Earlier this month, efforts to ban gay marriage by amending the Constitution failed badly in Senate. Now the religious right is considering appealing to state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention under an obscure provision of Article 5 that would allow amendments to the Constitution without congressional approval. The Evans-Novak report has the details:
Meeting after the big failure at the offices of the social-conservative Family Research Council, the top leaders of the marriage movement — Catholic, Protestant and Mormon leaders among others — discussed the possibility of an unprecedented Constitutional Convention. Two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to call for such a convention — which could be done only with great difficulty. Even then, no one knows what such a convention would look like or what sort of amendments could result from it.
Right-wing pundit Bob Novak, who writes the report, appears to be pushing the idea even as he calls it “rather fanciful.” Novak argues banning gay marriage through a constitutional convention would be difficult but not impossible:
[I]f such a convention were to pass a marriage amendment, we estimate that 28 states would easily ratify it. Another eight states may do so only after a protracted and bloody political fight (which could span an election cycle). That leaves supporters with two more states to go to reach the threshold of 38 (three-fourths), and only the most difficult ground to fight on — states such as Maine, Rhode Island, Oregon and Nevada are probably not ideal places to win such a fight, although not all would be unwinnable.
Novak notes that such a convention would give liberals the opportunity to write their own amendments. He’s convinced, however, “that there are more than 13 states with legislatures willing to block anything too far out on the left.” That’s a relief.
Let’s get this party started!
June 15th, 2006 at 10:46 amThere’s a new book coming out that hits on this issue beautifully. It’s now available as an “E-Book”, called “Straight Into Gay America” written by Lars Clausen, a former Lutheran pastor. He talks about the role of religion in this debate in a profound way. It’s worth a read. The first three chapters are available free online and you can also sign up for a Page-A-Day in your email for free.
Check out http://straightintogayamerica.com
June 15th, 2006 at 10:47 amunbelievable
June 15th, 2006 at 10:49 amA constitutional convention would, from my understanding, scrap the document altogether and start again. After calling such a convention there’s no reason to believe that the result would look anything like our beloved republic.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:49 amWith the nation involved in an increasingly unpopular war of choice, an ever-growing deficit, the US’s ports still insecure, a lack of interpreters of Arabic/Middle Eastern/Afghani language interpreters still more than 4 1/2 years after 9/11, etc., I would think there are more important issues for Americans than whether or not Mary Cheney can marry her lesbian lover.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:49 amI can’t see how gay marraige threatens my own marriage. Probably the only people who feel threatened are those who can’t deal with their own latent homosexual feelings, and the politicians who pander to them.
Why don’t we convene a convention to add a constitutional amendment that revokes the religious community of tax exempt status?
June 15th, 2006 at 10:50 amHow far will you people on the right go into destroying what made America great? Freedom from oppresion and religion were the foundations for creating this country. Gay people didn’t destroy marriage. Divorce is what is causing marriage to fail. If you outlaw gay marriage, then you must outlaw divorce.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:53 amBring it on. I smell ridicule like we’ve never seen before.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:59 amWhy don’t we convene a convention to add a constitutional amendment that revokes the religious community of tax exempt status?
Comment by King Spirula
Actually I agree thatif the religious organizations want to wade into the political arena, then we do need to remove any tax exempt status for them.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:01 amPolitical organizations do not ( and should not ) get tax exempt atatus
Theocracy here we come.
Does this sound self serving to any of you? I mean, if these yahoos do bring about a convention and institue their views on the rest of america, the resulting civil war WILL bring on the apocolypse.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:03 amJeff Baker:
A convention could overturn the current Constitution with a vote. But the Constitution is not scrapped by virtue of convening the Convention alone.
Either way - I’m curious why yall on the left are opposed to debate of these issues. If the American public is in favor of gay civil unions, debate it! Bring it to a vote! Unfortunately, I think most can see the writing on the wall - put on the spot with the choice between “gay marriage” and “no gay marriage”, a majority of Americans would vote against it. That’s why debate is foreclosed upon.
Trust Democracy.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:05 amNovak is a pig.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:05 amnext thing the gay community will ask for is minority status and hiring quotas.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:05 amArticle 5 is NOT an ‘obscure provision’.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:06 amunreal! it’s just too ironic that the most repressed amoung us is the most controlling! how the hell did that happen!?
June 15th, 2006 at 11:07 amGreat! Let’s add an amendment for term limits for Congress!
June 15th, 2006 at 11:08 am#11, you are on track. they do not want a vote. they know they cannot win. thats why they take it straight to an activist judge who they know will bang the gavel for them and skip the vote
June 15th, 2006 at 11:09 amThe extreme religious far-right have gone completely insane now in their bigotry and hatred of Gays! Their idea of a states convention to force the ratification of a nationwide ban on Gay marriage is completely crazy! They are scapegoating and fomenting another civil war in US!
June 15th, 2006 at 11:12 amLet’s start a movement for a constitutional ban on the religious right brand of christianity.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:13 am#17
Exactly.
I would think folks here would be happy, that they would see the silly amendment that failed to obtain cloture last week as a victory of the Democratic process and welcome the attempt for a Constitutional Convention. Talk about a living civics lesson!
Instead it’s discussed with fear and anxiety. Trust me, if they can convene a Constitutional Convention, the Left has much more serious problems to concern itself with than civil unions.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:14 amI think we should just make the Bible our Constitution and scrap the Supreme Court in favor of nine clerics to interpret it. A similar set up worked well for the Taliban…
June 15th, 2006 at 11:15 amI just don’t get what their obsession is with such things so utterly none of their business. When they look at a gay person, do they really only think about his/her sex life? I mean WTF? As for abortion, I think for the “pro life” men, it has to do with keeping patriarchal control of the women.
my favorite bumpersticker said:
Pro child
June 15th, 2006 at 11:16 amPro family
PRO CHOICE
absolutely. their main mission is only to keep the issue on the front page thru the 08 elections. which they will one way or another. whether some people like it or not it is an imortant issue to them. and there are millions of them. and they vote
June 15th, 2006 at 11:18 amTP should start the ball rolling for a convention that will annul the Bushco retroactive t0 1/20/2001. The amendment should call for total reparations from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. Rice, and all other Bush cronies, Halibutron and all the other contractors awarded sweetheart contracts, the oil, pharmaceutical, insurance corporations, all other corrupt politicians, all receiving Bush’s rich man’s tax cut. and Ann Coulter and Novak. Each state could add their own as well. The treasury is to be restored to the level of surplus left by Clinton. The amendment shouls also provide for one extra term for Bill to give the Dems time to get all the bastards named above firmly placed in Gitmo until the NSA has time to review all their phone calls to determine the amount owed to the Country.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:18 amThink how much could have been and could still be accomplished with all of the wasted effort people have spent on this stupid issue.
You know, there are still 45 million uninsured Americans out there, “Christians.” How about using your influence to call upon Congress and political leaders to help them.
