Bush backs Gay Marraige Ban Amendment

[MrFun]

** gets bag of popcorn, and gets comfortable for the show **

[Elok]

To get back on the issue, sorta, the only corporal asset provided by marriage as opposed to "living in sin" is inheritance rights and other legal red tape, correct? I see no valid argument against letting gays have that. Saves a lot of bother, and custody arguments don't really apply, so it's almost entirely an added convenience.

As to "marriage" vs. "civil union," well, the divorce rate in this country ought to make it plain that nobody really respects the institution of marriage as practiced by straight people. Is there a reason why gay marriage should have any different effect?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Since changing Art. 5 by amendment would invoke the very power confered by Art. 5 amending Art. 5 could not exceed the limits set on Art. 5. That is, no amendment to Art. 5 could create greater power to amend than Art. 5 allows.

That assumes that Congress does not pass an amendment to strictly cross off the part saying "Provided that..." and THEN passes another Amendment dealing with state representation (like moving to Proportional Representation).

After all, the original amendment says nothing about unequal representation, it simply crosses that one off.

Though it probably could be done in one amendment. First striking that provision and then setting forth new provisions.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Thorn
You know I think you are the type of thing I scrape off my shoe.

is this the official "I have no capacity to retort or hold a valid argument so I will make demonstrative and lackluster flame attempts to help reinforce my feeling of superiority over ppl who disagree w/ me?"

just wondering.

[Thorn]

No it's called shut your trap before I stomp you.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Thorn
No it's called shut your trap before I stomp you.

*yawn*

[Hagbart]

+ 1 for Kerry

[Ming]

Thorn and yavoon... you are both one post away from getting very long restrictions. How many times do i have to warn people... ENOUGH WITH THE PERSONAL CRAP... and I don't want to hear that "he started it"... IT'S DONE. FINISHED... and the next person who tosses around a personal insult will become the poster child for what happens to people who ignore mods....

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I think he means it, kids.

Why's gay marriage supposed to be bad? I think I missed that point.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Ned
Just for sake of argument, suppose we passed a pro-family law like this:

Married couples filing jointly could take a $20,000 credit per dependent child. Suppose that that child had to be their child (as denominated on the child's birth certificate).

Sexual orientation doesn't even have to enter into this one to nullify it. It would be unconstitutionally discriminatory against adoptive married parents to make the tax credit only accessable to biological married parents. So you can't exclude gay families that way, since I figure they'll eventually get full rights to both marriage and adoption, within this generation if not a lot sooner.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I think he means it, kids.

Why's gay marriage supposed to be bad? I think I missed that point.

I think some members present regard homosexuals as deviant abberations and that marriage has some kind of holy sanctimony that would be defiled by letting these ungodly creatures participate.

Personally, I live in the 21st century rather than the 14th century as they seem to do, at least in this regard, and don't see any big deal about this particular thing.

[ixnay]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp Why's gay marriage supposed to be bad? I think I missed that point.

The gay menace makes normal heterosexual people love each other less.

Duh.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrBaggins

I think some members present regard homosexuals as deviant abberations and that marriage has some kind of holy sanctimony that would be defiled by letting these ungodly creatures participate.

Personally, I live in the 21st century rather than the 14th century as they seem to do, at least in this regard, and don't see any big deal about this particular thing.

Its not a question about a few members. More than 80% of americans regard themselves as christians.

Here's an interesting poll done by PBS (so its a reasonable guess that its not just right wing rhetoric)

http://www.pbs.org/flashpointsusa/20040127/tvpoll_results.html

61% of 1000 people polled do not believe that same-sex marriages should be legal.

There are other interesting points in there.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Its not a question about a few members. More than 80% of americans regard themselves as christians.

Here's an interesting poll done by PBS (so its a reasonable guess that its not just right wing rhetoric)

http://www.pbs.org/flashpointsusa/20040127/tvpoll_results.html

61% of 1000 people polled do not believe that same-sex marriages should be legal.

There are other interesting points in there.

I'd question the validity of the poll...

Look at the demographic:

Region
Northeast 20%
Midwest 23%
South 35%
West 22%

Edit... plus its over a month old, prior to the SF and Chi gay marriage ceremonies.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by SpencerH
61% of 1000 people polled do not believe that same-sex marriages should be legal.

There are other interesting points in there.

I seem to recall that around the time "X-Files" was huge, polls suggested that nearly 40% of Americans believed they had been abducted by aliens at some point.

You'd think the anal probes might have loosened up their stance on this issue, wouldn't you?