Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---49
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Dodd (D-CT)
Hagel (R-NE)
Rockefeller (D-WV)

Like the liberals really think there are more important things for debate than protecting family, the bedrock of our society.

Let me guess what they FEEEEEEL are important stories:

- Haditha
- Immigration Reform
- Iranian Nukes
- North Korea
- Chinese Economic Competition
- Escalating Energy costs
- Upcoming Elections
- Global Warming
- Congressional Corruption

C'mon, now, do you really think there is anything more to say on any of those topics. Families must be protected. It is for the children!

Yes, I consider legalizing gay marriage to be slightly more important than legalizing beastiality (not much different), which is slightly more important than legalizing marijuana. None of which has any significance for me.

Conservative,

How many military men and women have died because of the "threat" to marriage?

has the "threat" to marriage raised your gas prices?

has the "threat" to marriage caused another spate of deaths in iraq today?

has the "threat" to marriage caused debt spending to continue?

has the "threat" to marriage allowed another day of un-controlled immigration to happen?

Conservative,,for the children???

lets see.. what might "threaten" my hetrosexual marriage... two guys a few houses away living together or the 55 year old man (about my age) who divorces his long-time wife and remarries a young trophy wife..... HUMMMMM damn she looks good and my mind is wondering

See how the liberals raise any flag --- Iraqi quagmire, astronomical gas prices, ballooning debt, whatever --- rather than talk about issues that really matter.

It just shows how the gay agenda runs the liberals.

Thanks for making my point, Turdie and OrioDrinker.

Is it not pandering to their base when Democrats make abortion the primary issue during the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito?

Of course it is, Matt, but they get all bent out of shape when we do it, all the while claiming that they don't do it. Or, as El Rushbo says, and I paraphrase, "The libs are always accusing us of doint things they've been doing for thirty years."

Or something like that.

Hey, OhioGolfer, I think your name should be OhioGoofy...

Conservative,

You are about as vapid a person as i've ever heard. The obvious point is that we have plenty of other issues which are getting people killed, and you guys wanna spend 3 week discussing whether two dudes should get their own amendment to the constitution.

Another brilliant political move by majority leader Frist:
-Shiavo
-Stem Cell
-Dubai
-The Reid bitch slapping (SSCI closed Senate session)

Aren’t Pubs tired of seeing that clown Frist run the Senate?

Keefer,

i think your name should be Keebler, cuz your elf-like jabs can't be heard over the adults speaking in the room.

Hey keefer, how many times has El Rusbo been divorced?

keefer Hey, OhioGolfer, I think your name should be OhioGoofy...

Keefer maybe you should keep the discussions to facts and intelligent argument and not attacks on persons or their handles,.,., that is cheap and like many of you conseratives your choose to attack the messenger rather than the message.

If you read I was saying in an example way, that the children are more impacted by divorce than gay marriage and if you truely want to protect marriage maybe you need to broaden your scope of the problem,

Does prostution hurt marriage.. Does serial prostution , i,e, marry, devorce, marry, divorce. marry divorce,.,, hurt marriage..

Your comments if you can stay on message and not attack the messenger

The most important issue America has right now is restoring the Constitution and stopping activist judges from amending and changing it as they see fit.

The Constitution is the basis and framework for our laws, our rights, our protections, and our freedoms -- and the Constitution never meant for judges to be our "law givers".

There is nothing more important than repairing the damage that has been done by these judges and restoring the Constitution to what it was meant to be -- not Iraq -- not gas prices -- not the debt -- not immigration -- NOTHING!

If your house is damaged by storms, the first thing you fix is the foundation. If the foundation isn't strong, sound, and secure, all other repairs are in danger of collapsing later. The Constitution is the foundation of this nation. It has been damaged by liberals and liberalism. The Constitution must be repaired first!

We can fix all of the other problems later!

We must keep working the issue until the American people understand, understand what has and is happening, and understand the consequences.

AAR

Third eye, you are so disingenious. To make it sound like the Senate is not doing other people's business right now is ridiculous.

Seriously, if you want to go down that path should we talk about Clinton getting his wanker polished nightly by interns and alledgedly raping two women...what could have been DONE for the nation's business if he wasn't using a 20 year old as a cigar humidor?

We can play these games all day so stop the crap and the hypocrisy. Of course it's a wedge issue.

Guess what, I'd be damn worried if I were you guys about your African American block who supports a gay marriage ban higher than ANY group. 82% and they are pissed right now and telling their liberal constituents that they are.

AAR,

your analogy assumes the foundation is damaged, your argument doesn't take into account that the judges are saying that they don't feel the foundation is bad, just the house that its build upon got its blueprints read wrong. This is why we appoint judges to interpet the law, and for the past 25 years, your folks have been doing a lion's share of the appointing of those judges, so what are you complaining about?!

Warriornation,

I thought the Decider came into office on a platform of "Bringing people together, not pushing them apart". So you're saying the most pressing issue of the day is whether two guys can, or cannot get married? above gas prices or healthcare reform or border security, you guys decide that right now is the perfect time to debate whether we need to open a constitutional congress so we can make sure 5% of the population gets segregated from the rights we afford to the other 95%?

CttC said: "See how the liberals raise any flag --- Iraqi quagmire, astronomical gas prices, ballooning debt, whatever --- rather than talk about issues that really matter."

If I didn't know better I would suspect this to be a funny snark. But I suspect you're serious.

