20 States ban gay marriages

With 20 states banning gay marriages, is it possible that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage may pass??

It's starting to look that way.

Briana Dawson

Just another addition to the Nanny State

I may not be gay, but I'm pro choice. Can anyone give a good reason why two people that love and care for each other be denied the right to make that bond official?

What will they ban next ... breathing? Oh wait no ... they will just impose a hefty fine.

If Gay marriage is banned by a Constitutional Amendment my first action will be to promptly get married in front of the White House -- any takers, ladies?

They need 60% of the senators to vote for it. Right now they don't have nearly enough. After this November's election they may have even less. So I highly doubt it. It's just a "Oooh! Don't look at all this scary, messed up, completely awefull stuff we've been doing, or ignoring, over here. Look over there! Gays are getting married! THAT'S what you should be afraid of. Booga-booga-booga!" political posturing. At the taxpayer's expence I might add.

It's not looking that way yet. The AP reports this morning that the gay marriage amendment currently before Congress is headed for "certain defeat". An amendment requires a 2/3 majority in both houses to pass, which then must be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures. 45 states currently have defined marriage as "between a man and a woman" - 19 with state constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes. This doesn't guarantee automatic ratification by states for a Federal amendment, but proponents are optimistic.

Everything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is designed to limit the power of government and define the rights of citizens, not vice versa. A "gay marriage" amendment would be the first one which actually denies rights to a segment of America's citizens. What a precedent, huh?

I'm straight and I think this is a complete load of bull. Yet another reason for me to not want to raise my sons in the so called land of the free. Sure you can do whatever you want as long as the moral majority approves of it

immoral minority I think you meant.

I do enjoy reading, almost weekly, reports of yet another conservative family values politician getting busted for child molestation, wife beating, or cheating on a spouse
(for more, go to democraticunderground.com and check out their weekly Top 10 Conservative Idiots)

oh! Do you post on DU? I'm maddiejoan over there!

Nah, not really. RL and SL keep me busy enough. But I'm Rassah on there (couldn't get Rassah on SL cause of the "ass" in the nick >.<

A constitutional amendement to ban gay marriage? Ridiculous. Its dumber than prohibition. The constititution is the governing document of the land-it is the font of authority. We the people ought to have more respect for it than adding to it amendments that reflect the silly little bias of the religion du jour.

HURRY! Get married in Canada before our douchebag Prime Minister bans it here!

200 years ago... before there were laundry machines, day care centers, SUVs, cell phones, life insurance, school busses, ambulances and mega stores... marriage was necessary to bind two people together so that their children had a fighting chance to live to be adults. There was no insurance... you tithed to your church and if things went bad the parish might help your family out.

Now?

Marriage is necessary to determine how much you pay in tax.... to determine if your partner can benefit from your work supplied medical coverage... and it factors in to custody and property battles when two people decide to give up on each other.

There is no protecting marriage in this country.

What used to be a necessity for survival is now little more than a quaint traditional luxury and an excuse for people to squander more than a year's worth of take-home pay on extravagant weddings that all end up looking pretty much the same.

The marriage protection amendment is as misdirected as using America's wrath over 9/11 to dive into a war in the middle east.

Want to protect marriage? Make divorce a felony.

I'm assuming you meant that sarcastically, but have you heard about the drive to create legal "covenent" marriages? I recently heard about this going on in Georgia. Basically if you marry under this style, getting a divorce, for any reason whatsoever becomes near impossible.

States like MI are trying to require 300 hours of counseling before you can get a divorce. My ex and I actually rushed our divorce to avoid getting nailed by that possibility. Translate 300 hours of counseling into $$ btw.

Shit. Divorce sucks enough without turning it into a dog & pony show.

To me, it seems like a publicity stunt by the Administration.

They support something, maybe it passes, maybe it doesn't, but their voting base is sated by the fact they were catered to. The opposition is shocked by nothing any more, so little more harm done.

The administration could care less about gay marriage. It's money and power, folks, not morality. If gay candidates got them more power, guess what they would do in a heartbeat.

If it *really* mattered to the admin, they would lay plenty of groundwork and not take it to the floor until it was assured to pass.


Hell, I'm still wondering when *women* will be acknowledged to be equals... what is it, 3 states still blocking the ERA amendment?

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/overview.htm

Stalled 83 years, since 1923. It's not politics. It's your paranoid, misogynistic neighbours that vote.

I, being a conservative, don't like the idea of calling it "marriage". I don't care if they have say "civil unions" same legal standing and all just a different name. because traditionally a marriage is a male and female, its just a tradition. this is not meant as a slight on same-sex unions, infact i think its a good idea. oh and the thing in georgia has been around for years, since the late eighties if i remember correctly.

I think the most important legacy of this venture is how bad it makes the Bush Administration, the Republican Party, and Christian Fundamentalism look. It's an attempt to disguise massive failures in Iraq and American economic policy with a policy of bigotry toward a vulnerable segment of the American population - a practise shared with a lot of other governments in history, and to no good effect.

It stinks of hypocrisy, cynical manipulation, desperation, immorality, and malevolence - and will further divide the country between those who can be decent and thoughtful, and those who are Pythonesque practitioners-of-the-evil-of-banality.

Additionally, using "tradition" as the sole basis of an argument...well...


Sometimes "Tradition" just means "bullshit dingleberries that just won't wipe off".

I think the word marriage should be used only when it's about two people in love, so obviously since same-sex unions are about mutual love only and not procreation , the bonding of heterosexual couples who wish to also create children should perhaps be called "kenneling".

Don't get me wrong --they would have the same rights as true-love marriages, but I just think the whole procreation thing cheapens it.

so a goose is a large duck? and its not seperate really. think about it, you have a different name for alot of things than i do, are either name wrong? no. are they equal yes. IE i call all soda's Coke yall probably call them Pop or soda or w/e. they are still a carbonated beverage. the seperate but equal arguement doesn't even come into play here, that would imply different rules for each, i'm just saying a different name would make it less offensive to ppl

I actually had this discussion on lunch today with work-mates.

Half the room (consisting of one Liberal and one Conservative) agree'd with you completely. "I'll allow it 100% UNLESS they try and call it 'marriage'."

When I asked WHY a single, solitary word could cause them to jump from "Pro" to "Con" .. the response was ...

"Because *WE* called it first."

"WE" referring to man/wife couples.
"called it first" .. when I questioned that ... I was told "Like calling shotgun before you get in the car .. only 1 person can have it and I called shotgun first."


That ... was the entire basis of their arguement.

No matter how much of the "if I want to 'unite' with a woman and call it marriage it doesn't compromise your own heterosexual marriage in the least" conversing I did, I was met with two grown adult males saying "Nya nya nya .. not listening .. we called it .. we called it .. its ours now .. get your own damn word."

so we'll just call what you guys do "kenneling".

That would be less offensive to me.

Then call them Civil unions for Straight couples also -

and let the Churches decide who is Married in their faith.