The bias against the family is breathtaking!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jaguar

As for the senators who voted against the amendment, the excuses they gave were pitiful. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire, and many others thought they had the perfect alibi. They claimed that the issue should be handled at the state level. What hypocrisy!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

INIGO!

Who is now unfortunately shilling for some drug company

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
And Jesus said exactly what about homosexuality?

I'm not sure about Jesus, but didn't his father destroy two cities for it with a rain of fire and sulphur?

[Jaguar]

Here's another great response:

James Dobson is right on. Even though I live in conservative Oklahoma we do business from coast-to-coast and this is one issue I have found very little disagreement on except from "gay agenda" friends. I wish Washington representatives would truly reflect the majority of their electorate. What a shock and surprise that would be!
David McReynolds, Edmond, Oklahoma

Asher, will you be my "Gay Agenda" Friend?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Asher


Therefore, gay marriage causes divorce.

It's all hordes of brown illegal immigrant (and flag-burning) fudgepackers out to desecrate marriage, destroy the family and bankrupt social security that are the cause of all our problems in the US. You people are the real terrists.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I love these:

They claimed that the issue should be handled at the state level. What hypocrisy!

Yeah, funny how that little piece of paper - that Constitution thingy, provided for limited Federal powers and acknowledged state sovereignty.

All of these senators are smart enough to know that, first, it would create utter chaos to have 50 different definitions of marriage in one country, where every state is required by the Constitution to support the laws of the other 49.

You mean like how we have 50 different definitions of murder, grand theft, child molestation, securities laws, bounced check laws, and 50 different sets of civil procedures, statutes of limitations, etc.?

I know, let's have a Constitutional amendment a million pages long to define a single, unified body of civil, criminal, probate, domestic and bankruptcy law.

Second, senators wanting the states to define marriage are fully aware that the people will not be permitted to make their own decisions. Arrogant activist judges, most of them appointed by President Bill Clinton or President Jimmy Carter, will simply overturn the will of the electorate.

Damn, they keep coming back from the grave. Wonder if ol' Dobbiepoo realizes that about 70% of the federal bench are Republican appointees?

For example, a federal judge in Washington state is considering a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! Hide the little woman and the kids! A federal judge somewhere is considering a case related to a federal law?! The horror.

And finally, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas, made it clear that he and his colleagues are likely to redefine marriage when given an opportunity.

First, it's deciding that the government doesn't really have the authority to criminalize the choice of orifices played with by consenting adults within their own homes. Next, they're gonna redefine marriage, and we will only be able to marry someone of the same gender and be forced to partake in satanic rituals. Isn't it obvious?

[Kontiki]

Are there even 50 different definitions of marriage to be had? Seems to me that you're more likely looking at two, and let's throw in two more to cover off civil union type thingys. That's maybe four different definitions, not 50. It's not like you're going to need to pull out your set of Encyclopedia Marriagana every time you cross a state line.

[Arrian]

Ripping Dobson's arguments to shreds is so easy it's kinda boring. He's a world-class, number-one-prize-winning schmuck.

-Arrian

[Fake Boris]

If the battle to protect marriage takes even five more years, liberal judges and activists will have destroyed this 5,000-year-old institution, which was designed by the Creator, Himself. Even now, they are close to achieving that coveted objective.

Chuckled on that one.

[Arrian]

Did you fiddle with your fingers and chuckle like this: MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ?

If not, dude, get with the Gay Agenda already! Sheesh, what's the matter with you!

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Are there even 50 different definitions of marriage to be had? Seems to me that you're more likely looking at two, and let's throw in two more to cover off civil union type thingys. That's maybe four different definitions, not 50. It's not like you're going to need to pull out your set of Encyclopedia Marriagana every time you cross a state line.

It depends in the first place what you consider a "definition of marriage" - you could argue there's only one (i.e., a marriage exists from the date of execution, of a valid, complete, truthful and accurate marriage certificate by a party duly authorized to execute marriage certificates, reflecting the free consent to marriage of two parties legally competent to marry according to the laws of the state wherein the marriage occurs, and the marriage continues until declared a nullity or dissolved by a judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdition, or the death of one of the married parties.), since IRS has a single standard for marriage in applying the tax laws of the US.

Or you could get a bit fancier if you throw in age of consent laws, conditions of minor consent, marital estate and property laws, and such. Even if there's a thousand standards, the only test, to borrow a phrase from O Brother, Where art thou? is "Is you is, or is you ain't?" IRS and state taxing agencies have no trouble with that, so it's hard to see how anyone else would.

[Proteus_MST]

It´s interesting that he forgets to mention that his 20 states are less than half of the states the USA has

Originally posted by Zkribbler
"Dang. I married a woman when I could have married a guy. We couldda gone to ballgames together...andworn each other's clothes.

Hey, you could do this with your wife, too.
There´s no law that forbids you to go to ballgames with your wife,

... or to wear her clothes

[MrFun]

I'm out to destroy traditional marriage . . . . . .



be afraid . . . . . . .







be very afraid . . . . . .

[Jaguar]

MrFun, my gay agenda friend!

[chequita guevara]

I want biblicaly defined marriages, like the ones Solomon had.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I want biblicaly defined marriages, like the ones Solomon had.

ROTFLMAO!