That’s right, “help.” If you could get past your fear and hatred of homosexuality for just two seconds and realize that there are people out there that could benefit from your help, that’d be great… thanks.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:19 amMeanwhile, gays are getting married without much fanfare in states like Massachusetts, and in countries like Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Canada, which (double whammy!) recently held its first gay MILITARY and ROYAL MOUNTIES weddings.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:20 amthe whole issue of legislating morals CANNOT BE undertaken by governments without becoming FASCISTS.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:24 amInstead it’s discussed with fear and anxiety. Trust me, if they can convene a Constitutional Convention, the Left has much more serious problems to concern itself with than civil unions.
Comment by Chase — June 15, 2006 @ 11:14 am
Yea, like health care, the war in Iraq, a sound energy policy, political campaign contribution reform, a balance budget. You know, all of those issues that have been pushed aside by the right for the ever important issues of homosexuality and abortion.
Look, folks on the right, us ‘crazy moonbats’ aren’t trying to force you to marry someone of your own sex or forcing you to have an abortion. If it’s against your religous beliefs, fine: that’s between you and God. Don’t marry the same sex. Don’t have an abortion. But those of us that don’t want a single religion as the basis for secular law would kindly ask that you stop imposing your views on us.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:25 amThe convention simply will not happen, because it is so drastic an option that it looks downright obscene under the circumstances. Bringing it up is just sabre-rattling on the part of the theocratic right, which makes comments 11 and 17 downright hilarious - in general, Republicans are not seriously planning to do this; they do not “want a vote,” either. No sane American does. That they are bringing it up may actually be useful, since the perverse enthusiasm of the Chases and Amys (and of course, certain more prominent figures) of the nation exposes them as willing to risk completely dismantling the constitution - nobody knows what the hell would come out of a convention, so stop pretending that you do - in order to get in a spiteful knock against people with a different (and perfectly harmless) sexual orientation.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:26 amWhy don’t they just put blacks back into slavery and revoke women’s suffrage and right to own property while they are at it… Only the neocon zealots would think that the Dark Ages are a time to be re-lived…
June 15th, 2006 at 11:30 amyeah lets get rid of all the laws you find imposing
June 15th, 2006 at 11:32 amThis is truly scary.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:33 amSeveral years ago I wrote an outline of a short story/movie script called “Constitutional Convention.” It ended in a civil war and disintegration of the US into a number of smaller countries. It seems to me a nearly certain result.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:33 am#11 - “Trust Democracy”
You mean like the Democratic process that prohibited black people from being free and took a civil war to correct? How about the Democratic vote of the south to prohibit black-white marriages? Or the Democratic vote of the Dixiecrats to not allow civil rights? Or the Democratic vote of the Dixiecrats-turned-Republicans to abolish affirmative action?
Sometimes, the majority isn’t always right. Sometimes it is. Don’t forget, the “majority vote” in 2000 was for then-V.Pres. Gore, not for then-Gov. Bush.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:34 amyeah!!! lets just sit around and remember as much stupid shit as we can. that’ll show em
June 15th, 2006 at 11:38 amBen, I actually agree with you.
I don’t think a Constitutional Convention is a good idea for the same reasons you give. I do think, however, that it is a legitimate exercise, in the remote instance it happens.
Even more, my “perverse” view of the recent “hot-button” issues is that neither gay marrage (which I personally oppose) and flag burning (which is a yawner to me) don’t rise to the significance of requiring an amendment to the Constitution.
I much prefer the mechanisms already in place: state constitutional amendments banning or supporting gay marrages. After all, states have traditionally been the arena where marriage laws are enacted. As for flag burning, as much as I would rather not see individuals burn the flag in protest, I don’t think we need an amendment “defending” the flag itself.
But, if you recall in the aftermath of Kelo, both state and federal legislatures took many steps in an effort to prevent the taking of land for economic redevelopment. This is an expected response when the view of an unelected judiciary is out of step with the electorate. Flag burning is just another example.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:38 amYou know who you dont EVER hear from during this whole brew-ha-ha regarding gay marriage………
Gay people themselves…its always politicians or some religious leader condemning these people…could the media maybe just maybe interview one gay family to “balance” out all the negatives regarding this issue…
just saying
I digress…this Consitutional Convention nonsense these obviuosly sex obssesed religious leaders are pushing is laughable…..you mean to tell me with all the death and destruction caused by the man THEY ELECTED.. …the only thing in the entire world that matters to them is to prevent gay people from marrying…..????!???
ha what am I missing something…really..let the issue die …not everyone is a bigot
whats next a Constitutional Convention to ban Mexicans, the poor, liberals even??
cmon preachers use you religious pulpit for GOOD….not political divisiveness…
June 15th, 2006 at 11:38 amWe were having a religious debate in another thread and I thought this was worth inserting here:
In comparing the ramifications of high religious democraphics with low-religious ones, a closer look at Africa (high) vs. Europe (low) - and how this should be a warning to an America on the verge of a theocracy….
Courtesy my Hammond World Atlas - the birth rate in Europe is 10/1000, while the death rate is 11/ 1000. This is positive, because it means that the existing system can comfortably accommodate the current and future population. Africa, however, has 39/1000 births, but only 14/1000 deaths. This means that there are not enough natural resources to accommodate the population that is doubling every 22 years. Hence starvation, disease, and despair are the results.
In Europe, birth control is used and abortion legal because the majority of the people there do not buy into the religious agendas, unlike Africa where condom use and abortion are religiously frowned up, and therefore not used.
Europe, a less religious country, has a high quality of life. Africa, where religion is dominant, has a low quality of life. And if we want to bring crime rates, employment rates or infant mortality rates into the picture, it only strengthens the argument that organized religion is detrimental to a country and it’s people. Precisely why our Founding Fathers created a system with a seperation of church and state, believing that the future of this country would be Enlightened and not theocratic.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:41 amWow, at least they were paying attention in civics class.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:42 amIf the far right keeps up their crap then some states might opt to secede from the United States altogether! Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine could form their own nation; California, Oregon and Washington state as well; Hawaii could become independent too! America cannot survive as a Union of States with bigoted low-life religious rednecks freaking out and abusing Gays and minorities!
June 15th, 2006 at 11:42 amhows life in that bubble dude
June 15th, 2006 at 11:44 amWhy do liberals have such a problem with people - no matter how radical they might seem - who work within the framework of our governmental structure to push their agenda. If it’s not legitimate then it will fail.
Liberals on the other hand have been very successful at working outside our government’s proper structure on this very issue, with the courts basically ordering legislatures to make laws.
What gives.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:44 am40. - the only thing is, they would spend their whole existence finding ways to invade us!
June 15th, 2006 at 11:44 am#27 Speaking of Morals…
So some of us can talk about morals but other are not allowed to?
June 15th, 2006 at 11:47 amC’mon Chase. We know you’re itching to add “flag burning” to the mix.
Let’s bring up all the visceral heart pounding controversial subjects just before an election & sweep all the important day to day items like budgets, taxes, war and the environment under the rug.
It’s just such an obvious ruse to whip up the frenzy in the conservative folks. We all are agast that you don’t see that.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:47 amRe the article’s “obscure provision of Article 5 that would allow amendments to the Constitution without congressional approval” description.
Oh, come on. Unless you’re saying the whole Constitution is obscure, that’s a ridiculous description. I remember when we covered the amendment process in junior high school, and so should your writers!
That said, I look forward to the legislatures shooting this down, state after state after state.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:48 amamen 42 amen
June 15th, 2006 at 11:48 am“A constitutional convention would, from my understanding, scrap the document altogether and start again.” Did you even pay attention in school? The last time we (the U.S.) convened a constitutional convention was to repeal the ban on alcoholic beverages. They did not “scrap the document altogether and start again†they simply repeal that amendment. In that same type of forum they can also ADD an amendment to the Constitution or change a portion of the document. Sorry but they are not going to trash the whole thing and start over. Please repeat 8th grade government class and pay attention this time.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:50 amBob Novak is a TRAITOR. He has nothing to say.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:50 amSo some of us can talk about morals but other are not allowed to?
Comment by C Storms — June 15, 2006 @ 11:47 am
How you leap from one statement to such an absurd conclusion is truly mesmerizing. You should get out of the blogosphere and go do magic tricks instead…
June 15th, 2006 at 11:50 am#6 - Why don’t we convene a convention to add a constitutional amendment that revokes the religious community of tax exempt status?
Comment by King Spirula
That would help the fundies sort out their priorities in a fast hurry — and give them something else to think about — other than gay sex.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:50 am40 and 43 -
Although I know you clowns are joking around, it’s sad and insensitive to even joke about succession.
Succession and Reconstruction decimated the South and left in a state of economic disrepair from which it’s only now showing signs of emerging.
I would suggest you keep you plans in the spectrum of “serious” or “plausible”.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:52 am#44. Okay - here we go with semantics once again.
GLOBAL WARMING, an issue that affects every living being on this planet.
Two people who love each does NOT affect anyone, and is NOT a MORAL issue. Because you say it is does not make it so.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:52 amPost 43 > yes they probably would try to wage war on the states that secede! Perhaps the entire Northeast states could break off from the US and build a 20 ft wall below and around New York state to keep out the unwashed religious redneck hordes!
June 15th, 2006 at 11:53 amUm. Obscure? Really? I thought everyone who had junior high or high school civics knew this. It’s one of those things that we’re all supposed to know about how our government works. The wording just strikes me as a bit spinnarific.
Maybe that’s me.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:54 am#11: we’re debating it right now. And, it’s been voted on, you should read the news from last week.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:55 amAnti-Gay Goes Big…
Stung by repeated losses in Congress to ban homosexuals from getting married, the anti-gay Right is going to the states to get their amendment….
June 15th, 2006 at 11:55 amyeah - everybody remembers every word from jr high
June 15th, 2006 at 11:56 amBigots run the USA today. Nazi Germany…move over.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:58 amkindness - I did talk about flag burning (if youre interested, @ #36).
June 15th, 2006 at 11:58 amheh. the original Constitutional Convention was loaded up with crazy leftists pinko commies.
A representative government? 3 co-equal branches? Damn left wing wackjobs.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:58 amThe “right” is truely leftist. A true free market economy would not involve stealing 34% of one’s paycheck for the benefit the corporate elites. Looks like Germany during WWII: consolidation under one party, money doled to the military-industrial complex, dissenters labeled as unpatriotic/weak, never ending conflict with a scapegoated race, etc.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:59 amOn another note: you homophobic right wingers sectretly crave a big ol’ bowl of dinks. Your actions betray your true intentions: to sodomize the American public and the Constitution with your unamerican (Corporate/quasi-religeous) policies. You would be less angry if you admit to the world your collective gayness.
#57 if its gonna be an issue, thats where it shoulda been in the 1st place
June 15th, 2006 at 11:59 amI would say, bring it on. this thing will not get past the 3/4ths majority needed. I don’t believe that an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage will ever be added.
The best way to approach this “debate”; everytime somone brings it up, ask about the national debt, war, pollution and topics that really are important. If the right wants to make a big deal out of an issue, let them. you can’t have a fight if the other side doesn’t show up.
the dems need to get their shit together and tackle the issues that are important. Stop letting the right define the debate. Go on the offensive. ask about the war about taxes, about debt. Talk about the US’s role in the world, international terrorism, port protection, VA benefits, corporate welfare etc…
June 15th, 2006 at 12:00 pmWhy do liberals have such a problem with people - no matter how radical they might seem - who work within the framework of our governmental structure to push their agenda. If it’s not legitimate then it will fail.
C Storms:
Because it’s a gigantic waste of time.
See post 28.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:00 pmWhy isn’t that lowlife Novak in jail for outing Valarie Plame? Honestly, I will buy a round or two at the bar the day I hear that old turd has dropped dead and fallen into the arms of Satan where he belongs!
June 15th, 2006 at 12:01 pmListen gays:APPEARANCES,APPEARANCES. Marry a beard/skirt, close your eyes and make a couple o kids, stay in the closet, an hit IT on the side, just like all good Republicans and clergy. Dammit! Set an example for your children
June 15th, 2006 at 12:01 pmThese religious hypocrites take from the law of their god whatever they need to achieve their moral-economical goals and forget the others. Moses said (if he really said so): You wont kill.
Well, a bomb in an abortion clinic is probably not what Moses referred to or the thousands in Iraq or the hundreds in Afghanistan or… Religious fanatics are plain murderers.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:02 pm# 64, i agree. — their goal is not to change the constitution, they know it won’t happen. but to keep it on the front page thru the elections. period. and its workin for them
June 15th, 2006 at 12:03 pm64. I totally agree. I swear, sometimes I feel like my head is going to explode. I fantasize about believing that ignorance is bliss.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:03 pm#64,
Kranzy, I did that in post 28. It was ignored by the right. They don’t want to talk about the screw ups of the Republicans or the issues that need addressing while riding their moral high horse. It’s too hard. Kinda like thinking on their own. That’s hard, too.
Know what else is hard? Presidenting.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:05 pmBetter yet,
lets link these guys with the good reverend Fred Phelps. You know the guy who protests at funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. The guy who says he is thanks God for IED’s to kill our troops, because this country turning to homosexuals. Let the right deal with that albatross.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:12 pmThese religious hypocrites take from the law of their god whatever they need to achieve their moral-economical goals and forget the others.
Comment by Juan C — June 15, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
If you think about it being a system withouta shred of evidence, proof or facts of any sort, which demands in return your entire life - it’s really not rational. Hence, irrational expectations that they can get anything else they want without evidence, proof or facts…
The whole system is based on make-believe. Can we really expect them to behave rationally?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:16 pmOne aspecy of this situation that I haven’t seen mentioned — Article V states only that Congress shall, “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments…” This leaves the structuring of the convention — its membership, scope and procedures — entirely up to the current crop of political criminals infesting our government. I can’t imagine a more perfect setop for national disaster.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:17 pmOpening the constitution via a con con (con convention) could give the Right the chance to recreate the US government into a new form, much like the one Bush wants, one without individual rights and protections.
