NationStates Jolt Archive

I am glad the American Constitution, and Freedom in our nation was preserved.

I don't know how passing it would protect the institution of marriage as it is, its about tax and health rights that everyone has a right to ,which is really a government thing not a social thing.

Gay people already can get married in as public of a ceremony as they want to, in front of everyone, and have a Christian ceremony. No law against that. And the majority of people I hear, just every day, will call an gay marriage just what it is, and call the people in it "partners" even if it was ceremonial. Even the press calls gay committed "married" couples partners.

So how is this protecting the sanctity of the institution of marriage? There is the "legal" institution, then there is the social/religious institution. Gay people can already do the social/religious institution thing.

Pagan Handfasting is recognized just as much as a Hindu wedding as a legal marriage for straight couples LOL, so how is this supposedly protecting marriage for the Christians again?

This is only to recognize the legal rights of gay couples to health, and tax benefits and to recognize their spouse as legally entitled as the spouses in an straight marriage. Whats wrong with granting people who are long term partners, and had an ceremony to recognize that their equal legal rights?

Its an illusion that this was an "marriage protection bill" its more like "dont grant other people equal legal rights under the law".


Also for those wanting to protect the children, this entire issue is bringing up the gay issue ALL over the PRESS, all over the NEWS, and everywhere that children probably would come across it and ask "what is gay" if they werent.

This issue has brought gay rights issues very public, allowed plenty of media time for gay rights activists. It has caused demonstrations, and raised the public awareness of gay rights either for or against very high.

So if your trying to protect the children (pointless), if your trying to protect Christian values and the social/religious institution (pointless), and if your trying to keep the gay issues quiet or down (pointless). So whats the point again?

To distract people from the fact that Republicans are so incompetent that they couldn't even solve their last distraction: immigration reform?

It must be election time again.

Its quiet obviously a political distraction issue, since if they were trying to protect anything listed especially the children they would not have made it a national issue.

With the divorce rate, and everything that goes on it almost sounds like an joke, an political one at that, made up in some brainstorming session "Lets try to push the "Marriage Protection Amendment", that will get them all riled up and they won't even pay attention this war disaster thats about to come to an end or this other issue over here."

If there is any one group that is truly 'ruining' the institution of marriage, it's celebrities. I was changing through the channels the other day and saw something on VH1 about celebrity couples. The host was just amazed that a couple, Ric Ocasek from the Cars and his wife, had been married fifteen years. Big Deal! Most people I know over 45 have been married more than fifteen years. Even if it's their second marriage!

No, gay marriages won't ruin the institution -- it's the Hollywood types that change spouses more often than you and I change the oil in our cars.

Yay, another thread on this subject! The last seven weren't enough, no, sirry, Bob!

It was meant to protect the institution by destroying it. It's a zen thing. :p

Its quiet obviously a political distraction issue, since if they were trying to protect anything listed especially the children they would not have made it a national issue.

With the divorce rate, and everything that goes on it almost sounds like an joke, an political one at that, made up in some brainstorming session "Lets try to push the "Marriage Protection Amendment", that will get them all riled up and they won't even pay attention this war disaster thats about to come to an end or this other issue over here."

As a distraction it's working gloriously. What have we been talking about all day?

I am waiting for gay marriage!

That way once they get it then I can start saying you allowed that now you have to allow me to marry a bowl of mashed potatoes!

Yay, another thread on this subject! The last seven weren't enough, no, sirry, Bob!
I think 'No Siree, Bob' is the preferred form. 'Sirry' reminds me of something Indian.

And don't call me Bob.

I think 'No Siree, Bob' is the preferred form. 'Sirry' reminds me of something Indian.

I'll spell onomatopoeically however I please.

And don't call me Bob.

Then I shall call you Mulva.

I'll spell onomatopoeically however I please.



Then I shall call you Mulva.
L'il Abner certainly used that phrase enough to make it legitimate. If it's good enough for Al Capp, it's good enough for me.

And Mulva sounds ugly. Let's go back to Bob.

These are obvious common sense facts, and even though they seem perhaps too simple it truly is the core of how ridiculous the entire thing is.