gay marriage bill

jenna2891 · September 8th, 2005, 08:37 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._marriage_dc_2

ok, it won' let me post the article text for some reason, so here's the link.

krepitch · September 8th, 2005, 08:43 AM

What is the technical definition of marriage right now?

swd1974 · September 8th, 2005, 08:46 AM

voters.

I think the majority of americans are fine with it. I know I am. Its just that the people who can buy the legislation are old republican bible thumpers.

jenna2891 · September 8th, 2005, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krepitch

What is the technical definition of marriage right now?

i think it's "the union of one man and one woman." i think it was changed to "the union of two adults."

jenna2891 · September 8th, 2005, 08:51 AM

also, and i think this should be noted, this has been brought to vote twice already in california and it was struck down both times by voters. california already has civil unions for homosexuals, affording them the same rights as married people. and this was not a bill on its own. it was put in as part of some marine biology bill.

swd1974 · September 8th, 2005, 09:02 AM

Jenna have you posted your pic yet? I find that most radical right wing babes are pretty hot.

krepitch · September 8th, 2005, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenna2891

i think it's "the union of one man and one woman." i think it was changed to "the union of two adults."

Wasn't the idea of that defense of marriage constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman?

krepitch · September 8th, 2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swd1974

Jenna have you posted your pic yet? I find that most radical right wing babes are pretty hot.

Ack...please don't post it if you look like Ann Coulter.

jenna2891 · September 8th, 2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krepitch

Wasn't the idea of that defense of marriage constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman?

forgive me, i don't follow what you're asking.

krepitch · September 8th, 2005, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenna2891

forgive me, i don't follow what you're asking.

Well, if the definition already is between one man and one woman, why would they need an amendment? Was it so that none of the states could change their own definitions? I don't remember exactly. I'm sure someone here will know.

nidan · September 8th, 2005, 10:07 AM

This question makes the implication of definition to change.

Do we have a federal definition of marriage ? If such exists, has it's constitutionality ever been tested ?

We do have treaty requirements to recognise marriages performed in most other countries.

SirStefan32 · September 8th, 2005, 06:54 PM

In every state it was put on a ballot, gay marriage failed.

Voters and legislators should decide.

nidan · September 8th, 2005, 09:46 PM

Your are correct, why should minority rights matter.

LoyaltyisaCurse · September 8th, 2005, 11:49 PM

Who Cares? Let them be married!

Two homosexuals who love eachother does not affect your life, your marriage, or your happiness.

People base this "law" on religion, but there is no requirment that marriages must serve a religious function in this country.

The homosexual lifestyle may not be right for you or me, but it is right for the homosexuals and they are entitled to the feedoms all American's enjoy.

The other day my wifes co-worker said she would move out of Cali if this law passed because homosexual marriage is an "abomination." What a Joke!!!

Around 50-55 years ago, many people in this country thought and said the same thing about interracial marriage, well looks like they were wrong then too.

Its pure biggotry!!

People need to get over themselves and worry about real issues that really affect everyone's lives.