What saddens me is the fundamental lack of sincerity in congress surrounding the whole marriage ammendment issue. Right from the start there was no pretense on any side that the ammendment had any chance of actual passage. It's all lip service, just like it was the first time around. And just like the first time around, it will all go away as soon as the election cycle is over. The whole excercise is so transparently meaningless in any real sense it's depressing. To me it's just another example of how the legislative branch has been trying to make themselves irrelevant. They don't actually want to make any tough decisions, they just want to pontificate. How pathetic. We need a major infusion of new blood in the halls of Washington, and we need it bad. The status quo is a mess.

Isn't it interesting that the issue of gay marriage, or gay people in general, usually seems to focus on whether or not MEN can marry?

Most of these Conservative males are disgusted by MEN who like other men, and fail to really mention lesbians as repulsive.

I wonder how many of these Conservative boys were frat boys once upon a day and hooted and hollered for women to strip and make out with each other. Especially if they were "hot" women. Hmmm? How many of these "Conservative" Neocons were actually raging perverts who got drunk and would love to see two chicks have sex?

Yet when it comes to guys, men are "fags" and shouldn't marry, yet when women did it to gratify men, they were okay with it.

Hmmmm, I wonder?

CttC said: "See how the liberals raise any flag --- Iraqi quagmire, astronomical gas prices, ballooning debt, whatever --- rather than talk about issues that really matter."

If I didn't know better I would suspect this to be a funny snark. But I suspect you're serious.

What saddens me is the fundamental lack of sincerity in congress surrounding the whole marriage ammendment issue. Right from the start there was no pretense on any side that the ammendment had any chance of actual passage. It's all lip service, just like it was the first time around. And just like the first time around, it will all go away as soon as the election cycle is over. The whole excercise is so transparently meaningless in any real sense it's depressing. To me it's just another example of how the legislative branch has been trying to make themselves irrelevant. They don't actually want to make any tough decisions, they just want to pontificate. How pathetic. We need a major infusion of new blood in the halls of Washington, and we need it bad. The status quo is a mess.

Where did I say the most pressing issue of the day is gay marriage? Of course that begs the question to the left. When serious issues like Social Security were encroached, you guys refused to play.

When judicial nominees are up for vote, you guys whine and bitch.

When an energy plan was sitting there for 3.5 years and refused to be acted upon, both parties had their thumbs in their A$$ refusing to act.

But to suggest that because the Senate cannot have this debate for a few weeks as well as other debates is just bogus. If you're so concerned about that, then you should have been OUTRAGED that John Kerry did not resign his position as a Senator in 2004 while he spent all his time campaiging for President. Afterall, the nation's business was more pressing and Mass. needed a representative.

Are you sure you want to keep playing this game, because we can keep coming up with hypocrisy moments all day long if you wish.

A question to all you conservatives:

If you are true conservatives as many of your posts proclaim, (as do your handles) then I assume you want the federal government limited to those areas provided for in the constitution: national defense, Treasury function with the power to print and issue currency, enter into treaties, regulate interstate commerce, post office, etc

Other issues are to be left to the states. Death penalty, driving age, DWI limits, (i.e. 1.0, .08), speed limits, etc. In fact you all wish for a repeal of Roe/Wade and returning to the states the question of the legality of abortion.

Why then do you suddenly deny your own beliefs and seek to move to the federal level the question of gay marriage.

I seem to see a huge inconsistency here and wish one you can explain why you are conservative in some cases and not in others.

And don’t imply that if one state (or more) allows gay marriage, all states need recognize it. There are ways within interstate commerce to relegate what one state accepts from another. Think of the ability of one state to tax products bought in another state and imported. That one state lets say does not tax cigarettes and a resident of another state buys them in the first state. The resident’s state does not have to recognize the selling state tax polices.

Likewise, in another case if your state outlaws abortion, it has not the right to prevent a resident to go to a state where it is allowed to have an abortion

Your thoughts please.

AAR-

You can run but you can't hide from me.

14th Amendment

And Judges are not our "law givers" they are our legal interpreters.
Thats why we have a Supreme Court.

FALAFEL

First off the issue isn’t interstate commerce; it’s the “full faith and credit” clause; “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. A marriage contract would fall under this, “Death penalty, driving age, DWI limits, (i.e. 1.0, .08), speed limits, etc.” fall within the jurisdiction of the State in which the act or transgression is committed.
Next, a Constitutional Amendment prevents activist judges from thwarting the will of the people within each State.

Nebraska federal district court judge Joseph Battaillon on May 12 struck down the Nebraska marriage amendment, also called Section 29, which was passed by 70 percent of Nebraska voters

the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the discussion, all persons of the age of majority may enter into the contract of marriage provided they meet the minimum standards of that contract.
The Supreme Court wasn't the arbiter of the Constitution until 1802 (Marbury v. Madison).

"You are about as vapid a person as i've ever heard. The obvious point is that we have plenty of other issues which are getting people killed, and you guys wanna spend 3 week discussing whether two dudes should get their own amendment to the constitution."
- Three-Day Blinds

1. I'm not vapid. You are.

2. I don't want to waste three weeks discussing whether two dudes should be in the same sentence together, much less in holy matrimony. The discussion was over at "In the beginning..."

All your need to prattle on about things of no consequence ("ooh, people are dying") comes to nothing when faced with REAL issues, like the gay trying to destroy families and by extension, America.

