wanna get married or stay married? vote NO on Prop 2

[Rufus Punk]

Originally Posted by Ryan

By the way, the KKK just announced they are holding a rally down here in support of the amendment. The supporters are in good company.

Mark me in the "Not surprised" category.

I'm with Satchel. Obviously my Spongebob Squarepants costume will need to pull "out of the closet".

Opps.

[HarleyDelight]

yep, Texas sucks.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by McG

Yep, it was Missouri. From the frying pan into the fire, I did get myself.

You moved to Texas from MO?

You do have my sympathy to be sure.

The good news is that this bill (from what I understand of it - which is admittedly de minimus) may be so similar to the MO bill that it too will be struck down if ever passed into law.

[kit'n]

Originally Posted by xian

You moved to Texas from MO?

You do have my sympathy to be sure.

The good news is that this bill (from what I understand of it - which is admittedly de minimus) may be so similar to the MO bill that it too will be struck down if ever passed into law.

why would it be struck down if ever passed into law?

[HomoSexualPredator]

Originally Posted by xian

You moved to Texas from MO?

You do have my sympathy to be sure.

The good news is that this bill (from what I understand of it - which is admittedly de minimus) may be so similar to the MO bill that it too will be struck down if ever passed into law.

In all honestly MO isn't much different than TX, but Dallas is a lot better than STL, and KC can get really cold in the winter. Being gay is more acceptable in Dallas (it's just a larger town) than either STL or KC. And originally I'm from the sticks, so there's no comparison.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kit'n

why would it be struck down if ever passed into law?

I wish I could give you a good explanation but I can't.

From what little I recall the statute was struck as overbroad/vague - meaning that the law was too ambiguous to be enforceable. It could well have been a different theory though.

not to start the snowball debate but isn't marraige about love and nothing else, a promise made between two people that concerns no one else? I understand they are trying to define the legal perameters of the institution but haven't we kind of missed the point with whole thing in the first place. Does your love need to be registered with the government? If it does for heteros then sure it should be the same for all sexual persuasions, but why does it at all? I know it's kind of an ideologically whimsical idea but I thought I'd throw that out there.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by jesse

not to start the snowball debate but isn't marraige about love and nothing else, a promise made between two people that concerns no one else? I understand they are trying to define the legal perameters of the institution but haven't we kind of missed the point with whole thing in the first place. Does your love need to be registered with the government? If it does for heteros then sure it should be the same for all sexual persuasions, but why does it at all? I know it's kind of an ideologically whimsical idea but I thought I'd throw that out there.

I have a solution that should make everyone happy - no more government recognition of any marriage. Let everyone deduct a single partner as a dependent and leave the rest up to God or whatever else. If it's a Biblical issue for certain religious people, then the individual churches can decide for themselves whether or not they want to recognize same-sex marriage. If you have a problem with it otherwise, then shut the fuck up because whether you like it or not a) gay people ARE living in domestic relationships, b) gay people ARE adopting children, and c) two men living together does not degrade your sacred vows. If anything is jeopardizing "traditional marriage" in America, it's the rampant infidelity and immaturity of heterosexual couples.

[.kt]

Originally Posted by -m-

Me too. I'm also trying to start up a door to door homosexual rape program in hopes of more people being "done turned gay" so this bill won't be passed.

i almost peed on myself just now
you are fuckin hilarious

[Sinner]

Ok, so I have a question for the "smart" peoples up in hera'.

I'm assuming Prop 2 gets passed and then hopefully it gets thrown out later. That's my guess....
But, my question is: If 40% vote against it and 60% vote for it, does that make a difference for politicians than if the vote was split 10% to 90%?
For example, would more politicians be more included to publically fight things like this if there was more support from the people to stop bills like this?

[Joseph V]

the fact that the state government is setting parameters on marriage to only man and women, instead of open marriage between whomever, is a violation of seperation of church and state. this is a religion belief and therefore should not belong anywhere in the state constitution. why cant lawyers use this to defeat any propositions or bills that are currently trying to be passed?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by jesse

not to start the snowball debate but isn't marraige about love and nothing else, a promise made between two people that concerns no one else?

On an emotional and commitlment level - yes - absolutely

In the eyes of the law love is irrelevent.

[Hey Bubu]

Originally Posted by Joseph V

the fact that the state government is setting parameters on marriage to only man and women, instead of open marriage between whomever, is a violation of seperation of church and state. this is a religion belief and therefore should not belong anywhere in the state constitution. why cant lawyers use this to defeat any propositions or bills that are currently trying to be passed?

Because it's nice to pick and choose........


Actually it's because that is a core value of our society and those are the hardest things to change.

[HomoSexualPredator]

Originally Posted by xian

You moved to Texas from MO?

You do have my sympathy to be sure.

Oh yeah, how'd I forget this part? I was knew who John Ashcroft was before he became Attorney General.