Federal Marriage Amendment

[Bad furday 57]

I think it was, Unknown!

*gets the banning papers in order*

[Andy 60]

lol, oh did you hear this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5056474.stm

w00t

[GI_Admiral 2]

You go Ted Kennedy! :p

[Chickenman 9]

ewok yes!

btw, interesting note: There has only ever been one amenment that limited someone's rights. That was prohibition. And we all know how that worked out.

[GI_Admiral 2]

Well?

[Tsl 7]

lmao! The Marriage Mafia, coming soon to a town near you! Look out, those marriage license smugglers carry tommy guns!

[Ana 15]

Dude... Marriage Mafia... now THAT sounds like a tv show.

An amendment to the constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice

Figures... he talks as if the nation is all on his side, being beset by the outside activists. Like the activists aren't Americans. This is the stuff that pisses me off the most. If you disagree with the president, you're being unamerican. That's ridiculous. We're just people, having our own opinions. The fact that they feel so threatened by us that they feel a need for an amendment is somewhat empowering, actually. We're a threat. Goody. At least we're being taken seriously. Pity they're trying to solve it by turning people against each other.

The US isn't ready for gay marriage yet. I recognize this, and am resigned to it. People aren't reconciled to the idea. Some are neutral, some are uncomfortable, and some are ready to offer violence. And at the moment, those groups are all major enough that if by some miracle gay marriage was allowed right now, I can see too much bloodshed resulting.

Power of Attorney is all very well, but it's not the same. Twenty-six year olds shouldn't have to specifically write out wills because they want their things to go to their partner when they die, when if they could be married it would be automatic. Young people shouldn't have to plan for death so young, just to make sure that their partner has a place to live when they die and the house is in their name. Sure, everything can be arranged, but the amount of work, the red tape--it's ludacris. It's three times what a straight couple has to deal with. Why should people have to work three times as hard to take care of each other legally, because they love someone who happens to be the same gender as them?

I'm not surprised the amendment was stopped. The radical Right may be strong, but they're not strong enough to sway two-thirds of the country.

If people want to morally object to homosexuality, I guess there's not much that can be done to change their minds. But I don't see how that equals objecting to gay marriage. If we're sticking with "Love the sinner, hate the sin", well, sodomy's sin. So's most foreplay. I'll concede that. But I don't see how love, love between two souls that is so strong that the 'type' of body the soul is in doesn't matter to either, is a sin. The fact that these two people can't get married then forces them to live together, another sin. Well, to paraphrase Ever After, what else is to be concluded, but that you first make sinners and then punish them?

What they would do within their marriage would be a sin, yes. But basically everything outside of missionary is a sin, so I'm willing to bet that there's sin within many, many straight marriages too. JM used the analogy of eating a lot and not exercising, and then getting fat. I'm going to run with that, because of the obesity epidemic and I just find it convenient:

So, let's say that you choose to be with someone of your gender, thus rendering you gay. Society says that being gay is wrong, being hetero is right. You go to get married, but they tell you that you can't because you're gay.

Now let's do that scenario using the idea that gay is analogous to being fat, and the standard of beauty that fat is ugly.

You chose to eat and not exercise, and are thus fat. Society says that fat is ugly, being skinny is beautiful. You go to get married and they you you can't because you're fat.

The first happens. The second doesn't. Why? Eating too much and not exercising... hmm, I think that could be called Gluttony and Sloth. Sins. How come those aren't punished? How is choosing to follow your heart when it leads you love another of the same gender as you worse than choosing to shovel down cheetos while watching Sunday Football?

[Princess 35]

*applauds Ana*

[GI_Admiral 2]

Nothings wrong with Gluttony and Sloth! :O

But I agree...well said :)

[TheUnknown 39]

Yay! It wasn't even that close. And there were some surprising No votes: Judd Gregg and John Sununu.

[Neil1 0]

Was that a modified "moo"?

moo?

Yeah, you apply the same arguement to race and it suddenly increases in grandeur (har har). Discrimination on a political level. Dirty, dirty people.