"Keefer maybe you should keep the discussions to facts and intelligent argument and not attacks on persons or their handles,.,., that is cheap and like many of you conseratives your choose to attack the messenger rather than the message."
- Ohio Drinker

Oh, so when you are ripping into keefer with "conservatives attack," you are having an intelligent discussion of fact?

We don't attack people or handles. Even the libbies will back me on that. Am I right, Queefer? as-if? BlowAviators? (note, nothing for Salvenius...still waiting, man)

Grow up and have a civil debate, Ohio Loser.

Warriornation

Give 'em Hell!

These libbies think they can re-direct the conversation from things of importance (gay marriage ruining the fabric of American society) to things of little importance (dead Iraqi terrorists in Haditha), you and I are here to stop them.

I mean, look how they moan about Haditha. Just coincidence, I suppose, that the week the President tries to engage the public in this important Constitutional Amendment debate, both Time Magazine and Newsweek use Haditha as a cover. The left-wing media will do anything to steal Bush's fire, they hate him and America so much.

What is the big deal about Haditha anyhow. Every war has some atrocity to it. My Lai, the Boston Massacre, Kosovo Ethnic Cleansing, Gigli, the Killing Fields.

So Haditha was ours. It is now past us, and it is about time we focused on victory now that it is out of our systems.

This is hardly worthy of sapping the urgent debate on gay marriage, which after all is about protecting the children.

Keefer and Bloviator_

There's no use debating with Conservative to the core. He's obvious some young kid (or lets hope young kid) who's arguments consist of name calling or when his logic is backed into a corner he reverts to the "cause that's the way it is liberal scum" argument. Not worth wasting space on that kind of discussion.

FALAFEL FOT YOU Mr. O'Rielly?

OhioGoofy,

I read your rebuttal to me, and I must say, son, your writing is, to quote Simon Cowell, "bloody appalling!" Did you go to school with Baloney2000 and TurdEyeMoron?

Baloney, Rush has been divorced three times, and he makes more money in a week than your sorry ass will make in your lifetime. What's your point, Baloney-smoker?

Why then do you suddenly deny your own beliefs and seek to move to the federal level the question of gay marriage.

Because, OhioGoofy, states have ALREADY passed state constitutional amendments, banning gay marriage, only to have activist federal judges overturn the will of the people. Is this too hard for your dumb arse to comprehend?

BTW, OhioGoofy, don't use "i.e." when citing examples. Use "e.g."

Learn to write, son, and people will take you more seriously. Very few people here take the following idiots seriously:

Baloney
axis of stupidity
TurdEyeMoron
Ash
dav

Now add your name to the list. OhioGoofy--I like that. And I could beat you at golf, even if I play all of my short shots one-handed...

OhioGolfer, I agree with you more or less completely. Then again, I'm not the most conservative individual on this site -- at least insofar as "conservative" appears to be presently defined (I consider myself more of a "libertarian populist", or maybe a Reagan-style conservative, depending upon how you translate them) -- so maybe my opinion doesn't count.

But I'll give my opinion anyway, lol!

With specific respect to gay marriage, the states seem to be handling it pretty well all by themselves. Yes, there has been some interference by the courts, but not that much. And it seems to me that that's the court's job -- to challenge badly written laws. And in that endeavor, yes, they may very well make mistakes as well. But to construe the situation as being at some sort of crisis point is an attitude that escapes me.

On a more personal level, the whole "gay marriage" issue boils down to semantics. "Marriage", after all, has a dual meaning: it has both religious significance and legal significance. In the religious sphere I tend to be a traditionalist. Thus, the idea that "marriage" has been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman for thousands of years, with few exceptions, has traction for me. Thus, I would prefer that my church did not condone such a union. But at the same time, it seems to me that that is an issue for each sect/denomination/whatever to argue, not the state. In the legal sphere, on the other hand, I don't see why a gay couple who wish to commit themselves to a union in which they accept, and are obligated to both the legal responsibilities and advantages of such a union, should be barred from it. It seems to me that love and commitment are deeper truths that prevail irregardless of whatever genders are involved, and irregardless of whether any given sect/denomination/whatever condones such a configuration.

Many posts on this topic and others claim that a homosexual union somehow tears at the fabric of the family on the one hand, and society on the other. Well for one thing, such charges are almost universally undocumented. And the very few that are are documented poorly. As a person who militantly strives to be a member of the fact-based community, that's unacceptable to me. For another thing, it seems to me that laws are formed for the benefit of society first and foremost, and should impact the family (however defined) only insofar as said "family" affects the fabric of society. That effect could be construed on all sorts of different levels. And I'm willing to consider any of them that make sense and that can be supported by facts. But so far I have heard very few arguments that meet those criteria vis-a-vis homosexual unions.

Rather, there is much more evidence documenting the difficulties kids coming from broken homes have, or kids coming out of the foster care system have, or kids coming out of poor inner city environments have, and so on and so forth. As a result, the emphasis on gay marriages seems to me like so much smoke and mirrors. Then again, I guess it plays well to simple thinkers. And I guess, in the end, that's what politics is all about -- and will remain so until people are able to think about things in more complex ways.

keebler: I like it. Those that take you seriously still laugh at poo-poo jokes.

Gay marriage is a non-issue. It is a diversion.

I play all of my short shots one-handed.

