MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please

[BVS]

I agree. So far, people have implied that my religious beliefs are bullshit and they make me discriminating and homophobic...I think those are some pretty harsh conclusions made by people who've never met me.

Yet some here have no problem telling people their sexuallity is wrong, I think that's a pretty harsh conlusion too.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Yet some here have no problem telling people their sexuallity is wrong, I think that's a pretty harsh conlusion too.

So it's a personal attack if you say that religious beliefs aren't a good basis for a law, but if you say there's something wrong with someone because they're gay that's just fine.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yet some here have no problem telling people their sexuallity is wrong, I think that's a pretty harsh conlusion too.

.

Ditto what FizzingWhizzbees has said, too.

I will be as respectful as possible in these debates, will respect that some people have their views based with their religion, and that's fine, whatever.

But if I do come off as kind of rude or whatever, it's more out of frustration than anything else. If someone isn't a fan of homosexual marriage, fine. I don't understand why, even religion-wise, it still kinda confuses me, because the Bible DOES talk about acceptance and love and all that stuff. But that's their opinion, and they're entitled to it.

But for people to flat out refuse to allow these people to live their lives, even if they personally don't agree with the choice...sorry, but that bugs me. If it isn't hurting anybody else, if a person isn't being forced into it, is it really any of their business?

Like pointed out in this thread, I have homosexual friends who are so tired of all the stuff surrounding this issue. All they want is to be seen as equals. One girl is living over in Europe right now, and has been keeping up with the stuff going on here in the States, 'cause she's moving back here soon with her family. And she's said that she's read so many anti-gay marriage articles that have left her angry and close to tears. I feel so bad for her. She's terrified to come out to her own parents as well-they're very religious and would most likely disown her if they found out she was a lesbian. And then she has to deal with what other anti-gay marriage people say day in and day out.

So I just get frustrated sometimes. That's all.

Angela

 

[joyfulgirl]

I'm the first to admit that I am not very tolerant of people who are against gay marriage and I can be a bit harsh about it, although I hope I haven't been so here. I live in a small city of about 75,000 people that has the largest gay and lesbian population per capita of any city in the country next to San Francisco. People are so totally cool about it here that I am actually quite shocked when I travel to other places and realize that the rest of the country isn't quite as progressive. So my attitude towards any kind of homophobic behavior or attitude is pretty much "get over it". I don't have the time or patience with something that to me seems like holding on to the past. Gay marriages will be a legal reality in this country, I am certain of it.

 

[DrTeeth]

I think this discussion is going nowhere.

I have a new question

So, if Bush's plan works and he changes the constitution to define marriage a being between a man and a woman, what will happen to the gay couples already married in Massachusets (sp)?

 

[Dreadsox]

I have a new question

So, if Bush's plan works and he changes the constitution to define marriage a being between a man and a woman, what will happen to the gay couples already married in Massachusets (sp)?

Better question....no one has been married yet in Massachusetts. What happens in San Fransisco where they are violating state law? Are they trying to set up a Supreme Court Challenge?

 

[DrTeeth]

Really, what about all the people on tv I saw getting married, was that in San Fransisco? What's keeping the gays in Massachusetts?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

she's read so many anti-gay marriage articles that have left her angry and close to tears....And then she has to deal with what other anti-gay marriage people say day in and day out.

Exactly. I don't think people realise just how hurtful some of the anti-gay marriage comments can be. When you hear comments like "gay relationships aren't natural because they can't produce children" it's hurtful. The idea that gay people are trying to "destroy" marriage is hurtful when you know that all gay people actually want is the right to marry in the same way straight people have the right to marry. So many (note: many not all) people who oppose gay marriage are also extremely homophobic, making comments describing gay people as "perverted" or "deviant." I wish people would give a little more thought to the sort of insults and abuse that many gay people put up with on a day-to-day basis before they start complaining about people being "intolerant" of prejudice.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Exactly. I don't think people realise just how hurtful some of the anti-gay marriage comments can be. When you hear comments like "gay relationships aren't natural because they can't produce children" it's hurtful. The idea that gay people are trying to "destroy" marriage is hurtful when you know that all gay people actually want is the right to marry in the same way straight people have the right to marry. So many (note: many not all) people who oppose gay marriage are also extremely homophobic, making comments describing gay people as "perverted" or "deviant." I wish people would give a little more thought to the sort of insults and abuse that many gay people put up with on a day-to-day basis before they start complaining about people being "intolerant" of prejudice.

Precisely. And joyfulgirl, agree with you as well.

