Same sex marrage
 

President Bush got on TV and said he was for a constitusional amendment to define that a marrage is between a man and a woman.
The Democrats and Democratic news media said President Bush would outlaw Gay Marrages?
For 2,000 years the states have not allowed Gay marrages and it was just fine to let states handle there own state marrage-ing process. However, some judges and a Mayor think they can go outside of what the people want and do what ever they wish. Now normally I wouldn't care, except that the marrage that are performed in one state are binding in all states, For a lot of years this was no problem, now it is, And, I don't think the problem is the gay couples that get married, The problem is, if you don't define what a Marrage is than some dumb ass courts or mayors will allow marrage to your dog or your sister, and all states have to honor the marrage.
The constitution being amended shouldn't be taken lightly, and to have to do it because a few judges and Mayors decide to re-write what a marrage has always been is just sad, but, Nessessary.

Ron

Personally I have nothing against gay marriage since, in my opinion, banning it is discrimination, which is against the constitution. Some people say that homosexuality is a disease. I disagree. They're born that way and it's not something that can be cured. Telling gays that they have a disease but they still, if they want to marry, have to marry women (or men, for lesbians) is like telling someone who has MD that he HAS to walk because the rest of us walk. Just because gays can marry doesn't mean they're going to take over America. All they want is to live out their lives, like the rest of us, with someone they love, so let them! If the constitution is to be amended, let it read that marriage is the legal union of two (and only two) people regardless of race, color, creed, national origin or sexual preference (excluding blood relations, of course).

However, as I've stated before, I draw the line at them having or adopting children. Children are not mature enough to understand the implications of that lifestyle and should not be directly subjected to its ramifications. Let them be children in a heterosexual household. If whatever internal mechanism that it concerns leads them to the gay lifestyle, so be it. Its not something anyone but the individual can control. That's not to say that only heterosexuals are good parents. Believe me, I've seen some that should never have been allowed to breed but it's what's considered "normal" (and right?), but, still, kids should be given a chance to make their own decisions about their future lifestyles and not have something like homosexuality either forced upon them or serve as the basis for their lives.

Marry: 1. to join as husband and wife. 2. To take as husband and wife. (Websters)

Licensed Civil Union: recognized in many countries as a legal standing for tax purposes.
Gays can not join together as husband AND wife but should be allowed to register as a legal "Licensed Civil Union."
THE Book says "for this reason shall the two become one" and my God wrote that Book. Yet he condems homosexuality as an abomination. It seems to me that it would be an abomination on the state and country that would recognize a "Gay Marriage."

stick, RD
 

This is the reason for a constatutional ammendment, what you both stated. It doesn't band any marrage, It would define what a marrage is. And take it out of the hands of some judges or Mayors.

Ron

Question.....
 

The US Constitution specifically provides for SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

The US Constitution also specifically guarantees EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

You can wish, until the cows come home, that an amendment to the US Constitution would be made to deprive a group of people of their right to "life, liberty and the persuit of hapiness". You know what that is called ???

One word.......DISCRIMINATION.

Depriving citizens of their rights is not what this country is all about and NEVER will the US Constitution be used to take away the basic human rights of the citizens it is there to protect.

Peace.

Will someone please show me where the Constitution states anything about marriage? I personnel could not give less of a damn about who or what you marry but it is not a Constitutional right know matter what spin you put on it.

The Constitution also states nothing about robbing banks, drunk drivivng and a host of other "illegal" issues. So as long as it makes me happy it is my Constitutional right for me to do these things right?

This issue has got to be one of the largest wastes of time and money that ever came to be.

Trav

I still don't think the government has any business whatsoever putting in their two cents about marriage at all... ever. None of their damn "bidness" (as my Okie friends like to say :D)

Blue...I agree. And on that note, how can it be a Constitutional Right?

