Gay Marriage Ammendment Fails

freethinker · June 2006

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html

Looks like the Constitutional Ammendment to bag gay marriage failed miserably. In fact, it did worse this time around than the last time it was voted on back in July of 2004.

If anything it's refreshing to know that the discriminating bigots of this country are still outnumbered.

Spathotan · June 2006

Its because their are less Republicans around now. Flame on!

Scorpes · June 2006

In response, Hatch (Republican) fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

The answer is yes, the problem with bigots, is their the last people in the world who know they are. Ask any bigot, and they will all say in unison their not. Then they will proceed to then explain away how their hatred is not just acceptable but its demanded.

Phoenixs · June 2006

Read some news reports over here about this. They where saying that the republicans are taking this loss easily. Because they will have the chance again this fall or so? Wasn't explained more than that. Anyone able to enlighten me?

reavo · June 2006

Originally posted by Scorpes

In response, Hatch (Republican) fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

The answer is yes, the problem with bigots, is their the last people in the world who know they are. Ask any bigot, and they will all say in unison their not. Then they will proceed to then explain away how their hatred is not just acceptable but its demanded.

I agree. I would be willing to bet that over 90% of the supporters of this bill are doing it out of hate and/or fear.

I've heard enough people's comments in my day to day life to know what's really going on. I don't hear too many people saying things in their conversations like, this is just to protect the family. No I hear lot's of fag comments and other derogatory statements.

hazmats · June 2006

95% of statistics are made up.

bas1889 · June 2006

Originally posted by hazmats
95% of statistics are made up.

lol

freethinker · June 2006

did anyone watch the Daily Show last night? Jon Steward did a primo job showing how this issue is completely irrational. And the people who are saying they are simply "protecting the institution of marriage" are really hiding behind their prejudice of homosexuals. At least that's what I got out of it

hazmats · June 2006

Originally posted by freethinker
did anyone watch the Daily Show last night? Jon Steward did a primo job showing how this issue is completely irrational. And the people who are saying they are simply "protecting the institution of marriage" are really hiding behind their prejudice of homosexuals. At least that's what I got out of it

the reason i don't really like his show nowadays is because he has these political guests on there. Jon will say something, and no matter what it is the crowd will go nuts. Even when his argument isn't really good (i didn't see this show) everyone will cheer just because he said it.

Dis_Ordur · June 2006

Originally posted by freethinker
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html

Looks like the Constitutional Ammendment to bag gay marriage failed miserably. In fact, it did worse this time around than the last time it was voted on back in July of 2004.

If anything it's refreshing to know that the discriminating bigots of this country are still outnumbered.

No matter how hard they try and throw this up against a wall, it just won't stick... Same goes for the actual legalization of gay marriage... Oregon, with the city of Portland (2nd largest proportional gay population in the USA behind San Fran) tried ammending the state laws to declare gay marriage as legal and defining... It failed...

This would leave me to believe that people simply do not give a shit either way... I certainly do not give a rip either way... Do we need to ban it? Nah, but do we need to have it mean the same thing as when a man and a woman marries? Again, nah... Half of all marriages end in divorce nowadays anyway... Seems like a moot point to begin with...

They say the conservatives are doing this as a ploy to help shore up the conservative vote, to help get them interested in again in the "shared" values... However, with a republican majority and an election coming up soon, the failure of passage is pretty much the deathknell for the ruling party...

