NationStates Jolt Archive

OK Bush, come on man... we know what you want... no gays... that ain't gonna happen, so give it up. But you do have a good majority of americans who are against gay marriage, so you made a good move with trying to control the chaos that New York, San Fransisco, and Portland and all them were starting... I would definately support an ammendment defining marriage, and polls say so would many others... but... umm... you have to at LEAST let them have civil unions! Your ammendment proposal would have made it past day one if you would have at least left the ammendment open to allowing civil unions, because polls show that a lot of the people against gay marriage wouldn't mind gay civil unions... it's just the word they're worried about!

Now go back, write it the RIGHT way, and get it done! Listen to your own voter base for cryin' out loud!

And yeah, personally, I'm for blanket-labelling all marriages etc. as simply civil unions, simply because I don't think the government has the right to redefine marriage... so basically, if we can't come up with a definition we agree on, then just leave it up to the people!

Thanks, now get to work, Bush! I'm counting on you!

Oh, and by the way... John Kerry and Edwards... not like anyone cares about your voting record anyway, but you guys didn't even vote on this issue... wtf is up with that??

*sigh*

OK, that be my rant for the night ;)

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/cts.jpg (http://jordan.blogspot.com/)

OK Bush, come on man... we know what you want... no gays... that ain't gonna happen, so give it up. But you do have a good majority of americans who are against gay marriage, so you made a good move with trying to control the chaos that New York, San Fransisco, and Portland and all them were starting... I would definately support an ammendment defining marriage, and polls say so would many others... but... umm... you have to at LEAST let them have civil unions! Your ammendment proposal would have made it past day one if you would have at least left the ammendment open to allowing civil unions, because polls show that a lot of the people against gay marriage wouldn't mind gay civil unions... it's just the word they're worried about!

Now go back, write it the RIGHT way, and get it done! Listen to your own voter base for cryin' out loud!

And yeah, personally, I'm for blanket-labelling all marriages etc. as simply civil unions, simply because I don't think the government has the right to redefine marriage... so basically, if we can't come up with a definition we agree on, then just leave it up to the people!

Thanks, now get to work, Bush! I'm counting on you!

Oh, and by the way... John Kerry and Edwards... not like anyone cares about your voting record anyway, but you guys didn't even vote on this issue... wtf is up with that??

*sigh*

OK, that be my rant for the night ;)
also like 99% of the population is against Bush desecrating our Constitution with crap amendments like this--including many republicans

also like 99% of the population is against Bush desecrating our Constitution with crap amendments like this--including many republicans
umm... I don't know about 99%.... But I do know that a lot of republicans, including myself, were mad at this screwed up ammendment idea... the concept is good, but he went far beyond defense of marriage

Oh, don't bother. TRA likes to make up stuff a lot ;)

umm... I don't know about 99%.... But I do know that a lot of republicans, including myself, were mad at this screwed up ammendment idea... the concept is good, but he went far beyond defense of marriage
I have no problem with it, he is protecting the Churchs definition of marrage, of which I have no problem.

Oh, don't bother. TRA likes to make up stuff a lot ;)is MKULTRA really TRA? I don't really want to get into that debate again, but has it been proven?

I have no problem with it, he is protecting the Churchs definition of marrage, of which I have no problem.
Right, a lot of people are up for that...

but this ammendment also goes into a lot of state issues, like banning civil unions for homosexuals... which a lot of conservatives are willing to compromise for.

The proposed Amendment honestly has no place in the Constitution. Thank God the Senate euthanized it.

Yes, I am fully aware of the irony of that sentiment.....

umm... I don't know about 99%.... But I do know that a lot of republicans, including myself, were mad at this screwed up ammendment idea... the concept is good, but he went far beyond defense of marriage
no the concept reeked--firstly its a state issue not a federal one. Secondly Bush is the first President to actually propose an amendment to the Constitution to LIMIT peoples Rights-the only reason Bush did it was to use as a wedge issue in the elections as part of the rightwings culture war. Even people on Bushs side see thru this cynical and divisive strategy.

I have no problem with it, he is protecting the Churchs definition of marrage, of which I have no problem.
its unconstitutional to put church laws in our Constitution

is MKULTRA really TRA? I don't really want to get into that debate again, but has it been proven?
aye

Actually, I always thought "TRA" was just an abbriviation for MKUL*TRA*

he...hehe...heh...oops?

