Gay Marriage Rights

[Nexeus]

It's sad, those politically who oppose gay marriages are allowed to speak their mind about it, but those who support it are shut the hell up... YO DEMS!! DON'T BE SCARED OF THE HYPE!! Damni Hillary say something!

[Boinky]

Not to speak up for him greatly, but - at age 13 I'd probably have ideas that could be ripped to pieces easily as well...

[Oddysee]

Hehe, we all had... Shit, I'm 20 and I do now... S'part of growin up! But you never learn if you're not told... And sometimes beating around the bush with the message is not doing the reciever a favour, as they cant make the corrections then...

If I fuck up, I expect peeps to tell me, how else will I change?




Tm

[Tacz]

If I fuck up, I expect peeps to tell me, how else will I change?

Fuck up enough, and you learn something.

I just hope your idea of political stupidity is only a majority type of thing. Frankly, anyone that can decide on a candidate or a party, and back up their decisions with the hard facts about said candidate or party, has my respect as a voter and member of a democratic society, and as an educated person.

[Tastyvixen]

I'm just sick of this whole topic in general. lol I could rant and rave about my views on this but what is the point? It won't get me anywhere. I have a lot to say about this topic for both sides but I won't because it is pointless.

I am openly bi because I refuse to put boundries on my love. Plain and simple, but I eccept that others have problems with it and I respect that. I think there would be a lot less arguing going on if people showed more respect for eachother and eccepted that we are not all the same and we all have our own views on everything. Nothing is ever just black and white.

[Boinky]

:and I notice you've morphed into Lady Death now Tasty:

It's basically an issue of what is a right promised us by the Constitution and what isn't. A valid point can be shown about that document and the inequalities written there about blacks which were later corrected by certain laws & wars. Also the infusing of many seemingly religious ideas are also there, yet we are not supposed to be goverened by any 1 set of any religious laws. OK now I'm starting to rant and get too much off-topic...

[Nexeus]

Personally I resepct bi people more so than straight or gays/lesbians because of this fact:

When it comes to sex bi people really don't care either or works. It's what you feel like having it's about having sex, not "Oh I won't do him" or "I won't do that". You don't care, you're not like men or women who are looking for specifically one person or thing, you are more looking for a person, and I respect that.

[Ichyro]

Very wise, really. They do not limit themselves to just one sex, knowing the person they want to spend their life with can be of any sexuality.

However I'd respect a homosexual or heterosexual person just as much, because it can not just be that they find men/women "Icky" or something, but for many other reasons. I'm heterosexual because in terms of beauty as well as personality I find women to be the most attractive. If I find a male attractive, in personality as well as beauty, then I guess I'd become Bi.

And theres something I could admit...but I don't wanna.

[Synnastacia]

of course slightly off topic, but it is a response to a post here...

The president's kids don't become president's - od

i wish that were true. i firmly believe the world would be a much better place if that were true... now if they could justify the position given to them would be another thing, either it's dad is getting to old to run everything so he passes the rule to his son or this whole current term in the U.S.

/me wonders if gw has a "kill 'em all and let god sort them out" bumper sticker on Air Force One.

[Firia]

Personally I resepct bi people more so than straight or gays/lesbians

I personally don't belive you can judge a person based on their sexual orientation. A person is attracted to whatever does it for them. Ideally, I belive if we could all be attracted to each other based on being people, I think the world would be a better place. But that's not how it is. We all have preferances, and I respect each person for their own personal sexual preferance.

[Ichyro]

Perhaps Nexeus meant that he could be able to respect that choice of sexual orientation more than straight or bisexual, but it doesnt mean he doesnt respect homosexuals or Heterosexuals, or respects bisexuals in entierity more so than others. After all, you can love women and be a great person, love men and be a great person or a bad person. Hell, you could be a person who loves hamsters and still be a good person.

Because they do not limit what sexuality they will love, and love with what is close to an unbiased and free-thinking heart.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but while I wouldnt respect them more than others, I do admire that quaility of open bisexual people, in that they don't mind if the love of their life is a man or a woman, and don't limit it to either.

[Riviques]

i saw it the same way. its just loving a person. nothing more. whats the big deal if its the same sex? who cares? its love. would ya rather have people at eachother's throats? love is love.

