OUR COUNTRY IS FUCKING RETARDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[seeking]

jesus christ.
this gay marriage thing makes me want to stab politicians in the fucking face with my dick.

how can anyone think that ammending our constitution to TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS of law abiding citizens, is even partially, possibly, fragmentally, ever, even slightly fucking acceptable?! are you fucking insane? these are human beings, that want some stupid ass piece of paper to prove they love eachother, and you're going to change our constitution to say they cant? are you high? marriage is a joke. its a piece of paper....an attempt to appease our parents and our insecurities. what are you god damn people thinking?
you make me want to ammend the constitution, stating that you have to walk around 24/7 with your hand shoved up your ass, and when people ask why, you're constitutionally bound to say 'because i'm trying to get my head out'.

as if i wasnt crabby enough today.
jesus christ.

[GLIK$]

Originally posted by seeking
this gay marriage thing makes me want to stab politicians in the fucking face with my dick.

get it?


http://www.howstuffworks.com

Just learn and be at peace.

[destroya]

Originally posted by seeking
jesus christ.
this gay marriage thing makes me want to stab politicians in the fucking face with my dick.

how can anyone think that ammending our constitution to TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS of law abiding citizens, is even partially, possibly, fragmentally, ever, even slightly fucking acceptable?! are you fucking insane? these are human beings, that want some stupid ass piece of paper to prove they love eachother, and you're going to change our constitution to say they cant? are you high? marriage is a joke. its a piece of paper....an attempt to appease our parents and our insecurities. what are you god damn people thinking?
you make me want to ammend the constitution, stating that you have to walk around 24/7 with your hand shoved up your ass, and when people ask why, you're constitutionally bound to say 'because i'm trying to get my head out'.

as if i wasnt crabby enough today.
jesus christ.

where did people say it took away our rights? got a link?

[imported_dowmagik]

my thoughts exactly. i cant process how people can view homosexual discrimination any different from racial discrimination.

[Poop Man Bob]

Originally posted by destroya
where did people say it took away our rights? got a link?

It takes away the rights of gays. You need a link to tell you that?


I love how Bush has taken this and turned it into a centerpiece issue for the election. Avert your eyes, Americans, from the troubles all around you and the rest of the world ... for gays want to get married! Oh the thought!

[Devilush]

preach on brotha seeking.

started off the morning early and only to listen to bush's fucking crap about being a fucking idiot that he is.

this has also made me crabby today.

[destroya]

Originally posted by Poop Man Bob
It takes away the rights of gays. You need a link to tell you that?

i had it backwards, i thought he was saying people were saying that allowing gays to wed took away people's rights. i didn't get it.

knaahmsayin

[Poop Man Bob]

Here's a list of a few of the many (http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf) rights and benefits that come with marriage. These are the rights our government is attempting to prevent gays from ever having:

Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

[KING BLING]

Bagdar evil puppeteer of the gay rights movement.
[img]http://adamcadre.ac/images/kaga.gif'>

[nomadawhat]

yeah, this seriously pisses me off as well. it like people in this country haven't learned a damn thing from our mistakes in the past.

thanks for that list pmb.

[caL]

for real, let them be happy. who cares
greedy homophobe politicians.

[Nekro]

Suck on this: The Federal marriage amendment is the first constitutional amendment ever proposed that would single out a minority to strip them of their rights.

Here's some more points to be made:

Originally posted by dailykos blog Always on one side are those who say that tradition, common-sense, scientific studies, public order and divine revelation all dictate that the second-class group remain unequal, not quite legally human, and therefore subject to laws that nobody else is and unshielded by laws that everybody else is.

On the other side are two groups: gradualists and maximalists. Every civil rights movement - every social movement in America - has included a tug-of-war between them. Almost always, the gradualists concede that they agree with the maximalists in principle: They know there’s no such thing as half-equal, you either are, or you aren’t. But politics is the art of the possible, the gradualists say, and reform takes time.

True enough. But gradualism can’t mean spinelessness.

In 30 more years, I think most Americans will look back on the reluctance to extend equal rights to gays – including marriage rights – as another unfortunate discrimination consigned to the benighted past, and evidence once again of America’s wonderful ability to perpetually transform itself into comprehensively fulfilling its ideals.

Chicago's mayor on gay marriage- "No Problem" ('http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gay19.html')

Margaret Cho on gay marriage (reccomended) (http://margaretcho.net/blog/gaymarriage.htm)

More CHO (http://margaretcho.net/blog/who.htm)

[Æ°]

But hold up a second here...

If gay marriage is legalized, does that mean that you'll be forced to become gay if you're not right now?

But seriously, we had this discussion at work and this stumpfuck that I work next to all day was trying to compare two gay consenting adults getting married to pedophilia and bestiality. I guess he's too dull to see the obvious differences.


[img]http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~malcolm/sheep.jpg'>
God bless America

[bigpoppa.k]

i just don't get it...

1800 gay couples came up to toronto from the states on valentines day and got married.

whats the problem:confused:

[ElectricitySucks]

when you get married, your not taxed as much. so to all the gays that get married (there must be alot in the US) its just lost money for the government. theres my contribution.


why not forge some fucking papers, buy a ring, and just tell people your married? fuck. you need that 5 hour ceremony of marriage. fuck that. save some (or alot) of money and just tell people you got married a while ago in one of the legal states it was allowed.

[Dick Quickwood]

wonk stoggaf

[ElectricitySucks]

Originally posted by ARCEL
wonk stoggaf



amazing...........

[Crimsøn]

He really needs to get assassinated right about now.

[Daze One Million]

Originally posted by ARCEL
wonk stoggaf


:lol: hahahahaa

[rental]

Originally posted by destroya
where did people say it took away our rights? got a link?

are you retarded?