The new government would look much like the Mussolini government that was dominated by fascist ideology in the last century.
It sounds scary but I don’t think at this time there would be enough state support for such action. I can’t remember a time in my life that a con con would have ever occured.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:17 pmHa Ha. Great idea. Let’s have a constitutional convention. It might be interesting when things come up for a vote within the convention. I wonder what that will look like without Diebold there to count the votes. I suspect on every controversial issue what used to be referred to as the Silent Majority is made up of phantom paid operatives and will be poorly represented. Don’t look for your convention to happen anytime soon because I suspect the people that pay those operatives will not welcome the effect it will have on the markets.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:20 pm#72…
Saw a video of an interview with a lady from that group…. wow. Even Hannity thought they were nutso.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:22 pmThe best way to kill this Convention idea is come up with great amendments of our own.
One Amendment I have is taking away the Bill Of Rights from corporations. How they ever got to be considered the same as people in the first place is beyond me.
And this would be hard to argue against in middle America.
If something like this amendment gained traction, so many billions would then be spent by corporations to kill the very idea of this convention. And if not this particular amendment, something just as scary to the American Aristocracy.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:23 pmBring it, bigots! Let’s put this out into the open so everyone can know just what a bunch of hateful, despicable people these supposed “people of god” are without trying to hide behind their political shills.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#77
the funny bit is Phelps has managed to unite the right and the left. Alot of folks started going to shut them up at the funerals Phelp’s group protested. Folks on the left and right.
apperantly disrespecting greiving relatives is not viewed as a good thing by anyone but a nutcase.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:27 pmComment by unbelievable
When it comes to laws for everybody we certainly should. The worse aspect of this people is their lack of criticism, discussion and culture. Just a quick review will probably tell them that Jesus was one of the first to make a revolution precisely what they are fighting now (Spartacus was probably the first one famous). Also, Vatican is the richest country in the world (per capita) who had ties with the Nazis and other prolific dictators all over the world. Why do they dont give that money to poor people if Jesus taught you (I will not include myself, I am not guilty of his crucifixion) to be humble and not greedy? Now, we have to believe that a woman was inseminated by a miracle?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:31 pmWell, ok, lets do something: you believe in whatever crap you want, just dont thread on people´s rights if you dont want to really start praying.
Chase and Amy:
You want a debate? Fine. Bring it on.
I want to know how gay marriage affects the “tradition” of marriage. Part 2: how does it affect traditional marriage any worse than divorce does?
I want to know how gay marriage is going to affect my heterosexual marriage, now approaching 7 years.
I want to know how gay marriage is going to affect the future marriages of my 21 year old niece and my 17 year old twin nephews, all of whom are heterosexual.
I want to know why homosexuals who I’ve worked with in the past have never tried to convert me to homosexuality, or never did or said anything to affect my engagement to my fiancee. I’ve certainly had my share of religious freaks knock on my door and try to convert me to a Jehovah’s Witness, or poke a bible in my face, tell me to read a passage out loud, and then convince me that if I don’t accept Jesus Christ as my savior right then and there on my front porch, I’m going to hell.
And don’t start with that crap that “it would be against tradition.” BS. That’s a cop-out. The issues that Unbelievable points out in post #30 and Dem Soldier points out in #34 show that there have been other “traditions” that we’ve done away with and we’ve survived just fine.
C’mon. Tell me. Convince me that homosexuals affect my everyday life and will lead me down the path of destruction.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:33 pmIn response to #11 from Jeff Baker
Jeff We are not afraid of a debate on the issue. Why is it that you do not understand that the issues has been debated several times? Most recently our Sentate debated the issue. Guess what Jeff… It went to a vote and failed.
In an ironic twist several people that voted for the amendmet said that the American People want marriage to be defined as between a Man and a Woman only. They ofcouse neglected that the same number of Americans do not want the consitituiton ammended.
Go ahead Jeff Get things going! Keep the debate up. How else can conservatives win this November. Talk about the budget? No Talk about all of the sucsess in Iraq? No Talk about how great W is doing? No The solution for imigration No Restoring our Nations Military morale? No
Bottom line Jeff. The debate is over and the conservatives have lost. Even Novak says it is difficult but not impossible. WOW! What GREAT NEWS!
In closing Jeff. Get a new issue.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:35 pm# 78
See “The Corporation”, a canadian film with Chomsky, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein and others. I didnt get right the legal issue of what you mention…but it is really scary.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:38 pmLots of guys would like to go back to “traditional marriage”
…now how many wives did Solomon have?…
June 15th, 2006 at 12:38 pmThere’s no issue too trivial, too mediocre to have an opinion about, to hector one another to and fro, to back-bite and snivel about in the name of legitimate political discourse.
Whether someone said something to someone else about sun glasses. What that someone said back. How the party of the first part apologized.
Whether homosexual men, having sex, presumably, should have a piece of paper saying they’re married, or shouldn’t be allowed to. Hetero-sexual marriages last a couple of years. Maybe homosexual marriages will last as long as a Constitutional Convention.
This is what America is today.
There’s no presidential war going on. There’s no larger war looming on the horizon. No return of conscription. No Homeland Security. No gross national product doing a vanishing act to such a degree real estate sales and insurance have to be included to create the illusion that products are being created by American workers.
Sun glasses. That’s what’s important. What someone said about them. Whether homosexuals have a piece of paper saying they’re married.
This is America. This is the brave new world. You are what we’ve become.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:40 pmI think this is great. It will force these christianist bigots to go on local talking tours and display their religious intolerance and outright bigotry and racist attitudes. If authoritarian government is what the people want - well then so be it. But I think when they spew their hatred it will finally work against them.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:40 pmOne quick question? I marriage religious or civil?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:42 pmIf religious then each church and faith should be allowed to decide who may or may not marry with divorce allowed or not. (Yes, even if they want to be radical right or left.) If civil, then it should be open to ALL citizens equally. Something about equal under the law. Right now it appears to me that many of us have forgotten that we marry in a religious ceremony that is recognized by the government but the divorce is, for the most part, conducted primarily in the courts.
I agree with the post above, if we (the U.S.) want to make marriage a religious right/rite then we should also eliminate divorce. Perhaps fewer people would get married. I know I wouldn’t have.
One quick question? Is marriage religious or civil?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:42 pmIf religious then each church and faith should be allowed to decide who may or may not marry with divorce allowed or not. (Yes, even if they want to be radical right or left.) If civil, then it should be open to ALL citizens equally. Something about equal under the law. Right now it appears to me that many of us have forgotten that we marry in a religious ceremony that is recognized by the government but the divorce is, for the most part, conducted primarily in the courts.
I agree with the post above, if we (the U.S.) want to make marriage a religious right/rite then we should also eliminate divorce. Perhaps fewer people would get married. I know I wouldn’t have.
