Am I the only one who notices that the folk who wander around in t-shirts that say "What would Jesus do?" never seem to notice that Jesus didn't marry.
(unless you're into the Da Vinci Code).

There are days when I wonder if we would all be better off if large numbers of those who want to legislate private morality in our country, simply would follow the advice on the t-shirts and not marry and not have biological children, thus following Christ's example.

Chance--I hadn't noticed THAT, but I do notice that these divisive "moral" issues only come up in even-numbered years....

I applaud the sentiments of this article; I share them.

However, don't be so quick to label all Republican politicians as wanting to use the Constitution to define and "defend" marriage. It's my experience that would-be moralists span the entire political spectrum. Especially, as you note, during an even-numbered year.

David Waters' editorial is cheap. He says that people aren't focusing on the things that matter to him, so those people must be posing. He might realize that the federal government has about 2 million civilians and 2 million military personnel. If only half the civilian workers do anything, and half the military are reserves, that's still 2 million people working full-time. Can't we spare a few to consider problems that don't interest Waters?

As for Waters' "more important" issues, there's hardly agreement that the government should be doing anything about gas prices or Mother Nature. Government has recently enacted a huge health care program for seniors, which Waters fails to mention. When he complains about lying White House oil barons, he does no service to his position on marriage. Implicit in his criticism of election year politics is the assumption that he himself is above it, but he certainly doesn't seem above any cheap shot.

Ultimately, Waters not only insists that government should be working on the things he cares about, but acting in the way he prescribes. Any other action is unforgivable in his eyes.

---

'There is no one person or religious representative with the "right moral answer."' On the contrary. This article clearly takes a moral stand against the amendment.

'I don't think the debate about the definition of marriage should be turned into a food-fight where the worst of heterosexuality is compared to the worst of homosexuality.' Yet this article uses divorce statistics to highlight the worst of heterosexuality. That hardly seems fair.

P.S. The Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. The election-cycle theory doesn't work.

When Gurdjieff came to the United States, one of the things he noted was that Americans are profoundly immature when it comes to sex and sex education. It hasn't changed with his passing.

And, as you say, the Mediocre use sex, marriage, and its paraphernalia as a way to ironically disguise the fact that:
1) They are sex-obsessed
and
2) They are devoid of better ideas, and the ability to prioritize.

And this is why they should be shot.
(Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

Being fruitful and multiplying was a useful strategy back when it was first penned. It is no longer the case. Heterosexuality is obsolescent. But so is, of course, homosexuality.

Metrosexuals and Rurosexuals are the only ones who survive the cataclysm, OR the dogaclysm, for that matter. And speaking of which...what is up with dogs? Have you noticed their yowls becoming mere yaps? Are they going soft on us too?

But seriously...this is about the weight such matter should be given. Marriage should be fun and goofy and free for all to enjoy. Not a pretense of somehow having God on your side, with nothing more than saying "I do" to get you there.

Sure...Paul Stookey was right. Wherever two are more are gathered in his name there is love. Unless it is the battlefield. And sometimes marriage is a battlefield. Sometimes one wonders why gays would want to go into the military OR marriage.

"What we need is a new language. A language of the heart." - Andre Gregory

The old frames are used to divide. Love seeks to unite.

Be a lover. Not a divider.

This marriage amendment is going to paint an indelible face on Republicans that will be hard to wash off. It's their hole to step in.

-anonyMoses
Charlotte

Baronius,

I agree that Mr. Waters' editorial leaves much to be desired. For a while, I thought he was employing sarcasm, but I am afraid he might actually serious about some of his suggestions.


Some of Mr. Waters' alternative suggestions sound like mad ravings equal to the ravings of those who want to tinker wantonly with our Constitution.

...if they're serious about protecting the institution of marriage, they should start by figuring out a way to stop straight people from having children out of wedlock.

Require men to marry the mother of their children and to be responsible for their care, or send them to jail.

Require women to marry the father of their children, or take their children and their welfare benefits away from them.

Require all men and women to undergo premarital counseling and parenting training before they can get a marriage license.

