The Federal Marriage Amendment is being reintroduced...can you guess by who?

The Federal Marriage Amendment is back — with Vitter’s and Craig’s support

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
The Federal Marriage Amendment is being reintroduced...can you guess by who?

The Federal Marriage Amendment is back — with Vitter’s and Craig’s support

And here I was hoping we could have one election where real issues were the focus rather than these diversionary issues which never really amount to jack squat. I guess that would just be asking too much. I guess its only a matter of time before abortion becomes an issue too..

Vitter and Craig?

With these guys making up 20% of the bill's support, better call it the "Hypocrite Amendment."

Yeper!! And, we the voters here in glorious sunny Florida, will once again have a go at our own version. Man, money is no object when it comes to this sort of stupidity. But, fund more medical for kids or the elderly and, well, that just isn't in the budget.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
The Federal Marriage Amendment is being reintroduced...can you guess by who?

The Federal Marriage Amendment is back — with Vitter’s and Craig’s support

And here I was hoping we could have one election where real issues were the focus rather than these diversionary issues which never really amount to jack squat. I guess that would just be asking too much. I guess its only a matter of time before abortion becomes an issue too..

Pfffft... It occurs on both sides of the political fence. How many times have you heard some uneducated idjit say they'll be voting for Obama because it is time we had a black president? Or Hillary because she's female? Or McCain because he was a POW?

Most American voters are EASILY manipulated into ignoring the real issues for tangential ones meant to garner the bonehead topic vote.

Personally, I support the bill. I don't need my tax dollars paying marriage benefits to homosexuals. But it has zero bearing on how I'll vote (except for that whole tax dollar allocation thing).

My biggest concern in this election is who is best to un-eff the VA issues and untank the economy.

I don't care what color or gender gets it done, but for crying out loud, get it DONE!

SLDO IS RIGHT ON THE MONEY,SADLY, FLORIDA WASTE'S MORE MONEY THAN ANYONE IMHO

quote:

Originally posted by FollowMeInfantry:
Personally, I support the bill. I don't need my tax dollars paying marriage benefits to homosexuals. But it has zero bearing on how I'll vote (except for that whole tax dollar allocation thing).

And yet you are willing to allow tax dollars to go to benefit heterosexuals, what is the difference? There is a tax inequality when your partnership is “rewarded”, but mine is penalized.

On what grounds do you support amending the Constitution of the United States of America to actually REMOVE rights from individuals? The Constitution of the United States that says this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:

quote:

Originally posted by FollowMeInfantry:
Personally, I support the bill. I don't need my tax dollars paying marriage benefits to homosexuals. But it has zero bearing on how I'll vote (except for that whole tax dollar allocation thing).

And yet you are willing to allow tax dollars to go to benefit heterosexuals, what is the difference? There is a tax inequality when your partnership is “rewarded”, but mine is penalized.

On what grounds do you support amending the Constitution of the United States of America to actually REMOVE rights from individuals? The Constitution of the United States that says this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I thought the inference was quite clear - had you not omitted the next statement:

quote:

My biggest concern in this election is who is best to un-eff the VA issues and untank the economy.

That's where I want to see my tax dollars going, not wasting it on homosexual marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
And yet you are willing to allow tax dollars to go to benefit heterosexuals, what is the difference? There is a tax inequality when your partnership is “rewarded”, but mine is penalized.

Lets not get started on tax inequality. If you really gave a crap about tax equality you'd be in favor of a flat tax. Tax inequality suits oyu fine when we are talking about penalizing the oil industry.

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
On what grounds do you support amending the Constitution of the United States of America to actually REMOVE rights from individuals? The Constitution of the United States that says this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Ya, lets get back to this one. Equal protection. How does granting one group or another tax benefits equate to equal protection. Next thing we'll have to give the same rights to room mates. There is nothing fair about our tax code. And even our legal system itself has severe inequalities. Case in point OJ Simpson. The wealthier you are the more likely you are to be aquitted.

The only way it could be fair is to give it to every individual and or eliminating them altogether. Because are a couple any more special than a single person?

quote:

Originally posted by FollowMeInfantry:

Pfffft... It occurs on both sides of the political fence. How many times have you heard some uneducated idjit say they'll be voting for Obama because it is time we had a black president? Or Hillary because she's female? Or McCain because he was a POW?

Personally, I support the bill. I don't need my tax dollars paying marriage benefits to homosexuals.

---------------------
More irony! Criticizing others as "idjits" and then complaining about his tax dollars paying marriage benefits to homosexuals! Obviously clueless.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:
Lets not get started on tax inequality. If you really gave a crap about tax equality you'd be in favor of a flat tax. Tax inequality suits oyu fine when we are talking about penalizing the oil industry.

And how do you know I don’t? I don’t believe in penalizing the oil industry either. Painting all us “liberals” with the same BROAD brush are you?

quote:

Ya, lets get back to this one. Equal protection. How does granting one group or another tax benefits equate to equal protection.

But we already do. We grant “tax benefits” to married couples and yet deny an entire group of “couples” these same rights, benefits and privilages. That is not only inequity, it is discrimination and a violation of basic civil rights.

quote:

Next thing we'll have to give the same rights to room mates.

Only if they, too, enter into a legal, civil marriage contract.

quote:

The only way it could be fair is to give it to every individual and or eliminating them altogether. Because are a couple any more special than a single person?

