Let me commend you for taking such a firm stand in support of traditional family values. However, I must respectfully disagree with your position. The problem is not gay marriage. The problem is gay divorce. The last thing we need in this country is an army of Anne Heche's showing up on our nation's beaches, spoiling wet t-shirt contests for everyone.

As an aside, the evangelical community's opposition to homosexuality is actually based on a textual misinterpretation of Scripture. The Bible says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev. 18:22) As long as no one's dressing up in drag, the Lord has no objection.

RevRab,

Our daily reading for the Book of Levity-cus?

marrage is a states rights issue. this will not survive a 10th admendment challenge.

another abandoned GOP principle along w fiscal conservatism & smaller federal govt.

in truth, this is playing w the constitution in a cynical attempt, ala ohio, to influence voter behavior this fall. evidently the party is desperate.

if this is voted-out of congress & signed by W, I'll vote straight dem (federal & state) & continue to do so until one branch becomes majority dem.

pure, cynical election-year crap at the expense of our constitution.

This is just a smoke and mirrors show to appease the radical right to show up on voting day in november. It won't even get a majority vote in the Senate and will be dead.

But it will allow the big government republicans who fooled the radical right in 2000 and again in 2004 to vote for them to try and fool them again enough to get them to turn out for the midterms.

These neo-cons couldn't care less about gay marriage or straight marriage or abortion. They are about money, propping up big business, crushing unions and middle class and they also have a fascistic foreign and domestic policy.

As the saying goes, "fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice..."

Wait a minute, I thought everyone already agreed that for this election the scare-the-radical-right-into-action stand in would be hoards of brown people that speak another language?

Mark,

This same argument was made with equal vehemence not too many years ago against interracial marriage. For certain there were similar arguments based on the bible, history, traditional values an so on. Ultimately whether through the courts or through a gradual acknowledgement by Americans over time that Americans, regardless of race, should enjoy equal rights, things changed. It's fundamentally unconstitutional to deny consenting adults the access to a government issued license based on the fact that they are racially different than you or me.

In like manner, it is unconstitutional to deny another American the access to a government license because he or she is different than you or I due to sexual orientation. It is no threat to me that somebody who is not like me (but no less an American) enjoys the same constitutional rights that I enjoy. Why are you threatened by that?

Ultimately the courts, when given the chance, will be unable to conclude that denying gays the same access to a government-issued marriage license as you or I have is within the constitution. So you are trying to change the constitution to deny American citizens the same rights that you or I enjoy simply because they are different than you or me. And you do this while describing yourself as a freedom-loving conservative American?

Perhaps you can marshall public opinion sufficiently to support an amendment to the constitution to deny rights that the majority enjoys to a minority with whom you disagree. As you're making this effort to limit the freedoms of a minority, perhaps you should remind yourself that, given the same opportunity in the 50s, 60s or 70s, it is likely that a majority of Americans would have supported a ban (constitutional or otherwise) on interracial marriage.

Real Americans aren't threatened when other Americans who may be different than themselves enjoy the same rights that they do. After all, that's what the country is all about, and our beloved constitution makes it so. For when we deny other Americans the same freedoms that we enjoy because they are simply different than us are we truly free? Is that what your vision of America is?

You know why the republicrats won't get their majority, because with all this BS regarding gay marriage, the critters know better, as soon as you open a constitutional congress for something like this, you also open it to things like enshrining "privacy" into the constitution, and god(s) forbid they open a pandora's box, they aren't stupid, but the tail that is wagging you "backwash" republicrats is laughing all the way to their swiss banks, must be nice to have unfettered access to the national treasury, while everyone is busy attacking fellow citizens...hahahhhahha LOSERS!

Axis, you nailed it.

Bush knows that Conservatives are unhappy with the Big Government approach, and feel betrayed by the administration's stands on immigration and its blunders in Iraq. He knows also, that there is a grave risk that their dissatisfaction will lead many to stay home in November, leaving many seats in Congress vulnerable to the Democrats.

