Not for nothing....but it's slightly more sinester than just "big gov" telling the little state govs what they can and can't do.

They've left it up to the states so far for whatever reason, but the courts are showing signs that the anti-gay laws most states have (and they do already have them in 38? ish states) can be struck down as unconstitutional.

Hence, the need for the constitutional amendment. It's not the states' hands W. is trying to take this out of....it's the courts'.

Ok, I've thought about this a bit, for the most part I leave my thoughts and feelings about political and religious stuff away from this forum, I'm a member of Pixies because I use it for a place to express a part of my life that doesn't get much expression within my day to day "real life".

I understand that there may be concerns about what happens to a partner after your death, but don't blame the government for what happens to your assets if there isn't a plan in place for your asset distribution that isn't what is wanted ... a Will would take care of most of what you want to happen with assets - the scenario of them not going to a partner would only be the case if you died "intestate" (without a will and/or trust). If you die with a Will, then the terms of the Will will be honored so long as it is legal - gifting to a life partner is legal. (I point this out for general information purposes)

I think this issue is very much a financial issue, insurance companies, etc. have big lobbying dollars and having (years ago) worked in the health/life insurance industry for a large insurance company, I know they have some really big concerns about this.

I think the issue is very much ALSO a beliefs issue .... and pardon me, but as a conservative right-wing person, I get kind of tired of people assuming that I hate them when I have never made a hate comment intentionally to anyone in my life, I don't even believe I have that mindset. Most times, I'm so concerned about making sure that people around me, etc., are happy and feel the love I have for them. I have been involved in a particular religion for all of my life and continue to be so at a fairly deep level, however, as stated above, I don't usually bring that to this forum, but must say that in all the people I know from the religious community, I've never met someone who is all that different from my approach. I have met many who are not within a strong religious following who are willing to accuse me (and others like me) of "hatemongering" though, something I've always found interesting.

At the risk of stating an unpopular view, I agree that marriage should be and is defined (currently) as a union between a man and a woman. It is inherently linked to my beliefs, but like you, South, I don't have a problem with others having a union of a different "name" ... maybe it's not the popular thing, and maybe it's not the politically correct view, but it's mine all the same.

Seems to me pretty pointless to introduce a new institution with exactly the same rights/priveledges as marriage, just for gay people, as there is already in existence a perfectly good one.

There have recently been two posts in Sex News on this site, regarding marriage between a woman and her dead Fiance in France, and a man and a dog in Kathmandu. Sounds to me like plenty of other cultures are willing to take a wider view on marriage.

I thought the 'sanctity of marriage' was to do with two people's loving commitment to each other for the rest of their lives, bringing up children in a stable and loving environment etc etc. Seems to me that children of gay and lesbian people should have the same right to that stability, as others.

Personally, I find the "It's always been that way" approach to be rather irrational and pathetic. Any institution that can't be adequately "protected" by anything other than its status as an institution isn't worth "protecting".

Now, we have the idea before us that a marriage must be defined as a union between a man and a woman. One argument that has been put against it is that evergreen, the "slippery slope" - the idea that if we move down the ideological slope to the point of allowing homosexual marriage, we risk sliding further towards "more perverse" definitions of marriage. The problem with this is that we presume the current definition to be the top of the slope, when that is not necessarily so. As BlueSwede mentioned, there have been in the past anti-miscegenation laws. So, having made the definition of marriage more liberal than before, haven't we already begun the "slide"? Did the world collapse into chaos when we did? Because we did?

The "STD" argument is another that has me baffled, simply because the acts of "sodomy" practised by homosexuals as the primary means of sexual contact can all be performed by heterosexuals too - unless of course, you're in one of those wonderful states with anti-sodomy laws. Now, is there any medical basis for suggesting that a man is more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease from a man's anus than a woman's? Does it even matter? In a free society, can we - should we stop adults of able mind and will from choosing to engage in behaviour that might be risky? If STDs are really of concern, why isn't there a push for promiscuity laws? No, this argument, in my opinion, is all about the need to strike out at and restrict people not fearful of the lobbyists' god.

God - I could write a fair bit on this fellow, but I feel that this is the most important argument to deal with: "God says...". Since when, in a country puportedly permitting free practise of religion, should what god thinks be of any concern whatsoever to lawmakers? Not that I advocate open defiance of everything biblical, but here is a clear example of needless discrimination. To me, churches are an assault on what I see as an institution of rational thought, and infant baptisms an assault on freedom and free will, but I'm not trying to make them unconstitutional, because ultimately it doesn't change my personal experience unless I let it. So go ahead, don't recognize homosexual marriage as a "godly" union, call it invalid or whatever, but don't legislate that which clearly has no effect on you and serves only to marginalize a significant part of society whose defining behaviour is, at least check, legal.

Oh, and for that guy who used the phrase "liberal media" - can you name for me any major media corporations run by liberals? Because, off the top of my head, I can't think of any, and believe me, I tried.

"Anger is the wind,that blows out the light of the mind!"This,like
any other,political or religious subject,causes nothing but disagreements & therefore in my opinion,should be avoided.My
$.02. Irish

I'm just adding my voice to the "If you can wed Men with Women, why not Men with Men or Women with Women?" camp.

Marriage should be more about love than gender.


However, I think one of the main arguments been that a male and female rolemodel are essential for 'proper upbringing' of a child. Which is a silly argument, in my opinion. Having same-sex parents does not, in itself, preclude someone from having rolemodels of other genders, for a start. Nor can it be proven to be detrimental to a child's upbringing.
If anything, it could have the benefit of raising the child in a tolerant, understanding environment.
Besides, how many kids get a 'proper upbringing' these days, anyway? Lots of kids with single parents (which is perfectly legal) don't, if that's the definition!

