#26
Posted: 1/25/05 at 4:31pm
I refuse to believe that the people in this country are THAT close-minded to get this amendment through...when we have only 27 amendments after all these years.
Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Re-introduced — Page 2
#27
Posted: 1/25/05 at 4:36pm
Well, I'm from the SF bay area. So, it's not like we haven't tried.
#28
Posted: 1/25/05 at 4:42pm
GO SF!
(although I must say...what Gavin Newsom did was a bit impulsive. Oh well.)
(although I must say...what Gavin Newsom did was a bit impulsive. Oh well.)
#29
Posted: 1/25/05 at 8:34pm
This is disgusting. Can you imagine if anyone tried to pass a law saying, for example, black people couldn't get married? We'd call it discrimination. How is this any different? I'm so glad I live in Canada.
"The important thing is not that we can live on hope alone, but that life is not worth living without it." - Harvey Milk
#30
Posted: 1/25/05 at 9:42pm
"I'm heading for Canada"
Not me. I'm not going to let some lying, war-mongering, English language mangling, red-neck, homophobic, bible-thumping, National Guard service avoiding, drunk-driving, idiotic good old boy run me out of my country.
Not me. I'm not going to let some lying, war-mongering, English language mangling, red-neck, homophobic, bible-thumping, National Guard service avoiding, drunk-driving, idiotic good old boy run me out of my country.
#31
Posted: 1/26/05 at 12:49am
There was a time when it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person.
http://marriage.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csmonitor.com%2Fdurable%2F2001%2F07%2F25%2Fp15s1.htm
and you must take a look at this page:
http://www.buddybuddy.com/quiz-1.html
my favorite things that were said about interracial marriage from 1823-1964 (see if they sound familiar at all):
Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent “traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior,” and entered into by “the dregs of society.”
A ban on this type of marriage is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican congressman from Illinois, because it “applies equally to men and women.”
“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”
This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”
http://marriage.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csmonitor.com%2Fdurable%2F2001%2F07%2F25%2Fp15s1.htm
and you must take a look at this page:
http://www.buddybuddy.com/quiz-1.html
my favorite things that were said about interracial marriage from 1823-1964 (see if they sound familiar at all):
Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent “traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior,” and entered into by “the dregs of society.”
A ban on this type of marriage is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican congressman from Illinois, because it “applies equally to men and women.”
“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”
This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”
.gif?width=300)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $101