Trav

Hell Trav, I have not got the slightest freakin' idea how anybody could possibly have come up with that... but I do believe it's fair to say that when somebody sees a buck to be made or a vulnerable place to have some control, why then there's a population of our fellow and sister citizens who just canNOT stop themselves from insisting that it's a "Constifreakintoosional" privilege... grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Marriage ain't about man's ever changing so-called law... it's about private vows and promises, sacred sweet love, and for many it's also about their religion... NO government has demonstrated (to me) its capacity to understand any part of any of those human feelings.

Haven't they got better things to do with their staff and resources, such as BALANCE THE DAMN BUDGET!

Exactly! You hit the mark Blue. Again, I'll state I don't care who or what you marry, that is not my concern as long as it doesn't interfere with my household. What pisses me off is every time someone or a group, no matter what the cause, wants to do something against the mainstream, they start yelling about it being there right. Bullshit! Just gives them an excuse to scream discrimination and by my definition that is blackmail.

I'll leave this forum now, because I can no longer talk about it without loosing my cool and that would not be fair to others. I know this has somewhat drifted away from the topic, marriages, and become an Constitutional issue and that is where I get pissed.

Marriages, who cares, marry a goat if you want to, but don't start screaming about it being your Constitutional Right!

Trav

The reason
 

The reason for the constitutional ammendment is because if a State said its ok to Marrie your sister, all the other states have to recognise there marrage as a leagle marrage.
In the pass no state would alllow same sex marrages so it wasn't a problem, Now If California says its ok for same sex to get married then there marrage licens is good in all states. The constitutonal ammendment with define what a marrage is, (between a man and a woman) People of same sex can do what ever they want but wont have a marrage licens that is good in all states.

Ron

You folks are missing the point here.The PEOPLE of California have already said a resounding NO to homosexual marriage.They have done this through the legislative process,so for a mayor or a judge to ignore this law is a pure form of arnachy.This is NOT civil disobediance as some would lead you to believe,but a thumbing of the nose to the laws of the land.All these homosexuals that are tieing the knot will be sadly mistaken when their vows become null and void.

Exactly Griz. But watch as the ship tips as the homosexual community runs to the other side of the deck when they find out the law is not on their side.

Ron,

I agree with you and for the reasons you stated as Andy did on another thread. As a society we have to set boundries somewhere. I would hate to return to those days when it is legal for a parent to trade a cow for a ten year old girl child and call it a marriage.

Arrow>>>>>>

Ya know Ron - if'n ole Blue is not mistaken (again:D) it is my understanding that:

a) Our original perfectly fine (in my opinion) Articles of Confederation got changed due to some who wanted a tight central Federal government, and

b) We fought a bloody and long War of Rebellion (as I prefer it be called) over the idea that states DO have some special rights, which, to my knowledge, for the most part none of them did, has or will be likely to give up on (including the right to NOT recognize a given marriage).

Now, if the Feds wanna get real about reality, then we'll need a NATIONAL driver license and license plate to start with, and then ONE rule about who can drink and smoke at what age, and ONE rule about who can and cannot get married at what age, and ONE sales tax, and what IRS tax a state puts in is what that state gets out from the kitty... etc etc etc.

Whaddya think Ron?

Constitution
 

I was just thinking about the constitution.
Separation of Church and State was intended to say that the government will not sponsor or create a State religion. During the days of the Articles of Confederation a few states required people to pay taxes which were in part were used to sponsor a religion. The argument was why should a Congregationalist be required to pay for an Episcopalian minister?s salary. There was never the slightest thought of kicking God out of government. The president and other elected officials take their oath of office with a hand on the Bible. Congress and the Supreme Court start there sessions with a prayer, etc., etc.

Equal Rights in the Constitution. The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced as a bill in congress in 1923. It failed, there is no Equal Right Amendment. Courts have ruled that people should be treated equally as an ideal but it?s not necessarily the law. Think about it, I?m a white male, there are many more black males in the NBA than whites, thus could I file a law suite saying I?m being discriminated against? Could I file suite because they won?t let me be a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader?

Depriving people of their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That's one that has always annoyed me because it?s not true in so very many cases. It?s also the rallying cry of most every drunk who was ever arrested.

