Whistler,

I believe that what the judge threw out as “unconstitutional” in the Nebraska case was not a statute, but an amendment to that state’s constitution… one that had passed a state-wide ballot with roughly 70% of the votes. Which is, of course, all the more arrogant of the federal judge. Exactly the sort of “judicial activism” the President was talking about at his annoncement this afternoon.

rbb: That’s what I said. Divorce ruins more traditional marriages than homosexuals. That’s for sure.

FYI, it’s one man, one woman at a time.

Like Abraham, David, Solomon (about 1000), Jacob/Israel, etc., eh Robert108?

Or are you talking about the New Testament?

See, this is the kind of thing that happens when you try to mix religion and politics.

The other problem is that it’s not unlikley that a court will require a state to recognize the homosexual marriage in another state.

“It is about the tyranny of the majority.

Whatever happened to that founding fathers unalienable rights stuff.”

WOOF,

Since there appears to be no clear reference in either the Constitution or the Federalist Papers to the question of what legally constitutes “marriage” perhaps a detailed search of history would give us some much needed perspective on exactly what the Founders thought of homosexuality and how it was dealt with in post revolutionary times would be in order?

What the President has endorsed is the idea that the definition of society should be up to all its members. That each and every legislature in the land shold be afforded the opportunity to vote on the issue, and that the outcome of those votes should become part of the Supreme Law of the Land, rather than having such a decision imposed by a cadre of unelected judges.

And you call that “the tyrany of the majority” in response?

After you’ve thought about that for a while, perhaps you can answer why it is that the political party which represents the left side of the spectrum and those who espouse a “liberal” point of view insists on the name “Democrats” ’cause I don’t see anything at all democratic about your view of this.

Rick: The attempt to use legalistic tactics to enforce minority rule was the connection, which I thoroughly explained. Sorry you didn’t get it. I did stay on topic, btw; I just mentioned your legalistic stuff in passing. It is relevant here, as well, as you are trying to impose the views of a minority special interest group on the vast majority.
As far as your misinterpreting my meaning, I don’t require interpreting; I mean what I say and say what I mean. Just stick with what I write(all of it, not just the parts you cherry-pick), and you will be much more successful.

Rob: I agree with you philosophically; the matter of marriage should be left to the states and the people, just like the Constitution says. Having said that, we have been stuck with Roe v Wade for over thirty years, and maybe soon it will be struck down, but no guarantee. Do you really want that to happen to marriage, the basic building block of our society? IMO, that is the real question.

Puzzled-Foot

the issue in general has cooled off as a hot button issue. It is clearly being pushed by the right wing

Ah, that’s why it the marriage amendment has passed with huge majorities everytime it’s come up for a vote by the people: because it’s only supported by those right-wingers. In North Dakota it passed by 73-27.

Generally, the breaking of a contract results in penalties and the assignment of damages. I think that is true of divorce as well, last time I checked.

I heard that only applies if you’re an evil man as they are always at fault. Fortunately I only heard this.

docdave: Generally, the breaking of a contract results in penalties and the assignment of damages. I think that is true of divorce as well, last time I checked.

Yes, rob, I expect a Supreme Court ruling on “gay marriage” if this amendment protecting traditional marriage doesn’t go. You know how well that worked for the lefties on abortion.

The term “tyranny of the majority” is a contradiction in terms. It doesn’t exist in reality.

Without getting nitpicky I think the majority can do wrong. That’s why we have a Constitution that limits what the majority can do.

The problem is coming about because the courts are making up what they say the Constitution says. I think it’d be nice if we all got cookies in the afternoon but I don’t see that clause in the Constitution.

Yes, but what really pisses me off is even people like Rob fall for this schtik!

Perhaps it’s more of a question of the perceived timing of his announced support.

He hasn’t been talking about it until right after he blew it (with his base) on border security.

I wrote it out without the perceived and changed it just because of you.

Marty, that link is really illuminating. That hardest part of the Marriage Amendment is passing the federal legislature becausue of the 2/3 needed, but as your link shows, there are more than 38 states currently with the DOMA legislation or in their consitutions currently. Were the legislation given to the states (by passing the US Congress), that shows the 38 states needed would be easily attained…

Marty,

By removing references and requirements of marriage from existing laws.

