The Gay Marriage Controversy

It's a huge story in the U.S. right now. As of now, it's up to the state, not the federal goverment, to certify same-sex unions. Dubya is trying his best to change this, though. He's now wanting to alter the Constitution of the United States of America by adding an amendment which will ban all same-sex marriages for good( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...3320_2004feb24 ).

So, I'm wondering how you all feel about this subject. Do you agree with Mr. Bush that same-sex unions are sinful and should be banned? Do you think that homosexual couples should have the right to be legally married, same as heterosexual couples? Or you're not sure? Let's have a little discussion.

I'm adding a map showing the status of same-sex marriage by state(Alaska is questionable):

i thought hawaii allowed same sex marriages...
personally i dont really care what other people do in their spare time as long as it doesnt hurt me or my friends/family and they dont try to push their beliefs on me.

I can't find that sinful, as I am not religious. Married and not married, anyway that doesn't change anything in the face of society, since nobody is going to forbid them to live together, hold hand, kiss or have sex together.

Then, I was wondering what is the legal status of a gay couple who would have got married in a country or state where gay marriage is legal in any place where it is not legal. If it is the same as with dual nationality, it is only recognised where it is legal. E.g. if an American becomes Japanese, he/she will have both nationalities in the US, but only the Japanese one in Japan (as Japan does not recognised dual nationality, but the US do). How does it work with US driver's licences ? As ages varies from state to state, is it ok for instance for a 15 year old to get a driver's licence in a state where the legal age is 15, then drive anywhere in the US, or can they only drive in the states that accept 15 year-olds to drive ? (don't have this issue in Europe as the legal age for driving is 18 everywhere, so I don't have a clue).

Quote:

---

Married and not married, anyway that doesn't change anything in the face of society, since nobody is going to forbid them to live together, hold hand, kiss or have sex together.

---

actually sodomy is illegal in some states...
as for honoring the marriage it varies, some states recognize gay marriages from other states though they dont allow them themselves while others dont. not sure about the drivers licenses though, but i think they will be honored, when my uncle was 15 he used the one he'd been issued in a state where it was too early for him to get one there with no problems.

I think gay marriages should be legalized. I feel that Bush's move to ban gay marriage is a just a plan for him to get reelected. Bush won't succeed, and neither wi0ll the ban. Period.

Yeah, I think he's trying to do it to get voter approval too, but like you, I don't think he's going to succeed. He's done dug himself pretty darn deep already.

well.....i still think that same sex marriages are to be legal...cause it is the human choice of who loves who and not jus being controlled by human laws,each person got the right to choose who they love and who they don't.Cause love can't be forced.And as long as the 2 truely loves each other,Y not?

Big business & government don't want to have to pay for benifits, lose tax money, and fight court battles over the legal issues involved. I think many of the people against it have money to lose somehow but claim it's a religious thing.Strickly opinion, no facts!

Frank

Grr....this issue....ISNT AN ISSUE!

Let the freaking people marry whomever they love within reason *none of that minor bs*.

This isnt a freaking issue, and thats the reality of the situation. This shouldnt be having so much energy put in it. Rights shouldnt discriminate, and being a former supporter for Bush, I'd have to say that he is only doing this to regain support from his strongest redneck-....er....voters of the south.

All the powers that be have MORE VIABLE issues to handle. This is plain ridiculous. Ridiculous I say.

As corrupt as our system of govt is, there will not be an amendment that will forbid these types of unions. Even if it does come out, it will be annulled immediately.

Trust me. I'm not saying this just because its unconstitutional, and defies what we stand for as a free nation; I'm saying this because while we may be free and democratic, we are first and foremost, CAPITALISTS. With that said, once word gets out on how much money my hometown of San Francisco has made off this, the rest of the country will be itching to get in on the action. This 'issue' right now mean big bucks.

Summed it up pretty nicely, Winter. I also think all of this could be a ploy to get attention off other matters at hand, such as the whole Iraq situation. Let's take the people's minds off the issues that really matter...yeah...

I don't know why everyone is so upset. after all, in the start of his term, Bush did pushed or tried to push a program to incentivate marriage. Perhaps it worked too well? :)

It is a serious issue, but I think that nowadays, it only draws attention from the right wing Christians and the people that are directly affected. In the middle is a mass of (more or less informed) people that threads on the politically correct, don't care less and wonders what's the big fuss about.

