from Brad's Ten-Foot Poll on gay marriage Comments
are stacked, that is, the first Comment is at the bottom, second
Comment is second from bottom, last message is at top.
of worrying about gay marriages, he should be more concerned about
finding ways to keep heterosexual marriages intact and reducing
the divorce rate. To say that gay marriages alter the definition
of marriage is a joke. Cheating spouses and spousal abuse alter
the definitions of marriage but I don't hear him speaking out
against that. I suppose his own brother's marriage and divorce
are okay then since they were heteros.
I think we should get government out of the marriage business
altogether. Let citizens marry the partner of their choice in
the religious or secular institution of their choice. Loving,
committed families are good for society and they come in many
I'm just stupid spam suckin' trailer trash (albeit a double wide).
I'm also a male, heterosexual gringo, so I can't be expected to
know much about these things. BUT (or BUTT, not sue about the
spelling) if we're going to use the Constitution to define things
let's go ahead and define everything within this one amendment.
Let's define the "war on drugs".(DEA guys can shoot
little girls); War on terror (guv agents can shoot anybody); War
on this, war on that ( kill 'em all) Hell, I've considered myself
a conservative GOP'er for decades, but I'm beginning to think
(what a concept!!) that the Dixie Chicks might be (oughtabe) a
viable 3rd party.
Left leaning weanies have forced this on us!
I just read some of the comments and felt the need to come back
and make another. We need an amendment limiting marriage to people
who can spell. Those who can't spell don't deserve equal protection
under the law. And we certainly don't need them to reproduce!
It's nice to see that the people taking this poll for the most
part have not abandoned true conservatism. It's nice to see the
fringe radical right properly in the minority (at least at this
IF there has to be an amendment let the gay proponants apply for
the amendment rather than the folks who feel the Constitution
is just fine as it is. I would much prefer to see an amendment
controlling the Federal Judges passing on opinions to met their
own adgendas regardless of what the Constitution says.
Just another instance of the fanatical religious rights march
toward a Theocracy
somebody needs to take control of the usa i thank God every day
for Pres. Bush and his strong faith
Having read some of the recent comments I had to come back and
comment again. One comment shows abject ignorance about the natural
world. Homosexuality has been documented in more than 450 species
of life. See Bruce Baghemil's book, "Biological Exhuberance."
And another comment is so bizarre as to be laughable. What on
earth makes that idiot think marriage will suddently cause gays
to have sex in public? Further, these people seem to be blissfully
unaware of the fact that civil marriage provides 1,049 benefits
and protections at the federal level alone. That's not even counting
benefits and protections at state, county, municipal, and private
levels. See http://www.ralliance.org/1049.html
Shrub must be getting panicky. And it's so early in the election
I THOUGHT I WAS ALSO AN AMERICAN AND COULD PURSUE MY HAPPINESS!
OR IS THAT PURSUE YOUR HAPPINESS UNLESS YOU ARE GAY!
There are no other animals that are homosexuals--only humans.
Doesn't that tell you something?
I personally don't give a rats a-- -- but our children should
not be subject to this dog eat dog lip locking that will go on
in public. The impact would be mind boggling could you image a
couple of gays one being a teacher kissing bye-bye lip locking
in there car before entering school to teach your child whats
right and wrong, give me a back it opens to many cans believe
It may not be valid for our national government but if we continue
to stand by and allow liberal's to circumvent the role of law
we are headed down a slippery slope that we will never climb out
of, make no mistake about it this is a culture war and if don't
stop this we will become a secular nation where anything goes,
is that what we want???????????????????
Unless the government wishes to make them exempt from paying income
taxes, payroll taxes, etc., the government has no right to declare
they are not allowed the full rights and privileges of other citizens.
