Bush&Co at it again: another anti-gay marriage amendment proposed

[Top_Gun]

I believe that the 'gay issue' is perhaps best left to the states. If Georgians or South Carolinians feel gay marriage ruins their quality of life, let them prohibit it. And if New Yorkers and Californians feel it is the right of every man and woman to marry whoever they please, then let that be reflected in their state constitution. I don't believe sexual orientation is determined through genetics even though there is "scientific evidence" that supports it.

I'm with you on everything till this last paragraph. The problem with this issue being state run is that if a couple say gets married in MA or VT, it's not recognized in states that don't believe in it like NH. I believe there was a problem with 2 guys from Vt that wanted to get "divorced" but no longer lived in Vt. I want to say they moved to NM which doesn't recognize gay marriage. You have to live in VT or those state for a year before you can get divorced


I'm all for gay unions and giving them full benifits, just don't call it a marriage. If the Gay/Lesbians are having divorce/Custody issues. I heard of a couple who had a child together, and the non-birthing mother want's parental rights.

Why is it all or nothing when it comes to the "Gay Pride" down your throat. In Boston, they are now going after Maci's because they had a Gay Manican in the front window. When they received all these complaints from the Non-gays, they took it out, then the Gays came out complaining about removing it. If you want gay window shopping, go to Provincetown where it's expected and a place I would never question rights or window displays.

[ATLcenter]

Many people (myself included) are very uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality. I'm as straight as they come, and though I'm often surrounded by people or couples who play for the other team, I respect their wishes and right to do so. Hey, let them wed, let church bells ring and fireworks fill the warm June nights! My uneasiness lies on a different level. I'm just a dumb old 18 year old now, but I wouldn't like for my children to be homosexuals and I really do hope they play for their father's team. I won't send them to Dachau if they turn out gay, but I will be somewhat upset.

That said, I believe the President's motion is to rouse the Religious Right to vote for the "right" party. The Republican party works hard to keep its base and the Democratic party does the same thing. For instance, when I was in Boston, there was a less-than-glamorous description of Georgia's Sonny Perdue (R) in the Boston Globe. When I went to Hilton Head Island yesterday, their paper billed Pelosi (D-CA), Kenendy (D-MA) and Clinton (D-NY) as Satan worshipping pedophiles for supporting gay marriage. It's all political and the sheeple don't get it.

I believe that the 'gay issue' is perhaps best left to the states. If Georgians or South Carolinians feel gay marriage ruins their quality of life, let them prohibit it. And if New Yorkers and Californians feel it is the right of every man and woman to marry whoever they please, then let that be reflected in their state constitution. I don't believe sexual orientation is determined through genetics even though there is "scientific evidence" that supports it.

[ConcordeBoy]

...I'd say your banner sums it up better than anything else.

[DeltaFlyer]

Fortunately this initiative has failed - again - in the US Senate...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060607/..._congress_dc_7

While many Americans say they are against gay marriage, a majority of those do not favor a constitutional amendment against it because if the Constitution can be amended now to include prejudice, other things can be added in the future...

[ConcordeBoy]

Hmmm, Bushie called for this in May 2004... six months before election that year.

And oh, look at this: he's calling for it in May of 2006... what a coincidence

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11442710/


--------------------------------------------------------

Makes me sick really, and I'm a Republican (though not a [neo]Conservative!).

But then again, that's politics for you-- no matter how sneaky and underhanded, no matter how many people's lives it adversely affects; if it gets you ahead, then fuck 'em.

Good thing nearly every objective source expects this to fall flat on its face yet again!