http://paradiseiswhereiam.blogspot.com/2005/04/lobby-day-2005.html

Not sure what to make of this.  Is she afraid the gay will rub off on her, or is she afraid of having to face off with the people she's trying to use as political currency? 

Minnesota voted against the bill she proposed.

Speaking on gay people....also in today's news: http://www.oregonlive.com/newslogs/oregonian/index.ssf?/mtlogs/olive_oregonian_news/archives/2005_04.html#057455

Speaking on gay people....also in today's news: http://www.oregonlive.com/newslogs/oregonian/index.ssf?/mtlogs/olive_oregonian_news/archives/2005_04.html#057455


Answer this question: Do you even know what the 14th ammendment is?

Oh, and you will lose in time. We always win out eventually. Your type could not hold back desegregation forever, and you won't hold this back.

Oh, and you will lose in time. We always win out eventually. Your type could not hold back desegregation forever, and you won't hold this back.


Yeah sure.  Believe what you want.  The facts aren't there, people are moving more opposed to same-sex "marriage."  Hell, the federal government even refuses to give gay couples in Massachusetts any extra benefits on their tax returns, they refuse to reconize their "marriage."

Answer this question: Do you even know what the 14th ammendment is?

Yes I do.  And it's obvious that I and the Oregon state supreme court, and the California state supreme court, and the Georgia state supreme court, and even the US Supreme court (6 are against gay "marriage" on the US Supreme Court, only 3 are for it.)  So with all these courts ruling that not only 4% of the population to change the definition of marriage don't you think maybe it DOESN'T violate the 14th amendment.  Maybe the people back then weren't even thinking of gay "marriage" at the time they wrote it.

The ONLY court that has said the 14th amendment allows gay "marriage" is the Massachusetts state supreme court, by a 4-3 vote, with the governor opposesing, and with the only gay person on the Massachusetts supreme court ruling that gay "marriage" WASN'T a constitutional right.  But she was overuled by four judges who don't give a dam* about law.

Yeah sure. Believe what you want. The facts aren't there, people are moving more opposed to same-sex "marriage." Hell, the federal government even refuses to give gay couples in Massachusetts any extra benefits on their tax returns, they refuse to reconize their "marriage."

Yes I do. And it's obvious that I and the Oregon state supreme court, and the California state supreme court, and the Georgia state supreme court, and even the US Supreme court (6 are against gay "marriage" on the US Supreme Court, only 3 are for it.) So with all these courts ruling that not only 4% of the population to change the definition of marriage don't you think maybe it DOESN'T violate the 14th amendment. Maybe the people back then weren't even thinking of gay "marriage" at the time they wrote it.

The ONLY court that has said the 14th amendment allows gay "marriage" is the Massachusetts state supreme court, by a 4-3 vote, with the governor opposesing, and with the only gay person on the Massachusetts supreme court ruling that gay "marriage" WASN'T a constitutional right. But she was overuled by four judges who don't give a dam* about law.


Well you are all WRONG too. The 14th ammendment insures equal protection under the law, equal rights. If gay couples aren't afforded the same benefits as heterosexual couples, than the law is discriminatory, and that is a direct violation of the 14th ammendment.

Please tell me, why do you want to keep OTHER PEOPLE from getting married? It is their business. It seems a lot more anti-marriage to not allow gay couples to marry. You are PREVENTING people from marrying. It defies any logic.

On the other hand, Connecticut's state assembly just passed a civil unions law.  Look, both Cat and I are happily heterosexual, and so neither of us have any trouble with gay unions, regardless of how they are defined in law.  There are lots of studies suggesting that at least 1 in 10 people are homesexual.Why should they be denied the sameCIVIC benefits afforded to straights?  Why should their sexuality be a CIVIC concern?  I have said this before, but I'll say it again, KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF OUR LAWS.  If you believe homesexuality is a sin, than don't practice it, but don't impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us, who may believe differently than you.  The strength of our democracy (such as it is) rests in its secular, non-judgemental orientation.  Once we start enacting the morality of specific denominations into law our democracy will become a theocracy, like Ian, or worse, like Afganistan under the Taliban.

The "Bushes" are a great place for homophobes to hide!
:D
And I agree, Don Carlos, the basic impertive bears repeating:
KEEP YOUR RELIGION OFF OUR LAWS!!!

Hopefully in the decades to come we can look back on this time and wonder why people were so intolerant on this issue- I'm sure homosexuals will gain their rights eventually.

Maybe the people back then weren't even thinking of gay "marriage" at the time they wrote it.



They did think about "interracial" relationships though and made sure it was made illegal, in some
cases right up until the 70's.  I am sure there are many who are still chewing there cuds about that
one, too.

They did think about "interracial" relationships though and made sure it was made illegal, in some
cases right up until the 70's.  I am sure there are many who are still chewing there cuds about that
one, too.

The oppenants of so-called "miscegenation" made similar moralist arguments against "mixed marriages" to the ones they now make against gay marriage.  They did so with all the same vim and vigor, and used it as a political football for decades.  They would have had you believe if we allowed different "races," (particularly "black" and "white," think especially of--gasp--black men marrying white women) to marry, Western Civilization would got to h*ll in a handbasket.

Let's NOT take their word for it on gay marriage either!

The "Bushes" are a great place for homophobes to hide!
:D
And I agree, Don Carlos, the basic impertive bears repeating:
KEEP YOUR RELIGION OFF OUR LAWS!!!



You can't keep religion completely out of the law.  Most law is rooted in religious principles.

That said, the law should not be constructed in favor of any particular religion...

You can't keep religion completely out of the law. Most law is rooted in religious principles.

That said, the law should not be constructed in favor of any particular religion...


The first code of laws was the code of Hammurabi(sp?), which was not a religious set of laws. And our law system is based on ENGLISH COMMON LAW, which has it's roots in the tribal laws of the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons.

You can't keep religion completely out of the law.  Most law is rooted in religious principles.

That said, the law should not be constructed in favor of any particular religion...

Most religious principles are rooted in controlling the masses and managing rigidly class-based societies.

The "Bushes" are a great place for homophobes to hide!
:D
And I agree, Don Carlos, the basic impertive bears repeating:
KEEP YOUR RELIGION OFF OUR LAWS!!!



While I am sure that some homophobes "hate the sin" my guess is that there are a vast majority of others who question (secretly) their sexuality, and find this or that guy or chick sinfully attractive.  Too bad that they haven't the "cojones" to own thewir own sexuality.

Perhaps if we talked of Ethics instead of Religion we'd be in better shape.

Most religious principles are rooted in controlling the masses and managing rigidly class-based societies.


Interestingly, so are most political processes.

Interestingly, so are most political processes.


Beware of politicians and preachers, and try not to let the two get mixed up!
:o

Perhaps if we talked of Ethics instead of Religion we'd be in better shape.


ethics?  This is the Republican party leading the charge on the issue of gays.  The party of Tom DeLay who gives his wife and daughter half million dollar jobs paid for by his political action comittees.  The same Tom DeLay who fires anyone who tries to impose ethics and rewrites the laws concerning Senate ethics to make sure they can't touch him.  The gay marriage thing is a great distraction from all that stuff.

Unless of course you believe Tom DeLay when he claims it's all a liberal conspiracy.