Great to see the nazi party rallying around an issue so important to 29% of the country. Be nice if they exerted the same amount of effort in getting our boys out of Iraq. Quite ironic though that they have no problem letting nineteen and twenty year old American kids die in Iraq for "democracy" and "freedom", and all the while are trying to enact a law into the Constituition legalizing discrimination here at home.....

This is just one more example of how the conservatives in this country are trying to dictate what people do in the privacy of their homes. How does any marriage have an impact on another couple? So Senator Frist, thinks a marriage is essential to the family and that it must a man and a woman that must raise a child. So what does Senator Frist beleive when a child has to suffer the consequences of a divorce? What does Senator Frist suggest we do when it is only one parent that must raise a child? What does Frist believe when couples raise a child without getting married?

There are many children in this country that have been raise by "non traditional" families and they still grow up to be fine.

If we can't stop them gays from hitchin' up we'll go after all of thems flag burnin' liberals...and maybe a consitutionernal amendent making NASCAR the national pastime...

Frist needs to study history. "Traditional marriage" as practiced for thousands of years includes arranged marriages that could be disolved if the wife did not give birth to a son and could be legally beaten. It also includes having multiple wives and concubines that could produce at least semi-legitimate sons.

He is wrongly labeling judges as being "activist" for pointing out all Americans are equal and there is no legitimate reason for banning gay marriage apart from treating homosexuals as less than human.

As predicted, the fight here is really all about judges.
I read the Wall Streest Journals' editorials today. One blames SCOTUS' Kennedy for the Lawrence v. Texas opinion. The second calls for the confirmation of uber right wing appointees to the federal bench.
Marriage doe not need protection from anyone or anything.
It is the judiciary that needs protection. The Republicans just declared open season on them.

"“For thousands of years, marriage — the union between a man and a woman — has been recognized as an essential cornerstone of society,” Frist is quoted in the statement as saying."

Actually, for thousand of years (and to this day in many parts of the world), marriage has been recognized as a union between a man and as many women (or girls) as he can seduce/afford/kidnap. Is this the "traditional" marriage that Frist is advocating?

Oh please. Frist can talk himself into the grave on this one and it's never going to pass. And he knows it.

When does governing actually happen? Between the foie gras and dog barking ordinances from the City Council to the "English-only" and gay marriage proposals on the Hill, I'm convinced that no actual legislation of any importance will be passed this year.

If everyone could stop pandering to their respective bases and just do the jobs they were sent there to do, that'd be great.

Traditional marriage? Thousands of years? If I remember history correctly, traditional marriage consisted of one man, many wives; even marrying for the sole purpose of land ownership. Don't spout "traditional" values unless they truly are traditional. Modern marriage is exactly that, modern. It is what our society has made of it; therefore, our society can change it.

Thank you, Senator Frist, for your dilligence in protecting our country from the blight of gay marriage. I know that once we have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that our country will once again be a land of peace and prosperity. I am so thankful that you haven't allowed minor distractions like the war in Iraq, our endlessly expanding federal budget deficit, rising gas prices, inflation, or any other equally trivial issues to deter you from addressing the real problems we face as a nation. Not since your esteemed predecessor, Senator Joseph McCarthy, have we had someone in the Senate with the best interests of the American people so squarely at heart. Thanks again for keeping your focus on real problems and not merely exploiting the crass bigotry of the unwashed masses for your own political gain.

Its nice to see that the congressman isn't worried about the war,education,the economy, immigration,human trafficking,terrorism, taxes,human rights violations, the environment, gas prices,natural disasters, man made disasters, violation of civil liberties, healthcare, social security, ethics, the hurricane Katrina victims, global warmning and international relations with the rest of the world.

Apparently Frist is going with the old Mad Magazine slogan of "What me Worry"

For a country that is suppose to be progressive we are very far behind everyone else. Was it not until the later part of the 20th century when interracial marriages were legal? Whatever happened to a seperation between church and state?

For a country that is suppose to portray equality and freedom it seems that this kind of privilage is only for corrupt white republican religious monger with money and power. Are Americans that threatened that homosexuals are finally standing up and taking a stand and saying enough is enough, we are here, we interact with you everyday and we will no longer stand in the shadows and be quiet. We love the same as you love and we deserve the right to be married and have families and a "normal" life; we should no longer have to be supressed by anyone. If you believe in hell, and believe that we are going to go to hell then that is not up to you to try to save me, I have my own beliefs and don't need to be converted sexually or religiously. We are here and, we are here to stay...deal with it!

I wanted to post as soon as I saw the opportunity, but the comments already posted say precisely what I feel. Thanks, Joe, Ian, Nora, Mike, and others. Now, wouldn't it be helpful to get these comments before the readers in Cincinnati, Louisville, Nashville...?

When to gays procrate, I'll vote for gay marriage

Marrige is not so sacred when shows like the Bachelor and Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire reach any kind of popularity. I think this country has much bigger fish to fry than worrying about weather a same sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I'm from Massachusetts and while it's been kind of rainy, the apocalypse isn't in the 10-day forecast. The gays and the straights seem pretty down with gay marriage.

This whole stupid debate shows why some institutions should NOT be left to the will of the people.

