Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Don't Panic, Poops, and Seeks: Thanks for the clarifications. I think that marriage should be eliminated in favor of a secular, non-discriminating domestic partnership that all couples can enjoy. Even if the connotation of the new term might at first sound inferior to marriage, at least everyone gets called a nigger. The reason I believe in this is because as much as I may disagree with them, I'd like to respect religious' groups rights to define their own terms as they wish. I understand why they wish to keep it "pure" according to their beliefs, but marriage went beyond their grasp a long time ago. Obviously, these groups would like to keep their feet firmly entrenched in government activities and are constantly trying to avoid separation of church and state, so I don't think they'd be too keen on having marriage follow the same route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 if marriage was controlled by a religious body, and not just generally associated with one, i would agree that religious groups should have some domain over what goes on within itself....however, that's just not the case with marriage. look at the state of things. there's what, a 50% divorce rate?!?! sooooo, it's ok to lie about 'till death do us part', not fullfill your vows, treat eachother like shit, but it's not ok to be two men? again, the whole thing just defies logic. that's why people can be married by a justice of the peace, or even by a god damn cruise ship captain - because it's not a purely religious institution. honestly, out of everyone i know that is married (i've been best man in 4 weddings) not a single one of them went to church regularly, and was only even married in a church to appease the brides family (who also didnt go to church). the whole thing is smoke and mirrors. but enough ranting. i cant believe that BOTH kerry and edwards are trying to play this 'against gay marriage, for civil unions' angle...trying to make everyoen happy. if i was them, i'd spin this around on bush and make it exactly what it is: a complete assault on everyones civil rights. i would blatently point out that bush is trying to ammend the constitution to say that a specific group of americans IS NOT EQUAL to the rest, an action no different than saying 'god intended voting to by a man, a white man'. if you had the balls to take a hard line stance on this, you could really make bush look pathetic, because he'd have nothing of any value to fall back on. when you strip religious ideology of this, there is nothing but blatent ignorance at play. wasn't america founded on the idea of freedom from church and state? ok, so then what possible 'state' function would it serve to discourage gays from marrying? seriously, this perplexes me so much, it makes my brain hurt. i cant possibly understand how this is even being discussed. it's such an incredible regression, that yes, in 30 years, we will look back on this with such shame. this is japanese internment camps and firehoses on peace marches. it's ludicrous. if bush is elected again, on the real, fuck not only 'america' as a symbol, but americans as a group. you can only make excuses for peoples ignorance for so long before you just have to accept that its unacceptable and they should be locked on an island and incinerated. col. kurtz/burn them all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Screw Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 gays can't marry and theres not a goddamn thing you americans can do it about it, unless you vote Bush out, or something. good luck with that.haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Æ° Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 In which European countries is it legal for gay couples to get married? (other than Holland obviously) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorSeven Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Seeking: best thread name ever since its the truth 110%. whoever said gays can burn- vote bush and it will probably happen within the next 4 years- way to think progressively homie. fucking idiot. s.s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 60% divorce rate... and that statistic is 5 years old. I highly doubt it's gone down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Europe Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Æ° In which European countries is it legal for gay couples to get married? (other than Holland obviously) All I know is that its legal here in Denmark. These two elderly guys, Aksel and Egil, were the first two in the world to get a "registered partnership" as its called. http://www.polfoto.dk/Polfoto/Photo/Live/watermarking/5de0xk23_guest.jpg'> They lived together all their life and were finally able make it official in 1989. http://www.polfoto.dk/Polfoto/Photo/Live/watermarking/6rk01ldv_guest.jpg'> My mom attends a church in our old neighborhood where the priest is openly gay. Ivan (with the glasses) is a very nice guy and he held a very touching speech at my grandmothers funeral. My grandmother was very old and not too familiar with homesexuals but she liked Ivan very much as he is a warm and gentle person and it was her will that Ivan held her funeral. http://www.polfoto.dk/Polfoto/Photo/Live/watermarking/6470xksa_guest.