However, don't be so quick to label all Republican politicians as wanting to use the Constitution to define and "defend" marriage.

While I did not intend label each and every Republican leader with the tag of Constitution-abuser, it's pretty clear that this move is not being pushed by Democrats, Independents, or Greens, etc.

Look at the opinion of the leader of the Republican party today - doesn't that speak volumes?

I thought readers might be interested in this Carpetbagger Report post from today.

Excerpt:

Focus on the Family's newest ad promoting the Federal Marriage Amendment is just out. It shows a freckle-faced tyke with a distraught look on his mug. The caption reads, "Every Child Needs a Mother and a Father." (Similar ads targeting specific senators by name are being placed in newspaper nationwide.)

Actually, what every child needs is good parenting and a nurturing, loving environment at home. I see no reason why same-sex couples cannot provide this. Indeed, I am sure that many are doing so right now.

For all of my disagreements with VP Dick Cheney, I believe he has a good hold, privately, on the pulse of today's society and he has stated that he believes this matter should be left to the States. I hope he doesn't act like a "girlie-man" and cave in ... not if he's thinking of his own daughter this week...
he should come out with a rip-roaring statement against these shenanigans. I'd respect him for it.

Too many Americans, Red-state and Blue, have gay/lesbian friends and family members today and they have witnessed their struggle in a political world wrought with barriers to their civil rights.

We surely should not stand for the making of bad Constitutional law that would put a lock on public discrimination against a legally alienated class of Americans by a bunch of homophobes for decades to come.

The fact that Bill Frist and too many other of his fellow Republicans would pander to the point of risking abuse to our sacred Constitution is showing you that they are a party of the past. Progress quickly dies under their watch. Watch next week....it will be interesting to see who falls in line with Bush, Frist, and Co... and who doesn't.

I've written my Congressmen and women. I hope you'll do the same.

From LA Times:

The gay marriage amendment is the source of a rare public disagreement between Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, whose youngest daughter is a lesbian.

During the 2004 campaign, Cheney said he believed decisions about same-sex marriages should be left to each state.

The divorce industry is a major source of revenue for those in the legal profession. Imagine, for a moment, that any marriage solemnized by a member of the clergy was declared Unconstitutional. What a mess we'd have. Americans have no respect for the vows of marriage. Spouses dump each other hourly rather than work at saving what "God hath joined together". Americans are hypocrites of the first order. God, Country, and Puritanism. It's no wonder we have sunk so low in stature around the globe. One wonders what's more immoral. A person who marries 6 times in their life or a monogamous homosexual couple who remains together for 50 years? It's a no-brainer in my book. But, come to think of it, most Americans these days don't use their brains.

the Original Poster sez...
*So, naturally, some of our political and religious leaders have something more important on their minds: Gay marriage.

Must be an election year.*

Quoted for Truth

this is nothing more that pure political cynicism as the Rovians try to rally the base

and it should make any american sick that the leadership of our Nation, with all the problems going on, is going to waste time on this pointless piece of shit grandstanding

Excelsior?

Were I to believe the Prophets of Doom in Scripture who talk of the Beast or the AntiChrist, then I could reasonably deduce that Karl Rove is that person. On the other hand, however, I just believe that he's the reincarnation of Hitler.

Very simply, the gay marriage debate is just another vain attempt to divert attention from a miserable failure of an Administration. Prohibition proved that Americans, regardless of their personal habits, do not like to be told what to do. That is not to say that one should not vigorously voice their opinion, solong as they don't try to use it as God's final word. I think God won several copyright cases eons ago.

Alexis de Toqueville, when touring America in the early 1800's described the US as a "tyranny of opinion." This is a very good example where a majority view that a group in the minority is morally inferior could lead to just such tyranny. It seems to me that the Constitution is the only thing standing between the fate of minority groups and those who would condemn them/us. Eventually, we will all find ourselves in some minority status and who will defend us?

As a gay man, I am convinced that I was born gay. I hear the words "lifestyle choice" with a shudder. Who would choose to be put in a place to be made a second-class citizen? Marriage is a lifestyle choice. Being gay, I believe, is not...it is an open act of living genuinely (or not).