Wow. I’m so sick of these go nowhere sensational issues, from both sides. Gay marriage is going nowhere. Neither are these crazy constitutional changes.
All this sensational coverage does is stir the shit and turn out voters excited for the wrong reasons, many of whom are ignorant to the real issues of the day or at least desensitized to them due to the constant hype around cultural issues.
For one example: global warming. It’s real and may kill hundreds of millions in the coming decades as weather patterns change and there are massive draughts, floods, and crop failures as a result. Already there is decreased rainfall in Africa which is killing tens of thousands and prompting civil wars, and that will only get worse as global warming continues.
Another issue is Net Neutrality which is a close battle between those protecting the free exchange of information and the cable and telephone companies who seek to control it. This issue literally has the power to either promote freedom of information as we know it on the web, or allow a 1984 or China-like like censorship of the web from a few powerful network operators.
There is something incredibly decadent and short sighted about worrying over things like gay marriage when there are such more important issues facing humanity. I think we need to start recognizing the far left and the far right both fit the “ugly American” mold for selfishness, ignorance, and self serving decadence.
I’d expect that of country-bumkins; but I’d hope liberal, educated, political people could do much better.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:46 pmgood! I hope they do ban so called gay marriage . This will force the radical left in america to show it’s ugly face. There is no reason to allow so called gay marriage. this is just another gimmick to justify homosexuality. What should happen is there should be a referendum and let people vote, in every state that has had a referendum gay marriage has been soundly defeated and that is good. let America decide not some activist judge.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:46 pmThat is a major part of the issue CB,
There are automatic rights, and tax breaks applied to married couples, that a single person does not get. If it was a purely religious issue then I agree let each church and sect decide. However it is not purely religious.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:47 pmIt seems these people aren’t paying attention; conditions have been met for demanding a constitutional convention and it hasn’t been started yet. Google the following for details: ” Walker v Members of Congress “
June 15th, 2006 at 12:49 pm#48 - Dang it! I have to agree with you in that the Constitution is not just a rigid document, it’s amendable with super majority votes and (eventual) ratification by the state.
It’s incredibly remotely possible that the far-right will push through an amendment. The solution to this type of bigotry will be repeal.
All you have to do is look at the history of repression:
blacks were slaves, then popular opinion changed and they were freed;
women couldn’t vote, then popular opinion changed and they could vote;
minorities were denied their civil rights, then popular opinion changed and they were granted their civil rights.
As the times change, so does popular opinion. With gay people, 40 years ago it was considered “acceptable” to beat the crap out of a gay person for no reason at all. Now the popular opinion is that gay people shouldn’t be treated like second class citizens. Give it about 20-30 more years for the ultra-radical right-wingers to die off, and this will become a non-issue.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:50 pmFundies make me sick. They make me embarrassed not only to be an American, but they also make me ashamed of the human race. How can we let these sick bastards tell all of us how to live???? How are we humans capable of being such tools?
Fundies will push their agenda too far and will be done in by themselves. Can’t wait for the show. I will be there with popcorn and soda.
What are we coming to in this country?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:51 pmgood! I hope they do ban so called gay marriage . This will force the radical left in america to show it’s ugly face. There is no reason to allow so called gay marriage. this is just another gimmick to justify homosexuality. What should happen is there should be a referendum and let people vote, in every state that has had a referendum gay marriage has been soundly defeated and that is good. let America decide not some activist judge.
Comment by reddog — June 15, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Several people here want a debate. I hate to disappoint. Read my post #82 and let’s get it going.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:52 pm#91 - Even better, what we should do to “save marriage” is remove the ability to get a divorce! THAT’LL make people either stand up for or against marriage!
You’re either “for” marriage, or you’re “against” marriage!!!
June 15th, 2006 at 12:54 pm#11. Debate is fine, and let’s get to it. But this is a matter of natural rights, recognized and protected by the Constitution. Our natural rights are not subject to the will of the majority, and must never be made such.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:01 pmThank you, Democrat Soldier. I agree. Let’s ban divorce! Surely, that would save marriage in this godless country and bring us closer to the lord. Also, can we throw in a flag burnign clause in there somewhere?
June 15th, 2006 at 1:02 pmYou know, this isn’t the first time the South called for its own constitutional convention. I seem to recall a similar effort back in the 1860s.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:02 pmWhat an incredible idea! If we can circumvent congress, then we can strip you liberals of all of your rights!
June 15th, 2006 at 1:02 pm#96 - Actually, Chase doesn’t seem to be as bothered by the possibility of gay marriage. Amy, on the other hand, must have some serious problems with her sexual orientation to get THAT upset over this subject. Or something.
The fact is that gay’s do not impact your rights in any appreciable fashion.
It would be like saying “Oh, my God! gays can get married! I should rush out and get a divorce right now!”
Aint gonna happen. Unless you really don’t care about the marriage you’re currently in, and that has nothing to do with gay’s getting married.
By the way, Canada has allowed gay people to get married for almost a full year, and I haven’t heard of straight people rushing out to get a divorce, or that straight marriage has declined in any fashion. In fact, God has yet to smite them all dead either. I guess God doesn’t have a problem with it.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#98
Right on!
June 15th, 2006 at 1:03 pmComment by reddog
June 15th, 2006 at 1:05 pmYeah, right. As if homosexuality needs to be justified. It was, It is and it will be here just as another preference of people.
Reddog does not know that Bush is Bisexual/Gay since he paid Jeff Gannon the male prostitute for sex! GOPers are very weird because a lot of them are closeted queens who secretly pay male hookers for sex, but the idea of guys or gals being in love with each other frightens them, because they just want raunchy sex with no love attached!
June 15th, 2006 at 1:08 pmCan anyone tell me how there is anything “sane” about these right wing religious extremists being addicted to the obsession of the sex lives of other people?
If these people think they are going to bring about a civil war over their personal obsession with other people’s sex lives and civil liberties, I say, bring it on. Because they will lose — utterly, completely, terribly, and be left to skulk back into the shadows where they, with their pea-sized brains, belong.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:08 pm#101 - Why stop there? Why not strip blacks of their rights, cuz they tend to vote Democrat more than Republican? How about strip women of their rights, cuz they tend to vote Democrat over Republican?
I hate to break it to you, Herman, but the Constitution applies to ALL people in America. You’re is a very minority and excessively radical opinion.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:08 pmWell, ok, lets do something: you believe in whatever crap you want, just dont thread on people´s rights if you dont want to really start praying.
Comment by Juan C — June 15, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
I think orgainzed religion is the most hypocritical and egocentric system going. Which is very different than someone having a spiritual side. I’m a hard-core atheist, but I agree that people have every right to believe in something make-believe. It’s the organized aspect of it that is dangerous… The pack mentality that has turned what is suppposed to be private and humbling into something that is corporate, viscious and irrational.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:13 pmPerhaps fewer people would get married. I know I wouldn’t have.