I take great joy in riding a motorcycle without wearing a helmet but it?s against the law. Part of my pursuit of happiness is smoking cigarettes, however if I go to the city hall with a lit Marlboro, I get arrested. I feel that my life, liberty and my pursuit of happiness, in part, depends on having a loaded firearm readily available in my own home. That too has recently become against the law (where I live).

If a couple consists of two people who are hard wired (biologically) to be predisposed to desire a relationship with a member of the same sex, fine. Let it be recognized by the state as a Civil Union. The whole idea of marriage, historically, was about who the parents of a child are and who is responsible for them until they reach the age of emancipation. Sure there are plenty of kids up for adoption however, for the most part, that is due to a break down in our society. Will gay marriage promote a more traditional, a more value based society or is it another step in the breakdown? Will gay marriage pave the road to legalization of bigamy, incest and adult-child marriage? Would those action be covered by equal protection under the law?

Please stay healthy,
Andy

Andy -

A part of me says, "How in the world would it EVER be possible for any group to rise up and insist that incest or adult-child marriage be a RIGHT under the constitution!" Bigamy doesn't bother me all that much frankly, so long as the kids and spouses get their fair and rightful share. There's a helluva difference between breaking a taboo and simply doing something that other people disapprove of (or lust for). And then, along came Jones; slow walkin' slow talkin' Jones... and whammo, more unbelieveable things have gotten put into practise since I was a kid than anybody, and I do mean ANYBODY, could ever possibly have nightmared possible.

So, some are saying, "Nah, THIS won't lead to something else Man!"... and so I say back, "In a pig's eye." It could, and probably it will, no matter HOW much anybody resists... and there is what I still do not fully comprehend... HOW in the name of heaven is any of that made real when so many are agin' it??? :cl:

Some folks tried to start different clubs or publications and what not aimed solely at us whiteys... and right off they are condemned to hell for racism.

Now, supposing it got set forth slightly differently... for example, that the Irish wanted to do something for ourselves, or maybe the Mende people of Sierra Leone who live within our borders did... why then nobody would give a hoot!

Ya know Andy, and I ain't exaggerating here (this time :D), I believe it IS a communist plot!

Blue
 

What I think useually can't be printed.
The amendment would only discribe what a marrage is, (between a man and woman) For as long as there have been marrages, the states have had the right to regulate marrages, just recently a mayor and a few judges decided that they would change what the overwelming majority of people think is a marrage. Now theres nothin wrong with two guys getting married that a 50 cal couldn't fix, but the problem is that if those guys get married and move to Mass. then they have the same rights that any Mass. married couple has. And then there is the big one, Where does it stop with the marrage, Marry your sister, or your dog. The amendment would define what a marrage is for all states.
As far as the drivers lic, goes, if a state decided that all it took was 3 box tops to get a drivers lic then I would guess the federal government would step in again, BUUUUT the states don't do that, they have test, Just like they used to NOT allow same sex marrages.
ANNNND, Andy is correct that the Marrages in Cal are not leagle, Those don't bother me none, cause they will get thrown out, The Mass. thing with the judges is why the amendment is out there.
These guys think they can change what the American people think Morality is, Got news for them. Amendment will end there stupidity.

Ron

Ron, brother, if I may so say...

There ain't gonna BE any amendment, the dang horse IS outa the barn.

As far as the States and licensing... we know they tell us since before birth that driving is not a right, it is a "privilege", right? Well, what it actually is, is a way for states to put our dollars into their budgets, nothing more and nothing less... only THE most moral of our public officials could give one s--t whether a person knows the rules of the road or not... what they want is the money. It is a cost center, not a way of regulating conduct any more... so say I, a mere Zoomie. If we had actually ever become a Federal system, then there would have been a Federal driving license and plate roughly 80 years ago.

Some years ago the insurance industry convinced the States that it was costing taxpayers gazillions when a person did not have their insurance paid up. So, they made it a law that a person not only had to HAVE car insurance at a certain level of premium, but also would be FINED (MIND YOU!) at a fairly high rate (for a person making minimum wage) if they failed to have "proof" of insurance ON THEIR PERSON when stopped by the constabulary. Does this sound like the land of the free and home of the brave to anybody?

