I Hate Politicians

[Jason Tate]

If my senator voted to ban same sex mariage I would find a way to punch him in his balls.

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-07T164250Z_01_N07187386_RTRUKOC_0_U S-RIGHTS-GAYS-CONGRESS.xml

[sweethypocrisy]

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1533811/20060607/index.jhtml?headlines=true

[Justin_stacy]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109 &session=2&vote=00163#name

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---49
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Dodd (D-CT)
Hagel (R-NE)
Rockefeller (D-WV)

[lightcollapse]

49-48 is a horrible ratio.

[bigmike]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109 &session=2&vote=00163#name

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---49
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Dodd (D-CT)
Hagel (R-NE)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Good, at least stabenow and levin voted no.

[thejetstolehome]

joe lieberman voted no. is it actually possible he isn't a conservative?

[Justin_stacy]

see don't believe everything moveon.org tells you....

[xllirikx]

i'm very surprised anyone thought this would actually pass as an amendment. 2/3 in each house and 2/3 of the states need to vote for it. Thats basically improbable. That was, how the amendment process was designed to work.

[Trainsaw]

Warner blew it but, what can you expect its Va

[cal1082]

You have to remember to that some senators might have not been voting for gay marriage, rather they didnt think there needs to be an amendment.

[FallingOut]

i'm very surprised anyone thought this would actually pass as an amendment. 2/3 in each house and 2/3 of the states need to vote for it. Thats basically improbable. That was, how the amendment process was designed to work.

Everybody knows that Bush didnt really expect it to pass. The entire reason he even brought up this amendment was so that the gullible conservatives will believe that he cares about them and their discriminatory beliefs. Nobody expected it to pass, its just there to get the conservatives all excited so the Republicans dont lose power in the November election. You know theyre getting scared when they pull crap like this.

[xllirikx]

Everybody knows that Bush didnt really expect it to pass. The entire reason he even brought up this amendment was so that the gullible conservatives will believe that he cares about them and their discriminatory beliefs. Nobody expected it to pass, its just there to get the conservatives all excited so the Republicans dont lose power in the November election. You know theyre getting scared when they pull crap like this.


Also, who ever brought up the point that this is a ploy to gain favor for the republicans is an idiot. It simply doesn't make any sense. if you look at polling numbers from the past 50 years, whenever Congress disagrees on ANY issue, the entire institution loses popularity. Hence, a fighting congress would hurt republicans and democracts.

As for them being scared - I think they have good reason too. If they keep banding themselves to the president, they stand little chance in the upcoming election.

I would concentrate more on the progression of the war as a ploy to regain favor. I think it might start becoming strange if the military starts doing more miraculous things (as happened with the death of Al-Zarqawi today).

[justinevans]

don't you kinda wish both sides truly actually believed in what they voted for?

[catscradle]

i honestly believe there are much more important things to deal with then this. Man, i'm single i really feel like i'm getting discriminated against b/c i don't recieve the same tax breaks as married couples. want amendment passed so i can recieve equal oppurtunities. IMO the argument goes around in circles. What would be next, an amendment so that a person has the right to marry a tree.

[cantnokdahustle]

i honestly believe there are much more important things to deal with then this. Man, i'm single i really feel like i'm getting discriminated against b/c i don't recieve the same tax breaks as married couples. want amendment passed so i can recieve equal oppurtunities. IMO the argument goes around in circles. What would be next, an amendment so that a person has the right to marry a tree.

probably, because two consenting adults who are allowed to be together usually leads societies to arborphilia!:dry:

[catscradle]

probably, because two consenting adults who are allowed to be together usually leads societies to arborphilia!:dry:
this fact has actually been proven. well not really. But if phil is in love with steve and they are allowed to get married why wouldn't adam get to marry his true love, Cypress tree?

but in all seriousness, i think you missed the point of my post.

[Rebs]

Both of Va's senators voted for it.

Damn them.

[TheBaroness]

I work for a major political party and I can safely say that every person who has ever been seriously inolved in politics in throughout the history of the world was/is a dickhead. Truth.

