I didn't realize how emotional this would be for me but I can't stop crying out of relief and pure hatred (and I mean hatred) for those that just don't get it! What isn't being said by the MSM and many democrats (excluding Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy) is that this will revoke all legal rights from property ownership, to end of life health care decisions to durable powers of attorney documents.
I am sick and tired of hearing only about MY LIFE with my partner being a wedge issue to get out the right wing vote. What about my LIFE? What about my civil rights as a citizen of this country? I don't want to get married, I want to have legal rights under the law, that's it, that's all!!!

Will they bring it back in time for the Nov. elections?

America Wake Up! The Republicans are only interested in keeping our eyes "OFF THE PRIZE"

Not only do they want to criminalize people who love someone of the same sex, but all immigrants and anyone who helps them. They have had complete control of our government for the past 6 years and our economy is at an all time low....gas prices have sky rocketed....the president and vp have tried to install themselves as king and vice king....we are in an "out of control" war in iraq....they have overturned years worth of energy policies protecting all Americans in favor of energy companies....THANK GOD FOR THE DEMOCRATS! Thank God that they are finally finding their voice and standing up for AMERICA!!!

WE MUST IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST!!

WE MUST IMPEACH BUSH NEXT!!

Keep America Free - Vote Democrat!

Lav,

We're just this week's way of defacing the Constitution for Greed, Oil and Plunder. Gayfolk are an easy target because we're not a color or shape you can see... conveniently invisible boogeymen and -women. The GOP move was cynical even for them.

Purely gay people comprise about 17% percent of the population with shades into the high-30th percentile. The pugs would s**t up their backs if 30% of the population suddenly said, "Well, we're tired of subsidizing tax-break baby-bounties for an institution in which we cannot participate. Screw yourself for your tax benefits from now on."

Even with Halliburton's new megaplex prisons (another convenient no-bid contract, huh!!) they can't possibly systematize every (or even a 10th of the gay population). After Stonewall, we just don't lay back and take it any more.

For now, if they want in-the-street, do-tell campaigning, I'm just WAITING for the first "moral" "conservative" pug campaign to get going. I'm breaking out my long, long list of pug perverts and publishing it on every street corner, laundromat, grocery store bulletin board, you name it. They'll think about "don't ask don't tell" THEN by granny.

I'd just as see the pugs steal-and-spend on somone else's dime (how 'bout their OWN for a change!). Picking pop cans out of trash bags would be appropriate employment for Frist and his sorry band of so-called legislators.

Stop this "wedge issue" crap! It's MY LIFE that is being voted on. It's a "life issue" for me. Quit running away from tough discussions!

The House will take up the amendment next, which is really egregious, but probably procedural. After they spend time making outrageous statements that aren't addressed directly by any Democrats, the amendment will go back on the shelf until 2008.

Imagine what that is going to sound like for a moment. Who will be the leading contenders for the next President? Clinton, McCain, Frist, maybe a revival of Kerry? We - LGBT people - might as well start preparing now to be disappointed by weak responses from the Democrats.

The only thing more offensive to me than the ideology and contempt behind this (obviously inadequate) amendment is the lack of support from Democratic Senators for the enforcement of my constitutional right to equal protection/due process. A few of them came close to saying it, but mostly they hid behind strategy and politics and wagged their fingers at the other side of the aisle for not talking about something 'important.' Many of them spoke encouragingly about how the states are handling the issue, so an amendment is not necessary.

Wouldn't that be like telling African Americans in the 1950's that an amendment to keep them segregated is unnecessary because many states have created Jim Crow laws making an amendment redundant?

This proves to me that the Democrats have as much to gain from the resurrection of the marriage amendment as the Republicans. It gives both parties the opportunity to grandstand. Unfortunately for the Dems, the Reps do a much better impersonation of leadership. They throw the punches and all the Dems can do is weave.

When will they figure out that doesn't work? How many more elections will they have to lose?

We - LGBT people - might as well start preparing now to be disappointed by weak responses from the Democrats.

Even when I'm prepared, it still stings like hell!

WTF is going on that Dems can't firmly say that this is an attack on people's lives and families, that this is hateful, unchristian, and unAmerican, that this MUST stop today and forever, and shame on the states for even thinking about scapegoating their fellow Americans. Then turn around and propose the addition of GLBT rights to the Civil Rights Act.