Looks like everyone's already forgot another major issue that was raised by Janet Jackson's Tiet Offensive. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank D. White

I think many of the people against it have money to lose somehow but claim it's a religious thing.Strickly opinion, no facts!

---

So what ? money has always been a valid argument in politics, but religious shouldn't be. You can't impose your religious views to all the nation (especially such a hybrid one as the American one). I think the French are right when they want a strict separation of religion and politics (the ban on headscarves at school is another problem...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winter

All the powers that be have MORE VIABLE issues to handle. This is plain ridiculous. Ridiculous I say.

---

Completely agree with you. :lol:

Quote:

---

Trust me. I'm not saying this just because its unconstitutional, and defies what we stand for as a free nation; I'm saying this because while we may be free and democratic, we are first and foremost, CAPITALISTS.

---

Inserting a ban on gay marriage in the constitution is plain non-sense, especially when this one grant the citizens freedom of opinion, beliefs, expression, etc. I've nener heard of a constitution that forbids rights rather than grant them. Interesting new way towards tyranny. :danger:

First, I am in support of allowing gay people to marry if they wish. It doesn't bother me, in my view it doesn't cheapen the institution, nor endanger society. How can two adults who care and love each other be considered as bad?

That said - For the sake of discussion (remember, I don't endorse all these views, just want to keep it alive)

Why marriage? Couldn't there be other legal means to achieve the same protections/rights under the law? I hear one of the problems for gay couples is not being able to share insurance, medicare, medicade, taxes and the like because the law states these are for married people.

So what if everyone compromises by letting congress rewrite some laws to extend legal protections/benefits but stop short of demanding marriage? The right wingers would be happy because their ideals are met, gay couples gain legal protection/benefit for their relationship, and you can get rid of all this silly nonsense about gay marriage throwing open the door to polygamist/three men/animals and people.

It seems that everyone is fighting tooth and nail - marriage or bust. Is this really an issue for either side to go for broke on? At one end you will end up with discrimination in the constitution, and at the other more fire for the ideologues to feed political campaigns for decades to come. Either way divides the nation down two very ugly lines.

Which is the price to pay for living in a Puritan-based society. :o

@Mandylion: This is just my opinion, but I really think they would like the ceremony, also. So, if we are to go by your idea, do we have a 'legal union' reciption for them? :p (Even though I can see ppl having probs w/that also....:auch:.)

IMHO: I don't see any problems whatsoever with two people in love who wish to marry. If those bible-belt people raise a stink over gay marriage destroying the so-called 'sanctity' of marriage, then why aren;t they pissed off as much about those reality shows like 'my big fat obnoixious fiance' and 'married by america'? I think those shows are the only things doing damage to marriage. :angryfire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mandylion

It seems that everyone is fighting tooth and nail - marriage or bust. Is this really an issue for either side to go for broke on? At one end you will end up with discrimination in the constitution, and at the other more fire for the ideologues to feed political campaigns for decades to come. Either way divides the nation down two very ugly lines.

---

Yeah, I agree politization of an issue is ultimately antithethical or irrevelant to matters of the heart. Unfortunately as with so many other areas gays and lesbians often seem to perpetuate the controversy by reducing the reasons for marriage to a question of legal rights, universal recognition, as a statement against discrimination/anti-Bush etc none of which of course are integral to the institution itself. It's much rarer to hear what should be the most fundamental motivations of giving children a stable family life or preserving the longevity of their own relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mandylion

Why marriage? Couldn't there be other legal means to achieve the same protections/rights under the law? I hear one of the problems for gay couples is not being able to share insurance, medicare, medicade, taxes and the like because the law states these are for married people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuro_Tsubasa69

@Mandylion: This is just my opinion, but I really think they would like the ceremony, also.

---

In laic Europe, (especially countries like the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands...), so many people have come to dislike the idea of getting married because of its association with religion and church ceremony, that the number of umarried people living and having children together is on the rise. I don't know in the US, but in Japan almsot 100% of parents are married, because the father would not be recognised otherwise.

In Europe, that's already a few decades that married and non married couples have the same legal status. France offers 3 possibilities to couples who want to live or have children together : cohabitation, "pacs" or marriage. The legal status of each is different, but in all cases the couple and their children are legally recognised. Couples in "pacs" can declare their revenue together and enjoy tax rebates after 3 years of "pacs", while married couples always declare together and cohabiting ones never do. The inheritence tax is also progressive, highest for cohabitation, then pacs (degressive with number of years spent together), then marriage (also degressive).