[TheBaroness]

At the same time I will say that politicians are beholden to the public and, in many instances, their poor decision making is due to their need to abide by the public will. So, the public are also dickheads. I've been answering angry constituent phone calls all day and I'm over it. End rant.

[I am all talk]

this fact has actually been proven. well not really. But if phil is in love with steve and they are allowed to get married why wouldn't adam get to marry his true love, Cypress tree?

but in all seriousness, i think you missed the point of my post.
Do you have any clue what a fallacy is?

[A picasso blue]

its more than painfully-obvious that this ban is just an attempt to evaluate voting support for the Republicans' 2006 elections.

[Justin_stacy]

its more than painfully-obvious that this ban is just an attempt to evaluate voting support for the Republicans' 2006 elections.

Ya kind of like pushing a bill that would "start" a draft and then blame the other party for it......in hopes of drawing a bunch of naïve kids to vote in your favor…..

[cal1082]

Ya kind of like pushing a bill that would "start" a draft and then blame the other party for it......in hopes of drawing a bunch of naïve kids to vote in your favor…..

worked in this forum

[8:17am]

Good, at least stabenow and levin voted no.

My thoughts exactly.

[Tony]

but in all seriousness, i think you missed the point of my post.
I think you missed the point of his post. Saying there's some kind of slippery slope that will lead to laws against pedophilia and beastiality (and apparently "arborphilia") crumbling and society collapsing as a whole is just ridiculous. We're still talking about two consenting adults, they just happen to be the same sex.

Then there's the fact that many estimates put the gay and lesbian population at about 10% of the total population. That's a huge minority to discriminate against. Whereas the number of people who like to fuck children, animals, or trees is a much, much smaller segment. And those that are caught doing these things are often sent to prison (though I don't know that I've ever read an account of someone having sex with a tree). Gays and lesbians are thankfully not sent to prison for what they do (at least, not in WA).

Bottom line, what two consenting adult human beings do in their personal lives has absolutely no effect on the way you live yours. And if it does, you really need to reflect on your priorities.

[rokbandersnatch]

I also think that G.W.B. did it just to prove a point that he's 100% conservative and what not and personally I think that it is very sad and pathetic that politicians always feel the need to prove themselves to the world.

I truly believe that we, as a world power, need to reconstruct our whole enigma towards the rest of the world because frankly it is absurd.

[catscradle]

I think you missed the point of his post. Saying there's some kind of slippery slope that will lead to laws against pedophilia and beastiality (and apparently "arborphilia") crumbling and society collapsing as a whole is just ridiculous. We're still talking about two consenting adults, they just happen to be the same sex.

Then there's the fact that many estimates put the gay and lesbian population at about 10% of the total population. That's a huge minority to discriminate against. Whereas the number of people who like to fuck children, animals, or trees is a much, much smaller segment. And those that are caught doing these things are often sent to prison (though I don't know that I've ever read an account of someone having sex with a tree). Gays and lesbians are thankfully not sent to prison for what they do (at least, not in WA).

Bottom line, what two consenting adult human beings do in their personal lives has absolutely no effect on the way you live yours. And if it does, you really need to reflect on your priorities.
The point i was trying to make is one of the main reasons that they want this is to get the tax break that comes with legal marriages. The reason married couples fundamentally receive these tax breaks is due to the fact that these couples will be procreating and have additional members in their family, does a same sex couples procreate? i think not. My main point was that if they get the right to have this sort of tax break, then why can't a single person, or someone else be entoitled to the same tax break.

Ultimately i believe that a gay couple is entitled to a civil union through the state, i just feel that they aren't entitled to the same tax break as a hetero couple, even though they should be entitled to some type of tax break for sharing a residence, etc, etc.

[cantnokdahustle]

The point i was trying to make is one of the main reasons that they want this is to get the tax break that comes with legal marriages. The reason married couples fundamentally receive these tax breaks is due to the fact that these couples will be procreating and have additional members in their family, does a same sex couples procreate? i think not. My main point was that if they get the right to have this sort of tax break, then why can't a single person, or someone else be entoitled to the same tax break.

