posted on July 8, 2004 11:03:41 AM new
If you believe in the sanctity of marrage between a man and a woman please sign this petition.
-----------------------
Alliance for Marriages Federal Marriage Amendment has reached the Senate floor, and for the first time, the people are beginning to have a voice in the marriage issue!
But the battle is far from over. The Senate vote is scheduled for Wednesday, July 14. Already, anti-marriage forcesincluding several outspoken members of the Senate have mobilized and are poised to keep the vote from happening.
To protect and preserve the sanctity of marriage in our nation it is critical that grassroots Americans take action to counter the radical groups and activist courts who are committed to re-defining marriage for our entire society.
IMMEDIATE ACTION: Be part of the more than 600,000 Save Marriage petitions to be presented to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist at a National Press Conference in the U.S. Capitol on Monday, July 12.
Following the presentation, senate staffers will be delivering petitions to each of the 100 Senate offices in a massive show of grassroots support leading up to the vote. Be part of the action by adding your name below.
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 8, 2004 11:21:16 AM new
LMHO Bear! The sanctity of marriage is up to the individual. How is signing a petition going to make a difference? That's like saying we need to save the sanctity of making love as opposed to having sex, so how is signing something going to help? LMHO!!
posted on July 8, 2004 11:21:29 AM new
This is another attack against the civil liberties that should be afforded to every American. This reaks of bigotry and anyone who believes that gays or lesbians shouldn't be married should be ashamed of themselves. All Americans, whether man, woman, white, black, hispanic, gay, hetero, poor, rich, etc. should be afforded the same rights as anyone else. To think that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman is the same as saying african americans shouldn't drink from the same water fountains as whites, or that someone shouldn't have a job based on their gender.
America was founded on the principals of equality for everyone, and these attempts to remove those rights only shatters what America has stood for since the beginning. It a shame that religion and faith based ideology is constantly looking to the United States Government to protect their beliefs, yet cannot understand the principals of equality whether it is steeped in religion or not. Many immigrants escaped from this type of prosecution and it is sad that these practices continue in America. I am sure the KKK would be happy to have you participate in one of their rallys.
posted on July 8, 2004 03:40:47 PM new
So gumbo, with your attack on the topic, one has to wonder when you joined the legions of Logansdad...
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 8, 2004 03:50:36 PM new
Laughing again Bear! You're right - Logan and Crow need to snap out of it and sign the petition. We all need to get back to regulating sexuality.
posted on July 8, 2004 03:54:09 PM new
No thanks. The sanctity of my marriage is not determined by the opinions of others, nor is it affected by their actions. I couldn't care less what others want to do. More power to them.
___________________________________
If the world made sense, men would ride sidesaddle.
posted on July 8, 2004 04:37:35 PM new
The only thing more stupid is your tag line:
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 8, 2004 06:15:22 PM new
I'm sorry, but the thought of poobear regulating his sexuality is making me ill and I'm on my lunch break...gotta go!
posted on July 8, 2004 06:57:08 PM new
In Defense of Marriage
Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced
Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced
Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced
Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced
George Will - divorced
Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced
Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced
Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)
Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced
Henry Kissinger - divorced
Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced
Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced
Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced
Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced
So ... homosexuals are going to destroy the institution of marriage? Wait a minute, it seems the Christian Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone's help!
posted on July 8, 2004 07:15:29 PM new
We don't have enough bandwidth here to list all the divorced dems.....nor clinton's girlfriends.
----------------
LOL parklane...good one.
-----
I've already signed a while ago, bear.
Wondering if kerry and edwards will be AWOL on this vote.
The people need to see where they stand on this issue.....do they want to keep the defination of marriage the way it's been since our country was established or not. Even though kerry SAYS he against gay marriage, he has said he'll vote against this.
Not sure where Edwards stands on this....being the fine, southern gentleman some believe him to be. But let those southern Bible-belt voters see what they support and what they don't. Just might make a BIG difference on who they vote for.
posted on July 8, 2004 07:15:59 PM new
maggie, it's do as I say, not do as I do for the Republican moral leadership.
___________________________________
If the world made sense, men would ride sidesaddle.
posted on July 8, 2004 07:22:02 PM new
Adult children speak out about same-sex parents
Maggie Gallagher
It was the TV pictures that first got to Bronagh Cassidy. Same-sex couples marrying in San Francisco: "They were so proud of themselves. And then they had these little children with them." Cassidy, a 27-year-old married mother of two, sighs. "Something inside of me wants to be able to help those kids, because I know they are going to have problems."
Sound ignorant, maybe even bigoted? This week, as the Senate is expected to begin debate on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, many voices will try to convince you that people like Cassidy are, as Cheryl Jacque, head of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, put it in a recent letter, "hate-filled people who will stop at nothing to achieve their discriminatory, offensive goals."
But Cassidy knows better: She is one of the first generation of "gayby boom" babies, raised by two moms. Adult children of same-sex parents are rare. I recently came across Cassidy's story by accident, after she e-mailed a friend of mine who is a family scholar.
Back in 1976, Cassidy's mom had a religious ceremony with a woman named Pat. To make Cassidy, they did artificial insemination at home, mixing the sperm of two gay friends "to make sure nobody would ever know who the father was," says Cassidy. (That was in the days before widespread DNA testing.) The two women stayed together for 16 years, until Pat died. Three years later, Cassidy's mother married a man.
What was it like for Cassidy being raised by two women she called "Mom" and "My Pat"?
"When growing up, I always had the feeling of being something unnatural," Cassidy says. "I came out of an unnatural relationship; it was something like I shouldn't be there. On a daily basis, it was something I was conflicted with. I used to wish, honestly that Pat wasn't there."
Why does she oppose same-sex marriage? "It's not something that a seal of approval should be stamped on: We shouldn't say it is a great and wonderful thing and then you have all these kids who later in life will turn around and realize they've been cheated. The adults choose to have that lifestyle and then have a kid. They are fulfilling their emotional needs -- they want to have a child -- and they are not taking into account how that's going to feel to the child; there's a clear difference between having same-sex parents and a mom and a dad."
Sounds judgmental in print. But up close, Cassidy comes across as fiercely protective of her mom (Cassidy is a pen name she's adopted to protect her mom's privacy). Like many children of same-sex parents, she was expected to defend and protect her mothers from society's homophobia. Her own troubled feelings about her family life were clearly unacceptable to her parents. Even now, the prospect of speaking about her own experience gives her the shakes.
Cassidy's story is not science. It's just her own feelings. Many researchers say most kids do just fine in these alternative family forms. Cassidy doesn't buy that research, though. "I don't think a fair study could be conducted because children currently in that family wouldn't necessarily be open to speaking their true feelings about it."
A few years back, she watched "20/20" interviews with children like her. "They were asked questions like: 'Are you happy? Do you love your parents?' I don't think it's fair to ask them those questions. These are their parents. They aren't going to say they are suffering, because they don't want to make their parents feel bad."
Some people will say if Cassidy's mom and "my Pat" had been legally married, everything would have been fine. Cassidy doesn't think so. "Even if society were open to it, there's just the whole issue of your self-identity. I always had the feeling I was in a lab experiment."
She feels driven to do something, say something to protect other children like her. "Whenever I see it on TV, something inside of me says NO. I don't think it's fair that the kids are being put in this situation. They don't have a choice about it."
Do any other adult children with same-sex parents feel the same way? Will we allow any space in this intense debate between adult combatants for something as simple as one child's feelings?
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 8, 2004 08:12:07 PM new
dems sure have a HUGE problem with anything that even mentions "anti". except the truth....kerry is anti-gay marriage. That doesn't appear to bother them at all.
posted on July 8, 2004 09:25:52 PM newI believe I already signed the petition, but I signed it again, just to be sure.
Maybe you should sign it a few more times just in case. So much for online petitions. "LOL!!"
___________________________________
If the world made sense, men would ride sidesaddle.
posted on July 8, 2004 11:43:08 PM new
:: Dems sure have a HUGE problem with anything that even mentions "anti". except the truth....kerry is anti-gay marriage. That doesn't appear to bother them at all. ::
Actually Linda, when a group of people are seeking the right to be married, I find it beyond assinine for their efforts to be dubbed as anti-marriage. It's reactionary, it's petty, and it has an air of desperation.
As for supporting Kerry when he is against gay marriage. There are two candidates. Both are against gany marriage so that kind of leaves out using that one as a determining factory. Unfortunately, there is no such thing a perfect candidate so you pick the one with whom you have the most agreement. Hell, in this election, even agreeing with him on 50% of the major issues makes him come out on top.
I don't respect Bush, I don't like Bush, but most importantly, I don't trust Bush so yeah, I'll support Kerry, even if I don't agree with him on every issue.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 8, 2004 11:43 PM ]
posted on July 8, 2004 11:59:16 PM new
Kerry is indeed not in favor of gay marriages. However, unlike Bush, he is not willing to try to change our Constitution to reflect his personal religious beliefs...
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 9, 2004 12:33:15 AM new
In the United States, the Center for Disease Control reported that at least 1.8 million women are assaulted every year by their husbands or boyfriends
posted on July 9, 2004 12:39:10 AM new
So...then the gay marriage issue really *shouldn't* be the BIG deal that the dems use against this President....since both see it the same way. But that hasn't stopped them.
