robbclark1 says - Marriage Protection Amendment - talk to your senators!!!!!!!!
Political DiscussionA place to hold political debates and general discussion. Please remember to always respect the opinions of other members and above all else, be civil.
I don't care what your view is about this subject, but if you feel strong enough about the subject, please contact your local representative!
I feel that this amedment is a travesty to US freedoms and civil/human rights. It is a smoke screen to cover up the real issues with the war, the deficit, etc.
I know I will get stupid backlash, anti-gay comments...if that is your point of view, keep it clean and not assholish.
We have a targeted ACTION ALERT regarding the Marriage Protection Amendment. The Marriage Protection Amendment seeks to deprive same-sex couples of fundamental benefits, such as hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and health care benefits.
Please contact your Senators via phone or email if you live in one of the following swing states to express your opposition to this effort: Arkansas, Arizona, Louisiana, Ohio, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Indiana, Maine, and Nebraska. Also, please contact Sen. Nelson in Florida, Sen. Specter in Pennsylvania, and Sen. Coleman in Minnesota. Additional information is included below including a sample letter and instructions on how to contact your Senators by phone. You can find your Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm
Please take action today!
Here is a sample letter you can use, just copy & paste and fill in your information
Dear Senator,
My name is and I am a constituent calling from [town and state], to urge Senator (name) to vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment ( S.J. Res. 1), which would unfairly deny same-sex couples, their children, and other members of their families the legal, financial, and social advantages of civil marriage.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office has identified over 1,000 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in the determination or receipt of benefits, rights, and privileges for lesbian and gay couples and their children.
The Marriage Protection Amendment seeks to deprive same-sex couples of fundamental benefits, such as hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and health care benefits. I look forward to hearing how the Senator votes on this crucial legislation. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Your Name
As an American citizen, you have a voice in what happens in this country. Use it.
You really didn't know they were doing this? It's all an election year ploy by the Republicans to energize the Christian conservatives and get them out to vote. You don't have to be a genius to see that when the President (and the Republicans) bring up a hot-button issue right before mid-term elections they are planning to use the votes this turns out to keep their majority.
Come on, they have not mentioned it in two years (ever since the last election) and all of a sudden it's important enough to make a Constitutional amendment for? I don't buy it.
BTW, aren't the Republicans and the conservatives supposed to be about small government, state's rights, and individual freedoms? I seem to remember that from somewhere. This measure is against all three of those.
As much as I dont care what the hell gay people do, Marriage has always been a man and a woman so I don't think that either side can be right here.
I feel that, by definition at least, marriage should be a man and a woman, but on the other hand I just don't care.
Moved to Political forum, this is a political issue.
You have a voice. Use it to make sure that this sick kinda crap doesn't happen in America. If you want to be gay, that's your right. If you want to get married, that's not and it will never be in any sane society.....
Last edited by ZapThyCat : 06-07-2006 at 12:22 AM.
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
I know this is not supposed to be a discussion but I still want to put my two cents in...
As far as I'm concerned, if you can call polygamy marriage (as in one man and many women or vice versa in matriarchal societies) then you can call two people of the same sex a marriage, too.
Those afraid of or disgusted by two same-sex people being together will attack it and want to prevent it. The truth of the matter is that marriage has only had one definition: mother. The word's root, matrix, is Latin for mother and the word itself just meant to bear children. It was only associated with a man and a woman in monogamous, patriarchal societies for reasons of inheritance. That is why sex out of wedlock became a crime: it was a crime against property. Women were considered property and men wanted to ensure that the kid they popped out, their heir, was, in fact, their blood (even though we know that a kid has no paternal blood because all it's blood has to come from the mother).
Anywho, in America, marriage can only be granted by the state. This means that it is a layman issue. No church (or anyone else for that matter) can grant marriage without the permission of the state in which it is performing the act; without the permission of the state, people are not married. Therefore, it is a purely civil thing (in this country) and the Constitution gives us a separation from the powers of religion influencing our way of life; a protection, if you will, from fanatics that would turn this country into a theocracy.
Before marriage was "a man and a woman" it was just childbirth (even with no commitment). This had no implication on monogamy, at first, and simply meant the act of bearing children, even if the father was in a committed gay relationship and decided to have a child. Therefore, the argument that marriage has always meant a man and a woman is fallacious.