Angela

 

[joyfulgirl]

I wish people would give a little more thought to the sort of insults and abuse that many gay people put up with on a day-to-day basis before they start complaining about people being "intolerant" of prejudice.

...which is exactly why I have become "intolerant" of this kind of prejudice. I've been fighting for gay and lesbian rights for more than 25 years so I've just about exhausted my patient and polite ways of dealing with what I consider to be closed minds about it. Sorry, but that's how I feel.

DrTeeth--re: the new mayor of San Francisco:

http://www.iht.com/articles/130357.html

"Most politicians don't get away with doing the right thing at a time when society is not necessarily unanimously ready for that," Newsom, a Democrat, said in an interview.

"I did it because I thought it was right," he said, "and those are the easiest decisions, and the toughest political decisions. Easiest decisions because you just know it is the right thing, but the politics of it: My God, how do I explain this to family member X? How do I explain this to the person who married my wife and I in one of the most traditional Catholic weddings two years ago?"

During the interview in his City Hall office, Newsom, 36, stood by the decision to recognize same-sex marriages, passionately describing his motives as pure and principled and grounded in guarantees of equality in the state's Constitution. But he also promised to "step down" on his new policy if the courts ruled against it, saying his main objective of putting a "human face" on the gay marriage debate nationwide had been achieved.

"I just say to the president," Newsom said, '"Come out and meet with the three-plus thousand couples that have committed themselves to one another, committed to a long-term, loving relationship with equal status, the same status that he and his wife are afforded. And recognize the spirit and the pride that comes with that."

...

It was there, sitting in Washington, that Newsom heard Bush speak against same-sex marriages.
.
"I was there and I just was scratching my head, saying this was not the world that I grew up aspiring to live in, that he was talking about," Newsom said. "I just found some of the words quite divisive.

I respect that good people disagree on this topic, but you know, I didn't think he needed to use the State of the Union to be so divisive."

When Newsom got back to San Francisco, he said he read the court decisions authorizing gay marriage in Massachusetts as well as the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year on sodomy. As he mulled over them and Bush's comments, he said, he became convinced that he had a moral obligation to open the doors to same-sex marriages in San Francisco. And unlike many other big-city mayors, he had the ability to do so because San Francisco is both a city and a county, and in California, marriage licenses are a county responsibility.

 

[oliveu2cm]

Good luck to your friend, Angela. It's good she has a support team and it seems you are there for her.

 

[Liesje]

So it's a personal attack if you say that religious beliefs aren't a good basis for a law, but if you say there's something wrong with someone because they're gay that's just fine.

I never said I was against homosexuality or homosexual marriage, which is why I don't understand the attack of my religious beliefs. The second I mention religion, people assume I'm against homosexuality, or I'm homophobic, or whatever.

 

[Dreadsox]

I never said I was against homosexuality or homosexual marriage, which is why I don't understand the attack of my religious beliefs. The second I mention religion, people assume I'm against homosexuality, or I'm homophobic, or whatever.

You basically are saying what I said in the other thread....There are people who have come to conclusions about certain "hot" issues that came to these conclusions not based only on religion.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I never said I was against homosexuality or homosexual marriage, which is why I don't understand the attack of my religious beliefs. The second I mention religion, people assume I'm against homosexuality, or I'm homophobic, or whatever.

The comment you're quoting isn't an "attack [on] your religious beliefs." I stated that I don't consider religious beliefs to be a fair basis for making laws. That's not an attack on any form of religious belief, rather a comment on what constitutes reasonable grounds for making a law.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

One more thing I was thinking about while watching a news bit on this issue on MSNBC earlier...this is not an attack of any kind toward anybody anywhere, it's just a question: Okay, so some people in this country don't support homosexual marriage being legal based on religious grounds. But when someone's religion starts supporting discrimination...I'm just wondering how somebody can support that aspect of their religion? I understand some people are very devoted to their religion, and that's cool, but if the religion starts getting to supporting discrimination...I dunno, I would think that'd be worth some concern.

It also baffles me when I hear adults being unsupportive of this stuff, and know that their children could pick up on these attitudes.

Good luck to your friend, Angela. It's good she has a support team and it seems you are there for her.

Thanks. Yeah, she's definitely got some very supportive people around her, thankfully. She's given me a lot of insight into what life is like for her, and I just hope that one day she'll be able to do what makes her happy.

I particularly feel bad for her in regards to her family. I mean, the rest of society may make her angry, but she can shrug a lot of those people off, 'cause they don't even know her. But when she knows her own family would treat her like dirt should they find out...that just makes my blood boil. Nobody should ever be afraid to be themselves around their own family.

