NationStates Jolt Archive

So, about two blocks from my house, the county Republican HQ houses itself; and today, they're out and about spreading the word about the Bush/Cheney ticket.

I just walked back from a minit mart to get a 2 L for the day, and as I reached for the apartment door, a middle-aged woman asked to speak to me for a few minutes about the ticket.

So, I obliged her. She gave me some campaign brochures, profiles, and the like, and then asked me if I was a registered voter.

I told her, "Yes."

She said, "A Republican, I hope." Then, she laughed.

I shook my head, laughed myself, and said, "I would've register for a party that has a President in office who supports Constitutionally telling me that I can't marry the person of my choosing.

I'm engaged, to a woman, I love very dearly, ma'am. Anyone who tells me I shouldn't be allowed to marry her in America, to me, is breaking the very spirit and laws of the Constitution, as is, and should therefore be put to trial for treason of the highest kind."

She stood there, turned, and left, and I came up here to tell you lot about it.

Best to ignore people like that.

And, to add a bit of a flame...damn republicans.

you should have burned the brochures and made an ashpile and dancedaround it. she might have called hte cops and called you a wtich and you would've ended up in the stocks, hell she mgiht still call the polcie because you are gay.

I like the torching brochures option. That's what I do to religious missionaries who come to my house to convert me. I've noticed they stopped coming.

mmmm lesbians

Nah, the Democrats do this very same thing with the campaigning door-to-door, I've had them, too; it's just I live so close to the Republican HQ, it's easier for them to make more frequent visits. This is there third or fourth attempt to do so.

I'm not burning the brochures. I'm tacky, and this is my first time that I can legally vote in an American election, and I'm saving all the different things I get to remind me of this year. I'll be scrapbooking it after the election.

you should have burned the brochures and made an ashpile and dancedaround it. she might have called hte cops and called you a wtich and you would've ended up in the stocks, hell she mgiht still call the polcie because you are gay.

Yes, but to be a real witch, you have to wait for a full moon and do so naked. That might take too long =).

As for the topic at hand, you go girl!

I had a conversation similar with my boyfriend's mother not too long ago. She asked me if I knew who I was voting for and I replied with "I know who I am not voting for." She said "Well, I hope you aren't voting for Kerry" and I retorted that I definitely was not voting for Bush. She went into a little tirade about her son and husband losing their jobs if I didn't. *shrug* She's really great about most things. =)

If the republican HQ was in my neighborhood, i'd TP it.

And, to add a bit of a flame...damn republicans.

Hey, they're not ALL that bad. Can't say "we" any more, since I changed my party affiliation to "Independent" when I filed my name change. And tho I'd like to see Bush dump Cheney, I'm still voting for him. :D

I like the torching brochures option. That's what I do to religious missionaries who come to my house to convert me. I've noticed they stopped coming.

Nah, they're just regrouping. :p I thought they were done with me, but they started coming around again.

I'm engaged, to a woman, I love very dearly, ma'am. Anyone who tells me I shouldn't be allowed to marry her in America, to me, is breaking the very spirit and laws of the Constitution, as is, and should therefore be put to trial for treason of the highest kind."

She stood there, turned, and left, and I came up here to tell you lot about it.




Conservatives are inherently Traitourous, for spitting upon the Freedoms that our Founding Fathers fought hard for in the Revolution. Not only that, but anyone who would gladly let Multinational Corporations trash America and treat it's Laborers like s*it in the blind persuit of profit, should be rounded up and exiled, each and every one of them.

You should have Party Programmed HER FACE. :D

Conservatives are inherently Traitourous, for spitting upon the Freedoms that our Founding Fathers fought hard for in the Revolution.

I disagree with that completely; it's not all Republicans, and to group them into the same category is as bad as the ones who do the same to lefties like myself.

If the republican HQ was in my neighborhood, i'd TP it.

Eh, not worth it. It's on the corner of a busy intersection, so, chances are I'd get caught; besides, they're not that bad. The Bush twins visited awhile ago while I was also walking to the minit mart and back, and I didn't even know it, so, they try to get things low-key - they're just out in full force today.

You should have Party Programmed HER FACE. :D

LOL. I'm still out with the jury on what to think of the whole Party Program myself to have Party Programmed someone else. :p

I disagree with that completely; it's not all Republicans, and to group them into the same category is as bad as the ones who do the same to lefties like myself.




Well, notice how I said all Conservatives, not all Republicans...Some Republicans are probably good, patriotic Americans who only joined them because their parents were Republicans...But Conservatives, meaning the True Ideological Conservatives, ARE Traitors...

Conservatives are inherently Traitourous, for spitting upon the Freedoms that our Founding Fathers fought hard for in the Revolution. Not only that, but anyone who would gladly let Multinational Corporations trash America and treat it's Laborers like s*it in the blind persuit of profit, should be rounded up and exiled, each and every one of them.

Soo.. you're not socialist at all. Wow, definitely not.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/images/icons/icon12.gif

Soo.. you're not socialist at all. Wow, definitely not.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/images/icons/icon12.gif




Go to hell, fuc*face, I believe in Free-Markets and Capitalism, but profits are NOT an end in itself, Profits are a means to an end of creating a better society...Go jump off a pier and swim to fuc*ing Africa, Conservative Traitor...

Well, notice how I said all Conservatives, not all Republicans...Some Republicans are probably good, patriotic Americans who only joined them because their parents were Republicans...But Conservatives, meaning the True Ideological Conservatives, ARE Traitors...

I guess I'm a traitor just because I love my country with all of my heart! How are we traitors? The administration that we have today is so far from our values (they may be "neo-conservatives" but they have little in common with us), what with AMNESTY for illegal aliens, outsourcing of jobs, non protection of our borders, wanting to put an amendment in the constitution against gay marriage, spending like a New England liberal, having us fight in Iraq, I could go on. A true conservative would not do any of these things which hurt this country. My predicition is that the US will not be a super power in 20 years.

My party has abandoned me so I had to move to the Constitution party.

I guess I'm a traitor just because I love my country with all of my heart! How are we traitors? The administration that we have today is so far from our values (they may be "neo-conservatives" but they have little in common with us), what with AMNESTY for illegal aliens, outsourcing of jobs, non protection of our borders, wanting to put an amendment in the constitution against gay marriage, spending like a New England liberal, having us fight in Iraq, I could go on. A true conservative would not do any of these things which hurt this country. My predicition is that the US will not be a super power in 20 years.

