Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I won't state an opinion on gay marriages, but I think, as Republican, that such an admendment is _STUPID_. The Constitution and its admendments should be used as political fodder. IMHO admendments should used for changing how we run our country (25), our government (27), or righting previous assumptions (13,14,15,19,24). An amendment of the type the President is talking about is just window dressing and is embarassing as 18 and the following 21.
    • I am not for same-sex marriages but not for religious reasons. I am not for an amendment either. I hope it does not come to that.
    • Yes. I oppose this amendment even more than I oppose ERA. ERA was dumb because it was entirely redundant, but at least it wouldn't really have done any harm (in addition to doing nothing beneficial). However, for someone who believes that the state should keep marriage between a man and a woman, a Constitutional amendment is probably the only way to do it.

      My political take on this is that Bush doesn't want it, but supported it for two reasons: 1. the gay rights activists pushed him into it, because (as
      • I actually do not think the election was his main motivation. I won't say it wasn't "a" motivation but I don't believe it was "the" motivation. I think the Massachusettes decision was a wake-me-up about Judicial predjudice and I also think that San Francisco blantantly issuing marriage licenses against the law really forced it at this time.

        I just hope it doesn't come to an amendment.