Waste of time.Follow

As if.

So there are two weeks of debate scheduled for this puppy, and it's common knowledge that it'll never pass. Aren't we even trying to be subtle about the fact that no real work gets done in Congress anymore? Christ! You should all just have PC's with Solitaire installed in your debate floor desks.

Huh... weeks of wasted time and money spent debating legislation that is already dead in the water but which would expand Federal authority over who may or may not get married?

The party of fiscal responsibility and small government lives on!

Why do you hate family?

Why do you hate "A hard Government"?

I suppose that argument would make sense if they managed to pass a bill, instead of all the sound and fury signifiying nothing.

Which is what usually happens every election cycle. Same old tired issues, but nothing ever really gets resolved or passed.

You guys dont see the big picture.

War in Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, budget deficit, global warming, cryonism, Rumsfeld still having a job, Commies in South America, Mexicans flooding into the US, who cares?!

Gay marriage is the single most important issue at the moment! Imagine, if we allow gay marriage, then all those gays will have children, who will be gay themselves, and then the whole world will be filled with gay people, and that would be a sad state of affairs indeed.

It's about time someone acted to combat this horrible degradation of our morals, and of God himself.

If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress?

If you're going to steal 30 year old material, at least credit it.

No, not really.

Also, I thought the Republicans wanted to minimise Federal interference in individuals States' affairs, and were against Big Governement telling states and citizens what to do...

Or is this only the case when it suits their moral values?

I find all this quite amusing.

Then again I'm neither gay nor American

Edited, Tue Jun 6 10:20:21 2006 by RedPhoenixxxxxx

Mark Twain said:

Ok. Not going to touch on the gay marriage issue itself, or the possible motives for making it an issue at this time. However, this particular bit of illogic always bothers me.

It's simplistic. It's also wrong. Minimizing big government does not explicitly mean having less legistlation, or smaller budgets, or whatever rhetoric-of-the-day people choose to try to make this point on. It's about reducing the impact of direct federal power on the citizens lives.

And guess what? Sometimes that means passing *more* legistlation. Sometimes that means passing *more* ammendments. Unless you're going to try to argue that say the 4th ammendment to the constitution constitutes an increase in the government's infringement upon the people...


It's a silly argument in general. It's just as silly in the context of this particular issue. We already have a federal law that states that a marriage in one state must be respected in all states. That's already a federal imposition on the rights of states. But one that the states didn't care about because it wasn't a major deal, and pretty much everyone followed the same rules when it came to marriage, so it was just a time and money saver.


However, if Massachusetts decides to change their state laws to allow gay couples to marry, this means that the federal law requires that all other states recognize that marriage. Even if they don't allow gays to marry in their state. Even if the citizens of that state don't think that's what marriage is about. And if that couple who married in Massachusetts moves to say Nebraska, the state of Nebraska is now required to provide to that couple the full set of benefits that it provides. Even if it provided them specifically with its own definition of marriage in mind.

In other words, gay marriage ends up being an infringement of state's rights because states who wish to define marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman (for any of a variety of reasons) can be forced to provide benefits to couples that don't meet that criteria because another state passed a different set of rules. Passing an ammendment that defines marriage federally is certainly an increase in the government. It can also be seen as an infringement of states rights. However, it's in response to one that's already going on. The guys pushing the ammendment didn't just one day decide to do this. They had 225+ years to make that a law if they'd wanted to. They are trying to do this in response to an attempted nationwide change to the definition of marriage.

Both are impositions of federal rules over states rights. The issue isn't over whether that happens, but which one should be in place. I can guarantee you the guys who write these things don't actually like them any more then you or I do. They feel that they have to because many of their constitutents feel that their state laws are being attacked by people not living in their states. And that would in fact be an accurate assessment of what's going on.


IMO, if someone were to ask me, the correct solution to the problem isn't to pass an ammendment, but simply change the federal laws so that marriage in one state is no longer a marriage in all states. So if the citizens of Massachusetts want to allow gay couples to marry, they can, but the citizens of Nebraska don't have to recognize it. The idea is not without precident. A license to practice law has to be gained in each state individually. Why not a marriage license as well? It's not like it makes any difference unless you become a resident, and the process would be as simple as filling out the license form and getting it notarized.


Dunno. Seems like an obvious solution. Which is likely why no one will go for it.

I dunno... I see it as more like this. Whichever group gets in charge is seduced by the inherent power structure (for lack of a better term) and does all sorts of weird and incoherent stuff.

Rips have been bloating the gov't too much. Yeah, they've lowered taxes, but their doing full on tax and spend. I do not see them working hard to honor their promises to diminish gov't. The temptation to use the gov't to keep power is too tempting.

Dims do similarly hypocritical things, like courting Evil Incarnate (corporate America) to the hilt for campaign donations (I believe Enron donated more money to Clinton than to either Bush combined).

Not that it has jack to do with the amendment in the OP or even proves anything about Democrats or Republicans but Republican NewsMax, in ******** about Clinton, says that Enron donated $125,000 to Clinton (in campaign contributions and donations towards his inauguration) while DemocracyNow (Democratic rag) says that Kenneth Lay donated some $140,000 to Bush election efforts in Texas and the White House and that Enron employees, as a whole, donated over $600,000 to Bush. According to WNY media, who I'm sure is some liberal shill, "Since 1993, Lay and top Enron executives donated nearly $2 million to Bush. Lay also personally donated $326,000 in soft money to the Republican Party in the three years prior to Bush’s presidential bid, and he was one of the Republican 'pioneers' who raised $100,000 in smaller contributions for Bush. Lay’s wife donated $100,000 for inauguration festivities."

I have no idea who, in total, donated or received more. I saw other stories saying that Enron or its executives donated a hundred grand here and a hundred grand there to the DNC or other election efforts. Nor do I care. In of itself, it mainly proves that large businesses cut a lot of checks when it comes to politics.