When the Dems do that, then I'll know this is the party for me. As long as my life is a "wedge issue" to them and a thorn in their political a**es, then I'll continue to say that this party can kiss my dyke a**!

This is nothing more than a red herring to keep us from thinking of the issues that actually affect all of us. I have yet to hear how two people getting married, regardless of the sex of either person--has any effect on anyone else but the two people in the relationship. Other than someone possibly wrinkling their nose at the concept--there is no effect of one couple's marriage on another couple's marriage. And the only people who can affect a marriage are the two people involved in it. Outside influences (for example someone a spouse might be thinking about having an extramarital fling with) can only raise the thought in one of the spouse's minds...it's up to the spouse to act upon--or not act upon any outside influence. We're talking about denying American citizens rights. How can we talk on one hand about protecting freedom--while stripping it away from others? If a church doesn't want to recognize it for their own internal reasons--that's their right--I don't have to agree with it--but it's not LAW. The Federal Government has no place defining a marriage. And considering that same-sex marriages have only recently become an issue on a national scale--how can we explain all the divorces, child abandonment, etc--that were done my heterosexual couples? Certainly that cannot be blamed on any election year boogeyman threat drummed up to drive folks to the polls.
How dare anyone, regardless of political viewpoint--suggest that we write hatred, bigotry, predjudice and DISCRIMINATION into the Constitution of the United States?!! I have a dark feeling that the underlying truth for the reason some folks are pushing this issue --other than to bring intolerant voters to the polls--is keeping the spouse/partner from being able to have the same rights--such as hospital visitation rights (such as family only visitors in some situations)...end of life issues...makes you wonder if any insurance companies are pushing this so they can deny paying inheritance claims because someone's marriage/relationship isn't recognized. Sure, that might sound like some "tinfoil hat" theory...but considering how many other issues in this present political landscape come down to money and power...would you really be that surprised?
It's sad to believe we live in a country that spews rhetoric about freedom and at the same time tries to deny it to certain demographic groups. Reminds me a little too much of George Orwell's "Animal Farm" and the phrase:
"All animals are equal...but some are more equal than others."
But then, usually those making the loudest noise about something they consider an "abomination" have some pretty embarrassing and frightening skeletons in their own closet.

And yes, I do know that last statement could reflect upon myself...but then I don't pretend to be holier than thou.

And this is about human beings...people with feelings and emotions--including love. This is about people's lives and their right to live their life with the same rights and protections as any other American.

And let's be honest...it's not like homosexual/gay/lesbian people just came out of nowhere the last few decades...it not only goes back thousands of years....it predates many prominent religions. So, you have to wonder why despite all their chest and bible thumping--it still exists? Because it's part of the human condition. What's next? Short people cannot marry people of a higher stature? The rich cannot marry the poor? Blonde cannot marry redhead? It's all pointless. Human is human. If two people love one another and want to share their committment with each other and their loved ones...why should anyone have the right to deny them this? Isn't the pursuit of "life, liberty, and happiness" what the USA is supposedly all about?

Posted by RedLetter_Rev on June 7, 2006 at 11:49 AM

I'm with you Red!! Let's get the list out in all States! I can cover at least 2 - 3 States as I travel quite a bit!

We - my husband and I - saw a panel discussion on C-Span Monday night about the amendment. The four attorneys on the panel were against the amendment, but there were hardly lefties. It wasn't a rhetorical contest or theological. It was an analysis of the amendment and how it is being mishandled.

There was a guy from the CATO Institute, a former Reagan admin counsel and two other professorial sounding dudes. Sorry that doesnt' sound very authoritative...when I understood the conversation, it was really interesing to hear how the political process works, how it has worked in the past, and how it should work.

It was clear from these 4 guys that the wording used in the amendment was a dishonest attempt to amend the constitution. There were a number of legalese type of flaws and the ramifications of the omissions and the vagueness of terms used shows the cynicism of the motion. If it would ever pass 'as is' it would be an enormous mess. (ex - marriage would be outlawed altogether in Massachusetts)

Worse than trying to enforce discrimination, politicians are using voters - ignorant and fearful as well as devout and sincere - to organize electoral lynch mobs.