Its a non issue. Let adults marry whoever (other consenting adults) they want. If someone wants to marry 10 women/men/mixture, *shrug* let them.

Actually, I always thought "TRA" was just an abbriviation for MKUL*TRA*

he...hehe...heh...oops?
your good

Its a non issue. Let adults marry whoever (other consenting adults) they want. If someone wants to marry 10 women/men/mixture, *shrug* let them.
exactly--conservatives must get their laws off peoples bodies

no the concept reeked--firstly its a state issue not a federal one. Secondly Bush is the first President to actually propose an amendment to the Constitution to LIMIT peoples Rights-the only reason Bush did it was to use as a wedge issue in the elections as part of the rightwings culture war. Even people on Bushs side see thru this cynical and divisive strategy.
Umm... OK, take your medicine, kiddo.

if you have even been following the gay marriage debate in the last 6 months, it quickly became a federal issue... why? becuase the states can't do anything about it. The states that have legislature aagainst gay marriage in place, just send their gay couples off to states where gay marriage is legal, and then they come back, and their state has to recognize their marriage. Just like going to vegas to get married, out of state marriages work in every state just the same. Or worse yet, in some states, laws were in place, and a supreme court or someone of similar power overturned the law because they interpreted it to be unconstitutional.

basically, the states have no control anymore... it has become a federal issue. Bush stepping up to put this on the table was a brave move, one that needed to be done. We need to have all states for it, or all states against it, or all states civil unions.

Its a non issue. Let adults marry whoever (other consenting adults) they want. If someone wants to marry 10 women/men/mixture, *shrug* let them.
the problem is, it is far from a non-issue.

Bush's military record is a non-issue.

Definition of Marriage is something people actually care about.

Or all states minding their own business more and let people for ***** sake do whatever they want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.

Its really just an attempt to cement a fear of a particular group in the minds of the people. I mean, if it did go through, kids 100 years from now would be going 'gays are bad, they're banned in the consitution'. All of this is of course, not to mention the entire concept of seperate but equal which we know doesn't work.

I just think you should get over the fact that gays should be allowed to marry. They love each other, they can commit, what the hell is wrong with that?

It's unnatural? Well, no, its not. Happens in the animal kingdom all the time. Dogs, monekys, whales, fish, cats, all other primates.

Note it also takes care of the whole crime against nature thing as well.

God doesn't like it? Doesn't god love everyone?

I've seen these arguments way too many times.

Or all states minding their own business more and let people for ***** sake do whatever they want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.unfortunately, not even half of america shares your opinion, and you have to understand that someday.

unfortunately, not even half of america shares your opinion, and you have to understand that someday.
Got some sort of proof? Why do people want to be regulated and restricted? I dont think you are correct.

Its really just an attempt to cement a fear of a particular group in the minds of the people. I mean, if it did go through, kids 100 years from now would be going 'gays are bad, they're banned in the consitution'. All of this is of course, not to mention the entire concept of seperate but equal which we know doesn't work.

I just think you should get over the fact that gays should be allowed to marry. They love each other, they can commit, what the hell is wrong with that?

It's unnatural? Well, no, its not. Happens in the animal kingdom all the time. Dogs, monekys, whales, fish, cats, all other primates.

Note it also takes care of the whole crime against nature thing as well.

God doesn't like it? Doesn't god love everyone?

I've seen these arguments way too many times.
what is wrong with civil unions? can you give me a good answer? Or do you just want to use this as a homophobe bashing thread lol

Got some sort of proof? Why do people want to be regulated and restricted? I dont think you are correct.
search google for the keywords: poll against gay marriage

take your pick.

Its really just an attempt to cement a fear of a particular group in the minds of the people. I mean, if it did go through, kids 100 years from now would be going 'gays are bad, they're banned in the consitution'. All of this is of course, not to mention the entire concept of seperate but equal which we know doesn't work.

I just think you should get over the fact that gays should be allowed to marry. They love each other, they can commit, what the hell is wrong with that?

It's unnatural? Well, no, its not. Happens in the animal kingdom all the time. Dogs, monekys, whales, fish, cats, all other primates.

