and screaming into everything we now know as progress.  The Bushies are doing their d*mnedest to undo all progress in social justice and equality America has made over the past 75 years. 
The one taboo the Right cannot afford to break is overt racism.  For judicial and administrative posts, the Bushies seek out the most wildly reactionary and obsequious Blacks and Latinos they can find.  This neat trick allows them to boast about their racial progressiveness while undoing the social progress that made the appointment of "minorities" legal and palatable in the first place.
I don't think the American Right is racist anymore...other races and ethnic groups are dandy just as long as they live like conservative white Christian Republicans!
When the Right talks about "freedom," they are talking about freedom of the rich to exploit the poor, and freedom of the military-industrial complex to exploit less powerful nations.

Marriage (mar'ig) n.
The social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

- Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary, 2004.



Webster's  left our an important passage "sanctioned by the state".  A number of years ago I "officiated" at the commitment cerimony of 2 lesbians.  Clearly, the symbolic ceremony was neither legal or "religious" although it was spiritual.  Cat and my wedding was sanctioned by the state, and is therefore legal, because the person who officiated is licenced by the state to do so.  Wheter it is a religios ceremony or not is up to the couple.  Legally, than, marriage is not a religious ceremony in the eyes of the state.  As a state sanctioned SOCIAL institution, society can decide to define who is eligible to participate, guided by the laws and the constitution.  The constitution bans descrimination.  Marriage implies rights and privileges which should not be denies on a discriminitory basis, so:

Legalize Gay Marriage

And if you religious folk don't want to have one, don't, and don't belong to churches that sanction them, but keep you religion out of our laws.

50 years ago, most Americans were racist sons of bitches (especially around your area)

In my area?  You live in Texas, which was probably the most racist state of them all.


GW, the Right wing are both frustrating and amusing... because throughout history, they've never fully succeeded in anything long-term. The natural progression of Western society is toward Liberalism, just take a look at history. All this crap we're bickering over... gay marriage, death penalty, abortion.... in the due course of time it will all go our way, it always has. All the Right can do is slow it down, which means they are engaging in a Sysiphean task and their efforts are futile. This makes it frustrating because you are delaying the progress for everyone, and amusing because no matter how hard you fight to pull us backward, you're just going to lose in the long run anyway. People want to be free, and I mean really free... not the saccharine free you're looking at.


Free is economic freedom, low taxes, free enterprise, the power to go up and beyond.  Not the anti-capatilist sh** that the left pushes.

As for gay marriage, you wait and see.  It may become legal in one or two more states (New York, California, possibly Vermont) but it will never spread to the rest of the country in anyone on this boards lifetime.  If Bush gets the amendment pass, well, it will almost never become legal.

As for America turning towards the left.  Bull.  I am very optimistic, like you, that this nation has had it with the left and the filth they want to push on everybody, my prediction is this nation is much more conservative than it is now 20 years from you.  Wait and see, that's all we can do, wait and see.  We'll see who is right.

Free is economic freedom, low taxes, free enterprise, the power to go up and beyond.  Not the anti-capatilist sh** that the left pushes.


The anti-capitalists are the class of corporate robber barons who control the wealth of this country.  They are against competitive free markets and for an anti-competitive, monopolistic rigged-deck for their own benefit.
If you think the Bushies are looking out for the mom & pop entrepeneur and the small-potatoes investor, you are horribly deluded!

I see no need to have an amendment that calls for a National Ban on gay marriage.  That said, I DO support an amendment that takes on the following features:

1.  Marriage law is strictly reserved as a State Law issue.

2.  The "Defense of marriage Act" stands, which means that no state is REQUIRED to recognize homosexual marriage done in any other state.

Basically this amendment would CLARIFY MARRIAGE AS A STATE'S RIGHTS ISSUE.  If the people of a given state want homosexuals to marry, so be it.  And if a state wants to keep such things banned, that's cool too.  Keep the Federal Government out of it.

This amendment would be a far easier one to get passed than an outright ban, too.  And it would catch people like John Kerry, who disingenuously objected to the prior amendment proposal as a "violation of states rights", flat-footed.

Free is economic freedom, low taxes, free enterprise, the power to go up and beyond.  Not the anti-capatilist sh** that the left pushes.

As for America turning towards the left.  Bull.  I am very optimistic, like you, that this nation has had it with the left and the filth they want to push on everybody, my prediction is this nation is much more conservative than it is now 20 years from you.  Wait and see, that's all we can do, wait and see.  We'll see who is right.


Oh, but he is right.  The pendulum has certainly swung back and forth, but always the agenda has moved to the "left" if by that you mean greater individual control over one's life, and equal access to the benefits of citizenship.  Seems to me you definition of freedom is EXTREMELY limited.

