Republicans Fail to Pass Gay Marriage Amendment

This post was written by marc on October 1, 2004
Posted Under: Politics

Letter to the Editor

Some things change and some things stay the same. What’s the same are Republicans trying to amend the Constitution on an election year. But what’s different is that in the good old days – instead of an amendment barring gay marriage – they used to try to pass a balanced budget amendment. But with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate and with a Republican president and the biggest deficit in the history of the world – you won’t see a balanced budget amendment any time soon.

Reader Comments

Hopefully, that will stop people from posting under other people’s name. But at the same don’t become like the SocailistRepublic site where the moderator pulls your comments when you beat them at their argument. The Freepers kicked me off for being too far to the right on some issues. I guess me being so far to the right made them look like lefties, and they could not handle it.

Written By tomocius on October 2nd, 2004 @ 7:46 am

I think that instead of passing a gay marriage the government ought to first consider long and hard where they want to draw the line. If they are not willing to allow marriage to everyone (not just gays and hetros) but any and everyone, they should just get out of the marriage business all together. If you are for this gay marriage thing you better be ready to take it further.

My thought, get out of the marrage business.

Written By tomocius on October 2nd, 2004 @ 6:24 pm

On the planet I come from, gays and hetros pretty much include everybody. Who else is wanting marriages that we should consider?

Written By Jay on October 2nd, 2004 @ 7:52 pm

What planet are you from?

First thing is first. I have yet to hear a single gay person argue about the gay marriage amendment because they want to spend the rest of their life with someone. The argument always centers around some kind of benefit, healthcare, social security, etc. If gays want to get married so that they can participate in benefits, then others should be afforded the same opportunity.

Now, there are two other groups. The first is Bi-sexuals. If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow bi-sexual marriage. If I were I bi-sexual and wanted to marry both of my partners, you have to allow me to marry both of my partners. Both of my partners should then be allowed to receive healthcare, social security, etc. Any benefit that goes to hetros, and gays should go to both my spouses. If not allowing gay marriage is discriminitory, then not allowing bi-sexuals not to marry is just as discriminitory.

The next group is non-sexual partners. If gays can get married, then you must allow marriage between father and son, mother and daughter, mother and son, and father and daughter. My wife’s father is worth millions. When he dies and she inherits his estate the government will take half of the worth of the estate in death taxes. But, if she were allowed to marry her father, at the time of his death she would get the WHOLE estate as a spouse, no taxes owed. The same is true with my mother.

Now, if you allow bi marriages, then you have to allow tri marriages, and quad marriages, and quint marriages. It never stops. If a man is worth a billion dollars at the time of his death the government will tax his estate 500 million dollars. Let say that he has seven offsprings. They would split 500 million between themselves. If the father married all of his offspring, the seven would split a billion dollars.

Now, Mr. Liberal, how do you handle this mess?

I am in total support of gays getting married, if they are in support of my idea that any number of consenting adults can get married for any reason.

How about you?

Written By tomocius on October 3rd, 2004 @ 11:30 am

It’s really quite simple. Even if you are bi-sexual, you would choose to either marry somebody of your own gender, which would be a gay marriage or you would marry somebody of the opposite gender, which would be a hetro marriage. Even if you decide that you just can’t find anybody but your hand to have sex with…I’m not sure why you would worry about the need to marry yourself. What would you do if you decided to divorce? Cut off your hand?

Now…How do I handle the “mess” of people who wish to have multiple marriages? I don’t. I know people (mostly conservatives, btw) who have had mutliple marriages. I can’t see that there would be any difference if they had them all at the same time other than it would be expensive as hell. But who am I to tell somebody how to live their life? As for those who have some desire to marry members of their own family…I’m about the same way. You want to marry your mother? If she’ll have you, go for it. It doesn’t impact my life one little bit and if it is what you need to fulfill yours, all the better.

See? This is the issue. Marriage is a personal thing. It is not up to you to decide whether two other people should get married. Nobody gives a damn who your potential spouse’s gender is, so why on earth would you spend so much of your time worrying about others?

Anyway, back to the subject, why do you suppose that the Republicans are so hot with this ammendment yet have somehow completely forgotten their love affair with the balanced budget ammendment? Will we see them revise this central plank of the party now that we are enjoying the largest deficit in history thanks to four years of the monkey in chief?

Written By Jay on October 3rd, 2004 @ 12:37 pm

How about this, no one get married and everyone alowed civil unions, marraige is somthing the church does, and I agree with extreme seperation between church and state.

Written By Joshua Gillogly on October 3rd, 2004 @ 4:21 pm

I think that the Republicans know that we will NEVER have a balanced budget in this country again. For as long as the amount of people at the government trough grows, and only 2% of the people in this country pay for the other 98% who are at the trough, you will never balance a budget. In order to balance a budget you have spend less than you take in, and with all the “dependants” who think that they are “entitled” to something it is impossible to spend less than you take in.

Now, if you try to tell me that Bill Clinton had a balanced budget I will understand that you absolutely nothing about budgets and will cease the conversation about budgets. We are a nation whose debt has done nothing but grow. We are a nation whose debt will continue to grow as long as our government does not control its own monetary system, which it never will. Fiscally, it is lights out.

On the multiple marriage thing, it would not be expensive if my mother married all four of her sons. She provides for herself, and we all provide for ourselves. The marriage would be just to fuck Uncle Sam out of my parents hard earned saving. Which, BTW, they want to balance that budget that you are screaming about. That is the governments only way out of this mess. They cannot wait until the elderly who have saved big money start dying so that they can confiscate death tax dollars.

Written By tomocius on October 3rd, 2004 @ 7:48 pm

If you look at the piecharts published in the 1040 booklets (government mails out about 100 million every year) you’ll notice 40% of revenue comes from people filing 1040s. 43% of outlays are for transfer payments (welfare, food stamps, etc) and payment on national debt. So the government’s own figures prove folks who file 1040’s don’t get 1 nickel of government service from all those taxes, but still think the sky will fall if they stop filing. America – land of the sheepish and home of the depraved.

Written By Some Guy on October 4th, 2004 @ 11:12 am

Josh, You and I are in near total agreement. The state has absolutely no business being the marriage business. About these civil unions, are you in support of multiple partners in these civil unions?

Written By tomocius on October 4th, 2004 @ 3:09 pm

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Previose Post: