Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage

Same Sex Marriage Forum

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found widespread support for an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage. It also found unease about homosexual relations in general, making the issue a potentially divisive one for the Democrats and an opportunity for the Republicans in the 2004 election.

Support for a constitutional amendment extends across a wide swath of the public and includes a majority of people traditionally viewed as supportive of gay rights, including Democrats, women and people who live on the East Coast.

Attitudes on the subject seem to be inextricably linked to how people view marriage itself. For a majority of Americans — 53 percent — marriage is largely a religious matter. Seventy-one percent of those people oppose gay marriage. Similarly, 33 percent of Americans say marriage is largely a legal matter and a majority of those people — 55 percent — say they support gay marriage.

The most positive feelings toward gay people were registered among respondents under 30, and among those who knew gay people.

The nationwide poll found that 55 percent of Americans favored an amendment to the constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman, while 40 percent opposed the idea.

The findings come after the highest court in Massachusetts ruled 4 to 3 last month that same-sex marriage was permissible under the state's Constitution. That ruling followed a 6-to-3 decision in late June by the United States Supreme Court striking down antisodomy laws.

President Bush had been noncommittal about a constitutional amendment immediately after the Massachusetts ruling, with the administration worried that support for a ban on gay marriage would alienate moderate voters. But last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."

The statement signals the White House's increasing confidence that it can exploit the matter in the presidential campaign, both to energize its evangelical supporters and to discredit the eventual Democratic nominee.

Most of the Democratic candidates oppose gay marriage but favor civil unions. Howard Dean, who is leading in the polls for the Democratic nomination, signed a law when he was governor of Vermont allowing civil unions, an action that Republicans have already used to portray him as too liberal for mainstream America.

The court rulings generated extensive publicity and concern, not only about same-sex marriage but also about having the courts set social agendas that have not been approved by the legislative process.

"We have found that the more people focus on it, the less they support it," said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, which strongly opposes gay marriage and is working actively for a constitutional ban.

The Times/CBS News poll was conducted from Dec. 10 through Dec. 13 in telephone interviews with 1,057 people. It carries a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Responses about gay rights tend to be influenced somewhat by the wording of the questions.

This poll and other surveys show that as the courts have extended legal rights to gays this year, Americans have become increasingly uncomfortable with same-sex relations.

For decades, a majority of Americans have not approved of homosexual relations. That had begun to change, until the Supreme Court ruling in June and the Massachusetts ruling in November. A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in July found that 54 percent of respondents said homosexual relations should be legal. Only 41 percent of the respondents in the latest poll said they should be legal.

Richard Waters, 71, a retired elementary school teacher in Little Valley, N.Y., and a Republican, said in a follow-up interview to the poll that he strongly supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"I think any kind of amendment that says `You shall not' will help," Mr. Waters said. "I just don't think it's right for two men to go parading around in public or for two women to be doing the things they do. It's against God's law. That's right in the Bible that it's wrong."

Theresa Eaton, 49, a financial analyst in Corona, Calif., and also a Republican, agreed.

"I still believe that marriage should be between a man and woman," she said. "If I knew that we had a neighbor who was gay, I would not let my nieces and nephews go close by there. I don't want to accept their lifestyle. It can be acquired and it is not right."

The poll also found that by a 61-34 margin, Americans oppose gay marriage. They are slightly more accepting of civil unions to give gays some of the same legal rights as married couples, with 54 percent opposed to civil unions and 39 percent supportive.

The Massachusetts ruling also gave new impetus in Congress to sponsors of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. An amendment, which would require passage by two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states, would override any state court ruling or legislation.

Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado, who introduced a constitutional amendment in the House in May, said on Friday that she had 106 co-sponsors. The companion measure in the Senate still has only a handful of supporters.

"Homosexual activists have known that they're not going to get their way in the legislative arena, and they shopped around for activist judges," Ms. Musgrave said. "But if the definition of marriage is to be changed, it should be done by the American people, not four judges in Massachusetts."

Her measure would ban gay marriage. Some gay rights groups say its language is ambiguous on civil unions, but she said on Friday that her intent was to allow states to conduct civil unions but not let them be recognized in other states.

At the moment, only Vermont allows civil unions. In California, a domestic partnership bill giving gay couples limited rights is to go into effect in 2005, but it is under threat of a legal challenge.

Some groups on the religious right who are eager for a constitutional ban on gay marriage said Ms. Musgrave's measure did not go far enough. Mr. Sheldon, for one, said his group was seeking to ban civil unions and domestic partnership laws as well as same-sex marriage.

He said his group and others were lobbying President Bush to assert in his State of the Union address in January that he will also seek a ban on civil unions and domestic partnership laws. The groups are preparing to flood the White House with e-mail messages on the subject.

