[gunsmith]

With all the political bickering over gay marriage,couldn't we sneak
in nationwide reciprocity for CCW through the "back door":evil:

Do you think if we got together and pressed conservative
lawmakers to attach a rider to any gay marriage bill ,that would also allow nationwide CCW,that we could get it passed?
We could paint the SF/NY libs as anti gay!
:neener:
If they oppose....

[Devonai]

Don't two pieces of legislation riding on the same bill have to be remotely related to each other? Or is that too logical?

[Hkmp5sd]

Or is that too logical?

Waaaaaay too logical. All kinds of pet projects get added to bills that are not remotely related to anything. It's the politician's favorite way of sneaking something into the law.

[Greg L]

They are related to each other. They bring together the whole issue of states recognizing some pieces of paper issued by another state (traditional marraige licenses, drivers license) while failing (in most cases) to recognize other pieces of paper issued by the same state (gay marraige, CCW).

It would be fun watching extremists (on both sides of the aisle) scream about the other party's rider.

Greg

[Standing Wolf]

On the proverbial "bright side," I suppose homosexual marriage will lead to fewer custody fights over children.

[Gray Peterson]

There will never be a serious attempt to use Congress to pass "gay marriage" reciprocity in the Congress, at all.

7 years ago, the US Congress passed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), allowing states to "opt out of" recognizing same sex marriages, and to basically may same sex marriage be considered invalid for federal benefits, rights, and so on.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The Democratic party is giving as much lip service to the gay community as the Republicans give lip service to the gun rights community. They stab them in the back when it's politically convenient.

[Combat-wombat]

The Gay Protection Act
Allows gays to get married
Protects gays agaist bashing by allowing CCWs

Perfectly related.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

The picture on the front page explains it all.

[Henry Bowman]

Standing Wolf - I have observed that NOT to be the case.

[OF]

Standing Wolf - I have observed that NOT to be the case.It makes no difference one way or the other. State (federal) recognized legal unions between two adults need to be reality in any society that stands for freedom. Religiously recognized 'marriage' is another issue. That's a religious issue, as far as I see, and it will have to be dealt with through the proper channels there.

As for the CCW thing: by any means necessary. :)

Nationwide interstate reciprocity I can get behind. A federal CCW I cannot.

- Gabe

[revlar]

With Canada legalizing same-sex marriages it shall be interesting to see if the US continues our policy of reciprocity with them regarding the solemnization of marriage.

I agree GRD, there is a difference between "state" and "church" sanctioned unions. Still, if the US government gives the nod to Canadian same-sex marriages, I think the "sleeping giant" of conservative Christians (right or wrong) will awaken with a vengeance.

Do you really think the US government is ready for that battle at this point in time?

[MK11]

Why not try to tack it on? Look at all the big business tax cuts and logging and oil drilling legislation that somehow made their way into the so-called "Patriot Act."

[themic]

i believe it is technically unconstitutional to have completely different things under one bill title

that being said, this fact is almost always ignored.

[OF]

this fact is almost always ignoredYou got that right. What else is new.

- Gabe

[erikm]

In my country gay marriage has been legal for a couple of years now. The only problem I can recall hearing about was the somewhat indecent rush to various city halls to be the first legally married same sex couple. Of course, the number of religious nutcases (including christian fundamentalists) in the second chamber (of parliament) and in society in general is quite limited so getting the law passed wasn't totally impossible. It just took several years.

There are also some alternatives to marriage here. Two people can contract to live together and IIRC get most of the legal benefits without getting married. Another thing, religious marriages aren't legally binding here. If you get married you have to get married by someone from the the civil register. If you also want a church wedding that's your own affair.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

[Combat-wombat]

It is not the government's job to tell you who you can or cannot get married to. Only you can tell that. The government is discriminating against gays, just like they were discriminating against blacks 50 years ago. Think how you would feel if the government said that opposite-sex marriges are cannot happen. I think that is how we're treating homosexuals right now. Why does it matter to me that gay people get married? How can that affect me? It's their freedom to do what they want, and frankly, I'm appalled that the government has told certain people that they can not get married. Who cares about the Christian fundamentalists? There is a seperation of church and state, and that is being ignored in this issue.

[Jeeper]

There will never be a serious attempt to use Congress to pass "gay marriage" reciprocity in the Congress, at all.