I am not interested in marriage, per se, but would like to know that if I ever do find my lifemate, I can provide him the same protections for inheritance, hospital visitation, immigration, Fifth Amendment protection and the other 1000 or more rights that people get for living the easier, straight lifestyle and simply saying "I do."

I applaud and thank those of you who would defend my rights as you would defend your own. In fact, you are doing so. Today it is gay marriage, but there will be a new scapegoat someday if this succeeds.

It's ridiculous to me that this should even be such a huge political issue. My bisexuality, Ron's homosexuality, and the sexual practices of everyone here, whatever they may be, don't affect "the institution of marriage" in any way shape or form.

The real problem here is a lack of respect - in and out of marriage - along with a huge helping of hypocrisy, that exists (and is largely accepted) in society, particularly in politics, and religion.

Were I to believe the Prophets of Doom in Scripture who talk of the Beast or the AntiChrist, then I could reasonably deduce that Karl Rove is that person.

Not to mention that Rove is widely believed to be gay, as is Ken Mehlman the chairman of the GOP, with substantial evidence in both cases.

Dave

When you down in the polls, there's only one sure way to raise back up, find someone that everyone loathes and is afraid of, and emphasize how much you hate them, that way everyone will "suddenly" agree with you. Distract how much you've screwed up by diverting everyone's attention.

It's an old trick that unfortunately works every time.

Support us or the fags will take over, molest our children, and teach everyone that the Bible is wrong.

The sky is falling
The sky is falling!!!!

Greensmile sent me a link to a post by Toad734 at the Progressive blog Alliance.It exposes the hypocrisy of those who come to the public debate screaming about "moral values."

In a post titled "Bible Belt Values," Toad734 says:

"..when people from these states start talking about morals and values, ask them exactly which morals they are referring to and how having the highest murder rate, the highest crime rate, the highest divorce rate and the highest incidents of out of wedlock child births, gives them the right to talk about moral superiority and how blue staters are somehow evil and absent of a moral code."

Typo -

We can no longer allow what is ethical, decent, and sacred about our very humanity to be ignored and/or MOCKED by a media that only gives voice to the chicanery of D.C. politics.

But Jet, I'm not at all sure that gays are seen by most of the public as the boogeymen you think they are. Going after them is a very weak strategy when there are so many better targets out there.

Dave

With all due respect Dave, you'd have to live in my skin for a day to understand it, my friend... something I wouldn't wish on anyone.

I'm not at all sure that gays are seen by most of the public as the boogeymen you think they are.

Judging from the comments here, I tend to agree, and that's what is so perplexing about the nerve some of these Republicans have in raising such a politically abusive issue and putting up our Constitution as the "big stake!" Have they no shame?

Your comment got me thinking. Have you seen that unfortunate episode of the Sopranos where gay Vito gets it? Did you see Brokeback Mountain? I know these are pure drama, but art has a way of imitating life - and vice versa. And if Oscar Wilde was right, we're in trouble because he said that "Life imitates art far more than art imitates life." Messages have been sent from media straight through to the heart of America - saying "we take tire irons to the noggins of those who dare to make too public a reality of their same-sex love and caring."

The real boogeymen aren't the gays and lesbians, the real boogeymen are the ones who denigrate them; the TV producers that see fit to make ignorant public jokes about them for the benefit of a cheap public laugh; the ones who walk into bars and shoot people for looking different.

That said, I DO have a sense of humor.

Have you seen this?

As a gay parent, this amendment scares me.

Recently, we (gay family bloggers) held a Blogging for LGBT Families Day. Over 130 bloggers consisting of different nations, different orientations, kids of gay parents, gay parents themselves, tolerant heterosexuals, etc. blogged on behalf of full equality for all families.