However, I’m not an attorney and I haven’t done any research into how difficult that may be. It seems to me, however, that it’s a bad idea for the government to be in the marriage business. Especially when it’s going to involve additional codification.

The rest of us are merely trying to preserve democracy before some activist judge shoves his gay morality down our ____.

Marty on June 5, 2006 at 7:24 PM

Is this activist judge herding you into a church and forcing you to marry a gay man at gunpoint, Marty???

PS: Got anything constructive to offer?

The Big Lie here is that the amendment “bans gay marriage”. Since “gay marriage” doesn’t exist, it’s not possible to ban it. The truth is that this amendment establishes traditional marriage the way it is. I’m not generally in favor of federal interference, but understand why it is necessary in this case. If you remember, a number of states put it up to a vote a few years ago, and “gay marriage” was voted down overwhelmingly wherever it was put up to a vote. The reaction of the gay marriage pressure groups was to make their usual end run around the voters by going through the courts with the old “rights” issue tactic. This is why a constitutional protection of real marriage is necessary. It’s got nothing to do with radicalism or “hardcore, polarized fanatics”.
As far as importance is concerned, this, IMO, is yet another attack at the basic structure and fabric of our society. Look at the marriage stats of the countries which have federalized “gay marriage”.

I found this interesting poll over at the Pew Research foundation. It is clear that most young people don’t really care about this issue and the issue in general has cooled off as a hot button issue. It is clearly being pushed by the right wing and the evangelical churches. They need to do this now because in 10 years, no one will care about gay marriage.

And I must respectfully disagree with those that say this has nothing to do with gays wanting to marry. It has everything to do with that. There are some initiatives that ban gay couples from having any kind of benefits whatsoever which is far from “protecting the sancticty of marriage.” No law can protect marriage, that is between the couples, they are what protects marriage. Not one gay marriage will cause a heterosexual marriage to fail. Not one.

Activist judges like the ones who said people of different races could marry.
Fabric of society is made of whole cloth.

George Bush in a recent press conference:

Q: Mr. President, your opposition to stricter border enforcement and endorsement of amnesty has cost you support from your conservative base, who believe you have abandoned their cause. What will you do to regain their support?

A: Well, that is a very good question. I believe that my position on immigration is the proper position, it’s a good position and–LOOK OVER THERE! TWO MEN MARRYING!

His support for the FMA now is nearly as transparent as that.

rbb: That’s what I said. Divorce ruins more traditional marriages than homosexuals. That’s for sure

That doesn’t even make sense. Divorce is an ending of a marriage, homosexuality is a perverted sexual act. What do they have in common? Nothing

And the fact that divorce is a terrible plauge that has ravished this nation’s families (another one of liberalisms successes stories) does not mean you have licence to rip marriage apart further…

You missed the main point again, Rober108.

The right wing is selectively moral. And Bushie is pandering to that.

Just pointing out how duplicitous they both are.

Time to put a stop to this immoral undermining of our way of life and country.

Agree totally but relate it to the NeoCONS legislating their version of morality on everyone else.

“The rallying cry of the right wing fundamentalist militant radicals.”

All the state referendums give the lie to that one.

I’m not registered for that paper, so would you like to paste the relevant part(s) or paraphrase them?

A Supreme Court decision has the same power as a Constitutional Amendment, without the ability of the people to speak on it through their representatives.

Theres 6 different links there sweetheart. Take your pick.

Ya know, it occurs to me that Husband+Wife Marriage has a long and well-respected tradition in our democracy,

and that Religious Freedom has a long and well-respected tradition in our democracy,

and that Democracy itself has a long and well-respected tradition around here.

So it does seem just a little bit odd that all three of these historic institutions are suddenly expected to bend over backwards (good lord, forgive the pun) because of a newfound constitutional right to sodomy (activist judges anyone), which has neither a long nor well-respected tradition pretty much anywhere at all.

You seem to be confusing Anarcho-Libertarianism with Conservatism Rick. Get a grip son.

It’s between men and women; in other words, it has always been heterosexual in nature. Even when there are multiple husbands/wives, it is always heterosexual.

Even when the partners are gay and lesbian, it’s still heterosexual in nature. Just like mother nature herself. We all have only one mother, and one father, no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves otherwise.