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekro Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Newsweek/Photos/Web_Exclusives/040217_040223/nwk_040223_img_committment.hmedium.jpg'> Those 2 women were the first 2 gay people ever married in the US. Do you feel threatened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERIZENO Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Keep the right wingers away !!! they scare me. long ago the samuri used to commonly be gay couples. due to strain on their lifestlye by their code of conduct or whatever it made being with a woman hard and not practical, so out of that it was quite common for a samuri to be gay. no adverse effect on the culture i can see 100's of years later. maybe they were onto something .... i hope this dosent go the wrong way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEE_rase_war Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 and what i cant seem to get past is: When in the fuck did homosexuals start producing offspring by means other than what is only humanly possible by one male and one female. They havent and wont, (should be enough to maybe make you think about what your doing twice but..) and will never "need" marriage. Marriage is natural, and i guess so is homosexuality. Ho hum, you can debate forever on this topic because there have always been, and prolly will always be gays. I paint trains, and to some people thats pretty fucking wrong, maybe some gays think that. Who cares. Look at yourself, fix that first. Well im past it. Im going to shut up now. and im going to try to have sex with one female for every gay guy who is missing out in the best thing ever. p Elish Cuthbert. Sooooo hot. and canadian http://photos.fotango.com/p/eba00391136f00000001.jpg'> :king: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horse cock Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 they should just ban marriage all together.....especially celebrity marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 I usually stay out of "penile politics" cause I agree with KaBar... this is a private matter. Certainly TAKING rights AWAY isn't cool. As far as granting the right to gays to marry.... hey why not. I don't think it's something I'm really concerned about since the relative population who would actually sincerely appreciate this in a sincere manner is small. The rest would probably make like straight people and just marry for benefits and/or divorce and get money that way. Eh.... it all boils down to money. That's what I'm REALLY concerned about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duh-rye-won Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 JUG-ALICIOUS KIM BAUER!!! she soooo needs an appreciation thread. like whoa. CTU represent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekro Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=104x1163292 This amendment won't pass the senate, 34 votes are confirmed against it. Holler for Chafee, McCain, and all the other republicans voting against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Good looking out, Nekro. http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/04/67/83/image_483674.gif'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Æ° Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand of the freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Unleeeeeeeeeeessss yooooooooooouu're a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duh-rye-won Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 :lol: :bawling: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Following up on Nekro's post, these are the Senators who have come out against the proposed Amendment: click! These are official finds through the press or the senators' offices. These are not speculation. It looks like the bill is DEAD. This should be forwarded to the news agencies. Let them start talking about it. 34 confirmed: Boxer Breaux Carper Chafee ® Clinton Collins ® Corzine Daschle Dodd Edwards Feinstein Fiengold Graham Hagel ® Jeffords Kennedy Kerry Lautenburg Leahy Lieberman Lugar ® McCain ® Murray Nelson Schumer Snowe ® Campbell ® Durbin Wyden Cantwell Reid Alexander ® Bingaman Lincoln http://www.bushnews.com/bush.04.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulkillers Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 for thoses of us who live in the us and can vote should vote . we are slowyly but surly losing our rights daily. bush is a evil lil man with his own agends that has no benifits what so ever, but has a lot of down falls such as when a american goes outside of the us we are treated poorly by alot of other countrys citzens ignorance adn the way the foriegn media spins the us way of dealing with issuse of race or sexuaity or the war on terrioism or whatever.bush has helped the process of hatred toward americans by lying and cheating his way into office. then 911 happens and bush wanted to have marshall law in the us. that would suck ass for all . then bush declares war on terriosm and we bomb afgainistan which is strange because the hijackers we saudi. then when the upsurge of nation patriotism starts to die bush lies and has america without the backing of the puppets at the un bomb iraq. lying his way in to getting public support the fisrt us declartion of war on a forien country in the us history of 200 and some odd years. now that is comeing back to him and whats he attacked now gay marriages whats next for bush bannin areosl paints beacuse he dosent like it or making all crimed punishble by death gay marriages is just another check on his list to get another stolen 4 yrs in office to damage our wonderfully lucky palce to live in i have 2 kids and one on the way and i want the safest happyset things for them but as long as someone so vile has office happines and the rights of all ar in peril.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Mams - I know I promised I'd look into the substantive differences between civil unions, and I've slacked. But I think, as Don't Panic pointed out, that there may not be much difference other than simple nomenclature (and the fact that other states will recognize marriages but not civil unions). See this post from Atrios: The members of our sacred press corps are a wee bit slow, but eventually they start figuring things out. And, they've finally figured out the question which will be asked of just about every Democrat between now and November - "What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?" Edwards got a version of it yesterday. Speaking to reporters yesterday afternoon, Edwards explained that he personally opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, and believes each state should set its own marriage policy. When asked why civil unions could not simply be called marriages, Edwards said, "My answer is the same." Asked why states, not the federal government, should decide policy, he replied, "Because it's something I think should be decided by the states." And when asked to explain his personal