Jan LaRue, counsel to Concerned Women for America, a conservative religious policy organization, said her group was involved in a public education campaign on "why marriage is important and needs to be protected." She added, "We are part of a broad coalition that is using bumper stickers, newspaper ads, articles on our Web sites and assisting with amicus briefs."

Gay rights groups expressed dismay with the poll results but said they doubted that a constitutional amendment would pass the initial stage through Congress.

"The Republican House leadership is having its own internal fight to determine what to do," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign.

"There is no consensus among conservatives, libertarians and Republicans," she said. "Many of them say they don't support marriage for same-sex couples, but to amend the Constitution for social issues is a very bad idea."

The last time the Constitution was amended for social purposes was in 1920, when alcohol was outlawed, but that prohibition was repealed in 1933.

Sanford Levinson, a constitutional expert at the University of Texas Law School in Austin, said it was extremely hard to amend the Constitution. If the ban on gay marriage passed the House and Senate, he said, opponents could stop it by getting the support of one house of the legislature in just 13 states.

Mr. Levinson said President Bush's support was "a free pass" because he probably knows how difficult it would be to get through Congress, let alone through 38 states.

"The idea is for Bush to throw red meat to the Republican right, secure in the knowledge that this is not going to go anywhere," he said. "If it did go anywhere, it would tear the Republican Party apart."

Even in an age when gay couples are routinely portrayed on television and constitute a prosperous demographic that advertisers have been overtly appealing to, the Times/CBS News poll found the country still sharply divided over homosexuality.

Half of the respondents said they viewed homosexual relations between adults as morally wrong. Moreover, an overwhelming majority, 87 percent, said they thought most people would not accept having same-sex couples married within their church, synagogue or place of worship. Sixty percent said they themselves would not accept such unions in their own places of worship.

"I want my children to grow up and be normal people like me and my father and my grandfather was," said Ziad Nimri, 41, a salesman and a Democrat who lives in Spokane, Wash. "I don't want my children to start getting ideas. They see it's out in the open and you see men kissing men on television these days."

Mr. Nimri said he was also worried that if gays were allowed to marry, they would get other rights too, like tax benefits. "Because they're a minority, they're going to start actually giving them more privileges than normal people would have," he said. "Minorities always tend to get more than your average person does."

One of the few people interviewed who was not opposed to legally recognized same-sex marriages was Cliff Martin, 47, an unemployed Democrat in Gainesville, Fla. "I think gays should be allowed to marry because it's not something that threatens other people," he said.

Source: NY Times

There is so much anger and hate in the world, if two people find love let them get married.

-HECK!

Right on Mystic and HECK!

Well put Heck, OBAF, mystic!!!!

Gay marriages seem to be their public appearance, since they have full rights to love each other as much as they want - at home, dedicated social places like gay bars, they are protected by-law... I will say it again: i am not against gays and lesbians, i dont care. Let them do whatever they want, just keep it away from the public. NO OFFICIAL MARRIAGE, NO GAY PARADES, NO GAY SHOWS ON TV, NO GAY ACTIVISM... And NO GAY COUPLE ADOPTION. Every child has to have a FATHER and a MOTHER, every child has to receive man's and woman's attention - which gay couples lack...

Maybe i would sound conservative, but i am for more strict censoring on TV: no videos with half-naked girls, no swearing at ALL, anytime; etc. We lose morality, don't you see it?

And i dont want to see some dudes talking about marijuana on TV saying it's ok to smoke it. Public support for drugs?
How is it possible?

This is just my poor opinion...

How hard is it to understand that being against PUBLIC APPEARANCE does not mean against gays themselves? Yes there should be restrictions!

For example, 2 gay persons can live together and enjoy their lives without marrying. Why do they want to legalize it then? To show off, i see no other reason.

100 years ago nobody would even imagine themselves man marrying a man. Right now nobody thinks it's possible for brother and sister to marry, but hey what's going to be in 100 years? No restrictions - democracy - there you go, mystic......

Whatever it's hard to debate on this issue.

Mystic is right, if you're not against gays and lesbians then you shouldn't have a problem with them appearing in public. And if you really don't care like you said then why all that " no this and no that" in ALL CAPS?

Every child has to have a father and mother? Why is that exactly? Beacuse we're used to it being like that? That's not good enough. And what are you saying to divorced parents or widowed ones? That they have to find a new spouse as fast as possible?

Off topic, but no swearing at ALL? Why are you so bothered by it? They're just words aren't they? A totally artificial concept, decided by some people that some of the sounds you can make using your speech organs are somehow worse than others. I really can't see how that is harmful.