My party has abandoned me so I had to move to the Constitution party.



Sorry, but that's who Conservatives voted for (him and the "Constitution" third-party candidate)...They sure as hell did'nt vote for Gore or Nader.


Edit: Even Nader is'nt perfect, far from it...But out of all the candidates he is the best candidate for America.

..., hell she mgiht still call the polcie because you are gay.not gay

Nah, the Democrats do this very same thing with the campaigning door-to-door, I've had them, too; it's just I live so close to the Republican HQ, it's easier for them to make more frequent visits. This is there third or fourth attempt to do so.

I'm not burning the brochures. I'm tacky, and this is my first time that I can legally vote in an American election, and I'm saving all the different things I get to remind me of this year. I'll be scrapbooking it after the election.
While I disagree with your politics, I disagre with those who believe you should be offended by a republican making a joke-to break the ice if you arent registered Republican-
I absolutely commend the idea of scrap booking and celebrating your first vote (I took your wording to mean you are a new citizen, and not merely reaching the legal age).
The very first bit of participation in the Democratic process in your new home is something to remember nad be proud of, I wish more natural born Americans were so enthusiastic about voting.
I intend on having parties for each of my children as they reach their frist election that they can vote in(even if I dont like thier politics too).
It is very noble of you to show the courtesy of not throwing this womans hard work in her face. Explaining why you would not vote for GW, your explanation seemed very fair to me(and I dont support gay marriage, no personal offense). Congratulations on your first vote-as fate would have it I will be voting with you, well, not really, I will voting against Bush.
Again Congratulations.

Go TH!

Sorry, but that's who Conservatives voted for (him and the "Constitution" third-party candidate)...They sure as hell did'nt vote for Gore or Nader.

Please read up on our Constitution and federalist papers if you think Gore is anymore or less of a traitor as Bush is to this country. Neither are liberals or conservatives to a traditional sense. They are neo-cons and neo-libs. Both are far more conservative than most countries yet liberal than most Americans. But at least have some class sir or mam no need to stereotype someone since honorable people attempt to do away with that simplistic mindset.

not gay
who are we talking about

Please read up on our Constitution and federalist papers if you think Gore is anymore or less of a traitor as Bush is to this country. Neither are liberals or conservatives to a traditional sense. They are neo-cons and neo-libs. Both are far more conservative than most countries yet liberal than most Americans. But at least have some class sir or mam no need to stereotype someone since honorable people attempt to do away with that simplistic mindset.



Do you think we should go to war under false pretenses or let Corporations run amok?

Do you think we should go to war under false pretenses or let Corporations run amok?
Yes.

Please read up on our Constitution and federalist papers if you think Gore is anymore or less of a traitor as Bush is to this country. Neither are liberals or conservatives to a traditional sense. They are neo-cons and neo-libs. Both are far more conservative than most countries yet liberal than most Americans. But at least have some class sir or mam no need to stereotype someone since honorable people attempt to do away with that simplistic mindset.
Far more conservative than most countries in Europe...

Do you think we should go to war under false pretenses or let Corporations run amok?

Do either you or me have all the facts? We are fed by 'both sides' what they want us to eat. This is not a multiple choice buffet. One side will tell you that we should go to war for wmd (yes,false). The other side will say that the corporations are running amok more than they were just 4 years ago(yes, false), 8 years ago or 20 years ago. They have never been constrained by any president, why because they all know it is their meal ticket. Lip service is what politics is all about. Who can tell the most people what they want to hear, and pull the most votes out of their asses. Neither act for another they only act on whatever it is they had planned (and never spoke of) in the first place.

Well, notice how I said all Conservatives, not all Republicans...

I was merely making a statement of how, unfortunately, we stereotype Conservatives as Republicans and vice versa, as was the statement and original intent of this thread; of course, it's turned into a them vs. us thread, as all politics does on this site.

My party has abandoned me so I had to move to the Constitution party.

And, being able to "switch" parties is one of the greatest freedoms in America! Good for you!

I absolutely commend the idea of scrap booking and celebrating your first vote (I took your wording to mean you are a new citizen, and not merely reaching the legal age).

Ah, I see, I turned 18 in December of 2002, so, this will be my first legal vote because of age, as I will clarify for all those.

It is very noble of you to show the courtesy of not throwing this womans hard work in her face. Explaining why you would not vote for GW, your explanation seemed very fair to me(and I dont support gay marriage, no personal offense).

No offense taken, Erinin, we all believe in what we believe in, and there's no reason why we should be afraid to express it at any time or place; it's very rare that I meet people online or in real life who would say something like that to me in response to an incident such as this.

Go TH!

Thanks, BLARG!

The other side will say that the corporations are running amok more than they were just 4 years ago(yes, false), 8 years ago or 20 years ago. They have never been constrained by any president, why because they all know it is their meal ticket. Lip service is what politics is all about. Who can tell the most people what they want to hear, and pull the most votes out of their asses. Neither act for another they only act on whatever it is they had planned (and never spoke of) in the first place.




So, you are admitting that Corporations are running amok. They influence our politics and are not constrained because The Candidates get money from them to support their twisted "ideals". Would you not say that this is a bad thing? Or are you apathetic?

So, you are admitting that Corporations are running amok. They influence our politics and are not constrained because The Candidates get money from them to support their twisted "ideals". Would you not say that this is a bad thing? Or are you apathetic?

Uh yea dude. I have known of this and have not been a favor of either party for some time now. To be apathetic to this I would have to be a player for either side. Are you?

Uh yea dude. I have known of this and have not been a favor of either party for some time now. To be apathetic to this I would have to be a player for either side. Are you?



Obviously not...I was simply trying to find out if you were a Conservative or not..

True Ideological Conservatives ARE Traitors...
You are in fact talking about the neo-conservative reactionaries that run the US gov't. They're not really conservatives.

Obviously not...I was simply trying to find out if you were a Conservative or not..

Dude thats what I am talking about though. Neither party has a true liberal or conservative. they are neo-libs and neo-cons. True Liberals that believe in our Constitution and true Conservatives that believe in our Constitution are the patriots. All the neo's want are fat pocket books and whatever else they have in mind.

Dude thats what I am talking about though. Neither party has a true liberal or conservative. they are neo-libs and neo-cons. True Liberals that believe in our Constitution and true Conservatives that believe in our Constitution are the patriots. All the neo's want are fat pocket books and whatever else they have in mind.