I wouldnt say never. Big US companies have been allowing the "life partners" to recieve benefits for a while now. I predict that within 10 years it will be allowed for if notihing else all benefits and such. Everyone realizes that it just a religous objection which isnt a good enough reason. The supreme court is about to realease a very important gay rights decision in the case of "Lawrence v. Texas" This will set up an idea of what can be expected. I always think that it is funny that the same people that say "Keep the goverment out of my business" are the same ones that want the gov intrusion here.

[Trisha]

Problem is, I don't believe professional 2A orgainzations would risk alienating/angering the fundamentalist/Christian sector of their memberships with such a vision.

Money talks.

It'd be a brilliant end-run around the LSD's though. . .

What a dream!

Trisha

[Hkmp5sd]

Unfortunately, there are also many other types of licenses that do not enjoy reciprocity in other states.

Some day, I think gay marriages will be legal in all states because of federal law requiring states to accept marriage licenses issued in other states and countries.

I don't think we will ever see an across the board reciprocity of CCWs. It will always be the states creating agreements between themselves as it is now.

[TallPine]

The best answer would be just to eliminate marraige altogether as a legal status.

Why should the govt care who you do or don't live with?

You wanna get married, go to your flavor of church, or just go out on a hilltop under the stars (or whatever)

[gunsmith]

It'd be a brilliant end-run around the LSD's though.

do you mean the LDS?

Where is the LSD church!
is that where Jerry Garcia and Jimi Hendrix used to pray at:p

[Sarge]

is already "allowed" (actually affirmed as an inalienable right) by the Bill of Rights. No need to sell our souls for it; it's already there.

What we need is a literal interpretation of the second amendment, recognized by every court in the land.

[Lone_Gunman]

There is a seperation of church and state, and that is being ignored in this issue.

Show me where the Constitution says that.

The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

There is a big difference between what the Constitution says, and the idea of "seperation of church and state". It prohibits establishment of a national religion, and thats about it.

The wording of the first amendment does not enter into the debate on gay marriage. I think the case for gay marriage needs to be argued on the basis of civil rights, no religious rights.

Rather than legalize gay marriage, why not eliminate marriage completely as a legal entity, and put it strictly back in the hands of the church where it belongs? There is no reason for marriage, gay or not, to be recognized in the eyes of the law. If there is a dispute between married couples, and they break up, the civil courts could still come in and divide the family estate if the 2 sides couldnt agree on how to divide it.

[buzz_knox]

Rather than legalize gay marriage, why not eliminate marriage completely as a legal entity, and put it strictly back in the hands of the church where it belongs?

Inheritance laws would have to be fundamentally altered if marriage no longer had a legal status, as would such matters as spousal consent for emergency procedures, etc. But I actually agree that if they intend to legalize same sex marriages, then it needs to be eliminated as a legal affair.

[gunsmith]

we could get nationwide CCW!!!

[joonya187]

There is a big difference between what the Constitution says, and the idea of "seperation of church and state". It prohibits establishment of a national religion, and thats about it.

Exactly right. Separation of church and state is as much a myth in the constitution as citizens arrest is. Or the right to a 30-minute-or-less wait in line at the airport.

Of course, accepting that takes some *sniff* personal sacrifice.

[Glacius_the_Invincible]

Forgive me if I don't know what I'm talkin' about here... I dunno much about law, but wouldn't making a law that is based pretty much completely on upholding the ideals of one religion kinda be the same thing as making a "law respecting an establishment of [that] religion", which is something that the first amendment prohibits?

[madmike]

Thanks for the referral to the thread, Gunsmith.

Hey, either gunnies or gays could use the precedent of interstate recognition of one to push the other. As I recall, it was well into the 1980s before all the states agreed to put points on driver's licenses from out of state violations. Correct?

And my rant here (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2181)

I can be your best friend.

Not because I care, but because I don't.

I don't care what church, if any, you go to. I don't care if you are Church of God, Church of Christ, Church of God in Christ, Church of Christ reformed, Church of Christ Scientist, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Byzantine Catholic, Roman Catholic, Jewish Congregationalist, Hindu, Shinto, Islamic, Buddhist, Greek Orthodox, Native American, Irish Druidic, Scandinavian Druidhe, Pagan, Wiccan…Hell, I don't care if you worship the Great Pumpkin. Or no deity at all. How you spend your Sundays, Saturdays, Fridays, Tuesday evenings, full Moons, or eclipses is up to you.

I don't care if you have sex with men, women, both, or neither. If it's in private, and they are freely consenting adults, it's your business. I may not like it myself, but I don't care about you.