Note it also takes care of the whole crime against nature thing as well.

God doesn't like it? Doesn't god love everyone?

I've seen these arguments way too many times.
oh, and thanks for raising another point...

Bush shouldn't have tried to block gay marriage directly, he should just define what marriage is... that's what we all really want. That way you don't get any homophobic messages

Here's what wrong with civil unions.

The MECA education guide states that all 300 states benifits are granted to civil unions but none of the 1,049 federal benifits. Also, they are non-transferable to other states and unrecognized by the government.

Bush trying to define marriage is doing exactly what he claims he doesn't want to do - redefine what marriage is. He wants to say exactly who can marry and who can't. That is not the sort of thing the U.S. is based upon. Besides the fact that it is unconsitutional.

I have no problem with it, he is protecting the Churchs definition of marrage, of which I have no problem.

A definition which no one is threatening, and in fact, would not be affected upon either passing or failing the measure. So, his amendment (not actually his, fyi) is quite useless and you ought to have a problem with such drivel cluttering up one of our most hallowed of legal documents.

By the way, what is "The Church's" definition?

its unconstitutional to put church laws in our Constitution

No it isn't, really. The US was set up as a Christian based Constitutional Republic. Over time that changed, but it's still contitutional. Just not popular.

God doesn't like it? Doesn't god love everyone?He loves everyone. Just not the things they do. The old 'Hate the sin, not the sinner' deal.

I, personally, don't like the use of the word marriage in regards to gay couples. Tradition type thing. I got no problem with them getting hitched, I just don't like the use of the word. Pass laws that make Civil Unions equal to marriage in every respect except the name. That'll make just about everyone satisfied.

You'll still hove the fringe that scream and yell... but then again, they aren't happy unless they're screaming and yelling.

And those are my comments that will make absolutly no difference in how this world is run. Yay.

its unconstitutional to put church laws in our Constitution

You see? TRA is capable of making a point by himself...take that in the least offensive way possible, it was a good rebuttal.

No it isn't, really. The US was set up as a Christian based Constitutional Republic. Over time that changed, but it's still contitutional. Just not popular.


Ok much as I am fighting this.

Do explain that one.


He loves everyone. Just not the things they do. The old 'Hate the sin, not the sinner' deal.

Actually that was Ghandi who said hate the sin; love the sinner.


Pass laws that make Civil Unions equal to marriage in every respect except the name. That'll make just about everyone satisfied.

I am not so sure of that. I know many religoius people that are against that as well.

Read the Treaty of Tripoli.

We arn't a Christian nation.

Read the Treaty of Tripoli.

We arn't a Christian nation.

shhhhh! I wanted to see where he was going to go with it! ;)

I am not so sure of that. I know many religoius people that are against that as well.
So do I.

It's a word people, come on, semantics shouldn't be the sole basis for an amendment to the Constitution.

As for the founding of America as a Christian based Constitutional Republic, then explain to me why a large portion of the most promienant framers of the Consitution were Deists (Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et alia) and Unitarian's (John Adams, among others) who had huge problems with the two main established churches in the colonies at the time (the Catholic and Anglican churches)? It was the relegious dichotimy that was present at the start of this nation that (along with several other factors, but the relegious diversity was a major one) prompted the "founding fathers" to adopt the seperation of church and state as one of the guiding principles of establishing our federal government.

shhhhh! I wanted to see where he was going to go with it! ;)

Oh, so you could slam down and rip apart his logic?

Well excuse me for intruding on your cruel in evil fun, which I do on a semi-regular basis to others! ;)

I just have to say that as long as you have another word for marriage referring to a group that is not considered in 'marraige' then the two will never be equal. Two different names for a concept such as marraige means two different things, never the same.

no the concept reeked--firstly its a state issue not a federal one. Secondly Bush is the first President to actually propose an amendment to the Constitution to LIMIT peoples Rights-the only reason Bush did it was to use as a wedge issue in the elections as part of the rightwings culture war. Even people on Bushs side see thru this cynical and divisive strategy.
Well, OK, he isn't the first to do something like that...Prohibition limited people's right to drink alcohol, and the 22nd Amendment limited people's ability to hold the highest office in the land for more than two terms. There are also numerous other failed attempts to amend the Constitution to disregard rights, such as amendments that would have banned divorce or interracial marriage. I have no idea if a President actually proposed those amendments, but they do exist either as part of the Constitution or as a failed amendment.