Works for me. Good luck selling that one though…

The full text of S. J. RES. 43 follows:

#

110th CONGRESS 2d Session

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JUNE 25, 2008

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. VITTER, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. SHELBY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

"ARTICLE"

Section 1. This article may be cited as the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/CraigVitter_0627.html

These clowns are hilarious.

quote:

Originally posted by nurse_attorney:

quote:

Originally posted by FollowMeInfantry:

Pfffft... It occurs on both sides of the political fence. How many times have you heard some uneducated idjit say they'll be voting for Obama because it is time we had a black president? Or Hillary because she's female? Or McCain because he was a POW?

Personally, I support the bill. I don't need my tax dollars paying marriage benefits to homosexuals.

---------------------
More irony! Criticizing others as "idjits" and then complaining about his tax dollars paying marriage benefits to homosexuals! Obviously clueless.

That wasn't what I stated, ma'am. I said that I don't want MY tax dollars being used for that purpose, and thus I support the bill and the issue of "gay" marriage would not affect my vote.

My use of "idjit" was clearly referring to those who vote based on gender, skin color, or military POW time. The "support" for the bill I rendered, if you'd read what I wrote in context, has nothing to do with other voters sans to mention that many Americans are distracted by the real issues.

I love it when people pick apart a statement in favor of a few lines of quoted text and then refer to me as clueless. LOL.

Remember what happened the last time an ammendment was used to deprive people of freedoms.

quote:

Originally posted by FollowMeInfantry:

quote:

Originally posted by nurse_attorney:

quote:

Originally posted by FollowMeInfantry:

Pfffft... It occurs on both sides of the political fence. How many times have you heard some uneducated idjit say they'll be voting for Obama because it is time we had a black president? Or Hillary because she's female? Or McCain because he was a POW?

Personally, I support the bill. I don't need my tax dollars paying marriage benefits to homosexuals.

---------------------
More irony! Criticizing others as "idjits" and then complaining about his tax dollars paying marriage benefits to homosexuals! Obviously clueless.

That wasn't what I stated, ma'am. I said that I don't want MY tax dollars being used for that purpose, and thus I support the bill and the issue of "gay" marriage would not affect my vote.

My use of "idjit" was clearly referring to those who vote based on gender, skin color, or military POW time. The "support" for the bill I rendered, if you'd read what I wrote in context, has nothing to do with other voters sans to mention that many Americans are distracted by the real issues.

I love it when people pick apart a statement in favor of a few lines of quoted text and then refer to me as clueless. LOL.

I'm single. I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing your regular piece of tail.

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by FollowMeInfantry:

quote:

Originally posted by nurse_attorney:

quote:

Originally posted by FollowMeInfantry:

Pfffft... It occurs on both sides of the political fence. How many times have you heard some uneducated idjit say they'll be voting for Obama because it is time we had a black president? Or Hillary because she's female? Or McCain because he was a POW?

Personally, I support the bill. I don't need my tax dollars paying marriage benefits to homosexuals.

---------------------
More irony! Criticizing others as "idjits" and then complaining about his tax dollars paying marriage benefits to homosexuals! Obviously clueless.

That wasn't what I stated, ma'am. I said that I don't want MY tax dollars being used for that purpose, and thus I support the bill and the issue of "gay" marriage would not affect my vote.

My use of "idjit" was clearly referring to those who vote based on gender, skin color, or military POW time. The "support" for the bill I rendered, if you'd read what I wrote in context, has nothing to do with other voters sans to mention that many Americans are distracted by the real issues.

I love it when people pick apart a statement in favor of a few lines of quoted text and then refer to me as clueless. LOL.

I'm single. I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing your regular piece of tail.

I happen to agree. I am also single, and I am likely to stay that way - and even if I don't, I don't need or want the marriage tax leverage.

Put that money back into the VA, let's get our soldiers the medical treatment they deserve.

quote:

Originally posted by FollowMeInfantry:


I happen to agree. I am also single, and I am likely to stay that way - and even if I don't, I don't need or want the marriage tax leverage.

Put that money back into the VA, let's get our soldiers the medical treatment they deserve.

If you want the government out of the marriage buisness altogether I won't argue. If you are saying that only certain adults can enter into certain types of contratcs with the state then we have a disagreement.

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
And how do you know I don’t? I don’t believe in penalizing the oil industry either. Painting all us “liberals” with the same BROAD brush are you?

Ok well sorry. I will remember this on other threads in the future though..

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
But we already do. We grant “tax benefits” to married couples and yet deny an entire group of “couples” these same rights, benefits and privilages. That is not only inequity, it is discrimination and a violation of basic civil rights.

We do nothing of the sort. Gay couples have had the ability to get the legal benefits of marriage for a long time via civil unions. But even then its inequality as it requires a couple and thus violates single peoples civil rights.. Ya Right!!

How is this even close to civil rights? There is nothing about these that are rights. They are all privledges.

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
Works for me. Good luck selling that one though…

Yea doesn't appear you've had much luck selling yours either. I'm not entirely sure I agree with these legal privledges being granted to civil unions either. But since marriage has become what it is I guess I don't much care one way or the other anyways..

But its fun to watch you guys try and defend it. The biggest argument you have for it is that heteros have already screwed marriage up all on their own..

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

We do nothing of the sort. Gay couples have had the ability to get the legal benefits of marriage for a long time via civil unions. But even then its inequality as it requires a couple and thus violates single peoples civil rights.. Ya Right!!

How is this even close to civil rights? There is nothing about these that are rights. They are all privledges.

Actually, only a handful of States grant the right of Civil Unions, and of course that doesn't have ANY Effect on Federal benefits.

Even so, Seawitch is also posting on the irony of one of the sponsors of this amendment. A Mr. "Wide Stance" Senator, recently in the news for his promiscuity.

It goes beyond belief that the tired issue of a Constitutional Amendment to ban Gay marriage is actually going to fill up the days of Congress.

Dave