opposition to gay marriage, he snapped, "I'm done with that question." I knew this would happen. This distinction was always a sham, because it's a distinction without a difference. Unless the candidates can articulate what the difference is, it's a losing strategy. Until they can articulate the difference, the press will keep asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 And this post was made in the comments section: The only difference is the word "marriage" and its connection to religion and the church. In the Dean/Vermont pov, civil unions are meant to give a couple precisely the same rights enjoyed by those who get married. The inherent paradox is that by labeling the union "civil union" rather than "marriage," the state is practicing the very same discrimination it seeks to protect against through the civil union law. On the other hand, the discrimination is semantic, i.e., we give you the rights of marriage, we just don't call it marriage. It is, of course, a highly symbolic semantic difference. The best Democratic response to all of this would be to advocate that all state-sanctioned unions that confer rights under the law be called "civil unions," and leave "marriage," whether gay or straight, to churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimsøn Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Originally posted by Poop Man Bob Good looking out, Nekro. http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/04/67/83/image_483674.gif'> hahahahahahah Good find pooper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekro Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Marriage has 2 elements; the religious element and the legal element. Gay people already can get married in plenty of churches (reform judaism, dozens of protestant ones, etc etc), it's the 1,049 federal rights and priviliges (and about 200-500 state rights and priviliges) that they're after in the fight for gay marriage. Basically, the whole civil union thing is made to be a sort of separate-but-equal thing. I'd be perfectly happy to strip the word "marriage" from the law books and have everyone get either civil unions or civil marriages. Here's an excerpt from a letter i wrote to my local newspaper on the subject: George W Bush ran for president as a “compassionate conservative,” calling himself a “uniter, not a divider.” He went back on his word: there is nothing compassionate about the FMA, there’s nothing conservative about amending the constitution, and there’s nothing more divisive than singling out a minority for exclusion. Liberty, equality, and federalism are the bedrock values of the Republican Party; Mr. Bush has abandoned those values as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Bump. I wanted to add this post from my friend from school. It's definitely worth the read. Nothing aggravates me quite as quickly in this whole debate as the middle grounders (and there's a lot of them) who are all in favour of gay marriage-like rights "but just not marriage". Right. Here's why: 1. Historical arguments in general piss me off. No matter how much Bush might like it to be 1796, this is 2004. I simply don't care that something has been a certain way for a long time. The fine tradition of slavery has roots all the way back throughout history into the Bible, too, and it's still wrong. 2. I'm as much of a language purist as anyone, but those who balk at using the word "marriage" to describe something different than what it used to are ignoring history, not upholding it. Historically, "girl" meant "small child of either sex", but I don't think that means we have to let Little Billy into the Girl Scouts. In more recent history, "wife" meant "property", a state of affairs very few bemoan the death of these days. And oh yeah, "marriage" meant "a union between a man and a woman of the same race". Consider this statement: "I don't mind that married women are no longer treated as chattle, I just don't think they should be called 'wives'." It sounds stupid because it is stupid. 3. "Marriage" is not inherently a religious institution. And here's where things get complicated: "marriage" is the name of two separate and distinct institutions already, one religious "with deep roots in history" yadayadayada, and one secular with somewhat deep but still much shallower roots in the common law. Secular marriage does not have thousands of years of history; it goes back to the Protestant Reformation, when Henry VIII abandoned the ecclesiastical courts and absorbed some of their laws and practices into the secular common law. Prior to that, a church marriage was a legal marriage; there simply wasn't a distinction, because the church was in control of the law in this area. This continued de facto for a long time, merely because the law automatically recognised religiously-sanctified marriages, and nobody else had yet gotten into the business of marrying people. The early States, however, decided that in addition to recognising religious marriages, their sovereignty gave them the authority to negotiate the marriage contract as a simple matter of contract law, whether or not a religious ceremony was ever performed. And thus was born "civil marriage", which one would do well to observe "drastically changed the definition of the word marriage for all time", and which "use[d] the same word to describe a whole new institution" Gasp! The horror! But clearly from this: 1) the State can do whatever it likes with the word "marriage" in the context of civil marriage without affecting whatsoever the definition of "marriage" in the religious sense ... because it already has in the past, and 2) that's a really good thing, because they sure as hell can't tell Religions what religious "marriage" means anyway consistent with the First Amendment. The same argument was advanced during the debate over mixed-race marriages—that Churches would be made to recognise marriages they didn't approve of—and guess what? There are still churches today that refuse to perform mixed-race (or, far more commonly, mixed-faith) marriages. They don't have to recognise civil marriages they don't like, and the State doesn't have to recognise religious marriages it doesn't like (if, for example, the church sanctified a marriage that violated the State's consanguinuity or age requirements). They're two separate things that unfortunately share the same name 4. Which does not justify changing the name of civil marriage to "civil unions" when it's applied to gays. Why? Because the law already talks about marriage. Unless you want to start calling all state-recognised marriages "civil unions", that creates a separate-but-allegedly-equal distinction that is abhorent to the Constitution. And it seems if you did call all state-recognised marriages "civil unions", that would do a lot more to harm the "definition of marriage" than stretching it to cover any combination of sexes. If it survived eliminating a race restriction, why should it falter and die when a sex distinction is eliminated? 