For property and debts, cohabiting couples are completely separate, those in "pacs" have common property for thing sthey bought together and must be solidary for everyday debts, while married couples always have common properties and debts, unless otherwise specified in a "contract" (prenuptial agreement).

Now more interestingly, in all 3 situations, couples can have a common social security, medicare, etc. Even better, it is possible for a foreigner either in "pacs" or cohabiting with a French person (so not married), to obtain French nationality after 5 years of living in France (same condition as for married couples in Japan). If they are married, then only 1 year is necessary (that is for France, as each EU country has different laws ; e.g. it is only 6 months in Belgium).

For work, couples in "pacs" and married ones have the same priorities for holidays/vacations. That is, they are allowed to ask to have their holiday/vacation at the same time as their partner, but it's a matter of company policy.

It is also possible for couples in pacs to adopt children, though only one person can officially do so, while both can if they are married. Cohabitating couples can't.

In case of separation, there are no formalities for cohabiting couples, but "pacsed" and married couples must declare it officially at a tribunal/court. The only difference is that if they were married, they can ask their ex-partner for financial help/support. But in both case, damages can be sought by either party.

Is there any similar system in the States ? Do cohabiting couples have any rights, and is there any equivalent to "pacs" ?

That would be a solution for gays, as they don't need to get married, but can enjoy almost the same rights as married couples, including adoption (not sure about France, but gay marriages and adoptions are legal in the Netherlands). That would satisfied both conservatives and gay couples. But I fear the Bush administration's IQ level is too low to take such decisions.

For those who can read French, here is the website where I obtained my information. BTW, these laws aren't new in France/Europe. I've always known this system since my childhood.

One last thing, in lots of EU countries, civil and religious marriages are clearly disctinct things. But that depends on the country. In France, Belgium, etc. the only legal way to get married is to sign at the townhall. Marriages made by a priest have no legal value. So if people want a religious marriage, they must get a civil one first. In countries like Italy, however, either way is acceptable. Japan is of course like France and many other Eu countries. How about the USA ? These "Las Vegas marriages" are only religious ones, aren't they ?

I suppose it's because marriage still has such a strong religious connotation in the US that it causes so much turmoil from religious activists and puritan politicians now. やはりアメリカはヨーロッパよりサウディアラビアに近い。

Does anyone remember the phrase "separate but equal"? I pray to God we won't do the same thing to homosexual people who's only crime is to want to be married to their significant other. I mean, damn.

Quote:

---

Is there any similar system in the States ? Do cohabiting couples have any rights, and is there any equivalent to "pacs" ?

---

Well, there are several sorts of things like that in America. We call it a "Domestic Partnership Registry". My city became the first in the nation to allow it's citizens the right to vote on whether or not homosexual couples could be allowed domestic partnership, and we were the first in the nation to pass. Basically, you get all the same benefits as a married couple does.

However, I don't believe this to be enough.

Quote:

---

That would be a solution for gays, as they don't need to get married, but can enjoy almost the same rights as married couples, including adoption (not sure about France, but gay marriages and adoptions are legal in the Netherlands). That would satisfied both conservatives and gay couples. But I fear the Bush administration's IQ level is too low to take such decisions.

---

This would be the "solution" for gays? Why does there need to be a "solution"? Why can't America just do the right thing and award equal rights to its citizens? How would this "satisfy" homosexual couples? The homosexual couples that I've talked to, and my homosexual friends don't believe this to be enough. Segregation didn't work before, remember?

Just the fact that you say "almost" the same rights gives me cause for alarm. "Almost" the same rights? Like homosexuals are "almost" citizens, right?

Homosexual people are just like every other citizen, but more importantly, they PAY TAXES. I'm sorry, but if I was homosexual and I was being denied my rights, I would stop paying taxes, and take it to the Supreme Court.

The whole "lets give them something with a differnt name but the same rights" Is a total bullshit deal.

IF they do that, say call it a civil union. Then on ALL forms and ALL media they need to refer to all relationships like it as civil unions. NO MORE MARRIAGE, On a form it will ask if you have a civil union not if you are married. The media will say people formed civil unions insted of they got married.

It has to be equal.

the US and australia have whats called a common law marriage, where if a couple has been living together for 12+ months then they can claim to be spouses, will work for citizenship in australia, not sure about the states though. in both cases claiming common law then separating still requires a legal divorce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feral-Darkness

The whole "lets give them something with a differnt name but the same rights" Is a total bullshit deal.