[rental]

Originally posted by ElectricitySucks



why not forge some fucking papers, buy a ring, and just tell people your married? fuck. you need that 5 hour ceremony of marriage. fuck that. save some (or alot) of money and just tell people you got married a while ago in one of the legal states it was allowed.


so they can get insurance coverage, rights for when their partner dies, sign for shit, all that.

[Daze One Million]

this gay marriage shit is dumb

[imported_El Mamerro]

Okay, so I'm definitely in favor of gay marriage and the extension of all entitlements and rights to same-sex couples, but I've had a few questions lately about the whole issue...



1) Is there a substantial legal difference between a civil union and a marriage beyond the terminology? I believe there are some differences in terms of having protections at the federal level, not sure. Poop?

If so, why is there no alternate movement to call for the extension of federal protections to civil unions? Wouldn't this in essence also provide the same rights to all?


2) If not so, is this is just a quest for the dignity, culture, and respect associated with the term "marriage"?


3-a) If the dignity, culture, and respect associated with the term "marriage" are rooted in religion, and have through the ages become enmeshed into a legal institution, wouldn't it make more sense to follow the secularization process and eliminate "marriage" and its religious baggage from law, and give it back to the community it came from for them to do as they please with it?


3-B) If the dignity, culture, and respect associated with the term "marriage" are rooted in a particular religion that does not approve of gays, is it unfair to demand that these religious groups allow homosexual couples to appropiate the term as their own?


4) Am I making any sense? Does anyone see where I'm getting at?




Obviously it's unrealistic to believe that marriage will be removed from the state and given back to the church, but in essence, wouldn't it be the same to make all couples desiring to get hitched become civil unions, regardless of sexuality, and giving them all the benefits that marriage provides at the moment?

[Nekro]

1. Is there a substantial difference between marriage and civil union? Yes. Ever heard the phrase "Separate but equal?"

3a) Sounds like a perfect idea, the government gets tangled up in religion with this one.

3b) Of course, but many religions have already accepted gay marriage (notably reform judaism).

[fethasmcgraw]

GO FAGS!!

get them rights

[nomadawhat]

Originally posted by ElectricitySucks
when you get married, your not taxed as much. so to all the gays that get married (there must be alot in the US) its just lost money for the government. theres my contribution.




so whats your contribution?? well no shit the government losses money and the individual gains. why should they discrimminate because of sexual preferance.
plus one of the so called beliefs of the republican party is to keep government out of individuals lives as much as possible....well, unless it goes against their beliefs.

and fucking look at this quote from the republican oath:

"I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex or national origin. I believe that persons with disabilities should be afforded equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity as well.
I believe we must retain those principles worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view."

from
REPUBLICAN OATH (http://www.davidsongop.com/oath.htm)

wow, could of fooled me.

[ElectricitySucks]

Originally posted by nomadawhat
so whats your contribution??



it was just stating a fact about the tax thing, nothing more. dont think i was against it, or even for it, cause i really dont care about it.

[GnomeToys]

I'm just waiting for us extreme tree lovers to be officially granted our god-given rights to marry pine trees.

[why write?]

^^ :lol: :lol:

[imported_Europe]

Why is this even an issue in the worlds biggest superpower?

Simply amazing.

To marry the one you love is human rights 101.

[villain]

The normally calm and level headed seeking, righteous moderator o'er all the lands of channel zero has found something new to complain about with the bush administration every day. If only it were as easy to ban the real Mr_president.

[seeking]

i'm level headed till it comes to situations where there is no rationalizing. there is no 'level headed' way to look at this, because 'level headed' implies that there is both right and wrong to be accepted on both sides. that is not the case here, motherfuckers are just stupid.

mams,
i wont break down your whole shit, because, well, im being impacient, but...
gay men are something like 75% more likely to be married than gay women, due, most believe, to the much harsher view of gay men, and their desire to be accepted by their family and friends. they figure if they live a 'normal' married life, people will overlook the fact that 'eve' is a 'steve'. obviously this isnt the case for all of them, and i dont mean to generalize, but it seems to be the accepted view from the 'gay perspective' if such a thing can exist.
anyway, what rights they have or dont have under civil union, vs. 'married' is completely irrelivent. that's like saying 'well, you have the right to vote, but we're still going to refer to you as niggers'. they're equal human beings and should expected to be treated as no less. not that i think you implying otherwise, but i mean, as i see it, nothing else matters. give them equal rights, end of story. to even consider anything lesser than 100% equal, is out of the question.


seeks/time to fuck a guy now

[WhiteDoggy]

I would usually say "Fuck gay people, let them burn in hell with a dick up their ass".

But then when you think about it. It's exactly the same thing the was happening in the 1900's when black people were discriminated. Not allowed to vote and whatever. This is just on a diffrent level. This is just happening because they are a minority, and just like it happened before in history. I'm preatty sure that this will be a whole big argument then some time later everyone will be like "Oh yeah, we were so stupid, this isn't fair. They like their own sex let them be."

[imported_DIBS]

Originally posted by seeking

you make me want to ammend the constitution, stating that you have to walk around 24/7 with your hand shoved up your ass, and when people ask why, you're constitutionally bound to say 'because i'm trying to get my head out'.


this is the funniest thing i have seen/heard in a vey long time. i completely agree with you.

[seeking]

i tried to email you homie, but it kicked it back. said it was no longer valid. everybody...@hotmail.com.
is it still the same and just messed up, or you got a new one? email me.

[Daze One Million]

Originally posted by WhiteDoggy
I would usually say "Fuck gay people, let them burn in hell with a dick up their ass".