I hope some of you visit these blogs (accessible at link) and get to know exactly what is at stake with this amendment. Families will be torn apart, the recognition that parents have had with children for many years will possibly be thrown into legal limbo, many types of benefits that we've worked hard to secure for our children will be null and void. Many things in society like judgements based on 'common law marriages' will become suspect and open to legal challenge as the definition of marriage is concreted down to a specific narrow definition. This amendment will adversely affect millions of Americans and their families. Please don't write discrimination into the Constitution. Too many families and children will suffer.

The Top Gun one is funnier


Solus mei sententia
Jet

Jude, I saw Vito as a very sympathetic character. The guy who killed him - his brother in law whose name I can't remember - is an overreaching psycho and I guarantee he's going to die in the final episode. Tony is going to have to kill him for various reasons, and that will be justice for Vito.

And BTW, real Republicans have nothing against the gay population. At worst most standard GOP types want to preserve the tradition of marriage as a heterosexual institution and would be fine with granting gays a legally equivalent status under a civil union law. The tiny minority of religious nutcases like Fred Phelps could just as easily be democrats - and many of them are. And those religious extremists who are active in the GOP are mostly former southern democrats who are in the party for convenience. They're religious fanatics first and Republicans a distant second.

Dave

Thanks for the link, Steve.

If Democrats understood how to frame this debate, they could easily make Americans see that they would rather have a legal system that ensures justice and civil rights for every American than to codify hate and fear. The majority of Americans wouldn't want what the Republican leadership is peddling.

Democratic leaders should make it clear that certain Republicans, including the party's leader George W Bush and Senate leader Bill Frist, are tinkering with our sacred U.S. Constitution JUST because they can - because they temporarily enjoy majority party status - and it would only serve to lock in discrimination against an entire class of American citizens for decades to come.

What you're doing makes a big difference, because you're instructing citizens. I commend you. If only the American people knew and understood what was at stake, perhaps the fundamentalist right could be stopped in its ugly political tracks. I'll be sure to review the Blogging for LBGT Families material.

I feel a new day dawning, Steve, Take heart. You have more caring people with you than you probably know.

real Republicans have nothing against the gay population

Then why are they on board with this? The leader of today's Republican party is the man who sits in the Oval Office. How can you not believe that discrimination, built into the U.S. Constitution, with all its effects, would be a move that says: 'I had something against you?'

If Republicans were "fine" with leaving civil unions alone, they would leave matters to the States where the civil unions take place.

The tiny minority of religious nutcases like Fred Phelps could just as easily be democrats - and many of them are.

Dear Heavens, Dave, isn't that overboard? I've seen no clergy or Democrat of such a hateful nature toward gays and lesbians. Who are you thinking of that would be so hateful toward a fellow human being?

As a Christian myself, I don't like to call Evangelical southern democrats "extremists". I like to avoid that generalization. There are a heck of a lot of good and decent Evangelicals out there. I think we have to reserve our jabs for the religious leaders who forget almost everything they know about being true Christians in their search for political power and influence. And I blame the GOP for leading those extremists on.

Jet, I haven't seen the Top Gun...I'll have to go and find it.

Dave - I'll have to tune in and see what becomes of Phil (who iced Vito).

Then why are they on board with this? The leader of today's Republican party is the man who sits in the Oval Office. How can you not believe that discrimination, built into the U.S. Constitution, with all its effects, would be a move that says: 'I had something against you?'

President Bush has said repeatedly and very clearly that he supports full marriage-equivalent civil union rights for gays. Excluding them from a word is all this amendment is about.

If Republicans were "fine" with leaving civil unions alone, they would leave matters to the States where the civil unions take place.

Which is exactly what most Republicans support.

The tiny minority of religious nutcases like Fred Phelps could just as easily be democrats - and many of them are.

Dear Heavens, Dave, isn't that overboard? I've seen no clergy or Democrat of such a hateful nature toward gays and lesbians. Who are you thinking of that would be so hateful toward a fellow human being?

Wow, where do you live? Down here in Texas the fundamentalist clergy is rabidly anti-gay.

As a Christian myself, I don't like to call Evangelical southern democrats "extremists". I like to avoid that generalization.

As an atheist I'm free to describe them accurately.