IF they do that, say call it a civil union. Then on ALL forms and ALL media they need to refer to all relationships like it as civil unions. NO MORE MARRIAGE, On a form it will ask if you have a civil union not if you are married. The media will say people formed civil unions insted of they got married.

---

Actually, I didn't see it as a "bullshit" at all. As you might know, I am not Christian, nor even religious, so for me the idea of "marriage" as it is understood in Western cultures, is slightest disturbing. I am married to a Japanse, but only because marriage in Japan has a completely different meaning, more of a social duty towards the family, and has nothing religious (we had no ceremony either in a church/chapel nor in a temple/shrine). What is more, it is the only form of officially recognised relationship (no cohabitation or "pacs"). But if it were up to me to change things, there wouldn't be any marriages, but just civil unions. So when I was talking about such sort of union for gay, I was thinking of a better solution than marriage (given they aren't religious like me), as I would never have got married had it been tinted with religious connotation.

So if you are preaching "equality" (same system for everybody, regardless of their religious orientations), then I agree that marriage, as a religious and outdated institution, should disappear altogether of society, and let space for "customizable" officially recognised relationships.

It almost never fails that I agree with Maciamo completely.

The above post is exactly how I feel. I, also not being religious, would rather not have gotten married at all. In fact, I didn't want to get married when I did, and if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't be married. Yes, that's a bold statement and it is for very many reasons and it's a long, complicated story. Anyway...

The point is, though, that gay people simply want to be considered equal, and I believe they should have that right. If they wish to be married like their heterosexual counterparts, I think they should be able to. Not everyone is non-religious like me and there are still people who believe that marriage is necessary to seal the deal and make everything right. I don't deny that many might be doing it just to prove a point, though... ( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ell_wedding_12 )

This hits close to home for me. There are several lesbians in my family(could it be genetic?) and also friends who have partners and some of them wish to be legally married to them. I know them and I know how they feel about each other, and I feel that if they want to be married to each other, then why shouldn't they be able to? They exhibit much more genuine, loving, and caring behavior toward each other than so many heterosexual couples I've known. Oh well...it's too personal for me, I guess...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirei_na_me

Do you agree with Mr. Bush that same-sex unions are sinful and should be banned?

---

If this is Bush's argumentation I wonder what he makes of the separation of state & religion. To bring this into the constitution would go against one of its very principles.

Maybe there should be anyway a differentiation between the "sacred institution" of marriage as of the church/religion & contractual marriage as of the state.

Quote:

---

So if you are preaching "equality" (same system for everybody, regardless of their religious orientations), then I agree that marriage, as a religious and outdated institution, should disappear altogether of society, and let space for "customizable" officially recognised relationships.

---

And why then should the majority give up any of their rights to "marriage" which already is "customizable" in the sense that religious ceremonies are not mandatory, when inclusion in the institution is precisely what gays and lesbians seem to be asking for? You could also argue I suppose on the other spectrum in the name of religious freedom that for a truly devout couple legal recognition in the form of a license, registration, etc should be irrelevant to their personal commitment which could even undermine their faith and a sacred ceremony alone ought to be passively endorsed/recognized by the state.

THANK YOU, Elizabeth.

Why should everyone else be denied the right to get married? Their are Christian homosexuals who have faith in marriage as a religious institution. Do not assume that homosexuals have no faith. There are Jewish homosexuals, Christian homosexuals, Catholic homosexuals, Pagan and Wiccan homosexuals...and the list goes on. Should they be denied their right to get married in the religion of their choosing?

Not everyone in the world is non-religious. People should have the right to get married under their God in their religion. Just as I should have the right to have a civil union with no religious connotations.

I believe that marriage and civil union should BOTH be allowed in society. For whomever wants to get married in religion (homosexual or not) and for whomever wants to just have a civil union with no religious connotations (homosexual or not).

I think I just said something about people who are religious wanting to get married and have some kind of ceremony to make it "right" for them? Even homosexual people have religion, and I don't think there's one thing wrong with that. I just want to make sure you all knew that I said that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossel

If this is Bush's argumentation I wonder what he makes of the separation of state & religion. To bring this into the constitution would go against one of its very principles.

Maybe there should be anyway a differentiation between the "sacred institution" of marriage as of the church/religion & contractual marriage as of the state.