But then when you think about it. It's exactly the same thing the was happening in the 1900's when black people were discriminated. Not allowed to vote and whatever. This is just on a diffrent level. This is just happening because they are a minority, and just like it happened before in history. I'm preatty sure that this will be a whole big argument then some time later everyone will be like "Oh yeah, we were so stupid, this isn't fair. They like their own sex let them be."

couple years down the road we're gonna have a gay history month

im just curious as too whos gonna be the gays leader, martin luther queen or some shit












no disrespect to gays or blacks

[Dick Quickwood]

Originally posted by Daze One Million
martin luther queen





haha

[BOZACK]

i <3 boyzz :love3:

[Poop Man Bob]

Mams - I don't know the answer to your question, but I'll do some investigating today and tomorrow to get a definitive answer.




I'm going to post others' responses to Bush's announcement. If you don't feel like reading 'em, scroll on by. But I promise you they're all very articulate, well-written, and thought compelling:

From Andrew Sullivan (http://tinyurl.com/39zwu), a gay (former?) Republican:
WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.

NO MORE PROFOUND AN ATTACK: This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents. That very tactic is so shocking in its prejudice, so clear in its intent, so extreme in its implications that it leaves people of good will little lee-way. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance. Gay people will now regard it as their enemy for generations - and rightly so. I knew this was coming, but the way in which it has been delivered and the actual fact of its occurrence is so deeply depressing it is still hard to absorb. But the result is clear, at least for those who care about the Constitution and care about civil rights. We must oppose this extremism with everything we can muster. We must appeal to the fair-minded center of the country that balks at the hatred and fear that much of the religious right feeds on. We must prevent this graffiti from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as their own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will.

From Josh Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_22.html#002603):
What does President Bush's announcement today tell you about whether he thinks he can win reelection based on the record he's compiled over the last three years?

---

I don't think I really have anything to add to what Andrew Sullivan said with great eloquence and fury this morning about the president's decision to put the full weight of his office behind a constitutional amendment banning not only gay marriage but even the right of states to allow their citizens to enter into civil unions which would provide the legal benefits, protections and obligations of marriage.

(Scott McClellan seems to have fudged a bit on the civil unions issue. But my understanding is that the specific amendment the president is backing clearly rules out civil unions too.)

I'm a pretty big small-'c' conservative on all matters of amending the constitution. In almost all cases it should be reserved for structural revisions to the architecture of the state, not as a means to hardwire policy changes or litter it with silliness about congressional pay raises. But it really is a sad day when we consider using the amendment process to turn back the widening gyre of equality and emancipation which has always been this document's role in the American state.

(The White House will try to say that this is in response to what is happening in San Francisco. But I don't think that will pass close scrutiny since, if recollection serves, they started signalling this before that happened.)

We should also note a few things about what this means about the president.

The White House didn't want to have the president out last night making a slashing campaign speech in late February. They also didn't want to start hitting the airwaves this early with their campaign commercials. And they definitely did not want the president jumping off the high dive into a gay rights culture war.

The strategy was to bank the president's rock solid support from Republicans and spend the year above the political fray with soft sounding proposals aimed at the political middle.

But it hasn't worked out that way.

The support among conservatives has taken some real hits. The White House has decided that the long-predicted rising economy won't float them through this election. The situation in Iraq looks wobbly and likely to get worse before it gets better. So deprived of the ability to run on his record he's decided to save his political hide by trying to tear the country apart over a charged and divisive social issue which is being hashed out through the political process in the states.

It's his dad and the flag burning amendment all over again. Is there really anything that tells you more about a man's character than this?

A couple weeks ago I said we should be on the look out for stuff like this -- not just the move on gay marriage, but the whole descent into scurrilous attacks and divisive wedge politics as the president's popularity drifts downward. (Isn't the White House a bit worried that their line about the Democrats being negative and haters will be a little undermined by these tactics on their part?)

One might suggest that the idea we should have in mind here is that old line about judging a man's character and mettle by what he does when the seas get stormy rather than what he does when they're calm. But I think the real metaphor to keep in mind is how dangerous and unpredictable an animal becomes when he's cornered.





From Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_atrios_archive.html#107767361752251287) :
Strom Thurmond Wasn't A Racist

Trent Lott isn't either.

Nor is Jesse Helms.

Really, they are/were nice guys. Not racists at all. I mean, sure, they pandered to racists. But, you know, they weren't really racists themselves. It's just...politics, right? They just always did and said things against the interests of African-Americans to get votes - not because they themselves are bigots.

What a load of crap. As is the continued insistence that George Bush isn't anti-gay.

[Don't Panic]

Originally posted by El Mamerro
1) Is there a substantial legal difference between a civil union and a marriage beyond the terminology? I believe there are some differences in terms of having protections at the federal level, not sure. Poop?


Civil unions only exist in Vermont and California, so whatever rights do come with them are void in 48 states. Since the federal government doesn't recognize them, the rights that come with CU's concerning whatever federal system a SS couple may find themselves dealing with are kind of in limbo. This is a direct quote that I don't want to research right now about the differences in rights:

According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

If so, why is there no alternate movement to call for the extension of federal protections to civil unions? Wouldn't this in essence also provide the same rights to all?
Other than what I just mentioned, I think this boils down to a 'seperate is not equal' issue. All the pro-SS sites I have seen seem to mainly take issue with the 'civil union' having a second rate connotation to it.

2) If not so, is this is just a quest for the dignity, culture, and respect associated with the term "marriage"?
This is an element of it, yes.

3-a) If the dignity, culture, and respect associated with the term "marriage" are rooted in religion, and have through the ages become enmeshed into a legal institution, wouldn't it make more sense to follow the secularization process and eliminate "marriage" and its religious baggage from law, and give it back to the community it came from for them to do as they please with it?
I really think this is the best approach. We can still give benefits that are packaged with marriage to people, it just won't be 'marriage' anymore. We can just call the new shit a 'domestic partnership'- be it man & man, man & woman, man & women, whatever.