The amendment is one problem. The political manipulation by the encouragement of bigotry (and allowing the manipulation to happen without response) is another problem entirely.

I have a dark feeling that the underlying truth for the reason some folks are pushing this issue --other than to bring intolerant voters to the polls--is keeping the spouse/partner from being able to have the same rights

That's not tinfoil hatty. That's the truth. That's the underlying purpose. One group wants to keep their superiority over another group. I've even had fundies admit as much to me. If you can get them to talk enough, they'll eventually say that because they can stick a penis into a vagina that they are better than us and deserve the special rights afforded to their sexual behavior. Well, not in those EXACT words, but pretty close! :)

they'll eventually say that because they can stick a penis into a vagina that they are better than us and deserve the special rights afforded to their sexual behavior. Well, not in those EXACT words, but pretty close! :)

Posted by ProudSelfishHedonist on June 7, 2006 at 01:25 PM

I think those making the most noise only know how to do this in theory or from the movies they watch.

I thought it was the Pro-hate ammendment. This isn't about marriage, it's about denying human kindnes and equal rights for all.

If the Republican conservatives are so worried about their marriages, it's time they faced the real crisis...that cold place inside their heart that no spouse could love.

If the Republican conservatives want to use the Constitution to legitimize discrimination, they better realize that it could be used against them some day...and this vote probably pretty much guarantees it.

LOL...thanks for the laugh Kristen. I needed that!

Sandy, you're absolutely right! Discrimination and hate have no bounds. If it can be done to one of us, it can be done to all of us.

Thank god there still is a trace of sanity in that mad house that is the senate!.. Senator Brownback (R-Kansas) said that by banning same sex marriage the are protecting marriage between a man and a woman... go figure!.. maybe somebody can explain this to me... I don't get it... (I'm sure one has to be a republican to understand it huh?)

As I told my two Republican Senators yesterday, gay marriage does not threaten heterosexual marriage at all. Divorce, on the other hand, does (but is sometimes very necessary). If they really want to protect marriage, anyone wanting to get married should be required to have pre-marital counseling and a waiting period.

Kim

There's no sense of discernment on the part of the far right. Whatever they believe to be best they feel that they should put into tacky amendments to the U.S. Constitution or legislation.

Putting social legislation into the U.S. Constitution has not worked out before. Witness prohibition and then it's repeal.

Social conditions are subject to change. Many states in Europe are opening up to Gay marriage. And among younger U.S. voters, there is little support for antiGay social legislation.

The right just doesn't seem to understand how absurd they look when promoting absurd and socially retarded legislation.

Maybe guys who think that sex with two women is the best should push to put that in the U.S. Constitution by the same absurd reasoning that social conservatives use to try to limit marriage to only one man and a woman, not recognizing that other types of relationships and personalities do exist.

PROGRESSIVE VALUES

Let the word "marriage" continue to be a symbol for a "relationship" between a man and a woman and do the work at every level to get the laws changed to protect and legitimize relationships between two men or two women.

Or, just continue to p.ss into the wind.

Hey, jbbrent, how about we legislate that all relationships, even those currently married, will be changed to civil unions? That way we're all on the same level playing field, but before you retort with some silly "yeah, why not? I don't care. That's fine with me", go do a little research to see EXACTLY what civil unions are, where they are recognized all over the world, and the benefits associated with them. You'd change your mind REALLY quick because they are NOT the same and are NOT equal to each other.

Go p*ss in the wind to that!

let's face it, as long as the Republicans have ZERO to run positively on, they will continue to bring up the issue of Gays which never fails to whet the appetite of those Religious Radicals, who are as ignorant as they come, when it comes to What Jesus would REALLY do.!

And the Repubs know just exactly what buttons to push !

Ditto, ditto, ditto, lavndrblue! The one good thing (for me) is that this has finally been the little crucible that's melted the last of my "whatever, it's not important to me" attitude. Wedge issue my a**. This is a human rights issue now, way beyond politics, way beyond simply hoping things will be ok.

thank god. the republican party can't ruin everything for this country.