Comment by californiabear — June 15, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Both of my parents came from divorced families (and my father was from WWII generation). They both worked hard to keep their marriage together, but also encouraged me, their only daughter to not make marriage a priority. As a result, I’m at mid-life without having gotten married and have no regrets. Not that some marriages can’t be wonderful, but with a divorce rate nearly 60%, I find it naive for people to think marriage is a cornerstone of anything. If people were actually ‘meant’ to couple together for thier whole lives - we wouldn’t need marriage to commit them to one another. Or rings to show others that they are ‘off the market’. Sorry to the hopeless romantics, but I think marriage is vastly over-rated…
June 15th, 2006 at 1:18 pmI read #82, WC, and I applaud it.
I’ve been saying the same thing to right wing folks, and I’ve yet to have any of them actually engage in this debate, They are too focused on the hateful rhetoric to be able to logically approach the issue.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#102
You are correct…Chase seems to be pretty cool about it, even though he does not support gay marriage. And that’s fine. But he supports further debate on it, and that’s fine, too. If someone doesn’t want to support gay marriage, I’m OK with that. They have that right. But this is an intrusion into people’s personal choice and beliefs, and that’s just out of bounds.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:19 pm11 and 17: Basic civics kids. In our government, your voice in national policy is reflected through your elected representatives. Your reps either voted for or against the amendment as presented. So the answer isn’t having a debate with citizens or doing an end run around the Congress. What you want is to elect bigots. That’s fine as long as you realize that’s the way to handle it.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:20 pmreddog: NOW we get to the meat of the matter for the right-wingers and other assorted bigots. It’s not “gay marriage” (about which Jesus says NOT A WORD)– it’s about homosexuality itself (again, something about which Jesus says NOT A WORD). It’s the fact that, despite their explicit and shrill disapproval, most people– especially young people– ACCEPT homosexuality as a fact of the human condition and accept the basic right of homosexuals to exist.
I think the bigots are still smarting that an activist judiciary managed to eliminate miscegenation laws (remember Loving vs. Virginia, people?) when a sizable majority of Americans were against mixed-race marriages (prohibited in many places in the Bible). More than those currently against gays being able to marry. They may also still be worried that, if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry, they’d do it better and be visibly happier and having more fun at it.
By the way: Since the bigots want to impose Levitican law upon the rest of us, why aren’t they bulldozing Red Lobsters across the country, since eating shellfish is, like homosexuality, an abomination (Lev 11:10)?
The government’s interest in marriage has to do with its standing as a LEGAL CONTRACT between two adults, governing rights and responsibilities of spousal care, property ownership, debts service, inheritance and parental duties. Remember– the religious ceremony is nice (for that day, the bride gets to be the Princess, the Center of Attention, a Goddess in Her Community!!), but it’s a costume party until the marriage license is signed.
If Jews barge into a Baptist warehouse-cum-megachurch and demand to be married, the minister can rightfully say “no”. Gays and lesbians can be turned away from churches that don’t want to perform their religious marriage ceremony; it’s bigoted and stupid, but it’s the churches’ right. However, under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, there’s no legal reason to prohibit gays and lesbians from entering into the legal contract that marriage really is. And any sign of legitimacy that is bestowed upon homosexuals drives the right-wing nutjobs crazy.
What’s next– round up gays and put them in prison camps?
June 15th, 2006 at 1:20 pmC’mon. Tell me. Convince me that homosexuals affect my everyday life and will lead me down the path of destruction.
Comment by WC — June 15, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
Funny how you still have no takers…
June 15th, 2006 at 1:22 pmRedneck Hick–I think it would be a great idea for the south to secede. We’ll follow the Constitution and you can try to govern through your bible. You can call your new counry “Jesusland”, where snakehandlin’s legal. However, eventually, the snakes would prevail proving Darwin’s concepts of survival of the fittest and evolution.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThe whole world revolves around sex. Those who are not getting it oppress those who are getting it.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:26 pmThe government’s interest in marriage has to do with its standing as a LEGAL CONTRACT between two adults, governing rights and responsibilities of spousal care, property ownership, debts service, inheritance and parental duties. Remember– the religious ceremony is nice (for that day, the bride gets to be the Princess, the Center of Attention, a Goddess in Her Community!!), but it’s a costume party until the marriage license is signed.
If Jews barge into a Baptist warehouse-cum-megachurch and demand to be married, the minister can rightfully say “noâ€. Gays and lesbians can be turned away from churches that don’t want to perform their religious marriage ceremony; it’s bigoted and stupid, but it’s the churches’ right. However, under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, there’s no legal reason to prohibit gays and lesbians from entering into the legal contract that marriage really is.
A-freakin-men.
Infact, if you don’t mind, I’m going to borrow the Jews asking to be married in a Baptist church example in the future. I’ve always addressed this issue as a civil union vs. religious marriage situation. Homosexuals aren’t asking that any religion changes its beliefs or rules, just that a secular government recognizes their union.
Remember the whole separation of church and state thing, right wing? Doesn’t seem like it.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:27 pmeventually, the snakes would prevail proving Darwin’s concepts of survival of the fittest and evolution.
Comment by Jack Lambert — June 15, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
Jack - that was hysterical! Of course I live in Georgia, so I’d rather that not happen just right yet. Though, in so many ways, it already has :). And to think that this state gave the country Jimmy Carter, MLK and REM… There’s s friend of a friend who had a theory that being the minority makes you stronger. Interesting…
June 15th, 2006 at 1:32 pmThe whole world revolves around sex. Those who are not getting it oppress those who are getting it.
Comment by Mickey — June 15, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
Those who are not getting it - Married people… hmmm… you’re on to something :)
June 15th, 2006 at 1:37 pmMy god. What has happen to my nation in these six short years? And in whos country will I wake tomorrow?
June 15th, 2006 at 1:37 pm#
Those who are not getting it - Married people… hmmm… you’re on to something :)
Comment by unbelievable — June 15, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
Please alter to read some married people. I am happily married, almost a year now, and while I won’t go into specifics, we are doing pretty good.
=P
June 15th, 2006 at 1:46 pmI read #82, WC, and I applaud it.
I’ve been saying the same thing to right wing folks, and I’ve yet to have any of them actually engage in this debate, They are too focused on the hateful rhetoric to be able to logically approach the issue.
Comment by bobcat_grad — June 15, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Thanks dude!
I too have posted these or similar questions on other threads here on TP, and also have yet to get anyone on the right to engage. Maybe later today…
The only place I’ve seen any responses to these types of questions has been in a recent edition of our local paper. A guest columnist wrote an article on the Opinion page in support of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He addressed some “myths” that another (weekly) columnist recently wrote about in support of gay marriage.
Two “myths” addressed, and his responses, are as follows:
(1) Gay marriage does not affect our everyday lives.
His response was to point readers to the following bible passage: 2 Peter 2, verses 4-9. That’s all he provided. I checked it out and don’t see his logic.
(2) Gay marriage does not damage the tradition of marriage any more than divorce does.