Oh, so you want the Federal Government to regulate the definition of English words . . . sounds like another bureacratic department to add to your already enormous federal organization.

r108, if you don’t want me to misinterpret your meaning, construct your arguments with more thought and precision. Oh, and stay on topic . . . this is a different thread than the U.N. discussion and it’s not an abortion topic either. Please, don’t do what you accuse Diane of doing.

Yes I do.

A terrorist cell was found in Canada, there were 50 more civilians killed in Iraq, the dollar is falling against the Euro, David Safavian was on the witness stand today, there are elections tomorrow, texas gops claimed the US for Christ, Mogadishu has fallen to Islamic militias, the new fed chief said today, “It is reasonably clear that the U.S. economy is entering a period of transition…The anticipated moderation of economic growth seems now to be under way.”, The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans “humiliating and degrading treatment,” the leader of the free world is only supported by 29% of his country….

And all this babbling about two people who love each other and want to participate in the sacrament of marriage does not rise to the actual important events of the day.

“What?” This thread is about the TMA. What did your anti-semitic smear material have to do with that? How are “neocons” legislating morality? Give us an example, if you can. The use of the word “pandering” implies insincere belief. How can a Christian man supporting traditional marriage be deemed insincere? Can you answer that one?

Sorry you couldn’t get it the first time.

“Tyranny” is defined as minority rule, usually a minority of one, but, as in the case of Saddam Hussein, for instance, the rule of 80% by 20%. The term “tyranny of the majority” is a contradiction in terms. It doesn’t exist in reality.

Diane, please please stop posting such long articles. I have long stopped reading them and you are losing me as a reader

Pretty sure that long post was directed at me, but of course I didn’t read it either. It was entirely expected, just as i never expected whatsername to take anyone’s opinion seriously but her own.

Yawn. You bore us lady. Go buy a hat or something.

Woof: “Try being an Islander fan at a Ranger game.”
True that. Or, try being a 49er fan at a Raiders game. On the other hand, being a Raiders fan at a 49er game will bring out the appeasers. Might be a difference in the sensibilities between quiche-eaters and pirates. Dunno.

This should not be a religious issue. In a democratic republic, the will of the majority is supposedly honored. So, if it is a societal norm that’s one thing. If it’s based on a religion and that religion is being forced on others in the society, we have a problem.

So, which is it?

28% in the polls…
Scandals as far as the eyes can see…
Elections on the horizon…

Time to breakout ole faithful — The Hoema secsuall ajender

If it’s so damn important to save marriage, why don’t radical right wing nutters step up to the plate and ban divorce.

Oh, no they can’t…Patron Saint Ronnie Raygun undermined marriage when he cheated on Jane and later took a second wife.

One man — one woman…one big joke, just ask Newty, Henry Hyde, Bob Barr, Livingston, Libby Dole, the Great BO, Dick Army, John Bolton, Dan Burton, Bob Dornan, David Dryer, Phil Gramm…on and on (the dem list is long too)

diane: What part of 60%+ in every referendum don’t you understand? It is the will of the people. The President is supporting what the majority support. By definition, he would only be pandering if he didn’t believe it himself. As a Christian, he supports traditional marriage. It’s that simple. I know your emotional reactivity and unreasoning hatred for the President interferes with you ability to do logical thinking, but this is ridiculous. You have smeared him for being Christian on innumerable posts, and now when he acts like a Christian, you accuse him of pandering. Weird!

Try being an Islander fan

Jason Blake.

Rob: Problem is, one Supreme Court case sanctifying “gay marriage” on some legal technicality, and it’s all out the window for the states. What part of “Rowe v Wade” don’t you understand? Abortion should be up to the states as well, but it isn’t.

Okay, in closing, this scholarly peice just came across the wire:

Same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. It would undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget. Finally, same-sex marriage would likely corrode marital norms of sexual fidelity, since gay marriage advocates and gay couples tend to downplay the importance of sexual fidelity in their definition of marriage. Surveys of men entering same-sex civil unions in Vermont indicate that 50 percent of them do not value sexual fidelity, and rates of sexual promiscuity are high among gay men. For instance, Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at New York University and a leading advocate of gay marriage, hopes that same-sex marriage will promote a “pluralist expansion of the meaning, practice, and politics of family life in the United States” where “perhaps some might dare to question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek some of the benefits of extended family life through small group marriages…”

Our concerns are only reinforced by the legalization of same-sex marriage in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain-and its legalization in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage has taken hold in societies or regions with low rates of marriage and/or fertility. For instance, Belgium, Canada, Massachusetts, the Netherlands, and Spain all have fertility rates well below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. These are societies in which child-centered marriage has ceased to be the organizing principle of adult life. Seen in this light, same-sex marriage is both a consequence of and further stimulus to the abolition of marriage as the preferred vehicle for ordering sex, procreation, and childrearing in the West. While there are surely many unknowns, what we do know suggests that embracing same-sex marriage would further weaken marriage itself at the very moment when it needs to be most strengthened.

