And you people wonder why I moved to Maine? By the way, I'm so in love with the title of this thread I can't stand it.... ROFL!!!

The amendment could pass with 100% of the vote and would still be smashed by the courts in that fetid liberal bastion of Massachusetts.

Certainly, Jay, you don't think that "we the people" can be trusted with deciding what is best for us, do you?

Oh, what would we do without those noble, wise politicians who work so diligently every day to protect their constituency from themselves?

Got to admit, I was surprised they put it to a vote. The same political party with the mantra that "Every vote counts" was toying with the idea of not giving the people a right to vote on an issue.

I don't live in Massachusetts, so I don't know that I really have a say in this particular case. But in general, this is all we want -- for the process to work the way it's supposed to. If the voters vote it down, then so be it.

I'm so tired of gay activists pushing their agenda to normalize their behavior down our throats.

It's against the laws of Nature and God.

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Go keep your abhorrent behavior behind closed doors and don't even think about making my children grow up any faster than they have to with your agenda to make them think two daddies are normal.

The amendment will never get through. This isn't Alabama. This is the liberal bastion of Massachusetts we're talking about.

What I found interesting is that with over 95% of Massachusetts lawmakers are liberal democrats, 61 voted to move this forward.

There are less than 10 Republicans, so at least 50 liberal democrats voted for this.

LeeLo, you are a homophobic bigot, and as a member of the human species, you are the abnormal one. Take your bible bilge & shove it where the sun don't shine.

aRepukelican,

Sorry, I'm not afraid of gay people. I just don't agree with their behavior and I don't want it influencing my children. Go push a stool in somewhere where I don't have to see it.

Typical gay activist. Resort to name calling for anyone who does not agree with your agenda. I have relatives who are gay, but that does not mean I have to explain to my 5 year old why two men are kissing and what oral sex is.

So shove what you shove, but just do it behind closed doors and don't involve me with your abhorrent behavior.

LeeLo,

You sound like me talking about Republicans.

Leave my kids alone, you lying weasels.

I'm a known Bush supporter, occasional Republican voter, and I agree with Jay Tea on both bringing this measure up for a vote and defeating it.

LeeLo is as much a troll as any of the lockstep leftroids posting here.

Whenever Jay brings up this subject I feel compelled to express the reason for may opposition to gay marriage. The financial benefits of marriage are substantial as demonstrated by gays in their original Massachusetts suite. I oppose gay marriage on the grounds that the public interest in government sanctioned marriage is for the purpose of procreation of the next generation of law abiding citizens. Without which society, as we know it, would cease to exist. The resources expended on married couples are limited and should not be wasted on couples that by nature cannot procreate.

Not all heterosexual couples can procreate, but the government deals with people by type, not as individuals. For example, everyone type "65 years or older" is entitled to an extra exemption on their income tax return regardless of their financial status. Everyone type "under 18 years of age" is prohibited from voting regardless of their mental capacity, knowledge or maturity. Likewise, only procreation type couples should be allowed to marry. Excluding closely related heterosexual couples from marring demonstrates the purpose for marriage has in fact been procreation. Marriage benefits have nothing to do with rewarding two people for loving each other or living in a stable relationship. Gay marriage is a dry hole the public should not be required to subsidize.

Except in Massachusetts marriage is based on procreation biology and the equality of the partners (on man one woman). This foundation of rock solid principles has served this nation well and should not be lightly abandoned for the sinking sand upon which homosexual marriage must rest.

Why is Leelo a biggot just because he is against the homosexual lifestyle? It's obivous that he has strongly held views on the matter probably stemming from his religion. So if you legalize marriage for gays and lesbians is it okay for multiple partners in marriage? What about marrying an animal? My company provides insurance for same-sex partners and benefits and that is fine with me. More than one half of all fortune 500 companies have iniated the same policies. The private sector is taking care of what the government should not.

this whole gay marriage thing pisses me off... the only positive point with all this is that my Gay marriage-stocks are up 20% today http://www.trendio.com/word.php?language=en&wordid=2299

cat, the dividing line for me is consenting adults. Apart from that, government interference should not be applied. You can have whatever sexual, social, religious, or whathaveyou orientation so long as all involved are consenting.

Simply stated, but not simple in execution, granted. But far less complicated than the mish-mash of laws we have governing behavior now.