Ultimately i believe that a gay couple is entitled to a civil union through the state, i just feel that they aren't entitled to the same tax break as a hetero couple, even though they should be entitled to some type of tax break for sharing a residence, etc, etc.

A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N!

Your argument is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps we should think before we make up our minds about what we state other people should or should not be "allowed" to do.

[catscradle]

A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N!

Your argument is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps we should think before we make up our minds about what we state other people should or should not be "allowed" to do.
how many gay families do you see around? Maybe a consideration for a tax break would come with the adoption of a child? wouldn't that work?

just b/c my argument doesn't match your beliefs doesn't make it ridiculous. Every issue is subjective to personal beliefs and varies from person to person.

[heyRomanticA__x]

Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Yea


Indiana..we are always divided.

[cantnokdahustle]

how many gay families do you see around? Maybe a consideration for a tax break would come with the adoption of a child? wouldn't that work?

just b/c my argument doesn't match your beliefs doesn't make it ridiculous. Every issue is subjective to personal beliefs and varies from person to person.

No! its your prejudicial disregard for rational argument.

to your first question: I went to high school in a baptist north houston town of little more than a thousand residents. In my neighborhood there were 2 families that had adopted a total of six children between them (the two males adopted 2 children and the two females had adopted 4) a total of 7 adopted children lived in the community (as far as i was aware of), one, obviously, by a wonderful heterosexual couple who were unable to conceive.... Wait... A heterosexual couple that got married, but could not conceive? how is this possible, and what are the consequences? should they not be able to get married, because they lack the "plumbing" that you and your fellow conservatives have constituted as being necessary for marriage?

I also like the phrase "consideration for a tax break," truly amazing my friend!

[FreshyFresh23]

No! its your prejudicial disregard for rational argument.

to your first question: I went to high school in a baptist north houston town of little more than a thousand residents. In my neighborhood there were 2 families that had adopted a total of six children between them (the two males adopted 2 children and the two females had adopted 4) a total of 7 adopted children lived in the community (as far as i was aware of), one, obviously, by a wonderful heterosexual couple who were unable to conceive.... Wait... A heterosexual couple that got married, but could not conceive? how is this possible, and what are the consequences? should they not be able to get married, because they lack the "plumbing" that you and your fellow conservatives have constituted as being necessary for marriage?

I also like the phrase "consideration for a tax break," truly amazing my friend!

well played.

Yeah, there are millions of married couples who still get the tax break and arent "pro creating"..

That really isnt the reason the tax break is there anyways.

Plus there are also marriages TAXES in place.. so really that whole line of thinking is fucked up. A little less fucked up than the "it will ruin the sanctity of marriage" but fucked up nontheless. (the moment a married gay couple is adversely affecting YOUR marriage, just by existing, is the moment said couple shouldnt be married anyways.)

[justinevans]

apparently 15 yr olds can marry in Colorado now....


I can hear the hippie jam fest all the way over here.

[catscradle]

No! its your prejudicial disregard for rational argument.

to your first question: I went to high school in a baptist north houston town of little more than a thousand residents. In my neighborhood there were 2 families that had adopted a total of six children between them (the two males adopted 2 children and the two females had adopted 4) a total of 7 adopted children lived in the community (as far as i was aware of), one, obviously, by a wonderful heterosexual couple who were unable to conceive.... Wait... A heterosexual couple that got married, but could not conceive? how is this possible, and what are the consequences? should they not be able to get married, because they lack the "plumbing" that you and your fellow conservatives have constituted as being necessary for marriage?

I also like the phrase "consideration for a tax break," truly amazing my friend!
Thanks for taking my statements out of context and misprepresenting my words. I was implying that through the eyes of the bureacratic system a majority of married couples procreate leading to children being produced, thus leading to tax breaks. If we really want equality then why don't we just eliminate the tax break for all marriages, that would make the most sense out of anything. And your example of same sex couples with children is a rarity and the numbers are nowhere near or proportional to that of opposite sex couples.

and furthermore, do not call me a conservative. If you took the time to read my profile you would see i'm a libertarian which is far from a conservative. And i'm sorry but marriage is a religious instituion that binds a man and a women to each other until death and happened to be adopted by our government. I feel that its has no business at all being a part of the bureacratic system. So seriously eat your words before you take mine and skew them.

