QuiGon

Well, another Constitutional Convention has come and gone without any sort of vote on putting gay marriage on the ballot in 2008. Every time these losers meet, they always promise to address the issue next time. Heaven forbid we should let the people decide, huh...?

There is no depth the gay marriage supporters won't sink to in advancing their radical agenda. Deval Patrick is openly and shamelessly bribing legislators to cross over to his side. Their tactics are simple: They will delay any vote on the issue until they feel they have enough votes to win. It's great to see democracy in action, folks..!! No votes allowed until our side is allowed to win..!! Who cares what the people of the Commonwealth think..?

Patters

Great idea, let's leave the civil rights of minorities to majorities. If it wasn't for the darn laws that protect other minorities, perhaps we get vote on interracial marriage, or even marriage between people of different religions, or perhaps marriage between people born with disabilities. Personally, I'm not sure that it's in the best interest of the nation to allow conservatives to marry and propagate.

BelichickFan

That's how I feel about letting the majority vote in favor of raising taxes on the minority (the rich).

Patters, there is no birthright to marriage. It's a privilidge and should be used to encourage relationships that biology clearly intends. If gays want to do whatever with/to themselves, fine, go ahead. But the government should not be encouraging it.

Pujo

I'm with you, maybe we should put individual marriages up for a vote? My neighbor's wife is pretty hot, maybe I could bang her if the people would be kind enough to disolve their marriage at the polls?

Pujo

That's right, which is why we need to, before society crumbles, ban the elderly and infirm from marrying. Had menopause? Step aside and let the younger generation marry. Vasectomy? No marriage license for you! In fact, we shouldn't allow marriage until the woman becomes pregnant, in case the couple's just trying to pull a fast one on us and live a married life without kids, against what biology intended.

Real World

That's kinda silly.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

QuiGon

Where is the Constitutions - either federal or state - does it say people have a civil right to marry someone of the same gender...?
Ever notice that the same tired old arguments you people use to justify gay marriage would also apply to polygamy or to brothers and sisters marrying..? That kinda demonstrates the weakness of your arguments, now don't it..?

Pujo

Nope, government should get out of the business of marriage alltogether and let people "marry" whoever they want. Want to marry your sister or take 5 wives? As long as everyone's an adult, go ahead. Doesn't matter to me if you want to call it marriage or not.

Real World

The question is about what marraige is. Is it merely between two people, or is it between a man and a woman. It's an interesting question, and one that needs to be answered so that people can get over it and move on. Personally, I oppose gay marriage. Like abortion, I wouldn't hold a sign, bomb a clinic, or decide on a candidate because of either issue. That's merely my personal opinion. I do support civil unions. I have zero problems with them.

Regarding the issue of a ballot initiative, it's another interesting dilema. Do politiicians put forth a ballot initiative that the people clearly want, and will clearly support one way, if they feel it is unfair? Or are they obligated to protect the rights of those who would be negatively affected? Are they, by their action of delaying said initiative, violating the contitutional rights of the people? Is marraige even a right? Also, by circumventing the law, with respect to the putting forth a ballot initiative, are they breaking the law, are they breaking the oath they swore to, in upholding the constitution, and representing the will of the people? Those are interesting questions.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Real World

Maybe the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether and let the people decide. Maybe the problem isn't really with the government, or the people deciding, maybe it's that the result wouldn't be what you'd like.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897