I don't care what brand of beer you drink or not, if you drink wine or not, liquor or not. I don't care if you brew your own, grow your own or roll your own. I don't care if you smoke dope, rope, or nightshade. It's your body, poison it any way you wish. Just keep the residue in your own home, okay?

Vegetarian? Okay. Vegan? Great. Rare steak only, or raw rattlesnake? Cool. Squid
with the tentacles still wiggling? Suits me just fine.

Are you skinny? Fat? Ugly? Overdressed? Underdressed? Naked? Hey, it's your life, do what you wish. If I don't like it, I won't watch.

I am a politician's worst nightmare. I can't be made to hate, I can't be panicked by the strange, and I'll react ungraciously to attempts to inspire me so. I vote on issues, not on smokescreens, and no Orwellian pigs in suits need apply.

I'm not part of a vast conspiracy to put Candidate X into office--Candidate X is an idiot, and so is Candidate Y. I voted for the Manchurian Candidate myself, because I don't care. I don't belong to the Hate Group of the Month Club on the Evening news, because I don't care. How can you possibly think I have anything in common with them?

Oh, right. I own guns. So do they. I'll bet a bunch of them read Doctor Seuss
growing up, too, as did I. I don't see how that's relevant, either.

So that's it. Power scares you. And by not being a pawn, by being able to think, and by daring to think differently from you, I scare you. Well, relax, because I don't care. Read the papers of the country, or for that matter, the world. You'll find me right there defending the unpopular in letters to the editor, in marches, in protests and sit-ins. I don't care so damned much that I'll go far out of my way to prove it. When your oppressors refuse to believe I don't care, I'm willing to reinforce the point…WITH force.

The only actions of yours I care about are those that actually affect me. Try to
rape my wife, and you die. Try to assault me, and you die. Touch my children…Well, then you'll die slowly, as a lesson to others.

Try to take my guns away, or send someone else to do so…well, then I care. Keep in mind--they protect you, too. The people who DO care about silly details of your life DO have guns, whether you call them extremists, fanatics, cults, militias, or Federal Agents. It's easy to hate a name, isn't it? I'd hate the names, too, if it would make any difference, but it doesn't. Hateful people hide everywhere, and I don't care.

Only when they ACT on that hate do I become aroused. By acting on hate, they
interfere with my ability not to care. And that just ruins my whole day. Sometimes it takes the threat of force to prove I don't care. That's why I have the guns.

Why would you want to take my guns away, knowing I don't care? I'm no threat. I'm your best friend. I don't even care if THEY have guns. I don't even care if YOU have a gun. I care even less if you don't like ME having a gun.

So do me a favor and don't come to my door asking me to turn over my tools of
reason.

Because I don't care who interferes with my right to not care.

And neither do my guns.

[erikm]

Mike, Outstanding!

Rant filed for further use. :D

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

[Samurai Penguin]

What erikm said.

:D :D :D

[madmike]

Hmm...Samurai Penguin...

You know, there's an Alimentary Penguin at dummycrapunderground. I'd love for someone to go slice him.:D

And thanks for quoting me. I like publicity. It's how I make a living, after all.

Mike

[gunsmith]

gay marriage is going to be a reality in a few years ( like it or not ready or not).
We can secure nation wide ccw reciprocity by the poison pill method so often used against gun owners.
all we have to do is get this idea to some politicritter.

Gay marriage will happen soon lets make sure we can attach nation wide ccw reciprocity to the same bill

[Lupinus]

if they can sneak in 200 million for a study on french fruit fly's....I think we can sneak in CCW

[madmike]

by the poison pill method so often used against gun owners.
all we have to do is get this idea to some politicritter.

Rather than Poison Pill, I think of that as "compromise." They want something. We want something.

Of course, their usual definition of "Compromise" is "We only took half of it, so you came out ahead by our reckoning."

Maybe it's time they grew up.

[Nehemiah Scudder]

You'd need some kind of standardized... um... standards.

Isn't CCW totally up to the states right now, with variations? Where's the easiest state to get a CCW? Where's the hardest?

I don't see why it isn't more like drivers licences are.

[madmike]

You'd need some kind of standardized... um... standards.

Isn't CCW totally up to the states right now, with variations? Where's the easiest state to get a CCW? Where's the hardest?

I don't see why it isn't more like drivers licences are.

DLs are not consistent from state to state. Ages vary, requirements such as vision vary, parallel parking/maneuverability tests vary, speed limits, etc.

Yet all states recognize all licenses.

Yes, I'd love to compromise and make CCW just like DLs.

Available to anyone over 16 years old for less than $20 for 5 years, renewable instantly, requiring a written and practical test passable by +99% of the population, no license needed to operate on private property or in an emergency, minor fines for non-lethal accidents, 3-5 non-lethal accidents allowed every couple of years without suspension or revocation.

That is a compromise I can live with.:evil:

Let's ask Sarah what she thinks:cuss: :banghead:

[Nehemiah Scudder]

DLs are not consistent from state to state. Ages vary, requirements such as vision vary, parallel parking/maneuverability tests vary, speed limits, etc.

Yet all states recognize all licenses.

Yes, I'd love to compromise and make CCW just like DLs.

I'd say that the driving laws may differ but the licencing is pretty standard. Some kind of written and practical minimum competancy tests. I haven't heard of a state that's really that different.

[madmike]

I'd say that the driving laws may differ but the licencing is pretty standard. Some kind of written and practical minimum competancy tests. I haven't heard of a state that's really that different.

You can be legally blind in 49 states with a vehicular homicide on your record and get a DL in Florida...

People from Ohio frequently travel to PA or IN to pass the test without having to take the "maneuverability" test, and then simply transfer licenses on the written test later.

More differences than you might imagine. Then, some farm states are 15 while others are 16.

[Nehemiah Scudder]

You have to take the driver's test in PA. I failed the written test once, and failed the drivers test once.

My only excuse was that I was 17 and didn't like studying, and that darn parallel parking. :)

[Cosmoline]

Gay marriage is even deader than national CCW. Very few D's or R's on the federal level want anything to do with either subject.

[outofbattery]

They are related issues,full faith and credit should be applied to both.

[thorn726]

THIS THREAD is the kind of compromise i think we should all be looking for !

personally, i'd prefer tax my weed and you can fund shooting ranges with the money

i wll admit though-
I suppose homosexual marriage will lead to fewer custody fights over children.

no way. already there are disputes.
gay men might not have kids very often, but women sure do.

i guess i shouldn't tell the joke.
can a lesbian tell us the joke please ?

anyway it ends up with there being no shortage of divorces should gay marraige be legal

[madmike]

You have to take the driver's test in PA.

That's not what I said. I said it's a different test in one area. A LOT different. Easier for some people to pass. But it's still considered valid anywhere.

[Cosmoline]

They are related issues,full faith and credit should be applied to both.

True, but they're too hot. Like immigration reform and controlling the borders.

[Lupinus]

mad-

That's not what I said. I said it's a different test in one area. A LOT different. Easier for some people to pass. But it's still considered valid anywhere.
The same can be said everywhere. Different states have different regularion's on what it takes to get a license. And what it takes to keep a license.

And others have different regulations on car inspection that changes a lot from state to state. Some states are extremly ridged. Then you have other states that are etremly easy and basic. Then you have states like FL that doesn't have inspections period. That doesn't mean that if I go on a road trip my car is going to be impounded unless there is some reason beyond it isn't up to their codes. A drastic thing maybe (and I have seen some weird creations here in FL on the road) but just simply passing through with something reasonable isn't cause to say it isn't valid in their state.

[madmike]

mad-


The same can be said everywhere. Different states have different regularion's on what it takes to get a license. And what it takes to keep a license.

snip

That doesn't mean that if I go on a road trip my car is going to be impounded unless there is some reason beyond it isn't up to their codes. A drastic thing maybe (and I have seen some weird creations here in FL on the road) but just simply passing through with something reasonable isn't cause to say it isn't valid in their state.

That's exactly what I think I said. Did I misstate it somewhere?

[Lupinus]

perhaps I did.

[PCGS65]

It sounds like a good idea but to me it's not worth trading one moral for another. Gay is wrong, always has been always will be.
If everyone was gay there wouldn't be any people to own guns.

[Geno]

I have had the opportunity to know many, and I mean, MANY couples of same sex. They ALL relate to my wife and I that there exists far more infidelity, far more violence & abuse, and far more desease within the "same-sex-community" than in the heterosexual community. Unfortunately, I have seen it.

I used to sit back and defend people to make their choices. However, seeing what I now have, knowing these people's background, I have noted some troubling strands that cut through ALL of their lives, and these same lead me to believe that their "choice" to seek "same-sex" is just that--choice. However, I believe that deep down, the are underlying psychological matters stemming from early-life abuse.

