Should this be an issue?

[dd74]

Not just what Bush thinks, I mean should the whole issue even be an "issue."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html

[12own911]

It should not but some think it is... Arnold thinks it is a problem that must be corrected also.

[motion]

Hey, things like this are what make the world go round... so why not? Banning gay marriage is similar to the laws in Texas and other southern states regarding sodomy. Riduculous. As long as it doesn't hurt others, it should be legal.

[motion]

On second thought, I suppose sodomy hurts others, but I'm ass-uming that both parties are consenting :d

[concentric]

No, it shouldn't be an issue in my opinion.
I think it's the word "marriage" that is kicker, maybe we should call it "civil union" or something.

What worries me is that the administration's response is that they will attempt to put an AMENDMENT to the Constitution to support what is clearly an entirely religious interpretation of the issue.

I will make it quite clear here that I support people's right to worship as they choose. However, I think that instituting religious beliefs as law will just serve to divide the country in the future. A slippery slope that could cause huge conflict.

JCM

[cegerer]

I think we should allow multiple-wife marriages too. As long as it's not hurting anybody ....

[12own911]

Multi-hubby marriage sounds good to me...

[on-ramp]

Ammend the constitution just to ban gay marriage?....sounds absurd.

[djmcmath]

I'm going to side with concentric on this one -- while I believe that gay people joining in civil union detracts from the ideal of "marriage" as designed, I also believe that it is dead wrong for the government to step in and take a side.

Um ... instead of polygamy, can I have concubines instead? A harem sounds like a lot more fun than a bunch of wives.

Dan

[lendaddy]

I dissected this one today! Now keep in mind politics is a game and I think this one is a Republican play of mastery. Now bear with me

I don't know if the first few gay marriages were plants or if this phenom just happened. Regardless the republicans saw an opportunity to divide the dems and squash a growing unity in the party. By making this a forefront isssue they have forced Kerry to denounce gay marriage and double talk the issue. This has pissed off alot of gays and their supporters. It may also push hardcores to Nader(is he pro gay marriage? I honestly don't know) and or keep them home on election day. Those in favor were never going to vote Bush anyway so no harm done there. Also the ammendment will never pass so, again much adu about nothing. In the end no one wins but the dems lose. Kind of a cute little plan I say.

FWIW I don't care if gays get married, but I think they should lobby for law change within their states not break current laws.

[singpilot]

I would like to DEMAND a constitutional amendment so that I can marry my 911. Then I could expect that my free health insurance from my employer would cover all the sicknesses and maintenance issues. Would really be nice... she could stay home on the charger all day while I work.

Should my dearly beloved become disabled, especially 'on the job', I will expect the State of California's Workman's Compensation Program to cover that too.

I feel that my rights as a taxpayer are being infringed upon by the licenses granting spousal rights to partners in San Francisco, and I cannot bestow these rights on my beloved Porsche partner of 11 years. We have tried to have a civil union conferred in Oregon, but there were some envionmental issues.

Once this union is sanctified and certified, I could then take up with my 944 on the side, and possibly be in a position to marry her if the 911 starts making too many demands.

My Mercedes will undoubtedly take umbrage at all of this, but I tend to only be with her when I am in Nevada (a non-community property state).

I have written my congressman about this, but have not yet heard back.


P.S. Do you think this pic makes her a$$ look too big????

[djmcmath]

A Porsche's ass never looks too big, unless it's the ass of somebody else's Porsche. Thus the 10th Commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his house, nor your neighbor's ass." I like to think that God was referring to Porsches at the time.

[motion]

That is frickin hilarious singpilot!

[cegerer]

BOSTON—Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.

"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts."

Marshall added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions altogether."

Marshall said the court's action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.

"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth, we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to allow gay marriages," Marshall said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed anyway."

The justices then congratulated the state's 4.8 million marriage-age residents on their legally mandated engagements.

The court issued the surprise order in response to a query from the Massachusetts Senate over whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage but not the title, are constitutional.

"If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is never equal," Marshall said. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy."

Marshall then announced her engagement to Holyoke kindergarten teacher Betsy Peterson, a pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census office earlier that day.

Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for non-support.

Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is ****ed up" and "Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read, "On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."

According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.

"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene are going to fry in hell."

The much-anticipated order sets the stage for Massachusetts' upcoming constitutional convention, where the state legislature will consider an amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas Finneran, would be delayed.

"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said. "Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia."

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country, at 1.3 percent, according to the 2000 census. Under the new laws, the figure is expected to increase by approximately 98.7 percentage points.

[cegerer]

[WOODPIE]

It should not be an issue on the basis of marriage being a religious institution.

It should be an issue on the basis that government has, over the years, granted certain benefits, liberties, and also imposed societal obligations onto the participants of this covenant. Could be construed as short-sighted, yes? In any case, there are only two sides a person can come down on in a discussion of equal rights. You are either for 'em or agin' em.

The president is, of course, pandering to his most loyal supporters, the religious right, and is dividing Americans onto themselves. When we turn a corner in our own neighborhoods and see enemies, the terrorists have won.

Ed

[Neilk]

Hey Woodpie, did you get the memo from David Letterman, it's not president but rather "president".

I say who cares. If TWO people love each other and are in a committed relationship, then they should be allowed to get married. I think, like other people have mentioned, that the word "married" is a little odd, but it's really a question of semantics.

I do find it odd though that the Bush administration wants to spend $1 billion to promote marriage, but not for all committed couples. In 50 years, if the amendment passes somehow, we will all look at it like the prohibition amendments and wonder what were we thinking.

[island911]

Originally posted by WOODPIE
It should not be an issue on the basis of marriage being a religious institution.

Wrong basis. Marriage has become a legal union. . . not a religious one.

Anyone marry their cousin?. . .brother/sister . . .what, don't you love them?
How about marrying your mother or grandmother? . . .after all, If TWO people love each other and are in a committed relationship, then they should be allowed to get married.
Love -- what else could matter.


-------
That *is* frickin hilarious, singpilot!

[Neilk]

island, good point... let me add unrelated to the description above.

So back to the point... does it really matter to you if two people of the same sex get married? How does it affect you and whatever relationship you might be in?

[jyl]

I'm all for gay marriage. I know many gay couples (some men, some women) who are responsible, deserving, devoted folks who depend on and are committed to each other just like any straight couple and in some cases are raising happy, healthy kids. The idea that they can't get the symbolic committment of marriage and the practical legal benefits of marriage is flat out wrong.

The objections to gay marriage are, when you dig into them. almost all based on religious beliefs. Well, this country isn't supposed to be run by or for the religious. I'm an atheist, my wife is Catholic, my kids are being raised Catholic but might eventually choose to be anything from born-again to Muslim to whatever. My choice and their choice is no damn business of the government. And if two gay people want to make a life-long committment, the government has no damn business stopping them.

From a practical political standpoint, as a Democrat I have to admit I wish this issue hadn't come up at this time. Kind of like I thought Clinton was stupid for making gays in the military his first big initiative - there's ideals and then there's practicalities. Between the gay marriage issue and the self-absorbed idiot Ralph Nader, the past couple weeks haven't been good for the Dems.