Hmm...I guess you're right...Well then, all Neo-Cons are Traitors.

Hey, they're not ALL that bad. Can't say "we" any more, since I changed my party affiliation to "Independent" when I filed my name change. And tho I'd like to see Bush dump Cheney, I'm still voting for him. :D

so...you mean...dump the SMART corrupt bastard and keep the dumb one? arent you a treat?

Show me where in the constitution says queers have rights.



You are ignorant..And you are also a Traitor...If you were in front of me right now I'd punch you in the face so hard your head would fly off.

Show me where in the constitution says queers have rights.

Show me where in the constitution says queers have rights.


its in there somewhere, Im not american so I dunno really.
However, the OTHER incredible precious document of your country, states it quite clearly: " ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" and that truth is self evident. well, apparently not to one so mentally challenged as yourself.

Show me where in the constitution says queers have rights.

Show me in the Constitution where it says heterosexuals have rights.

Well I don't see how queers fall into anything they do not deserve the privledge of living in this great country.

If I was prejudice, I could say the same thing against heterosexuals - as a homosexual - but I know better than that.

Well I don't see how queers fall into anything they do not deserve the privledge of living in this great country.

*sigh* and you do not deserve the privilege of breathing. but we are not going to try and prevent you from doing it through the constitution.

its in there somewhere, Im not american so I dunno really.
However, the OTHER incredible precious document of your country, states it quite clearly: " ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" and that truth is self evident. well, apparently not to one so mentally challenged as yourself.

Well I don't see how queers fall into anything they do not deserve the privledge of living in this great country.

Well I don't see how queers fall into anything they do not deserve the privledge of living in this great country.




You are the most ignorant piece of subhuman shit I've ever seen. I hope you get the electric chair.

Well the people who wrote it weren't queer.

How d'you know that? Can you prove it one way or another?

There's no reference to sexuality anywhere in the Constitution; therefore, your argument is invalid.

That damn post reversal is happening again. Arg.

Well the people who wrote it weren't queer.
how do you know that ? are you 200 years old . I didn't think so .

Show me in the Constitution where it says heterosexuals have rights.

Well the people who wrote it weren't queer.

So, about two blocks from my house, the county Republican HQ houses itself; and today, they're out and about spreading the word about the Bush/Cheney ticket.

I just walked back from a minit mart to get a 2 L for the day, and as I reached for the apartment door, a middle-aged woman asked to speak to me for a few minutes about the ticket.

So, I obliged her. She gave me some campaign brochures, profiles, and the like, and then asked me if I was a registered voter.

I told her, "Yes."

She said, "A Republican, I hope." Then, she laughed.

I shook my head, laughed myself, and said, "I would've register for a party that has a President in office who supports Constitutionally telling me that I can't marry the person of my choosing.

I'm engaged, to a woman, I love very dearly, ma'am. Anyone who tells me I shouldn't be allowed to marry her in America, to me, is breaking the very spirit and laws of the Constitution, as is, and should therefore be put to trial for treason of the highest kind."

She stood there, turned, and left, and I came up here to tell you lot about it.


You handled that a hell of alot better than I would have. I believe that McCain should have won the Republican nomination in 2000. Bush, of course, had people believe McCain was a traitor/desserter in Vietnam. McCain asked for an apology and never got one. I would have told her "When Mr. Bush stops lying to everyone about pretty much everything or saying that the Bible says so for the Constitution (same sex marriage), I'll vote for him."

Well the people who wrote it weren't queer.
what proof do you have of that? homosexual relationships between masters and their apprentices were EXTREMELY common


and you know on that how far right are you? i think around the house is an understatement

Well done. I would probably have given her a long speech on how much I want to stamp on (Insert politician of choice)'s FACE until they stopped living. I think campaigners are always pretty fun to mock. This may be because I tend to make up my mind by thinking for myself.

See, I dunno. On one hand, I'd probebly just tell her "no," straight and simple. On the other hand, if she badgered/asked again/asked why, all hell would break loose, and I'd very calmly tell her why I think Bush is a little shit that doesn't deserve to be a president. :p



Oh, and gay people have rights, you have absolutly nothing to back up the assertion that they don't. Haven't we been over this before Enod? You're a stupid little shit who never backs up what sa says. So just bugger off already.

I believe that McCain should have won the Republican nomination in 2000.

I agree.

I think campaigners are always pretty fun to mock. This may be because I tend to make up my mind by thinking for myself.

See, I think campaigners should be out trying to get people who aren't registered to vote and eligible to the information needed so that they can vote; both parties should try and do that a lot more than they already do, because to me, everyone can make up there own mind - as you said - but not everyone wants to go out, register, and vote.

True, I'm an exception. Someone actually interested in politics. Sad, really, that campaigner's activities are justified like that

So, about two blocks from my house, the county Republican HQ houses itself; and today, they're out and about spreading the word about the Bush/Cheney ticket.

I just walked back from a minit mart to get a 2 L for the day, and as I reached for the apartment door, a middle-aged woman asked to speak to me for a few minutes about the ticket.

So, I obliged her. She gave me some campaign brochures, profiles, and the like, and then asked me if I was a registered voter.

I told her, "Yes."

She said, "A Republican, I hope." Then, she laughed.

I shook my head, laughed myself, and said, "I would've register for a party that has a President in office who supports Constitutionally telling me that I can't marry the person of my choosing.

I'm engaged, to a woman, I love very dearly, ma'am. Anyone who tells me I shouldn't be allowed to marry her in America, to me, is breaking the very spirit and laws of the Constitution, as is, and should therefore be put to trial for treason of the highest kind."

She stood there, turned, and left, and I came up here to tell you lot about it.
You go girl! Yeah!

you should have burned the brochures and made an ashpile and dancedaround it. she might have called hte cops and called you a wtich and you would've ended up in the stocks, hell she mgiht still call the polcie because you are gay.

Lol :p

Show me where in the constitution says queers have rights.

U.S. Constitution
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

For the illiterate and/or foolish, this means that any state that passes a law or gives a person rights and/or privileges must, by order of the Constitution, maintain those rights when and if they move/return to another state. Such privileges include but are not limited to marriage rights. As a consequence, the Defense of Marriage Act is blatantly unconstitutional. You might reply that Congress was given the right to regulate such matters, which is true, but what they were not given was the right to decide for themselves when are where it would be applied.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

For the illiterate and/or foolish, this means that unless being gay somehow unmakes you as a person, any rights that are extended to heterosexual U.S. citizens should also be extended to homosexual U.S. citizens. Heterosexual citizens are not refrained from marrying the person they love for any reason other than close genetic relationship. Therefore, homosexual U.S. citizens should not be refrained from marrying the person they love for any reason other than close genetic relationship.