I can not sit and pretend to be "pro" same sex marriage. I am not. I believe that same-sex marriage will further weaken our society by bringing instability to more children's lives. In my humble opinion, leave matters as they were: don't ask; don't tell. After all, has anyone here been witness to any of us talking about how see conduct ourselves as heterosexuals? Then why should I have to be exposed to the contrary?!

The right of freedom of speech also means that I have the right to be free of their speech. It is a two way street. I do believe that people are free to make their own "private" choices. Private! Keep it out of my face! I keep my marriage private. What's the difference? Should same-sex be harassed? No. It's their choice. But I do not have to, and I will not recognize same-sex marriage as ethical.

Just my opinion, and for what is it worth? One vote. I cast my vote and it stood! At some point in life, we have to stand for something. Those who stand for nothing stand alone.

Doc2005

[gunsmith]

you accepting or your not accepting gay marriage.

It will be a reaity in a few years, probably via SCOTUS decision.

Lets take advantage of this to push National CCW reciprocity . This way the libs could feel like they got a victory (gay marriage) & so can we!

[madmike]

Gay is wrong, always has been always will be.
If everyone was gay there wouldn't be any people to own guns.

The first statement is an opinion. There are as many people who feel owning guns is wrong. If either of you are allowed to express your opinion as legislation, we lose rights.

The second part makes no sense whatsoever. There are a huge number of gays who own guns.

The right of freedom of speech also means that I have the right to be free of their speech.

That's a ridiculous and nonsensical statement. You have the right not to listen. You do not have the right to stop their speech, any more than they do yours.

And as long as mindless bigotry rules civil behavior and common sense on either side, no one's rights are safe.

[solareclipse]

it is very bad to tag a constitutional right with a social ideology.

[jamz]

Yes, I'd love to compromise and make CCW just like DLs.

Available to anyone over 16 years old for less than $20 for 5 years, renewable instantly, requiring a written and practical test passable by +99% of the population, no license needed to operate on private property or in an emergency, minor fines for non-lethal accidents, 3-5 non-lethal accidents allowed every couple of years without suspension or revocation.


I'd be down with this IF and ONLY IF the tests were not written, administered, graded or otherwise run by any governmental institution whatsoever.

-James

[madmike]

I'd be down with this IF and ONLY IF the tests were not written, administered, graded or otherwise run by any governmental institution whatsoever.

-James

That would defeat the purpose of the proposed compromise to shut up our opponents (I assume they wouldn't agree to the deal) and while I dream of a world with no government standards, the reality is that any such test would and could ONLY be administered at least indirectly through a government. If there is no gov't involved, why bother with a test at all? Yes, that's my preferred solution, but it's recursive to the beginning of this paragraph.

[Scottmkiv]

I'd say that the driving laws may differ but the licencing is pretty standard. Some kind of written and practical minimum competancy tests. I haven't heard of a state that's really that different.

In Texas, as long as you take driver's ed (which can be done at home by yourself) you don't have to take a practical test, just the written one.

[gunsmith]

Gay marriage is in the news, I feel gay marriage will be a reality in our time along with national reciprocity for gay married people.

Now is the time for gunnies to push for ccw reciprocity as well

[Thin Black Line]

This gay union ban has about as much legs as the $100 gas rebate. It's
total election year posturing. However, if it actually led to a Consitutional
Convention, then be careful what you wish for:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju57226.000/hju57226_0.HTM

[Lone_Gunman]

What I can't believe is that the Republican Party thinks conservatives are stupid enough to fall for the same trick twice.

Bush bloviated endlessly about banning gay marriage and amending the Constitution in the months before his re-election in 2004. The Republicans party got gay marriage amendments added to many state ballots. This drove many social conservatives to the polls to vote against gay marriage, and while they were there, of course they voted for Bush over Kerry.

After re-election, Bush quietly dropped the issue until a few months before the mid term elections. Big surprise. Now suddenly its back on the front burner.

There is no chance in heck that a ban on gay marriage will be added to the Constitution, and all parties know this. Its just election year politics.

The social conservatives I know have easily seen this ruse for what it is.

[seeker_two]

This amendment is just a red-herring-flavored bone thrown to us conservatives that he's been whipping with his socialist policies hoping to make nice before November.... :fire:

It's not going to work.... :rolleyes:

If you want to make it MEAN something, push for an amendment clarifying that each STATE will determine its own criteria for marriage and other licenses as well as reciprocity for other states--and offer protection from the runaway Fed Courts.