3-B) If the dignity, culture, and respect associated with the term "marriage" are rooted in a particular religion that does not approve of gays, is it unfair to demand that these religious groups allow homosexual couples to appropiate the term as their own?
I'm sure they may feel so, but 'marriage' has become a much more functional word since the definition they are adhering was laid down. It has come to really mean nothing more than 'a union'. It's just a problem of confused (and out dated) priorities and semantics that all this 'between a man and a woman' shit is about.

[duh-rye-won]

are there any people with conservatice right wing views that post on here? i don't but it would make it more interesting instead of having a bunch of liberal fags like ouselves bitching about the man. someone needs to stand up for the man around here.

[Poop Man Bob]

Excellent addition, Don't Panic. Thanks for the info.

[nomadawhat]

where's mapo when you need him???

[Don't Panic]

Thanks, PMB. You snuck in before me though, I'm still going over your post.

*response to iquit-
I agree, and it has been addressed before. I think that Kabar or someone might be the only one able to pull his weight (he's kinda conservative, right? It's been awhile since I've seen him anyway). Mapo tried, but it just wasn't happening.

Even if there was one, there are some smart folks on here, and I've never seen a conservative actually come out on top of a debate regarding social issues like this. They start saying shit like 'Homosexuality caused the death of the Roman empire! What's next? Marrying animals and children?? What is the difference? Once we give the immoral an inch they'll take a mile! Slippery slope! Slippery slope!', and everyone just laughs.

[Ski Mask]

on a lighter note:
how the hell do you adress same sex couples in written correspondance? I've actually had to deal with this at work lately. The best I could come up with is using the old term "Messrs" which is literally a plural version of Mr. I'd be stumped if a lesbian couples file came across my desk.

[duh-rye-won]

Originally posted by Don't Panic
Thanks, PMB. You snuck in before me though, I'm still going over your post.

*response to iquit-
I agree, and it has been addressed before. I think that Kabar or someone might be the only one able to pull his weight (he's kinda conservative, right? It's been awhile since I've seen him anyway). Mapo tried, but it just wasn't happening.

Even if there was one, there are some smart folks on here, and I've never seen a conservative actually come out on top of a debate regarding social issues like this. They start saying shit like 'Homosexuality caused the death of the Roman empire! What's next? Marrying animals and children?? What is the difference? Once we give the immoral an inch they'll take a mile! Slippery slope! Slippery slope!', and everyone just laughs.

yeah, kabar i guess. but i don't think kabar is against gays getting hitched, but i wouldnt want to speak for him.

[Poop Man Bob]

Originally posted by ese
on a lighter note:
how the hell do you adress same sex couples in written correspondance? I've actually had to deal with this at work lately. The best I could come up with is using the old term "Messrs" which is literally a plural version of Mr. I'd be stumped if a lesbian couples file came across my desk.

What about "Dear Sirs"?

[Ski Mask]

Originally posted by Poop Man Bob
What about "Dear Sirs"?

too impersonal. the last name has to be included...thats the problem. but thanks anyhow.

[duh-rye-won]

to whom it gay concern?

ya i know. :rolleyes:

[Don't Panic]

Then what about
'Dear Mr. & Mr. _______'

[duh-rye-won]

Originally posted by E MARTYR
wonder if there is any gay congress men, or others who vote for these bills...

:lol:

definitely a ton of right-wing closet gays in congress. like the type of dude in american beauty.

[imported_DIBS]

Originally posted by seeking
i tried to email you homie, but it kicked it back. said it was no longer valid. everybody...@hotmail.com.
is it still the same and just messed up, or you got a new one? email me.

check your email.

[KaBar2]

Actually, I'm not opposed to gay marriage, straight marriage or any other kind of marriage. I just think that the Government should butt out of "marriage" altogether. Marriage is a contract between two people, according to our laws, but why should that be? Why not polygamy? First-cousin marriages? As long as two people want to form a marriage, what business is it of the Government, or insurance companies, or managed-health-care companies, etc.?

The religious conservatives dominate this question poilitically, and will continue to do so until the people who disagree with them band together to outvote them.

Personally, I see little or no value in "Government licensed" marriage per se. Other than keeping health records of parentage, why is the Government involved at all? I think people should just marry as they will, and go "common law." Fidelity and sexual monogamy (or, in the case of polyamory, "group fidelity") is a shitload more important than a piece of paper saying the happy couple is legitimate, IMHO.

[duh-rye-won]

Originally posted by E MARTYR
all i know is, this is ghey.

:lol: jk.

it's actually funny (or maybe not) how we all call each other, fag, gay, ghey, homo, butt-pirate, fancypants etc., in a deragatory way, but actually defend gheys and their right to wed.

using these words as disses isn't really a cool thing to do, but i just can't help myself.

oh well. knowing is half the battle.

[Daze One Million]

i swear to god that i invented the use of the word gay to describe something, for lack of a better word, not cool

[imported_Europe]

Ill probaly do a paper on this subject for my American Studies class.
Nice info Poops!

[imported_Tesseract]

[img]http://www.fuckthebuff.com/tesseract/sam.jpg'>

[ounceaddict]

Fuck Gay people, let them burn in hell with a dick up their ass

[caL]

that uncle sam looks creepy :eek:
dear partners ____
or
dear mr.'s ____

[WorldBench]

it's sad we think so much alike :rolleyes:

our society is falling to shit..

[imported_El Mamerro]

Don't Panic, Poops, and Seeks: Thanks for the clarifications.

I think that marriage should be eliminated in favor of a secular, non-discriminating domestic partnership that all couples can enjoy. Even if the connotation of the new term might at first sound inferior to marriage, at least everyone gets called a nigger.

The reason I believe in this is because as much as I may disagree with them, I'd like to respect religious' groups rights to define their own terms as they wish. I understand why they wish to keep it "pure" according to their beliefs, but marriage went beyond their grasp a long time ago. Obviously, these groups would like to keep their feet firmly entrenched in government activities and are constantly trying to avoid separation of church and state, so I don't think they'd be too keen on having marriage follow the same route.

