Central Scrutinizer Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 "The Democratic-dominated Assembly passed the measure, but the Republican-led Senate has refused to call a vote on it." Why won't the GOP senate pols let there BE a vote on it? Huh? I'd say the ones blocking the Democratic process are the Republicans. Let there be a vote in the legislature. Fair enough don't you think? You wouldn't have this problem of others trying to get around these sort of controversial measures through dodgy means if you'd just let the process of democracy work the way it should! Let the senate vote on it, and let the people vote on the question in a true referendum to see exactly what the people want. I think you'll find the people, according to most polls taken over the past few years, will vote for gay marriage. Except in the ultra-conservative zealously religious Christian enclaves in the mid-west, who collectively would not amount to a majority if a federal referendum vote were done on the question of gay marriage. I think the majority of adult Americans could not care less who marries who, as long as the partners are of age and consenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Must have been a combination of gay marriages news and Fidel's Pakistan post that suddenly brought up an Indian matrimonial site on the bottom of this thread. Nice looking chick in the photo. Too bad Indian gals have a short shelf life. They are stunners when young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 p.s. Now back to the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Yeah ..they get big real quick.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Cent...I'm not sure if NY has an initiative process or not. If so, that would be the way to go if enough folks are interested in pushing a matter a legislature is avoiding an issue. We have that available in CA thank God. Politicians have little backbone on some issues and the initiative is great for overcoming that problem. The downside is that too many initiatives are instigated by special interest groups who stand to benefit monetarily; the result is often a laundry list of money grabs disguised as something "good" for the State. I routinely vote no on 90% of initiatives. However, I intend to vote "yes" on the November state constitutional proposition which would ban gay "marriage". Gays already enjoy the benefits of a traditional marriage under CA's "union" law. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 If they *really* do, then why vote no? What harm does it do you? Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 It corrupts the traditional definition of the term "marriage". I have no doubt that gays are only wanting to be "married" so as to advance the notion that they are "mainstream" lifestyle...no different than most folks. Of course, this is not true. Otherwise they would be happy with the ability to share the same rights as "married" heterosexuals without being "married". It's just bullshit. Why should a heterosexual have to apply for a marriage license and be identified as "Partner A"? Just to satisfy a small minority of the population. I, for one, don't think I need to make concessions to a group I don't belong to. They have "unions"; leave it at that. Why is it soooooooooooooo important that they be considered "married"? What's next? Being able to be "married" to your sister or mother? How about your dog? HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Do they have the exact same legal rights in all aspects of life? I think not (I could be wrong, and then apologize if so). If not, it is *not* the same and they deserve the *exact* same rights as any other married folk. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USVirgin Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 What's next? Being able to be "married" to your sister or mother? How about your dog? As long as your dog can be same sex, then I'm fine with it, 'cuz the pugs I've owned that I would really consider to be "marriage material" were all male. And, before anyone starts, 'leg humping' is not a 'gay thing'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 i'm hoping for iranian global dominance to end this nonsense once and for all! :smirk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.