Good Grief!! These people are not hurting anybody. Is this all
these idiots have to raise hell about? Who cares if same-sex people
care about each other. Is this somehow a threat to these holier-than-thou
people who oppose it? What is their problem. There are much more
important things to worry about. I find this whole thing just
leave it up to the states
they can get lawyers to do the will stuff
agree..it's disgusting to see the same sex doing anything in public..keep
it in the closet
I know this country has some really BIG problems, but I also think
our morality is going straight down the tubes. Maybe this will
help establish some boundaries
I didn't think Bush could get any more embarrasing. And then today
Stay out of our personal affairs
I don't understand the uproar. We allow junkies to consider themselves
disabled to received Govt money, so why the worry over gay benefits?
Where is God, are we coming to the end?
Bush must be getting awfully desperate if he has to resort to
this sort of gaybashing to gain support.
Its only a valid topic for national government because the states
can not do their own thing in this area.
i oppose same sex marriage and i oppose homosexuality. if gays
want to live together and inherit then they can do so by making
wills. what is all the ruckus about. it appears that they want
approval from the straight community and marriage is there way
of justifying their actions
an amendment to ban flag burning would make flag burning illegal
this does nothing! This is akin to not allowing gays to have a
drivers license but they can still drive Bush must be desparate
for a diversion
I hope all of those persons that think this is not a valid topic
for government live in one state & that state is not Texas.
Thank God for President Bush for standing up against the faggots.
To Hell with their "marriage"
Hindu religous law says a 60 year old man can marry a 12 year
old girl. In Brazil 1st cousins can marry in the Catholic church.
In West Africa, a man can marry over 100 wives. In Mexico a 50
year old man can marry a 10 year old girl with the familys
permission. No one cares. Gay marriage who cares? The right wing
nut cases do. They say it is the deterioration of our culture.
The very same culture they claim has been deteriorating since
1950. Scaaaaary. Really bad when have government in our lives
to this extent.
Let them wed and pay the marrigage tax! Hell, it would dissolve
the budget defecit!!! :)
Brad, Sadly to say,'Dubya's' at it again. What a goofball, doesn't
he know about the 10th? Bruce N. Mt. Home, TX.
Our uniter not a divider president is using this as a wedge issue
to distract us from real issues in the election.
Bush is playing a silly little game to distract people away from
the real issues of importance, issues like his profligate spending,
his lies, trying to persuade us that the exporting of American
jobs overseas is good for the economy, etc. C'mon, Bush, we're
not all as stupid as you are.
Enough with the wacko gay/lesbo agenda let them go back in the
closet where they belong
Dubya is a shameless prostitute for the right wing christian zealots
Since when did anyone's civil rights become a matter for debate...?
I disagree with same sex unions, I do not believe they whould
be allowed to be married, and we have entirely to many rules and
laws already. But Mr. can invade a country for any reason, thinks
he can do what ever he wants. Maybe this will define the guy.
Simple pandering for votes.
Aside from the fact that there are surely more pressing concerns,
this should not be addressed as a Constitutional Amendment, but
rather let the individual states decide what course they are willing
I think they should let them get married. They let dog's get married
so if they outlaw this they are putting them below dogs.
I don't believe the government should stick their nose in this
issue. It also amazes at how people pick and choose the parts
of the bible they want to follow and when they want to follow
He is just posing. He knows perfectly well that this will go nowhere
but he will be viewed as a hero by his base of fanatical right
It is discrimination to not allow gays the right to marry. Religion
must be kept out of it.
Fags are voting on more than one computer. To go from a tie to
2 to 1 means a block vote and a fix.
It is just another ploy by the president to distract voters from
the real failures of his administration. He is apparently willing
to wreak permanent damage to our constitution to deflect criticism
away from his failed ecconomic, foreign and domestic policies
Who cares? I am more concerned about the fact Mel Gibson's dad
thinks that Nazi Germany never killed any Jews.
I'm all for everyone participating in the marriage penalty and
making a commitment. Lawyers will love the increase in divorce
fees and will common-law apply?
This administration has done everything possible to veil what
is happening in Iraq and Afganistan. If Pres. Bush really wants
to pull a doosie, He should fly to California and marry Arnie.
At least we know where he stands.
Why not get rid of the liberal judges and JUST ENFORCE THE LAW!
Good for him!!