[seeking]

if marriage was controlled by a religious body, and not just generally associated with one, i would agree that religious groups should have some domain over what goes on within itself....however, that's just not the case with marriage. look at the state of things. there's what, a 50% divorce rate?!?! sooooo, it's ok to lie about 'till death do us part', not fullfill your vows, treat eachother like shit, but it's not ok to be two men? again, the whole thing just defies logic. that's why people can be married by a justice of the peace, or even by a god damn cruise ship captain - because it's not a purely religious institution. honestly, out of everyone i know that is married (i've been best man in 4 weddings) not a single one of them went to church regularly, and was only even married in a church to appease the brides family (who also didnt go to church). the whole thing is smoke and mirrors.
but enough ranting.

i cant believe that BOTH kerry and edwards are trying to play this 'against gay marriage, for civil unions' angle...trying to make everyoen happy. if i was them, i'd spin this around on bush and make it exactly what it is: a complete assault on everyones civil rights. i would blatently point out that bush is trying to ammend the constitution to say that a specific group of americans IS NOT EQUAL to the rest, an action no different than saying 'god intended voting to by a man, a white man'. if you had the balls to take a hard line stance on this, you could really make bush look pathetic, because he'd have nothing of any value to fall back on. when you strip religious ideology of this, there is nothing but blatent ignorance at play. wasn't america founded on the idea of freedom from church and state? ok, so then what possible 'state' function would it serve to discourage gays from marrying?

seriously, this perplexes me so much, it makes my brain hurt. i cant possibly understand how this is even being discussed. it's such an incredible regression, that yes, in 30 years, we will look back on this with such shame. this is japanese internment camps and firehoses on peace marches. it's ludicrous. if bush is elected again, on the real, fuck not only 'america' as a symbol, but americans as a group. you can only make excuses for peoples ignorance for so long before you just have to accept that its unacceptable and they should be locked on an island and incinerated.

col. kurtz/burn them all

[Daddy Screw]

gays can't marry and theres not a goddamn thing you americans can do it about it, unless you vote Bush out, or something. good luck with that.haha

[Æ°]

In which European countries is it legal for gay couples to get married? (other than Holland obviously)

[imported_SenorSeven]

Seeking: best thread name ever since its the truth 110%.

whoever said gays can burn- vote bush and it will probably happen within the next 4 years- way to think progressively homie.

fucking idiot.

s.s.

[villain]

60% divorce rate... and that statistic is 5 years old. I highly doubt it's gone down.

[imported_Europe]

Originally posted by Æ°
In which European countries is it legal for gay couples to get married? (other than Holland obviously)

All I know is that its legal here in Denmark. These two elderly guys, Aksel and Egil, were the first two in the world to get a "registered partnership" as its called.

[img]http://www.polfoto.dk/Polfoto/Photo/Live/watermarking/5de0xk23_guest.jpg'>

They lived together all their life and were finally able make it official in 1989.

[img]http://www.polfoto.dk/Polfoto/Photo/Live/watermarking/6rk01ldv_guest.jpg'>

My mom attends a church in our old neighborhood where the priest is openly gay. Ivan (with the glasses) is a very nice guy and he held a very touching speech at my grandmothers funeral. My grandmother was very old and not too familiar with homesexuals but she liked Ivan very much as he is a warm and gentle person and it was her will that Ivan held her funeral.

[img]http://www.polfoto.dk/Polfoto/Photo/Live/watermarking/6470xksa_guest.jpg'>

[Nekro]

[img]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Newsweek/Photos/Web_Exclusives/040217_040223/nwk_040223_img_committment.hmedium.jpg'>

Those 2 women were the first 2 gay people ever married in the US. Do you feel threatened?

[ERIZENO]

Keep the right wingers away !!! they scare me.



long ago the samuri used to commonly be gay couples. due to strain on their lifestlye by their code of conduct or whatever it made being with a woman hard and not practical, so out of that it was quite common for a samuri to be gay. no adverse effect on the culture i can see 100's of years later.

maybe they were onto something .... i hope this dosent go the wrong way.

[TEE_rase_war]

and what i cant seem to get past is: When in the fuck did homosexuals start producing offspring by means other than what is only humanly possible by one male and one female. They havent and wont, (should be enough to maybe make you think about what your doing twice but..) and will never "need" marriage. Marriage is natural, and i guess so is homosexuality. Ho hum, you can debate forever on this topic because there have always been, and prolly will always be gays. I paint trains, and to some people thats pretty fucking wrong, maybe some gays think that. Who cares. Look at yourself, fix that first. Well im past it.

Im going to shut up now. and im going to try to have sex with one female for every gay guy who is missing out in the best thing ever.

p

Elish Cuthbert. Sooooo hot. and canadian

[img]http://photos.fotango.com/p/eba00391136f00000001.jpg'> :king:

[jack handy]

they should just ban marriage all together.....especially celebrity marriages.

[villain]

I usually stay out of "penile politics" cause I agree with KaBar... this is a private matter. Certainly TAKING rights AWAY isn't cool.
As far as granting the right to gays to marry.... hey why not. I don't think it's something I'm really concerned about since the relative population who would actually sincerely appreciate this in a sincere manner is small. The rest would probably make like straight people and just marry for benefits and/or divorce and get money that way. Eh.... it all boils down to money. That's what I'm REALLY concerned about.

[duh-rye-won]

JUG-ALICIOUS KIM BAUER!!! she soooo needs an appreciation thread. like whoa. CTU represent.

[Nekro]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=104x1163292 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1163292)

This amendment won't pass the senate, 34 votes are confirmed against it.

Holler for Chafee, McCain, and all the other republicans voting against it.