Who made out on that deal? Two factions: the States, and the Insurance industry.

Have accidents been reduced? No. Have premiums gone down? No. Has the State lessened its demand for more and more and more of our earned income? No. Have insurance companies gotten rich? Yes. Have States squandered or mismanaged their budgets? Yes. Has the Federal government imposed unfunded mandates upon the States? Yes, and then some.

same sex marrage?
 

!0 years ago I would have been dead set against that union of same sex. But times have changed I do not believe that it is right in the religious way. BUT then again in the civil way Why NOT they are living togeather all ready they are paying more taxes because they can't claim married. and by gum why should we single out any group just because they are different then them main stream. Hell if we do that we might just as well make brown eyed people pay more taxes then blue eyed people. It Just don't make no sense to persiquete people because they are different then us. Now that I have said that fire away I'm a standing target.

Sne -
You ain't no standing target any more than the rest of us... facts be facts.

There's troopers, squids, grunts and zoomies out there serving our nation... taking and giving fire for the promise of democracy and freedom. What is past is past.

I don't give a gol dang who gets married, I just don't want this or any government telling us who can and cannot do so if they please.

I was so young and nieve when I was young one of my best friends in the Navy was gay, he would go drinking and fighting with us but never to frequent the girls of low virtue we just thought he was overly religious. well 25 years after the fact he come through town on his way to canada for vacation with his sinnifecent other both ridding Harleys and breaks the news to my other buddy and me needless to say Pete and I were dumb founded but he never hit on anybody aboard ship so I guess he knew how to play the game very well. I'm very proud of Chad for the way he served his country and the way he handled himself looking back it could't have been very easy for him. I now believe its deffently not up to me to judge people. Shoot after I got out of the service I was only a half a boot string from the gutter myself. I drank way too much and I fought more then I drank I was a real mess and thank God no one Judged me as hard as I judged myself. because until you really get to know yourself how can you know anyone else. sorry folks I'm Rambeling again I'll be a good boy and shut up now...chris

Blue Sn
 

Blue, Thank God the staes made people buy car insurence, If ya don't want to have insurence stay off the road, Don't buy it. I don't want you running into my new car and you not have insurence, Hell with that.

SN
Your guys are missing the point of the amendment, its not against same sex marrages.
Read this,
THE AMENDMENT WOULD DEFINE WHAT A MARRAGES IS, (BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN )
It has nothing to do with same sex marrages, or Gays or lesbians or equal rights. If your a man and a woman you can have a marrage licens, if your not you can't . Gay men can live togeather, Lesbian women can live togeather, Hell, you can live with your sister if you want to, you just don't get a marrage license and all the privleges that go with that peice of paper.


The amendment will happen, unless, of course, you would like some judge say its ok to marry your dog and give you a licesens.
After all some people already call there dogs there kids. Its not a stretch to thing that someone would marry a dog.
The idea of marrage has to be defined, or some mayors and some judges take it upon themselfs to change what has been the norm for as long as there has been marrage licenses. And when you let one change than where does it stop?

Ron

Chris....
 

........ that just about sums it up. I was very young and na?ve also and probably wouldn?t have known if a Gay guy was hitting on me unless he grabbed my butt or pickle or something like that. But nothing ever happened and I only remember meeting one Gay guy the entire time in the Navy. That was later on when I got rotated through Master at Arms duty and had to escort an identified homosexual to a ship that had facilities and procedures to discharge him and send him on home. We went via Marine helicopter and I could tell the poor guy was upset and scared out of his wits. It was way to noisy to talk onboard the chopper so when we landed I took him aside and just told him, ?Stop crying for Christ?s sake, don?t let them see you cry, don?t do it. This too shall pass?. I was 21 at the time and about to go home myself and wasn?t so naive anymore and as such I knew he was in for a real hard time. I think he was 18 or so and a brand new Seaman Apprentice with maybe six months in the Navy, at best. Hopefully, he did as I said and went on home in a peaceful way and not too much worse for the wear, however, homosexuals were on hard times during that era if they were caught, boy howdy.

