Rage!

[Ysobelle]

So if we allow gays, lesbians, and trangenders to marry, somehow it invalidates all hetero marriages? If I let my gay friends get married, it means my own right to marry is endangered? Funny how that hasn't worked the other way around, innit? I somehow still have gay friends in loving, stable, long-term relationships. They don't care or feel threatened by straights' marriages.

Want to do something? Anything? Here:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/millionformarriageac

It's also not a bad idea to join HRC, the Human Rights Campaign. Write your Congressfolk. March on DC. Speak up. This isn't right, and we should say so. Loudly.

[Buxom Wench]

Nikki,

signed and sent to friends to sign.

[Bean]

Signed as well............

[mistress anne]

Already a member.

It's not like marriage licenses are in limited supply. They can print as many as they need!

[Rosina Cernak]

So if we allow gays, lesbians, and trangenders to marry, somehow it invalidates all hetero marriages? If I let my gay friends get married, it means my own right to marry is endangered? Funny how that hasn't worked the other way around, innit? I somehow still have gay friends in loving, stable, long-term relationships. They don't care or feel threatened by straights' marriages.

Want to do something? Anything? Here:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/millionformarriageac

It's also not a bad idea to join HRC, the Human Rights Campaign. Write your Congressfolk. March on DC. Speak up. This isn't right, and we should say so. Loudly.
nini,
it took me a couple of minutes to allow it to sink in what this was for then i opened the website and it all made sense.... woke up from a nap and have a head ache. but is getting better now. signed and sent

[Lavinia]

Signed and sent to others.

[Myfanawy]

Signed...and sending to friends.

[Ysobelle]

This is from today's Arizona Republic. Unfortunately, I can't credit the columnist, as his/her name isn't listed.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0606tue1-06.html



A pitiful political ploy

Jun. 6, 2006 12:00 AM



Americans have had 27 reasons to change the U.S. Constitution since it was ratified more than two centuries ago.

A federal ban on same-sex marriage shouldn't be one of them.

The amendment would be an unnecessary intrusion onto state legal turf, could have unintended consequences and is a simplistic response to a complex issue.

Despite the hubbub over "activist federal judges," there is no sign that states are incapable of defining marriage.

Republicans are traditionally strong supporters of local control. There is no compelling reason to call in the feds, as Arizona Sen. John McCain points out.

Nowhere in the country have traditional marriages become an endangered species.

But then, that's not why Congress is taking up the federal marriage amendment right now.

Nor is it why President Bush is suddenly talking up the proposal at every opportunity.

Marriage has become a political football. And the game is all about scoring points to shore up support from social conservatives.

What a pity.

The proposed marriage amendment is divisive, generating heated argument but shedding no light on the country's complex debate over same-sex couples and what benefits, if any, they should receive.

The wording of the amendment, with its references to "legal incidents thereof," could cause unexpected mischief down the line.

Americans have a wide range of views on this issue, not a consensus.

In a May Gallup Poll, three out of five Americans opposed redefining marriage to include homosexuals. Yet we were split on a marriage amendment, with 50 percent in favor and 47 percent opposing.

The opponents include Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the rare times he has publicly parted ways with Bush. As the parent of a gay daughter, he recognizes the need for tolerance and accommodation.

Even the Republican-dominated Congress is divided. The amendment died in Congress two years ago. Vote-counters say it has no chance of getting the required two-thirds vote in the Senate, let alone the House.

Let alone three-fourths of the states.

You can agree with Bush that marriage is "the most enduring and important of human institutions." And still vehemently disagree that changing the U.S. Constitution is necessary to protect it.

Some worry that this institution is under siege. Religious leaders raised the alarm last month about the high number of marriages ending in divorce.

Keeping families stable is a legitimate concern.

But let's not mix up apples and oranges. The divorce rate of heterosexual couples has nothing to do with the status of homosexual couples.

For their part, the president and Congress should drop the political grandstanding. From terrorism to federal deficits, they have much higher priorities to occupy their time.
if(ScriptsLoaded) stInit();

[Isabelle Warwicke]

Couldn't they just put into affect a "Civil Union" bill that would give the gay community all the rights and privileges of married couples. Most of the people that vascilate on this issue get hung up on the *definition* of Marriage. "Union of a man and a woman." It's a very fine line, I know, and really not fair on many levels...but perhaps if just the linguistics were different, a major cultural change like this might be easier to push through. Marriage has existed for thousands of years of culture and has changed very little in that time...it's hard for some people to wrap their minds around. We have to tread very carefully.

[Roger]

They should take marriage as a legal entity away all together. Marriage as a religious institution should not be recognized by the State at all. Keep it between two (or more) people and their church. Government should only recognize contractual unions entered into by two or more consenting adults. These contracts could range from joined custody of children to sharing of wealth and benefits, to final rights and should be open to any number of adults of any sex.

[Mistress Lisette]

They should take marriage as a legal entity away all together. Marriage as a religious institution should not be recognized by the State at all. Keep it between two (or more) people and their church. Government should only recognize contractual unions entered into by two or more consenting adults. These contracts could range from joined custody of children to sharing of wealth and benefits, to final rights and should be open to any number of adults of any sex.
I agree, but I don't expect to see this happen any time soon. Doing this would undercut, at the very least, the legally and religiously-sanctioned definitions/roles of "woman" and "man"--something that seriously gets *many* people, not just conservatives, nervous.

[Rhonda_Melones]

See, to further ruffle the feathers of the bible thumpers pushing this bill wouldn't a "union" between a man and a woman technically just mean sex? I believe in some European and/or Jewish cultures once a man and woman have sex it constitutes they're married.

This whole ban on gay marriage is just idiotic and wrong. What gays and lesbians do have nothing to do with heterosexual marriage! This guy on the news this morning made a point when he said how something like 50% of all marriages end in divorce and most of them don't "end in gayness". They showed this group crankcall.com or something like that called the office of one of politicians pushing for the bill and was asking him all kinds of personal questions like "Do you commit sodomy?" and "Have you had sex before marriage?" and the guy repeatedly said "I won't comment on that, that's none of your business." The guy asked, "So what you do in your bedroom is no one else's business?" The answer, "No."

... yeah, SAY THAT AGAIN SLOWLY YOU JACKASS!!! LOL

[merestelle]

I agree completely with Roger.

I have to admit that a few years ago, I felt that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. For the life of me a can't remember why.

I have come to know many good people and stable but 'unconventional' relationships. I also know far too many people from traditonal marriages that have ended in divorce.

Whether people are willing to accept it or not, society has proven that families are not defined by a legal description of what is acceptable.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

The President weighs in on the issue: http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2006/060506.asp

[Dmitri]

The President weighs in on the issue: http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2006/060506.asp

Can he ban ME from getting old and dying too!!!???!!!

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Can he ban ME from getting old and dying too!!!???!!!
I thought you were immortal?

[Dmitri]

I thought you were immortal?


shhhhhhh.... next thing I'll know the Kurgan will be knocking on my dorr....

[Buxom Wench]

shhhhhhh.... next thing I'll know the Kurgan will be knocking on my dorr....
But........


there can be only one.......







Dmitri :wink:

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

shhhhhhh.... next thing I'll know the Kurgan will be knocking on my dorr....
"Happy Halloween ladies!..... Nuns, no sense of humor"