You kidding? Prohibition was hilarious. Once it stopped, alcohol prices were up three times as much as they were when they were illegal, and people wanted legal liquor so badly they paid it.

its unconstitutional to put church laws in our Constitution




But the USA was based on a bunch of Christian leaders. On the flip-side, they made amendments for a reason. I stand on both side's, but leaning to the sacred-marrage thing...

Got some sort of proof? Why do people want to be regulated and restricted? I dont think you are correct.

I'm sure the complete bans on slavery were a good thing and most people today believe that restriction for the best. Why not just unregulate everything? Lets take out all business regulation on pollution, safety, and labor laws (including child labor laws.) Lets legalize every drug and let people hunt all our wildlife into extinction. And see how happy people are. You arguments about people not wanting to be regulated by a government are laughable. Government exists because man is inherently self destructive without regulation.
And if you want proof look at any poll the closest I have seen to even was 64% for. You guys act like the right wingers just showed up out of no where that they are like 5 guys in Nebraska. Right Wingers make up this country and if you don't like their way of thinking you are a terrorist and will be deported.

But the USA was based on a bunch of Christian leaders. On the flip-side, they made amendments for a reason. I stand on both side's, but leaning to the sacred-marrage thing...\

No it wasn't based on Christian ideals. Read the treaty of tripoli. Jefferson (president at the time, also second biggest founding father) makes it very clear.
I myself do not believe this to be an issue of government at all. Marriage is and has always been a church made institution. Let gays be married in gay churches, and let the other gay hating folks marry in their churches. Everybody wins no one is insulted and the US SENATE can get to real issues like National Security and Social Security. Issues that actually make a difference.

Oooh I am scared. Just FYI I am not a US "citizen" or prisoner as it seems to me.. terrorist and deportation because I dont agree with you... reminds me a lot of my own nation's history 60 years ago. I am German.

I'm sure the complete bans on slavery were a good thing and most people today believe that restriction for the best. Why not just unregulate everything? Lets take out all business regulation on pollution, safety, and labor laws (including child labor laws.) Lets legalize every drug and let people hunt all our wildlife into extinction. And see how happy people are. You arguments about people not wanting to be regulated by a government are laughable. Government exists because man is inherently self destructive without regulation.
And if you want proof look at any poll the closest I have seen to even was 64% for. You guys act like the right wingers just showed up out of no where that they are like 5 guys in Nebraska. Right Wingers make up this country and if you don't like their way of thinking you are a terrorist and will be deported.

Hmmm the old anarchy argument. Hmmm 64%. Hmmm I wonder whose alias this one belongs too ;)

Oooh I am scared. Just FYI I am not a US "citizen" or prisoner as it seems to me.. terrorist and deportation because I dont agree with you... reminds me a lot of my own nation's history 60 years ago. I am German.


Wow you obviously dont get a joke. And really don't compare America to Nazi Germany the comparison has made enough people look like morons already. When we start making giant gas chambers and our entire house and senate burn to death followed by a massive cue of the Socialists ill agree with u until then your just an idiot. Since when do 80 year olds play videogames?

Wow you obviously dont get a joke. And really don't compare America to Nazi Germany the comparison has made enough people look like morons already. When we start making giant gas chambers and our entire house and senate burn to death followed by a massive cue of the Socialists ill agree with u until then your just an idiot. Since when do 80 year olds play videogames?
I'll compare America to Nazi Germany when I see patterns repeating.

Can something clear something up for a confused Brit. I thought the American right were against the evil federal goverment interfering in state law.

Can something clear something up for a confused Brit. I thought the American right were against the evil federal goverment interfering in state law.

they were, originally. but the neo-con movement (with Bush as a prime example) are neither fiscal conservatives nor states-rights supporters. neo-cons got rid of everything good about conservativism in America, but kept the religious crap and the holier-than-thou attempts to legislate morality.

unfortunately, not even half of america shares your opinion, and you have to understand that someday.
the Bill of Rights protects the individual from the tyranny of the majority

what is wrong with civil unions? can you give me a good answer? Or do you just want to use this as a homophobe bashing thread lol
I agree that civil unions is the answer but that still doesnt give Bush the right to try to desecrete the Constitution with an amendment of this kind

No it isn't, really. The US was set up as a Christian based Constitutional Republic. Over time that changed, but it's still contitutional. Just not popular.