Call your Senators and ask them to support the Marriage Amendment.

Well, let’s just see here:

1. Terrorist cell found in Canada… we can only hope they find the rest of them. Perhaps with a government that takes its responsibility for security more seriously than its buffoonish predecessor, it will.

2. 50 Iraqi civilians killed by whom? US Marines, or Ba’athist Sunni terrorist angry at having lost their hegemony?

3. Dollar falling… great news for trade deficit that the economically challenged leftists were carping about.

4. Mogadishu? Little late to worry about that now. John Murtha insisted, Bill Clinton caved in, end of story until someone decides to undo that bit of judgemental stupidity.

5. Detainee policy? So what? The Geneva Convention doesn’t cover non-uniformed fighters captured during combat. Actually, those detainees are damn lfortunate. They could have been shot. Still could.

“And all this babbling about two people who love each other and want to participate in the sacrament of marriage does not rise to the actual important events of the day.”

Noit to you, perhaps, RBB, but thankfully, there is every indication that yours is a decidedly minority view. And that is how it should be.

Why aren’t you conservatives advocating that the U.S. Government remove itself completely from the institution of marriage, instead of further tightening, regulating, licensing such activities.

The states already have laws protecting minors from predatory sexual practices (such as statuatory rape, etc.).

Why not let whomever wants to bestow marriage blessings on a couple, regardless the orientation of that couple, go ahead and do so?

The government can then just go about identifying resident based on cohabitational arrangement without judgement as to intent.

A reminder. Mary posted this LONG mess:

Okay, in closing, this scholarly peice just came across the wire:

Same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. It would undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget. Finally, same-sex marriage would likely corrode marital norms of sexual fidelity, since gay marriage advocates and gay couples tend to downplay the importance of sexual fidelity in their definition of marriage. Surveys of men entering same-sex civil unions in Vermont indicate that 50 percent of them do not value sexual fidelity, and rates of sexual promiscuity are high among gay men. For instance, Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at New York University and a leading advocate of gay marriage, hopes that same-sex marriage will promote a “pluralist expansion of the meaning, practice, and politics of family life in the United States” where “perhaps some might dare to question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek some of the benefits of extended family life through small group marriages…”
Our concerns are only reinforced by the legalization of same-sex marriage in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain-and its legalization in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage has taken hold in societies or regions with low rates of marriage and/or fertility. For instance, Belgium, Canada, Massachusetts, the Netherlands, and Spain all have fertility rates well below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. These are societies in which child-centered marriage has ceased to be the organizing principle of adult life. Seen in this light, same-sex marriage is both a consequence of and further stimulus to the abolition of marriage as the preferred vehicle for ordering sex, procreation, and childrearing in the West. While there are surely many unknowns, what we do know suggests that embracing same-sex marriage would further weaken marriage itself at the very moment when it needs to be most strengthened.

Call your Senators and ask them to support the Marriage Amendment.

Marty on June 5, 2006 at 9:22 PM

I didn’t read it, of course.

Funny, I’m required to read all the crap the ‘men’ here post, but they don’t want to read mine. Hahahaha.

TW: We are all the same species, last time I looked. As to your speculation about homosexual divorce, we can prevent all of that by keeping marriage the way it is. Save them the trouble and sorrow. It’s compassionate conservatism, don’t you know?

He hasn’t been talking about it until right after he blew it (with his base) on border security.

This vote in the Senate has been planned for a long time. Bush isn’t part of it, why would he talk about it? He only talks about it now cause it’s in the news and he’s being asked questions about it. This issue really has little to do with the President. He had made clear his view of the matter and it’s up to the Congress to take action.

Rob: As usual Levin(who is undoubtedly labeled a “neocon” by some) has the goods on this issue:

http://levin.nationalreview.com/

Tell me how you would go about this.