But protecting the powers of the individual states has an even poorer chance of success with these globalists... :cuss:

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Lawrence V. Texas was decided on behalf of Lawrence by a 6-3 decision in 2003. It is NOT pending before this Supreme Court.

[Henry Bowman]

Gay marriage is in the news, I feel gay marriage will be a reality in our time along with national reciprocity for gay married people.

Now is the time for gunnies to push for ccw reciprocity as wellPink Pistols notwithstanding, we have neither the political clout, the assistance of the MSM, nor the present ablility to shame the bigots into hiding on our issues.

[engineer151515]

But it gives a new meaning to the term "shotgun marriage". :)

[shooter429]

It is not the government's job to tell you who you can or cannot get married to. Only you can tell that. So, following your logic, then I can marry my next door neighbors wife because I want to and perhaps the neighbors dog too. The government enforces laws and maintains standards for the betterment and maintanance of society.

Oh, and you really think that the issue has anything to do with homosexuals wanting to live monogomously and have a household in the same fashion as loving married couples? Nonsene. The homosexual agenda is about driving a wedge in to gain societal acceptance for seemingly "fair" special priveliges and then once the door is cracked to continue to push until random sex acts and pedophilia, zoopilia, necrophilia are eventually accepted too. Prostitution and gay bathhouses will be a "legitimate" part of the landscape, if people really buy this folly.

The real point is to further defame the institution of marriage and thumb their noses at straight society, while forcing society to them them special rights, opening the door to further special rights and the degredation of civilized society.

Anarchy is the ultimate goal.


The government is discriminating against gays, just like they were discriminating against blacks 50 years ago. So, you really think that you can compare racism, which is based on a person's skin color, which they cannot help, and someones actions, which are made freely? Why not support anti-discrimination laws for murderers? Because they gave that label to themselves through deviant actions, not because of innate traits. Also, nobody made them choose a same- sex partner and nobody says they could not get married to someone, as long as they are single, human and of the opposite sex.

Think how you would feel if the government said that opposite-sex marriges are cannot happen. Your logic is faulty. Marriage is and always has been an institution between a man and a woman. You think because we refuse to change the definition of marriage to suite the depraved in society that is somehow fair Rediculous!

Why does it matter to me that gay people get married? Because you will be paying for the increased costs of helathcare from the AIDS epidemic and all of those who irresponsibly spread these diseases will get a free pass by calling each butt-buddy a "Partner" and thereby exploiting insurance benefits, while continuing to spread diseases with their lifestyle choises. Oh and you will be paying for increased criminal activity, those are a couple of dozens of ways it will cost you.

It's their freedom to do what they want, and frankly, I'm appalled that the government has told certain people that they can not get married. Who cares about the Christian fundamentalists? There is a seperation of church and state, and that is being ignored in this issue.

First of all, I think Christians care. Secondly, the separation of church and state as it is discussed in the media is a myth. It does not and is not required to exist. The Government cannot establish a state religion and that is it.

Laws and social norms come from God. The prohibitions against stealing, killing, forgery, murder, etc. all come from Judeo-Christian values, upon which our society was originally based. Don't like it? Move to Iran and peddle your agenda there. Good luck

Shooter429

[gezzer]

I say let gays get marreid , jump in the waters fine, welcome to alimony & child support!

Honestly marrige is none of Goverments bussiness.

I ain't gay but I am adult enough not to fear homosexuality. What 2 consenting ADULTS do together is no ones bussiness but their own.

Freedom is Freedom

[Grey54956]

Marriage is traditionally a religious institution. The government has no place in religious institutions. Government should not recognize any religious marriage of any sort.

If government wants to make marriage a wholly legal institution, then it has to do so in a way that does not discriminate against its citizens. This means straight, gay, all ethnic persuasions, etc... It also means that there may be grounds for polygamy if all interested parties agree. Animals lack the ability to communicate consent or comprehension, so they are right out.

Man, Shooter, you have got some serious issues. You seem to be fascinated by the possibility of promiscuity, sexual deviancy and disease. Strangely enough, most folks that I know who exhibit some form of sexual deviancy are straight. Likewise, the promiscuity, um... there seems to be no shortage of that in the straight population. Interestingly enough, all adds for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases that I have seen on TV lately have featured young, attrative heterosexual couples. So, I wish you would open your eyes a bit. Guess what, your Fascho-Funda-Christian Views aren't looking at the whole picture, just the parts that you don't like. Gay marriage has nothing to do with the coarsening of our nation's moral fiber, that's everyone's problem. If anything, the fact some gays want to engage in marriage shows the contrary in that circle.

