Texas voting on amendment to ban gay marriage today

Its likely to pass, but who knows? Lets hope it passes. I just voted “Yes” for the amendment. Called everyone I know and they will vote yes also. And guess what? They had voting for my area in a CHURCH. HAHAAHA! :lol: :lol: :lol: Sometimes it just feels good to vote. I understand liberals would rather take the issue OUT of the hands of the voter, and in an undemocratic way, shop it to a totalitarian liberal judge who runs roughshod over the will of the people (Like in Mass.), but sometimes democracy wins :lol: We will have to see if it passes. In the next couple of years more states will also ban gay marriage. With the Supreme Court now decidedly slanting right its looks unlikely that the gay mafia will have their way in most states (on this rediculous issue at least) :wink: Who know though perhaps it will get voted down? Will have to see later tonight or tomorrow. Everybody, cross your fingers for the amendment!

Oh, BTW: the proposed amendment defines marriage as the union of one man with one woman and prohibits the state or any political subdivision from creating or recognizing “any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” Its true, it clearly stated that on the ballot.

Ya see by pushing and bullying, corrupting democracy in Mass., and by shopping it to a liberal king-in-a-robe, the homosexual mafia has screwed ITSELF in many states like Texas. Had the mafia simply pushed for civil unions instead of trying to pervert and destroy marriage (and thats what many feel its doing), they would have been more likely to get their way. As a result, in Texas at least, it looks like they won’t even be allowed civil unions and it will be perfectly constitutional. I call it poetic justice. They could have had civil unions, but apparently that wasn’t good enough.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D :D

:lol: :lol: :D :D :lol:


:) :D

:) :lol:


Had the mafia simply pushed for civil unions instead of trying to pervert and destroy marriage

I’m still not clear other than in the number of letters and pronounciation quite how “civil union” and “marriage” differ.

I am even more confused as to why you are so worked up and happy about denying a group you have no contact with something that will have 0 impact on your life but will make a huge difference to theirs. Other than coming to the obvious conclusion that you’re just a twat.

Speaking only for myself, please leave to troll somewhere else.

Don’t be so modest, you speak for me too :)

Can you vote to ban being a moron?

I guess the the other 15 or so states that have bans on gay marriage are full of twats as well? Is that it? And the other states in the next couple of years that will ban gay marriage are also full of “twats”? Is that it? Why don’t you just cop to the point that the majority of people in the US share my views on this issue and don’t share yours? In other words, you are the “wacky” one here, not me :)

I am actually considered quite normal with regards to this issue. Let me guess that you would prefer no vote on the issue at all? Just bypass democracy and have a nice liberal judge make up everyone’s mind for them? Just know thats what its going to take in most states. Is that what you would prefer? Just do away with that little inconvienient thing called democracy? :lol: :lol: Come on now, you can tell me thats what you want :lol: :lol: Its obviously what the gay movement would prefer, hence the “gay mafia” title I give to such groups. They don’t WANT democracy on this issue. Actually its a typical modern liberal way of policy: Shop it to a leftist judge and shove the policy down the throat of the public. Then they get upset when people actually get to vote on the issue. After the vote, they THEN try to shop it to a liberal judge to try to invalidate the will of the people. THATS their Modis operandi[sp?].


Oh, and you’re an idiot.

I’m speechless. Do Republicans actually believe the shit they say, or is part of the plan to stupefy Democrats with their nonsense into inaction?

And once again, it all comes down to being against gay marriage because “gays are icky”. There’s no logical reason to be against it.

Don’t be so modest, you speak for me too :)[/quote]

And me. Take this rubbish elsewhere, please.

Just because its popular doesn’t make it right.

A little thing called “Tyranny of the Majority”, one of the fears in any democratic society and the reason we so strive for personal freedoms in America.

The logical reason to be against it is that marriage is a religious institution that’s been co-opted by the State, and therefore the State ought not to have the authority to redefine it.

From that point of view, though, I think the only fair solution is to remove the government from all marriages. Religions get to administer marriage according to their respective standards and the government just gives everybody a fucking civil union. Then you’re not shoving your morality down anyone else’s throats–and that goes for both the gays and the religious right. Too bad it’ll never happen.

Can it be conclusively demonstrated that marriage is a religion institution, though? It seems more like it’s a deeply ingrained social institution/custom that has been co-opted by various establishments (religion among them) over the millennia and across different civilizations.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, even before the Catholic Church. It began as a cultural institution and was co-opted by the church.

It has in some civilizations/eras been between a man and several women, has it not?

I love how the insertion of dozens of smilies is supposed to make it seem like you’re not spewing hate speach.

You don’t fool me. a :lol: here and a :D there don’t suddenly change your message of bigotry into one of love.

It still is in quite a few countries.

Gideongamer is the same guy who tried to say that because Mussolini was a leftist at some point, all liberals are fascists. It also should be pointed out that Koontz sort of agreed that he had a point.

So the guy is completely batshit.

Just because something “always was” doesn’t mean it is as it should be.

“Based on recent developments, I believe we should define the world as round.”
“But it’s always been flat!”