I'm conservative and being gay is wrong. If it were the way it was meant to be, we wouldn't have a population. Tell me this, if you're a child molestor, liberals somehow believe you can be reformed and will readily send you back out to the street to ruin some more innocent lives. But if you're gay, you're born that way and cannot be reformed. So we can reform a pedofile who molests young boys, but we cannot reform a man who is attracted to other men, only one who is attracted to boys. Is this yet another example of liberals "have my cake and eat it to" policy? However, that's for the gay and god to deal with. Outside of my own personal opinion, this is none of my business. Our Republican party is trying to appease it's base that is justifiably displeased with our border situation by going after gay marriage as a distraction. These politics may work with the mental midgets on the liberal side, but most of us will remember this come election time. Not that i'd ever vote for a democrat. Hopefully, we'll have a credible 3rd party candidate to look to.

The fact is there is no evidence that kids raised in "non-traditional" families turn out worse or better than those raised by a married, heterosexual couple. As far as I know, no reputable scientific oragnisation would back such a claim.

Yet, I hear Mr. Frist repeat his mantra about raising healthy children and defending the social structures that allow this. Now, I know science and reason are hardly welcomed in our current political climate, especially among our conservative friends, but no matter how many times you say it, Mr. Frist, the science doesn't change.

And if we really wanted to help kids, couldn't we start with the 13 million in poverty, the millions without healthcare or reducing pollution that has caused high numbers of health complications among our young? There are also changes for posterity like reducing our debt that our kids will have to pay off and weening ourselves from oil, which will probably run out, if not in the baby-boomers life, definitely in our children's lives. But again, I guess it wouldn't be politics if we were actually addressing real problems.

When to Dale spellifies, I'll vote congress to him.

Here's a quote for Mr. Frist to ponder a little bit since he seems to think he is such a historian:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."

Mr. Frist needs to take a refresher course on basic American history and basic American government. He and the other hate mongers who keep pushing this discriminatory amendment need to heed the words of the above founding father, Thomas Jefferson. The majority does not have the right to run roughshod over the rights of the minority...this is a basic tenant of our system of government that should be quite clear, but apparently isn't to Mr. Frist and his fundamentalist hate machine.

This amendment does nothing but hurt American families and it is yet another embarrassment to our country that seems to be so prevalent with the current leadership.

If the gay marriage amendment should ever be added to the constitution, can we also include an amendment that would ban all divorces and make adultry and bigamy a crime? Afterall, aren't these also a threat to marriage and family?

The scary part of all of this is that the decisions made by the good, voting citizens of our United States are being tossed out by the judicial branch.Where are our the checks and balances that we learned about in elementary school? I thank Mr. Frist for trying to keep them alive and well. We are a country gone mad with lust. I pray my children will be smart enough to see beyond todays retoric that tries to incorporate sex as the most important part of life at a nauseating pace.We are a sick society when we reduce ourselves to such lowliness.We better be careful about "redefining" anything--wake up America you voted and some judge just "redefined" your words!

"When to gays procrate(procreate?), I'll vote for gay marriage"

It's already happened Dale. I'm sure the gay community appreciates your support.

Does that mean you think heterosexual couples who can't procreate shouldn't be allowed to marry?

The real shame is inherent in the seemingly large percentage of "conservatives" who actually fall for this tactic. Democrats should be ashamed for allowing the 2004 election to be themed on gay marriage and other issues having little or nothing to do with the American Presidency and (or) the federal government in general. Republicans should be even more concerned about the gullibility, the intollerance, and the sheer ignorance that permits such a seemingly foolish ploy to work. Will Messrs. Bush and Rove next propose a law requiring dogs and cats to cover their genitalia? I am not gay, but I fully support the rights of all gay people to enjoy life in our great country unencumbered by prejudice and "domestic religious radicalism." Live and let live-- the constitution is a beautiful invention to be left alone to the greatest extent possible and to be protected from this gross short-sightedness.

Seems everyone has lost sight of the facts.
Marriage/family implies the ability to procreate.
Nature does not give this privilege to gay couples so why should society pretend to?
Legally defining marriage between a man and a woman simply acknowledges what already exist naturally. Unfortunately it is a response that has to be given because gays have stood up and asked for their leagal acknowledgement. Go only knows what other fantasies people are wanting to legitimise.

Just when I was thinking it might be time to vote Democrat for a change, I get a perfect reminder of the truly, deeply, profoundly immoral, civilization-collapsing atheist filth that comes along as part of the Democrat baggage.

Bush is a disaster.

The Democrats are worse.

Those darn activist judges! The will of the people must be followed. Like the will of the Topeka Board of Education. They had a time-honored tradition of "separate but equal" schools. The Kansas legislature didn't see fit to change this, but oh, those activist judges, and their despicable bent for applying constitutional rights to everyone.

Dale,

What about heterosexual couples who can't or won't "procrate"?

Jay,

The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia in terms of morality is the capacity of the partner/victim to give consent - men can consent to have sex with men, women can consent to have sex with women, but children cannot consent to have sex with anyone. Sex without consent is rape. I don't know of any mental health/correctional professional who believes that pedophiles can really change their sexual attraction to children, but, in some cases, they can be motivated to control their behavior in order to protect children. Homosexuals can also be motivated to change their outward behavior as we've seen through centuries of oppressive societal views of homosexuals. However, so long as all parties are consenting adults, why should they be forced to change their behavior? Who is harmed?

BTW, I'm wondering how you think that the politics of repressing gays will "work with the mental midgets on the liberal side"? It's pretty clear that such politics are specifically aimed at conservatives.

It is interesting to note that this debate is simply about defining the legal term of "marriage". The bill to be passed, would then allow each state to vote, to decide whether or not they agree with the definition. Another item of note, is that since when, does a sexual preference have to be protected by law? Of course there are the obvious reasons for laws governing egregious sexual misconduct/perversion in instances concerning "protected classes", such as relations with minors or the abuse of minors, but I can't see making certain individuals become a "protected class" simply due to a personal preference. If states can condone so-called "same-sex" or "gender confused" Marriages, they can have no argument against other similar sexual preferences of individuals, including but not limited to: beastiality or polygamy. It is saddening to see such disregard for the basic unit of society, "the family" (husband, wife, and children). I forsee a great decline in the morality and stability of this nation; for when you disturb a foundation, part of the structure will begin to fail until the whole structure comes down.

If two men / women can be married, we are equating a heterosexual couple to a homosexual couple. There are not equal. Heterosexual couples are more than just the sum of their parts, ie. they can procreate (as a general rule). If gay marriage goes through as it has in Canada, there should also be legalization of polygamy and any other possible unions between two living beings (animals or humans). If we don't make procreation and family a prerequisite for our definition of marriage, we lose all objectivity and must then subjectively allow everything.

It was never intended for a man to sodomize another man for any reason. if it was ok to do that, then, procreation would not be possible as it would, when a man has intercourse with a woman. besides why is marriage a big deal for homosexuals and lesbians? marriage is part of raising a family- something lesbians and homosexuals could never pull off, except through artificial insemination.

Bryon Palmer,

Again, I'll ask, what about heterosexual couples that can't or choose not to have children? What about couples/singles who adopt/foster children - are they not legitimate families? Why is being raised by a loving, stable gay couple worse than being raised by a neglectful, abusive, and/or unstable couple/single/institution?

It is very confusing. If it takes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, doesn't that mean that today, without such an amendment, a ban might be unconstitutional? If a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, why is a judge who says so considered to be "an activist."

Why not just be honest with the people and say that the Constitution of the United States offers equal protection under the law, to all people. Today, in 2006, some people believe that homosexuals should be excluded from those equal protections, because their interpretation of religion tells them so, and if the Constitution won't let them discriminate against homosexuals, they want to amend it.

I also have a real problem with arguing that the courts are not listening to the "will of the people."

It was the will of the people that blacks and whites shouldn't marry. It was the Supreme Court in "Loving V Virginia" that decided that bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional. Was that Supreme Court being activist?

I also have a problem with those who say that children are harmed by allowing gays to marry. There is absolutely NO proof whatsoever, that gays and lesbians, who choose to be parents, don't raise children as well as heterosexual parents. Those studies that I have heard of show that kids do just fine, thank you, with gay parents.

Finally, if anyone can show me how gay marriage in ANY way threatens heterosexual marriage, I'd love to hear how.

Gay's can procreate - we just need to be a little more creative (or get a little help). We're gay, not impotent or sterile. Last time I checked one of the largest growing medical fields is fertility for you 'heteros' that have weak swimmers or univiting wombs. Besides, I've never known anyone to say, 'I knew he/she would be a great mother/father by how easy it was for us to get pregnant.' (My point would probably be better made in another, not so 'amily friendly'medium.) Lastly, I can guarantee the next time you are cut off on the highway, or see an misbehaving child in public, or get robbed - that they are the result of straight parents...

It must be recognized that the sole purpose of sex and marriage is the procreation of children. People who cannot procreate should not be permitted to marry. People should not be permitted to marry until after they are examined by a doctor to determine whether they will be able to procreate. If they are unable to procreate, they must abstain from sex in addition to remaining single. If a couple is married for more than 2 years and the wife has not become pregnant, the marriage should be annulled after which the two must abstain from sex. When a wife reaches manapause, then the couple must abstain from sex. Moreover, married couples should be required to produce a child every five years, after the first child.

JAY, dude, we liberals know gay marriage is a total smoke screen for the ineffective leadership of the gop..The "mental midgets" these theatrics are aimed at are all on your side of the aisle........as a die hard gop'er i'm sure your enjoying the shrinking federal deficit, the smaller gov. we now enjoy, the peace and prosperity..or not?

I'm so proud to know that this is the priority of Senator Frist. My concern is this, why is gay marriage such a problem? Is it because they cannot produce children on their own? If that's the case, no post-menopausal women should be allowed to marry, no men who have had vasecomies, nobody who has had some debilitating disease that won't allow them to have children, we should be fair here. Is it because there is something that is just 'not natural' about it? You want 'not natural' how about those that made sure to have a baby or be married on 6/6/06. I do find this to ba absolutely true, those who fight so much on a moral issue usually have a skeleton or two in their own closet. I wonder what type of graveyard awaits the general public for Mr. Frist. He should run in Ky, so he can get get in with the priesthood-of-I-hate-gays-and-soldiers-in-Iraq-die-because-of-them congregation.

Wow, there must have been an email to the radical religious folks to whip up the troops.

To those of you who are essentially equating homosexuality with bestiality, again, the issue is consent - animals can't give it. If someone can prove that their dog consented to sex and the two of them are happy about it, then, fine, go on with whatever suits them - it doesn't harm me. But unless you have the animal's consent, bestiality is rape; homosexuality, between consenting adults is not.