[Ichyro]

Same here...and quite the irony, that I found this comic.

http://studiorain.wc3campaigns.com/wccomics/poornemen.jpg

[Riviques]

bwehehehe ^.~

[Boinky]

/me wonders if gw has a "kill 'em all and let god sort them out" bumper sticker on Air Force One.

I'd figure if anything like that would be the case it'd be more like "Kill 'em all and if they aren't liberals let god sort them out"

[Firia]

Posting from work. ^_^
I signed up to a mailing list when I went to the Rally not long ago. I found this artical (among others) flooding into my inbox since this morning. Since there's some conversation on the topic going on, I figure I'm gonna keep the ball rolling. (even if some would rather abstain ^_^)

Stick around for my thoughts at the end.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

USA Today, February 24, 2004
Bush backs ban on gay marriage in Constitution
>From staff and wire reports
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... iage_x.htm

WASHINGTON — Saying that "decisive and democratic action is needed,"
President Bush on Tuesday backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in an attempt to halt same-sex unions like the thousands that have been allowed this month in San Francisco.

Bush made the announcement in a short appearance Tuesday morning at the White House. Saying that current federal law was inadequate to assure the public's will on the matter, Bush said a constitutional amendment was necessary.

"Today I call on Congress to define marriage as a union between a man
and a woman, as husband and wife," Bush said.

The president said "activist judges" and some sympathetic state and
local officials threatened to change the traditional definition of marriage,
and he called public support of that traditional definition "overwhelming."

"Their actions have created confusion on a matter that requires clarity,"
Bush said. "On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that
legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave,
R-Colo., "meets his principles" in protecting the "sanctity of marriage"
between men and women.

But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular piece of
legislation. White House officials say that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.

Bush decided to take action partly because the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. That decision could result in gay weddings there as early as May, McClellan said. "We're two months away," he said.

McClellan said 38 states have passed laws protecting the "sanctity of
marriage and the president will call on Congress to move quickly to pass
legislation that can then be sent to the states for ratification.

"We need to act now," he said. "The constitutional process will take
time."

With the announcement, Bush is wading into a volatile social issue. The
conservative wing of his party has been anxious for Bush to follow up
his rhetoric on the issue with action. In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly said he was "troubled" by the Massachusetts court decision and the gay marriages in San Francisco, but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment.


The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Gay and lesbian
couples from Europe. And couples from more than 20 states have flocked to San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples a few days ago. At the current pace, more than 3,000 people will have taken vows by Friday promising to be "spouses for life."

At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or
amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage; last week, the Utah House gave final legislative approval to a measure outlawing same-sex marriages and sent it to the governor, who has not taken a position on the bill.

Musgrave's proposed amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Conservatives have been saying for a month that the White House had
quietly assured them that Bush would take the step he was announcing on Tuesday.

Last week, he met with 13 Roman Catholic conservatives. They included
Deal Hudson, the publisher of Crisis magazine and a friend of Bush political adviser Karl Rove; William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Reagan; and Kathryn Jean Lopez, associate editor of National Review magazine.

_______________________________________________
**The Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington e-mail news and discussion
list**

!~~~~~~~~~~~

So ok, at first, I read the line about wanting to "define" marriage. I thought, "what's so wrong with that?" Then I realised what defining would lead to. What everyone in the queer commumity is afraid of, in fact.

Defining "marriage" as a union between man and woman would seperate Civil Unions from Marriages entirely. Meaning a different set of rules could govern each brand of institution. As it is, that's the way it is, but it's a form of discrimination. If that legal defination becomes a part of the constitution, then sudenly that discrimination becomes quite legal.

The only thing the queer community could do then is attempt to have the bill undone. (I forget what that process is called.)

Erf, I have to go. I've taken longer than I should have as it is. ^_^

[Ichyro]

Discrimination has lasted in legailty since the United States was formed.

Slavery, to women, to Irish, and now to homosexuals.


Why not just give them the rights that a legal marriage has, in a Civil union?

[Tacz]

As they say, gay parents make gay children *snicker*

[Ichyro]

And immature parents make immature children.

[dfclock]

go tasty! there should be a bi religeon (i cant spell) where love is key, unlike most others where the afterlife is key. live life and love the present for we do not know what lies ahead.

i would certanly join.