Few things other than terrorists seem to offend republicans more than the concept of two homosexuals getting married to each other. For the, seeming, vast majority of us out there, we can't really understand the issue.
Even if you do not approve of homosexuality, it appears to me that the only value opposing gay marriage has is the age old "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." arguement.
If we accept that people are gay and like most people agree that there is really nothing wrong with that, then all you are doing by not allowing their marriage is denying a substantial portion of the population rights everyone else has. In fairness there are a substantial number of reasons why allowing gay marriage is just the right thing to do. There is really no point in talking about this here.
The opposition seems to generally make the case that either, by allowing gays to marry they are somehow less married or that homosexuals are all clearly going to hell and don't deserve any rights period. It is this "reasoning" that has led to the discussion of an amendment to the constitution forbidding same sex marriage.
For the moment I am going to assume that everone thought the same thing I did when George Bush alluded to this during his last state of the union address- that talk of an amendment is simply political maneuvering and no one really expects it to actually occur. Yes, sure enough that seems to be the case. The Drudge Report indicated this morning that there is talk in Washington about a July vote on the amendment. Don't worry, there aren't nearly enough votes for it to pass. So what good does it do? Well, it forces democrats up for election to publically take a stand on the issue.
Isn't that swell? The Republicans would like to have on record for campaigning who is for or against gay marriage.
Jake says:
Yes, in many ways it does suck to be gay — especially while we fight for equal access to "the sacred institution of" marriage while watching Rush Limbaugh, Britney Spears and their ilk treat that very institution as something profane and disposable. The bitches.
At the same time, growing up gay in a Nixon Republican household gave me profound insights and empathies and maturities I couldn't have gotten anywhere else. And Lord, it's given my life more color and excitement than you could find on any mattress in a Jack Ryan sex club.
mike says:
Standing on the straight side of the aisle, that also pisses me off. If Bush, et. al is geniunely concerned about the state of marriages in our country that's one thing – but the first thing you'd have to address is the 50+% divorce rate the boomers have clocked up. Not gay marriages.
People fighting to get marriages should be less scary than people fighting to get out of them to the actual institution.
Anna Highsmith says:
Here's the bottom line: During a recent current events taxi-chat, the taxi driver (of above average size and below average cleanliness) says to me, and I quote word-for-word, plus some extra punctuation: "The f#ck do I care if a coupla f#ckin' h#mos wanna get married? What's the big f#ckin' deal?"
Exactly, sir. Exactly.
erik says:
Yeah. What pissed me off the most about this story was the fact that if you are gay you are basically being used. They have no intention of getting this amendment passed, they just want to use the issue to be able to attack democrats with it in key markets.
DNA says:
Bush needs his
*WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRACTION*
to use his
*WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION*
Josh Brigham says:
I find it incredibly invasive of the government to pass a law forbidding same sex marriages. Understandably, the idea of marriage is two people coming before God to profess their love for one another, under the promise they will remain together for life. If we are going to use God to marry two men or two women, realise this: that same God says same sex marriages are an abomiation. This may or may not be my own personal opinion, and truth it may yet be, regardless, if we are to marry in the traditional way, in the eyes of God, in a church, when the laws of God clearly stand opposed to gay marriages, and this is directly scriptural, then there must be some alternative!
Instead of developing a law that permits same sex marriages, why not create a new law that allows the union of same sex couples without calling it marriage? This union would still be a legal binding contract. Is it so hard to accept this? In a world so far gone into corruption is there no way to squeeze in this little "biblical" abomination as well?
I'd like to take this opportunity to express my deepest apologies for all those critisized by others for their sexual choices, love choices, and life choices. When will we learn not to be hypocrits? Here's another biblical quote, i thought i might add, "Judge not, lest ye be judged".
Just some food for thought.
Ben Fernandez says:
*quote*Yeah. What pissed me off the most about this story was the fact that if you are gay you are basically being used. They have no intention of getting this amendment passed, they just want to use the issue to be able to attack democrats with it in key markets.*quote*
yes.. thats what i first found once i'd read this, for most politics are unlikeley to read this website and its just using gays for them to have a bitch about democrats.
But the topic was good, i think that there is alot of prejudice against gay marriages but it is slowly receding. I have many friends who are gay, and they are now open, but wouldnt have dreamed of coming out 10 years ago.