His response took the reader to Scandanavia, the first country, he says, to legalize gay marriage. He said that prior to gay marriage, people in that country were waiting until after the birth of their first child to get married. However, after gay marriage came along, people started to view marriage and childbirth as separate issues. Now people are waiting until the birth of their second child before getting married.
Yep. I swear that is what he wrote (yeah, I know…it’s not nice to swear). No studies, no interviews, no supporting data to show a correlation between the legalization of gay marriage and choices regarding childbirth in a heterosexual relationship.
Amazing.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:46 pmWC,
the study about Sweden’s marriage rates, was most likely done by the same group who “found” that 485 of gay couples sexually abuse children in thier care.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:54 pmPlease alter to read some married people. I am happily married, almost a year now, and while I won’t go into specifics, we are doing pretty good.
Comment by Krazny — June 15, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
I’ll tell you what - I will after you’ve been married five years and can still say the same thing :). Nothing personal, but most of my friends are or have been married and well, let’s just say the long-term track record isn’t strong… About the third year, they go from being the adoring couple to bickering over nonsense, and about the point when I start refusing to be with them in the same room at the same time. And these are the ones who are happy… Which is why I remain happily single…
June 15th, 2006 at 1:55 pmLet’s review…my partner and I ( yes, two gay men!) have been for 15 years in a mongamous, loving relationship. We live in Florida so we can’t marry, but we pay our taxes which help to send other married couple’s kids to school, and support the more than 1,000 benefits that married couples recieve through their publicly sanctioned unions. We have to pay an attorney to draw up papers for the things straight couples take for granted: hospital visitation, inheritance of assets (even our jointly owned house!), etc., yet no matter what we do, we cannot receive the other’s Social Security benefits, pensions, etc.
But somehow, and you right wingers help me here, my relationship somehow HARMS your marriage??? Two conservatives that come to mind immediately, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, have done much more than I to harm your marriage. Consider this: Rush Limbaugh, married and divorced THREE TIMES, is now “living in sin” with CNN anchor Daryn Kagan. Newt, divorced twice is now on marriage #3! If we are going to protect marriage with an ammendment or constitutional convention state-by-state, we had better include divorce in that ban…it is doing much, much more to harm marriage than my 15 year relationship, NO?
June 15th, 2006 at 1:55 pmUm,
To those that support the idea of a constitutional convention fight.
When a constitutional convention is called, literally any amendment can result. Hell, they could even delete stuff that’s been in there since the beginning. It would be a free-for-all.
We could ultimately end up with it being unconstitutional to walk and chew gum at the same time. Who really trusts the state legislatures to not bargain with each other for crazy things? Maine may support a ban on hot pants in order to get a right to pee in a dogs mouth.
Maine is pretty kinky that way.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:57 pmthe modern institution of marriage in the united states is one of two separate and distict organizations. the state, which controls ones CIVIL RIGHTS versus the church which controls ones RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. the united states was founded on the premise of the separation of church and state. regardless of the founders religious issues of the past, they recognized that their nation, while needing religion as a personal asset, did not need the church to be included in the business of government.
NOTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE…
the church can preside over their form of marriage and their ceremony performers will also hold the valid credentials to perform the civil union as part of their religious procedures (acceptance of the current marriage vows). JUST THE WAY IT IS NOW! others who desire a civil union receive the same civil rights afforded to any other set of individuals without the religious ceremony. JUST THE WAY IT IS NOW!
FACTS:
a secular versus non-secular ceremony/joning/vow taking/… is the choice of the individuals.
the government only defines laws applicable to issues exclusive of religious dogma.
the government does NOT legislate religion.
religion does NOT legislate government.
legally administered civil unions between 2 individuals are currently afforded basic civil rights. ask anyone married by a justice of the peace or and elvis impersonator!
legally administered religious unions between 2 individuals by a licensed individual are currently afforded these same civil rights. ask anyone married by a priest, rabbi, monk.
whether it’s elvis or the poobah, they all have the ‘license’ to say, “..and by the power vested upon me by the… i now pronounce you…”.
in granting civil rights to perhaps two women, the only change is to the statement, now declaring ‘wife and wife’ or ’spouse and spouse’.
THE SAME CIVIL RIGHTS MUST APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS IN A SECULAR UNION AS TO THOSE IN A NON-SECULAR UNION!
CIVIL RIGHTS APPLY TO ALL!
June 15th, 2006 at 1:58 pmdoh meant to say 48% sorry
June 15th, 2006 at 2:00 pmthe same group who “found†that 485 of gay couples sexually abuse children in thier care.
Comment by Krazny — June 15, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
Which is completely opposite to the studies found by the institutions who run adoption and foster care systems.
If I had a child I were putting into adoption and I had the choice between giving the baby to a gay couple who were open-minded, secure and happy, or giving the baby to a redneck family, I would go with the gay couple without hesitation. I’d rather have my kid grow up with tolerance and love than without.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:00 pmLet me amend part of #123:
His response was to point readers to the following bible passage: 2 Peter 2, verses 4-9. That’s all he provided. I checked it out and don’t see his logic.
I read the King James version; the passage may have a different translation in other versions.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:01 pmI would pay some serious money to see this convention take place. I hope we can schedule it in the summer, after the NBA playoffs are over, because TV gets pretty lousy then, and this would be entertainment on a level never seen before. I’d love to get the rights to distribute a DVD of the whole event.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:02 pmWe got married later in life then most unbelievable. I was married young once, and that did not work out for the best. I do love my son from that marriage. You are right, we will see how we are in 5 years, but well this is far different from a young 20’s lust/love.
=)
June 15th, 2006 at 2:03 pmThe Family Hate Council, More Hate Majority, Christian Coalition of Haters and Bigots, Focus on Who to Hate et al. are not religious organizations. These peopla are Religious Frauds. They use religion to gain power and steal money from the ignorant masses who drink their Kool Aid. Truly religious people are tolerant and caring. They are people like Mother Teresa. These people only use religion for their own agenda including the Hater-in-Chief.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:04 pmBlueGregInRedFlorida -
Please understand that there are people out here who find the crap you have to go through to live your life a tragedy. I’m a married, heterosexual man with a son and a second child on the way, and I make it a point to address the issue of homosexual civil unions and my unwavering support for it to anyone who will listen.
I can only hope that as time goes on, more people will be open minded, and the scared homophobic folks fade into the sunset.
Congrats on your 15 years with your partner. That’s longer than a lot of ‘traditional’ marriages in today’s society.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:08 pm#126
Great post! And welcome to ThinkProgress!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:09 pmWhat a ridiculous waste.
That’s right, pick-up the failed “gay marriage” thing (which was nothing but a political distraction of the American People), pick it up and run with it anyway.