[Poop Man Bob]

Good looking out, Nekro.

[img]http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/04/67/83/image_483674.gif'>

[Æ°]

Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand of the freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Unleeeeeeeeeeessss yooooooooooouu're a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag

[duh-rye-won]

:lol: :bawling: :lol:

[Poop Man Bob]

Following up on Nekro's post, these are the Senators who have come out against the proposed Amendment:

click! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1163292)

These are official finds through the press or the senators' offices. These are not speculation. It looks like the bill is DEAD. This should be forwarded to the news agencies. Let them start talking about it.

34 confirmed:

Boxer
Breaux
Carper
Chafee &reg;
Clinton
Collins &reg;
Corzine
Daschle
Dodd
Edwards
Feinstein
Fiengold
Graham
Hagel &reg;
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenburg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lugar &reg;
McCain &reg;
Murray
Nelson
Schumer
Snowe &reg;
Campbell &reg;
Durbin
Wyden
Cantwell
Reid
Alexander &reg;
Bingaman
Lincoln

[img]http://www.bushnews.com/bush.04.jpg'>

[soulkillers]

for thoses of us who live in the us and can vote should vote . we are slowyly but surly losing our rights daily. bush is a evil lil man with his own agends that has no benifits what so ever, but has a lot of down falls such as when a american goes outside of the us we are treated poorly by alot of other countrys citzens ignorance adn the way the foriegn media spins the us way of dealing with issuse of race or sexuaity or the war on terrioism or whatever.bush has helped the process of hatred toward americans by lying and cheating his way into office. then 911 happens and bush wanted to have marshall law in the us. that would suck ass for all . then bush declares war on terriosm and we bomb afgainistan which is strange because the hijackers we saudi. then when the upsurge of nation patriotism starts to die bush lies and has america without the backing of the puppets at the un bomb iraq. lying his way in to getting public support the fisrt us declartion of war on a forien country in the us history of 200 and some odd years. now that is comeing back to him and whats he attacked now gay marriages whats next for bush bannin areosl paints beacuse he dosent like it or making all crimed punishble by death gay marriages is just another check on his list to get another stolen 4 yrs in office to damage our wonderfully lucky palce to live in i have 2 kids and one on the way and i want the safest happyset things for them but as long as someone so vile has office happines and the rights of all ar in peril....

[Poop Man Bob]

Mams - I know I promised I'd look into the substantive differences between civil unions, and I've slacked. But I think, as Don't Panic pointed out, that there may not be much difference other than simple nomenclature (and the fact that other states will recognize marriages but not civil unions).

See this post from Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_atrios_archive.html#107782470530056447) :
The members of our sacred press corps are a wee bit slow, but eventually they start figuring things out. And, they've finally figured out the question which will be asked of just about every Democrat between now and November - "What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?"

Edwards got a version of it yesterday. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/26/gay_marriage_issue_trips_up_senator)
Speaking to reporters yesterday afternoon, Edwards explained that he personally opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, and believes each state should set its own marriage policy.

When asked why civil unions could not simply be called marriages, Edwards said, "My answer is the same."

Asked why states, not the federal government, should decide policy, he replied, "Because it's something I think should be decided by the states."

And when asked to explain his personal opposition to gay marriage, he snapped, "I'm done with that question."
I knew this would happen. This distinction was always a sham, because it's a distinction without a difference. Unless the candidates can articulate what the difference is, it's a losing strategy. Until they can articulate the difference, the press will keep asking.

[Poop Man Bob]

And this post (http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=atrios&comment=107782470530056447#566641) was made in the comments section:
The only difference is the word "marriage" and its connection to religion and the church. In the Dean/Vermont pov, civil unions are meant to give a couple precisely the same rights enjoyed by those who get married. The inherent paradox is that by labeling the union "civil union" rather than "marriage," the state is practicing the very same discrimination it seeks to protect against through the civil union law. On the other hand, the discrimination is semantic, i.e., we give you the rights of marriage, we just don't call it marriage. It is, of course, a highly symbolic semantic difference.

The best Democratic response to all of this would be to advocate that all state-sanctioned unions that confer rights under the law be called "civil unions," and leave "marriage," whether gay or straight, to churches.

[Crimsøn]

Originally posted by Poop Man Bob
Good looking out, Nekro.

[img]http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/04/67/83/image_483674.gif'>

hahahahahahah

Good find pooper

[Nekro]

Marriage has 2 elements; the religious element and the legal element. Gay people already can get married in plenty of churches (reform judaism, dozens of protestant ones, etc etc), it's the 1,049 federal rights and priviliges (and about 200-500 state rights and priviliges) that they're after in the fight for gay marriage.

Basically, the whole civil union thing is made to be a sort of separate-but-equal thing. I'd be perfectly happy to strip the word "marriage" from the law books and have everyone get either civil unions or civil marriages.

Here's an excerpt from a letter i wrote to my local newspaper on the subject:

George W Bush ran for president as a “compassionate conservative,” calling himself a “uniter, not a divider.” He went back on his word: there is nothing compassionate about the FMA, there’s nothing conservative about amending the constitution, and there’s nothing more divisive than singling out a minority for exclusion. Liberty, equality, and federalism are the bedrock values of the Republican Party; Mr. Bush has abandoned those values as well.

[Poop Man Bob]

Bump.

I wanted to add this post (http://www.livejournal.com/users/hardvice/81817.html) from my friend from school. It's definitely worth the read.



Nothing aggravates me quite as quickly in this whole debate as the middle grounders (and there's a lot of them) who are all in favour of gay marriage-like rights "but just not marriage". Right. Here's why:

1. Historical arguments in general piss me off. No matter how much Bush might like it to be 1796, this is 2004. I simply don't care that something has been a certain way for a long time. The fine tradition of slavery has roots all the way back throughout history into the Bible, too, and it's still wrong.