And by the way, I still wonder if you ever read Adam Smith, who stated, and I paraphrase, "two or more businessmen in a room alone together equals a conspiracy to limit competition"  which they hate.  "Chrony capitalism" has always been the ambition of those who have already made it.  Why should they welcome competition?  They aren't dedicated to the free market, they are dedicated to making $$$ in any way possible.  The 2 are NOT the same. 

In any case, how can you demand a "free market" and in the same breath be willing to deny some people basic rights afforded by the state to others?

2.  The "Defense of marriage Act" stands, which means that no state is REQUIRED to recognize homosexual marriage done in any other state.



DOMA is why the amendment wasn't passed.  According to C-Span, there was about 14 US Senators who said they would vote for the amendment to ban same-sex "marriages" only if DOMA was overturned.

DOMA is why the amendment wasn't passed.  According to C-Span, there was about 14 US Senators who said they would vote for the amendment to ban same-sex "marriages" only if DOMA was overturned.


Granted some have disingenuously claimed that.

However, the DOMA likely violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, and even a right-wing Supreme Court judge could make that argument.

People who hide behind the DOMA or who say "no need for an amendment, it is a states rights issue" are trying to call the coin heads and tails at the same time.  And they are people who USUALLY dispense with the idea of states rights if it suits their particular cause (actually, people on the "right" do that too  :-\\  )

And they are people who USUALLY dispense with the idea of states rights if it suits their particular cause (actually, people on the "right" do that too  :-\\  )


Sort of like the people who want abortion to be a federal issue, and gay marriage a state issue.  States only!

In my area?  You live in Texas, which was probably the most racist state of them all.





I have to strongly disagree with this statement.  I am from Texas, too, and I thought when I moved up north there would be less prejudice, but there is much more prejudice here than there is in Texas.

I have to strongly disagree with this statement.  I am from Texas, too, and I thought when I moved up north there would be less prejudice, but there is much more prejudice here than there is in Texas.


You know what?  I believe you. 

I've fallen for the brainwashing from some people as well.  The north probably is more intolerant.

You know what?  I believe you. 

I've fallen for the brainwashing from some people as well.  The north probably is more intolerant.


It all depends on what you mean.  Prejudice is, I think, equally widespread throughout all 50 states, but racism was and is certainly more overt in the south.  Vermont, the first state to abolish slavery, had an active KKK chapter in the '20s, and might still, but segregation was never legal (as in esconced in law) here.  I guess the difference between prejudice and racism is still too subtile for some people to grasp though, and applies equally to gay rights issues and race issues.

It all depends on what you mean.  Prejudice is, I think, equally widespread throughout all 50 states, but racism was and is certainly more overt in the south.  Vermont, the first state to abolish slavery, had an active KKK chapter in the '20s, and might still, but segregation was never legal (as in esconced in law) here.  I guess the difference between prejudice and racism is still too subtile for some people to grasp though, and applies equally to gay rights issues and race issues.

It seems to me the only people denying white racism in America are Southerners.
Racism is a legacy we all have to contend with as Americans no matter where we come from.
The crying shame is the Bush is trying to pack the Civil Rights Commission with people who deny racism is a problem.

It seems to me the only people denying white racism in America are Southerners.



Probably because we get all the blame for it, when that happened decades ago.  But the democrats, and their modern-day crusade against white people by denying us a "white history month," the hate against heterosexuals by mocking some college in Oklahoma that is having a "straight pride week," and the Christian hate by liberal judges denying anything Christian-related to be taught in schools, but at the same time allowing madatory readings of the Islam holy book, the Quran.

There is your modern day intolerance.

Probably because we get all the blame for it, when that happened decades ago.  But the democrats, and their modern-day crusade against white people by denying us a "white history month," the hate against heterosexuals by mocking some college in Oklahoma that is having a "straight pride week," and the Christian hate by liberal judges denying anything Christian-related to be taught in schools, but at the same time allowing madatory readings of the Islam holy book, the Quran.

There is your modern day intolerance.



What happened "decades ago" is still happening today.  Please don't fool yourself, or try to deny it.
It happens all over the country, everyday.  This "modern day crusade" you talk of against white people,
you may not have noticed but the overwhelming majority of democrats are white people, and if you ever
decide to open a history book you will notice that in lieu of "white history month" what we have had, and
continue to have is the white history of the world, every school, every day, every week, every year. It is only in the past 25 years that there has been any recognition of the fact that other ethnic groups actually had a part in the building of America, and it was a struggle to get African Americans included in history books other than beneficiaries of the largess of the Union troops who  "ended slavery" .  As my fourth grade teacher said  "you will have to play a slave in the play because negroes didn't do anything else"  (I didn't play a slave, and my great-great uncle was in the army, at Appomattox).  Straight Pride Week! when were straight people ever made to feel ashamed? The reason behind pride weeks was an outlet for people who had been beaten (literally and figuratively) to say "we have had enough, we don't deserve this, get over it"  and where is it "Mandatory" to read the Quran

and where is it "Mandatory" to read the Quran


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36118

I admit they are treading a fine line here.  As one who grew up in public schools where Jewish friends were forced pray to Jesus everyday, I am quite sensitive about prayer in the schools.  I also see that this was a decision in 2003 and that the issue was appealed, I googled but cannot find an update. 