A New Era is Coming!!

freethinker · June 2006

Originally posted by hazmats

Originally posted by freethinker
did anyone watch the Daily Show last night? Jon Steward did a primo job showing how this issue is completely irrational. And the people who are saying they are simply "protecting the institution of marriage" are really hiding behind their prejudice of homosexuals. At least that's what I got out of it

the reason i don't really like his show nowadays is because he has these political guests on there. Jon will say something, and no matter what it is the crowd will go nuts. Even when his argument isn't really good (i didn't see this show) everyone will cheer just because he said it.

yea...that gets on my nerves too....fanbois of any kind always do..lol

Scorpes · June 2006

But the show is hilarious, If you havent go to the comedy central website and see the clip by Samantha Bee "Are You Prepared" its not poltical at all, its just nuts.

saydur · June 2006

It's political grandstanding. The Republicans can go back home and campaign on the "Defending marriage" platform. A majority of Americans want marriage to be one man one woman, but likewise, a majority think amending the Consitution for that is wrong. Which is to say, they don't like the idea of gay marriage, there's decent tolerance for "civil unions", and a Constitutional amendment is just going too far.

The Republicans never expected this to get anywhere, they're just pandering to their base. The word "marriage" brings up a lot of emotion in people, and that's why the Republicans keep harping on that word. Take that religiously motivated word out of it, and the majority of people are much more tolerant towards gays.

The trouble is, if this were aimed at populism, or to say, a national referendum (Something the US doesn't have unlike most nations, perhaps thankfully), gay marriage would be outlawed in a day's time.

freethinker · June 2006

Originally posted by Dis_Ordur

Originally posted by freethinker
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html

Looks like the Constitutional Ammendment to bag gay marriage failed miserably. In fact, it did worse this time around than the last time it was voted on back in July of 2004.

If anything it's refreshing to know that the discriminating bigots of this country are still outnumbered.

No matter how hard they try and throw this up against a wall, it just won't stick... Same goes for the actual legalization of gay marriage... Oregon, with the city of Portland (2nd largest proportional gay population in the USA behind San Fran) tried ammending the state laws to declare gay marriage as legal and defining... It failed...

This would leave me to believe that people simply do not give a shit either way... I certainly do not give a rip either way... Do we need to ban it? Nah, but do we need to have it mean the same thing as when a man and a woman marries? Again, nah... Half of all marriages end in divorce nowadays anyway... Seems like a moot point to begin with...

They say the conservatives are doing this as a ploy to help shore up the conservative vote, to help get them interested in again in the "shared" values... However, with a republican majority and an election coming up soon, the failure of passage is pretty much the deathknell for the ruling party...

A New Era is Coming!!

It's funny and I'm suprised that more Republicans aren't against this...considering the fact that it gives more control to the federal government. Stereotypically, Republicans are the champions of State's Rights (at least when it suits their agenda).

The thing is, I don't think there's ever been an attempt to ammend the Constitution to [b]allow[/b] gay marriage. Sure a state can make it legal but the big part to me is the fact that they go straight to the Constitution instead of letting the states battle it out.

I guess that's what seperates the conservatives from the Republicans.

hazmats · June 2006

^^I don't care about the issue, but the point of going to the constitution is that states that DO ban it, get overruled by courts. And the only way to overrule the courts is w/ a constitution amendment.

I personally am against the amendment, but i personally would vote for a gay marriage ban in my state. I'm not a bigot like a lot of you would think i'm sure, but that's just my personal opinion.

upallnight · June 2006

I don't really care what they call it. Gay marriage, civil union, or whatever. But there needs to be some kind of legal protection for gay couples.

Gay couples share a lot of things including their finances and property. And to have the ability for a persons wishes to be challenged upon their death on the basis of their sexuality is absurd. Not to mention the benefits that are given to straight couples that aren't given to gay couples. Health benefits, tax benefits, visitation rights, and representation rights to name a few.

If I were to get hurt tomorrow and be unconscious in the hospital, my male partner would not be able to make the same medical decisions for me that a man's wife would. They would have to instead contact my parents who haven't spoken to me in years. And having this written down doesn't hold up most times legally. Families successfully challenge these legal documents all the time and win.

Another thing that gets me is when they ask the people who are against gay marriage if they would be for civil unions, the vast majority of them say no to civil unions too. That's just being mean at that point. That shows that it's not just a religious issue for them. It's more of an agenda then.

lardmouth · June 2006

Originally posted by upallnight
I don't really care what they call it. Gay marriage, civil union, or whatever. But there needs to be some kind of legal protection for gay couples.