Mystic is right, if you're not against gays and lesbians then you shouldn't have a problem with them appearing in public. And if you really don't care like you said then why all that " no this and no that" in ALL CAPS?

Because! Are you against sex? No. Nobody is! Is sex allowed in public, on TV, etc.? No. A restriction! Lift it immediately.

Is that what you are saying?

Every child has to have a father and mother? Why is that exactly? Beacuse we're used to it being like that? That's not good enough. And what are you saying to divorced parents or widowed ones? That they have to find a new spouse as fast as possible?

Yes they have. Children are very unhappy if they lack mother's or father's attention. I personally knew many guys and girls, often dropping school, going with drugs and alcohol... Why? Unhappy family life, primarily because parents were divorced.

It's not just us being used to mother and father, it's the nature. If you say no to nature, then say no to other attempts to save it - like Greenpeace.

Off topic, but no swearing at ALL? Why are you so bothered by it? They're just words aren't they? A totally artificial concept, decided by some people that some of the sounds you can make using your speech organs are somehow worse than others. I really can't see how that is harmful.

On TV? Why dress then? Throw away your clothes, it's just what we see or dont see, i REALLY can't see how clothless is harmfull.

You have to be kidding me.

It's very hard to understand. If you have no problem with gay people, why should you have a problem with public appearances by them? Why on earth should there be restrictions?

Because! Why, for example am i not allowed to drink outside and gays can walk there and back with their asses naked? Why are their less restrictions for them than others?

Two heterosexual people can live together without marrying too. Why do they want to legalize it then?

Because a society consists of families. Marriage is there to keep the couple together for the rest of their life, to let them have kids and live normal life.

A couple of hundred years ago nobody would even imagine that slavery would someday be considered immoral and wrong. Democracy - there you go Mr Juko....

You compare restrictions on non-standard sexual relationships with slavery?...

I simply can not talk to these people.

Lets legalize heavy drugs too, like cocain. It's just a matter of what we breath in or do not.

Democracy? Will of nation. If nation is against gay marriages (in the majority), that's how it's supposed to be. Word of minority shouldn't prevail over majority in such a significant question. There can't be absolute freedom, remember.

Because! Are you against sex? No. Nobody is! Is sex allowed in public, on TV, etc.? No. A restriction! Lift it immediately.

Okay, something that I'm not against isn't allowed in public. So what? There are reasons why sex isn't allowed in public. But the same reasons that apply to sex don't apply to gay people. Sexual content from gay people yes, since it's sex. But if you say that non-sexual demonstrations of love and affection shouldn't be allowed in public then you need a specific reason. You can't just say "well other stuff is restricted too."

Yes they have. Children are very unhappy if they lack mother's or father's attention. I personally knew many guys and girls, often dropping school, going with drugs and alcohol... Why? Unhappy family life, primarily because parents were divorced.

It's not just us being used to mother and father, it's the nature. If you say no to nature, then say no to other attempts to save it - like Greenpeace.

I personally know a lot of people who have lost a parent one way or the other and they have turned out okay, respectable citizens, with happy lives. It's the nature? Are you just saying that or do you have anything to back it up?


On TV? Why dress then? Throw away your clothes, it's just what we see or dont see, i REALLY can't see how clothless is harmfull.

You have to be kidding me.

I've got to be kidding you? No, I'm afraid I really am this twisted. Have you really never seen naked people on TV? And if you think nudity should never be allowed in public, why? And I'm not talking about everybody throwing off their clothes running around the streets naked. You seem to be against any public nudity. Why is it harmful for someone to see a naked person on TV or hear swearing? And please don't reply by saying something like " Oh! Do you think this and that should be allowed too? Is that what you're saying?" like you have done now. Just tell me why you think these things are harmful?

Because! Why, for example am i not allowed to drink outside and gays can walk there and back with their asses naked? Why are their less restrictions for them than others?

Well those two things can't be compared really. But you're right there shouldn't be less restrictions for gay people. But you seem to be demanding more restrictions for gay people than others.

Because a society consists of families. Marriage is there to keep the couple together for the rest of their life, to let them have kids and live normal life.

If gay people can live without marriage heterosexual people should be able to do that too. There's no reason for them to have this kind of privileges.




You compare restrictions on non-standard sexual relationships with slavery?...

No, I replied to your silly argument with a silly argument of my own. You said that things are now different than they were 100 years ago. Yes, so what? Homosexuality was frowned upon back then but not anymore. You acted as if that showed that we are on our way to approving everything under the sun. Faulty logic.


Let's legalize heavy drugs too, like cocain.