---

bossel, separation of church and state doesn't really mean anything in this country. There has just recently been a long, drawn-out debate about The Ten Commandments being taken out of an Alabama courthouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossel

If this is Bush's argumentation I wonder what he makes of the separation of state & religion. To bring this into the constitution would go against one of its very principles.

Maybe there should be anyway a differentiation between the "sacred institution" of marriage as of the church/religion & contractual marriage as of the state.

---

Bush was simply using the term marriage in the legal sense in lieu of civil unions or domestic partnerships since as yet there's no universal agreement on where or how those should be recognized. As far as I'm aware, the governor of California has come out for full & equal legal rights between civil union (homosexual) and married (heterosexual) couples so I doubt even Bush would quarrel with that. Certainly no one can deny homosexual couples a purely religious ceremony and those have probably been going on underground for quite a long time now.

Oh, Kireina_me that wasn't in reference to you. I just wanted to point out that many if not most homosexuals don't want to be "civil unioned" they want to be "married".

Well!! I totally support this gay marriage stuff...BECAUSE I'm gay....lol
Bush is beeing nazist saying these stuffs on tv. The Americans say that the USA is a country of freedom...So, Why Gay marriage its not allowed?!
Well, I have an Australian boyfriend. I hope someday the planet earth accept that there are man who likes man and woman who does like woman...It's not a disease, it's not a option or preference...It's just who we are,I'ts just our feelings...
BYE!! :emblaugh:

Good for you, mieboy! :-)

I think people are born being gay. So many people remember being attracted to the same sex--or both sexes--from very early on, like pre-K age. I don't think it's a conscious decision at that stage.

I think it also could be genetic. How many people in my family are gay? Enough to make me question if it's inherited. Besides the ones that are officially "out", there are others that are not, but pop up on the gaydar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

And why then should the majority give up any of their rights to "marriage" which already is "customizable" in the sense that religious ceremonies are not mandatory, when inclusion in the institution is precisely what gays and lesbians seem to be asking for? You could also argue I suppose on the other spectrum in the name of religious freedom that for a truly devout couple legal recognition in the form of a license, registration, etc should be irrelevant to their personal commitment which could even undermine their faith and a sacred ceremony alone ought to be passively endorsed/recognized by the state.

---

What I mean, is that legally marriage should disappear, but it would of course remains as a religious ceremony, or something recognised by one's religious group, but completely separate from the government. What does religion have to do with legal benefits such as tax rebates, common insurance, lower inheritance tax, possibility of adoption, etc. Religion always causes problems like now. If marriage had nothing to the state, there wouldn't be any problem betwen gays and the Bush administration. If they want to get married, that is up to their religion (and branch/sect). If the local priest/reverend doesn't want to marry a gay couple, they go somewhere else, change religion or protest against their religious leaders. What could people like Bush have the right to decide for everybody of all confessions and no-confession who has the right to get married, or align legal benefits on the institutions of marriage, when people like me would rather get the benefits without the marriage. In addition, nowadays people should be able to customise each legal part of their union to some else. Basically, instead of getting married and have the same law applying for everybody regardless of their peculiarities and situation, I'd rather make a contract that fits exactly to my relationship with the other person. You don't always want to have financial responsibility for your partner "in the package". That's why such contracts already exist ("prenuptial agreement", which sounds like a rather old-fashioned term). What I would like is keep the contract for legal matters between the couple, and let the marriage (not just the ceremony, but the whole idea of marriage) to the religious groups. So that if people feel marriage is "sacred" and an alliance before god, then they are perfectly free to do that in accordance with their religion or beliefs, and let others be free of that trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mieboy

Well!! I totally support this gay marriage stuff...BECAUSE I'm gay....lol
Bush is beeing nazist saying these stuffs on tv. The Americans say that the USA is a country of freedom...So, Why Gay marriage its not allowed?!
Well, I have an Australian boyfriend. I hope someday the planet earth accept that there are man who likes man and woman who does like woman...It's not a disease, it's not a option or preference...It's just who we are,I'ts just our feelings...
BYE!! :emblaugh:

---

This from one who has come out in earnest, without hesitation or remorse. Applause.
*applause*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maciamo

What I mean, is that legally marriage should disappear, but it would of course remains as a religious ceremony, or something recognised by one's religious group, but completely separate from the government.

---

The legal status of marriage may not be as flexible as you describe but it is in effect a totally seperate entity from the religious in the US at least which the language may or may not reflect depending on your context and perspective. I don't necessarily assume marriage implies a church wedding or contract between two people and their god and it certainly isn't the religious or ceremonial aspect of marriage per se that is the crux of the issue with gays and lesbians and Bush.