2. I'm as much of a language purist as anyone, but those who balk at using the word "marriage" to describe something different than what it used to are ignoring history, not upholding it. Historically, "girl" meant "small child of either sex", but I don't think that means we have to let Little Billy into the Girl Scouts. In more recent history, "wife" meant "property", a state of affairs very few bemoan the death of these days. And oh yeah, "marriage" meant "a union between a man and a woman of the same race". Consider this statement: "I don't mind that married women are no longer treated as chattle, I just don't think they should be called 'wives'." It sounds stupid because it is stupid.


3. "Marriage" is not inherently a religious institution. And here's where things get complicated: "marriage" is the name of two separate and distinct institutions already, one religious "with deep roots in history" yadayadayada, and one secular with somewhat deep but still much shallower roots in the common law. Secular marriage does not have thousands of years of history; it goes back to the Protestant Reformation, when Henry VIII abandoned the ecclesiastical courts and absorbed some of their laws and practices into the secular common law.

Prior to that, a church marriage was a legal marriage; there simply wasn't a distinction, because the church was in control of the law in this area. This continued de facto for a long time, merely because the law automatically recognised religiously-sanctified marriages, and nobody else had yet gotten into the business of marrying people.

The early States, however, decided that in addition to recognising religious marriages, their sovereignty gave them the authority to negotiate the marriage contract as a simple matter of contract law, whether or not a religious ceremony was ever performed.

And thus was born "civil marriage", which one would do well to observe "drastically changed the definition of the word marriage for all time", and which "use[d] the same word to describe a whole new institution" Gasp! The horror! But clearly from this: 1) the State can do whatever it likes with the word "marriage" in the context of civil marriage without affecting whatsoever the definition of "marriage" in the religious sense ... because it already has in the past, and 2) that's a really good thing, because they sure as hell can't tell Religions what religious "marriage" means anyway consistent with the First Amendment.

The same argument was advanced during the debate over mixed-race marriages—that Churches would be made to recognise marriages they didn't approve of—and guess what? There are still churches today that refuse to perform mixed-race (or, far more commonly, mixed-faith) marriages. They don't have to recognise civil marriages they don't like, and the State doesn't have to recognise religious marriages it doesn't like (if, for example, the church sanctified a marriage that violated the State's consanguinuity or age requirements). They're two separate things that unfortunately share the same name


4. Which does not justify changing the name of civil marriage to "civil unions" when it's applied to gays. Why? Because the law already talks about marriage. Unless you want to start calling all state-recognised marriages "civil unions", that creates a separate-but-allegedly-equal distinction that is abhorent to the Constitution. And it seems if you did call all state-recognised marriages "civil unions", that would do a lot more to harm the "definition of marriage" than stretching it to cover any combination of sexes. If it survived eliminating a race restriction, why should it falter and die when a sex distinction is eliminated?


5. The "I want to marry this horse" or "I want to marry this tree" people: *sigh* *pinches bridge of nose* Let's back up a bit: civil marriage is a matter of contract law. To have a legally binding contract, you have to have two parties that are willing and able to enter into it. I need not comment on the underlying implicit bias in these asswipes' stance that indicates that they seem to think that marry is something you do to someone rather than with someone.


6. And then there's the parade of horribles. "What if I want to marry my brother?" Well, that's illegal regardless of what sex or race you and your brother are. Does that discriminate against people who want to marry their brothers? Of course it does. Can the State discriminate against people that way? Sure, for the same reason in can discriminate between "people who've been found guilty of a crime" and "people who haven't been found guilty of a crime" for purposes of deciding who to lock up.

Discrimination is not illegal—discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, et cetera is illegal. Hell, at this point discrimination against gays and lesbians isn't even particularly illegal, provided there's a rational basis for it. But in the case of marriage, there's neither a rational basis nor is it discrimination against gays and lesbians. It's discrimination on the basis of sex. Judy can't marry Joan whether they are heterosexual or homosexual women. Now, if they're heterosexual women, chances are pretty good they don't want to get married, but that's not the point: they should have the liberty right to get married or to not get married. Conversely, Bob and Cindy can get married, whether or not they (and each of them) are homosexual or heterosexual. (Just ask Rick Perry.) That means the only difference between the law with respect to Judy and Joan and with respect to Bob and Cindy is that it disciminates based on the sexes of the people seeking to be married.

"What about bigamy? What about multiple-party marriages?" Well, for starters, it's discrimination based on the number of people in a relationship, not the sexes of people, so it's legally a lot easier to justify. And one important part of marriage as a contract is that it's an exclusive contract, so that might well justify a prohibition in this area.

But here's a little hint to you "marriage is sacred" types: don't ask this question too loudly. What exactly is at the bottom of this slippery slope? If Dan, Tina, and Margie all want to get married, what's the problem, legally speaking? How does it affect you? What rational basis is served by preventing it? Just like the definition of civil marriage can be changed to encompass same-sex pairings, it can be changed to encompass polygamy. The only difference here is that equal protection compels the change in terms of sex-based classifications. But the political process can always choose to allow polygamous marriages. Fortunately for the heart-health of Pat Robertson and friends, most of the polyamourous folks I know are quite content with one or no spouse and one or more lovers each, because part of their culture is the liberation of sexuality and intimacy from being limited solely to the marriage partnership. Do you really want to create a lobby where none currently exists? Then shut the hell up already. You'll give 'em ideas.

[imported_Europe]

Article I found, it includes facts about Scandinavia dn the US

From http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...EDG8F5918A1.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/29/EDG8F5918A1.DTL)

End of marriage as we know it

Stanley Kurtz
Sunday, February 29, 2004
The mayor of San Francisco has made up his mind about same-sex marriage without considering the experience of countries where same-sex unions already exist. Scandinavia has had a system of marriage-like same-sex registered partnerships for more than a decade. Marriage in Scandinavia is dying. According to data from European statistical bureaus and demographers, a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock, as are 60 percent of firstborn children in Denmark. In those socially liberal districts of Norway where acceptance of same-sex marriage is highest, marriage has virtually ceased to exist.

