I Hope You Had The Time Of Your Life

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,244
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Obviously the real and important issue is the approval of the constitutional amendment :down:, but what the? Meanwhile same sex couples everywhere are getting along very well..

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/18/senate.gaymarriage.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," reads the measure, which would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.

"Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman," it says.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has scheduled a vote on the proposed amendment the week of June 5."
 
They must be noticing how our society up here in Canada is crumbling after we legalized gay marriage. I mean, we're barely holding it together up here and all. :|
 
it won't pass.

but even still, the authors of this amendments can all go off and fuck their various mistresses.
 
Irvine511 said:
it won't pass.


it does not need to

they just need to get decent Christians (who hate the sin, not the sinner) to the polls in November.

part of the Rove morally bankrupt electioneering strategy
 
United States

One Nation Under God

In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, often based on controversed interpretations of the Bible , particularly the story of Phinehas. Typically a felony, these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different ethnic groups and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies. Sometimes the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would brought against them instead; Vermont was the only state to never introduce such legislation. The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama. In 1965, Virginia trial court judge Leon Bazile sentenced to jail an interethnic couple who got married in Washington, D.C., writing:


Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

This decision was eventually overturned in 1967, 84 years after Pace v. Alabama, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Loving v. Virginia that

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
At the time that anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, 16 states still had laws prohibiting interethnic marriage. Those laws were not completely repealed until November 2000, when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law.


433px-1900sc_Mammy_Card_Interracial.jpg
 
anitram said:
They must be noticing how our society up here in Canada is crumbling after we legalized gay marriage. I mean, we're barely holding it together up here and all. :|

:lmao:

I have the sneaking suspicion that Canada will still be chugging right along long after we have imploded.
 
Feingold has nothing but my respect. If he chooses to run for President, he has my vote in the primary. Hands down.

Melon
 
:tsk:

Why don't they tackle issues that matter, like healthcare? Pretty soon my healthcare will be more than my mortgage :mad:
 
melon said:
Feingold has nothing but my respect. If he chooses to run for President, he has my vote in the primary. Hands down.

Melon

I hope he runs for president. He's exactly what the Democrats need - someone who won't take crap from the GOP. I think there are a lot of Democrats and even some pissed-off Independents that would be really energized by his running.
 
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,"

:up:

By all means homosexuals can be together, but the sacred right of marriage should never be changed and shall remain exclusively between a man and a woman. Go the Republicans!
 
you're a bigot. strange that bigotry even exists when it just looks so damn ugly. you obviously dont see how it looks on the outside.
 
AussieU2fanman said:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,"

:up:

By all means homosexuals can be together, but the sacred right of marriage should never be changed and shall remain exclusively between a man and a woman. Go the Republicans!

Yeah, because people who barely know each other getting married in Vegas while drunk is sooooo sacred.
 
AussieU2fanman said:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,"

:up:

By all means homosexuals can be together, but the sacred right of marriage should never be changed and shall remain exclusively between a man and a woman. Go the Republicans!
Don't you hate Christianity :eyebrow:
 
AussieU2fanman said:
By all means homosexuals can be together, but the sacred right of marriage should never be changed and shall remain exclusively between a man and a woman. Go the Republicans!

It stopped being sacred the minute Protestants started marrying for love in the 19th century.

Regardless, as someone who has grown up Catholic as myself, I've been brought up to realize that the only marriages that actually occur are the ones that are performed in front of Catholic priests. All the rest of these supposed "marriages" are invalid. I think we should pass a constitutional amendment banning non-Catholic marriages, so I can prevent y'all from rotting in hell. You can thank me later.

Melon
 
Last edited:
4U2Play said:



... and Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and the Australians:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=18862



in the eyes of the state, marriage is an entirely secular institution, there is not a thing "sacred" about tax breaks. therefore, using religion as a means to deny a significant portion of the population access to the institution is discrimination in its purest form.

no one is going to tell a church, synagogue, temple, or mosque who they can and cannot marry.

and boo! to Australia.

(never thought i'd actually say that).
 
[q]Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's top Democrat, said the gay marriage ban was a waste of time for a committee that needs to tackle a wide range of other pressing issues, from judicial nominations to oversight of the National Security Administration's domestic-spying program.

"I didn't realize marriages were so threatened. Nor did my wife of 44 years," Leahy said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051800901_pf.html

[/q]



it seems like marrige gets threatened every 2 years, just before congressional elections.

once again: the GOP standing on the wrong side of history, shoulder-to-shoulder with bigotry and easy hatred.
 
Bluer White said:
Specter opposes the amendment, by the way.

Which makes his vote for the amendment to go to the Senate much, much worse pandering. He also caved on the NSA investigation and is offering a bill that basically legalizes what ever the Pres has done while taking out the provision he isisted on that the Judiciary rule on the program.

Fake moderates should be booted.
 
Back
Top Bottom