He loves everyone. Just not the things they do. The old 'Hate the sin, not the sinner' deal.

I, personally, don't like the use of the word marriage in regards to gay couples. Tradition type thing. I got no problem with them getting hitched, I just don't like the use of the word. Pass laws that make Civil Unions equal to marriage in every respect except the name. That'll make just about everyone satisfied.

You'll still hove the fringe that scream and yell... but then again, they aren't happy unless they're screaming and yelling.

And those are my comments that will make absolutly no difference in how this world is run. Yay.
thats false--our founding fathers were VERY specific in their intent that religion should NOT be mixed with Govt.The reason why they left from Europe was exactly to get away from that kinda thing in the first place, so they had no intent of making this anykind of Christian nation at all but a secular nation based on freedom of choice

You see? TRA is capable of making a point by himself...take that in the least offensive way possible, it was a good rebuttal.
LOL I never understood the criticizm that I never made any posts that I wrote myself--90% of all my posts are my own

But the USA was based on a bunch of Christian leaders. On the flip-side, they made amendments for a reason. I stand on both side's, but leaning to the sacred-marrage thing...
if you want to keep marriage sacred then why are you limiting it in a discriminatory manner? Is that a sacred attatude?

I'm sure the complete bans on slavery were a good thing and most people today believe that restriction for the best. Why not just unregulate everything? Lets take out all business regulation on pollution, safety, and labor laws (including child labor laws.) Lets legalize every drug and let people hunt all our wildlife into extinction. And see how happy people are. You arguments about people not wanting to be regulated by a government are laughable. Government exists because man is inherently self destructive without regulation.
And if you want proof look at any poll the closest I have seen to even was 64% for. You guys act like the right wingers just showed up out of no where that they are like 5 guys in Nebraska. Right Wingers make up this country and if you don't like their way of thinking you are a terrorist and will be deported.
rightwingers dont make up this country they just think they do

I agree that civil unions is the answer but that still doesnt give Bush the right to try to desecrete the Constitution with an amendment of this kind

But, that really isn't going to stop him. He doesn't even want that because, if you read between the lines, it is a way of preventing gay marriage/civil unions entirely.

Didn't anyone see that Republican, whose name I can't remember, come on TV last night and proclaimed that the state of the nation was going downhill because of the gays wanting the right to be married.

Right Wingers make up this country and if you don't like their way of thinking you are a terrorist and will be deported.

Sums up right wing thinking almost perfectly.

You know folks, reading this thread I have no choice but to realize that some of you have evidently never read the constitution or you are like our President and cannot quite grasp the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What is so hard to grasp about that? It seems so simple to me! You don't regulate religion. You can't make laws that support one religion (which I know opens a whole other can or worms about polygamy, slavery, etc. but at least there are excellent human rights arguments there).

In trying to define marriage as one man, one woman the President and GOP has tried to dictate that only the fundamentalist Christian idea of marriage is the right one. Nevermind the many Christians, Unitarians, Jews, B'Hai (sp?), Muslims, and other groups that support gay marriage. They may not be the majority, but minority oppression isn't legal either. What Bush has tried to do is force a religious issue on the American people. What he doesn't seem to realize--what a lot of people don't seem to realize--is that marriage is NOT and SHOULD NOT be a religious issue as far as the government is concerned--because then the government gets in the business of regulating religion.

Marriage is, and always has been, about the rights of couples to share their lives and take part in decision making for one another. It is about contractual law and agreement. That some churches also perform marriages is ancilliary. Get over yourselves and realize that "marriage rights" are not about God. They are about State, because it is the State that grants us those rights. Deal with God in your way and let me deal with him in mine.