So, time for a God, Guns and Gays issue! They'll turn out in droves to prevent this assault on the American way of life.

Axis, you are also correct in your assertion that the marriage amendment doesn't have a prayer of passing. Bush is throwing Falwell and Dobson a bone, to convince them he's still "one of them".

Third Eye,

Actually, we'll get the majority - just not the super majority; unless, of course, we apply sufficient pressure...nothing scares a Congresscritter more than the people in an election year...

Kritter,

Actually, President Bush has zero to do with this: it is a proposed Constitutional Amendment...a matter for Congress and the States.

You can consider it mere politics all you want, but the passion on this issue is very high; our side cares very deeply about it.

actually mark, i would argue that your side is gonna have a hard enough time keeping your own ranks from jumping ship for the libertarian or constitutional party, if you can even get them out of bed in november, dont think that a constitutional amendment is on the horizon, the moment that happens the world will be turned upside down with the push to get privacy enshrined, are you willing to lose a queen for a rook?

Actually, we'll get the majority

-- Care to wager one that mark? Knocking down the rights queers is a non-issue to many moderate republicans. Its you evangelicals that feel you have the right to infringe on their rights through a constitutional ammendment.

Phil's post above is correct, the same types of people felt the same way about cross racial marriage and they tried to push for an ammendment to allow only whites to mary whites and blacks to marry only blacks. That eventually went up in flames and so will this eventually.

Some polls recently have shown that the majority of people under 30 have no problem with allowing gays to marry, while the majority of those over 30 still are not ok with it. Times are changing and your kids are growing up tolerant of others and their differences. Thats good, because while theres little hope for many of you, your children will eventually make the difference.

axis,
You mean the Democrats that introduced The Anti-Miscegenation Amendment in 1912?
As usual, your lies are only exceeded by ... nothing! Nothing beats your lies; not even your amazing ignorance.

This is a wedge issue, as if we didn't have enough division in the country already. You can count on the Republicans to use as much fear as they can muster to try and divide and conquer. This is shameful and immoral politics. Peace

Third,

Time will tell - but I'm predicting GOP gains in the House and Senate this November...

Axis,

Well, what actually happens is people become more conservative as they age - that is, if they have any sense at all. So, the supposed coming wave of pro-gay marriage people will dissipate in a sea of married heterosexuals who want to defend their institution of marriage.

Actually, Mark, this was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Frist, but it was at Bush's request. He has given several speeches calling for such an amendment, one of them coincidentally in 2004-before the last election. The idea didn't fly then, and it won't now. Why not let the states decide? Aren't conservatives for states rights, and a weak federal government. Then you can move (with all the other social conservatives) to a state like Georgia, that has already passed a law against it. Have a nice holiday!

You mean the Democrats that introduced The Anti-Miscegenation Amendment in 1912?

-- Liberals have done things throughout history that are now looked dimly upon, its true, so have conservatives.

Times are changing...

Mark-

Is it the Government's job to enforce tradition? I know that you have a hard-on for your "traditional values," so I have an idea that I think would satisfy both sides.

Government should just stop dealing in marriages. The same criterion (minus the whole gay thing) would be used (age limits and such) for civil unions. If the couple wanted a marriage, they could find a priest or rabbi to bless the civil union as such.

That way, gay couples could get their tax deductions, hospital visitation rights, and inheritance rights, and the government (and the republicans in particular) can wash its (their) hands of the whole religious marriage thing. If people with a "traditional values" fetish have a problem with who is getting a blessed "marriage," then they can go to the church leaders.

Because that is where marriages belong... in the church. Things just get messy when the government tries to legally define a religious institution.

Frankly, if you think that George and Dick getting married hurts your marriage in any way, then you have some issues.

Time will tell - but I'm predicting GOP gains in the House and Senate this November...

Mark, I can't fault you for your unwaivering optimism. You could put a positive spin on a piece of turd on the sidewalk if determined that a conservative left it there...