ProudSelfishHedonist:

You are 100% right! Ideally (and I say "ideally" because it will never happen), the ONLY thing that government ought to be concerned about is the "civil" aspect of marriage - what rights and responsibilities are conferred by the contract entered into by the spouses and recognized by the state? That's it. So, ONLY civil unions ought to be granted by the state. If "marriage" connotes something special to spouses because of religious beliefs, then their church or pastor or shaman should "marry" them. But the over 1000 rights that are presently codified in federal law - those shuold be available to all Americans who choose to enter into the civil contract.

And yes, Tony Snow - this IS a matter of civil rights, as you recently goofed in saying.

One sad irony about Bush's invoking this gay-bashing yet again is his statement about preventing judges from opposing the "will" of the people in the form of laws enacted by their legislatures. What brass balls. This from the man who has signed over 500 "signing statements" explaining how the Executive Branch will not enforce all or part of the law he's just signed. During the Florida recount he actually said that "it is the responsibility of the legislative branch to make the laws and the responsibility of the executive brach to interpret them." WHat a friggin moron. I guess he skipped eight grade civics as practice for skipping out on his National Guard duty.

As a heterosexual I find it nauseating and deeply embarassing that elected officials in my country, when faced with a difficult electorate, continue to raise this "issue." Bigotry should be an over-arching disqualification for holding public office, if not cause for public pillorying.

"Marriage" symbolizes a relationship between a man and a woman.

And you would like to change two thousand years of historical, legal, emotional, cultural, and religous symbolism in a decade or two. You're naive.

And you will be p.ssing in the wind forever.

So, ONLY civil unions ought to be granted by the state. If "marriage" connotes something special to spouses because of religious beliefs, then their church or pastor or shaman should "marry" them. But the over 1000 rights that are presently codified in federal law - those shuold be available to all Americans who choose to enter into the civil contract.

What exactly then will these state-recognized legal relationships be called? Civil unions? It would be fine if we all stayed in one place, but try testing out calling your relationship with a woman a civil union. See how far you get with trying to get any rights and benefits. Even try traveling out of the country and see what happens. One little word "marriage" changes completely how everyone views you and how you get treated. It would work if the whole world recognized civil unions, but they don't.

"Marriage" also, at one time, symbolized the exchange of property, but that changed too.

Change is inevitable, and it will come.

And as you wait by helplessly as this change occurs, you'll be p*ssing on yourself.

Scardey cat!

CNN Poll:

Are Congress and the White House focused on the nation's most important priorities?

Yes - 7%
No - 93%

It is really amazing how most Democrats do not realize that calling this debate a "red herring" and a "distraction" is nearly as hurtful to the gay and lesbian voter/population as the Republican diatribes. This is not a "distraction," it is about our lives. This is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue -- my partner of 22 years, our children, and grandchildren deserve to have the same access to that state-issued marriage certificate as heterosexual Americans have! Until a Democratic candidate stands up and says it is morally wrong to continue to deny us that right, there will be NO MORE MONEY coming from this household to the Democrats!

They couldn't even get a simple majority!
THE REPUBLICANS ARE FAILURES.

They couldn't even get on the ballot (WA).
THE REPUBLICANS ARE FAILURES.

Exactly, Ann! Thank you for saying it. Hey, Dems, getting the picture yet? We're not going to be pacified and we're walking away with pocketbooks firmly in hand. Get your act together! Got it!

Posted by AnnFlag on June 7, 2006 at 06:48 PM This is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue

Our country has a long tradition of treating everyone equally under the law - it's been one of the defining characteristics of American jurisprudence.

That's why the courts are ruling the way they are - they are not being "activist" - they are being very traditional - and I wish someone would make that point to the apologists for this amendment.

The only way the courts can be stopped is to amend the constitution to specifically single out a class of American citizens and restrict their rights.

The constitution is what makes us citizens of state rather than subjects to a king - it belongs to all of us - and anyone that tries to make it belong more to some of us than others is scum as far as I'm concerned.

I think saying that this is a "civil rights" issue, understates things actually.

The good news is that FMA drew even less support this time around than it did the last time. The more people think about this - the more they don't like it - it is in part a political machination to pander to a portion of the GOP base

Those people will never vote for a Democrat - it seems sort of silly for Democrats to pander to them also - while some elected Democrats don't make the case as forcefully as they should to the press - their votes (for the most part) spoke loud enough.

