Finally, some common sense in Washington! :toothless:

Senate rejects gay marriage ban amendment: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage_20;_ylt=AncAsqAm5jxQ6Bw9GlROIGFdlakA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

There's just something wrong with a push to ban something when you're adding it to a document that's supposed to guarentee rights for all

"We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan.

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

Works for me. :D

The PA House just passed our own version*. I don't know what the state senate will do. Doesn't matter because the governor will not sign it.

*The guy whose campaign I'm co-ordinating is running against someone who voted for the ban

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

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

Works for me. :D

That from Urine Hatch--the moron who once read aloud from the Exorcist on the senate floor to try and prove that Anita Hill was not sexually harrassed by Clarence Thomas.

I hate the logic that underlies this amendment, and the flag-burning amendment, which is essentially: If we passed a law to reflect this skewed right-wing world view, it would be unconstitutional, so we better CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.

I don't know what's scarier, the fact that such an amendment was pushed in the first place or the fact that some thought it had a real chance of passing.

Free Radical wrote: That from Urine Hatch--the moron

Welcome to NOOL!

my friend's uncle is one of the two republican senators who changed his vote from yes to no. well done, sen. gregg!

I'm glad to say that both senators in my state (NY) voted against this silly amendment.

I Am John Barnes wrote:

Taboo # 7 wrote: Senate rejects gay marriage ban amendment: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage_20;_ylt=AncAsqAm5jxQ6Bw9GlROIGFdlakA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

There's just something wrong with a push to ban something when you're adding it to a document that's supposed to guarentee rights for all

rights for ALL...does all include gay people??? or recent immigrants...

not according to Dubya's definition...hell, Dubya probably thinks that only rich, white, male land owners even deserve the vote...

don't forget that blacks are only 3/5ths of a person!

ChrissMari wrote:

don't forget that blacks are only 3/5ths of a person!

"3/5ths of a person" also happens to be my favorite song by the Smiths.

49-48 though

Tempted wrote: 49-48 though

Yeah. TOO close for comfort. :\ohwell:

In the end... it could turn out very ironic that the Republicans may have given gay marriage much more of a legit boost by forcing the issue into debate with such an element of hatemongering for political gain.

v. bizarre

the feds are trying to overturn the ACT's same partner relation law here.

When it comes to this gay marraige thing, I don't know why no one has come up with a compromise.

1. I can understand how people see the word "marriage" as special and what it signifies.

2. I can understand where two gay people want to show the "next step" in a relationship, and be commited to each other.

3. I can understand how gay's in serious relationships don't get the same tax benefits as a married couple.

Why not have a legal ceremony that recognises that the gay couple are serious with each other and also gives them the same rights in the tax system, but call it something different.

I know some may be upsetted by this idea, but it's a compromise that might quell the issue. Just an idea.

JHC

My Name Is John Barnes wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: When it comes to this gay marraige thing, I don't know why no one has come up with a compromise.

1. I can understand how people see the word "marriage" as special and what it signifies.

2. I can understand where two gay people want to show the "next step" in a relationship, and be commited to each other.

3. I can understand how gay's in serious relationships don't get the same tax benefits as a married couple.

Why not have a legal ceremony that recognises that the gay couple are serious with each other and also gives them the same rights in the tax system, but call it something different.

I know some may be upsetted by this idea, but it's a compromise that might quell the issue. Just an idea.

JHC

Wow, what an offensive thing to say...just replace the word gay with, oh, black, in your example, and you should see what a complete and utter crock of shit your suggestion is. Gay people are humans, and for those that are citizens, the suggestion that we should abridge their rights is ludicrous. Gay people pay taxes, so why shouldn't they be allowed the same rights as every other citizen in this country?

I agree that it doesn't sound nice, or that it might sound a bit silly. But there is a huge division on both sides, and I don't see either side giving in anytime soon. Sometimes to get what you want you don't ask for the entire enchillada, sometimes you have to get it piece by piece. Neither side would be completely happy with the outcome, but it would be a step in the right direction.

JHC

Common sense prevails... But I'm still appalled at the number of homophobic people in America.

leather_girl wrote: Common sense prevails... But I'm still appalled at the number of homophobic people in America.

Very true. I think for the vast majority of them, however, it is largely because they have bought too much into the right-wing propaganda instead of making up their own minds. I think even among homophobic people, meeting one homosexual person in a social setting could radically change their outlook and even possibly their opinion on the gay marriage issue. I think that is generally true for most people--if you are open minded and encounter others who live differently, it broadens your mind. As for those whose opinions wouldn't change--lets put it this way. The most vehement homophobes are probably those using their homophobia to mask a part of themselves they are afraid of.

Ok, I'm about to enter the lion's den on this. Close my eyes and step forward with crossed fingers.:

Here is the one issue with gay marriages that I have . . .the right to raise children.

If gays want to take the next step in a relationship, I understand that. If they want the same tax benefits that married couples get, because they are having a similar financial household, I can understand that.

When children are brought into the picture, I have an issue with it.

Now I know I'm about to stir the hornets nest and be the punching bag of pent up anger that many people have been waiting for someone to vent off at. Let's see if anyone can be level-headed about it.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: Ok, I'm about to enter the lion's den on this. Close my eyes and step forward with crossed fingers.:

Here is the one issue with gay marriages that I have . . .the right to raise children.

If gays want to take the next step in a relationship, I understand that. If they want the same tax benefits that married couples get, because they are having a similar financial household, I can understand that.

When children are brought into the picture, I have an issue with it.

Now I know I'm about to stir the hornets nest and be the punching bag of pent up anger that many people have been waiting for someone to vent off at. Let's see if anyone can be level-headed about it.