I don’t think that our Forefathers would want discrimination and religion written into our Constitution. The fact that I do not like to see gay people together (for example, it grosses me out to see two men kissing or holding hands) does not mean that I have the right to tell them what to do or to deny them the same protections other people who love each other enjoy. To discriminate against a person based on sexual orientation is just as bad as to discriminate against them based on the color of their skin or the religion they practice. It is because of this that I must stand against the banning of gay marriages because I do not want to be forced to be a bigot (as we all would be if an amendment is passed).
This one could make me real mad but all I have to say is I am not gay. So I really dont care. I have been paying attention to politics long enough now to see pandering. Whats more important than war? Maybe ammending our constitution.
Why would they want to get married. I am engaged and wish I didn't have to. I want to get married in the 1920's era. The laws and society's views on divorce suck right now. I save and save then she wants to leave because I dont snuggle and she can get half.
when a man and a woman get "married" they acquire certain rights such as such as hospital visitation and the right to make medical decisions for one another (think terry schiavo) inheritance rights (what if you shared a home together, had a life insurance policy) and health care benefits (what if you were together and one person had health insurance at their job and one didnt or one was unable to work due to illness)
all of these things apply to heterosexual as well as homosexual couples - i dont really care what 2 people do in the privacy of their own homes. im sure there are things that some men and women do that would make my skin crawl.
the point of the matter is that when 2 people have committed their lives to one another, that is being in a relationship where they agree to care for and love each other for the rest of their lives, then they should be entitled to the same protection under the law. as stated above, this is not a religious argument, it is a legal one
human beings are human beings
as it stands now some male/female marriages fail, some are for citizenship and some are for monitary reasons - so you cant even use the excuse of "what if they do it just for the benefits"
oh - and to the person who said it makes them sick to see 2 men kissing, im not a fan of pda's anyway - i think everyone should keep that shit private
Last edited by Fiji_Blue_EM2 : 06-07-2006 at 02:17 PM.
I dont like seeing people kissing in public a lot, but there are some times when its just a perfect time to be close and you want to kiss. There is no problem with that. I do kinda think its unsettling to see 2 guys making out, though.
I, like you Fiji_Blue_EM2, do agree that I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own home. I dont care if 2 men or 2 women want to spend their lives together.
But marriage is basically a man and a woman, as defined by churches. Marriage was not originally concieved by the state, but by the church, so I think that if a law says it should be a man and a woman, then this is fine.
what if the gay couple doesn't believe in the church? then what? then they're governed by something that they dont even believe in. im so sick of religion having a say in everything. just because i like to stick my **** in a vagina rather than a hairy ******* and i prefer boobs to pecks doesnt mean i should get more rights or privileges than someone who doesn't. people are people and ALL should be treated equally.
btw - i too think its gross to see 2 men kiss and hug...but whatever floats their boat, ya know?
manthatguysfast, I am not trying to start a fight with you, just want to add to what you said:
If you don't believe in the church, then why believe in marriage, considering its something that is from church?
The point I am trying to make across all my posts is that it's not my business to even care if anyone is gay or a lesbian. But marriage is defined by the church as a man and a woman, so I completly understand why people don't want to allow gay marriage. Its something that goes against the beliefs of many religions. Considering the same religions are the ones who concieved marriage, I don't think they should have to change because suddenly so many gay and lesbian couples want to get married.
If they want to be legally married on paper, thats the government's issue. But if they want a marriage ceremony I dont think that any church should have to let it happen.
manthatguysfast, I am not trying to start a fight with you, just want to add to what you said:
If you don't believe in the church, then why believe in marriage, considering its something that is from church?
The point I am trying to make across all my posts is that it's not my business to even care if anyone is gay or a lesbian. But marriage is defined by the church as a man and a woman, so I completly understand why people don't want to allow gay marriage. Its something that goes against the beliefs of many religions. Considering the same religions are the ones who concieved marriage, I don't think they should have to change because suddenly so many gay and lesbian couples want to get married.
If they want to be legally married on paper, thats the government's issue. But if they want a marriage ceremony I dont think that any church should have to let it happen.
in response to this last staement -
the amendment that is of issue right now is strictly one of state, not of church - that is a whole nother ball of wax for religions to deal with at another time -
a lot of people get married in civil ceremonies, and this would be a civil ceremony as well -