ProudSelf -

Why, they would be called contracts, just like any other contract that has legal standing. That's what they would be called by the state that confers them their legal standing. The contract would confer all the rights that are presently conferred to me and my wife by Massachusetts and the US government, and the state and the feds call the contract or us doesn't matter a bit to us. If other parties to the same contract want to call theirs a a marriage, a civil union, a pitchfork...who cares? The point of state involvement in the contract should be the conferral of rights - not "blessing", not "sanctity", not "values." That's because the state should be involved in civil matters only.

jbbrent -

You fall into the same trap as so many others by viewing "marriage" as an inviolate, unchanging institution that has been one thing only for millenia. That is a convenient delusion generally dregged up to mask an underlying prejudice against different sexual orientations.

The "institution" as recognized by the state started as a matter of transferring chattel, i.e., the wife, to the husband. Try selling that concept to your daughter when she gets married. And how about "arranged" marriages? How about "shotgun" weddings? Are these the kinds of unions which make your eyes mist over for the good old days?

And the "traditional family." I don't think there has been a "traditional family" structure that's lasted more than two to three generations. Would it be the current "traditional" model - mathematically more likely to be a single parent, or two parents...at least one of whom has been divorced? (Funny, isn't it, how the sacred one man one woman model is so obviously fragile?) Or would it be the "traditional" two parent model of 50 years ago in which one parent worked and the other played house mom? Or would it be the "traditional" family model of 100 years ago when children generally didn't finish high school but instead went to work at the age of 12, mostly in factories and doing the worst and most dangerous jobs available? Or would it be the "traditional" model of 150 years ago when Americans were generally farmers, and most children didn't go to school at all but instead worked as farm hands, and the mom put out 10 or 12 kids during a lifetime to make up for early child deaths and to make sure there a sufficient number of children in the family to work the farm, and women stayed in the family home until they got married or died in it a spinster, and the newly marrieds would stay in the home with the parents until there was a farm they could acquire? Or would it be the "traditional" family model employed until about 100 years ago where the man had his wife, but also had a string of casual lovers whom everyone, including the wife, knew about and that was just fine with all? Or maybe the "traditional family" model of the plantation owner who would dip his quill in black ink whenever he felt randy? Or would it be the "traditional" family model where only land owners got married, because the whole point of the deal was to exchange property in the first place? Or how about the "traditional" family model of royals who would get married to produce a male heir and if the marriage didn't produce a male the inconvenient female would simply be replaced?

Oh...and by the way...we also lived for millenia with women not having any legal rights. We also lived for millenia with slavery. Care to bring those venerable institutions back?

The age of an institution has nothing to do with whether it is "honorable" or not. That's a load of crap, and it's just a ruse to disguise sexual bigotry. That, too, is an age old institution. I don't know if it can be made to go away in a decade or two, or 100, but it isn't going to go away until we start making the effort. I know this...codifying bias in the Constitution sure ain't the first step.

Hmmmm, contract. Sounds like a business deal to me, not love and committment.

BTW, I think the Dems need to check out this post on Pam's House Blend. I've been saying for a while that Dems are talking themselves into a whole with the "we have more important things to do" argument. This is proof.

Bob Knight Kicks Dems Teeth In Claiming Marriage Should Be Most Important Discussion

Maybe it's time that Dems said, "Yes, marriage is the most important thing and we support marriage for ALL Americans, not just straight Americans."

But I don't expect it.

Ann-
my sincerest apologies for offending you or anyone else--when I refer to the right wing's use of what some may call "wedge issues" or whatever other euphemism they choose--I by no means meant to diminish the direct impact this issue has on those it is directed at. I simply meant that we know the right wing is not really sincere about this (except for the frothing at the mouth hate-filled bigots out there who are far too concerned with how other people live their lives they ignore their own)--after all--they have controlled the White House and the Congress since 2002 and yet somehow this issue is only important to them during an election year. My brain sometimes gets going at what feels like a million miles an hour and sometimes I dont get my exact point across.
And I agree with you 100%. This is pure and simply--a human rights issue. I never meant to imply that I thought otherwise or felt that anyone's rights are less important than my own or anyone else's. I hope that one day we all can wake up and find ourselves in a world where this entire situation is a distant memory and civil and human rights for all are protected and not just given lip service by those we entrust with doing the "people's business"...and that goes for all parties, right, left, and middle. We cannot point fingers if we cannot tolerate examinations of our own party. Hold everyone's feet to the fire (you'll have to pardon me if I don't hold my breath on that last point).
However, I am still curious...does anyone have any proof whatsoever as to how two people getting married has any affect on another married couple--apart from buying wedding gifts for them??