There you go again. The good old "if you allow this you're allowing everything else too" argument. Please keep on topic. If you're asked why you disapprove of gay marriage, tell us why you disapprove of gay marriage, don't start talking about drugs and nudity.

I live in Palm Springs, CA. It's getting more gay every day down here. But hey, it's good for tourism. Anything that lowers my taxes. I am not gay and I don't have anything against gay people. I know gay people. I work with gay people. Some I like, some I don't, but it's all based on the individual.

They have a right to have parades just like every American. Do I go? No. Do I watch gay-oriented television shows? No. But I don't go to Klan rallies or watch BET either. I am not apart of the ideology/orientation. I don't judge them, either. God knows I have my faults.

If you hear about a parade that you don't agree with, don't go. If there is a t.v. show you don't like, don't watch. I just hate the 'I don't like that so you can't either' mentality.

MrJukoVette is right in the fact that Democracy must prevail. Majority does rule. I have a problem with special interest groups (no matter what they are) that try an overrule the majority.

And I have to ask, who are these infamous gay people walking around with their asses hanging out? You need to find a new bar to hang at bud.

-HECK!

Hey, I'm all for democracy. But I do think that the majority isn't always right and that some pretty bad decisions can be made by doing what the majority wants. The stupidity of people in large groups shouldn't be underestimated. A couple of decades back the majority of Germans thought that the nazi party was a good thing.

And sometimes, just sometimes it can be good that a minority tries to overrule the majority. Frank Zappa once said "why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because millions of people think you are?"

I don't think it's about the majority telling the minority that they're wrong. It's more like giving the majority what's been voted for. If it's 51 to 49, sure there is wiggle room. But if there's majority by a large margin you have to abide by what's been decided.

And the Nazi party came to power by murder, fear and intimidation. It's not like Hitler got on the ballot on the Nazi party ticket against Joe Blow from the Green Party

-HECK!

All right, but I still think there are occasions when the majority shouldn't get what it wants. Very rarely though, but still. Especially when it comes to restricting the freedom of people. If I'm told that I can't do something and the only reason for it is that most people don't want me to do it, then I'm not happy. If you're taking away my freedom you better have a more solid reason than "we don't like it, and there's many of us."

And although the nazi party is known for its reign of terror, its rise to leadership wasn't marked by fear and intimidation. The country was in a bad way then and it was simply skillful propaganda, smart political decisions and Hitler's powerful public appearances that gained them popularity. The public ate it all up and gave nazis the power of their own free will.

originally posted By Juko

Because! Are you against sex? No. Nobody is! Is sex allowed in public, on TV, etc.? No. A restriction! Lift it immediately.


Juko...I cant help but laugh in total amazement by your above statement.....why is it that when gay people walk down the street, sex in public comes to mind...but heterosexual people can walk down the street and nothing comes to mind? I believe most of that imagination of yours is a skeleton you need to come to terms with....I dont see too many people looking at it from that point of view...If I see two people of the same sex holding hands walking down the street....it doesnt even faze me...




Yes they have. Children are very unhappy if they lack mother's or father's attention. I personally knew many guys and girls, often dropping school, going with drugs and alcohol... Why? Unhappy family life, primarily because parents were divorced.

My best friends mom died when she was 9 years old....her dad did not remarry until she was in college....she did okay....she was a perfectly normal child.....I dont see your point here.....if you have or will have (whatever the case may be) children, what happens if your wife dies? Will you go right out and marry again to have a mother for your children? I guess you dont know that there are many issues regarding step parents and children that I guarantee are more problematic than two women or two men raising a child. Your thought process on this one doesnt even jive....you cannot possibly know how children are affected because you have never even bothered to find out....you are going only on your own interpretation.....look around there are many studies on children of gay families....they seem to be more together than those of heterosexual parents.....

Because! Why, for example am i not allowed to drink outside and gays can walk there and back with their asses naked? Why are their less restrictions for them than others?

HATCHJAW STATED: Well those two things can't be compared really. But you're right there shouldn't be less restrictions for gay people. But you seem to be demanding more restrictions for gay people than others.

I had to leave hatchjaw's comment in there....I cant mess with a perfect statement.....nicely said hatch!


Because a society consists of families. Marriage is there to keep the couple together for the rest of their life, to let them have kids and live normal life.

HATCHAJW SAID: If gay people can live without marriage heterosexual people should be able to do that too. There's no reason for them to have this kind of privileges.


Another good hatch!!!






You compare restrictions on non-standard sexual relationships with slavery?...

HATCHJAW SAID: No, I replied to your silly argument with a silly argument of my own. You said that things are now different than they were 100 years ago. Yes, so what? Homosexuality was frowned upon back then but not anymore. You acted as if that showed that we are on our way to approving everything under the sun. Faulty logic.