As a potential 2008 candidate, Frist has to kiss the same GOP conservative base butts. An act which may be illegal in his home state of Tennessee...

Marriage is a religious sacrament, I am sick and tired of congress and "Republicans" "Moral majority/so called Christian right", sticking their asses where it doesn't belong. This country is going to conservative HELL. Everyone needs to get out and VOTE in the next election and get ALL these IDIOTS out of office before we turn into a communist state!!!!! I don't know anymore if the word FREEDOM exists in this country!!!

Dienne, i was referring to the tactic, not the intent.

I agree with most of what you say, however, pedophiles are released from prison by the hundreds on a daily basis (if convicted at all) under the guise that this pedophile can be reformed. Regardless of whether or not the victim consented, the liberal judges are telling us that the pedophile can be reformed. So if that is the case, then why can't a homosexual be reformed? & Don't tell me that a homosexual should not need to be reformed because it is not a crime because one can make the same argument then for pedophilia. Law is subjective and as recently as a few years ago, it was a crime to be homosexual and remains so in many countries. These theories come from the liberal side. The conservative view is that both are immoral.

Like I said, this is a free country and people will ultimately have to answer to their creator, & that's not me, so my opinion is insignificant.

Many of you talk about how Frist is mentioning:

"“For thousands of years, marriage — the union between a man and a woman — has been recognized as an essential cornerstone of society,” Frist is quoted in the statement as saying."

He is actually correct...Name any other those societies where a man had 10 male concubines!

In our history, this country was founded on values based on the fore-fathers, which is Christianity. It is a shame that we spit on their graves and their faith in God and where this country was invisioned on going.

If there's one thing these posts from the anti-gay marriage side prove, it's that they are motivated by personal prejudice---there isn't a logical argument any of them has made. The only purpose of marriage is procreation? Oh, come on!
If that were true, infertile heterosexual couples wouldn't be permitted to marry. Gay marriage damages heterosexual marriage? Oh, please! I bet there hasn't been a straight couple
in the history of the world who gave the slightest thought to gay people when deciding whether to marry or not. Gay marriage will lead to polygamy and beatiality? What a knee-slapper!
These "slippery slope" arguments are always made when one side can't think of a reasonable argument to make in the debate at hand--in this case, gay marriage. No one other than a few nut-cases has ever argued for the right to marry his cat, and, outside a few people in Orrin Hatch's home state, hardly anybody thinks polygamy should be permitted for very obvious reasons: spousal support, inherent jealously, children with multiple parents, etc., etc.

Let's face it folks, the anti-gay marriage crowd in motivated by bigotry, deeply-rooted, visceral,
from the gut and down and dirty---as morally hateful and racism and misogyny. And the attempt by some of these posters to pose as reasonable people is pathetic.

Looks like the people HAVE spoken....the vast majority on this site are not at ALL in favor of the senate WASTING time....they will take on their frustrations on you in November....Plan on it....

The new congressional majority in either or both houses will be DEMOCRAT....we have had enough of this do nothing president and this do even less republican controlled congress!

Pack your bags guys and gals...ur out of here!

Dr. Frist and his pals need to be pushed back into the minority so we can get on with Impeachment proceedings.

When the homophobes and Bush base use procreation as their argument for a gay marriage ban then what about infertile “traditional” couples? Should they also be banned from marriage? Should fertility be the benchmark? The world is overpopulated as it is. I don’t think we have to worry about running out of humans any time soon.

People need to wake up and pay attention to the manipulation and diversion techniques being used by these crooks.

Terrick and Brendon are using the whole - 'gay marriage opens the doors for all other kinds of freaky things'. There is a huge difference between consenting adults entering into a life long relationship and planning for a long future together and a straight man and his sheep. We are able to make decisions for ourselves (unlike your friends and their livestock that you are so worried about - show your support and join PETA). We aren't going away, we don't want to take anything away from anyone. What we want is to plan for our lives together, choose to raise a family if we want, and not have to jump through all the hoops and pay the extra penalties and taxes (so you don't have to pay so much - although you use far more resources) that the heterosexual majority has put in our place.

I love it when the “traditional” marriage camp brings up animal-human marriage as a necessary consequence of equal marriage rights for gays and straights. First of all, we are arguing for equal rights to civil marriage, a state regulated contract between two people. To my knowledge, no state allows animals to enter into any sort of contract with humans.

Why do conservatives have the dirtiest minds of all?

Terrick:

"I forsee a great decline in the morality and stability of this nation; for when you disturb a foundation, part of the structure will begin to fail until the whole structure comes down."
_________________

People have been saying that kind of crap for 200 years. When's the apocalypse buddy?? Give me a date and time.

So the amendment bate failed, as we all knew it would. It was only proposed in the first place as political grease for the upcoming November reaming. Remember, with the 'Movement' Conservatives nothing succeeds like failure. It reenforces their victim status in their own minds.

But they must not forget what is really important.

The Liberal War on Christmas!

The liberals recently held their Spring meeting, ironically, at a Bethlehem, Pennsylvania ‘Holiday Inn’. This year they will require us to erect a pagan decorated tree in our living-rooms, dance around it drinking gin and tonic, and we will be forced to instill in our children a belief in an immortal 'elf' named Santa Clause. Please note; Santa is just one letter inversion away from Satan, and Clause is pronounced 'Clawzz'! Connect the dots, people!