Next time, trying reading the document before assuming our arguments are unconstitutional. Who knows, you might learn something.

Next time, trying reading the document before assuming our arguments are unconstitutional.

I concur; thank-you for pointing out the exact bits and pieces.

that constitutions doesn't do the gay haters any good........lol
People just admit you hatred for gay people is just that, HATRED. Not constitution based. That is why all the courts are avoiding judging any of the things by constitutionality. THey just say, state law says this, gavel. How do you alert mods?

Don't ever let people like that get you down. They're just arrogant people holding on to dieing traditions. Did you know the US constitution is the oldest unrevised constitution? The sooner they die out, the sooner we can get something productive done in this country. Although saddly, this is far off, as they seem to be doing all they can to pass their hate on to their children.

I'm not saying Democrates are perfect either, they don't know what the hell they're doing, and their policey of not offending anything makes them meak in the face of people like the Republicans yelling, "I'm right damnit!"

Hey, they're not ALL that bad. Can't say "we" any more, since I changed my party affiliation to "Independent" when I filed my name change. And tho I'd like to see Bush dump Cheney, I'm still voting for him. :D
The voters will dump Cheney for you! :eek:

People who think they can suppress another persons sexuality - with or without an arbitrary document such as a constitution - are extremely foolish in my opinion. It is simply not possible to ban love. If one doesn't understand it I suggest ignoring it rather than subject it to hate. Its much much healthier.
As a European this entire ordeal only concern me indirectly. However I must note:
1) I cannot understand how a nation that markets itself as the world leader can elect a president called Bush and a vice-president called Dick. I am still laughing a bit about it.
2) The Bush administration has prooven quite a disaster to Euro-American relations.
3) George Bush appears to have an IQ equal to an average turnip. Naturally he may PLAY stupid, but I can simply not find a reason why.

its in there somewhere, Im not american so I dunno really.
However, the OTHER incredible precious document of your country, states it quite clearly: " ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" and that truth is self evident. well, apparently not to one so mentally challenged as yourself.
The Declaration of Independence was signed in pre-U.S.A., and is not a legal document except in the sense that it says U.S. inhabitants do not bow to the English throne.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This would be nice if it applied to the situation at hand; regretfully it does not.
On the first, you can be deprived of the right to vote and possess a fire arm, as well as be stripped of numerous and sundry other freedoms for the commiting of a crime. The reason I bring this up is because they are examples of federal laws denying "privileges and immunities". As you may have noticed (unless you are perhaps "illiterate and/or foolish") a federal law of the type Christ-Cons are pushing would bypass this fun bit of legislation entirely.
On the second, not being married will no kill you, does not interfere with your liberties (Liberty being defined as "the power to do as one pleases" or "permission especially to go freely within specified limits"), and doesn't interfere with your property rights.
On the third, equal protection (defined as "supervision or support of one that is smaller and weaker")would only apply if the state was refusing to put out the flaming gay houses or saving them from leather clad muggers.

Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Once again, this affects only states and is completely bypassed by the federal legislation Chirst-Cons want.

Now that I am done arguing, I'll say that I really don't care. You can enjoy the fur filled passion of a full grown milking heifer for all I care. However, if you want me to listen to your stories about the sweet peice of canary that you scored, I will personally bludgeon your gray matter to the point at which it slides down your spine and leaks out of your "sweet piece of ass".

How do you alert mods?

Post in Moderation.

I just want to mention that not all Republicans support the federal marriage amendment. Some Republicans are homosexual. Eventhough I'm planning on voting for Bush, I don't support the amendment or same sex marriage. I believe personaly that the state should not give recognition or benefits to any relationship, gay or straight. Anyway, here is a link to a gay Republican group. www.logcabin.org

Stumpneria, I agree. Not all Republicans are for the Constitutional amendment, it's just hard for some to understand how they could stand by - especially the homosexuals ones - and let their Commander-in-Chief suggest such an absurd idea.

I'm a Republican and I couldn't care less if gays marry. However, it'd be wrong to force the church to endorse such unions.

I'm a Republican and I couldn't care less if gays marry. However, it'd be wrong to force the church to endorse such unions.
thank you for proving your ignorance on the subject

churches marrying homosexuals and the STATE marrying homosexuals are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. in no way, shape, form, or fashion is making homosexual marriages legal forcing the CHURCH to marry the individuals, it is forcing the STATES to recognize the marriages as legal and valid and to hand out marriage certificates

She stood there, turned, and left, and I came up here to tell you lot about it.


She left cause she knew she was talking to a liberal dyke. Might as well try reasoning with a rock.

She left cause she knew she was talking to a liberal dyke. Might as well try reasoning with a rock.
as compared to what? you? arguing with drywall isnt much better

thank you for proving your ignorance on the subject

churches marrying homosexuals and the STATE marrying homosexuals are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. in no way, shape, form, or fassion is making homosexual marriages legal forcing the CHURCH to marry the individuals, it is forcing the STATES to recognize the marirages as legal and valid and to hand out marriage certificates

I am well aware of the difference, thank you very much. I was referring to a few instances where gay couples demanded recognition from the Christian church; it would be wrong to force the church to endorse in something they do not believe in. As for state recognition, I couldn't care less.

By the way, I'd appreciate it if you stopped being such an asshole.

I am well aware of the difference, thank you very much. I was referring to a few instances where gay couples demanded recognition from the Christian church; it would be wrong to force the church to endorse in something they do not believe in. As for state recognition, I couldn't care less.

By the way, I'd appreciate it if you stopped being such an asshole.
i have never heard of those instances, ever, unless you are referring to the sects of the methodist church that like gay people, and thats the parishes and churchs themselves, not the individuals

and other than that no one is forcing the church to do anything, and they arnt really doing anything there, jsut another sect conflict

i have never heard of those instances, ever, unless you are referring to the sects of the methodist church that like gay people, and thats the parishes and churchs themselves, not the individuals

and other than that no one is forcing the church to do anything, and they arnt really doing anything there, jsut another sect conflict

Try reading the news. A few gay couples view this issue as a personal grudge against Christianity. I wish they'd just get married and STFU.