Actually, in 1912, the Democrats were the more "conservative" party and the Republicans were the more "progressive or "liberal" party. in fact, Teddy's Bull Moose Party (a progressivist party) split the republican vote and allowed Woodrow Wilson (more conservative than both Roosevelt and Taft) to get elected. So the The Anti-Miscegenation Amendment was actually a conservative brain-child.

It makes sense if you think of the words "conservative" and "progressive" and their respective definitions.

Conservative: Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

At that time, interracial marriage was out of the norm, so it was the conservatives that opposed it.

Progressive: Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.

The ideology shift happened during and after the new deal, and the modern republican party rose in the '70's. Ironically enough, its rise was inspired in no small part by resistance to the Civil Rights Movement and resulting legislation and Judicial decisions.

Calling this amendment the “defense of marriage” amendment is another example of how absurd many conservatives are. This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with defending marriage. It is only about prevent gays from getting married. If gay marriage becomes legal in other states besides Massachusetts, it will have no effect on traditional marriage. Heterosexuals will still have the same right to get married and stay married as they always have. It will have no effect on them. The only people that will be affected by gay marriage will be the hypersensitive Christian Conservatives that just can’t stand the idea that somewhere two men or two women might be getting married to each other.

So Phil, what you are saying then is that eventually the courts will also say it's ok for a man to marry 50 times or a 10 year old girl, etc, etc.

I mean by your definition there are no limitations that the court will uphold.

How tragic if that is the case.

Kritter,

We are for the States to decide - unfortunately, with the may you on the left have made a hash of our judicial system these past 40 years, the worry is that some State judge somewhere will de-facto enforce gay marriage nationwide. This is something we'd prefer not to do, but we're being pressed to it by those who advocate same-sex marriage.

Georgia,

You act as if this government - supported in the main by Christians - should have nothing to do with the people who sustain it. You act as if it is Christians who are the tolerated, rather than the tolerators.

You don't have to like it, but you should accept a bit of reality here - Most Americans are either Jews or Christians and that makes our civilization Judeo-Christian. Such a civilization has certain bedrock principles - among them that marriage will be between one man and one woman, period.

Its no good for you to say you don't want Christianity involved in governmental decision-making...sorry, but were here and we're not going away...and, at any rate, you just love it to death when we Christians interfere to provide help to the poor, condemn the excesses of capitalism, point out that we are stewards of this world...no picking and choosing, Georgia: its all or nothing.

Mark, I like how you like to refer to the past 40 years in a way that makes it sound like democrats have had an iron hand on the courts since the 60's

I might remind you that there has been 6 Republican presidents in office since 1960, all of which have appointed nominees to the courts. Nixon, Ford, Regan, Bush Sr.,The Decider.

If you are unhappy with the court system, you conservative share just as much blame as those on the left as those on the right make up a signifigant percentage in the judiciary.

Blame the liberals. That's all you seem to be capable of these days, having no solid ideas of your own on how to get the country back on track.

Why are you unable to let go of your bigotry and just accept people for who they are instead of what they do behind closed doors. Its none of your business, it in no way affects your personal life if a gay couple chooses to have a life together.

You act as though they are asking some sort of concessions from you, when in fact they simply want to live their lives ...

The biggest thing that prevents your views form becoming the majority is the fact that you are unable to come up with a single, solid arguement on why society should persecute gays and prevent them from marrying. They best you can do is to quote some passages from the bible. Thats not going to cut it. On the other hand, there are many, many solid reasons why people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit.

We are for the States to decide - unfortunately, with the may you on the left have made a hash of our judicial system these past 40 years, the worry is that some State judge somewhere will de-facto enforce gay marriage nationwide. This is something we'd prefer not to do, but we're being pressed to it by those who advocate same-sex marriage.

Axis,

You make the strange leap from my not wanting same sex marriage to some sort of desire on my part to oppress homosexuals...my gay friends will be quite surprised about this.

You should understand by now that I am Catholic - and Catholic teaching is firm that being a homosexual is no sin; and that all actions designed to denigrate homosexuals for being homosexual are wrong. My fellow people who are gay and lesbian are my brothers and sisters in Christ - I'd never do anything to harm them.