Again, so much for compassionate conservatism and states
I just want to mention that there is a claus in the Constitution
(full faith and credit claus, Article 4: Section 1) that requires
every state to recognize licenses issued in another state. The
Federal government did respond to this by passing the "Defense
of Marriage Act," which does define marriage, specifically,
as a union between a man and a woman.
Bush continues to abuse his powers. He should be relieved from
office by the same court that put him into office. He definately
doesn't know how to run this country because if he did he would
see that his powers are limited by the constitution. He has done
more than any president to TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS, i.e. Constitutional
Rights and Human Rights. He is a deplorable
This man is scary!!!
I agree that marriage should be only between a man and a woman
and since the state sanctions marriage through its liscensing
then it has the responsibility and duty to define it. I support
President Bush in calling for a Constitutional Amendment defining
marriage as between a man and a woman only - effectively banning
same sex marriage
it should be a local and/or church issue not a fed issue
I agree with him. If the government uses marriatal status for
taxes then they should define the term. The religious and government
definitions don't have to coincide just as religious and secular
laws aren't identical.
For better or for worse--let the states do thir job!!! jay
none of the goverments buisness
Enough with the wacko gay/lesbo agenda let them go back in the
closet where they belong
add; furthermore any such marriage between a man and a woman,
in order to further strengthen the pureness of this union, could
only be dissolved by a 3/4 vote of Congress.
Brad you sure have a knack for pissing people off.
the definition of "marriage" is between a man and a
woman... when our government sees that the states are doing something
WRONG then, yes it should step in and try to correct the wrongness
Smells like a election year smokescreen to me.
Here is the text of the proposed amendment: Marriage in the United
States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither
this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state
or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status
or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples
or groups. It sure seems to me that the language,"legal incidents
thereof" can be construed to cut out a lot of other issues
that affect gay people, not just the marriage idea.
I think it's a cheap political trick attempting to recover the
religious extremist support he's been losing.
BRAD, YOU'RE AN IDIOT.
Wouldn't J. Edgar Hoover be proud of George W. and Karl Rove.
Where was Uncle Sam when I got married. If anyone needed protection
from marriage, it was me!!
The dictionary DOES NOT specify a man and a woman. It DOES specify
Wow, I can't believe the results of this poll. President Bush
DID leave the door open for states to make civil unions legal.
I do NOT want marriage redefined by absolutely anyone who feels
they have a valid point. Thanks
Keep the federal toadies out of peoples private lives--and stop
messing with things that are state and local issues.
Gotta have some common sense in our country.
How about the sancitity of the Constitution?
State's Rights Issue. However, I do worry about how the "gay
people" can and do get their agenda out in the public, and
get it passed. This is always done under the basis of discrimination.
And "straight people" get the shaft when we try to get
our agenda and issues out in the public. i.e....pink triangles
at school, tax money paying for their sex-change operations, gay-pride
parades (but if we have a straight parade, they scream at us).....and
the media....are all media outlets owned by gays or transexuals?
I feel there are enough problems Bush needs to deal with this
is not one of them. Maybe he should talk to his brother Neil about
marriage. It used to be people of different races could not get
married that was wrong also. If it is not hurting anyone they
should go for it. Sandra Ortez.
The queer crowd will get their way EVENTUALLY but the more road
blocks to their adjenda the better - we don't need our nation
to approve ove their adjenda -- Sodom was distroyed for this sinful
what a waste of time, CLOSE THE BORDER GEORGE!!
i think this is a topic that the states should be dealing with.
He's pandering to the religious right; traditional marriage (though
I've happily been in one for 39 years) is hardly failure-proof
these days with its 50% divorce rate. Let's have justice for all.
Brad, I hope nobody who is divorced votes for the "sanctity"
Its time that we stop catering to Minority Groups trying to rule
The whole purpose of Bush and this amendment is to 1. Satisfy
those crazy far right religion nuts that have hijacked the Republican
party and 2. Keep everyone's attention AWAY from important issues
like the economy, the war in Iraq, the lies that this administration
has told since the beginning, and any other thing that Bush needs
the voters to not be thinking about now as they contemplate who
to vote for in November.