Try reading the news. A few gay couples view this issue as a personal grudge against Christianity. I wish they'd just get married and STFU.
well most of the reason they arnt able to get married is christian fundamentalism ("homosexuals are inherently evil" paraphrase roy moore) , i'd be kind of pissed too, but to try and force the CHURCH to marry them is asinine, go piss off the local city hall

Don't ever let people like that get you down. They're just arrogant people holding on to dieing traditions. Did you know the US constitution is the oldest unrevised constitution? The sooner they die out, the sooner we can get something productive done in this country. Although saddly, this is far off, as they seem to be doing all they can to pass their hate on to their children.

I'm not saying Democrates are perfect either, they don't know what the hell they're doing, and their policey of not offending anything makes them meak in the face of people like the Republicans yelling, "I'm right damnit!"

Though I don't really want to argue w/ a fellow libral (there are enough neo-cons to argue with instead) - the constution HAS been revised, quite a few times (Amendments)

She stood there, turned, and left, and I came up here to tell you lot about it.

*standing ovation*

Personally, I would have hit her with a hammer.

Try reading the news. A few gay couples view this issue as a personal grudge against Christianity. I wish they'd just get married and STFU.


They would get married if they could. I believe Massachusetts is the only state that allows it so far, although the governor is using an old interracial marriage ban to keep gay couples from other states from marrying there. The ACLU is trying to get that overturned.


Anyways, they'd gladly shut the fuck up if we stopped trying to ban gay marriage.

Tuesday, that was the perfect and classy way to handle that situation. It was beautiful, because there's absolutely no rebuttal to that statement.

You are ignorant..And you are also a Traitor...If you were in front of me right now I'd punch you in the face so hard your head would fly off.

DO NOT THREATEN OTHER PLAYERS.

Tuesday, that was the perfect and classy way to handle that situation. It was beautiful, because there's absolutely no rebuttal to that statement.

Thanks, Incertonia.

See, I don't mind being confronted by people who are in opposition to my beliefs and viewpoints, because we all come from different places... I just don't hide my beliefs, feelings, and points of view when confronted by those in opposition like many do nowadays as they feel it is wrong to express them.

Not to mention the fact that homosexual citizens are still citizens of the US. I mean, it's not like being gay suddenly strips you of your citizenship.

Edit--this was meant to be below Katganistan's post. What's up with that?

Show me where in the constitution says queers have rights.

Actually, I think it's in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal....


Also in the Constitution it does not say that homosexuals do NOT have the same rights as everyone else, and I believe Amendment 9 covers it --

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

HEY! I LIKE BUSH! :mad:

HEY! I LIKE BUSH! :mad:
There's no accounting for taste. :D

There's no accounting for taste. :D

you're one to talk...

The things that I like best about Kerry/Edwards supporters:

1. They are ill informed and thus provide a fertile ground for any old politician who promises government handouts.
2. The fact that they have come up under Clintonian style public education means that they have approximately zero useful education.
3. If you ask them about the war in Iraq, you can see their faces screw up as they try to figure out how to call US Soldiers baby killers without really saying baby killers. (They know how much trouble that would get them in!)
4. Their votes are completely wasted. Go Bush!

The things that I like best about Kerry/Edwards supporters:

1. They are ill informed and thus provide a fertile ground for any old politician who promises government handouts.
2. The fact that they have come up under Clintonian style public education means that they have approximately zero useful education.
3. If you ask them about the war in Iraq, you can see their faces screw up as they try to figure out how to call US Soldiers baby killers without really saying baby killers. (They know how much trouble that would get them in!)
4. Their votes are completely wasted. Go Bush!

YAY! someone who REALLY knows what they're talking about. I'm not a democrat, so therefore, I wasn't going to have anything to do with john kerry in the first place. but when he said that women shouldn't have the same rights as men, that just topped it off right there.

YAY! someone who REALLY knows what they're talking about. I'm not a democrat, so therefore, I wasn't going to have anything to do with john kerry in the first place. but when he said that women shouldn't have the same rights as men, that just topped it off right there.Where the fuck did that come from? Out of your ass I suspect.

Edit--this was meant to be below Katganistan's post. What's up with that?

The theory is that Jolt's servers are occasionally out of synch.

The things that I like best about Kerry/Edwards supporters:

1. They are ill informed and thus provide a fertile ground for any old politician who promises government handouts.
2. The fact that they have come up under Clintonian style public education means that they have approximately zero useful education.
3. If you ask them about the war in Iraq, you can see their faces screw up as they try to figure out how to call US Soldiers baby killers without really saying baby killers. (They know how much trouble that would get them in!)
4. Their votes are completely wasted. Go Bush!

The things that I like best about Bush/Cheney supporters:

1. They are easily led and thus they provide firtile ground for any old politician who channels government money to corporate interests - even corporations that they used to be presidents of, and could be again.
2. The fact that they have come up under Reagan/Bush style public education (hey, we're not all 20-somethings either) means that they have been brainwashed for years.
3. If you ask them about the war in Iraq you can see their faces flush with excitement as they assure you that Saddam was indeed a greater threat than Osama, and that his W.M.D.s will turn up any day now, and how government building in Iraq is well worth the arms and legs and lives of this nation's children.

Thing I like least:

To "solve" the problems of the 2000 election, their leaders have introduced technologically more efficient ways of enabling their own election fraud.

I shook my head, laughed myself, and said, "I would've register for a party that has a President in office who supports Constitutionally telling me that I can't marry the person of my choosing.

I'm engaged, to a woman, I love very dearly, ma'am. Anyone who tells me I shouldn't be allowed to marry her in America, to me, is breaking the very spirit and laws of the Constitution, as is, and should therefore be put to trial for treason of the highest kind."

She stood there, turned, and left, and I came up here to tell you lot about it.

Not all Bush-Cheney supporters are this way towards homosexuals. I would definitely refuse to back a Constitutional amendment of that nature!

While I support them on many other issues that for me come first, as I have no vested interest in gay marriage (this isn't discrimination or hatefulness--it just doesn't affect me), this would be the first thing I'd change about them if given the ability to choose one thing.

I vote as I do not because I agree with every single position the Bush/Cheney ticket espouses, but rather because a majority of positions do. I am not so blind as to endorse the entire platform. I just feel that certain things, such as our security and freedom, have to be secured first so that we can then have the freedom to debate things like gay marriage, and allow each state's legislature to come to a decision.

I guess I'm writing this because I resent the characterization of Bush/Cheney supporters as mindless automatons who all think and feel exactly the same way.