YEAH!!! RIGHT ON!!! GOOD ONE!!!

You guys are impossible. Inhumane. I have no other words.

What's wrong with nudity on TV? Hell knows. I guess, nothing.

I remember a court ruling 2-3 months ago, here in Toronto: a group of 7 or 8 gays, all of them NAKED (except for shoes), were caught by police right on the street. You know what judge said? "We can't discriminate their sexual identity, which makes them be naked; (or something) drop all the charges". I know my or your daughter, mystic, would love seeing them walking around... In the end, it's just what we see or don't see, right? It doesn't harm.

.......

Give me a break.

Can't say anything about the naked gays, but the Judge sounds like a bit of an idiot.

It really happened, oldbutafan. I was shocked - no, i was very shocked! - but it did happen. And, becides i've seen semi-naked g*ys on the street myself - pretty disgusting, i want to say...

Canadian idelogy is against double standards and is trying to bring equality to everyone - however, double standards are applied more than anywhere else due to perverted understanding and interpretation of basic principles, among them - discrimination. If an employer does not hire some immigrant, he can be sued for racial discrimination - same if a teacher does not give high marks to students. These are not possibilities - it happens all over the place.

BTW, as far as i know, there is such problem in USA, too. Overwhelming political correctness leading to incorrect interpretation of sometimes SIMPLIES things.

Woo Hoo! Naked Canadians, I'm booking my flight now!

Okay, seriously. Dude, have you never been to the beach? Do most Canadians sunbathe or swim with their clothes on? Are women in your country not wearing string bikinis? Everyone on this board knows that people will wear a minimal amount of clothing in the hot weather. And sometimes the only difference between naked and clothed is a 2" strip of fabric.

I'll bet if there were naked women roaming Canada you wouldn't be complaining. And these naked gays, are they really built? Are we having a body image issue here?

MrJuko, if you don't have any problems with gays, you could care less what they are doing. I knew a man who used to tease gay kids when I was growing up. He ended up with a boyfriend later in life. Beware of those who object the loudest.

Back to gay marriage.
I think we really need to seperate marriage all together. If you want legal rights (like the ones we have now) you will have to go through a civil union. We could just leave the word "marriage" to christians. This would mean however that everyone who was married in a religious ceremony would have to go through the legal civil union. All current marriages not performed in a court of law would be null and void. A religious marriage would not be recognized by the state unless you also had a civil ceremony.

This would entitle everyone the opportunity to have a legal "marriage" (civil union). And those who are religious could not complain about it.

I had a friend, she and her boyfriend had been together for over 10 years. They never got married. He had a heart attack and died recently. His family wanted all of his belongings. They hated her. They took everything they could. She is the nicest person you could know.
The mistake here was, they never got married.

In a gay relationship the same thing could happen. When one person has everything in their name, the family gets the property under the law. The person who lost the person they loved, ends up without a home, car, and most importantly, the person they loved. They didn't have the option of marriage.

The same happens for medical. In a gay relationship, the family gets the legal right to decide what happens to the person. Not the other person in the relationship. Hospitals routinely deny these decisions to non-family members, they also deny visitation.

Marriage is more than just a union of two people, it comes with other legal benefits.

Thank you, Outsider. It's nice to know that there are other straight people out there who support the things that I, and many others, face on a daily basis.

Okay, seriously. Dude, have you never been to the beach?

No i have not. What about you?

Do most Canadians sunbathe or swim with their clothes on?

Hmmmm i dont think so. Why?

Are women in your country not wearing string bikinis?

Sure they do.

Everyone on this board knows that people will wear a minimal amount of clothing in the hot weather. And sometimes the only difference between naked and clothed is a 2" strip of fabric.

In the hot weather, people do wear a minimal amount of clothing. What does it have to do with naked guys on the street?...

I'll bet if there were naked women roaming Canada you wouldn't be complaining.

I wouldn't! I am straight. Second, women in Canada mostly wear trousers - any time of the year. Third, even if i complained it would have a moral base under it - people shouldn't be naked in public places, no matter sex or orientation.

What's your point here?

And these naked gays, are they really built? Are we having a body image issue here?


What are you talking about?

MrJuko, if you don't have any problems with gays, you could care less what they are doing. I knew a man who used to tease gay kids when I was growing up. He ended up with a boyfriend later in life. Beware of those who object the loudest.


You are funny. I shouldn't care if they walk naked in public places, i shouldn't care if my son gets abused by their 'gay pride image'... I should take it, eat it, and keep my mouth shut. How could i forget about 'sexual discrimination'? This is freedom of speech... isn't it? Freedom with little exceptions.