There are a heck of a lot of good and decent Evangelicals out there. I think we have to reserve our jabs for the religious leaders who forget almost everything they know about being true Christians in their search for political power and influence. And I blame the GOP for leading those extremists on.

But as you imply here, the extremists are looking for someone to back their extremism and they offered the GOP votes in order to win them over. The extremism originates with the religious right, not with the GOP itself.

Dave

Dave,

Your reply assumes that I believe that Evangelical Christians are all a bunch of extremists.

I don't.

That's just not an accurate statement about my own view of the people.

And once again, if these Republicans are the fine upstanding gay-supporters you say they are, what's up with them pushing an amendment to our Constitution that is totally unnecessary?

Your answers do not address that question to my satisfaction. To say that Excluding them from a word is all this amendment is about is not so, and we all know it.

Ray and Jet: as I pointed out, this isn't an election year tactic, nor is it an attempt to distract people. The amendment has been proposed repeatedly over the last four years. I have to go back to Waters' editorial. Why is it that health care, for example is a real issue and gay marriage isn't?

You can't have it both ways. The amendment can't be a polarizing move by cynics -and- a bad idea pushed by extremists. Maybe Bush really believes in it. Maybe he's promoting it because he believes in it. Maybe everyone but me on this board speaks for the majority, but that wouldn't make the majority right. Maybe I'm the only person on this board who agrees with America on this issue; that wouldn't matter either.

Despite Nalle's objections, the philosophical conservative has to ask one question: why should things be changed. This isn't a case of "first they came for the gays", because homosexual marriage isn't part of common law. So the consistent conservative has no need to be defensive. He's not seeking to change anything, only to prevent a change. Unfortunately, with the current state of constitutional interpretation, you have to paddle hard to stay where you are.

Jude, I don't agree with Waters' four suggestions in your posting #6 either. We do require men to be financially responsible for their offspring, and I don't have a problem with that. If we want to get serious about fixing the American family, we need to publicly acknowledge the worst-kept secret of our society, that divorce is horrible. Even the most necessary divorce is a nightmare. Admitting that truth is so far before step one, it doesn't even have a number.

Before we even look at the same sex issue - there are a couple of really BASIC GROUND RULES here a lot of us are missing:

1. What IS marriage? Definition? Is it a contract? Is it a mutual agreement to love, honor & cherish with mutual goals in mind - so that the support of each other would help you reach these goals? Is it an o.k. to have limitless sex with someone else? Is is a public announcement so no one calls your progeny bastards? This is one missing piece. The religious right, the neocons, the progressives, the left, the Republicans, the Dems - first before we all scrap over the issue - let's define WHAT MARRIAGE IS - Constitutionally.

2. And now here's something a lot of people aren't aware of: From this site: In the United States, there is no central database of marriage and divorce records. Marriage and divorce records are maintained by the separate states, and some states delegate the responsibility to the separate counties. Each registration authority--whether state or county--sets its own regulations for recording marriages and divorces.

The result is a mishmash of public policy. In Nevada, marriage records are searchable online. In Kansas, marriage records are not public information.

Furthermore, the states and counties do not share information on marriages and divorces. So even if you have someone's correct name, date of birth and social security number, there is no place where you can search to find out if he or she is married.