And do you remember all the news and TV stories about St. Andrew's Day, Ascension Day, Ash Wednesday, The Assumption, All Soul's Day? Of course you don't, because there is a Liberal War against those days too!

Forget about the gay bashing amendment, the 9 trillion dollar national debt, Iraq war, constitution shredding, and let’s get back to what is really important!

"Judicial activism"? Is there such thing as "judicial INactivism"? You know, like judges that never, ever judge?

Has anyone told Bill that polls show most Americans are OPPOSED to amending the constitution against gay marriage, even *if* the majority are against gay-marriage in general?

Anything to avoid facing issues that matter, eh Bill? Election year posturing...

Oh good, the bestiality, pedophilia, and procreation excuses again. I would have some respect for those on the right who want to outlaw gay marriage if they also legitimately sought to make divorce and the marriage of those who don’t want/can’t have children illegal, as well. If you believe so staunchly in marriage and procreation therein, then I don’t see how you could not want to outlaw these, too. Senator Frist would have my respect if he chose to debate these issues on the floor of the Senate.

And, for what God’s knows won’t be the last time, pedophilia and bestiality are about - all together now - CONSENT. Just as a dog is not able to enter into a legal contract to purchase your house, it is not able to consent to having sex with you. The same goes for children. Adult humans, on the other hand, are able to make decisions about the homes they’d like to buy, the people they would like to sleep with, and, maybe someday, the people they’d like to marry. To deny any group of adult humans the rights granted to others regulates them to a sub-human category. Hmm, now who did we used to view as sub-human again?

As for the “mental midgets” on the left, it’s strange that we seem to carry a lion’s share of the proper grammar, spelling, and common sense on this forum. As always, it’s a joy.

LOL! C. Morris good one :-)

"But they must not forget what is really important.

The Liberal War on Christmas!"

God forbid that we should let same-gender strangers (i.e., non-family members) love, and take care of, one another, and have society recognize the value of this. But isn't marriage about sex, you say? No, it's not, even where same-gender participants are involved - it's about people caring for people in a domestic setting. Boy, if we let that happen hell will most certainly freeze over! We just can't have such a thing, or our children might grow up queer. I can't explain why, because I just believe it, and therefore everyone else should believe it as well. (After all, my authority is based on an ancient collection of writings, which have been translated to English, and it couldn't possibly be misinterpreted, or mistranlslated, even if it doesn't make any sense, or jive with common sense.) I know it doesn't make sense, or stand to reason, but what good is reason anyway? What has reason ever done for us? After all, if it weren't for reasoning we would to this day still be able to (continue to) subjugate african americans.

So let me get this "straight"

If we don't make gay marriage against the law, my next-door neighbor will apply for a marriage license for his poodle instead of a pet license? And while he's at it he'll propose to my wife to be his third. You're right! I'm convinced! This gay marriage thing is a very evil and slippery slope.

Truth is, be gay all you want. In the public forum you'll be accepted, but in reality (life)you'll continue to be laughed at and joked about. It's a freaky deal and straights will always see it that way no matter how much you try to shove it down our throats.

Jay,

Sex between a child and a man is a crime, therefore prison and rehab are demanded.
Sex between two adults is consensual.
Also, you accuse liberals of sending child abusers out on to the street to ruin more lives. What about the Catholic Church? They are hardly liberal, and they did it for decades.

*****************

Dienne asks,
"Again, I'll ask, what about heterosexual couples that can't or choose not to have children? What about couples/singles who adopt/foster children - are they not legitimate families? Why is being raised by a loving, stable gay couple worse than being raised by a neglectful, abusive, and/or unstable couple/single/institution?"

Dienne,
the far right Christians have a plan for them, too. Mr. Dobson, Robertson, et al, have identified a new enemy; "WILLFULLY CHILDLESS MARRIED COUPLES!" Incredibly, this is true. Childless couples are also on the target list. Google it.

****************

Chris,
You ask to name societies that featured male concubines:
Greece, Rome, most of their leaders and privileged classes had gay relationships, but they weren't considered unusual. And by the way, those societies ruled for centuries, much longer than we have so far.

********************

After a bit of thinking (scary, yes, I know) and reviewing this thread, I've realized that a lot of the posts (some of my own included, I confess), focus largely on gay sex, rather than gay marriage. I mean, honestly, how much of any marriage is really about sex? Sure, sex is hopefully a healthy part of any marriage, but isn't marriage really more about sharing life together? Sharing time and space, hopes and dreams, good times and bad? And isn't it about that amorphous feeling we call love? Can any law or constitutional amendment really change that?

I say this being happily married to a man of a different race, which marriage, until 1967 would not have been recognized in a number of states. Such laws, however, wouldn't have made us any less married, at least in our own eyes. Maybe it would have changed our outward behavior. Maybe. What it would have changed is our ability to protect and provide and care for each other (and any children) ways any loving couple should be able to care for each other - health insurance, healthcare decisions, child custody/child rearing issues, inheritance, etc. Why should gay couples, any more than interracial couples, be denied such abilities?

Ok, for all you folks that are worried about the Animal Sex Problem;

Do you know where the name 'Hoosiers' originated?

Well, there were two farmers looking out over a pasture filled with sheep, and one of the farmers said............

The problems are real and being ignored in exchanged for fictional issues like Same Sex Marriages to instill fear. Do not fear.
Solve the problem once and for all...
Vote this November!