By removing references and requirements of marriage from existing laws.

No, that’s just repeating the WHAT again. We get it already. And it’s pie-in-the-sky idealism, that doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance in the society in which we find ourselves.

Got anything constructive to offer? Idealists are a dime-a-dozen in high-school.

rob108: Woof: There is no equivalence between segregation of schools… and traditional marriage.

Actually there is: the segregation of the sexes in a same-sex marriage, which would deny children either a mother or a father for no better reason than the sexist bias of his “parents”. Quite an equivalence in my mind! Heather doesn’t have “two mommies” because her mothers are “gay”, but because neither of them can stand the thought of living with a man!

Men and women — regardless of their “sexual orientations” — can and should do better by their own children than this!

Doc,

Supporting TMA is only half the solution, though. If we really wish to insulate the institution of marriage from the vagaries of liberal social science, we ought to have a similar campaign to do away with “no-fault” divorce too.

Heh, go have a look at C.V.Ricks silly little website and ask yourself why anyone would take advice on “conservatism” from such a lefty moonbat.

I’m sure you’ve only got our best interests at heart, eh Ricky?

Woof: There is no equivalence between segregation of schools(supported by the Dems, btw) and traditional marriage. Nothing is forbidden in the TMA, btw. Marriage has always been heterosexual.

likwidshoe hacks:

diane said, However, I see a group of people (right wing fundamentalists) up to their necks in trying to make everyone else into their image when their image includes supporting a filthy, immoral war, being hateful to people not of their belief system, and a divorce rate that is as high as the rest of the country. Acting so self-righteous the entire time, of course.

You’re describing yourself of course. You support a filthy, immoral war, with your nurmerous proclamations in support of Saddam. You’re very hateful to everybody who is not of your belief system. And, of course, you comment with a high air of self-righteousness.

Okay, time to back up what you say. Put up one post where I support Saddam Hussein.
Or shut up.

************

Do you have an argument for homosexual “marriage” by chance that isn’t full of ad hominem attacks? Does anybody? It appears not, which further affirms my vote in support of marriage back in 2004.

I don’t argue for homosexual marriage. Show me where I ever did. Put up or shut up.

*******************************

You can’t support marriage by a vote. Marriage is a relationship between two people who either stay married or not and homosexuality and your vote have nothing to do with it.

By the way MartyMonkeyFace: Don’t ever ask me to read another one of your insipid links because I decided to give it a go and only got criticism.

Actually, I’m not the last bit interested in what you have to say and it won’t happen again.

“So, as a conservative you want the Federal Government to have more authority to control that which happens in people’s homes and in their bedrooms. As a conservative, you want more federal agencies regulating and defining the private lives of Americans.

Orwell would be proud.”

Wrong, as usual, Rick. Please speak your own mind, and stop trying to speak for me. I want the present situation to continue, against the type of legalistic tyranny you advocate to impose the will of the UN on US society through the “World Court”.
I don’t want a “Roe v Wade” imposing “gay marriage” on us, since we obviously don’t want it. Your mention of federal agencies is false, since this amendment creates no federal agencies. There is no regulation of what goes on in the bedroom, either. If it’s not one man and one woman, you don’t get to call it “marriage”, that’s all. This is about requirements for marriage, not any of that stuff you fabricate. The TMA is a protection for the majority against the legalistic tyranny of a small minority.

gotcha

So, as a conservative you want the Federal Government to have more authority to control that which happens in people’s homes and in their bedrooms. As a conservative, you want more federal agencies regulating and defining the private lives of Americans.

Orwell would be proud.

A Reminder:

Bat One on June 5, 2006 at 8:45 PM

Hey Batty. I didn’t publish a long article. I responded point by point (as lik suggested) to SIX articles linked by Marty that he put up to prove his point that he an activist judge might homosexually assault him.

You’re still stinging, aren’t you? Get over it.

Aint he though? You really shouldn’t drink so much Bob…

…

Last night i was remarking to a friend that I really hadn’t heard much about the Alabama Amendment, either pro or con. Not that there was any doubt, but it caused me to google a few of the newspapers down there, Birmingham, Huntsville, Montgomery, Mobile, and every single one of them was running an editorial saying “this isn’t neccesary, this is a bad idea, we support traditional marriage but we dont need this amendment”.

Tonight we see that it passed by over 80%. Well over the 76% I predicted.