Gay couples share a lot of things including their finances and property. And to have the ability for a persons wishes to be challenged upon their death on the basis of their sexuality is absurd. Not to mention the benefits that are given to straight couples that aren't given to gay couples. Health benefits, tax benefits, visitation rights, and representation rights to name a few.

If I were to get hurt tomorrow and be unconscious in the hospital, my male partner would not be able to make the same medical decisions for me that a man's wife would. They would have to instead contact my parents who haven't spoken to me in years. And having this written down doesn't hold up most times legally. Families successfully challenge these legal documents all the time and win.

Another thing that gets me is when they ask the people who are against gay marriage if they would be for civil unions, the vast majority of them say no to civil unions too. That's just being mean at that point. That shows that it's not just a religious issue for them. It's more of an agenda then.

An excellent post.

britoca · June 2006

I'm anti all kinds of marriage anyways.

LONG LIVE POLYAMORY!

unmarried.org

reavo · June 2006

Originally posted by britoca
I'm anti all kinds of marriage anyways.

LONG LIVE POLYAMORY!

unmarried.org

It's really kinda silly anyway. I mean, if you're not religious. If you feel that you need God to watch your union then that's cool. But for the rest of us...

The only reason I would think of getting married to someone is for the legal and tax reasons. Which I also think is silly. I don't think that someone who is married should get more priviledges over someone who is not.

Haunt · June 2006

On gay marriage...

In my opinion, there's enough hate in the world. If 2 people... ANY 2 people, want to publicly declare their love and devotion to each other as partners for the rest of their lives, then I'm happy for them...

and... also... I think that if 2 people are legally committed to each other, regardless of gender, they should have the same rights as far as insurance, taxation, etc... (so not allowing gay marriage or civil unions denies that part of the population some of the benefits the rest of us can enjoy without question... if we choose to get married).

so, I'm not gay, just don't see what all the hub-bub is about...

Let 'em have a big wedding and get ulcers planning who will sit where and what colors the flowers should be!!

and... I'm choosing not to start a really big stink by talking about how Jesus would react

Aldaron · June 2006

If the states were still states and not provinces to the Federal "Monarchy", there would be no pushing for the Gay marriage ban ammendment. But the Federal Gestapo feels it's need to push around the states instead of letting them make their own decisions and laws regarding any such matter, so here we are, at such a pointless endeavor.

gnomexxx · June 2006

Originally posted by Aldaron
If the states were still states and not provinces to the Federal "Monarchy", there would be no pushing for the Gay marriage ban ammendment. But the Federal Gestapo feels it's need to push around the states instead of letting them make their own decisions and laws regarding any such matter, so here we are, at such a pointless endeavor.

Nyah, it's more than that.

It's because the government got involved in marriage. It's a religious event. But they started with all the tax and legal priviledges and dove head first into social engineering.

Now this is where we're at.

If marriage had no legal privileges or seperate treatment for couples who are married, then there would be no problem.

And as far as states deciding. Where we're at right now, I don't think that would work. Because then you would have states not recognizing marriages from other states.

Not only that, but most states would let the voters decide on the issue as some have already done. And I strongly disagree with any civil rights issue being left up to the voters.

I can't wait for one of the states who have amended their constitution to have someone challenge it. That will go straight to the Supreme Court. We'll see about the "seperate but equal treatment" argument then. Just like when the southern states tried to kill the civil rights movement for blacks, the Supreme Court will do a little forceful guidance towards us treating each other equally on this too. And I will cheer them on.

Civil rights issues CAN NOT be left up to the masses to decide. There's no way in heck that could ever work.

Aldaron · June 2006

Originally posted by gnomexxx
Nyah, it's more than that.

No, not really. You're going into what would spur the whole thing being challenged legally. I was merely stating why there is even an ammendment trying to be passed.

