Replies

This *is* a bad idea. The purpose of the Constitution was to *limit* federal power in the face of protecting liberty. Bush is two-faced in saying he's a states rights fan on one hand while championing a federal constitutional change which would effect each and every state.

"Sanctity of marriage" is a laughable cliche. The sacramental tradition of marriage in some faiths, of some Americans, is *not* the domain of the federal government. Sorry, W.

A government's business in marriage records is all about inheritance, property and other issues. There's no point in maintaining separate law for homosexuals to duplicate the rights, privileges, burdens and penalties of marriage law. I find no rational justification for coming down opposed to any two legally responsible individuals being able to "marry" with all the good and bad of that legal status.

You can't argue "it will destroy the family" since marriage is a legally binding status accepted by publicly witnessed choice. Persons already pro-create outside of marriage and there's no forcing the mother to identify the father let alone forcing them to marry. Where is your right to prevent two random adults from marriage be they gay or living in sin or what have you? Separate contracts can and have been fought in courts by "disapproving" family members at times when their loved one is unable to speak for himself or herself. If that's not an assault on that individual's liberty, I'm not sure I know what is.

I think it's pretty clear we need to get over ourselves and allow and encourage homosexual Americans to court, marry, support one another and be faithful to their spouses. This societal acceptance and support of monogamous lives among gays can and would have a tremendous positive impact on the spread of STDs including HIV. It would be *good* for the society at large.

I think there's an irrational fear about a sudden increase in homosexuals "coming out" if they were allowed to marry. People are afraid their children will experiment in ways they perhaps don't already, afraid their kids might "choose" to be gay simply because that kind of marriage would be an option. There might well be a few more homosexuals who are comfortable enough not to become deceivers and live depressed and loveless lives in phony heterosexual marriages. Better than the heterosexual spouse be able to find someone who can love him or her fully than be lulled into a lie whether it would be a union which produced children or not.

Bush is wrong on this issue: a ban of this kind has no purpose in the US Constitution.

This *is* a bad idea. The purpose of the Constitution was to *limit* federal power in the face of protecting liberty.

Well, if the SCOTUS is going to sodomize the Constitution by finding the right to kill unborn babies, and now the right for homosexuals to sodomize each other in that august document, we need to fight fire with fire.

Bush is two-faced in saying he's a states rights fan on one hand while championing a federal constitutional change which would effect each and every state.

He is not two faced, he is fighting fire with fire. If you are in a street fight, and you opponent pulls a knife, and starts kicking you in the ba!!s, are you going to still follow the proper rules of no-contact sports?

There's no point in maintaining separate law for homosexuals to duplicate the rights, privileges, burdens and penalties of marriage law.

No need to. Any two people whoever they are can already make whatever legal arrangements suitable for them.

I find no rational justification for coming down opposed to any two legally responsible individuals being able to "marry" with all the good and bad of that legal status

There is a wealth of information right here on FR explaining exactly why homoseuxal behavior is:

1. Not normal, natural or beneficial for individuals

2. That homosexuals are not "born that way" but become that way due to childhood difficulty, often molestation or early seduction/molestation and

3. To promote homosexual behavior as equivalent to marital sex is to destroy the natural family; as is the stated objective of "gay" activists.

I think it's pretty clear we need to get over ourselves and allow and encourage homosexual Americans to court, marry, support one another and be faithful to their spouses..

I think it's pretty clear that you have bought the homosexual propaganda hook, line and sinker. There is mine of information here on FR you can read and educate yourself. I advise you to do so before you continue with your ignorance shilling for the homosexual activists.

There is so much evidence that homosexuals are wildly promiscuous even in "committed" relationships - you think some legal stamp is going to change the very nature of perverse and unnatural sexual desires?

People are afraid their children will experiment in ways they perhaps don't already, afraid their kids might "choose" to be gay simply because that kind of marriage would be an option.

What wise parents are afraid of is that their children will be recruited into homosexual acts by "gay" teachers, counselors, and older kids. This is the stated goal of homosexual activists, and this is why they are trying to (with a lot of success) getting clubs in schools, and getting pro-homosexual sex ed in schools, as well as seeping into many other areas of education.

There might well be a few more homosexuals who are comfortable enough not to become deceivers,,,

There is help for people who feel same sex attraction and want to change. They don't have to deceive themselves that they "are gay" forever. It isn't an unchangeable identity, like race or ethnicity. Many kinds of therapy and other means (such as prayer and spiritual help) have helped former homosexuals now become either normal sexually or at least celibate. Check scripter's profile page - he's got hundreds of links.

It is too late. This is now a federal issue. No longer a state issue due to full faith and credit. The amendment process is there to correct such insanity legislation from the bench.

There is no reason for homosexual civil marriages. If any two people want to live together they can simply make a cohabitation contract. (forms available) and in the event of breech enforce the contract in civil court. There is zero reason to have a special set of laws for people who practice homosexual sex in private.

Marriage is for raising children and is a public institution not an avenue for imposing acceptance of sexual practices.

"Sanctity of marriage" is a laughable cliche.

True, the phrase sounds hackneyed. To call it laughable is callous and disrespects the depth of spiritual feeling which is finding its expression in the phrase.

The sacramental tradition of marriage in some faiths, of some Americans, is *not* the domain of the federal government. Sorry, W.

If we ignore the federal versus state issue, I wonder if you agree with me that the states' regulation of marriage was meant to be in concert with the faiths and traditions of most citizens.

A government's business in marriage records is all about inheritance, property and other issues.

Not just that. Also to protect the rights of the spouses and especially to protect the children. Without government's strong enforcing arm, dead-beat dads would gladly risk or flout the disapproval of church-going society. The fact that dead-beat dads can be pursued even though there was no marriage, even of the common-law variety, does not mean this whole aspect of legal marriage should be ignored.

You go on to make the usual points. I don't think we should be so cynical or legally forgetful about the reasons for being of marriage. And most of them do not apply to gay couples.

This is a wonderful idea! Our nation has been moving down a moral sinkhole for decades. This would be a major indication that we have realized we are on the wrong path and will be moving back to the proper one.