![]() |
I've always wondered how the Conservative Christian Reich believes that gay marriage violates the sanctity of matrimony, but J.Lo and Britney Spears are A-OK?
Seriously--I'd rather see my accountant and his lawyer husband in a stable committed union than J.Ho and Twatney whoring it up. Heterosexual privilege at its finest, my friends. |
Quote:
|
It is a state issue, which is why it failed in the Senate.
I think what happens between two consenting adults is private and if they want to express their love through marital union, that should be their right whether they're bisexual, straight, gay, lesbian, etc. ....J. Ho....Twatney....lol, priceless.... |
Ron Reagan put it best last night when Chris Matthews was grilling him on it. Matthews asked about the pologmy and beastiality thing. Reagan replied, "Those laws are on the books. The difference here is those laws apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. This ammendment would restrict the rights of one entire class of citizens, and thats not what this country is about."
I had no idea Rick Santorum was such an extremest. "I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," he said shortly before the vote. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?" Is he serious? I watched the debate on CSPAN and they were all talkign about how awesome and sacred marrage was. So why wouldnt they want all aspects of society to have that? Dolly Parton said on the Ellen show about gay marrage, "I'm all for it. Why should us straight people have to suffer alone?" lol. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
-Rudey |
Roll Call can be found here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040714/D83QOP681.html
Gay Marriage Roll Call Vote Jul 14, 3:42 PM (ET) By The Associated Press The 50-48 roll call by which the Senate blocked a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Supporters the amendment fell 12 votes short of the 60 they needed to advance the bill. On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to advance the measure and a "no" vote was a vote to stop it. Voting "yes" were 3 Democrats and 45 Republicans. Voting "no" were 43 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 Independent. |
Quote:
|
Wow...
With all that's going on in our country, I find it so laughable that whenever there's a diversion from our soldiers dying in Iraq, and other lives lost around the world to keep us safe from terrorism, it's always an issue of "morality" that is raised. Think about it-from Clinton's "affair", to Janet Jackson's breast, now to the definition of marriage, it's ridiculous that this is even an issue. If marriage truly is a "sacred institution" for the basis of "procreation", then cool-let's outlaw divorces, all couples that have kids out of wedlock should be forced to get married, and if a couple cannot/will not have children in a set amount of time (2 years? 3 years?), then they should forfeit the right to be married. This way, marriage is truly a sacred union for the only purpose of raising children. "...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere..." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"...This ain't coming from no prophet...just an ordinary man. When I close my eyes I see, the way this world could be, if we all walked hand in hand..." |
Letter from Birmingham Jail should be mandatory reading for everyone.
*back to the issue* Maybe this is my California mindset talking here, but what is the big f'n deal? If gay people want to get married, let them. Its not going to hurt anyone, just let them do what they want! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Gay marriage is something that a lot of Christians (not just conservatives) take very personally. It's also an election year. The Republicans have needed an issue that will turn out their base. The Dems have the war in Iraq, people thinking the rich make too much money, etc. Now, finally, the Republicans have something that will get their people excited and showing up to the polls. My thought is that the reason that this issue was brought up as an amendment was because the knew it would fail. If it had passed, then they would have lost something very important to their campaign. The only legitimate reason I can see for being against gay marriage is because I don't want to pay higher insurance rates due to so many gay spouses requiring AIDS medication and treatment. Other than that, I don't see how it effects me. Well, except that after law school, I plan to go into family law. So 10% of the population that couldn't have divorces will now be having divorces. That should offset any AIDS medication costs. |
kt, do you have any information supporting that gay marriage would result in increased insurance premiums due to AIDS medications? Since so many health plans won't cover people due to pre-existing conditions like diabetes, I would imagine it might be difficult to have an AIDS patient covered. Plus, a lot of those medications aren't covered by insurance.
I've read about this topic a lot, and you're the only person I can come across who's said anything of the sort. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.