5. The "I want to marry this horse" or "I want to marry this tree" people: *sigh* *pinches bridge of nose* Let's back up a bit: civil marriage is a matter of contract law. To have a legally binding contract, you have to have two parties that are willing and able to enter into it. I need not comment on the underlying implicit bias in these asswipes' stance that indicates that they seem to think that marry is something you do to someone rather than with someone. 6. And then there's the parade of horribles. "What if I want to marry my brother?" Well, that's illegal regardless of what sex or race you and your brother are. Does that discriminate against people who want to marry their brothers? Of course it does. Can the State discriminate against people that way? Sure, for the same reason in can discriminate between "people who've been found guilty of a crime" and "people who haven't been found guilty of a crime" for purposes of deciding who to lock up. Discrimination is not illegal—discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, et cetera is illegal. Hell, at this point discrimination against gays and lesbians isn't even particularly illegal, provided there's a rational basis for it. But in the case of marriage, there's neither a rational basis nor is it discrimination against gays and lesbians. It's discrimination on the basis of sex. Judy can't marry Joan whether they are heterosexual or homosexual women. Now, if they're heterosexual women, chances are pretty good they don't want to get married, but that's not the point: they should have the liberty right to get married or to not get married. Conversely, Bob and Cindy can get married, whether or not they (and each of them) are homosexual or heterosexual. (Just ask Rick Perry.) That means the only difference between the law with respect to Judy and Joan and with respect to Bob and Cindy is that it disciminates based on the sexes of the people seeking to be married. "What about bigamy? What about multiple-party marriages?" Well, for starters, it's discrimination based on the number of people in a relationship, not the sexes of people, so it's legally a lot easier to justify. And one important part of marriage as a contract is that it's an exclusive contract, so that might well justify a prohibition in this area. But here's a little hint to you "marriage is sacred" types: don't ask this question too loudly. What exactly is at the bottom of this slippery slope? If Dan, Tina, and Margie all want to get married, what's the problem, legally speaking? How does it affect you? What rational basis is served by preventing it? Just like the definition of civil marriage can be changed to encompass same-sex pairings, it can be changed to encompass polygamy. The only difference here is that equal protection compels the change in terms of sex-based classifications. But the political process can always choose to allow polygamous marriages. Fortunately for the heart-health of Pat Robertson and friends, most of the polyamourous folks I know are quite content with one or no spouse and one or more lovers each, because part of their culture is the liberation of sexuality and intimacy from being limited solely to the marriage partnership. Do you really want to create a lobby where none currently exists? Then shut the hell up already. You'll give 'em ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Europe Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Article I found, it includes facts about Scandinavia dn the US From http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...EDG8F5918A1.DTL End of marriage as we know it Stanley Kurtz Sunday, February 29, 2004 The mayor of San Francisco has made up his mind about same-sex marriage without considering the experience of countries where same-sex unions already exist. Scandinavia has had a system of marriage-like same-sex registered partnerships for more than a decade. Marriage in Scandinavia is dying. According to data from European statistical bureaus and demographers, a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock, as are 60 percent of firstborn children in Denmark. In those socially liberal districts of Norway where acceptance of same-sex marriage is highest, marriage has virtually ceased to exist. When registered partnerships were enacted in the early 1990s, Scandinavian marriage was already in decline. Many Scandinavian parents were having children without getting married, although parents still tended to marry before the birth of the second child. Cohabiting parents break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So as Scandinavian parents began to cohabit, family dissolution increased -- especially after the birth of the first child, which was often treated as a test of the cohabiting relationship. As the link between marriage and parenthood weakened, there seemed little reason to withhold marriage from same-sex couples. Yet once enacted, de facto same-sex marriage tended to lock in and reinforce the separation of marriage from parenthood. Today, in areas of Norway where same-sex marriage is most accepted, 80 percent of firstborn children and nearly 60 percent of subsequent children are born out of wedlock. In conservative and religious parts of Norway, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were still relatively low in the early '90s, births outside of marriage have also risen significantly. Marital decline in Scandinavia is the product of many factors: contraception, abortion, women in the workforce, cultural individualism, secularism and the welfare state. Scandinavia is extremely secular, and its welfare state unusually large -- which is a factor in why it has no underclass. Scandinavian law tends to treat marriage and cohabitation alike. Yet the factors driving Scandinavian marital decline exist in all Western countries. Scholars such as David Popenoe note that family patterns tend to spread from Scandinavia throughout the West. Single-parenting is on the rise among the underclass in England, where the Scandinavian pattern of middle- class parental cohabitation has recently increased. Scandinavian registered partnerships have accelerated family decline in several ways. Disputes over registered partnerships have split Norway's Lutheran church. In socially liberal Nordland county (where marriage is a relative rarity), churches fly rainbow flags. These flags welcome gay and lesbian ministers in registered partnerships and signal that clergy who do not approve of homosexual conduct are banned from preaching. Yet these conservative clergymen are the only ones to preach in favor of married parenthood. So the purge of conservative clergy in Nordland has removed a critical cultural check on births outside of marriage. Same-sex registered partnerships have also reinforced the sense that marriage and parenthood are unrelated. Scandinavian opinion leaders have not seized on de facto same-sex marriage to urge marriage upon heterosexual parents. Instead, Scandinavian public intellectuals such as Kari Moxnes have touted registered partnerships as proof that any family form is acceptable. In 2003, Sweden gave same-sex registered partners the right to adopt. Yet instead of treating adoption by gays and lesbians as an affirmation of the connection between marriage and parenthood, advocates identified it with the need to accept single parenthood. Most Americans take it for granted that parents ought to be married. Yet the prestigious American Law Institute has already proposed an equalization of marriage and cohabitation along Scandinavian lines in its 2000 report, "Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution." We have even seen the bare beginnings of middle-class parental cohabitation in America. Same-sex marriage would draw out these trends and put us firmly on the path toward a Scandinavian-style separation of marriage and parenthood. Growth of the Scandinavian family pattern would have enormous consequences in America, especially in the underclass. A further separation of marriage from parenthood could reverse the healthy turn away from single parenting that we have begun to see since welfare reform. Mayor Gavin Newsom has defied California law without bothering to look at the record elsewhere. Scandinavia's decade-long experiment makes it clear that same-sex marriage could spell the end of marriage itself. Stanley Kurtz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. This article was adapted from "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" in the Feb. 2 Weekly Standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppa.k Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 me and some boys found out first hand how fucked this shit really is... a couple days ago, crossing the border from up north to go to a jam.. stopped at customs, held for 3 hours, fingerprinted, photographed, turned away and told if we ever tried again we would be arrested on the spot, sent to a federal penetentiary and faced 4-6 years in jail, no questions asked. All this because 4 of the 5 in the car had "records". None of us had ever been convicted of anything and the records don't show up in the local police computer but they do at US Customs. Just the fact we'd been fingerprinted before sent alarm bells ringing, and an oppertunity for them to add more people to the pariot act database must have been like candy for them. fuck bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weapon X Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 ^ k, thanks for letting us know about that. I had an idea that this happens by reading Haroon Siddiqui (sp) in the World section. He related some stories regarding upstanding citizens of whatever race (even a Chinese woman) getting racist comments and what not by the customs people as they tried (sometimes failed) heading into the states.. Your first hand account is more of something I can relate to, and honestly, that is FUCKED! I guess the furthest south I’ll be heading is Niagara Falls to check out the new Marvel World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar2 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I don't think George W. actually wants this stupid Constitutional Amendment to pass. He just wants to suck up to the religious conservatives who are stringently opposed to homer-sexuality. So the idea is that he gets to pontificate and pound the podium "in defense of marriage" and then Ted Kennedy, et al, bails him out by defeating the amendment in the Senate. Both sides get to look all heroic to their respective constituencies. BTW, did you guys know that Ted Kennedy is the only senator whose bodyguards ever forgot a suitcase full of machineguns inside the U.S. Capitol? The average person in Washington D.C. goes straight to prison if he even has so much as a single-shot .22 rifle, but Teddy's bodyguards haul around suitcases full of loaded, full-automatic UNREGISTERED Uzis, and then forget them inside the Capitol Rotunda. Hypocritical motherfucker. Never mind--this thread is about gay marriage. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 jesus christ i'm fucking sick of listening to you talk about guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overtime Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 holy shit, thats some funny mess right there. Seeking, how many hours a day you suppose you are on here? http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/04/67/83/image_483674.gif'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.