And I don?t think that is anything I?m proud of as the whole Marine Detachment brig system was totally out of control at the time and they were notorious for being cruel, inhumane and vicious as anyone could possibly imagine, then add some. Sadistic bastards is my thought and I wouldn?t believe it if I hadn?t seen it with my own eyes.

Scamp

Re: Chris....
 

Keep government out of the marriage business and out of the insurance business, at least.

Blue
 

Tell that to the mayor and the judges that decided to change how its been for a very long time,

Also,, Why would you want to drive without insurence? Cause its not going to happen to you?

Ron

RON
 

Like Griz said earlier, just because one state recognizes gay marriages doesn't mean that other states have to if they have laws in place in those states against it. CA does, was voted in by a majority, and just because these marriages are going to be recognized in SF, they are not going to be recognized by the state. They've already been told by Sacramento that the licenses aren't going to be recorded and they will not be able to file joint income taxes, etc.. I don't see this law being overturned any time soon. A significant majority of Californians are against the marriages. By the same token, a vast majority of Californians are against a Constitution Amendment on it, as I am.

Personally, I don't care about the marriages one way or the other. As a married heterosexual I don't, in the least bit, feel somehow threatened by gays marrying. I don't think it somehow demeans my marriage, or believe that it's the beginning of the end of the sexual morals of the country. I find your fear of the next step in the decline of the institution of marriage being people marrying animals to be absurd and comical. Are there people in TX waiting in the wings to do this? Haven't heard of it here.

I'm willing to bet that alot of the arguements and fears being voiced today about these marriages, are the same ones that were voiced in the arguement against mixed race marriages a few generations ago. I also believe that most of the people being so vocal about this today, would have taken the same stance about the mixed race marriages back then. BTW, CA was the first state to legalize mixed race marriages in 1948. It wasn't accepted nationwide until the mid 60s. Now just because this was accepted and legal in CA, you're VERY naive if you think these married couples were able to move to other states that RABIDLY prohibited such a union and have their marriage legally recognized. And Ron, back then ALOT of people truly believed that these people HAD married outside of their own species and the whole country was going to Hell in a handbasket, for sure.

Just my take on some of this.

Fisco like that old song say's "Times a changin"

Ron - it ain't that a person would choose to drive without insurance... that is not the issue. The issue is when government hands a vast lucrative mandated legal contract to private industry... an industry which does everything it possibly can to limit its own liability by exclusions from coverage, hike our premiums every time a claim is made, change premiums if a person moves from state to state, refuse to cover things that would seem normally covered and all the freakin' rest of it. The government became complicit in making damn sure ever increasing premiums would be inevitable regardless of driving record or ability to pay... and so, like a LOT of good things in America, the insurance industry defines and controls, in this case with full government authority backing them up in whatever they and they alone decide to do, our lives.

When Lloyd's of London invented insurance for inland marine coverage of ship cargo, they did it to offer a gambler's protection that a given ship WOULD make it back to port with cargo intact. That is ALL insurance was intended to do. It was NEVER intended to protect the government from any risk or cost, nor was it intended to provide anybody with full compensation for every conceivable loss they might or might not have had any responsibility for.

Just wanted to say....
 

I believe gay marriage rights are on the horizon and will be here soon and I don't think there will ever be an amendment to the US Constitution that would, in effect, exclude gays and lesbians from enjoying the same rights under the law that heterosexuals have. If ever such an amendment were to get passed, we all should be afraid, very afraid, for it would definitely set a precedence for the exclusion of other groups of Americans via the Constitutional denial of their basic human rights.

The above is not a "flame" or aimed at any individual, etc., but simply my own personal view and should be taken as such.

I suppose this thread will now be closed, too, eh??

Oddz -
Ron 39 started this thread... don't think it'll get closed anytime soon :a:

Rave on lady Marine!