And to Enodscopia, as to homosexuals having equal rights, I believe I know where that is in the Constitution. It's the first article of the 14th Amendment, which is legally interpreted to give all citizens, regardless of traits like race, sex, and so on, equal rights.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The absence of any modifier to "persons" is legally construed to mean that there are no characteristics you can have that can deprive you of your rights. It does not say "all men", "all whites", or "all heterosexuals" or anything like that. So, regardless of what your personal beliefs may be, there is no Constitutional basis for your claim.

I know many Republicans don't fall into the gay-hating category, Raishann, which gives me hope for the future of the party, but you have to admit that the party as a whole hasn't been particularly concerned about the treatment of homosexuals in the past, and panders to a gay-hating segment of the community. It'll cost them this election, since the Log Cabin Republicans, which delivered over a million votes to Bush-Cheney, refuses toendorse them this year.

It's understandable why the party reacts this way. They get far more votes from the christian extreme right (as opposed to regular Christians) than they can ever hope to get from the gay community. That doesn't make it right.

To be fair--the Democrats, while better, are only marginally so as a party. After all, it was Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and according to an early review of Howard Dean's book about the campaign, said that Dean had forfeited his right to be considered for the Presidency by signing the Civil Unions bill in Vermont. That little revelation hit me in the gut, let me tell you.

But on gay rights, we are better in general, because we've long been the party of coalition, of disparate interests coming together even though we might not all agree on the same things or have the same priorities, but we believe in the idea of "you help me out and I'll help you out and we'll all do better together."

I know many Republicans don't fall into the gay-hating category, Raishann, which gives me hope for the future of the party, but you have to admit that the party as a whole hasn't been particularly concerned about the treatment of homosexuals in the past, and panders to a gay-hating segment of the community. It'll cost them this election, since the Log Cabin Republicans, which delivered over a million votes to Bush-Cheney, refuses toendorse them this year.

It's understandable why the party reacts this way. They get far more votes from the christian extreme right (as opposed to regular Christians) than they can ever hope to get from the gay community. That doesn't make it right.

To be fair--the Democrats, while better, are only marginally so as a party. After all, it was Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and according to an early review of Howard Dean's book about the campaign, said that Dean had forfeited his right to be considered for the Presidency by signing the Civil Unions bill in Vermont. That little revelation hit me in the gut, let me tell you.

But on gay rights, we are better in general, because we've long been the party of coalition, of disparate interests coming together even though we might not all agree on the same things or have the same priorities, but we believe in the idea of "you help me out and I'll help you out and we'll all do better together."

I'm glad you acknowledge what Clinton did...a lot of people like to use that one against the Republicans and I just have to laugh at how ill-informed it proves them to be. It's one of those things BOTH parties share...they don't want to admit when their leaders did something unpopular. Some Dems accuse us of following Bush so blindly we can't acknowledge he's done things we don't like. But some of them follow Clinton just as blindly. Personality cults occur on both sides, without question.

I would love to kick the embarrassing extremists out of the Republican Party, believe me. I doubt that would happen for a very long time, but it IS a nice thought. As to my actual feelings on the issue of gay marriage, as I said before I have no vested interest, so it's hard to work up THAT much of a passion about it in comparison to other things. However, I think the federal government should keep out of it. Now THAT is pure Republican states' rights advocacy speaking. ;-) Some states are going to take a long time to ever pass such statutes...but at least that's better than the Feds telling them they can't (or must) do it.

We'll see what happens in the election. I think that it would be presumptuous at this point to write it off, even without the support of the Log Cabin Republicans. Some of those people, for all I know, might still vote Republican anyway. And other people might vote Republican who ordinarily wouldn't, due to any one of the spectrum of issues. It could all cancel out in the end--we just don't know.

Well, Raishann, I'm never one to claim that my leaders are faultless. But I'd rather see the warts and deal with them than pretend that they're glorious and without stain.

As to the Republican party, I hope--for the good of the party and the country--that you have the schism that I think you need to become a less radical party. Right now, there are too many members of your leadership who are beholden to or members of the radical christian element--Tom Delay, John Ashcroft and the like--and they're in conflict with the traditional Republican party that I know and respect, the party that's fiscally conservative and socially libertarian. It's been a long time in coming--it's related to Nixon's "southern strategy" and I hope it comes soon, because your best people are being shouted down by the lunatics.

As to same-sex marriage, well, it's a copout to say it's a state's rights issue, since the Full Faith and Credit clause basically guarantees that once it becomes legal in one state, it'll become legal in all states, DOMA notwithstanding. I'm not saying that as a criticism--just as a portrait of the reality we face--and I think it's about time.

And if Bush gets half the openly gay vote he got in 2000, which would amount to about 550,000 votes, I'll be surprised.

You know, I hate to do this, but... I am a morbidly precise prick:

None of those very laudible constitutional references mean anything in this case. Colonial and Common Law systems all forbad various things that we (those of us who are not Regressive Traditionalists) take for granted as being rights that should be guaranteed for mutually consenting adults, as well as other things that we (those of us who are not hard-core Anarchists) take for granted as being crimes under any legitimate form of government.

Certainly an arguement can be made that activities like assault robbery and murder could be seen as protected rights, using the same constitutional references and the lack of any specific mention of assault, robbery or murder in the U.S. Constitution.

Am I comparing homosexuality? Not really, but that from a purely legal standpoint, there is nothing in the Constitution that sets sexual activities apart from other wholey unspecified activities that can be criminalized.

As a counter-example, colonial laws and Common Law had, and in some places still have although they are moot, laws against Witchcraft. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, such laws are illegal. However the Articles of the Constitution, although they do guarantee religious freedoms, do not guarantee sexual freedoms. Knowing what we do about the society back then and Common Law as it was applied, I don't see how anyone can say that THE PEOPLE of revolutionary times, regardless of what we can suppose of the enlightened men who neglected to include sexual freedoms in the Constitution, would have supported any kinds of sexual freedoms.

However

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual acts between consenting adults cannot be criminalized. I am fine with that, but I would rather see a Sexual Freedoms Amendment.

As far as gay marriage goes:

Marriage is a religious ritual. The government has no right to forbid consenting adults to engage in a religious ritual without a compelling state interest (no human sacrifice). Since homosexual activity cannot be criminalized, there is no such interest in criminalizing gay marriage*. Since government has involved itself with a religious practice to the extent that it has made itself the sole vendor of legal marriage licences, it has no right to restrict the licencing of this religious practice among consenting adults.