And don't call my words prejudical as any words can be taken in a manner to being prejudicial. Isn't a single person as equally entitled to receive tax breaks just as much as any married couple? It's hard living on your own by yourself. It could be a neverending circle of prejudicial statements if something is interpretted in that manner.

[cantnokdahustle]

Thanks for taking my statements out of context and misprepresenting my words. I was implying that through the eyes of the bureacratic system a majority of married couples procreate leading to children being produced, thus leading to tax breaks. If we really want equality then why don't we just eliminate the tax break for all marriages, that would make the most sense out of anything. And your example of same sex couples with children is a rarity and the numbers are nowhere near or proportional to that of opposite sex couples.

and furthermore, do not call me a conservative. If you took the time to read my profile you would see i'm a libertarian which is far from a conservative. And i'm sorry but marriage is a religious instituion that binds a man and a women to each other until death and happened to be adopted by our government. I feel that its has no business at all being a part of the bureacratic system. So seriously eat your words before you take mine and skew them.

And don't call my words prejudical as any words can be taken in a manner to being prejudicial. Isn't a single person as equally entitled to receive tax breaks just as much as any married couple? It's hard living on your own by yourself. It could be a neverending circle of prejudicial statements if something is interpretted in that manner.

Oh... where to start...

o.k. number one, a libertarian is just a conservative with balls enough not to be a glaring hypocrite (it should be stated that i dont "think" this is a task that many are capable of, including myself).

2) marriage is a financial and social contract that was adopted by religion for the purpose of a metaphysical contract between the couple and a (or many) deity(ies). This is why I, an atheist, am "allowed" to be married to my buddhist atheist wife (counterexample). If your going to pull the "religion card," even if only for a minor point, you had better make sure you have your social history correct.

3) How exactly have i mischaracterized your words and thus your argument? Your argument was supposed to "imply" instead of explicate (and i read your statements as statements are usually read). How is one to decipher explicit statements?

4) Why is it we are talking about same sex marriage, when you clearly want to move this debate to a purely economic venue?

There is no reason, rational reason, ( guess what? tradition doesn't count, even revisionist tradition) you (or anyone else could come up with) that would ban "homosexual marriage" and all that that entails. If you wish to argue that all married couples should be sans taxes (and furthermore that all folks should be sin tax), fan-fucking-tastic, but it is insignificant in this particular debate.

edit: I did not call your words prejudicial, i stated that your argument was/is prejudicial.

[catscradle]

Oh... where to start...

o.k. number one, a libertarian is just a conservative with balls enough not to be a glaring hypocrite (it should be stated that i dont "think" this is a task that many are capable of, including myself).

2) marriage is a financial and social contract that was adopted by religion for the purpose of a metaphysical contract between the couple and a (or many) deity(ies). This is why I, an atheist, am "allowed" to be married to my buddhist atheist wife (counterexample). If your going to pull the "religion card," even if only for a minor point, you had better make sure you have your social history correct.

3) How exactly have i mischaracterized your words and thus your argument? Your argument was supposed to "imply" instead of explicate (and i read your statements as statements are usually read). How is one to decipher explicit statements?

4) Why is it we are talking about same sex marriage, when you clearly want to move this debate to a purely economic venue?

There is no reason, rational reason, ( guess what? tradition doesn't count, even revisionist tradition) you (or anyone else could come up with) that would ban "homosexual marriage" and all that that entails. If you wish to argue that all married couples should be sans taxes (and furthermore that all folks should be sin tax), fan-fucking-tastic, but it is insignificant in this particular debate.
i believe you did so when you said this statement

one, obviously, by a wonderful heterosexual couple who were unable to conceive.... Wait... A heterosexual couple that got married, but could not conceive? how is this possible, and what are the consequences? should they not be able to get married, because they lack the "plumbing" that you and your fellow conservatives have constituted as being necessary for marriage?

and
I also like the phrase "consideration for a tax break," truly amazing my friend!

by implying i have no regard.