On the other hand, marriage has a purpose - a dual purpose, actually: to have an orderly method of propagating the species and, most importantly, the means whereby we turn youthful barbarians into civilized adults. Our society lives and dies with marriage and family - there is no place in this scheme of things for same-sex marriage...it is a negation of what marriage is for, and it is corrosive to the very idea of marriage as it must be for our society to continue.

I'm in favor of enacting whatever legislation is necessary to ensure that gay people have the quick and easy ability to designate whomever they wish as executor in matters health, property disposition, etc...this, though, is just some modifications and red-tape cutting in the system we already have (this system, for instance, being used in my case to set up a living trust between myself, my wife and my father).

I have my views of homosexual sex - but they are entirely in-operative as related to public policy because I've no business interfering in the private actions of consenting adults...as it regards gay marriage, there is no sexual aspect to my opposition - it is entirely a matter of defending the civilization which had created the freedom where, for instance, homosexuals are accorded a widespread tolerance.

You act as if this government - supported in the main by Christians - should have nothing to do with the people who sustain it. You act as if it is Christians who are the tolerated, rather than the tolerators.

-- You sound like a 19th century slavemaster Mark, you have a need to maintain control or religious superiority. "We're all the tolerators, you're the toleratees, now git back in the fields and start pickin' me some cotton!"

Such a civilization has certain bedrock principles - among them that marriage will be between one man and one woman, period.

-- Times are changing. Those growing up in the 90's and 2000's are far more tolerant than you are. They have gay friends, gay relatives, know gay people, watch gays on TV and in the movies, so the thought that these people should not be able to enjoy the same quality of life as they do does not even become a consideration.

Times are changing and civilization is moving forward, it is you intolerant people that refuse to evolve and eventually you will simply be left behind and generation after generation of tolerant people enter society.

Its no good for you to say you don't want Christianity involved in governmental decision-making...

-- and it is this mindset that ensures you are always going to be the minority. People see what
happens when you integrate religion into politics, you eventually end up with a radical fundamental theocracy, such as Iran. People want rational, intelligent presidents and lawmakers, not a horde of evangelical bible thumpers in congress like you want.

and, at any rate, you just love it to death when we Christians interfere to provide help to the poor, condemn the excesses of capitalism, point out that we are stewards of this world...no picking and choosing, Georgia: its all or nothing.

-- Very shortsighted of you. Things are clearly black or white in your world when most people also see many shades of grey in between. There is obviously a very large difference between using the influence of one's faith to make change that is considered for the better of society, such as helping the poor, versas using ones faith to persecute, marginalize and oppress the rights of a minority, such as gays.

You make the strange leap from my not wanting same sex marriage to some sort of desire on my part to oppress homosexuals...my gay friends will be quite surprised about this.

-- Really? They shouldn't. Voice it to them this way, that you and your partner are allowed to wed and enjoy a life together, but you will do everything you can to ensure that your gay friends are disqualified from doing the same. Then see what they say.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions and views, but can you honestly give your gay friends a single valid reason net of the bible why they should NOT be allowed to enjoy those things that you enjoy, simply because of who they choose as a partner?

You should understand by now that I am Catholic - and Catholic teaching is firm that being a homosexual is no sin; and that all actions designed to denigrate homosexuals for being homosexual are wrong.

-- Ok, thats fine, as a entirely religious viewpoint. My arguement to that would obviously be if homosexuality is a sin, then why would god create those with a natural attraction to a sinful lifestyle? I believe that the bible also clearly teaches that you are to be tolerant of others dos it not? That being said, since we are all sinners in one way or another, what would you deem to be a higher signifigance, tolerating those that sin (such as yourself) or being intolerant of others? Either way, you are going to be in violation of the docturines of the church so which is the lesser of 2 evils?

Additionally, if your litmus test is opposing those that sin, and since one of the 10 commandments is "Thou shall not kill" , then how can you support the troops that are commiting sins against your faith everyday?

Somehow I think your views are somewhat simpler and less influenced by your faith than you let on...