"It must be recognized that the sole purpose of sex and marriage is the procreation of children. People who cannot procreate should not be permitted to marry. People should not be permitted to marry until after they are examined by a doctor to determine whether they will be able to procreate. If they are unable to procreate, they must abstain from sex in addition to remaining single. If a couple is married for more than 2 years and the wife has not become pregnant, the marriage should be annulled after which the two must abstain from sex. When a wife reaches manapause, then the couple must abstain from sex. Moreover, married couples should be required to produce a child every five years, after the first child."-originally posted by 'FRE'

LOL-are you for real?!

CMorris, I guess you've never heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right." How do you rehab a child molestor? And, if it's possible do so, shouldn't it then be possible to rehab a homosexual?

Let's see, traditionally marriage has been arranged and not of free will and usually included business trades between families and usually and historically consisted of polygamy, not monogamy. These are modern alterations. But if conservative republicans want to "protect" marriage, should they not concentrate their legislative genius to banning drive-thru wedding chapels and making it harder to divorce. What is sacred and protection worthy of having Elvis marry you in a car through a window??!! Why is adultery not a crime? All the same arguments used today to thwart gay marriage were used to fight interracial marriage...do we ever learn. If tradition is sacred I guess we need to drive those slaves back to plantation and start smoking like fiends again, and why not prescribe coke to women for hysteria. But the last time i checked, this country was supposed to be the home of the BRAVE and FREE. How can we support a war that claims to spread freedom and democracy when we can't even elect our own president. Last time i checked Bush was not the popular vote of choice in his first term. Obviously this country and government lost sight of Freedom and Equality. Maybe we should work on this country before we "fix" others. Or how about we follow our creed and constitution and let bygones be bygones. Live and let live. I certainly don't tell anyone else how to live and certainly dont believe that anyone should tell me how to live. This is supposed to be a FREE country, well i can't smoke at a restaurant, i can't get married, i can't eat foie gras at that resaurant either, i can't drink a beer while taking a walk and i can't hold my partners hand without dirty looks while teenagers practically have sex on the streets and i can't get medical attention without paying an arm and a leg, and if i was a govt employee i recently lost my freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution while on the job, i can't make international calls without the govt tapping in and it seems that the difference between the US and China or Iran or any other dictatorship is beginning to blur. Freedom comes at a price, but that price should not be the loss of freedoms and rights!!!!

If the right wing zealots want to believe in the one extreme of their ridiculous fears (allowing people to marry animals, etc.), then you also have to allow for the posibility of the other extreme. If these conservative bigots are allowed to discriminate against certain individual's freedom what is to stop them from discrimanting against others. Next on the agenda for conservative: Muslims can not be married, Jews can not be married. No interracial marriages would be allowed. Only a white heterosexual Christian marriage would be valid. The type of discrimaintion they are proposing to the constitution is in line with the apartheid laws of South Africa years ago.

I also think we are concentrating on the wrong document here. Forget the constitution for a second. Take a look at the Declaration of Independence, it states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When did conservatives get to decide what someone else's Life, Liberty or Happiness should be and how one pursues it?

Thousands of years monogamous marriage...please...can't you go to the local museum and look at two thousand year old greek pottery with depictions of homosexual acts on them. This is not a new concept, as long as humans have had sexuality outside of procreation, there have been oddities. Let's see, homosexuality, Sadism/Masochism, pedophilia (once widely tolerated)and the list of debaucherous acts goes on...So let's all get along and get educated whilst we are at it. For it seems to me that most of the so called conservatives have a severe lack of ecducation and understanding. I also believe that it was once legal in many states to marry your farm animals, yes, people in Kentucky once enjoyed the ability to marry their horse (upon proving it to be a consentual(?) relationship) but two adults cannot choose to have a monogamous relationship with all the same rights as anyoe else...THAT IS CALLED DISCRIMINATION!!

"When to gays procrate, I'll vote for gay marriage"
- Posted above

Silly bigot, posting comments on the web is for the educated. Go back to scribbling on the bathroom walls at Hooters.

Byron Palmer:

Neither marriage nor family are tied to the ability to procreate. Many heterosexual couples marry and choose not to (or are unable to) have children. They may live without children. They may adopt. Either way, their lives can be perfectly fulfilling. There are no amendments proposing intolerance of their definition of family. Gay and lesbian couples are just as capable of having this type of family.

If marriage/family are rooted in procreation, where then does adoption come into play?

the thing i find most interesting about these deabates is the argument by conservatives that laws should reflect the will of the people. it was not the will of the people to give women the right to vote when that happened. it was also quite unpopular in southern states when segregation was abolished. that doesn't mean that these decisions were wrong. in fact, they were right, just unpopular. if this is to be a free country, than everybody should have the exact same rights as everybody else. period. freedom isn't about liking everything around you. there must also be a level of tolerance of things we disagree with. i'm amazed that the president and his republican allies will make speeches about how important freedom is, and then try to pass legislation that says the opposite. when fear and ignorance rule, nobody wins.

There is no such thing as traditional marriage even in the Bible. Check the multiple wives and children of unmarried couples in the Bible. Furhermore this is a state, not a federal issue. I wish conservatives would follow the law rather than continually attempt to enforce their version of morality any w3ay they can. This activist judge argument is nonsense. Judges are enforcing existing law, which does not bar same-sex marriage. The activists are the ones trying to shape their vision into law and force it on everyone.