Now, all that good stuff being said (or rambled as the case may be) what do I propose in all this matter? It's simple. No one gets "married" as far as the government is concerned. That's not my personal preference but we obviously have some people who are too dim to be able to separate the legal and religious sides of marriage. So what we have is a state where any two people can have a civil union--and all people, gay or straight, must if they want the rights currently associated with marriage. Then you let churches be in the business of "marriage." They decide which unions to ask their gods to bless. I think you'll find that no gay people will take them to court (particularly given they can't since the government cannot regulate religion). I'm sure that this will be followed by some snipes and probably an arguement or two about how this makes polygamy just a step away, but I ask you to actually think it through and see how it bysteps the whole argument of religion (which really has no place on Capitol Hill) and make a fair, united, and equal solution to the problems of our nation.

I don't like Bush. Let it be also said that I don't like Kerry, Nader or whoever the heck is running for the independent party this year. I would rather have someone strong like Colin Powell or John Edwards in office, who can really make an impact on the world, is charasmatic and smart for once.

But I digress from the point I was to make.

Why stop homosexual persons from marrying? Just because the gay couple across the street marries will take nothing away from the marriage I hope to have. Thousands of religions marry folks in ways different from mine, whatever. Nothing is taken from what I value marriage to be. Let them be happy, they aren't hurting anyone. There's no preference by the government as far as marriage goes anyway. They live together anyhow, it just gives them an actual union which is what they want. It doesn't hurt anyone at all. Really!

Do I agree with it myself? No. I really don't. I try to be the best Christian I can be, and both Paul and Moses pretty much nullify the prospect of homosexuality being a fine thing in God's eyes. I can tell them that what they do is wrong all day, but really, that is all I can do. They need to make the choice themselves with all availible information they have. I've done it, so can they.

Just a thought.

-R. S.

Can something clear something up for a confused Brit. I thought the American right were against the evil federal goverment interfering in state law.

That's how it's supposed to be, but the social consevatives have taken over the Republican party, and much of the time, they have no problem with hypocrisy. I imagine a decent chunk of Republicans have no idea what the party is supposed to stand for (states' rights and the like), with people such as Father Limbaugh and his altarboys preaching neoconservativism 24 hours a day. McCain is right...this is a very un-Republican bill.

Well since most arguments against gay marriage are religious then how about the state just get out of this religious issue and let the churches decide...let the churches issue the marriage certificates and to hell with even filing them at county courthouses. Just hand it to the churches.

bush is nto inserting church law into the constituiotn he is inserting a basis of civilization that our founders never dreamed would be questioned. I would prefer it not be nessacay as "any land that must legislate morality has lost al morality" (its 12:20 so im sure the qoute isn't right and i can't rembere hwo siad that but i think it was s cicero) however activis courts have forced consertives to do so also need i remind poeple of the prohibition? bush is not the 1st 2 suggest a law that reduces peoeles "rights" (and im nto gonna get intoo whether a man has the right 2 marry a man cuz im tired)

Wow you obviously dont get a joke. And really don't compare America to Nazi Germany the comparison has made enough people look like morons already. When we start making giant gas chambers and our entire house and senate burn to death followed by a massive cue of the Socialists ill agree with u until then your just an idiot. Since when do 80 year olds play videogames?

OK, just a little advice: don't call someone an idiot in the same sentence where you make several grammar errors and spell "cuop" "cue." As for your point, just because America is not exactly like Nazi Germany does not mean that certain types of comparisons can't be made. I personally would not go so far as to compare them, but it makes me very angry to see the American freeodms I cherish suspended in the name of freedom.

bush is nto inserting church law into the constituiotn he is inserting a basis of civilization that our founders never dreamed would be questioned. I would prefer it not be nessacay as "any land that must legislate morality has lost al morality" (its 12:20 so im sure the qoute isn't right and i can't rembere hwo siad that but i think it was s cicero) however activis courts have forced consertives to do so also need i remind poeple of the prohibition? bush is not the 1st 2 suggest a law that reduces peoeles "rights" (and im nto gonna get intoo whether a man has the right 2 marry a man cuz im tired)


Please, please learn how to spell and form correct sentance structures. Not only will it make you sound smarter, but its easier on everyone's brains as well.

Please, please learn how to spell and form correct sentance structures. Not only will it make you sound smarter, but its easier on everyone's brains as well.Law of the internet. Any post criticising someone's spelling will invariably contain at least one spelling mistake. ;)