It's because the government got involved in marriage. It's a religious event. But they started with all the tax and legal priviledges and dove head first into social engineering.

Well marriage for the most part is a joke now, about as much so as "til' death do us part." At least you know roughly 60% of americans can not uphold their word.

Now this is where we're at.

If marriage had no legal privileges or seperate treatment for couples who are married, then there would be no problem.

You'll never have that. America - although more liberal by the day - is still a bit traditional. Mrs. Smith will always have more of a legal connection to Mr. Smith than Ms. Brown who happends to live with Mr. Fletcher.

When it comes down to it though, the problem is, too much government.

And as far as states deciding. Where we're at right now, I don't think that would work. Because then you would have states not recognizing marriages from other states.

Work? Of course it'd work. It worked in the beginning. It should work now. You may not like the effects of what would happen, but it'd work, and it'd be how it originally was suppose to be.

States, not provinces.

Not only that, but most states would let the voters decide on the issue as some have already done. And I strongly disagree with any civil rights issue being left up to the voters.

I can't wait for one of the states who have amended their constitution to have someone challenge it. That will go straight to the Supreme Court. We'll see about the "seperate but equal treatment" argument then. Just like when the southern states tried to kill the civil rights movement for blacks, the Supreme Court will do a little forceful guidance towards us treating each other equally on this too. And I will cheer them on.

Civil rights issues CAN NOT be left up to the masses to decide. There's no way in heck that could ever work.

Civil rights will always be up to the masses. Even if something becomes law of the land, if it isn't accepted by the masses, it will not be recognized, simple as that.

And even then, if we are still a, government, "by the people, for the people, of the people." We'd have representatives doing what representatives do best, representing the masses.

P.S. Gay marriage is not civil rights.

gnomexxx · June 2006

Originally posted by Aldaron

Originally posted by gnomexxx
Nyah, it's more than that.
No, not really. You're going into what would spur the whole thing being challenged legally. I was merely stating why there is even an ammendment trying to be passed.

It's because the government got involved in marriage. It's a religious event. But they started with all the tax and legal priviledges and dove head first into social engineering.
Well marriage for the most part is a joke now, about as much so as "til' death do us part." At least you know roughly 60% of americans can not uphold their word.

Now this is where we're at.

If marriage had no legal privileges or seperate treatment for couples who are married, then there would be no problem.
You'll never have that. America - although more liberal by the day - is still a bit traditional. Mrs. Smith will always have more of a legal connection to Mr. Smith than Ms. Brown who happends to live with Mr. Fletcher.
When it comes down to it though, the problem is, too much government.

And as far as states deciding. Where we're at right now, I don't think that would work. Because then you would have states not recognizing marriages from other states.
Work? Of course it'd work. It worked in the beginning. It should work now. You may not like the effects of what would happen, but it'd work, and it'd be how it originally was suppose to be.
States, not provinces.

Not only that, but most states would let the voters decide on the issue as some have already done. And I strongly disagree with any civil rights issue being left up to the voters.

I can't wait for one of the states who have amended their constitution to have someone challenge it. That will go straight to the Supreme Court. We'll see about the "seperate but equal treatment" argument then. Just like when the southern states tried to kill the civil rights movement for blacks, the Supreme Court will do a little forceful guidance towards us treating each other equally on this too. And I will cheer them on.

