Like I've said, the only argument that conservatives and others have against gay marriage is the Bible angle. That's it. They don't have any evidence proving that it would be a bad thing, and they know it.

 

Mostly Bush wants the support of his evangelical base back, which has started to drift away from him since the election. One leader recently warned Bush in an interview that he better get back on task, or he would lose evangelical support. This is from someone who is supposed to be a man of God, but sounds like a sleazy Beltway lobbyist. It's interesting as well that he has again shifted discussion, this time from immigration to the gay marriage amendment. Republicans appear to realize that they will not get the votes necessary to get the Amendment moving, but they still plan to propose it anyway.

 

 

Thanks for the news update, FutureGM.

What about removing all terms of marriage from the federal government and tax codes instead replacing it by civil unions.

 

Instead of having a marriage liscence couples need a civil union liscence.

 

Then return the term marriage strictly to the religious sense of the word and in all political aspects it would only matter for civil unions for all couples?

 

It might be a pain in the backside, but one side gets the term of marriage still fine by them and respected in the traditional values sense.

 

On the other hand gays can feel they have equal rights to everyone else?

 

Is this something all sides can live with?

Dodge, I don't think anti-marriage pro-civil union people are barbarians. But how can I be happy with them if they vote in the election because of their stance on this issue? Don't they contribute to what Republicans are doing right now? Using gays to avoid every other vital issue in this country? Doesnt it disgust you as to how they see your vote, not by economic issues and not by performance issues but how you feel about gays? Theyve been using this strategy with these same kind of voters for the longest time and it's an insult to their intelligence.

 

A few random individuals want to burn a flag...use it to distract the values voter.

A black guy in Boston rapes a white women...use it to distract the values voters.

A gay couple asks their state for equal rights...use it to distract the values voters.

 

As long as you let them, they will always tell you their is a perceived threat somewhere else in the country. Why do you think they love to use the word liberal the way they do? It's the great liberal straw man.

 

Like I said. I dont think values voters are barbarians. But they allow Republicans to get away with too much and I am really annoyed by that.

What about removing all terms of marriage from the federal government and tax codes instead replacing it by civil unions.

 

Instead of having a marriage liscence couples need a civil union liscence.

 

Then return the term marriage strictly to the religious sense of the word and in all political aspects it would only matter for civil unions for all couples?

 

It might be a pain in the backside, but one side gets the term of marriage still fine by them and respected in the traditional values sense.

 

On the other hand gays can feel they have equal rights to everyone else?

 

Is this something all sides can live with?

 

 

I've been saying the same thing since before the 04 election when the amendment was first discussed to rally voters. It seems the most logical conclusion to fit in when the sentiments of equal rights of all to pursue happiness, the legal obligation of the US to provide such, and still protects "marraige" from being "tarnished".

Bottom line, I disagree, there are plenty of people that don't see gay people as inferior, they see marriage as between a man and a woman. Since when do people not have reasons for believing in something?

 

 

I do agree that there's a fair % of anti-gay marriage people out there with completely fair reasons for being against it, but when you hear lines like "we're trying to defend the sanctity of marriage" or "save the sanctity of marriage" what does that make you think? Save it from the gays? Defend it from the gay attack?

 

There are people who just plain think their way of life is under attack by the gay community and the gay "agenda". I'm sure that plenty of people DO have valid reasons for being against gay marriage. But we should be working out & discussing these issues. A constitutional amendment on this is asinine.

 

Either it's legal & okay to be gay, or it's not. They're not being afforded the same legal rights as other citizens in this case, and I haven't ever read a single reason that would convince me why that should be permissable.

 

It's not a gay attack, that's the problem I have with 95% of the people who share my opinion on the subject. All of a sudden if you don't feel like marriage is meant for homosexuals, you hate them?

Now THAT is unconstitutional. Supreme Court has already ruled that Separate is inherently not Equal.