Proudself -

Precisely. Civil rights have nothing at all to do with love and commitment. They have to do with rights collectively conferred by citizens and to themselves. There are over 1000 of them in the lawbooks, and those rights have little if anything to do with love or commitment.

Tell me something - is it your belief that marriage would be devoid of love or commitment if one's mayor or city council or your legislature refused to acknowledge it? Towns can assess real estate. They can't assess, and shouldn't be in the business of assessing the spiritual basis of our commitments to one another. This, too, has its roots in customs we've outgrown as a society - serfs looking for the imprimatur of the local baron or duke to make their bond legal. It's archaic and unnecessary.

My wife and I got a marriage license when we got married. If it had been refuseds for some reason we would have loved each other no less. When we got it we loved each other no more. It was the certificate we needed to get the rights that civil authority offered and we wanted. No more. No less.

KarlSouthofFlorida -

If you press long enough on your last question with a person opposed to same sex marriage, you'll finally arrive at "The Children." Suppose two gays or Lesbians adopt a child? Oooooohhhh! Presumably the poor kid will catch their gayness by sustained exposure to "abnormality." Of course, one might ask how children of two heteros "catch" their homosexual sexual orientation.

Or you'll get the "one man one woman" argument for the best possible environment. Well...why is that exactly? I think what children need is as much quality parenting as they can get, and if it comes from two women or two men who exhibit their love and support for one another in the home and outside of it, the children will be twice blessed relative to the child of a single parent, or the child of two drunken heteros, or two heteros who are in a loveless relationship.

I think I can honestly say that the best lessons I got from my parents, and there were thousands of them, did not come to me with any special gender flavoring. They were gender-blind - about being kind, compassionate, thoughtful, dedicated, hard-working, considerate of others...about being the best human possible. Neither men nor women have a special lock on those human qualities because of their gender.

I think we should stop dressing up their arguments for them by arguing them on an intellectual level. Opponents to same-sex marriage - 95% of them or more - are where they are because they're opposed to gays and Lesbians. They hate or fear homosexuality.

This whole srgument is simply about thinly disguised bigotry.

Alabama passed a ban on gay marriage a couple of day ago.

What was the percentage of voters who voted in favor of its passage?

Keep on p.ssing into the wind.

And 19 other states have passed similar bans.

Don't confuse people wanting the word marriage to symbolize a relationship with a man and a women with any hatred or dislike of gays. We just want the meaning of our symbol to stay the same.

Work for changing the applicable laws to get the protection you want for your same sex relationships but leave "our world" alone.

"our world?" Now who is p.ssing in the wind?

You sound like Governor Wallace on the steps of the high school in Alabama, jbbrent - segregation now and forever, eh?

Please fight to preserve your symbol. Eradicate divorce. It is destroying marriage. 50% of the marriages in the country end in divorce and it has nothing to do with homosexuality. The heterosexuals are letting you down, jbbrent.

Your symbol is dying.

jbbrent -

"My world" is the America where a minority's rights can't be trampled by the majority, no matter how many votes it can muster. In "your world" there used to be laws passed prohibiting interractial marriage, requiring literacy tests for the privilege of voting, laws banning women from voting, local laws preventing people from living in the neighborhood of their choice - all sorts have laws have existed over time, passed by a "majority," that were decidedly un-American.

Perhaps you can take solace in knowing that your bigorty is shared by a majority. In my opinion, however, there aren't enough votes to condone or excuse it. It's repugnant.

REPUBLICANS LOVE DIVORCE!

was the certificate we needed to get the rights that civil authority offered and we wanted. No more. No less.

You're right, Baron. My love for my partner isn't contingent on what we get or don't get from anyone. Hell, we haven't gotten one thing from anyone and I love her more now than ever.