*oh... "preserving civilization"? Simply preserving the hegemonic traditions of the majority.

As to the Republican party, I hope--for the good of the party and the country--that you have the schism that I think you need to become a less radical party. Right now, there are too many members of your leadership who are beholden to or members of the radical christian element--Tom Delay, John Ashcroft and the like--and they're in conflict with the traditional Republican party that I know and respect, the party that's fiscally conservative and socially libertarian. It's been a long time in coming--it's related to Nixon's "southern strategy" and I hope it comes soon, because your best people are being shouted down by the lunatics.

I also suggest you remember that not even all Southerners are radicals. I could neither disavow my region nor my moderate ideology. I have definitely heard Republicans who are disgusted with the fundamentalist policy-making. Whether we have enough strength to be heard, I am not sure. There is something about being moderate that seems to keep people from speaking as loudly. I see that in the Democratic party as well...those who are towards the "right end" of the party don't seem to get as much attention.

I also suggest you remember that not even all Southerners are radicals. I could neither disavow my region nor my moderate ideology. I have definitely heard Republicans who are disgusted with the fundamentalist policy-making. Whether we have enough strength to be heard, I am not sure. There is something about being moderate that seems to keep people from speaking as loudly. I see that in the Democratic party as well...those who are towards the "right end" of the party don't seem to get as much attention.
Trust me, I know not all southerners are radicals. I was raised in Louisiana--south Louisiana, and even though I'm temporarily living in San Francisco, I'll always be a southerner. (Go Saints!)

But I have hope, even though my home state with a considerable gay population in New Orleans just agreed to a same-sex marrige ban, that eventually the moderates will win out and the extremists will be marginalized.

She left cause she knew she was talking to a liberal dyke. Might as well try reasoning with a rock.

LOL. Have you seen my picture? I hardly look like a dyke...

LOL. Have you seen my picture? I hardly look like a dyke...

I haven't! :D

LOL. Have you seen my picture? I hardly look like a dyke...

I don't think anyone here suggested you looked like a wall engineered to retain the onrush of water into low lying areas.

Ah, to my demented mind, even that last sentence sounds like a double entendre.

LOL. Have you seen my picture? I hardly look like a dyke...

Yes. This is interesting. How exactly do you spot a dyke on the looks? Would definately save me some embaressing moments.

Ah, I see, I turned 18 in December of 2002, so, this will be my first legal vote because of age, as I will clarify for all those.

As opposed to your first Illegal Vote? LOL

I shook my head, laughed myself, and said, "I would've register for a party that has a President in office who supports Constitutionally telling me that I can't marry the person of my choosing.

I'm engaged, to a woman, I love very dearly, ma'am. Anyone who tells me I shouldn't be allowed to marry her in America, to me, is breaking the very spirit and laws of the Constitution, as is, and should therefore be put to trial for treason of the highest kind."

This is funny. As if kerry is going to do anything different. :rolleyes:

As opposed to your first Illegal Vote? LOL

I remember my first illegal vote. It was many years ago...ah, good times.

This is funny. As if kerry is going to do anything different. :rolleyes:

yeah... did anyone else here notice how Kerry's version of the Defence of Marriage Amendment is virtually identicle to Bush's?

yeah... did anyone else here notice how Kerry's version of the Defence of Marriage Amendment is virtually identicle to Bush's?

Actually...he takes the same stand. Afterall...he is trying to get elected.

Yes. This is interesting. How exactly do you spot a dyke on the looks? Would definately save me some embaressing moments.
the shoes

YAY! someone who REALLY knows what they're talking about. I'm not a democrat, so therefore, I wasn't going to have anything to do with john kerry in the first place. but when he said that women shouldn't have the same rights as men, that just topped it off right there.
you know why i think all first post are asinine hardcore right wing republican posts? because you are all puppets of the loony fundamentalistswh oare outnumbered so make like 10 nations each so they can talk to themselves about how right they are

This would be nice if it applied to the situation at hand; regretfully it does not.
On the first, you can be deprived of the right to vote and possess a fire arm, as well as be stripped of numerous and sundry other freedoms for the commiting of a crime. The reason I bring this up is because they are examples of federal laws denying "privileges and immunities". As you may have noticed (unless you are perhaps "illiterate and/or foolish") a federal law of the type Christ-Cons are pushing would bypass this fun bit of legislation entirely.

Which is why there is the "due process of law" clause inserted into that particular section of the Constitution. In effect, it means that such rights cannot be taken away until such time as you violate a law that the government has passed and the court system has upheld as Constitutional. In this case, your voting rights and firearm possession rights can be withdrawn in the case that you commit and are convicted of a criminal felony. Laws such as these have been ratified by the state and upheld by the legal system.

On the other hand, to engage in homosexual relations is not a felony. Therefore, to abridge citizen's privileges and rights (such as the right to marry) on the basis of something that is perfectly legal is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution, since it unfairly singles out certain individuals for legal activities.


On the second, not being married will no kill you, does not interfere with your liberties (Liberty being defined as "the power to do as one pleases" or "permission especially to go freely within specified limits"), and doesn't interfere with your property rights.


Oh, I beg to differ. While it is true that not being married will not kill you, that hardly makes the converse true that the government is therefore allowed to make it illegal in certain instances. Not smoking won't kill you either, but that hardly makes a justification for the abolition of tobacco. Additionally, I refer you to the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

For the illiterate and/or foolish, this in effect means that if it comes to a question of whether someone does or does not have right, even in the case that such rights are not specifically granted by the Constitution, they are still assumed to possess them until such time as due process of law says that they cannot. As there is no law stating that homosexual sexual relations are illegal, there is thus no Constitutionally-valid justification for either the various amendments to the State constitutions that have prohibited same-sex marriage, nor for the Defense of Marriage Act that has been their impetus. Ergo, we must conclude that same-sex marriages ought to be legalized.

Additionally, it does affect your property rights. Inheritance, tax, Medicare, Social Security, and insurance laws, to name just a few, are all tied very closely to marriage liscencing.


On the third, equal protection (defined as "supervision or support of one that is smaller and weaker")would only apply if the state was refusing to put out the flaming gay houses or saving them from leather clad muggers.