Never thought I'd see Brown v. Board of Education used in a gay marriage talk, but you have to remember that the previous case law (Plessy v. Ferguson) wasn't exactly overturned. It's only in the case of the separation in actuality being unequal where the problem lies. If indeed the separation is equal on both sides, it's still technically legal.

 

And for the record, hating on bigotism is just stooping to their level.

Bottom line, I disagree, there are plenty of people that don't see gay people as inferior, they see marriage as between a man and a woman. Since when do people not have reasons for believing in something?

 

 

I do agree that there's a fair % of anti-gay marriage people out there with completely fair reasons for being against it, but when you hear lines like "we're trying to defend the sanctity of marriage" or "save the sanctity of marriage" what does that make you think? Save it from the gays? Defend it from the gay attack?

 

There are people who just plain think their way of life is under attack by the gay community and the gay "agenda". I'm sure that plenty of people DO have valid reasons for being against gay marriage. But we should be working out & discussing these issues. A constitutional amendment on this is asinine.

 

Either it's legal & okay to be gay, or it's not. They're not being afforded the same legal rights as other citizens in this case, and I haven't ever read a single reason that would convince me why that should be permissable.

 

It's not a gay attack, that's the problem I have with 95% of the people who share my opinion on the subject. All of a sudden if you don't feel like marriage is meant for homosexuals, you hate them?

 

Well, not hate. But whatever you would qualify someone as being when they say someone can't have the same rights as everybody else.

Bottom line, I disagree, there are plenty of people that don't see gay people as inferior, they see marriage as between a man and a woman. Since when do people not have reasons for believing in something?

 

 

I do agree that there's a fair % of anti-gay marriage people out there with completely fair reasons for being against it, but when you hear lines like "we're trying to defend the sanctity of marriage" or "save the sanctity of marriage" what does that make you think? Save it from the gays? Defend it from the gay attack?

 

There are people who just plain think their way of life is under attack by the gay community and the gay "agenda". I'm sure that plenty of people DO have valid reasons for being against gay marriage. But we should be working out & discussing these issues. A constitutional amendment on this is asinine.

 

Either it's legal & okay to be gay, or it's not. They're not being afforded the same legal rights as other citizens in this case, and I haven't ever read a single reason that would convince me why that should be permissable.

 

It's not a gay attack, that's the problem I have with 95% of the people who share my opinion on the subject. All of a sudden if you don't feel like marriage is meant for homosexuals, you hate them?

 

Well, not hate. But whatever you would qualify someone as being when they say someone can't have the same rights as everybody else.

 

Being gay. I just don't see your's and other's points, oh well.

Bottom line, I disagree, there are plenty of people that don't see gay people as inferior, they see marriage as between a man and a woman. Since when do people not have reasons for believing in something?

 

 

I do agree that there's a fair % of anti-gay marriage people out there with completely fair reasons for being against it, but when you hear lines like "we're trying to defend the sanctity of marriage" or "save the sanctity of marriage" what does that make you think? Save it from the gays? Defend it from the gay attack?

 

There are people who just plain think their way of life is under attack by the gay community and the gay "agenda". I'm sure that plenty of people DO have valid reasons for being against gay marriage. But we should be working out & discussing these issues. A constitutional amendment on this is asinine.

 

Either it's legal & okay to be gay, or it's not. They're not being afforded the same legal rights as other citizens in this case, and I haven't ever read a single reason that would convince me why that should be permissable.

 

It's not a gay attack, that's the problem I have with 95% of the people who share my opinion on the subject. All of a sudden if you don't feel like marriage is meant for homosexuals, you hate them?

 

Well, not hate. But whatever you would qualify someone as being when they say someone can't have the same rights as everybody else.

 

Being gay. I just don't see your's and other's points, oh well.

 

So someone who says others can't have the same rights as everybody is gay? Okay.

Sorry, brain fart, I misunderstood whom you were referring to.