You say a civil authority gave you the rights you wanted, but if the state is out of marriage, then who confers the rights?

There has to be another authority in place if you move it out of the state's realm. Who would that be? I'm honestly curious. Perhaps there's an angle I haven't thought of yet, and it would be worth considering.

Don't confuse the issues. Leave the spoken and written symbol "marriage" alone. Don't try and change it to include relationships between two men or two women. Create your own symbol, do the work, change the laws, but don't try and change our world. You live in yours and I and most straight people could care less about who you live or sleep with. It's only when you want to trample on our rights, to interfer with our lives that you evoke anger and dislike. Live and let live but leave us alone, leave our symbols alone, and don't expect us to approve of your life style. You don't need our approval so just shut up and get on with your lives.

j-abberant

Boo! Did you feel that twinge? Another gay couple got married yesterday in Massachusetts and your rights just got "trampled." Magic gay rays strike again! Oooohhhh - if you get hit enough times maybe you'll start to "approve" of their "lifestyle." Oooooooohhhhh!

Proudself -

I think you misconstrue my proposal...and I thought it was yours in the first place! States and the federal government would recognize only "civil unions" - those being a contract signed by two people of either gender, whether same sex or not. Previous "marriages" would be grandfathered in, and then all Americans would have equal access to equal vicil rights conferred by municipaities, states and the federal government. These contracts would be called anything at all...anything EXCEPT "marriage." That word would be reserved for the people in j-abberant's "world", or anyone else for that matter, who believe that marriage is an institution reserved for one man and one woman. They can get that status conferred from whatever source they want - as they do now - from their church, their synagogue, their spiritual advisor, their dog, or the devil himself. I don't care. And the reason I don't care is that those "marriages" are affirmations of their own personal beliefs which they are entitled to, and which I may or may not share. And one other point j-abberant seems not to understand - those marriages which are currently blessed "in the sight of god" have nothing whatsoever to do with the access to the civil rights conferred by the state. If you get married by a priest without a marriage licence, you don't get those rights. Also, if you get divorced by the church withough a decree being granted in a civil court, you ain't divorced in the eyes of the state. And that's the way it should be. Take the word "marriage" out of the civil side and everyone gets what they want.

Oh, except of course for j-abberant, who would then not be able to piously claim that the state holds higher regard for his sexual orientation that it does for the GLBT community - you know...that "other world." He needs to have the state endorse his bigotry. So sad.

In another two years the citizens of Massachusetts will be able to vote on the issue of "gay" "marriage".

Let's see what happen then!

There is a big misunderstanding here. I believe that since heterosexuals can't uphold the principles and sanctity of marriage - as shown by the 50% divorce rate - that marriage for mixed sex couples should be banned.

It is the only way to preserve this delicate and special institution. Even with governmental encouragement ( in immigration, inheritance, insurance, and taxation), mixed sex couples are destroying this valuable societal cornerstone that has never been changed in thousands of centuries.

It is time for same sex couples to take over. Your people have failed, jbrent. If you really care about "your world" you should advocte to save marriage by pushing legislation to enforce civil unions for mixed couples and marriage for same sex couples only.

Otherwise, you are only p.ssing in the wind. We are working to save marriage and you are p.ssing in the wind. How else can we help you help yourself?

PatrickC -

To answer your last question, I'd say a pair of rubber pants would be a good start.

j-aberrant -

In "your world" of democracy, suppose a Texas border town decided by a vote of 80% to 20% to close the public schools to all races except Hispanics?

Would that be democratic?

In "our world" (the American democracy Bill of Rights world) majorities can vote on all manner of issues execpt those that involve equal rights. Those are...you remember the word, don't you..."inalienable." Look it up, Read the first paragraph of the Declatation of Independence. Read the first ten amendments to "our" consitutuion. You might actually get to like what "our world" looks like.

Then go piss up a rope.

Texas border town vote - Yes, that would be democracy in action.

Matrimony - the state of being married.

Homomony - the state of being in a legally recognized relationship similar to marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

I don't hear much tolerance in the current blogs about people who hold a different opinion about same-sex marriage. Hmmm, who are the hypocrits??