The system may have functioned when it was established more than 200 years ago. That was when people were born, lived and died in small communities, and everyone knew each other. But it doesn't function in today's mobile society.
~~~~

Now, a group of victims of dating site frauds (i.e. marrieds who say they are single or divorced or widowed but aren't), victims of bigamy, victims of fraud, victims of this "MISHMASH"-ed system have started a petition to Congress.

Until THAT is passed into law - the same sex issue rather pales in comparison, IMVHO.

This all said, I believe we are ignoring or revising history. Why did the Pilgrims come here? What did our founding fathers mean by "pursuit of happiness"? Where are our personal freedoms? (that's another whole discussion, I realize), and what about the separation of Church and State?

The 2004 Republican Party Platform of Texas (I believe it was on their website) says that America "is a Christian Nation." Really? Tell that to the Jews who ran here during the Russian pogroms and the Nazi regime. And what about the Native Americans who were here before many of our ancestors every set foot on the North American continent?

The argument against gay marriage is a fundamental slap not only at personal freedoms - but it defines what should or will be accepted in what makes someone HAPPY. O.K., if it makes someone happy to shoot, blow up or murder people - I can't get behind that. But who are gay people hurting? They will be taxed as married people, they will have benefits ending laborious court battles - they will be subjected to the same rules as the rest of us. And that's all they are asking. BTW, since when did what makes another person happy or who another person loves become ANY of our business unless it causes harm or death?

The old frames are used to divide. Love seeks to unite. Anonymoses - you are right on the money here.

Religion has been used for YEARS to control and abuse. Abused men & women are told its unJewish, unChristian or unFaithful to divorce. And they "need to submit." Sex, a basic human function, was to be for marrieds only and a major sin damning you to hell for all eternity outside marriage. The longest and bloodiest wars in history have been over religion - be this way or that or be killed.

Now we, the country that supposedly has "FREEDOM ON THE MARCH" according to our 'fearless leader' has the freedom to marry who you choose -- on the run.

Calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution on the definition of marriage will increase the likelihood that a significant number of American citizens will experience an increase in discrimination for years to come. The message that the U.S. Constitution is up for discriminatory "grabs" by any political party that temporarily enjoys majority status sends the wrong message. It sends the sprit of America's rich legacy of freedom reeling backwards.

Couldn't have said it better, Jude.

Any btw people, sign the petition Let's stop demonizing everyone who's a different color, a different religion, a different political party or swings a little different in the bedroom. There are many more important issues facing humanity, IMVHO to get bogged down in this mire. Poverty, HealthCare, Environment, Oil Prices... And, let's get a National Marriage Database on the books before we go defining who can and can't be married.

Despite Nalle's objections, the philosophical conservative has to ask one question: why should things be changed. This isn't a case of "first they came for the gays", because homosexual marriage isn't part of common law. So the consistent conservative has no need to be defensive. He's not seeking to change anything, only to prevent a change. Unfortunately, with the current state of constitutional interpretation, you have to paddle hard to stay where you are.

I did say more or less this same thing earlier. Most conservatives oppose gay marriage on the basis that it's an unwarranted change to the existing system. The problem with this argument is that gay folks do have a right to have families and relationships, and the law needs to recognize that in at least some way, even if it's not under the name marriage. So for the rational conservative accepting civil unions while preserving the traditional term marriage for hetero unions only is the sensible, conservative compromise.

Dave

Barbara, if there really are so many more important issues, then let's keep things the way they are, with a ban on homosexual marriage. Don't sign a petition; do something more important.

Jude, do you really believe that the amendment is unnecessary? If it's unnecessary, then you believe that the Constitution doesn't need to be changed to ban gay marriages (I believe the same thing).

Dave, if we should respect the current system, then let me repeat myself: zero changes. You imply that civil unions are marriages without the word "marriage", so by your reasoning we shouldn't allow them.

Let's be honest: Barbara and Jude (and most everyone else here) believe that the amendment is bad, not unnecessary or unimportant. I imagine many people would approve of Congress taking the time to support gay marriages. So it's not really about priorities.