JHC

Well, 68, I am willing to remain civil in this debate, but do have a question.

Why? What is the problem with gay couples raising children? I say this as a married (to a female, thank you) father of three.

I know plenty of straight people with children whose children, I can honestly say, would be far better off being raised by some of the gay people I know. Simply put, some people should not reproduce despite their ability to do so. In a society where there are so many unwanted and maltreated children, what is the problem with allowing a gay couple that would love and welcome a child to raise him/her?

Free Radical,

There are a few points with this. . .however, I completely agree there are alot of incompitant parents out there.

First, before even tackling this issue, our society has taken a downturn. Single parents are on the rise, kids are sent to daycares because parents want more money, divorces are on the rise. . .which leads to broken families and households in disarray.

Simply put, our society is one crying for more "personal choice", but when they receive it horde it selfishly and irresponsibly.

Sex is one of these issues. It has become a recreational sport. People have lost the real reason for sex (procreation)and the responsiblities that come with it. It is one thing to have fun with sex, but always respecting the underline reasoning for it. . .and another to abuse it with wreckless abandon.

With that in mind, I don't approve of gay sexual acts. . .I don't hate gay people, or have anything against them. . .but the act is unnatural. It goes against the reason for sex (procreation).

Having children exposed to this at an early age, gives an irresponsible veiw of sexual acts.

Another point is that women and men are not equal; neither are subservant; but they are different, and for good reason. You stated you have children, and if you have a girl and a boy I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

The same goes for parenting. Both the father and mother bring something different to the table. The way the father and mother act is directly related to being male/female. A good, balanced child needs both sides. If a child has double of one side, does not make up for the void of the other half needed.

Also, children work best when guidelines and boundries are clearcut and known. Having two fathers or mothers only confuses the child. If one tries to be the other, it will be fine for the child until he / she reaches school. When all the other kids parents are male-father/female-mother; and their's is different. . .it WILL effect them.

Now comes the acceptance that society is in a downturn and the thought. . .well everyone is alreay f***ed up, and the effects aren't THAT bad compared to a broken home. So instead of society working the REAL issue, we make it more difficult to fix.

I know this isn't the "feel-good" answer. . .which is what our society wants anymore. Everyone wants to make decisions that make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. . .which is why our society is in such disrepair. . .so many of the responsible decisions we need to make aren't fun, they downright suck. . .but no one wants to be responsible anymore.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: FWith that in mind, I don't approve of gay sexual acts. . .I don't hate gay people, or have anything against them. . .but the act is unnatural. It goes against the reason for sex (procreation).

Presumably, then, you're also against oral sex, anal sex, handjobs, and contraceptives and the rhythm method?

68Pontiac wrote: Having children exposed to this at an early age, gives an irresponsible veiw of sexual acts.

Gay marriage isn't about exposing children to sex acts, 68, any more than your marriage is about exposing children to sex acts. I presume that, like most parents, you keep it in the bedroom?

Another point is that women and men are not equal; neither are subservant; but they are different, and for good reason. You stated you have children, and if you have a girl and a boy I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

The same goes for parenting. Both the father and mother bring something different to the table. The way the father and mother act is directly related to being male/female. A good, balanced child needs both sides. If a child has double of one side, does not make up for the void of the other half needed.

Also, children work best when guidelines and boundries are clearcut and known. Having two fathers or mothers only confuses the child. If one tries to be the other, it will be fine for the child until he / she reaches school. When all the other kids parents are male-father/female-mother; and their's is different. . .it WILL effect them.

Now comes the acceptance that society is in a downturn and the thought. . .well everyone is alreay f***ed up, and the effects aren't THAT bad compared to a broken home. So instead of society working the REAL issue, we make it more difficult to fix.

I know this isn't the "feel-good" answer. . .which is what our society wants anymore. Everyone wants to make decisions that make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. . .which is why our society is in such disrepair. . .so many of the responsible decisions we need to make aren't fun, they downright suck. . .but no one wants to be responsible anymore.

JHC

Gay marriage isn't about having children, 68. Gay people already have children. Gay marriage is about spouses having rights like survivorship, visitation rights in the hosipital, etc.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Gay marriage isn't about exposing children to sex acts, 68, any more than your marriage is about exposing children to sex acts. I presume that, like most parents, you keep it in the bedroom?

Keeping it in the bedroom only last so long. Eventually the children realize what is happening, and you'd be amazed at the early age they realize this stuff.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Gay marriage isn't about having children, 68. Gay people already have children. Gay marriage is about spouses having rights like survivorship, visitation rights in the hosipital, etc.

Like I mentioned before, I have no issues with gay marriage as long as there is no children involved.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: When it comes to this gay marraige thing, I don't know why no one has come up with a compromise.

1. I can understand how people see the word "marriage" as special and what it signifies.

2. I can understand where two gay people want to show the "next step" in a relationship, and be commited to each other.

3. I can understand how gay's in serious relationships don't get the same tax benefits as a married couple.

Why not have a legal ceremony that recognises that the gay couple are serious with each other and also gives them the same rights in the tax system, but call it something different.

I know some may be upsetted by this idea, but it's a compromise that might quell the issue. Just an idea.

JHC

Isn't that what we now have in the UK? 'Civil partnerships'? I think its a bad compromise, as then you get heterosexuals complaining that they don't have the option of 'marriage lite'. It'd be simpler just to let gay people marry and have done with it. Given that marriage here is on its last legs anyway it seems silly to prevent the few people who actually want to get married from doing so, just because they happen to be same sex couples. And why shouldn't gays get the chance to make each other miserable and have acrimonious divorces like everyone else?