On the other hand, marriage has a purpose - a dual purpose, actually: to have an orderly method of propagating the species and, most importantly, the means whereby we turn youthful barbarians into civilized adults.

-- What does marriage have to do with propagating the species? They are 2 seperate and unrelated events. As for your second statement, why would you be opposed to turning youthful gay barbarians into civilized gay adults? Do you prefer uncivilized ones instead?

it is a negation of what marriage is for, and it is corrosive to the very idea of marriage as it must be for our society to continue.

-- Ok, I fully understand the religious reasons to oppose gay marriage and even if it was accepted legally, I also understand and agree with church organizations refusing to participate.

With this in mind, say marriage of gays in the tradititional sense was off the table in favor of establishing a civil union, similiar to those with commonlaw relationships. Why do so many on the right even want to deny this small concession to them as well.? Many of you firmly want no gay marriage, no civil unions, no nothing. Do you agree with this? If so, then why not throw the gays a bone and advocate for civil unions which would make 80% of the happy rather than trying to oppose their rights.?

When everyone on the road speeds down your street is the answer to put up road blocks or is it better to build a highway and allow them to get where they are going faster?

I'm in favor of enacting whatever legislation is necessary to ensure that gay people have the quick and easy ability to designate whomever they wish as executor in matters health, property disposition, etc...

-- Fair enough, sounds like you are in favor of civil unions, so why not propose to those of like mind to help them get it and get the whole issue off the table and settle it, which will reduce your problem from 100% of gays to the 20% of activists that want marriage in the traditional sense? Makes sense doesn't it?

I have my views of homosexual sex - but they are entirely in-operative as related to public policy because I've no business interfering in the private actions of consenting adults...

-- Commendable, I wish others on the right were of this opinion. Many want to put a stop to it or crush it or treat it as if it were a sickness.

I see this as fairly easily resolved, throw them a bone and meet them halfway. They want marriage, you don't, so meet them halfway and give them a legal civil union that qualifies them for the same legal benefits as married couples and then thats resolved and move onto issues of more pressing importance.

You make the strange leap from my not wanting same sex marriage to some sort of desire on my part to oppress homosexuals...my gay friends will be quite surprised about this.

-- Really? They shouldn't. Voice it to them this way, that you and your partner are allowed to wed and enjoy a life together, but you will do everything you can to ensure that your gay friends are disqualified from doing the same. Then see what they say.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions and views, but can you honestly give your gay friends a single valid reason net of the bible why they should NOT be allowed to enjoy those things that you enjoy, simply because of who they choose as a partner?

You should understand by now that I am Catholic - and Catholic teaching is firm that being a homosexual is no sin; and that all actions designed to denigrate homosexuals for being homosexual are wrong.

-- Ok, thats fine, as a entirely religious viewpoint. My arguement to that would obviously be if homosexuality is a sin, then why would god create those with a natural attraction to a sinful lifestyle? I believe that the bible also clearly teaches that you are to be tolerant of others dos it not? That being said, since we are all sinners in one way or another, what would you deem to be a higher signifigance, tolerating those that sin (such as yourself) or being intolerant of others? Either way, you are going to be in violation of the docturines of the church so which is the lesser of 2 evils?

Additionally, if your litmus test is opposing those that sin, and since one of the 10 commandments is "Thou shall not kill" , then how can you support the troops that are commiting sins against your faith everyday?

Somehow I think your views are somewhat simpler and less influenced by your faith than you let on...

On the other hand, marriage has a purpose - a dual purpose, actually: to have an orderly method of propagating the species and, most importantly, the means whereby we turn youthful barbarians into civilized adults.

-- What does marriage have to do with propagating the species? They are 2 seperate and unrelated events. As for your second statement, why would you be opposed to turning youthful gay barbarians into civilized gay adults? Do you prefer uncivilized ones instead?

it is a negation of what marriage is for, and it is corrosive to the very idea of marriage as it must be for our society to continue.

-- Ok, I fully understand the religious reasons to oppose gay marriage and even if it was accepted legally, I also understand and agree with church organizations refusing to participate.