Civil rights issues CAN NOT be left up to the masses to decide. There's no way in heck that could ever work.
Civil rights will always be up to the masses. Even if something becomes law of the land, if it isn't accepted by the masses, it will not be recognized, simple as that.
And even then, if we are still a, government, "by the people, for the people, of the people." We'd have representatives doing what representatives do best, representing the masses.
P.S. Gay marriage is not civil rights.

yes it is a civil rights issue. just ask any gay couple who has had a legal document giving ownership and inheritance to their partner after death challenged in court by the family of the dead gay person. it happens all the time. families disregard their dead family members wishes, challenge the papers in court, and get property all the time.

it was just on a documentary on t.v. following the lives of gay couples who were broken up after 9-11 when one partner died in the tower collapses. even with wills and other legal papers they had drawn up prior to their seperation, the families of the dead person got the dead persons property.

if that's not a violation of civil rights then i don't know what is.

and, no the masses should not decide on civil rights issues. they're not going to have the minorities best interests in mind. just theirs. and the representatives, while of course are supposed to represent their constituents, are also bounded by a thing called the constitution. and besides that, the supreme court would be the one's dealing with the law suits that get to them. not the representatives. supreme court justices hold no loyalty to any constituent. they interpret the constitution.

and if you don't think they'll do something to fix all this afterwords, just look back at history when they sent in the national guard to alabama to fix those problems during the black civil rights era. the president, as the head of the executive branch, is duty bound to enforce the laws and make sure what the supreme court says is unlawful is prosecuted.

porgie · June 2006

I have a question that maybe some of you people who know a lot about the Bible can answer.

There are some who say that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. There are some who say that they are reading the Bible wrong or taking quotes out of context to fit what they want to believe is true. Then there are some that say the whole thing is a worthless debate because the Bible is just plain mistranslated.

My question is this. Of the other sins or things that are bad that are listed in the Bible (adultry, pre-marital sex, murder, covetting, working on Sunday, etc) is the reason that these are bad also in the Bible? I'm not talking about someone having to interpret something later on or reading into a story to figure out why God listed them as bad. I'm meaning does God specifically say why they are bad? Like murder for instance. Does God specifically say why murder is bad? Or adultry, does he tell you "adultry is bad because..."?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm wondering if he is specific in some cases if he is also as specific as to why homosexuality is bad. I'm not very up on the Bible, I admit that. But the reason I'm asking is because I've never heard anyone quote the Bible to say why being gay is bad. I've only heard some peoples personal thoughts about why it is and then them use the Bible to back up their personal beliefs.

And if God is specific about why other things are bad and not about homosexuality, then wouldn't that lend more to the people arguing that God really doesn't care if you're gay, as long as you get with the person you love and stay monogomous?

seabass2003 · June 2006

Originally posted by porgie
I have a question that maybe some of you people who know a lot about the Bible can answer.

There are some who say that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. There are some who say that they are reading the Bible wrong or taking quotes out of context to fit what they want to believe is true. Then there are some that say the whole thing is a worthless debate because the Bible is just plain mistranslated.

My question is this. Of the other sins or things that are bad that are listed in the Bible (adultry, pre-marital sex, murder, covetting, working on Sunday, etc) is the reason that these are bad also in the Bible? I'm not talking about someone having to interpret something later on or reading into a story to figure out why God listed them as bad. I'm meaning does God specifically say why they are bad? Like murder for instance. Does God specifically say why murder is bad? Or adultry, does he tell you "adultry is bad because..."?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm wondering if he is specific in some cases if he is also as specific as to why homosexuality is bad. I'm not very up on the Bible, I admit that. But the reason I'm asking is because I've never heard anyone quote the Bible to say why being gay is bad. I've only heard some peoples personal thoughts about why it is and then them use the Bible to back up their personal beliefs.

And if God is specific about why other things are bad and not about homosexuality, then wouldn't that lend more to the people arguing that God really doesn't care if you're gay, as long as you get with the person you love and stay monogomous?

as far as i know He just says its bad. maybe He leaves it up to you to decide why? anyways if a couple fags or lesbians want to get married why should i care? let them get married. who gives a shit. it doesn't hurt anyone.

Also we have more pressing concerns, gas prices, war in 2 other countries, iran getting nukes and i could go on. gay marriage should be the last thing on america's mind.

Howdy, Stranger!

Gay Marriage Ammendment Fails

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Gay Marriage Ammendment Fails

Comments