IMO, I don't see what the big deal is.  When I was in school, we did the same thing when learning about the Mayans, Incas & such.  We learned prayers they did to different "gods" and one dance and role-played.  It's called "expanding your horizons" people.  Get over it. 


But it's funny the same judge won't allow Christian prayers, songs, etc.

In my area?  You live in Texas, which was probably the most racist state of them all..


I do live Texas, but I'm not from here and I'd never be caught claiming it as "my area." As opposed to yourself, who lauds Georgia as though it were the greatest place ever stolen from Natives.

I was born in Europe, reared in upstate New York, and came of age in liberal Sarasota, the artistic centre of Florida. Believe me, I know the idiocy that exists where I currently live, but I won't be here for long.

Probably because we get all the blame for it, when that happened decades ago.  But the democrats, and their modern-day crusade against white people by denying us a "white history month," the hate against heterosexuals by mocking some college in Oklahoma that is having a "straight pride week," and the Christian hate by liberal judges denying anything Christian-related to be taught in schools, but at the same time allowing madatory readings of the Islam holy book, the Quran.

There is your modern day intolerance.




Pish posh! Those events you've cited are nothing but defiant statements of intolerance themselves. We're simply calling them what they are. Any particular reason we need a White history month? Are the achievements of White people often overlooked in history classes? I don't think so.

Are straight couples at risk of daily persecution? Nope... hence, no need for a show of "straight pride."

I don't know about you, but I took a comparative religion class in high school where we did discuss all major religions.

But just an example of maybe why this decision was made... "Show of hands, class. Who here knows the story of Moses? Ok, now who here can tell me the story of Lao Tzu?"

Notice a certain neccesity? 

Probably because we get all the blame for it, when that happened decades ago.  But the democrats, and their modern-day crusade against white people by denying us a "white history month," the hate against heterosexuals by mocking some college in Oklahoma that is having a "straight pride week," and the Christian hate by liberal judges denying anything Christian-related to be taught in schools, but at the same time allowing madatory readings of the Islam holy book, the Quran.

There is your modern day intolerance.



"Crusade agains white people," "Straight pride week" =
http://tiger.towson.edu/users/msanto2/klansman.jpg

This kind of ridiculous paranoid talk is really effing unnerving, IMHO!

Probably because we get all the blame for it, when that happened decades ago.  But the democrats, and their modern-day crusade against white people by denying us a "white history month," the hate against heterosexuals by mocking some college in Oklahoma that is having a "straight pride week," and the Christian hate by liberal judges denying anything Christian-related to be taught in schools, but at the same time allowing madatory readings of the Islam holy book, the Quran.

There is your modern day intolerance.




Southerns DO NOT get "all the blame" for racism as my post clearly stated, and Martin Luther King clearly demonstrated years ago in Cicero Ill.

Every month is "white history" month.  Read any high school or college US history text approved by the Texas School Board, or are you carping because now minorities get a few paragraphs recognition out of hundreds of (usually boring - and I'm a historian) pages applauding the wonderful dead white guys who betrayed the promise of old Tom's declaration?

Straight Pride Week?  Do some heteros feel so threatended in their sexuality that they need to publically proclaim their pride?  Js H Christ, Kids on my campus do it every day with numerous public displays of affection.  He11, I saw one guy groping his girlfriend's breast on a bench in the hallway of my academic building at mid-day.  Gays, on the other hand, responding to the stigma many attach to their sexuality, might very well want to publically demonstrate pride in who they are.

There is a big difference between teaching students ABOUT the Quran, or the Rig Vedas, or the Upanishads, or the Teachings of the Compassonate Buddah etc, and pushing the beliefs of a particular Christian sect in the public schools.  Teaching ABOUT religion is a far cry and much different than teaching religion.  Luckily, we have no national religion to teach.  If we had, I'd probably be denied the vote.

Might I suggest that those holding the opinions expressed in the quote think about the power relationships between the GROUPS under discussion and put their personal issues aside?

stolen from Natives.


Wow, the government schools really did a number on you.

I was born in Europe,

That explains a lot.

And I'd take Texas over that hellhole New York any day.  But I do agree with on Florida, I'd rather live there than Texas.