Keebler if you are as small as your posts indicate, I'd say all of your shots are "short." badda-bing

The vote was a demonstration of Bush's political capital. Hashahahahah!

You libertines---oops, liberals----are missing the point of an amendment about gay marriage. Frist made that point today--guess you missed it.

His point was that the Constitution WILL be amended, regarding gay marriage, one way or another. It will be amended through the our-of-line actions of liberal activist judges, or it will be amended legally through the steps outlined in the Constitution.

Personally, rather than an amendment OUTLAWING anything, I would prefer an amendment that simply DEFINES marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

Gays can certainly campaign for civil unions, which I think is a great idea. Their single-minded determination to not only achieve the legal benefits which would be granted through civil unions but to also hijack the historically based word "marriage" to describe them is selfish, and---dare I say it----INSENSITIVE. Why can't they simply acknowledge that this word has deep cultural, religious, and historical meaning which is and always has been connected with the committed union of one man and one woman, respect that meaning, and adopt a new word for what is certainly not a representation of what the word has always meant anyway?

What plays well to "simple thinkers" is the diversionary tactic used so often by the Left, and illustrated so clearly in the previous posts, of dodging the real issue and veering off into silly efforts to denigrate marriage by pointing out some failures.

Ash sez:

"Gay marriage is a non-issue. It is a diversion."

If it is such a non-issue, why are you talking about it?

Shouldn't you just ignore it and talk about your so-called "important" things like atrocities in Iraq and the mounting nuclear threat in Iran?

The fact that YOU talk about here only highlights how important a topic it is.

We've got to do this amendment, folks. It is for the children.

Ric,
You claim, "such charges are almost universally undocumented" then go on to state, “Rather, there is much more evidence documenting the difficulties kids coming from broken homes have, or kids coming out of the foster care system have, or kids coming out of poor inner city environments have, and so on and so forth.” Part and parcel to these studies are the corroborations that children raised without benefit of a male and female role model are more likely to have difficulty adjusting to society, and more likely to have behavioral problems. You cannot accept evidence that non-nuclear families are damaged without accepting the evidence that a "gay family" is non-nuclear.

The question still begs, what does “gay marriage” add to society that we need to redefine the union to accommodate something that cannot, by definition propagate itself.

What a shame ... The knock the queers down ammendment is DEAD. Dead as a doorknob on the senate floor.

Good thing Bush didn't really care about it anyways (Newsweek quote: "Bush doesn't really give a s--t about gay marriage") And Cheney is against it since he has a gay daughter.

Time to rally up the religious right to vote now so the Republicans can forget all about it again until they need you vote in 2008!!

We've got to do this amendment, folks. It is for the children.

-- Uh huh. Not unless you are going to pass your homophobia to your children, which I wouldn't doubt.

Why do Muslems hate Canada?

We've got to do this amendment, folks. It is for the children

Right after drilling in ANWR and hell freezes over.

We've got to do this amendment, folks. It is for the children

Right after drilling in ANWR and hell freezes over.

It's dead, and it's going to go in the closet until 2008. I'm dissappointed in Mr. Rove... this should have been done in October. That way, it would still be on people's (like Mark) minds when they vote.

They had the bomb and they lost it. Sorry guys...

Actually Georgia, it's on the ballot in November I think in 9 states so it will be talked about considerably in many elections. There has YET to be a state in which the people of that state have not been for marriage defined as man + woman.

The problem, as with abortion, is that both sides believe in one side with no chance of compromise on their believes. It is the new abortion, oh joy. Hopefully we will be able to find more divisive issues until the country completely splits.

Although, I side with homosexuals in believing that homosexuality is a nature behavior, I blame them for the most inane decision to push this issue while under a conservative administration without more empirical evidence backing what they tout.

A point to consider for the Repugs:

Dick Cheney - probably the most social conservative known to man - is AGAINST this amendment. It is because his daughter is a lesbian. For once, Dr Evil has looked to the human side of and issue, and is right.

Thoughts?

Conservative to the Core,
I would laugh at your 'we need to stop fags from marrying to protect the children' redneck/homophobic rhetoric, but seeing the same dribble many times, it seems that you are serious. Tell me: how does gay people getting married destroy families in America? Can't wait to hear this response.

Conservative is mentioning "the children" a lot, in a few more threads as well.

I wonder if he is one of those secret conservative kiddie watchers like so many of the supposedly "moral" Christian conservatives. Many are self haters that vote against their own interests because they hate what they are.

All that "for the children" babble is starting to remind me of Michael Jackson, who said that a LOT.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,99669,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl
Is THIS you, Con?

What about hermaphrodites? Should they be allowed to marry? Which sex? Only other hermaphrodites? God creates them as they are. Should they not be able to commit to a lifelong love despite sickness or health, boom or bust, like anyone else? Would God approve?

With the astronomically high divorce rate, especially among Christians (CLICK HERE), it seems clear that diametrically opposed genitalia is no assurance of a strong marriage, and in fact, heterosexual DIVORCE is the biggest destroyer of the "sanctity" of marriage and a child's well-being. THAT should be outlawed, right?

Conservative,

I have finally realized you are obviously just a contrarian, you are a middle-management type, balding, with a preferance for eating your meal with your stuffed animals around the dinner table so you don't feel lonely. You aren't stupid, you just get-off on teh idea that people are paying attention to you. Your arguments are baseless and silly, childish if you will, and you know at the end of the day the fags are going to be living happily married in your neighborhood having pity on you and your little nightly tea-party, right before bed-time and a quick rub-down session while talking to your girlfriends on MySpace...