Back to gay marriage.

I had enough of your 'arguments'. LOL

Yea yea ofcourse. Inhumane, that's all.

What's wrong with nudity? I guess nothing. Lets all go naked!

Hold on, are we going to wear shoes or no? What are laws in your areas?

Idiots.

hahaha i care too much? Really why should i care? Today they go naked on the streets, tomorrow it will be child molestation - again, only for artistic purposes; some drugs are 'legal' to some extent - heavier ones are coming, sooner or later; why should I CARE???

Really wouldn't be easier for me to move?

outsider can you read in English? "I dont care about them, but their publicity is wrong" - do you understand what i am getting at? Didn't i also write about too much nudity being shown on TV? Or you suddenly turned blind when reading something not suiting your pathetic idea of me being interested in gayness?

I could never imagine there were so MANY idiots out there.

You know, just because someone is gay, that does NOT mean that they want to partake in the molestation of a child. Unless I'm reading you wrong... that's what you're stating.

MrJuko, I respect your opinion, because we all have the right to our own thoughts, feelings, etc... but as a gay person, I have to say that I'm really getting tired of your insults to the community in which I belong.

There are people who are NOT gay that have paraded naked. There are MANY people who have molested children that are NOT gay. There are MANY people who do a lot more than "making out" in public that are NOT gay couples.

Calling others idiots?! Juko, just because people don't agree with YOUR opinion, doesn't mean that they are idiots. It means that their opinions are different than yours!

IDIOT:

1. A foolish or stupid person.

2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

These people aren't foolish and stupid! They seem well informed, and open minded.
Also, I haven't noticed that they are mentally retarded. Such a statement seems, to me, to be a personal attack, which isn't what we are here to do, on this board. We're trying to all get away from that.

Bye.

Most child molesters are heterosexual males, who have usually been molested themselves. And the majority of them molest girls, some molest boys.

Juko, everyone's "publicity" can be annoying, that is why we have a power switch on TV's, computers, radios. You have the option of powering off.

I don't believe in legalizing anymore drugs. We already have too many, I can't even stand aspirin myself.

KJ is right, calling names just because you don't agree doesn't work. If you think I am wrong, tell me why, intelligently.

Thank goodness that you don't represent the fine nation of Canada.

Did I mention how much I like Canada?

I think Mr Jukko needs to look the other way when the naked men start marching down Main Street in Toronto.

Thanks, Heck! You're a nice guy...

I think that it's a really sad misconception, that if you're gay, you're going to promote sex with kids, animals, etc... That because we want "equal" rights in our relationships, that married couples have, that the next thing is that we want to marry a goat or a duck. And the list could go on and on and on about those misconceptions.
Just because "SOME" gay people want to parade around naked, that doesn't include "ALL" gays.
I know a lot of straight people that are into public nudity, bondage, etc...
Hell, I work with a woman that is VERY involved in that scene. I asked her if it was more gays or straights that do that. She said, straight.

What upsets me is that I'm just a regular woman. I have a normal job, M-F. I have bills just like everyone else does. I don't hang out in bars getting drunk. I don't have sex with more than one person. I don't participate in public sex. There are gays AND straights who do ALL of those things, and much more. But, when someone has an issue about gays, it is IMMEDIATELY brought up that we do all that.

If there is a show on tv that has a gay character.... CHANGE THE CHANNEL.
If there is a gay couple, walking down the street, holding hands... WALK THE OTHER WAY.
If there is a pride parade... DONT GO NEAR IT!

It's just stupid that people can't be free to love each other. I have been with my partner for a very long time. She is the best thing that has EVER happened in my life. Why should I be denied the right to make a medical decision for her, if something happened? Why should I have to go to an lawyer and have medical powers of attorney drawn up for us... costing A LOT of money!!! Why should I have to pay taxes to have her on my medical insurance, but someone who is married and has children, get their loved ones on their insurance for free? Why is it okay? Because people choose to see what they want! Because people choose to accept what they want. That's fine. I will continue to live as I do. I will continue to "FIGHT" for rights for the gay community. And thankfully, I have my family, my in-laws, and MANY co-workers and friends who are doing the same.

I'm tired of arguing with people who are against gay marriages becoming legal. Saying that marriage is sacred and only for a man and a woman. This world is FILLED with horrible marriages. It's filled with dishonest marriages. It's filled with couples who aren't married, living together, having kids.. and getting more respect over their relationships, because they are straight.
I'm not going to fight with that crap. I'm going to follow my heart... and I KNOW that someday, I will have the legal priveledge of marrying my partner. It's coming.... and I'm glad. It's going to be a long battle... but the gay community will not stop fighting for EQUAL rights.