1. Calling a libertarian a conservative is like calling a communist a conservative. It's two completely different views and i'd rather not debate it with you b/c if you don't get it then you just don't get it.

2. Marriage has been around before there was gov'ts and has it's roots in cultures that were higly religious . It is rooted in polygamy and has evolved over the years to its present form. But, it has always been a sacred instution throughout history. For example, it has been a sacrament of the catholic church since its inception and has been in the jewish church for even longer. Your example of the any couple wanting to be married is flawed, as it is only relating to our present time. Back in the day a Buddhist would not have been able to marry anyone outside of their culture. It would have been socially unacceptable and for that matter not even recognized and furthermore the interaction between two different groups like that would have been virtually non-existent. A union like that would not be recognized, and until recent times have people been able to choose who they want to marry, i.e. arranged marriages, which are nearly non existent in this day and age. To argue that marriage isn't a sacred institution is ridiculous, as it is clearly rooted in religion, until recent times who was it that always precided over a wedding ? Hmmmmm? let's see maybe some type of priest or pastor, or rabbi?

3. The thing is this debate incorporates more than just same sex marriages, as if something like this is allowed it opens up a whole new venue of things that could be argued as discriminatory as pretty much anyone will be finding i reason to get some type of tax break they believe they are entitled too.


i'm all for civil unions, but i feel that the whole system is in need of reform. And this is an avenue that will allow it change to be recognized.

i'm done debating this so don't expect any replies from me as we have differing views and us argue will get us nowhere, i respect your views and all i ask is you respect mine.

pz.

[cantnokdahustle]

I hate to continue this debate, but i feel that we, somewhere along the lines, have misunderstood what it is the other is arguing exactly, with the one exception of the history of marriage.

I should have asked you at the very beginning, "what do you mean by civil-union?" for this is rather important to the "discussion," and the phrase is a bit more than vague, for the degrees of variance (country to country) are severe.

Do you mean civil-union as a strict epithet or synonym for marriage, or do you mean it in a much more restrictive sense?

I can respect, as a person (not as an ideal), your economic stance of libertarianism, and because of this you are quite correct, we will find little (if anything) we would agree on, in principle. So, i understand if you do not respond, as you stated you will not, but know that i am not interested in carrying on this particular debate, i only hope for clarification.

also, i think you should be a bit less liberal with the word libertarian as it applies to yourself. Though, i understand that you are an economic libertarian, i see very little possibility of you being a civil/social libertarian. Specificity is probably best in these situations (this goes for myself as well)

If i have overgeneralized, i offer my most sincere of apologies, and hope that someone may help me better understand.

[catscradle]

I hate to continue this debate, but i feel that we, somewhere along the lines, have misunderstood what it is the other is arguing exactly, with the one exception of the history of marriage.

I should have asked you at the very beginning, "what do you mean by civil-union?" for this is rather important to the "discussion," and the phrase is a bit more than vague, for the degrees of variance (country to country) are severe.

Do you mean civil-union as a strict epithet or synonym for marriage, or do you mean it in a much more restrictive sense?

I can respect, as a person (not as an ideal), your economic stance of libertarianism, and because of this you are quite correct, we will find little (if anything) we would agree on, in principle. So, i understand if you do not respond, as you stated you will not, but know that i am not interested in carrying on this particular debate, i only hope for clarification.

also, i think you should be a bit less liberal with the word libertarian as it applies to yourself. Though, i understand that you are an economic libertarian, i see very little possibility of you being a civil/social libertarian. Specificity is probably best in these situations (this goes for myself as well)

If i have overgeneralized, i offer my most sincere of apologies, and hope that someone may help me better understand.
civil union = get everything a married couple is entitled to, it's just not called marriage.

[FScott]

gay people really don't love each other on the same level us normal people do anyway. im sure

[justinevans]

gay people really don't love each other on the same level us normal people do anyway. im sure

They can't love, they are spawns of the devil.

[FScott]

I agree