So with that said, I will not bother to contradict your points, since I won't feed grubby little trolls who can't come up with anything more human to say than:

"What is the big deal about Haditha anyhow. Every war has some atrocity to it. My Lai, the Boston Massacre, Kosovo Ethnic Cleansing, Gigli, the Killing Fields.

So Haditha was ours. It is now past us, and it is about time we focused on victory now that it is out of our systems."

May whatever it is you believe in have pity on your soul, and may your microwave dinners not cause you intestinal cancer

I find it somewhat (pardon the pun) queer that soo many "straight" people are all consumed with what two guys/girls do behind closed doors. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure, but I highly doubt gay people care what we do behind closed doors. And as far as the children, I find that protecting them from hatred, bigotry, and intolerance is far more important than a couple of guys/girls sharing nuptials. It's far more difficult to explain to children why people hate, explaining love is easy. Ask any child, hate confuses them, I'm 32 and it confuses me.

SIDE NOTE: We learn new things about the human psyche everyday, we know there is no such thing as black and white, what makes us think sexuality is? and why do we care so much? Just seems to be misdirected energy.

Let's get back to basics, fiscal conservatism, conserving the environment, reduction government, etc., the TRUE, Republican Platform issues, not the Constitional Party Platform.

Just a thought…

Nail hit squarely on the head by Republican thinking Independent. There's not much more to add on to that.

Contrast that with the ridiculousness of Bush's statement:

"And as this debate continues, each American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity."

...except for the gays--they need to be restricted from being equal to straights. No dignity for them! Marriage is a wonderful thing from which they must be banned from participating!

Nobody cares who does what behind any closed doors. No one was trying to "knock the queers down". This lefty determination to shift any discussion from the true topic to something entirely different, but to a place where they feel more freedom to interject their old tired talking points, is getting tiresome.

Civilization began to develop when families were established, when men were determined to be responsible for their wives and offspring. Marriage served a vital function, in that it gave legitimacy to offspring. It provided the illusion, at least, that a man could count on his wife's children being sired by him. It provided a moral and legal vehicle for the inheritance of property and status. It provided a platform for social and cultural and political stability.

It was so important that it was incorporated into evey religion, thereby increasing its impact and its relevance. It was ritualized and formalized. While the institution of marriage has evolved throughout the centuries, it has ALWAYS been about a man/woman relationship, and about procreation. The only real changes over many many centuries have been regarding the number of wives a man could have, the manner in which a marriage could be ended, and similar concerns. The basic foundation, of man/woman/family, has remained unchanged.

Now, within the past 20 years or so, a movement has arisen which strives to redefine in the most basic and crucial way the very core of the institution. And there is no reason, no reason at all, to do this.

If the goal was merely to provide legal support for homosexual couples, the establishment of some kind of civil union would be more than adequate. It would be a simple matter to formulate and even name such a contract, and it would be acceptable to most Americans and easily passed and integrated into our society.

The same kind of thing could be done to establish a spiritual bonding which would have the same spiritual/religious significance as a marriage ceremony.

In other words, the issue is not about "denying rights" to gay people. It is not about doing anything negative to them, or depriving them of anything, other than the use of one single word.

So why the determination to hijack a cultural and religious artifact of such deep and profound importance and significance, to insist on redefining in the most basic way an institution which has remained essentially unchanged for so many centuries? Why do gay couples HAVE to have the word "marriage"?

This is not about rights, or protection. It is about an in-your-face defiance of religion and its meaning to so many people. It is about intolerance of deeply held views precisely because they are so often expressed in religious terms. It is about gaining and using power for the simple joy of doing so, and about the thrill of being able to stick it to people they don't respect anyway. In other words, this movement is about doing to cultural and religious conservatives in the area of marriage exactly what the gays, and the liberals, are claiming, falsely, is being done to them.

There would be no issue if the gay/liberal agenda was not so tightly focused on taking away something of vital importance to people they deeply resent and distrust anyway. It would take only a very small amount of generosity of spirit to acknowledge the deep and profound meaning of the word "marriage" to so many millions of people, without necessarily agreeing with it, and to move past the determination to insist on that very word for a very different relationship. It would be a simple matter to simply say "We respect your desire to retain something of deep cultural and religious significance to you, and we ask you to help us establish a different but similar institution and ritual which will have the same significance to us, and to respect that".

This would be civilized, it would be generous, it would be diplomatic, and it would heal rifts and make it possible for two positions which are now very far apart to find some areas of agreement and maybe even acceptance.

But it won't happen, because this is a strident, domineering, beliggerent, combative agenda, based far more on sticking it to a philosophy they don't respect than it is establishing parity of rights and relationships.

Nobody cares who does what behind any closed doors. No one was trying to "knock the queers down".

-- That is such a farse. All one need to look at is some of the homophobic religious rants from Jeremiah and some from mark and a few others. You are not just wanting to keep the gays from marrying, you are also pushing to stop them from adopting kids, and also pushing to stop them from getting civil unions.

Its about homophobia. A 21 century version of the interracial black/white marriage debate some time ago.

It this WAS about marriage, then not only would you NOT be trying to knock down other rights for them, but you would also be pushing for STRAIGHT couples to take marriage more seriously.