Nicely said KJ!!!

It's going to be a long battle... but the gay community will not stop fighting for EQUAL rights.


And they shouldnt! Remember, there are alot of heterosexual people that will fight for this also!

What did MLK say?

Oh yes.....I remember

"So I say to you, my friends, that even though we must face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed--we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL."

Thank you, mystic... great and powerful words. It's no different of a fight.
We fight for equality and follow our dreams.... nice to have you on our side.

Hells yeah KJ. I am with you. I mean, I'm not gay, but I support what you're saying 100%.

Check it- I hate Will & Grace and that Queer Eye show. Is it because they star or portray gay people? No way. I just think those shows suck. I thought the Birdcage was one of the funniest movies ever. Same thing. Which loosely brings me to my point. In the Birdcage, those two dudes had been together forever. They were in love. It was healthy. They were happy. There's nothing wrong with that. Why can't they be married?

And you know, whenever I watch Court TV and they talk about these sicko child molestors, I don't recall hearing about a homosexual doing it. It's usually a family member or friend, strait, who dabbles in this sick crime on the side. It's like these people think since guys like other guys they'll try and play with little boys. That makes no sense. I'm a dude that loves women, am I going to start lurking around the elementary school? NO. Gross.

Rock on KJ, fight the good fight.

-HECK!

Thank you, Heck... I will. Your support means a lot.... and the fact that you can say, you don't like those shows, but not because of it having gay people on it, but just because, to you, they suck... well, that's cool. You are open minded. If you see something you don't like, you don't partake!!!

I support gay equal rights, but marriage is the center of a family. The reason it exists (i don't care about law or religion or whatever) is for regulation of sexual behavior and a (hopefully) stable environment for children to be raised in. Kids need a mom and a dad. Not two moms, not two dads, not a mom without a dad or a dad without a mom. One mom, one dad.



...and now to brace myself for your reactions......

I'm not going to blast you, Dekka. That's fine that you feel that way. I don't agree....
I think that children can do fine, if they grow up in a loving home.
Just because a child has a mom AND a dad, does not constitute a happily raised child.
My father was horrible... my mom was subserviant. My brother and I would have been better off with them being divorced and not spending much time with dad.
There are single parents who raise wonderful children. There are gay parents who raise wonderful children.
There are children who are stuck in the system of orphanages... and without someone willing to adopt them and give them a loving home, they grow up bitter and angry.
There are many gay couples who adopt these children, and they grow up with love, compassion, a willingness to see things in a different way.
That doesn't mean that they will become gay themselves... I've known many gay parents who have very straight kids. I know many straight, nice parents, with wonderful kids, who are gay.
Really, it depends on the nuturing that you receive when you're growing up... not on who your parents are, what their sex is. It's all about the love and compassion and time well spent on your child that makes a difference.

My dad was horrible too, and my parents did get divorced, and I understood even at the age of 9 that it was better that way, but looking back it would've been far better if there was a good dad around. most of the problems me and my mom had wouldn't have existed. I realize now the problems we had were simply because she had to carry all the load and I was simply too young to understand.

I guess it would be better to be raised by a gay couple than be in a foster home though....

I hate to admit it, but I may be wrong. But something still erks me, nagging at my heart about it... maybe just social conditioning.

So true, mystic... it's so much more important that their are nutured and loved, than to be with two parents who treat them awful. Parents can be gay or straight. It doesn't matter. What matters is how they love their children, and what they teach them. What is better... to teach a child abusive behavior, anger, hate, prejudice, animosity, etc... or to teach them love and tolerance and compassion?! I think that we all know the answer to that one.

Outsider... I agree with you. There are so many families who drift apart. It's a shame.
My family has sections... some get together, but with different people. It's sad, because we were never like that before.

You know I just don't get why people think marriage between two people of the same gender will destroy the world? If two people love each other and make a commitment, who gets hurt here? Really if you think about it, one person meets another person, they decide they want to spend their lives together, that makes 2 people happy. Now those 2 happy people spread their happiness with others and that makes 20 (or more) people happy.

Then those 20 spread their happiness... like a ripple in a pond. I don't see how this hurts, I only see how it helps.

Outsider... What a nice way to put that. A ripple effect of happiness.

Thanks KJ.

You're welcome. I've read your posts throughout this board, and I think that you have quite a few good things to say and share. Don't stop... I for one would miss you if you did.

Thanks KJ, we seem to keep bumping to each other on the boards.

I found some more info from the original article this thread started with.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain589551.shtml
The December 10-13, 2003 poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 1057 adults interviewed by telephone. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus three percentage points for results based on the entire sample.