And yeah, it's all a political sideshow.
What, Iraq? Where's that?? Osama? Never heard of him!

CasperTG

I am bi, and am mostly happily married to a heterosexual man, I have a girlfriend but wouldn't want to be married to a woman. Which doesn't mean anything, really.

I am Canadian and we have the same struggle, but I pose a question. If we decide that marraige between same sex couples is ok, how about brother and sister, father and daughter, etc? Are we discriminating if we don't allow those either? And as far as I know they are NOT allowed in Canada. Don't know about the States.

Love,

Susan

This has got to be some of the most divisive crock of election year bull shit to come down the poop shoot in a long time.MRBRL,I would really like to find a way you can find safety in the bossom of the Bush family while the rest of us return him to Crawford Texas and try to get on with our lives. Liberal media my butt,don'chya know that was a lie to?

(((Bama))), that comment was not directed toward anyone here specifically. It stemmed from comments I have heard in groups, on the radio, on TV, and on the 'Net.

mrbri... Under the current President we have, high unemployment, no WMD's to be found (and this comes from the Bush administration, who had at one time guranteed the world that the weapons were there, but has since backed down and admitted that they may have been wrong), a record federal deficit while managing to set records for campaign contributions...
And cry the usual conservative call of 'liberal media' if you like but; A) If the media is so liberally biased why was President Clinton's private life put on a daily display through it?
B) Why are there so many conservative talk shows on the radio?
Basically the media is there to report on the things they think the majority of the people want to hear. That's it.

Aqua> whew! I was afraid I was pissin you off hun.

>>>>>If we decide that marraige between same sex couples is ok, how about brother and sister, father and daughter, etc? Are we discriminating if we don't allow those either? And as far as I know they are NOT allowed in Canada. <

There is a genetic basis that shows that heavy line breeding can and does lead to mental and physical infirmities. Any mental or physical flaw that is there will be heavilly multiplied. so in the case of genetics I support the no happy birfday uncle dad rulesdoesn't mean I don't like reading about it......

Commenting on the topic of this post ... A Constitutional Amendment.

The proposed amendment is one of only two amendments ever to restrict rather than broaden individual rights (the other was Prohibition and that was repealed). And thankfully, our forefathers had the insight to anticipate politically motivated people like Mr. George Dubya who consistently elevates personal agendas above the people he's been elected (?) to serve.

Amending the Constitution is a very, very difficult process. First, it puts aside any simple majority that might exist in the House and Senate and instead, requires that a full 2/3 of each of these bodies separately vote to amend. In the politically divisive atmosphere that exists, that won't happen 'til pigs fly.

It doesn't stop there ... if the House and the Senate approve the amendment, two-thirds of the states have to ratify it by popular vote.

Personal opinion: This is a mean-spirited, heavy-handed and vile attempt by Mr. No Child Left Behind to force-feed his personal beliefs on a nation. And if his history of administration vendettas against those who disagree with his or his lackey administration opinions is indicative, any or all of you who disagree with his position will quickly be branded as non-patriotic, traitors, and possibly, terrorists.

He may, through administrative and executive order, choose to rape and pillage our wildlands and wetlands, pollute our air, clear-cut our forests, side-step the senatorial process and appoint seedy judges, gut our environmental safeguards, attempt to erode our constitutional rights to freedom and privacy, deplete our national goodwill, personally brand someone a bandit and hold them without access to counsel, lie and deceive the people he's been entrusted to govern, and bankrupt our economy (how long would you like this list to be?) ...

But Mr. Dubya has met his match in the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and others ... the drafters of the Constitution. Thankfully, they foresaw the possibility of some buffoon such as Mr. Compassionate Conservative himself attempting to bend the will of the land to satisfy his personal ego and made it extremely difficult to do so.

Good luck, Dubya - you'll need it.

>>>>Weapons are there too just the liberal media wont report it. Now I do hope your kidding when you said "you know the kind that go out and find people like me and either burn them at the stake for being witches or torture and sometimes kill us for being homosexuals and loving those closer to us." Ain't that pretty much accusing people like myself of doing something immoral and being cold killers? Now I'm sorry to you homosexuals but its been said since the time of Adam and Eve that marraige should only be between a man and a woman.<<<<<



No it's accusing people like you of being guilty of an illegal thing Discrimination. Morals don't have a damn to do with it.Remember, burning at the stake I don't question peoples morals, I can't make you up hold your morals.Hitlers' morals were that anyone not blonde, tall and fair complected was inferior...... well hey I'm a master race then :P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


as for the creation of a child..... the catholics preach that EVERY sexual encounter shoulf have at least a large marginal chance of producing a child, otherwise you have sinned in the eyes of god. but you know I've seen some people who don't need to breed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Always
Kyttn



LILITH wheres that damn mute button I asked for?

Another big reason to not go to the polls...they no longer matter, Bush hasnt a chance in hell and is a moot point. No constitutional amendment will ever pass again in this country, a judge will figure out a way to block it. Congress no longer has any power but to spend money on their pet causes, end of story.

The only problem I have with what is going on in San Fran is that it is against CA law. I do not care what the law is, if you have sworn to uphold it (like the mayor of San Fran did) you in no way break it. Fight it in court, do whatever, but do not blatantly break it. But then again that is where we are in the country.

Judges now rule this country, which means lawyers rule this country which means you can basically do what you want, as long as you have the money or brains to fight it in court....

Let the Anarchist states of America arise.

who want's to pay more taxes? but i still am from the old school that marrage is for procreation only, but times have changed and with the divorce rate lets see if they can't fix it