and all that that entails: equal rights for gays! Bush declared today that individual states should have the right to make binding social contracts that confer partnership rights to gays. So, what does that mean in a practical sense? OK, time's up... I'll help you with it. It means that Bush supports a long, tedious, expensive, divisive process to institute a Constitutional amendment that would protect a WORD, the word "marriage". Even though two gay people can have all the same partnership rights as anybody else, under a new Constitutional amendment they wouldn't be allowed to legally call themselves "married." Bush is protecting our vocabulary, only, folks. What's funny is that two gay people in a civil union would certainly be allowed to call themselves "married" socially, under a First Amendment free speech protection. (For example, I have every right to call myself "King of America", even if not not true in a legal sense.) That gay couple just wouldn't be able to declare themselves married for filling out government forms; there would have to be a separate box provided where they can check off "civilly united." Sigh... I remember a time when our Constitution protected rights of people, instead of meanings of words. I thought we had dictionaries for that.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZHack*Koff*Koff*ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ :cry: :cry:
Wow...you really have to look for things to bitch about, don't you? Seems like you're only happy when you're miserable. It must really SUCK to be you.
DUH!!! ................ Obviously he "sucks," he is just not happy with which label is being put on it. :rofl: :rofl: Union or Marriage, which one you shooting for rex?:thumb:
rex, i agree entirely. but let's put this issue into perspective. what does it matter? only idiots care. if i was gay, i wouldnt care. i could hase disgusting butt sex with every homo on the planet, the laws mean nothing. i could effectively marry any faggot i wanted. i am straight, i and in college i lived with my girlfriend for years, unmarried. i didnt need the government to approve the forms so i could live like a couple and have sex 3 times a day. if i wanted, i coulc have just claimed i was married, it would have been no different. the whole issue is irrelevant. yes, you are right, it is based on stupid religious crap. but does it relly matter? i would not care if the government outlawed marriage altogether. it makes zero difference. what does matter is foreign relations, and the economy. these are the things the government should consider. they could pass 900 laws on who can marry whom, and it makes no damn difference, as long as people can live with and have sex with whomever they choose. it is a non-issue. you are right people are stupid, they care about words. even john kerry says that. wasnt clinton behind the defense of marriage act? ( i actually do not know). it is all stupid. but in the big picture, does it really matter? isnt the real issue national security (which i know you think is another reason to vote kerry, but still)?. kerry claims he is catholic. that means he is idiot, to some extent. i dont babble all day about it, i accept it, politicians are miserable idiots. might as well support the one who is right on the issues that matter. and one thing is for damn sure, gay marriage doesnt matter one bit.
martin... I care for two reasons: 1) I think Constitutional amendments should be restricted to guaranteeing freedoms rather than restricting them 2) I think if marriage is banned for gays by the Constitution then future cases will be brought that argue that the intent of the ban was to outlaw partnerships. After all, how could we have absurdly gone through the lengthy process just to define a word?
i think it is unlikely it will every happen. don't you? i dont buy slippery slopes most of the time. this mentality will gain less ground as time goes by, not more. even die-hard christians are less shocked by gays nowadays. just let it blow over. kerry wants to raise taxes (he calls it rolling back tax cuts) on the rich. that hurts the economy. that's a real issue. kerry wants to raise the minimum wage, that hurts small business and eliminates jobs, that is a real issue. kerry has far too much support coming from anti-war appeasers and wimps. thats bad. thats a real issue. i understand your opinion, and you are correct. i just dispute how much this issue matters relative to basically anything else. i wouldnt care about this even if i was gay.
The only thing I really care about as far as gays go is that they aren't allowed to adopt...I think its wrong for the kid...