Why are newspaper people so completely out of touch with their constituents? Here in North Carolina the Amendment can’t even seem to get out of the congressional committee… why? Because they know it will pass by yet another overwhelming margin.

You’d think these people would be smart enough to embrace their customers, instead of telling us what ignorant bigots we are for believeing that children need and deserve both a mother AND a father, regardless of what “secshual oreyntashun” they happen to be.

Oh and here’s a thought for CVRick, in case he cares to read about the “deinstitutionalization of marriage”. What it ultimately will mean, is that any two people who choose to live together will be treated by the state as if they were marriage all along.

At least that’s what’s going on in Britain these days…

Somehow it just seems silly to me, to treat people who obviously never intended to marry as if they were married all along, just as it would to treat those who certainly DID marry, as if they had not.

Maybe it’s just me, expecting adults to be treated like adults instead of children…

Well, it seems the distracters are having a field day with this one. The TMA doesn’t create anything that doesn’t already exist. Real marriage has already been codified; the TMA simply makes it more difficult for activist judges to bypass the wishes of the vast majority on the issue. Marriage has taken a number of forms, but one thing has never changed: It’s between men and women; in other words, it has always been heterosexual in nature. Even when there are multiple husbands/wives, it is always heterosexual. It’s also not about divorce. The “plague” of divorce has been caused by loosening moral standards, not by codifying marriage at any level. As someone pointed out, marriage is not a creation of our govt at any level; it existed way before the US was founded. Divorce, on the other hand, is entirely a legal creation, and is thus dealt with under law. If we allowed homosexual marriage, many new codes and structures would be necessary, which is not true about the TMA. Bottom line, the TMA is beneficial to society, “gay marriage” is only beneficial to a small special interest group.
Once again, the TMA doesn’t exclude anyone who is not now included.
The truth is, activists for the special interest group are trying to hijack real marriage.

I’d say it stands as much of a chance as your anti-gay marriage ammendment – - that one’s DOA.

Patience grasshopper, patience.

With every activist ruling that finds an unwritten an unratified “right” to same-sex marriage, we get just that much closer to settling the matter.

19 states have spoken with a clear and democratic voice so far, with another 6 at least, coming down the pipe this year alone. 38 is the magic number.

Just look at all that beige, and tell me again how much of a chance we stand. Gay Activists and their Activist Judges are our ace-in-the-hole: so long as they can’t restrain themselves, we cannot lose!

Rick: Since your misquoting me was on another thread, I won’t repeat it here. That doesn’t change your basic dishonesty in doing it, though. Once again, your reliance on nitpicking misses the larger point. My comment about international law doesn’t apply to this thread, and I never said it did. Your legalistic tactic of using technicalities to overthrow the will of the majority was the relevant point. As I explained before, that is the connection between your positions on the two threads. Your assertions about conservatives wanting to regulate behavior in the home and the bedroom were completely irrelevant to this discussion, since the amendment contains none of that. It doesn’t ban anything, nor does it contain any new federal infrastructure. It merely codifies marriage at its present level.

I already got one dinger off you. You did misquote me once today, and I demonstrated it by giving my real words. Knocked that one out of the park.

BTW, you didn’t answer this the first time I asked, but how is a self-described Christian “pandering” by supporting traditional marriage?

“…NeoCONS legislating their version of morality on everyone else.”

Anti-semitic insult aside, please give an example of this, and its relevance to the topic of traditional marriage.

First link: A bunch of conservatives giving opinions on how gay marriage hurts traditional marriage.

Second Link: No access

Third Link: CS Monitor – Some 50 leaders from Roman Catholic, Mormon, Southern Baptist, Orthodox, Evangelical, and Orthodox Jewish traditions formed the Religious Coalition for Marriage, focused on strengthening its traditional role in society. They see the amendment as essential to protect “marriage from … activist courts determined to reinterpret this fundamental institution … against the will of the American people,” says Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention.

On the other side, Clergy for Fairness – including leaders from mainline Protestant and Reform Jewish denominations – says that people of faith disagree on same-sex marriage and that religious denominations, not the federal government, should decide whether they’ll sanctify marriages. The group also says it opposes the amendment because it would mark the first time the Constitution would be used “to restrict the rights of an entire group of Americans.”

(If religious schools are tax exempt, should they be able to exclude?)