Greg, I've heard the lie about how America is based on Christian values and you know what? NO ONE, repeat not a single person, has given a solid example. Few have even tried to justify their claim. We have freedom of religion in this country. That means you can't say, "my god says so" as a justification for a law.

Maybe this is a good thing. Judging by how the administration has dealt with issues in the past, maybe now we can declare a "War on the Gays", and at the very least this will bring our troops home to defend truth, justice, and the heterosexual way.

Dienne, Jon,

For me it's not about the homosexual - the person - it's about the act.
I dearly love other men in my life, but that don't make me a homosexual. It's the "consentual"
acts that is being talked about. If something is consentual now it makes it OK??? Please, some inteligent person explain. My neighbor, whose son consentually killed himself, would like to know.

It's the desire within to have family and procreate that defines hetrosexual. If you have these desires within then you are not homosexual.

C. Morris, has Focus on the Family said anything about people who are willfully single and childless? I suppose they think we should just be shot for not going along with God's Plan.

I'd go look myself, but it seems you've already done the research, and frankly, those people give me the creeps.

I don't know (and I think the scientists are still trying to figure it out) whether a person becomes gay as a result of genetics or as a result of events/experiences of early childhood upbringing - but I am sure it does not happen as a result of choice or preference.

Even if God hates homosexuality - which I doubt - I believe he loves gays as much as he loves straights and would like them to be loved and happy in their lives.

I bet God probably dislikes intolerant conservative morons who cannot live and let live and follow the Golden Rule more than anything.

So far, I haven't seen anything that specifies in what way gay marriage will actually hurt straight marriage. If gay marriage is legal, will that mean straight marriage isn't? Will all the straight people suddenly have to get divorced? True, over half of them choose to divorce already, but I guess that's to protect the family too, right?

Byron,

"It's the desire within to have family and procreate that defines hetrosexual. If you have these desires within then you are not homosexual." Wow. So, if one has no desire to have a family and procreate, then one is homosexual by definition? Then I know more gay people than I thought I did (and a lot of those are married too).

So you admit it - the act creeps you out. Fine. But no one is asking you to do it, or even look at it or think about it, any more than you need to worry about what your straight neighbor is doing with his wife or girlfriend in the privacy of their bedroom. All people are asking for is the right to do it themselves if that's what they and a consenting partner want to do within their consenting relationship.

Furthermore, I will say it again, even though for you it is about the act, the issue of gay marriage is not about the act, it is about marriage - the right to love care for and provide for whom we choose. I read the advice columnists most days, and judging by their mail, there are plenty of married couple out there who have everything from "kinky" sex to no sex at all. For that matter, there are plenty of single, heterosexual people who have all kinds of sex who have no intention of getting married. The kind or amount of sex does not define the relationship. The key is how the parties involved define their relationship in terms of love, respect and commitment.

Finally, as to your comparison of consenting to homosexual sex and consenting to suicide, if you can't see how sadly wrong such a comparison is, I'm not sure how I can help you out. Life and love vs. death and destruction? Get it? Can anyone else help out Byron? If you can come up with a better example of an act between consenting adults that is still wrong, I will consider your point, but until then, I will say, yes, anything consentually agreed to by all involved parties is OK.

Gay marriage? The issue on hand is a bigger picture. Is national security at stake? Does it lead to social descontruction? Is there an economic risk? The answers are all NO. That is the bigger picture.

The root of the argument is based on religious ideologies, and it is a paradox for such moral sentiments be dictated from a fascist political group.

Cheryl,
A good search is 'deliberate childlessness moral rebellion'
Here are just two two articles.

www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050813/OPINION04/508130341/1016/OPINION

www.gender-news.com/other.php?id=23

I don't know if Focus/Family has said anything official, but Mr. Dobson has said deliberate childlessness is bad.

****************

Jay,
Of course you are correct, and I agree, two wrongs don't make a right.

Re. rehabing a child molester;
We have to try. Why? These people are not being jailed for life. If they get ten years we need to use that time to try rehab them.

Very interesting. Why does everyone think that the only reason to marry someone is to procreate? Do you not marry because you love that person unconditionally and want to spend your entire life with that person?

Not everyone in the world gets married and throws birth control out the window, there are plenty of people that get married not wanting children, cannot get pregnant, and are impotent or sterile. Should the constitution be changed to disallow these people from being married?

Besides in your tiny bible thumping mind where does the law state that the only reason to marry is have children? It doesn't! As a homosexual if we want to have children (and I do), we are resourceful enough to know how to have them.

Have you ever looked at how many children are put up for adoption each year because of unwanted pregnancies? Have you ever looked at the amount of children born each year by unwed mothers? Have you ever looked at how many abortions are conducted each year by teenage girls?

So maybe you haven't ever read a newspaper, listened to the TV or radio news, or have gotten beyond your own narrow minded view to actually listen to what is going on in the world today. If this is the case than here’s a newsflash for you...marriage is not a license to procreate, it is done everyday it happens whether your married or not with or without your married partner.

Hey!

Didn't Mr. Frist say he was going to keep fighting after Terri's law was struck down?

I wonder how that project is going??

Anyone know?

You liberals can continue to add homosexuality and gay marriage to every form of media in your attempt to pursuade America that it is "normal", but the vast majority of people will always agree that it is wrong. It is a sexual perversion that should be dealt with like-wise. Thanks for trying to make marriage a mockory.