When registered partnerships were enacted in the early 1990s, Scandinavian marriage was already in decline. Many Scandinavian parents were having children without getting married, although parents still tended to marry before the birth of the second child. Cohabiting parents break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So as Scandinavian parents began to cohabit, family dissolution increased -- especially after the birth of the first child, which was often treated as a test of the cohabiting relationship. As the link between marriage and parenthood weakened, there seemed little reason to withhold marriage from same-sex couples.

Yet once enacted, de facto same-sex marriage tended to lock in and reinforce the separation of marriage from parenthood. Today, in areas of Norway where same-sex marriage is most accepted, 80 percent of firstborn children and nearly 60 percent of subsequent children are born out of wedlock. In conservative and religious parts of Norway, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were still relatively low in the early '90s, births outside of marriage have also risen significantly.

Marital decline in Scandinavia is the product of many factors: contraception, abortion, women in the workforce, cultural individualism, secularism and the welfare state. Scandinavia is extremely secular, and its welfare state unusually large -- which is a factor in why it has no underclass. Scandinavian law tends to treat marriage and cohabitation alike. Yet the factors driving Scandinavian marital decline exist in all Western countries. Scholars such as David Popenoe note that family patterns tend to spread from Scandinavia throughout the West. Single-parenting is on the rise among the underclass in England, where the Scandinavian pattern of middle- class parental cohabitation has recently increased.

Scandinavian registered partnerships have accelerated family decline in several ways. Disputes over registered partnerships have split Norway's Lutheran church. In socially liberal Nordland county (where marriage is a relative rarity), churches fly rainbow flags. These flags welcome gay and lesbian ministers in registered partnerships and signal that clergy who do not approve of homosexual conduct are banned from preaching. Yet these conservative clergymen are the only ones to preach in favor of married parenthood. So the purge of conservative clergy in Nordland has removed a critical cultural check on births outside of marriage.

Same-sex registered partnerships have also reinforced the sense that marriage and parenthood are unrelated. Scandinavian opinion leaders have not seized on de facto same-sex marriage to urge marriage upon heterosexual parents. Instead, Scandinavian public intellectuals such as Kari Moxnes have touted registered partnerships as proof that any family form is acceptable. In 2003, Sweden gave same-sex registered partners the right to adopt. Yet instead of treating adoption by gays and lesbians as an affirmation of the connection between marriage and parenthood, advocates identified it with the need to accept single parenthood.

Most Americans take it for granted that parents ought to be married. Yet the prestigious American Law Institute has already proposed an equalization of marriage and cohabitation along Scandinavian lines in its 2000 report, "Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution." We have even seen the bare beginnings of middle-class parental cohabitation in America. Same-sex marriage would draw out these trends and put us firmly on the path toward a Scandinavian-style separation of marriage and parenthood.

Growth of the Scandinavian family pattern would have enormous consequences in America, especially in the underclass. A further separation of marriage from parenthood could reverse the healthy turn away from single parenting that we have begun to see since welfare reform.

Mayor Gavin Newsom has defied California law without bothering to look at the record elsewhere. Scandinavia's decade-long experiment makes it clear that same-sex marriage could spell the end of marriage itself.

Stanley Kurtz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. This article was adapted from "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" in the Feb. 2 Weekly Standard.

[bigpoppa.k]

me and some boys found out first hand how fucked this shit really is...

a couple days ago, crossing the border from up north to go to a jam.. stopped at customs, held for 3 hours, fingerprinted, photographed, turned away and told if we ever tried again we would be arrested on the spot, sent to a federal penetentiary and faced 4-6 years in jail, no questions asked.

All this because 4 of the 5 in the car had "records". None of us had ever been convicted of anything and the records don't show up in the local police computer but they do at US Customs. Just the fact we'd been fingerprinted before sent alarm bells ringing, and an oppertunity for them to add more people to the pariot act database must have been like candy for them.


fuck bush.

[Weapon X]

^ k, thanks for letting us know about that. I had an idea that this happens by reading Haroon Siddiqui (sp) in the World section. He related some stories regarding upstanding citizens of whatever race (even a Chinese woman) getting racist comments and what not by the customs people as they tried (sometimes failed) heading into the states.. Your first hand account is more of something I can relate to, and honestly, that is FUCKED!

I guess the furthest south I’ll be heading is Niagara Falls to check out the new Marvel World.

[KaBar2]

I don't think George W. actually wants this stupid Constitutional Amendment to pass. He just wants to suck up to the religious conservatives who are stringently opposed to homer-sexuality. So the idea is that he gets to pontificate and pound the podium "in defense of marriage" and then Ted Kennedy, et al, bails him out by defeating the amendment in the Senate. Both sides get to look all heroic to their respective constituencies.

BTW, did you guys know that Ted Kennedy is the only senator whose bodyguards ever forgot a suitcase full of machineguns inside the U.S. Capitol? The average person in Washington D.C. goes straight to prison if he even has so much as a single-shot .22 rifle, but Teddy's bodyguards haul around suitcases full of loaded, full-automatic UNREGISTERED Uzis, and then forget them inside the Capitol Rotunda.

Hypocritical motherfucker.

Never mind--this thread is about gay marriage. Sorry.

[seeking]

jesus christ i'm fucking sick of listening to you talk about guns.

[Overtime]

holy shit, thats some funny mess right there.
Seeking, how many hours a day you suppose you are on here?

[img]http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/04/67/83/image_483674.gif'>

[KaBar2]

Tough shit---I ain't going to stop.