Fourth Link: Baptist Press:
WASHINGTON (BP)–The expansion of “gay marriage” in the United States would create clashes between church and state that might restrict the religious freedom of Americans who oppose such unions, legal scholars predict.

The legalization of “gay marriage,” it was forecast, could impact, for example, the housing and employment policies of religious schools and other institutions and even the tax-exempt status of churches and parachurch organizations.

You can’t have it both ways. Pay your taxes like everyone else and be private and do what you want. Don’t get political.

Fifth Link: Weekly Standard – Catholic adoption agency in Massachussetts must allow adoption of children by gay couples.

Sixth Link: The Decatur Daily
What if?
Church-state experts: Legalized gay marriage poses religious freedom problems

By Richard N. Ostling
AP Religion Writer

Some gay rights advocates agree that conflicts would be inevitable but argue that public interest in ending discrimination should take precedence over claims of religious freedom.

************************************

The one coming closest to your contention that you may soon be forced against your will to marry a gay man is the orphanage story. The religious schools and churches could solve their problems by giving up their tax-exempt status.

As I asked above, is this a societal or a religious issue? This is a democratic republic and the will of the majority prevails. But the government is not to force a set of religious beliefs on the public.

As a societal standard, I agree that traditional marriage is well established. As a Christian, I believe that in the church, it is not acceptable.
But I also agree with Paul in I Corinthians (how could I disagree when the New Testament is to be our sourcebook?) when he says:
“What ubsienss is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.”

*********************

Divorce is an ending of a marriage, homosexuality is a perverted sexual act. What do they have in common? Nothing

If you’re asking from a religious/biblical perspective, they are both considered sins, unless the divorce (and a remarriage) is because of adulter (sin) on the part of one or more of the partners. That’s what they have in common from that perspective.

*********

And the fact that divorce is a terrible plauge that has ravished this nation’s families (another one of liberalisms successes stories) does not mean you have licence to rip marriage apart further…

The way a marriage (there’s no such as mass ‘marriage’, it’s two people) is ‘ripped apart’ is by adultery, selfishness, or a number of other problems, not by a Constitutional amendment. Would that rip your marriage apart?

Having said that, I have very traditional values.
However, I see a group of people (right wing fundamentalists) up to their necks in trying to make everyone else into their image when their image includes supporting a filthy, immoral war, being hateful to people not of their belief system, and a divorce rate that is as high as the rest of the country. Acting so self-righteous the entire time, of course.

That’s ‘selective morality’. And it stinks. Clean up your own house, will you. You’re a blot on Christianity with your dirty war and support of murder and mayhem. You’re an embarassment.

That each and every legislature in the land shold be afforded the opportunity to vote on the issue, and that the outcome of those votes should become part of the Supreme Law of the Land, rather than having such a decision imposed by a cadre of unelected judges.

But see, this isn’t what I want to see. I’d rather each individual state be able to decide whether or not to license gay marriage (and whether or not to recognize gay marriage licenses from other states) rather than see one blanket amendment enforcing the definition of marriage for all states.

But this is a moot point because the marriage amendment would never pass. Which is fine by me.

Let North Dakotans do with this issue what they will, just the same as Californians and Texans and Oregonians, etc.

All of our rights, woofie, are enshrined in the constitution. What we are talking about here is a state licensed issued to two consenting adults who are entering into a legal contract. You don’t have a “right” to enter into a marriage contract with anyone you choose. You have a right to free speech, and a right to peacefully assemble, etc. but you don’t have a right to demand that the government grant you a license for anything you want.

I’m not comparing homosexuality to beastiality or pedophilia here, but just as the state won’t grant a license for your marriage to your goat or your 12 year old girlfriend it won’t it won’t grant license for you to marry your boyfriend/girlfriend.

Certainly the people, through their legislators, have a right to determine the circumstances of when a license will be issued. This has been the domain of the various states since this country was founded and I see no reason to upturn hundreds of years of precedent.

If you want gay marriage, petition your legislators.

I guess the sticking point, though (as other commenters have mentioned) is the fact that the courts aren’t prone to respecting the 10th amendment and state’s rights.

I mean, I’d sure like to use the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to change the tax code so that the most successful citizens in this country aren’t punished by higher taxes, but that isn’t what that amendment was supposed to mean.

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constution at all. Thus, by the 10th amendment, it is an issue for the states.