With this in mind, say marriage of gays in the tradititional sense was off the table in favor of establishing a civil union, similiar to those with commonlaw relationships. Why do so many on the right even want to deny this small concession to them as well.? Many of you firmly want no gay marriage, no civil unions, no nothing. Do you agree with this? If so, then why not throw the gays a bone and advocate for civil unions which would make 80% of the happy rather than trying to oppose their rights.?

When everyone on the road speeds down your street is the answer to put up road blocks or is it better to build a highway and allow them to get where they are going faster?

I'm in favor of enacting whatever legislation is necessary to ensure that gay people have the quick and easy ability to designate whomever they wish as executor in matters health, property disposition, etc...

-- Fair enough, sounds like you are in favor of civil unions, so why not propose to those of like mind to help them get it and get the whole issue off the table and settle it, which will reduce your problem from 100% of gays to the 20% of activists that want marriage in the traditional sense? Makes sense doesn't it?

I have my views of homosexual sex - but they are entirely in-operative as related to public policy because I've no business interfering in the private actions of consenting adults...

-- Commendable, I wish others on the right were of this opinion. Many want to put a stop to it or crush it or treat it as if it were a sickness.

I see this as fairly easily resolved, throw them a bone and meet them halfway. They want marriage, you don't, so meet them halfway and give them a legal civil union that qualifies them for the same legal benefits as married couples and then thats resolved and move onto issues of more pressing importance.

axis, and all the rest of you liberals,

Since this is Memorial Day Weekend...

Perhaps I can sum up my response to all of the liberal posts here and to entire liberal agenda in one word.

When the Germans asked Gen. Anthony McAuliffe to surrender during the Battle of the Bulge (some say Battle of Bastogne), he faced what appeared to be overwhelming odds from his enemy. His reply...

NUTS!!!

AAR

NUTS!!!

-- Gee, wasn't that what the U.K.'s Jack Straw called Bush when he stated that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran was on the table and being considered?

LOL

Axis,

My gay friends know where I stand - I have this tendency to mouth off just as much in person as I do on the blog. If anyone is mystified about my views, then they just haven't been paying attention.

To take on the civil unions issue - as stated, I'm generally in favor of some mechanism to allow non-married couples to deal with health, property, inheritence, etc. Outside of the gay marriage issue, as a conservative I'll always be in favor of anything which de-bureaucratizes an aspect of American life. Setting up the trust I have cost a small fortune and took a while - and we didn't have a lot of assets to work on...I can only imagine the legal nightmare that, say, a prosperous gay couple in New York or San Francisco has to go through just to protect themselves in case of injury or death. I would also like a mechanism to protect gay people from being screwed over by their partners - one lesbian friend of mine really caught it in the shorts when her partner tossed her out...and even though she had worked like a dog on their mutual home, it was only in the partner's name, so she hadn't a legal leg to stand on in the matter.

Boiled down, in practical terms most people opposed to gay marriage are not far apart from most people in favor of gay marriage - fanatics aside, everyone is more than willing to be reasonable...but there is an unreasonable element, and it is aimed right at the very foundation of family.

I don't know how long you've been reading my writings, but I'll remind that I once upon a time was in favor of gay marriage, to a certain extent - this favorability on my part even went to far as my voting AGAINST the DOMA passed overwhelmingly here in Nevada. What turned me on it were some of the people leading the charge on gay marriage - I was disgusted with them: they are just using gay people as a means to a destructive end. They don't care about people who love each other and want to devote their lives to one another, but they do care very much that the family be destroyed because it is, correctly, viewed as the most pervasive and effective vehicle for transmitting what we call traditional values.

With this in mind, they have availed themselves of the Courts and are trying to do another Roe - force a particular view upon the American people via judicial fiat. There is only one way I can be certain that I don't wake up in a world where, without so much as a by your leave, gay marriage has become the law of the land. The DOMA amendment is it and as reluctant as I am to amend the Constitution, I can see no other way to ensure that whatever formulation we arrive at on this issue, it is decided ultimately by the people.