It is man/woman marriages that is the greatest threat than the gays could ever be. A couple can meet in a bar, go to a drive thru wedding chapel and be married in 20 minutes.

I don't see you attacking these kinds of threats to marriage. Marriage has been on the decline for decades and long before gays came into the debate. Look at the percentages of marriages that end in divorce within a year. A great many don't last 5 years.

Nobody cares who does what behind any closed doors. No one was trying to "knock the queers down".

-- That is such a farse. All one need to look at is some of the homophobic religious rants from Jeremiah and some from mark and a few others. You are not just wanting to keep the gays from marrying, you are also pushing to stop them from adopting kids, and also pushing to stop them from getting civil unions.

Its about homophobia. A 21 century version of the interracial black/white marriage debate some time ago.

It this WAS about marriage, then not only would you NOT be trying to knock down other rights for them, but you would also be pushing for STRAIGHT couples to take marriage more seriously.

It is man/woman marriages that is the greatest threat than the gays could ever be. A couple can meet in a bar, go to a drive thru wedding chapel and be married in 20 minutes.

I don't see you attacking these kinds of threats to marriage. Marriage has been on the decline for decades and long before gays came into the debate. Look at the percentages of marriages that end in divorce within a year. A great many don't last 5 years.

Almiranta,

If you're so concerned with them trying to destroy your conventions, then just make everything a civil union, and let the churches deal with marriage ...

you don't need to prattle on about marriage as a pillar of society. I would argue that prostitution existed before marriage, and continues on today, and that didn't seem to stop marriage from becoming the basis of civilization you claim it to be.

Almiranta: Thanks for your extremely thoughtful post. I think it's one of the most intelligent and productive comments on the subject I've ever read. I only wish axis and others of his ilk could open up their minds enough to actually absorb your serious and important message.

Axis: Once again you win the prize for writing without thinking. You accuse Almiranta of "not just wanting to keep the gays from marrying, [but] also pushing to stop them from getting civil unions." But here's what Almmiranta actually wrote: "[T]he establishment of some kind of civil union would be more than adequate. It would be a simple matter to formulate and even name such a contract, and it would be acceptable to most Americans and easily passed and integrated into our society." Did you even read Almiranta's post??? Or did you just attack reflexively because Almiranta expressed a different perspective from you?

Axis, you also wrote: "Its about homophobia. A 21 century version of the interracial black/white marriage debate some time ago." But here's what Almiranta actually wrote: "[Marriage] has ALWAYS been about a man/woman relationship, and about procreation. The only real changes over many many centuries have been regarding the number of wives a man could have, the manner in which a marriage could be ended, and similar concerns. The basic foundation, of man/woman/family, has remained unchanged." If you see homophobia lurking somewhere in that comment, axis, you're delusional. Not only is in not homophobic, but Almiranta's comment actually helps illuminate why the same-sex "marriage" debate has absoutely NOTHING to do with old debate about interracial marriages. I find it hugely telling that the fight against those old racist laws was motivated by the desire to allow blacks and whites to legally procreate; whereas today's phony gay "civil rights" cause is motivated by a wish to SEPARATE marriage from procreation. There's virtually nothing in common between the 2 causes. You want civil rights for gays? Fine, convince me by accepting civil unions for gays and leaving the word "marriage" for hetero unions.

Axis, you also wrote "I[f] this WAS about marriage, then not only would you NOT be trying to knock down other rights for them, but you would also be pushing for STRAIGHT couples to take marriage more seriously....A [male/female]couple can meet in a bar, go to a drive thru wedding chapel and be married in 20 minutes." What drivel. Do you have ANY idea what Almiranta thinks of hetero couples who take marriage as a joke? No, of course you don't, axis, because THIS THREAD IS ABOUT GAY "MARRIAGE." If you want to know Almiranta's thoughts on straights who think marriage is ajoke, I suggest you post on a thread devoted to that topic.

Finally, axis, you also wrote "Marriage has been on the decline for decades and long before gays came into the debate. Look at the percentages of marriages that end in divorce within a year. A great many don't last 5 years." More nonsense. As I argued in a different thread, the fragility of modern marriage is an argument in favor of giving MORE special status to opposite-sex marriages, NOT less. The reason is that it's crucial that we encourage what I call "procreative marriages" -- i.e., opposite-sex marriages that are specifically entered into for the agreed-on purpose of having offspring and raising them to adulthood. And in my experience, couples who marry for those reasons are almost ALWAYS influenced in their marriage decision by the special social, legal, and religious status that society gives to married couples who have and raise their own kids. The state and society should therefore strongly support the special status we give to such marriages. But calling same-sex unions "marriages" will substantially remove that special status, leading to fewer and shorter procreative marriages and a weakened society. So you have it exactly backwards, axis: instead of being an argument for killing off the specialness of opposite-sex marriage, the fragility of modern marriage is a powerful argument to STRENGTHEN its special status.

TEO: Calling everything a "civil union" stinks for exactly the same reason that calling same-sex unions "marriage" stinks. Both solutions would put same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions on the same plane. Whichever way you do it, you're still going to remove the specialness that we traditionally give to procreative marriages, with disatrous effects on procreative marriage and society.

Asking American society to accept gays, to accept gay marriage, is indeed the most frightening thing in the world. I mean, goodness gracious, the world would come to an END! That would be the end of society and the devil himself will walk on the face of the earth. Good grief!