And on his support of the marriage admendment...I'm not fooling myself...I don't think it will have enough support to pass. BUT what it will do is force the dems to show their true positions.....like had to be done in 2002 and the whether they supported the war or not. Otherwise they have a history of saying they support something, then changing their minds..saying they didn't support it. Makes it REAL nice to have proof - their votes - so one can see the truth.
And with the majority of states having passed one form or another of 'marriage is one man one woman' Bush is just doing his job as he should be doing....AS THE MAJORITY of Americans want him to do.
posted on July 9, 2004 12:57:32 AM new
No Linda - you misunderstand. There is a big difference between being against gay marriage and believing that your view should become a permanent aspect of the constitution of our country. Society evolves and Bush trying to make a ban on gay marriage is a desperate and religiously based attempt to permanently legislate a halt on social evolution. There was a time when the majority of American felt that interracial marriages should be against the law. What if at that point in time, a ban on them had been made a constitutional amendment? I can forgive a man for having a differeing view, I can't however do the same for believing that his moral opinion should become the law of the land. We do not have the right to legislate the legalities of the future based on the morality of today..
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 9, 2004 01:38:31 AM new
fenix - No Linda - you misunderstand.
I don't misunderstand anything. We just disagree on the issue.
There is a big difference between being against gay marriage and believing that your view should become a permanent aspect of the constitution of our country.
Look fenix, the reality is the majority of American's do NOT support gay marriage. period...that's a fact. It's the activists judges that are deciding to make law, rather than support the law as it now stands. Because of that those who support marriage as it is...are taking this larger step....we're being forced to do so by the minority.
It doesn't matter that one person, our President also supports traditional marriage - as does kerry. Bush is not alone...members of our Congress represent all of us....they are accountable to those voters who put them in office and to go with what the majority of those voters want them to do. This admendment is just that. It will be voted on....it will either pass or not.
Sounds to me like you think if kerry were president and since he doesn't support this admendment that our nations system of due process should just be ignored because HE holds a position you agree with.
Society evolves and Bush trying to make a ban on gay marriage is a desperate and religiously based attempt to permanently legislate a halt on social evolution.
We obviously do have great diversity in which social direction our nation should take. The vote will decide that.
There was a time when the majority of American felt that interracial marriages should be against the law. What if at that point in time, a ban on them had been made a constitutional amendment?
Always the argument from the left...compare it to civil right. This admendment is not taking away anyone's 'civil rights'. It's defining marriage as one woman, one man. Gays/lesbians want to have a similar union with the same legal rights....fine....call it something different.
Our system worked....that changed....if our system works again it either will or won't change.
I can forgive a man for having a differeing view, I can't however do the same for believing that his moral opinion should become the law of the land.
This is not about what ONE MAN wants....it's about what the majority of Americans want.....or not....however the vote goes.
We do not have the right to legislate the legalities of the future based on the morality of today..
Sure we do.....We always have....just like when the USSC ruled sodomy was no longer illegal.
posted on July 9, 2004 01:58:37 AM new
::fenix - No Linda - you misunderstand.
I don't misunderstand anything. We just disagree on the issue.::
I was refering to my view, not the issue.
::Sure we do.....We always have....just like when the USSC ruled sodomy was no longer illegal. ::
Yes, but then there was never a constituional ban on sodomy now was there?
And although you are correct that right now most americans are against gay marriage, who is to say that those number will be the same in 20 years? Why does it have to be a constitutional ammendment? Shouldn't the constituion of our nation be treated with a little more respect than as a tool to punish and pass judgement on people?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
Yes, but then there was never a constituional ban on sodomy now was there? No, just a law against it....that our court believed should be changed. Should this amendment pass...it will be taken to the USSC and they will decide if it's Constitutional or not.
who is to say that those number will be the same in 20 years?
No one. Just like when the old sodomy law was passed...they didn't know all these years later it would be ruled illegal either. Should that time ever come....another Constitutional amendment could be passed....just like they have been....changing things.
Why does it have to be a constitutional ammendment? I've already answered that....because the activist judges are not willing to abide by current laws.
Shouldn't the constituion of our nation be treated with a little more respect than as a tool to punish and pass judgement on people?
It represents whatever our people want it to represent. That's why we have the ability to amend it in the first place. It's not meant to punish, imo, but rather to *protect* tradition...to protect religious beliefs of our citizens.
posted on July 9, 2004 02:36:01 AM new
:: to *protect* tradition...to protect religious beliefs of our citizens. ::
NO Sorry but that is ABSOLUTELY not the purpose of the constitution. It protects religious freedom, it does not, should not and by virtue of the sheer magnitude of varying beliefs, cannot protect religious beliefs.
The constituion protects your right to hold any religion you wish, dear. It does not serve to enforce the beliefs of any religion as law.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
This topic is 8 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new