The idea that the Constitution should be used to restrict citizens' rights seems contradictory to the founding principles of our nation.

[madmike]

The Constitution is a limit on the GOVERNMENT. As soon as we start using it to limit the PEOPLE, we get what happened during Prohibition.

Remember Revenue Agents? They're still around. Hint: it's spelled "BATFE."

Not no, but HELL no!


Top 10 reasons why gay and lesbian couples should not be allowed to marry:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

And let's remember Henry the VIII's monogamous marriages...

Oh, and yes, dogs and cats will be living together, people will marry rocks...

~~~

They want to be able to marry as consenting adults. I want to carry a firearm and have that license respected universally. I see a compromise.

As long as no one is going to force me to divorce my wife and marry a man?

Oh, good. I thought for a moment there was a PROBLEM.:rolleyes:

[The-Fly]

i've never understood why the "conservatives" are so violently anti-gay? If two adults want to live together and be "husband" and "wife", whats the big deal? If you dont approve of it, dont marry them in your church. Seems simple enough to me.

It almost smacks of people protesting blacks and whites getting married. Same old arguements about it harming family values, etc etc etc. Has there ever been any DEFINITIVE proof that the concept of gay marriage is harmful in any meaningful way? If so, I'd like to hear it.

[XLMiguel]

Marriage is traditionally a religious institution.
Wrong! Marriage is about property, always has been. Marriage was around long before there was 'religion', and way back when, even your wife was a possession ( and in some societies, she still is - ).

Given all the challenges and problems we face in America today, why politicians are wasting time on this is beyond me. Why aren't they fixing Medicare, Social Security, illegal immigration, the tax code . . . . yet they worry about the queers. Hell, they deserve divorce, custody battles, and bitter property settlements just like the rest of us.

Over 50% of all marriages fail today, why'zat? 2/3 of all marriages are civil ceremonies, have nothing to do with any church - "traditionally a religious institution" - my donkey. Pick any church you want, and you'll find legion hypocracy, dishonesty, and corruption - just like any other human institution. Why should anyone trust any church anymore than they should trust the government of any politician???:barf:

While I don't care for the term "gay marriage" semantically - I much prefer "civil union" or "domestic partners" - I do think homosexuals should be accorded the same property and realtionship rights as everyone else, along with all the same responsibilities.

[RyanM]

Banning gay marriage is a violation of the first amendment, no matter what you (generic you) think. Sure, you can try to twist the phrasing, like the liberals try to twist the phrasing of the second amendment. Says militia? Must mean militias only! Says establishing a religion? Must mean declaring an official religion only!

No, banning gay marriages does infringe on the right to have equal rights under the law, regardless of your race, color, creed, or religion. If you're of a religion that does gay marriages, polygamy, or anything else not covered under the federal definition of "marriage," you don't get the same rights.

It'd be like if the feds decided to define "church." If your "church" doesn't meet these very specific guidelines, it has to be set up as an ordinary corporation. Don't like it? Then convert to the nationally endorsed religion, filthy heathen!

That's exactly what banning gay marriage is the equivalent of.

[Soybomb]

Prostitution and gay bathhouses will be a "legitimate" part of the landscape, if people really buy this folly.Heaven forbid we let people make their own moral decisions in life. I mean those legal nevada brothels are nothing but violence and disease....:scrutiny: And Tammy down at the jigger with all the makeup who sleeps with a new guy every night and a few times more than that? Well its a man and woman so who cares.

Seriously though government objections to what goes on in peoples bedrooms is a religious issue and needs to go away because of the first amendment. The idea of using religion to decide who the government extends privileges to sickens me. If you want freedom you need to let others be free too. If you don't want freedom you're on your own.

[shooter429]

Banning gay marriage is a violation of the first amendment, no matter what you (generic you) think.

The constitution does not protect queer behavior.

As for people asserting that quweers are not into pedophilia, I suggest you check out NAMBLA then tell me again this BS about there is no connection.

And there is no "right" to be homosexual.

In 1969 there were homosexuals who attacked police, broke innumerable laws, rioting. These were called the Stonewall riots. This was the birth of queer "liberation."

The homosexuals launched a massive PR compaign in the coming years, promoting the term "gay" which means happy as a seemingly innocuous euphamism for homosexuality. Part of a public image. They infiltrated churches, government offices and social establishments to bolster support for their anti-social activities.