The intent here is to implement a new vision of marriage, and to shout down any opposition by saying that we have more important things to worry about. Also to accuse the opposition of pandering (as if Democrats refuse to raise funds on this issue). Additionally, to deride heterosexual marriage, despite Jude's claim to the contrary.

Maybe I should have been clearer too. I think the amendment is idiotic. Any unnecessary amending of the Constitution should be avoided. There are other ways to deal with this situation on a state level.

Dave

Dave-I whole-heartedly agree. The problem is States can more easily change, do and undo their constitutional alterations, so the right-wing wants it on the federal level where it's much more difficult.

I was going to say that it's hard to believe they care so little about our sacred constitution to actually turn it into a hate document, but then I realized who I was talking about.

Alas
Solus mei sententia
Jet

There is one reason and one reason only this proposal is on the table once again--the Bush Administration is drowning and flailing desperately for a lifeline--any lifeline, even if it means lying once again.
The last time the gay marriage issue failed to garner support, Bush himself said America had more pressing issues.
So why is he spearheading the push this time? As I said before, it's a diversionary tactic designed to draw attention away from the failures of he and his cohorts.

Additionally, to deride heterosexual marriage, despite Jude's claim to the contrary.

I don't believe anyone here is deriding heterosexual marriage.

To say that loving homosexual couples are as valid and deserving of marriage as heterosexual couples, does nothing to mock heterosexual marriage or married people. It neither picks their pocket nor breaks their legs.

Divorce, however, derides heterosexual marriage. And the sheer number of divorced heterosexuals who protest against homosexual marriage, derides the idea that those people give a shit about protecting heterosexual marriage.

Well in that case they should add to it that it's illegal to divorce, once your hetrosexually married. The Catholics would love that and the Baptists would have a fit!

Since Jet brought up my religion - Catholicism, this is a complicated moral and religious issue and warping our Constitution would have no effect in any meaningful way in changing or solidifying the Catholic church's teachings. You play by the rules of the church or you're out. Divorce is already not recognized by the Catholic church. They don't need any government amendments. I can attest to this as a Catholic who sought and obtained anullment as well as legal divorce when my own marital relationship was dissolved. They were two separate issues, you see. Divorced in the eyes of man...and in the eyes of God.

As a Catholic American, I wish the President would start pandering to Catholics the on the moral issues that REALLY matter...such as seeking to end the death penalty and unjust wars. Pope Benedict XVI and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (who's rumored to be thinking of converting to Catholicism) held their first private talks over the weekend and discussed the role religion could play in politics and society, including the battle against terrorism.

If Bush "pandered" to those concerns, I'd certainly be impressed, and so would Pope Benedict XVI.

This Constitutional amendment to "protect" marriage from "activist" judges doesn't impress me, as a Catholic. As a mater of fact, I can see right through it - and many of the church's leaders can. As a whole, I see no reason why the Catholic church would not be happy with the definition of marriage as "between a man and woman." It coincides with the church's teachings. But I understand the theologiocal underpinnings of my religion, and human freedom is an imperative laid down by many of Pope Benedict XVI's predecessors. The spirit in which the GOP is approaching our Constitution is against freedom and will lead to discrimination, and thus, albeit a more complicated philosophical concept, would be seen as a political move done in the spirit that would be perceived as against human freedom and human rights.

I am also a patriotic American who sees what Sen. Wayne Allard and George W. Bush and Sen. Bill Frist (and the rest) are doing. They're messing with our scacred Constitution for manipulative political purposes... using it to wield more power away from the already right-stacked Judiciary. I believe that the Founding Fathers, many of them Deists, if they were around today, would stop these idiots dead in their tracks for messing with their hard work toward human freedom and the rights of the States.

In terms of gaining any popularity with moderate Americans, I think it's going to be a major turkey of a move. It will turn off a lot of folks who care about a gay or lesbian family member, close friend, or acquaintance. You ceratianly won't see mant moderate Americans jumping to their keyboards to write their Congresspeople in support of the measure to warp our Constiitution. It won't do a thing for Bush's sad poll ratings. It won't make a difference to anyone but the hard right, and Democrats could never change their political minds anyhow. Bush could put them in Concentration camps and they'd still vote Republican

Baronius,

I have to remind you that you are projecting when you say:

Let's be honest: Barbara and Jude (and most everyone else here) believe that the amendment is bad, not unnecessary or unimportant.

