U.S. Same sex marriage ban fails

IRT_BMT_IND · Postby **IRT_BMT_IND** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:57 pm

<a href='http://www.canada.com/national/story.ht ... 101f11bde4' target='_blank'>http://www.canada.com/national/story.ht ... f11bde4</a>

Miles E Traysandor · Postby **Miles E Traysandor** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:45 pm

Umm... yay? I guess it's their right to marry if they want.

Salad Man · Postby **Salad Man** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:27 pm

I would have been really, really surprised if it had made it past the Senate. This proposed amendment served two purposes. First, it drew people's attention away from Iraq and the economy and stuff. Also, now Bush can paint Kerry and other Democrats as supporters of gay men marrying underage livestock, even if the only reason they voted against it was of the states' rights thing.

Dr. Dos · Postby **Dr. Dos** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:58 pm

I saw this on <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... arriage_29' target='_blank'>Yahoo</a> where it had a quote that pissed me off. "I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," he said shortly before the vote. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?" - Rick Santorum one of my state's (Pennsylvania) senators. Didn't go on by 12 votes. Just 12... I don't like people.

norsenerd · Postby **norsenerd** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:29 pm

<a href='http://www.idrewthis.org/2004/distinction.gif' target='_blank'>weeeee</a> and <a href='http://www.idrewthis.org/2004/amendment.gif' target='_blank'>double weee</a>. The fact that this is even beign considered and what some of the senitors have said just makes me irate. I supose if we would try and stick to the traditional marage maybe we should go back to colonial times when blacks and whites marrying each other was a henious thought. THAT's the real tradition of the institution of marage. This makes me want to think that maybe marage shoudl jsut be abolished. For me this debate is brigning up a lot of bigitory in this nations history. And for those who point to God's will I woudl like to say to the polotitions who float that "My gods fine human sacrafices apealing and you're looking prety good to me." Both of these rguments agaisnt alowing gay MARRIAGE are fundamentaly flawed and even hatefilled.

Ozymandias · Postby **Ozymandias** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 8:10 pm

On the old boards that I was a regular on this would have been a firey issue, burning with heated debate and famed with flaring tempers. But people here are chilled. They accept people for what they are. My personal view is that it does not affect me in any way so therefore I shall not obstruct others' happiness.

tragedy · Postby **tragedy** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:01 am

i would have to agree with Ozymandias about not wanting to stand in the way of other peoples happiness... i mean you wouldn't want someone to stop you from marrying the person you loved.. or whatever made you happy.. so why stop others from what makes them happy love is love..

Zaaphod · Postby **Zaaphod** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:46 am

Sensibly, the Senate rejected this proposed amendment. Such matters are up to the individual states. Obviously, if a state has any sense, it won't stand in the way of same-sex marriage either. Dubya suggesting a silly amendment is a family tradition. When Papa Bush was in office he tried getting an amendment through banning flag-burning. Yeah, there's an important issue. *rolls eyes*

Softpaw · Postby **Softpaw** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:02 am

YAY! IT DIDN'T PASS! ROCK ON! We now return you to your regularly scheduled distraction...oooo, shiny!

NHJ BV · Postby **NHJ BV** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:46 am

Ankaris · Postby **Ankaris** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:52 am

*runs after shiny* I would have been very surprised if they had gotten the votes needed to start the process. I mean, no-one's that silly... Are they?

VisibilityMissing · Postby **VisibilityMissing** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:49 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Ankaris @ Jul 16 2004, 04:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I mean, no-one's that silly... Are they?  </td></tr></table>  We are talking about the US Senate, aren't we?

tragedy · Postby **tragedy** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:01 pm

i imagine it probably has a lot to to do with tax breaks.. cause all marriage really is a piece of paper.. which entiles people to tax breaks usually.. joined medical care and so forth... and if thats only available to the male & female marriages.. it will probably save them a bundle.. compared to probably the million or so americans who are in same sex relationships... its probably not so much about the sanctuty of marriage..cause in that sence wouldn't divorce and such be a large hindering in the sanctuty of marriage more than same sex??? why not outlaw divorces??

norsenerd · Postby **norsenerd** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:08 pm

<a href='http://www.idrewthis.org/2004/marriage.gif' target='_blank'>*poink*</a> There are proposed admendments beign made all the time. Perhaps thousands a year, hundereds being considered by some legislator, and tens of them being sposored each year in the US Congress. I think only 1 admendment ever failed to be ratified afte it was proposed and that was one that was in consideration for the bill of rights.

Zylo · Postby **Zylo** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:57 pm

Yay, the U.S. Senate is capable of not trampling human right at every chance it gets!

Define Cynical Fan Forums

U.S. Same sex marriage ban fails

Who is online