• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Discussion: Gay Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Sperminator

Sidekick
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
0
Points
31
From a Yahoo news article:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist vowed on Thursday that the Senate would block any effort to legalize same-sex marriage, a day after Massachusetts' top court ruled the state must allow homosexuals to wed.


"I want to be very clear. We reject intolerance, we reject hatred. We must treat all our fellow citizens with civility and kindness," Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said in speech on the Senate floor. "But marriage should not be redefined by the courts and we in this body can't let it, we won't let it."


Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which last year struck down a state ban on same-sex marriages, on Wednesday said lawmakers must allow marriage for gay couples because anything less would make them "second-class" citizens.


That apparently closed the door on civil unions -- a parallel form of legal partnership for gays and lesbians -- that some states have tried to use to bridge deep political, religious and social divides over the hotly-contested issue.


"We must protect, preserve and strengthen the institution of marriage against activist judges," Frist said. "If that means we must amend the constitution, as seems increasingly likely, then we will do just that."


Congress in 1996 passed a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages and giving U.S. states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.


But opponents of same-sex marriage are now also pressing for a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is an institution reserved for one man and one woman.


President Bush (news - web sites) has never quite committed himself to supporting such an amendment, but White House officials said he was actively considering throwing his full support behind the idea in light of the Massachusetts decision.


Surveys have shown a majority of U.S. voters oppose same-sex marriage and the issue could feature prominently in November's presidential election.


Sad, gay people cant even impale rectums with the sanctity of marriage. Why dosent the Right just leave these people alone? :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WASHINGTON — President Bush, reacting to a new Massachusetts state court ruling, says a constitutional amendment will be necessary to ban gay marriages (search) if judges persist in approving them.


In a written statement late Wednesday, Bush termed "deeply troubling" the decision that same-sex couples in Massachusetts have a right to marry — not just form civil unions — and reiterated a position staked out in his State of the Union (search) speech last month.

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said in the statement. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

The Massachusetts Supreme Court's (search) advisory opinion that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage set the stage for the nation's fi1rst legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by the spring.

The issue has the potential to become a hot factor in the presidential campaign.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in his own statement: "I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples — from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision."

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, another Democratic presidential candidate, said: "I leave that to the states and the courts — whether you call it a marriage or not, I leave up to the states and churches and synagogues and mosques."

Bush's statement was similar to his remarks in his Jan. 20 State of the Union address in which he said that if judges "insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

Conservative activists and religious groups, banding together under the name the Arlington Group, gathered in Washington this week to plot strategy. Some participants said they left with a White House commitment to fight for a constitutional amendment.

"We were given direct assurances from the very top," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation. "There's no doubt. It's our understanding that the president is waiting for a day when there is not a massive news story to do it himself."

Another group, the Alliance Defense Fund based in Scottsdale, Ariz., sent out an e-mail asserting, "This morning, President Bush agreed to join the effort to push for the passage of this amendment."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading group of social conservatives, said, "I would not be surprised at all to see the president come out very soon calling on Congress to act." He said he could not speak for Bush but that "it appears that things are falling in line for that to happen."

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a conservative who is close to the White House, said a constitutional amendment "is what you'd expect the president to do. ... They are forcing the president's hand — if you say only an amendment can fix this, guess what, you're going to get an amendment."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration would review the Massachusetts' opinion.

Recalling Bush's remarks in his State of the Union speech, McClellan said, "What he said at that time, that if judges continue to force their arbitrary will upon the people, that the only alternative to the people would be a constitutional process. And that remains his view."


all hail the dictator! :mad:
 
I sure do hope same-sex marriage is legalized.



Then I'll be one step closer to being able to legally marry my pet Llama. :)
 
I support same sex marriages... but only for medicinal purposes.
 
This is ridiculous. ONE man and ONE woman. What's next? Making divorce illegal? How the hell can you justify not allowing two CONSENTING adults the rights of any other CONSENTING adults?

Oh, this government pisses me off so much
 
then me and Toven will finally be able to get married. :)
 
Yes, doesn't bother me.
 
I don't believe in it, it's just not right, not at all.
 
He wont be in office to see it passed regardless... He probably doesnt even know what he'd have to do to have an amendment passed.
 
Originally posted by Bloody Mary
why dont we revolve around subjects that actually need attention...like how ****ty this government is :mad: :o


there we go, that's the root of the whole problem
icon14.gif
 
"Forcing their arbitrary will upon" us? Yeah, the gay people will make everyone marry someone of their own sex. :rolleyes:

****in' twit.
 
I’d like to think that an administration that has suffered through some of the most egregious gaffs both domestic and foreign would have something more important to concern themselves with than who sticks their dick where. :o Makes you just lose all faith sometimes…
 
Originally posted by Bloody Mary
that took me a while.

**** you


I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Toven. :mad:


puppy.jpg
 
Originally posted by Bloody Mary
that took me a while.

**** you
why did you not assume he was calling himself a female?
 
Originally posted by The Incredible Hulk
He wont be in office to see it passed regardless... He probably doesnt even know what he'd have to do to have an amendment passed.
Actually, I think he does. Even an idiot to the caliber of Bush can watch School House Rock. :D
 
Originally posted by Erik Magnus Lehnsherr
NO

Originally posted by Immortalfire
I say no.

Why not? You can't say no to something like this and not give a reason.

I say Yes, they should be able to get married like heterosexual couples. Homosexuals are people too, they should have the same rights that everyone else does, including the right to marry the ones we love.
 
I don't see why gay people can't marry. Doesn't affect me. If a gay couple gets married, I'll still be broke tomorrow. I'll still have a crappy job tomorrow. I'll also continue to post at the Hype tomorrow. Let them get married if they want to.
 
Originally posted by Bloody Mary
was that sarcasm


actually, no it wasn't


All people need to ask themselves is why do homosexuals need the government to legalize their marriage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"