Angela

 

[melon]

Yep, that sure sounds like 'tolerance' to me

It's as tolerant and loving as the Christian Coalition has been to homosexuals.

If that stance is good enough for religion, liberals shouldn't have to bend over backwards for a group walking backwards...that's where they want to be.

Kicking 'em to the curb...

Melon

 

[Liesje]

The comment you're quoting isn't an "attack [on] your religious beliefs." I stated that I don't consider religious beliefs to be a fair basis for making laws.

Exactly. I completely agree. I was referring to other comments made previously, not the ones within the last page or two.

 

[melon]

Like I said, when push comes to shove, who wants to deal with a state or country that is perceived as bigoted? Apparently, I'm not the only one who thought of this issue.

Push To Stop Gay Marriage Hurting Economic Growth
by Doug Windsor

(New York City) The United States is losing its technological edge over Europe because policies such as a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage has put the nation at a disadvantage in competing for creative workers, according to a new economic study from a major university.

The report, prepared for the Software Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, says that outsourcing jobs to third world countries is not as serious a long term problem is the country's failure to attract "creative class" workers to the US.

The study by Richard Florida a Carnegie Mellon professor and a the author of the report says America has more to fear from Sweden and Finland than from China or India.

Florida says that instead of worrying about large countries with low-cost manufacturing and business processing the U.S. government needs to pay attention to places that are attracting and mobilizing the talent needed for knowledge-based industries.

"For years the United States possessed an unchallenged competitive advantage in its ability to attract the best and brightest from Europe, Scandinavia and around the world," Florida writes. "For the first time, that advantage seems to be imperiled."

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands "have considerable technological capabilities, have invested and continue to invest in developing creative talent and also appear to have the values and attitudes that are associated with the ability to attract creative people from the outside," Florida says. His study also identifies Ireland as "up-and-coming."

But, America is no long attracting creative workers from abroad because it is seen as an intolerant society. He cites the lack of recognition of same-sex couples and the battle over gay marriage, and policies restricting stem cell research and the tightening of visa requirements as reasons the world's brightest are no longer seeking to come to the US to work.

"The ability to compete and prosper in the global economy goes beyond trade in goods and services and flows of capital and investment. Instead, it increasingly turns on the ability of nations to attract, retain and develop creative people," Florida writes.

In a ranking of states Florida found those with DOMA or which did not offer civil rights protections for gays at the bottom of the productivity list.

Melon

 

[BVS]

Bush endorses
constitutional ban
on gay marriage
Amendment needed to end ?uncertainty,? he says
MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 1:01 p.m. ET Feb. 24, 2004WASHINGTON - Jumping into a volatile election-year debate on same-sex weddings, President Bush on Tuesday backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ? a move he said was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the ?most enduring human institution.?


?After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization,? the president said. ?Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

"Unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty," he said.

Cites ?overwhelming consensus?
Citing what he said was an "overwhelming consensus" that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, Bush criticized city officials in San Francisco, a county clerk in New Mexico and the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which has ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, clearing the way for same-sex weddings to begin there in May.

Timeline Marriage rights battle

Key turns in fight over unions for same-sex couples

1989
Denmark becomes the first nation to legally recognize same-sex unions, offering "the same legal effects as the contracting of marriage." Half a dozen European countries begin moving in the same direction.

1996
A court in Hawaii overrules a previous state ban on gay marriage, sparking a national debate on the subject.

1996
The U.S. House and Senate overwhelmingly pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a bill denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages and giving states the right to refuse same-sex marriage licenses from other states and deny benefits associated with marriage. President Bill Clinton signs the bill. Some 38 states have since adopted similar state legislation.

2000
Vermont creates a new legal relationship status called a "civil union," allowing same-sex couples to obtain all of the rights, responsibilities and benefits available through marriage within the state of Vermont, becoming the first state to do so.

April, 2001
Netherlands: Gay and lesbian couples who are Dutch are allowed to marry and adopt with the full privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. The law offers the most sweeping rights to same sex couples in the world. By 2002, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Germany, France and Switzerland have all adopted laws allowing registration of same-sex unions, with most or all of the rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples.

May, 2003
Rep Marilyn Musgrave, (R-Colo.) and five cosponsors introduce HJ Resolution 56, the Federal Marriage Amendment, a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. The Senate follows suit with its own resolution in November. The amendments state that no state or federal law "shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

June 2003
The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a Texas law prohibiting same-sex sodomy. By removing criminal implications for private consensual sexual acts, the ruling changed the legal landscape for an array issues concerning same-sex couples, including the right to marry.

