[soapbox]So far the main argument I have seen in favor of a constitutional amendment is, "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman." So it boils down to, "It's been that way for a really long time so why on Earth would we change it?"

People said the same thing when slavery was legal.

I've also heard that it argued that it isn't right because marriage is about family and a same sex couple cannot conceive children on their own.

This logic suggests a we should also ban sterile men and women from being married. Oh... and what if a couple just don't want children?

There is NO reasonable reason why same sex couples should not receive the same benefits as hetero couples. If these marriages are allowed it will not have an effect on the marriage of a hetero couple. So what's the problem?

Pardon me for one last vent, but the thing that really bothers me is the hate that I hear from some (not all) religious people on this issue. I do not claim to be knowledgable of all faith's, but I do think that hatred is a value that is often spoke of in an undesirable fashion. [/soapbox]

In regards to what Divot said about President Bush losing votes come November,it is not going to happen, in fact quite the opposite. I'll explain, the majority of homosexuals usually vote democrat so it would not be Bush losing votes,they would not vote for him anyways .Also the majority of America still believes in the Constitution and that marriage should be only between a man and a woman thus giving President Bush even more votes come November. So it will be Bush in 2004 and I will feel more safe in this great country knowing he's our leader. I mean come on think about it ,if it wasn't for President Bush we might all have turned 5000 degrees at some time as the result of these coward terrorists. Wonder why we have not been attacked again? Its because we have a leader that did something about the problem unlike the previous administration.

To me, this is simply an issue of stigmatization. I find it horribly ironic that the same Bible-thumping hypocrites who say "all homosexuals are promiscuous" are now bitching about protecting the "institution" of marriage. Should they not be for something that would cut down on all the alledged promiscuity!? If this was an issue of discriminating on the basis of race, then it would obviously be wrong, but because it is based on someone's sexual preference it's considered ok.

This strikes me as just another place that the government has absolutely no business sticking its nose yet insists upon doing it anyway. Whether you are heterosexual or homosexual, it should enrage you that the U.S. government, for all that it preaches about liberty and equality when it serves its purpose, is now presuming to tell people who they can and cannot marry.

Apparently I should not be allowed to marry my boyfriend since I do not want to have children...

This is a totally political move to cover up past failures and cleanse George W.'s slate. Don't fall for his shit!!

1. "Allowing gays to marry diminishes the institution of marriage and harms the traditional family values"

Unmigated bullshit.

NO ONE is harmed by allowing a same sex couple marriage. NO ONE. To claim that couple A, who might be a single man and a single woman are somehow diminished in their relationship by allowing couple B, who for example are two men to marry, speaks nothing of how B harm A: but, rather of how A are so insecure of thier relationship that they have to worry about B.

2. "Marriage has always been about a single man and a single woman relationship"

Unmitigated bullshit. Even among the most extreme fanatics of Judeo/Christain/Islamic practice, this is a demonstrably untrue statement.

Banning same-sex marriage is not about saving the family. It's about hatemongering, pure and simple.

Hmmmm I'm still thinking of what past failures your thinking of because there IS NONE. You libs are all alike so predictable its funny!

Most political parties or divisions are predictable. We like them that way.

Just like the miscegenation laws that many states had in the past, which not only made it illegal to marry interracially but actually had prison sentences in some states for those who married anyway, I think a case should be brought before the Supreme Court so that they can state that civil marriage ceremonies between ANYONE, regardless of sex, is legal.

<i> Pardon me for one last vent, but the thing that really bothers me is the hate that I hear from some (not all) religious people on this issue. I do not claim to be knowledgable of all faith's, but I do think that hatred is a value that is often spoke of in an undesirable fashion. </i> I'm sorry if that was directed at me Aqua? >hangs head< sorry if I came off as a hater.....

Mr.Bri I really hope you're kidding but, if you're not I respect your right to your opinion. You are correct in that a lot of Dubyas' support base is the good 'ol boy club and their barefoot and pregnant wives. you know the kind that go out and find people like me and either burn them at the stake for being witches or torture and sometimes kill us for being homosexuals and loving those closer to us. I'm sorry but who knows better what to touch and when to touch it than someone who has the same equipment? But some of his supporters probably have homosexual relatives and some will feel that familial tug and want their {sisiter, brother, cousin, niece, nephew} relative to be happy as well. Oh and uh........ where are the jobs??? and show me the weapons?




BTW in case you can't tell I don't have television, no newspaper, no time to listen to the radio..... so I'm not completely UTD on everything never have been big on politics........


Always
Kyttn

Weapons are there too just the liberal media wont report it. Now I do hope your kidding when you said "you know the kind that go out and find people like me and either burn them at the stake for being witches or torture and sometimes kill us for being homosexuals and loving those closer to us." Ain't that pretty much accusing people like myself of doing something immoral and being cold killers? Now I'm sorry to you homosexuals but its been said since the time of Adam and Eve that marraige should only be between a man and a woman.

Oh yea jobs are there too but of course the media again won't report it because of the hatred they have for this administration.Man we'd all be in hell if Gore won the 2000 election!

Mr Bri oh no...... worse than what Desert Storm Jr hath wrought upon us?

OK...realize that much of the issue here is a political one. Companies would be obligated to provide spousal benefits (at cost to them) to "married" gay and lesbian couples. Additionally, there is a potential marriage tax benefit, and Social Security.

The cost of these benefits are a choking point for many. However, I personally believe that the US goverment should stay out of this one and let the states do their thing.

The Constitution was meant to be an INCLUSIVE document, rather than an exclusive document. Preventing a certain segment from having rights seems out of context in this great document/institution.

BamaKyttn,

I have only one thing to say....

Spot On!

You are soooo right! People need to have a more open mind! And handfasting is the way to go!