I will not run for cogress and spelling is not my best issue lol .But as you all can see this is a wedge issue that just being used to devide America.My full time job is taken care of veterans.

Dale Peters
Republican Head of
Veterans For Progress IL.

Beau,

The *vast majority* of people agree that homosexuality is wrong? Cite your sources, please - I'd love to see that poll. Even if you could cite a source for such an assertion, that wouldn't make their opinion correct. Afterall, the vast majority of Germans in the 30s and 40s believed that the Jews were a cancer on the superior society of Aryans and should be eliminated. A majority of White southerners believed that slavery was just dandy. History has shown over and over that the vast majority of people can be vastly wrong.

I debated this topic last night on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. As you can see in this video, I clearly lost the debate. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkLxVgXSveA&search=daily%20show%20bill%20bennett

I think I may have an animal marital arrangement.

My wife is constantly telling me to "speak.""Come." "Roll over." She constantly complains about cleaning up after me. I can catch a frisbee -- she can't.

Should I change parties?

Dale says,

"I will not run for cogress and spelling is not my best issue lol .But as you all can see this is a wedge issue that just being used to devide America.My full time job is taken care of veterans.
Dale Peters
Republican Head of
Veterans For Progress IL."

So, Dale, you are living proof of the old adage; "The last refuge of the scoundrel is patriotism" ??

**************

"You liberals can continue to add homosexuality and gay marriage to every form of media in your attempt to pursuade America that it is "normal", but the vast majority of people will always agree that it is wrong. It is a sexual perversion that should be dealt with like-wise. Thanks for trying to make marriage a mockory." (Beau)

So Beau, you intend to fight sexual perversion in a "likewise" manner, by perverting the Constitution of the United States?

There really isn't even any evidence which clearly states that homosexuality is genetic, instead of a maladaptive behavior disorder. Society really doesn't have a mandate to recognize homosexuality without scientific evidence. It's playing with fire to permit gay marriage. I would not mind it so much if there were some provision prohibiting gay couples from adopting children. There is no such thing as a "homosexual" family.

Marsha, Marsha, Marsha,
Toss out those circa 1954 psych books.
As far as your opinions on "homsexual families", I would trust my childs' care to a gay or lesbian couple, HANDS DOWN, before I would ever put my child into the arms of a hateful person like you.

Marsha,

Your comment, "There really isn't even any evidence which clearly states that homosexuality is genetic, instead of a maladaptive behavior disorder." is not only ignorant, but also simple minded.

I am 26, raised in the tradtional "all-American", north-suburban, sheltered family setting, played sports, have three brothers, and somehow I turned out gay. Your arguement that somehow being gay is a behavioral disorder just doesnt hold weight; I knew I was gay even before I had ever heard the word gay. It's as simple as I am sure you knew that you were straight before you knew what straight meant. Why in God's name would I choose to put myself thru the stress and strain of being different, of being discriminated against? Moreovoer, what in God's name did my parents do wrong in raising me the best way they could? Somehow they didnt raise me in the behavorial mode that would have made me straight? Was it they offered too much love?

Years from now comments and opinions like yours will be regarded in the same manner that comments about African-Americans were made in the past.

I can only hope that if in the future you have a son or daughter that turns out to be gay that you wont be as judgemental. Nor, do I hope, that you wont look back upon your upbringing of your gay child and wish you had done it in a more "straight" manner.

The devil is in the details. Consider, w/o the ranting, the following:

We all know why relatives cannot get married in aone man and one woman marriage, but if gay marriage is allowed, can two brothers get married? Father and son? Mother and daughter? Assume all of the age of majority and none of the above are currently married.

If gay marriage is allowed, somewhere down the road the poligamists (pardon my spelling)are going to ask, "Why not us?" What would be the answer. Some history to consider, many of you know poligamy used to be illegal in the territory of Utah, but in order for Utah to becomne a state, Congress required (requested) that Utah ban poligamy.

Please, no screaming, just some rational answers.

Boy, I hope my guilt is cured by letting a union of the same sex be put on the same plane as a heterosexual couple. I mean, I have to be a good person by thinking that someone who lacks the basic desire necessary to facilitate procreation is normal. Come on...that takes a lot!

I mean I've already tried everything else. Rainforests, I gave Communism a try, a few AIDS walks, PETA, Heck...I even sold my SUV and staged a "die in" at city hall. I still feel like crap.

Man, if this doesn't work, I'm going to have to find a new fashionable worry to make me feel good again.

Anyone know of a good cause? Save the Sheep or something?

Thanks Kuhnewer,

I needed a good laugh today. spellifies.great.

I am so tired of hearing homosexual people whine about their rights to marriage. Is it not enough that we have to see these abominable acts in public, on tv and everywhere we turn? We live in a very wicked world. You don't want to believe in GOD and HIS laws. NOT MAN's LAWS!!!! Man is nothing!!!! Humans spend so much time and energy debating laws made by man. They don't want to be obedient to GOD's laws. There should not even be a controversy concerning this and we are trying to make something right that HE has commanded us not to do. Mankind with mankind and womankind with womankind is confusion. This should not be happening. But, as man has done since the beginning of time, we will continue to be disobedient to the word of God. Whether you want to believe it or not, homosexuality or any sexual acts outside of marriage that is not sanctioned by God, according to Leviticus 18:22-30. All these are abominations and a stink in God's nostrils. And we wonder and marvel at all the natural contastrophes that have been happening re