June-July, 2003
The Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia begin allowing same-sex couples to marry, and obtain full rights of marriage under Canadian law, following a court decision that the law on traditional marriage is unconstitutional.

November, 2003
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that it is a violation of the state constitution to bar same-sex couples from marriage. The first legal marriages for same-sex couples are due to take place in May.

February, 2004
Massachusetts lawmakers debate amending the state constitution to define marriage as a union only between a man and woman. This amendment, if passed by lawmakers, could only appear on a ballot for voter approval in 2006. By the start of this debate, 21 states had introduced or were expected to introduce similar state constitutional amendments.
On Feb. 12, 2003, San Francisco's newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsome allows the distribution of marriage licenses to same sex couples, prompting the state attorney general to file a constitutional challenge with the state Supreme Court. Thousands of gay and lesbian couples descent on City Hall for wedding ceremonies.








"A few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," Bush said in a White House announcement.

Bush also said that allowing jurisdictions to continue to issue same-sex marriage licenses could require other states and localities to recognize them.

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.

Sen. John Kerry, Bush?s likely Democratic opponent in this year?s election, says he opposes gay marriages. But he also opposes a federal constitutional amendment to ban them, because he says it is an issue for the states to decide, spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Tuesday.

Kerry says he prefers civil unions and rejects any federal or state legislation that could be used to eliminate equal protections for homosexuals or other forms of recognition like civil unions.

Reaction divided
Gays within Bush?s own party expressed opposition.

?As conservative Republicans, we are outraged that any Republican -- particularly the leader of our party and this nation -- would support any effort to use our sacred United States Constitution as a way of scoring political points in an election year,? said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans.

The gay National Stonewall Democrats also denounced the move.

?President Bush fails to understand that our families are more than political red meat that he can throw before his anti-gay base,? said Dave Noble, head of the group.






Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence McAuliffe said the move was a distraction in an election year in which jobs, health care and the economy were on voters? minds.

?The Democratic Party is opposed to this amendment,? he said. ?It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and it is shameful to use attacks against gay and lesbian families as an election strategy.?

Conservatives, however, were delighted. Louis Sheldon, chairman and founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, said Bush?s endorsement ?comes right in the nick of time to save America?s most important institution.?

No endorsement for specific bill
Earlier, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush thinks that legislation proposed by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., "meets his principles" in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women, but the president did not embrace any specific piece of legislation in his announcement.

But White House officials say that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.




Bush called on Congress to move quickly to pass legislation that can then be sent to the states for ratification.

But enactment of a constitutional amendment can take years, requiring affirmation by two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate and endorsement by three-quarters of the states.

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.

A volatile social issue
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.

Couples from more than 20 states and Europe 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.?


But while the subject figures to be a hot election year topic, the nation?s governors officially ignored it at their Washington, D.C., meeting on the top issues facing the states.

Democratic governors see it either as a distraction from the failures of President Bush or a wedge issue that the GOP can use to rally conservative voters in the fall, and insist the matter should be dropped. ?Let?s stay focused on jobs,? Bob Holden of Missouri said Monday.

The topic isn?t high on the agenda for many Republicans, either. But some GOP governors believe it undermines moral values in the country, and view that as a factor that could help GOP chances in the fall elections.

?It grieves me that we even have to think it would be necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman,? said Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. ?It never occurred to me that we would have states that would define marriage in a way that has no historical precedent ever, none.?

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.

President said he could support leading proposal
Bush also has indicated his support for a constitutional amendment in the past, including in a closed-door meeting with Republican lawmakers last month. At that session, according to one official in attendance, the president singled out Musgrave?s proposal as one he could support, but did not endorse it.

The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says: ?Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.?

But it also contains language saying that the states should be left free to ?define other arrangements,? and Bush's comment that he could support the bill appears to indicate that he would not favor a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws.

He ignored a shouted question at the conclusion of Tuesday's statement asking whether he would support civil unions between gay couples. But McClellan indicated that Bush would not oppose state laws that would give gays hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits and civil unions.

A recent nationwide CNN poll found that by a margin of 64-32, those surveyed said gay marriages should not be recognized in law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.

On a separate question, 48 percent of those surveyed said it should be up to the federal government to pass laws regarding gay marriages, while another 46 percent said the states should take that role.

MSNBC.com's Mike Brunker and the Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

 

[anitram]

Whatever, George.

Every one of you who lives in the USA and is gay is not equal. Those of you who have gay friends and family, you need to realize that they are not seen as equals in your country. I cannot believe anybody would deem this acceptable.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Whatever, George.