The issue isn't about activist judges, or even saying that the institution of marriage is sacred... it's that you people hold on to this belief so stubbornly, so steadfastly, and with such irrational, vitriolic disdain, that any consideration to the contrary is out of the question... you're so AFFRAID to change your thinking beacuse you don't want to ALLOW anyone to tell you otherwise. No, society will not come to an end, get real.

JJR -- Congratulations on not responding to a single point in my or anyone else's posts, and instead just calling us all names! Today's Kossack Prize® goes to you! Good liberal!!!

JPL,

I don't think, "My marriage doesn't seem as special" qualifies as a "compelling reason"

Would you like to try and expound upon your assertion that straight couples will somehow find the prospect of marriage unappetizing because somewhere in their town a gay couple is afforded the same right?

"I don't think, 'My marriage doesn't seem as special' qualifies as a 'compelling reason.'"

Not sure where the concept of "compelling reason" comes in, TEO. It sure isn't a term I'd use in the same-sex "marriage" debate. If you're borrowing that phrase from Constitutional legal theory -- which holds that government can limit certain constitutional rights ONLY if it can show a "compelling reason" for doing so, and only to the extent of that compelling reason -- then I think that term has NOTHING to do with this debate. There's simply no constitutional right for a man to marry another man, or for a woman to marry another woman, period. Marriage has always been defined as a union of a man and a woman, and no civilization in history has ever given that same name to a same-sex union until very recently.

Now regardless of the fact that there's no constitutional right for same-sex couples to "marry," should we be open to creating a special legal status for same-sex unions, which will confer similar benefits to those of marriage, but subject to its own rules and under a name different from "marriage"? I think so, but that's a topic for another thread. (As an aside, I want to emphasize that many of the rules governing procreative marriage and parental rights simply CANNOT be applied exactly to same-sex unions. Again, that's for another thread.)

"Would you like to...expound upon your assertion that straight couples will somehow find the prospect of marriage unappetizing because somewhere in their town a gay couple is afforded the same right?"

First of all, TEO, I never said that straights will suddenly find that ALL marriages are unappetizing. I only addressed the effect on procreative marriages -- by which I mean opposite-sex marriages that are entered into for the express agreed-on purpose of having and raising their own kids. Marriages entered into for OTHER reasons -- such as simply for companionship, sex, a trustfund, because both like dogs, or on a lark -- might well not be affected by same-sex marriage. So I'm NOT TALKING about those kinds of marriages. I'm ONLY talking about the kind of marriage that society needs to reproduce itself and raise the next generation of citizens in relatively stable family environments: in other words, the marriages which, if they were to drop off or disappear, society would be F*CKED.

Secondly, I never said that the mere thought of one "married" same-sex couple in the same town will be enough to stop heteros from entering into procreative marriages. What I DID say is that forcing Americans generally to recognize same-sex unions as "marriages" WILL eventually lead to relatively fewer procreative marriages in the future. With these qualifications, however, I'm happy to expound on my reasons why I think this is true (much of this taken from my post in another thread).

Same-sex "marriage" supporters often say they've never heard anyone complain that he or she didn't get married because someone else was. But the truth is, that'll never happen. No one's ever going to tell you they didn't get married because gays can marry. Instead, people will simply eventually stop entering into procreative marriages at the rate they used to, period. That's because the loss of the special status we give to procreative marriage will be subtle, won't happen all at once, and will take years to sink into peoples' consciousness. First it will be a novelty (and to many, a shock) that same-sex partners are "marrying" each other. Then the number of such "marriages" will grow, and with it people's realization that relatively fewer and fewer "marriages" have anything to do with having offspring. Soon enough, the vocabulary of "marriage" will change, too, as people start to feel social and peer pressure to stop using the terms "husband" and "wife" and to replace them with the sex-neutral "spouse" or "partner," and to replace "mother" and "father" with the sex-neutral "parent1" and "parent2," or "guardian." Eventually people who get married in order to have and raise their own children will be seen as freaks. No one will say "I didn't want to get married and raise a family because gays can marry." They won't need to. Procreative marriage will have become so marginalized that normal heteros will more and more simply say "hey, it's just not for me," without even fully knowing why. THAT will be our future if gay "marriage" becomes the norm.

Look, bottom line, in as straightforward terms as I can manage: It's enormously scary and difficult to commit to marry someone of the opposite sex for the agreed purpose of having children and raising them to adulthood. Before you can make that commitment, you have to mentally and emotionally commit yourself to many years of self-sacrifice, self-restraint, adult responsibility and hard work. About the only thing that will overcome the fear of making such a scary commitment, will be experiencing overpowering incentives towards parenthood, family, fidelity, and hard work. Some of those incentives come from the legal, economic and emotional benefits that flow from being married and having kids (e.g., kids who will hopefully one day go into business with you, or take care of you in your old age, etc.). But the strongest incentives by far come from religious injunctions, tradition, family and peer pressure, and the special social status and honor that we give to married couples who have and raise children. Without such peer pressure, status and honor, who in their right mind will want to undertake the burden of remaining faithful to a spouse for 25 years and having and raising the next generation??? So in this light, I think it's easy to se how gay "marriage" will harm us all: by changing the meaning and perception of marriage, diminishing the special status and honor we give to procreative marriages, and reducing the overall incidence of such marriages.