The article there is long but good reading.

I'm surprized that with hundreds of media folks from around the globe hunkered down in Boston, I don't see any discussion of this issue here!

In response to a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that same-sex marriages must be afforded the same recognition and rights as male-female marriages under the Massachusetts Constitution (written by John Adams), the Massachusetts Legislature is now debating an Amendment to the Constitution. Any Amendment passed in the Constitutional Convention (item #8 on the Calendar) must pass the next two Joint Sessions, after which (in 2006) it would be placed on a ballot. If passed by the voters, the Constitution would be so amended.

I think this issue deserves to be a sticky poll! Which comes closest to your point of view?
1- Marriage should be defined in the law as the union of a man and a woman, and no other relationship should be recognized as marriage or its legal equivalent. {This represents the proposed amendment}
2- Marriage should be defined in the law as the union of a man and a woman, but the same rights should be granted to same-sex couples as long as the M-word is not applied to their relationship. {This represents "compromise" modifications to the proposed amendment, two of which have been defeated as of last night}
3- Two people who love each other should be able to join in a civil marriage, and be afforded all the rights of a traditional male-female marriage. {This represents the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling, based on the existing Constitution}

Is it appropriate to amend the Constitution to take away civil rights? (This approach was once taken in an effort to prohibit inter-racial marriages...)

Is is appropriate to amend the Constitution to impose the beliefs of certain religious groups upon everyone? (The Taliban had no problem with this in Afghanistan...)

Judging by the national and international attention this issue has been receiving, I expect to see some very interesting dialog...

Hi Luke, actually there is a thread dedicated to this issue in the general forum:
http://www.inreview.com/showthread....6010&forumid=15

But you bring up great questions. In my humble opinion, I believe that marriage should be a legally binding union between two consenting and willing adults, regardless of their gender.

I see no rational reason why marriage between two men or two women should not provide the same rights, responsibilities, and protections as a male-female marriage. If two people love each other deeply and want to become one, why should this be denied to them? "Family values?" How many single-parent families have resulted from traditional marriages gone bad? How many marriages lead to abusive relationships? Consider Carmen Rodriguez, married 15 years, mother of three, now dead. Stabbed to death a few days ago by her estranged husband while she was at work trying to support her kids by herself. If her husband dies, we'll have three more kids with no parents. Otherwise, we'll have three more kids whose only parent is in jail. Family values.

True, this is not the norm. There are plenty of happy, healthy, nurturing families consisting of mother, father, and kids - no abuse, no cheating, pure love. But there are also plenty of happy, healthy, nurturing families consisting of two mothers or fathers, with or without kids - no abuse, no cheating, pure love.

Procreation? True, same-sex couples can't do that (at least not on their own). Tell all the orphans, and all the foster kids whose "traditional" parents have permanently lost custody, that all married couples should be able to make new babies. I think most of them would rather have two moms or two dads who love them than ride out their childhood in a parade of foster homes.

Our Commonwealth, and our Nation, are founded on a central principle of EQUALITY. By defining marriage as a purely man-woman union, we would be placing same-sex couples in a position of INEQUALITY. If the amendment were altered to accommodate same-sex civil unions, this inequality would remain. Even if Massachusetts provided civil unions with every right afforded married couples, those rights would vanish upon crossing the state line. Our Constitution is a document which should PROTECT civil rights, not take them away!

In Afghanistan, the Taliban forced their religious beliefs upon all citizens. In the US, while we declare ourselves "one nation under God," we have always struggled to prevent religious doctrine from mixing with our government. I see this proposal as an effort to use our Constitution to enforce a religious belief. The Catholic Church, as well as other clergy from many faiths, would like the word "marriage" to be defined to fit their image.

Churches and clergy have every right to choose to which couples they will offer sacramental marriage and to which they will not. Male-female couples who refuse or are denied church-blessed weddings have the option to go to a Justice of the Peace and join in a civil ceremony. These couples, while not married in the eyes of any church, are married according to law. Male-female couples who live together ("in sin") long enough become married under Common Law. In the interest of equal protection/equal rights, why should these "civil marriages" not be available to same-sex couples? Is this not discrimination? Indeed, this was the finding of the Supreme Judicial Court.

Panic sets in, and legislators scurry to change our Constitution so that this discrimination can continue WITHOUT violating the law. Where is the justice in that? Would these legislators also support a further modification such as "only the union of one man and one woman of the same race shall be valid or recognized as marriage?!!" Discrimination has no place in our Constitution. Again, our Constitution is a document which should PROTECT civil rights, not take them away!

I have no personal motivation in this issue - when the SJC issued its origin