Some of you are confusing the legal definition of marriage with that of religious marriage. Gays have been getting married in religious ceremonies for years. Whether or not a religious organization allows gays to marry is an issue for that organization alone.

The issue that is at hand is the legal definition of marriage. Legally, marriage is basically an affirmative action program for married people. Married people are given certain rights and benefits that other people are not. These rights and benefits are mainly to do with practical matters such as inheritance, child custody or health care.

I think the debate needs to take a step back and determine what the State is attempting to accomplish with this "affirmative action" program. Once the issues and goals are clear, then the solutions will also appear. For example, why limit "marriage" or "civil unions" to gay & heterosexual couples? Why couldn't a brother and sister enter into a committed "civil union"? Why couldn't a man or a woman form a "civil union" with multiple partners (ie polygamy)? These ideas might make sense. Or they may not. But it really needs to be looked at in logical manner without bringing issues of religion into the discussion as they are not relevant.

personally. I dont mind if the govern creat some law that allows gay people marry. I even dont care even more if the catholic church its against the gays union too...I just wanna spend my lifetime with someone that I love and trust...A piece of paper or a ceremony wouldnt make any difference. :cool:

Personally I think this whole thing is staggering!
I’ve been keeping an eye on this from my side of the pond, and I have to ask ?
Why the HELL did you elect this guy as leader of your country ? I mean… WHY ?
I just don’t get it !
Didn’t you have enough warning about the Bush family when you elected George. The man who said :

"No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots.“

Then you elect another one in and acts surprised when he declares gay marriages are wrong and cause confusion ! (What confusion by the way….That gay couples are capable of being a committed loving respectable couple, instead of being evil loose godless perverts.)

This man is a modern day Hitler ! And I'm sorry if that offends anyone but, lets look at the facts.

1. Like Hitler Bushy is funded more than any other industry, by the oil industry. Did you know that Hitlers war machine was funded by the export and sale of petroleum. Germany owned the patents on most of the petroleum products of the time and controlled most of the trade of those products.

2. Like Hitler Bushy has given his country a focus for it to hate, an minority for it to persecute and a religion to revile. A source of all woes for his country’s problems, keeping peoples focus away from the damage being done within by there own government.

3. Like Hitler Bushy is inspiring and encouraging his own countrymen to spy on each other for the sake of ‘National Security’. This whole thing with Ashcroft and ‘The Ministry of Homeland Security’…. It’s the Gestapo all over again. And if you think that’s harsh let’s look at…

4. Like Hitler Bushy has given his Intelligence arm the right to hold anyone they want, for any length of time, with out any legal rights, for any reason they damn well like.
Have any of you read the ‘Patriots Act’…..Oh my god! Scary or what ?

5. Instead of ‘German Aryans’ you now have ‘American Patriots’. Tell me are you a good little Patriot ?

6. Like Hitler Bushy is now imposing extreme travel restrictions and permits on people coming into and leaving the country. In order to protect the country from agitators, terrorists and extremists who pose a threat to the fatherland.

7. Like Hitler Bushy is holding ‘Undesirable None Combatants’ in a prison camp. If they’ve done something wrong then give them a trial and a sentence. For **** sake treat them as humans or let them go.

The ONLY real difference is bush’s PR is slicker and better developed than Hitler’s was.

I could carry on for a while, but I think you get the idea by now. Your country has become the very thing that ours crippled it’s self to stop! And no one seems to really give a damn, which makes me mad damn it !
:box:
(Big Breath)

Ok rant over…sorry. :sorry: I think I need some chocolate.

Good for you ‘Mieboy’. Never be afraid to be true to your self, no matter what. I hope you find that love and trust your looking for with your current boyfriend honey.
:love:
Huggy Love, Rachel.

Thank you, from one Rachel to another! :-) I happened to like your rant very much! Just wish everyone could see and understand what's going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirei_na_me

Thank you, from one Rachel to another! :-) I happened to like your rant very much! Just wish everyone could see and understand what's going on.

---

Thank you for the compliment Kirei.

It’s really not that hard. The lesson is already there in black and white, the problem is people just have to wake up and SEE !
If you compare Hitler’s rise to power and the things he did in Germany before he invaded poland, to what’s happening in America today. The closeness is frightening.
People have to WAKE UP, to pay attention to what’s happening and learn from the lessons of WWII.
Before it’s to late.