JPL,

Your assertions don't make sense still.

I need some proof that marriages which result in unexpected children, or marriages which come from unexpected pregnancy are not the norm. You can't say everyone who has children intended to do so, thats silly, so your assumption that someday people will stop having kids is a fallacy.

You keep falling backon the idea that people get married for some idea that they will be granted some special staus in society, that assumes that single people, or divorced people are somehow less important to society as a whole; do you lose your special status once you have kids, then get divorced...I don't see this stratification you're talking about. I don't know about you, but I don't feel any need to look at married couples any different than dating couples, other than certain societal norms like you don't ask a married woman to dance and you address her as Mrs.

you need to clean your crystal ball, since you are making wild guesses at how society as a whole will react. I would argue society has an odd way of overcoming most anything, nature always finds a way. I think you downplay the tendency of humans to relyon biological proddings to have sex, and the eventual outcome of enough spins of the wheel o' sex is children, marriage or not.

Even now, prior to gay marriage we have sharply increasing infidelity and divorce rates, so how do you explain those trends before gay marriage is even legal?

The argument doesn't even have to be about whether or not gay marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.

It should be enough that this is a word of deep and profound meaning, whether cultural or religious, going back centuries. It has seniority. It has history. It has tradition. It has religious significance. It has cultural signficance.

If we are creating a new type of relationship, that is to say a legally and possibly religiously sanctioned commitment between two homosexuals, it doesn't even make sense to try to shoehorn an old word, with old established meanings, into this new situation.

The only reason to do it is to act out some resentment against a group, or groups, seen to have been intolerant of homosexuals in the past---religions and conservatives. This is a chance to poke 'em in the eye, and to get even with them. This is a chance to take something that really matters to them, and change it. How noble.

Hiding behind the pretense that this is about civil rights, or equal rights, is not convincing when so many are eager and willing to extend those rights to gays. They just want to keep their word---the word "marriage" that is.

So let them! Be "sensitive". Be "tolerant". Be what you claim you represent. Or is it too much to ask that the Left walk the walk after they talk the talk?

Almiranta,

Quit thinking this is some personal attack against religion, was blacks wanting the freedom to vote and be seen as equals an afront to your religion?

Religions doesn't even have to recognize gay marriage, it is completely seperate from the state, thats the problem with the right, they think the whole world is out to get you; we dont care what you believe in or teach your kids in the privacy of your own home, but we wont accept it used as some sort of basis for denying rights to people, that isn't how our country was setup, the idea was to protect the minority from the encroachment of the majority.

You can keep whatever words you want, but marriage existed before christianity and before monotheistic religions, so quit trying to claim governance over it...you can have Pat Roberts, isn't that enough LOL

"I need some proof that marriages which result in unexpected children, or marriages which come from unexpected pregnancy are not the norm. You can't say everyone who has children intended to do so, thats silly, so your assumption that someday people will stop having kids is a fallacy."

TEO, now you're just willfully ignoring my point and it's getting damn annoying. Let me put it all in one-syllable words so maybe it will sink into your thick liberal skull this time:

If you turn folks who want to wed and raise kids into freaks, it's just freaks who will want to wed and raise kids.

Got it now?

"You can keep whatever words you want, but marriage existed before christianity and before monotheistic religions, so quit trying to claim governance over it...you can have Pat Roberts, isn't that enough LOL"

Infantile drivel. I challenge you to name a single culture in ALL of pre-Christian history in which a man was allowed to marry another man, or a woman was allowed to marry another woman. FYI, even the pre-Christian Greeks, who idealized male-male love, only recognized male-female unions as "marriages". The reason was that male-female unions were (and are) the only kind capable of procreating, and marriage was (and is) the best way to regulate procreation. (Unless you believe the sodomy-loving Greeks were homophobes, too, TEO.)

JPL,

simple math.

let us assume the gay population is 5%, and that may be inflating numbers, but lets stay with a number that is halfway between the 10% often quoted and the 1% that is thrown around in church circles. ok?

now in america we have about 25million people, 40 of every 1000 get married, which means there is ~1.2million people getting married each year, now if we assume EVERY gay person in america were to get married you would be looking at about 60,000 people getting married, or roughly 30,000 gay marriages a year, as opposed to the 1.14million straight people getting married each year...

so with numbers like that who is the freak...you still aren't making a valid point that 5% of the population is going to make the other 95% all of a sudden feel as though they are being ostracized or looked down upon, infact I would argue that with more people getting married the pressure to tie the know would be increased, just imagine your mom chiding you about Tom and Barry up the street getting hitched, so why aren't you?

JPL,

simple math.

let us assume the gay population is 5%, and that may be inflating numbers, but lets stay with a number that is halfway between the 10% often quoted and the 1% that is thrown around in church circles. ok?

now in america we have about ~296million people, 40 of every 1000 get married, which means there is ~2.2million people getting married each year, now if we assume EVERY gay person in america were to get married you would be looking at about 110,000 people getting married, or roughly 55,000 gay marriages a year, as opposed to the ~2.1million straight people getting married each year...

so with numbers like that who is the freak...you still aren't making a valid point that 5% of the population is going to make the other 95% all of a sudden feel as though they are being ostracized or looked down upon, infact I would argue that with more people getting married the pressure to tie the know would be increased, just imagine your mom chiding you about Tom and Barry up the street getting hitched, so why aren't you?