Wyoming anti-gay bill dies | 365 Gay News »
Posted By david_nwpa 9 months ago in Political News
The proposed amendment would have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman and would block the state recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries where they are legal.
Read Full Story at 365gay.com »
896 Views Share Story 46 Comments Report
Submitted By:
david_nwpa
Hello folks,
Welcome to my little corner of Propeller. I am also available as davidnwpa09 on Twitter.com. I have many followers on Propeller whom ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 46 (view all)
-
82%
david_nwpa9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The legislature in Wyoming took a bold move by defeating this proposed amendment. It would likely have passed a vote of the people; in my opinion, such a vote should never occur. Gays and lesbians deserve the right to wed the partner of their own choosing. They should be allowed to enter into a respected covenant equal in every way to the covenant to which straight people may avail themselves.
Reply -
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive4 Replies
-
-
83%
hamy9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess people finally realized in Wyoming that we have such big fish to fry with fixing our country and the world, that who we love really doesn't matter. We are all equal.
Reply
Republicans will have to find a new wedge issue for the next elections. Find someone elses rights to use to try and cleave our nation in twain. -
14%
automan9099 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You mean there actually are gays in Wyoming??
Reply
Ohhh yeah. I forgot about Brokeback Mountain.
Even Obama believes a marriage should only be between a man and a woman and he is as liberal as it gets.
If someone wanted to marry a cow would that be ok too? -
-
92%
Tangent0019 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Even Obama believes a marriage should only be between a man and a woman and he is as liberal as it gets"
Reply
Apparently, then, he is NOT 'as liberal as it gets'. BTW, just because Obama is a Democrat, doesn't mean every liberal walks in lock-step with him.
"If someone wanted to marry a cow would that be ok too?" Why would anyone want to marry Ann Coulter?
Really, the slippery slope argument that leads to people marrying their pets is SO last year! -
100%
Tangent0019 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is a difficulty with marriage as it is both a civil contract and a social/religious ceremony. Most of the anti-gay marriage folk I've run across are okay with same-sex couples having the same rights as straight ones. Their problem is with the use of the term 'marriage', since it carries historical, religious and traditional baggage pertaining to man-woman relationships.
Reply
The problem is that to codify a sacrament/tradition into law would thereby dictate to churches for whom they can and, more importantly, for whom they cannot perform a marriage sacrament. Keep in mind this is regardless of the civil aspects.
If, as many of these folks would prefer, there was an amendment to the US Constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman, then churches would be forbidden from providing a sacrament that otherwise caused no harm. No good can come of something like that: the legal sanction of separating a believer from their God. It would be like saying Chinese babies cannot be baptized. -
-
-
100%
Poulenc9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Isn't the solution, Tagent, to make gay marriage legally available to whomever wishes it, with the proviso that religious groups can refuse the ceremony-sacrament of marriage to gay people if marrying them "offends" their faith?
Reply
That would drive a wedge between gay believers and their faith, which would alienate them therefrom, thus thinning the ranks, heh-heh.....
But seriously, marriage legality is a state, not a church thing. So who cares, practically speaking, what any faith has to say on the subject of gay marriage? I'm talking only about any faith's approval or disapproval of gay marriage, not not about the "well-poisoning," homophobic aspect of any church's dogma .
Assuming that the two could be separated.
Which they probably can't.
Hmmmm.
-
-
100%
Poulenc9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A happy day for the people of Wyoming--even if not all of them realize it.
Reply
Posters like automan really need to come up with less endlessly discredited, more rational reasons for denying gay people the right to marry one another.
Or better still--give it up. Gay marriage will become universally permitted in the US in the not too distant future. You don't need a weatherman--sorry, weatherperson--to see which way the wind is blowing.... -
17%
DaneL9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wyoming already has a law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. This bill would have just slammed the door on some judge overruling it. Wyoming is still a very small state (population wise) and it won't take long for the votes of the Rep's to get around.
Reply -
-
100%
Poulenc9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
“'Folks, till my dying breath there isn’t anybody in this country who could say that she [his gay daughter] is a terrible person, or someone that needs to have their rights restricted,' [Rep. Pat Childers (R)]... told the House."
Reply
The heart breaks--breaks because of the "terrible person" reference/defense. That is, because the man needs to defend his daughter's character against implicit condemnation based solely on the fact that she's gay.
People--some people--are really and truly bleeped-up. Y'all understand what'm sayin'? -
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
17%
ningyo9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
we are ALL restricted by a zillion of laws from doing all sorts of things we want to do--the slippery slope isnt with people who want to marry their cat..thats just silly--but why cant i marry my wifes lesbian partner--its a loving realtionship--its consenting adults--why not her sister as well..or my half-sister from another marriage--once you go beyond the basis of 1 man and 1 woman there is no practical sensible reason to stop at all these other arrangements
Reply-
83%
Tangent0019 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...once you go beyond the basis of 1 man and 1 woman there is no practical sensible reason to stop at all these other arrangements."
Reply
That may well be, but the practical fact of the matter is that countries and states that have legalized same-sex marriage simply have not experienced an uptick in these sorts of phenomena, so it is of little value in arguing against gay marriage. Social mores and 'sensibilities' tend to step on the brakes when the envelope gets pushed too far.
In regards to polygamy: rationally, there is no real argument against it, as long as all participants are on an equal footing, are reasonably sane, are sufficiently emotionally mature and are fully consensual. Indeed, polyamory was probably the rule for the vast majority of human hunter-gatherer history.
-
-
100%
Poulenc9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, ninyo, there are many practical--very practical reasons--for prohibiting or discouraging certain marriages, many having to do with the potential result of sex between the partners.
Reply
For example, incest is a very biggie for birth defects, not to mention the psychological trauma that usually results when, say, a parent has sex with his or her child or children. It's all about betrayal of trust.
But why assume the "slippery slope" argument, in any case? My experience is that the slope is hardly ever as slippery as those who point to it claim.
"[W]hy cant i marry my wifes lesbian partner," you ask. Well of course you could--there are no laws against doing so.
What your question actually reveals, though, is your lack of understanding of the legitimacy of many unions that fall outside of the "missionary" one of one man and one woman. -
niceguy1267Comment removed: Hard Banned
More News
Politics Daily
President and Michelle Obama Attend Fort Hood Memorial
Lynn Sweet Talks Health Care Reform and Senate Vote on CNN
Bill Clinton's Health Bill Warning: 'The Worst Thing We Can Do is Nothing'
Allied Forces Discover Giant Stockpile of Bomb Materials in Afghanistan
Anita Dunn Departs, Obama Gets Third Communications Director
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.