You are allowing your own opinion to cause you to perceive some kind of dishonesty in what I am, telling you.

I have no agenda. I am here telling you what is in my heart.

I know, and I know darn well, that this amendment is absolutely unnecessary.

Oh - Dave Nalle - since you asked - I am in Upstate New York, and the folks here are of more of a "red state" mindset than our fellow downstate New Yorkers.

so is this about "saving the INSTITUTION of marriage," or saving the WORD? if it's about the former, it's absolutely discriminatory, if it's about the latter, it's just stupid. it's time to worry about something else.

Let's be honest: Barbara and Jude (and most everyone else here) believe that the amendment is bad, not unnecessary or unimportant.

Now come on, Baronius. It is equally accurate to say that you believe that the amendment is GOOD, not necessary or important.

Jude, I don't want to take anything out of context here. You use the terms "discriminatory", "unjust", and "undemocratic" in your article. Would you accept each of these words as fair descriptions of the FMA? If so, then I believe the objection to FMA as unnecessary is specious.

The distinction I'm trying to make - and 'twould appear that I'm failing miserably - is between opposing a law as bad and opposing a law as unnecessary. If you opposed, say, the 18th Amendment, I imagine you wouldn't call it unimportant. You'd say that prohibition of alcohol is wrong.

Why am I being so fussy on this point? Because I percieve a smokescreen, intentional or unintentional. There's no need to argue against a panderer. The measure's opponents seem content to label the amendment as a political move and believe they won the argument.

Do I oppose gay marriage? Of course, completely and without reservation. I believe that the amendment is on the right side of the issue. But I'll admit I'm torn as to whether the amendment is necessary. If I remember the Defense of Marriage Act correctly, it was exempt from judicial review (under Article 3 Section 2). If the Supreme Court recognized that limitation of its authority, I'd still be nervous about the application of the Full Faith and Credit clause. But if the whole DOMA is in order, then the FMA is unnecessary, and I'd oppose it.

P.S. - If anyone misreads the above as "to argue against a panda", I hope you got a kick out of the imagery. Even I misread it, and I wrote it.

"Marriage" has long ago crossed over from being a moral definition to being a financial definition. The first time a financial "incentive", such as joint tax returns, was enabled to toss a boondoggle to a special interest group, "marriage" was stripped of it's moral pretension and became just another tawdry grab at the public purse.

How can you blame other financial special interests for trying to get their share?

Let's be honest: Barbara and Jude (and most everyone else here) believe that the amendment is bad, not unnecessary or unimportant.

My feelings about the same-sex marriage issue are my personal opinion - not any sort of a right or left wing agenda.

It seems funny to me that Bill Frist, Bush and the neocon bunch seem to throw out issues like this to obfuscate others that are much more pressing to the American public: Health Care, Oil prices, Withdrawl from Iraq, Our posturing with Iran, Global Warming, etc etc.

As a Jew, there are many people in my faith who come down on both sides of this issue. Personally, I have to agree with one Rabbi who feels that other people are 'expressions of the divine' and love should be honored as such.

Adding devisive words to Constitutional amendments saying that America is a Christian, heterosexual only, oil guzzling, corporatist nation... well, that doesn't sound like the America I grew up caring about. And it doesn't seem like I or Jude are the ones with the 'agenda' does it?

Baronious,

I wish I had time to play the games of semantics, but I don't.

In my initial opinion as well as in my many comments made afterward, have stated why I believe the Constitutional amendment is unnecessary, regardless of my opinion of the possibility of its passage.

If it was made law, I think it would be bad law. I trust that it won't be, however, because most responsible and knowledgeable leaders understand that it's unnecessary.

Our Constitution and founding documents were not written in the spirit of discrimination. This one, if passed, would have been. Everyone has an opinion (you know that old saying;) and of course, I have my own views on LGBT families. I support all loving families in a world that has put too low of a priority on commitment and love. I support their civil rights. I leave it up to our churches to decide their stand on marraige. It's not Constitutional for government to decide what churches can and cannot do, although I suspect Alito and Scalia would try to impose their Catholic-informed values onto our rule of law.

If any of you haven't recognized the danger for freedom and secularism in what has obviously been the conservative-activist stacking of the Supreme Court (whenevr a position opens up) while calling judges who interpret law from a secular standpoint "activist" (as if the Right aren't activists), I'm afraid we risk losing the freedom our forefathers intended for this beautiful experiment called America.