Every one of you who lives in the USA and is gay is not equal. Those of you who have gay friends and family, you need to realize that they are not seen as equals in your country. I cannot believe anybody would deem this acceptable.

No kidding.

Bush, you effin' moron... ...

 

[oliveu2cm]

Like my boyfriend said:

"The land of the free, and the home of the brave (unless you're gay)"

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'm wondering if we can't amend the Constitution so stupid people can't run for office. .

Angela

 

[melon]

Next week, I'm going to the Canadian consulate in Boston to investigate something along the lines of an "intent to work" visa. That isn't what it is called, but it is to that effect (it allows you to go to Canada to look for work legally, and, at that point, if you get a job, then you get a work visa).

I could never give up my American citizenship--you cannot escape who you are or where you come from, and nor would I ever want to--but this is no longer the "America" that I grew up knowing. I'm prepared for the reality that I may have to live in exile just to live my life in happiness.

America is being consumed by fanaticism, and I cannot waste twenty or so years of my life, waiting for straight society to realize that, yet again, they have been bigoted and wrong. If the amendment passes, I will feel that every piece of rhetoric about America was a lie. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." "Freedom of religion." All lies. And few people here really understand it.

There was an old Marian apparition that foretold that the world would be consumed by evil in the guise of goodness just before the end, and would take place towards the end of the life of JPII. I don't know whether to believe it, but I can certainly see it. Conservatives have become nothing but Pharisees, whacking away at the "lepers" of modern society; and I have nothing left but hatred for them.

Melon

 

[BVS]

Next week, I'm going to the Canadian consulate in Boston to investigate something along the lines of an "intent to work" visa. That isn't what it is called, but it is to that effect (it allows you to go to Canada to look for work legally, and, at that point, if you get a job, then you get a work visa).

I could never give up my American citizenship--you cannot escape who you are or where you come from, and nor would I ever want to--but this is no longer the "America" that I grew up knowing. I'm prepared for the reality that I may have to live in exile just to live my life in happiness.

America is being consumed by fanaticism, and I cannot waste twenty or so years of my life, waiting for straight society to realize that, yet again, they have been bigoted and wrong. If the amendment passes, I will feel that every piece of rhetoric about America was a lie. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." "Freedom of religion." All lies. And few people here really understand it.

There was an old Marian apparition that foretold that the world would be consumed by evil in the guise of goodness just before the end, and would take place towards the end of the life of JPII. I don't know whether to believe it, but I can certainly see it. Conservatives have become nothing but Pharisees, whacking away at the "lepers" of modern society; and I have nothing left but hatred for them.

Melon

I agree with you that this isn't the America I was sold. I also agree with the notion that if something like this ammendment passes I would really have to question my place in this country, but I wouldn't let the hate consume you. You can't fight hate with hate.

 

[Dreadsox]

Conservatives have become nothing but Pharisees, whacking away at the "lepers" of modern society; and I have nothing left but hatred for them.

Melon

This cracks me up. My closest conservative friend supports Gay Marriage. Most here consider me to be conservative, and I support Gay Marriage.

Peace

 

[verte76]

I used to have a lesbian friend who had been totally, completely ostracized by her family. In effect, she was no longer a member of the family, so she didn't have a family. Good Lord, that woman had issues. I have never met anyone with such a paranoia problem! Honestly, it was pathetic! I haven't seen her in nine years. We drifted apart while I had to deal with some issues of my own. I had trouble with her paranoia. I sort of feel like a dirty rat about the whole deal, but there was really nothing I could do to help her. I'm not a mental health professional. When I hear statements like Bush made today, I just want to explode. I hate it that he's playing politics with something that's caused so damn much pain and suffering in people's lives. It hurts me, even though I'm straight. I support gay marriage. These people have been through enough. I understand that people have certain beliefs about this based on religious principles. I don't think that should be the basis of a constitutional amendment, however. I'm not liking this at all.

 

[sharky]

you support this dread? wow, well sorry for stereotyping you into believing you wouldn't.

as for the amendment, it won't pass. all the people that need to support it will not. you won't find two-thirds of the states to support it or even two-thirds of the Senate for that matter.

 

[verte76]

I'm going to e-mail my Senators and tell them I am against this Amendment. I doubt if it's going to pass the Senate.

 

[Dreadsox]

you support this dread? wow, well sorry for stereotyping you into believing you wouldn't.

as for the amendment, it won't pass. all the people that need to support it will not. you won't find two-thirds of the states to support it or even two-thirds of the Senate for that matter.

LOL...I also support the right of people to push for the Amendment that I am not supporting.