Erm. . .no. It means that any law that denies them equal treatment in the eyes of the law that is not backed by a Constitutionally-valid legal precedent is unconstitutional. Laws that ban same-sex marriage are laws that deny homosexuals equal treatment in the eyes of the law that are not backed by a Constitutionally-valid legal precedent. Therefore, they are unconstitutional.


Once again, this affects only states and is completely bypassed by the federal legislation Chirst-Cons want.


Which regulation? While I agree that the Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment would in fact do the trick, most other laws would not be so lucky. As it says in the very section of the Constitution that you are talking about, the Federal Government has the power to regulate the legal relations between states. It does not, on the other hand, have the right or power to say that certain laws or types of laws carry with them no legal justification to ratify them in other states (if they had such a power, don't you think the South would have pounced upon it when inter-race marriages were legalized in Northern States?). If Massachusetts or any other state in the nation chooses to uphold the Constitutionality of same-sex marriage (which as I have mentioned earlier, they are legally obligated to do), then it is a complete violation of the Constitution for the various state governments to continue to deny the benefits of said marriage to couples that choose to move to those different states.


Now that I am done arguing, I'll say that I really don't care. You can enjoy the fur filled passion of a full grown milking heifer for all I care. However, if you want me to listen to your stories about the sweet peice of canary that you scored, I will personally bludgeon your gray matter to the point at which it slides down your spine and leaks out of your "sweet piece of ass".

Bring it on, Haj.

Actually...he takes the same stand. Afterall...he is trying to get elected.Actually, he doesn't--not that I'm surprised that you missed it, considering how much time you spend scoping out the colon of his opponent. Kerry says that he supports civil unions and that it ought to be a state by state decision--which frankly, isn't enough for me, but is a far cry from Bush's stance on the issue.

Actually, he doesn't--not that I'm surprised that you missed it, considering how much time you spend scoping out the colon of his opponent. Kerry says that he supports civil unions and that it ought to be a state by state decision--which frankly, isn't enough for me, but is a far cry from Bush's stance on the issue.
got a question for you Incertonia.

How about get gov't out of marriage completely. Marriage goes back to the control of the church. Marriage grants no special privilidges whatsoever.
Have the gov't issue civil unions to straights and gays alike. Civil unions would grant all the "rights" and privilidges currently granted by "marriage".
If people want a "church" wedding, then they have to get their civil union before or after the fact to get the benifits.

This way, no one is discriminated against, churches decide who they will marry (straight vs. gay) and everyone can get the protection currently only available through marriage.

Bush does not say that you cannot marry a person of your choosing, if your man, you can marry any woman you want. This is a matter of the Church, this is a spiritually matter. Its a tradional matter, the government didnt create marriages, they cant take credit for it, marriage is a religious matter, a religious creation. You dont get married in a government hall, traditional marriages are performed where? "The Church" or whatever religious house that represents your religion. Bush fights to keep it that way, gay people want to corrupt the sanctity of marriage so they can have benefits, there's no just cause in that, its personal gain, and no government has any right to dabble in that and thats what Bush intends to fight for. He intends to keep liberals from corrupting a religious event. Wanna be a married gay person, move to Canada.

As to same-sex marriage, well, it's a copout to say it's a state's rights issue, since the Full Faith and Credit clause basically guarantees that once it becomes legal in one state, it'll become legal in all states, DOMA notwithstanding. I'm not saying that as a criticism--just as a portrait of the reality we face--and I think it's about time.

How about a smarter amendment:
Amend the Full Faith and Credit Clause! IF you so choose do it so gays can't be married but still that means in certainstates you may if the state agrees.
I live in VA so no way in till Heck burns up (Hell is naturally cold though few know this) will there be marriage for non heteros. We have a law that denies all legal contracts from other states null and void involving gays. Wills, deeds, etc all gone. No challenge to it yet.

got a question for you Incertonia.

How about get gov't out of marriage completely. Marriage goes back to the control of the church. Marriage grants no special privilidges whatsoever.
Have the gov't issue civil unions to straights and gays alike. Civil unions would grant all the "rights" and privilidges currently granted by "marriage".
If people want a "church" wedding, then they have to get their civil union before or after the fact to get the benifits.

This way, no one is discriminated against, churches decide who they will marry (straight vs. gay) and everyone can get the protection currently only available through marriage.
Nothing would please me more. I've long been of the opinion that the word "marriage" carries religious overtones that would be better left outside the scope of the civil government. Let there be church marriages and civil unions that grant all the rights and priviliges of the current marriage system and I'd be more than cool with it.

Bush does not say that you cannot marry a person of your choosing, if your man, you can marry any woman you want. This is a matter of the Church, this is a spiritually matter. Its a tradional matter, the government didnt create marriages, they cant take credit for it, marriage is a religious matter, a religious creation. You dont get married in a government hall, traditional marriages are performed where? "The Church" or whatever religious house that represents your religion. Bush fights to keep it that way, gay people want to corrupt the sanctity of marriage so they can have benefits, there's no just cause in that, its personal gain, and no government has any right to dabble in that and thats what Bush intends to fight for. He intends to keep liberals from corrupting a religious event. Wanna be a married gay person, move to Canada.

In the interest of brevity, I will simply repeat what I've stated before: The only compelling reason a state currently has (AFAIK) for voiding an existing marriage or denying an upcoming one, to any heterosexual couple, is close genetic relationship. If the equal protection clause of the Constitution is to be taken seriously (which like the rest of the Constitution, is a definite yes), then the same laws that apply to the heterosexual American citizens ought to apply to homosexual American citizens. Ergo, the only compelling reason a state has for voiding an existing marriage or denying an upcoming one is close genetic relationship. Anything more, and it's unconstitutional.

As for the "religious" part, most homosexuals aren't asking for your church to wed them. If your Church doesn't want them to marry another guy, that's just as fine as, say, existing doctrines within church that prevent religious-sanctioned marriages to someone from another religion until they have converted to the faith. What they're asking for the state to issue them a liscence stating that they are married for the purposes of insurance, inheritance, etc. That is a state function.

I think anyone can get Married in any church they want, but that they can only get the benefits of "marriage" by getting a Civil Union, which would be approved by the government. This way you can get Married and get a Civil Union at the same time, or you can just get a Civil Union, or you can just get Married. That seems like the best solution.

Actually...he takes the same stand. Afterall...he is trying to get elected.

Kerry is for a federal amendment banning gay marriage? :rolleyes: Link please?

Perhaps you mean he takes the same stand that Bush took in 2000 prior to his flip-flop? When he (said that he) believed it should be a states' issue?