What a waste; I thought that ridiculous distraction had crashed and burned a week ago Wednesday; but I guess there are folks at this web-site more than happy to pick up the pieces and rebuild that distraction…
Folks unable to ignore the danged nonsense; unable to restrain themselves from ACTING UP.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:09 pmkeep stirring the pot. i live right smack dab in the middle of texas and, being a buddhist, am being attacked constantly. fortunately, this is the best place i can possibly be to learn how to be a true human being. if the folks around here stopped attacking, i’d be forced to mouth off again to restart the attacks. mockery, as being displayed here, is the best way to destroy an opponent. the conservatives have employed the same tactics out of fear. the fear brings the attacks but it also brings an unbelievable ease in the ability to being manipulated. if you understand what people fear you can drag them around by their nose without them ever knowing. I’m not sure of the ethical implications of that but it’s pretty obvious what their ethical implications are.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:11 pmSame-sex marriage has been legal in Mass. for more than a year…what disasters have befallen the opposite-sex marriages in that time? Is the institution crumbling???
June 15th, 2006 at 2:11 pmSince we’re over 100 comments, I realize there’s no chance anyone’s gonna read this, but what the heck. Let me clear up a few misconceptions. The repeal of prohibition did *not* use the constitutional convention method of proposing an amendment, that amendment was proposed by congress in the usual way — but it did use the state convention method of ratification. A constitutional convention has never been called (except for the one that wrote the constitution). We almost got one during the Reagan years. Republicans tried to get a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget — ain’t that a blast from the past. Congress couldn’t pass it, so they started a drive through the states to call a con-con. Something like 32 states passed this before it blew over. Interestingly, the grassroots movement fighting this included lots of right-wingers who didn’t want anybody messing with the constitution, a sentiment I applaud. I think we can expect lots of right-wing opposition to this con-con as well.
Two other things: first, any amendments proposed by a con-con still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, so they do not in fact have sole power to rewrite the constitution. Second, the push for a con-con mentioned above had the states calling for a “limited” con-con, specifying the topic on which it could act. I suppose SCOTUS would get to sort out whether such a con-con fits article V, and, even more interestingly, if it really is restricted to that topic.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:12 pmI read the King James version; the passage may have a different translation in other versions.
Comment by WC — June 15, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
GASP! You mean the words in the Bible weren’t written directly by God?
GASP! You mean it’s been translated hundreds of times throughout history possibly resulting in completely different text from the original?
GASP! You mean that since MEN were doing the translating, they could have intentionally changed the word of God to suit their means?
Say it ain’t so!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:12 pmJerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the other religious far-right bigots are afraid that if Gay marriages are allowed then their wives might divorce them and run off with other women! GOPers treat their wives badly, so I would not blame Laura if she divorced Dubya and ran off to get married to another woman! They are also afraid their mistreated sons might run off to get hitched with other males! They are terrified about this happening, but their abuse would be the cause if it happened, and not Gays luring their wives or children into homosexuality! The far-right are pathetically stupid, and unhappy people, who are frustrated sexually with their own lives, so they desire everybody else to be miserable with them!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:13 pmreddog lol I hope your wife, if you have one, leaves you to run off with another female! You deserve it you vile dumb bigot!
June 15th, 2006 at 2:17 pmbill Bennet was on the daily show, he is against gay marriage, but he sees the writing on the wall so to speak and said that gay marriage will eventually be recognized. I suppose just like desegregation, women’s suffrage, and outlawing of slavery, there will be people who will need to be dragged kicking and screaming forward.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#78 asks: “One Amendment I have is taking away the Bill Of Rights from corporations. How they ever got to be considered the same as people in the first place is beyond me.”
That was a fine bit of “judicial activism,” if you will, by the Supreme Court in 1886.
As for me, were I invited to a Constitutional Convention, I would propose an amendment specfically enumerating the right to privacy, which is not specifically stated in the Consitution.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:19 pmreddog -
Bill O’Reilly called. He wants to let you know that if you continue to infringe on his copyright surrounding “losing a grip on reality,” he will sue you. That or sexually harrass you and then write a children’s book.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:20 pm#144 Such a disgraceful retreat. Good bye.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:21 pmhomosexuality is not a civil rights issue , it is a mental health issue. there will never be gay marriage - get used to it.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:22 pmbut well this is far different from a young 20’s lust/love.
Comment by Krazny — June 15, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
I’m sure that does make a difference in your day-to-day interaction. I think our culture expects too much from romantic relationships. That they are supposed to make us happy, rather than tell us that a happy relationship is the result of people who accept responsibility for their own happiness…
June 15th, 2006 at 2:23 pmBob Novak is a traitor and should be in jail instead of appearing on TV. With his ugly mug he’d be safe in prison. It amazes me he outed a CIA operative and NOTHING happens to him. A very strange repulsive world we live in. You are beaten up if you are honest and promoted if you are incompetent. It’s the culture of corruption by the Bush administraiton that allows this kind of crap to keep happening.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:24 pmSTAY OUT OF PEOPLE’S PERSONAL LIVES!!!
Psychiatrists long ago removed homosexuality from the ADA.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:24 pmThe far-right are pathetically stupid, and unhappy people, who are frustrated sexually with their own lives, so they desire everybody else to be miserable with them!
Comment by Jay Randal
I hate to break it to you dummy but nobody, Conservative or Liberal likes homosexuals. Everybody thinks they are mentally ill and nasty. Only the fringle left wing loons including those on the MS bench think rump rangers should be given the right to call themselves married.
Personally I think the Butt Brothers should be required to marry bull dykes and thereby suffer like any normal married man.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:27 pmPsychiatrists long ago removed homosexuality from the ADA.
Comment by Krazny — June 15, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
(Say this like the kids on the Trix commercials when talking to the Rabbit)
Silly Kranzy, facts are for liberals.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:27 pmUnbelievable, your ideas are too sane to be considered in the new and improved Amerika, Inc.
Comment by Jack Lambert — June 15, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
Why I’ll probably end up in Europe when they start building their Wall across the borders… :)
June 15th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#135 & 136, et al…thanks. I know that there are PLENTY of level-headed folks out there like yourselves who raise their kids to be tolerant and open-minded, and who in turn raise their kids in the same manner. Many republicKKKans are clearly grasping at straws right now in hopes of saving their majority in the fall elections…so it works to their advantage to demonize the one group that can the party faithful can rally round to defeat. Same-sex marriage will continue to be a hot-button election issue until it is resolved one way or the other. Nothing brings out the conservatives quite like guns, gays, and of course, God.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:27 pmOkay, who let IRI out of his cage?
June 15th, 2006 at 2:29 pmBigotry is a mental disease and reddog has a bad case of it > lol.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:29 pmYou only seem to get 4 posts everyotherday… Shouldn’t you make them better than this sort of absolutist nonsense?
I hate to break it to you dummy but nobody, Conservative or Liberal likes homosexuals. Everybody thinks they are mentally ill and nasty.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:31 pmComment by I-RIGHT-I — June 15, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
Moderated by Admin
June 15th, 2006 at 2:31 pmPsychiatrists long ago removed homosexuality from the ADA.
Comment by Krazny —
It was about 1971. Since that time they’ve written glowingly about sex with animals and children under age 10. You figure it out.