I could go on at lenth, but why. If you are a liberal, you are not interested in reality, truth or true social justice.

The reason people should be and are against it is because it is sick and wrong and their goals are not innocuous.

They are violent, sadistic, evildoers who must be stopped before they and their ilk can destroy what is left of America.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

And just because the same leftists have been successful at duping heterosexuals into immoral lifestyles does not mean that two wrongs make a right. Though you have a point about devorce rates. Very sad. And if it weren't for liberals, it would not be like that.

Race is in no way the same as behavioral choices. The difference is clear, behavior reflects the character of the individual, whereas race does not.

Morality is not relative. You may not all do whatever the hell you want and disregard societal values. You don't like it, move top the Netherlands where morality has been abandoned all together.

Shooter429

[madmike]

The constitution does not protect queer behavior.

Several courts and the Constitution disagree with you. The Constitution limits the GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE. No right is granted to the government to regulate people's sex lives. Thank god. Try again.

As for people asserting that quweers are not into pedophilia, I suggest you check out NAMBLA then tell me again this BS about there is no connection.

"Of course there is a connection between the NRA and racism. The KKK uses guns, too." And there are more STRAIGHT, CHRISTIAN pedophiles than gay ones.

And there is no "right" to be homosexual.

You keep repeating that and have nothing to support your argument.

In 1969 there were homosexuals who attacked police, broke innumerable laws, rioting. These were called the Stonewall riots. This was the birth of queer "liberation."

Lots of straights attacked police too. Also blacks. Native Americans.

The homosexuals launched a massive PR compaign in the coming years, promoting the term "gay" which means happy as a seemingly innocuous euphamism for homosexuality. Part of a public image. They infiltrated churches, government offices and social establishments to bolster support for their anti-social activities.

OMG! It's a CONSPIRACY!

I could go on at lenth, but why. If you are a liberal, you are not interested in reality, truth or true social justice.

So...you're a liberal?

And wrong. A liberal BY DEFINITION supports rights and social justice. As opposed to a left winger or a fascist.

The reason people should be and are against it is because it is sick and wrong and their goals are not innocuous.

Opinion and allegation without support. I find your beliefs sick and wrong. But I won't make them illegal.

They are violent, sadistic, evildoers who must be stopped before they and their ilk can destroy what is left of America.

Bigoted, paranoid, unsupportable allegation. MY America is fine. People like you are more of a threat. You can't tolerate difference.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

A quote from one of the most violent texts in history. BTW: Leviticus also bans eating pork, shellfish, mixing fabrics and shaving. Do you comply with those, too? Or do you pick and choose the scripture you follow? And since those are rules YOU choose to live by, I suggest you do so. I don't want your book nor your invisible friend, thank you.

And just because the same leftists have been successful at duping heterosexuals into immoral lifestyles

"Immoral lifestyles"? Like those that believe stoning people to death and outlawing their private behavior, which would require a secret police to enforce? I'm with you, brother.

does not mean that two wrongs make a right. Though you have a point about devorce rates. Very sad. And if it weren't for liberals, it would not be like that.

Interestingly, the highest divorce rate in the country is among Christian fundamentalists. Liberal atheists actually have the lowest. Fact. How do you explain that? (Hint: It's called "adaptability" and "communication.") (Oh, and I'm only a liberal in the classical definition. By current standards I'm more conservative than most on this board.)

Race is in no way the same as behavioral choices. The difference is clear, behavior reflects the character of the individual, whereas race does not.

They used to say the same thing about the "behavioral choice" of being left handed.

Morality is not relative. You may not all do whatever the hell you want and disregard societal values. You don't like it, move top the Netherlands where morality has been abandoned all together.

Or you could move to Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, where similar ideas prevailed.

If you chose to. I'll allow you to stay here regardless of your beliefs. I'll even let you exercise a religion that has texts glamorizing spousal slavery and abuse, marrying 12 year olds, pedicide, genocide, torture, suppression of disagreement...and that's just the OT.

BTW: That whole owning guns to stop government excess? Keep that in mind.

[Art Eatman]

This has gotten to be about gay stuff and not about political maneuverings for a clandestine way to get national CHL.

Nighty-bye...

Art