The truth is that children and society only benefit from a marriage of one man and one woman. There are thousands of research studies to show that. The self-serving desires of some should not be allowed to undermine the future of our children and society. Marriage has already taken several hits already from pre-marital sex and no-fault divorce. God never intended it to be that way, because God knows what we need even before we know it. Don't believe the myth that homosexuality is who you are. It is a learned behavior similar to alcoholism. Thousands of homosexuals have found deliverance thru Jesus Christ, and are leading joyful heterosexual lives now. All you need to do is seek his truth with and open mind. God Bless you!

Is there a requirement to bear children in marriage? No, there is not. Mixed sex couples don't have to bear children to have a marriage license and they still get all the gravy from the USFG. In fact, mixed sex couples divorce quite often whether or not children have been produced. Children have nothing at all to do with marriage. If you think that is important, I support your actions to amend the marriage laws to add a child bearing stipulation. I'm all for it - mandatory child bearing and a moratorium on divorce. Get serious here: What about the kids applies to you mixed sex couples. WHAT ABOUT THEM?

The argument - what about the children?? - is lame and pointless. I have no intention or desire to have children. If you think its so important, please reproduce.

BUT...keep in mind that some people who post here like to talk about cornholing in a disparaging way. When you have sex to create these children please ensure that the penis goes directly into the vagina just long enough to spread the seed. There should be no pleasure involved in the sex act - especially for the woman. And don't even think about her anus.

Naturally, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to perform oral sex because it does not produce beautiful, blessed, darling children. Do not touch genitals manually or orally. This is very important. If you do something dirty (in the mind of the anti-cornhole poster in here) it will really upset someone and that isn't cool. Imagination is better left to the people who think they know what God cares about.

Are there any other sexual acts that make you unhappy, but somehow keep surfacing in your mind? Maybe we should have your approval first on everything.

Do Britney Spears' marriages meet your approval? The first marriage didn't last long (long enough for sex, I bet). How about her second? I wonder if she had Kevin Federlines genitals anywhere besides her vagina. Both sound like they were mistakes to me...and the second one has produced two soon to be bastards. Nice job!

Personally, I like to get cornholed. It feels really good. Don't knock it until you try it, and don't be so small minded. God created my anus too and he makes it feel real nice when its penetrated gently and repeatedly.

j-abberant -

Thanks. You've confirmed for me that you don't know a goddamned thing about democracy in this country. "Democracy in action" as you define it can't be distinguished from any form of government, not matter how hateful and despotic, as long as a majority is behind it.

Better hope that "your world" stays in the majority. If it doesn't, maybe we'll muster up a majority of voters to pass a law that requires we send all of you loathsome bigots to the gas chamber. You know..."democracy in action."

How to win back Congress

If the DNC is to regain congress, they must address the issues (right or wrong) that brought the RNC to power. Remove their basic method of scaring voters to side with them and they will lose seat after seat. Remember that extremism (from both sides) have driven the last several election cycles.

I believe that the majority of the American voters are actually either moderate democrats or moderate republicans that would switch sides based upon how the issues are presented. Every election cycle the RNC brings out several hot topics that they claim represent the majority of voters when actually they present the oppositions minority extremist views to bolster their case to vote for them.

Until the DNC can PROVE they represent the majority of the voters on these subjects they will be fighting an uphill battle. So how can the DNC make this happen? Believe it or not, give them what they want, which is a vote on these subjects. In fact, promote the fact that you want America to decide these things, rather than have Congress do endless debate and allow the misuse of these subjects as a tool to get elected over and over again. Remove these items and they will have time to deal with real issues that confront this country such as our freedoms and our financial future.

They want a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and to define marriage. Let these amendments pass congress. At that point, the DNC and the RNC can promote their views. Commonsense says the DNC will win this debate. It will still take 38 states to ratify these into existence. I strongly believe this would never happen.

The DNC can run on the platform of giving America a choice. This method can be applied to almost any hot topic.

Do not be afraid, America does have common sense, and you should have faith in the majority to do the right thing.

Patrick,

That was a laugh I sorely needed...thank you.

After getting back from a meeting where I was surrounded by scaredy-cats from SD, WY, etc. who thought eating calamari would make them grown horns or something (seriously, I've never seen adults act so stupid over something; well, except for gays having rights), it's nice to get a good chuckle.