This is just another ploy to get our minds off what it should be on...just like dredging up war records from 35+ years ago. This affects maybe 4% of the population at the most. Who really cares ? My next door neighbors are two gay men. If they get "married", so what ? ....I am so sick and tired of the way this political season is going, I could just puke.. 'Nuf Sed !!!!

Larry

P.S. : And this jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs Mantra ? Like they can create jobs out of thin air...please.

No ms oddz You put it perfectly I'm glad you posted thank you

Thanks Ron and other brothers!!!
 

Thanks Blue, and thanks to 39, sn-e3 and Larry, too!!

We might not always agree on everything, but at least we can have our say. I, personally, just appreciate being able to present my side of things, since this issue directly pertains to me.

Larry, I like you!!!! You're a riot!!!! :D

Peace.

Wow.....been called a lot of things, but never a "riot" !! Thanks !!

Larry

Quote:

I'm willing to bet that alot of the arguements and fears being voiced today about these marriages, are the same ones that were voiced in the arguement against mixed race marriages a few generations ago. I also believe that most of the people being so vocal about this today, would have taken the same stance about the mixed race marriages back then

Tom you can count two of us on this site out of that equation. Both of us have been in marriages to men not of the same color.Both of us against the statesanctioninggay marriage.We both believe there is only one race and that is the human race and within that race there is male and female. The female being made for the male as she was taken out of the male. Not a politically correct view in either the gay community or the feminist movement. I just don't fit any where these days.


Arrow>>>>>>

Gay marriage is like toe socks. Nothing I'd try, but if people want to look like idiots, it's no damn business of mine.

Marrages
 

I think there is some federal act or law that says a marrage in one state is good in all states. Now I was wrong once, but that was a long time ago.
If there is a law or act or whatever, then this is the reason for the amendment,
And Tom, people that call there dogs there kids aren't to far from getting the papers for marrage, sorry.
The amendmant wouldn't do anything for or against Gays anyway. It would just define what a marrage is. (between a man and a woman) nothing else. People in this country can live with anyone or anything they want to, I could care less. But when a mayor of a city gives out marrage licens to same sex couples and they move to Texas, and they get the same benifits NORMAL married couples get, then we need an amendment to stop this.
If there was laws in place that did not recognise same sex marrages except in the state they were issued, I, for one wouldn't have any problem with that. But the law reads, I THINK, that marrages are binding in all states. I got married in Hawaii and my licens is good in texas.

Ron

Texas Mating Spiders
A father watched his daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and innocent his little girl was.
Suddenly she just stopped and stared at the ground. He went over to her and noticed she was looking at two spiders mating.
Daddy, what are those two spiders doing?" she asked. They're mating," her father replied. "What do you call the spider on top, Daddy?" she asked.
"That's a Daddy Longlegs," her father answered. So, the other one is Mommy Longlegs?" the little girl asked. "No," her father replied. "Both of them are Daddy Longlegs." The little girl thought for a moment, then she stomped them flat and said: Well, it might be okay in California, Vermont, and Massachusetts,
but we're not having any of that crap in Texas.


I guess this sums up the true meaning of how parents should be teaching their kids. Be tolerant but, keep the laws and morals under control.
God Bless

Ron......
 

I believe the Clinton Administration put through a provision that said that a Gay Marriage in one State does NOT have to be recognized by another State. It is also my understanding that this provision is first up to bat as being ?unconstitutional? in the various legal challenges and lawsuits being put forth by the advocates of Gay Marriage. If this Fed law gets knocked down, then no State will have the ability to decide the issue for them selves. Should all this come to fruition it sums up to the reality that Massachusetts is the defacto lawmaker of the land. Forget the US Congress or Senate let alone any State Legislature or the majority will of the voting public and laws that have been recently voted in (as is the case in California and Nevada).

Oh heck, why not just be done with it and declare the Ma. Judges ?Presidents for life? and make the entire USA a Commonwealth of the Royal Liberal Republic of Massachusetts. Aarrggg!!!

Scamp