Bush Back Gay Marriage Amendment
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040224/D80TN9P80.html
I see the campaign has begun officially. I don't support gay marriage, but I'm not sure we need to amend the Constitution. Then again, it is true that we have judges who are actively legislating from the bench.
Questions:
1. Will this pass? I'm thinking yes, it will. I believe many Dems support this as well. The country's split though, so we'll see.
2. Will this help Bush solidify his religious base? I think that's pretty obvious.
3. If you oppose gay marriage...do you support and amendment...or would you prefer another method of preventing it?
I see the campaign has begun officially. I don't support gay marriage, but I'm not sure we need to amend the Constitution. Then again, it is true that we have judges who are actively legislating from the bench.
Questions:
1. Will this pass? I'm thinking yes, it will. I believe many Dems support this as well. The country's split though, so we'll see.
2. Will this help Bush solidify his religious base? I think that's pretty obvious.
3. If you oppose gay marriage...do you support and amendment...or would you prefer another method of preventing it?
Comments
Puts people's fear of gay and lesbians right out there for everyone to vote on.
This is gonna be ugly. This is something they would do in Iran.
I think the question now is... "why do you hate gay people Mr. President?"
Why is gay marriage even an issue? I think there is a real distinction between the secular, governmental institution of marriage and the religious institution of marriage (or more appropriately put, there should be a conceptual distinction). Government has no business doing anything with the latter, and religion should have nothing to do with the former. I simply don't see how allowing Tom and John to be "married" in the eyes of the state diminishes the dignity of my relationship with my wife. Perhaps if I were religious, I might be against it, but that is a religious issue, not one of social order in which the government should take sides (I think taking sides in the "culture war" as has been alleged by Mr. Scalia is exactly the wrong perspective - treating everyone equally isn't taking sides, but withholding a benefit, such as marriage, from a class of people is).
Now, a church may choose not to consecrate the union of men and men or women and women, and that's nobody's business but the church and its members.
Thoth
PS: As an aside, judges "legislating" is usually shorthand used to delegitimize decisions with which one does not agree (and also without regard to underlying decisional principles). One can make the argmuent, quite convincingly, that the conservative judiciary suffers from just as much judicial activism as the liberal side. I have no clue why any administration would want uber conservative or liberal judges on the bench - neither side is predictable and this tends to undermine the function of the judiciary as "keel" for the ship of state.
I would be shocked if this country passed an anti-Gay amendment but not an equal rights amendment. Might even consider moving to Canada if that happened, because it would be a signal that we have lost our way as a country and have abandoned our ideals.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I see the campaign has begun officially. I don't support gay marriage, but I'm not sure we need to amend the Constitution. Then again, it is true that we have judges who are actively legislating from the bench.
Judges legislating from the bench? Where? The Mass. Supreme Court saying "this is discriminatory and not Constitutional" is NOT legislating from the bench!
But gay haters will never accept that.
1. Will this pass? I'm thinking yes, it will. I believe many Dems support this as well. The country's split though, so we'll see.
If it passes, then this is a filth nation that deserves to fall, burn and die, along with everyone who loves and supports it, and I will turn my life on helping bring about that cause.
But I don't expect it to pass. It may pass the House, which is filled with yokels and morons and religious fanatic filth. But it won't pass the Senate.
2. Will this help Bush solidify his religious base? I think that's pretty obvious.
Of course. The religious right passionately hates gays, so the frothing evil bigots will be applauding this move by the Bastard in Chief.
Here's hoping Bush falls victim to the Twenty Year Curse.
Kirk
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Might even consider moving to Canada if that happened, because it would be a signal that we have lost our way as a country and have abandoned our ideals.
Don't let the door hit ya. Like it or not America is a religious country where over 90% believe in faiths that denounce homosexuality. Want seperation of church and state? Then America really isn't the country for you considering it was founded in strong religious beliefs. If a gay marriage ban was voted on by the American people it would pass with flying colors.
... and to people who think simply because the religious people of America "hate gays" simply because they don't agree with them is crazy. In my faith it is impossible for me to believe that homosexuality is okay. However, myself and thousands of other religious people I've met in my life-time do not "hate" them as stated simply because they disagree that too would be against the faith.
Originally posted by Kirkland
If it passes, then this is a filth nation that deserves to fall, burn and die, along with everyone who loves and supports it, and I will turn my life on helping bring about that cause.
Kirk
Fellows
And what is this all about? It is about Bush trying to appeal to the right wing religious right in a move that will shift attention away from the war in Iraq.
Personally I am not against Gay Marriage / Unions.
Originally posted by Studio896
Want seperation of church and state? Then America really isn't the country for you considering it was founded in strong religious beliefs. If a gay marriage ban was voted on by the American people it would pass with flying colors.
Wrong, Laverne. It is a distortion to say that this country was founded "in strong religious beliefs." The implication is that the government was meant to foster, or is indeed based on those beliefs, which is false. This country sprang up from colonies, the founding of which was precipitated by people searching for a place to practice their religions without fear of persecution (in part). Within those colonies could be found non-secular government. However, the national government was not intended to be a source for legitimizing a particular sect or religious belief - look at the differences between the states at the time of the founding and you'll see very diverse, and sometimes mutually exclusive, belief systems in those states. A national government institutionalizing one of those sets of beliefs would have been against the interests of the dissenters and likely would have raised the spectre of persecution (the evil many colonists came over to avoid.)
This is why using the National government to further any particular religious agenda is wrong - even if 90% of the religious people in the country are against gay marrige.
At least, that's my take on it.
Thoth
God damn it, there's going to be another civil rights movement in the next decade or two, and when it's over, history books will look at GWB and pals the same way they now look at people like George Wallace.
And this country was founded on a strong division of church and state... many of our founding fathers left their homelands for religious freedom, and that needs a strong seperation so that no ONE religion becomes the preffered state endorsed religion.
If you want to live in a theocracy go ahead. But The US is not one. And religion should not be the driving force behind law.
What this comes down to is that alot of people don't like homosexuality. They don't understand it and they don't want to look any deeper at it than... "that's not me".
Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion.
Do you think god cares?
Originally posted by Studio896
Once again, just because people oppose gay marriage does not mean they hate gay people... why pro-gay marriage people can't realize that is beyond me. Call me a hate monger, call me a gay hater... if it makes you feel better.
And I guess you can say people who wanted to move Native Americans to reservations aren't Indian-haters. Or people who wanted to keep blacks and whites segregated aren't black-haters.
"I don't hate this group of people, I just think they deserve fewer rights than everyone else."
Originally posted by Studio896
Once again, just because people oppose gay marriage does not mean they hate gay people... why pro-gay marriage people can't realize that is beyond me. Call me a hate monger, call me a gay hater... if it makes you feel better.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
And I guess you can say people who wanted to move Native Americans to reservations aren't Indian-haters. Or people who wanted to keep blacks and whites segregated aren't black-haters.
"I don't hate this group of people, I just think they deserve fewer rights than everyone else."
Luca you just made a most valid point. It makes a person ask why these people say the silly things they do... When people say these things there is a vast integrity gap just jumping out in the face of all who can see it.
Great work Luca!
Fellows
Originally posted by Studio896
... and to people who think simply because the religious people of America "hate gays" simply because they don't agree with them is crazy.
No, you don't hate me. You only want me to be, in effect, enslaved as a second class citizen, forever despised and belittle by my own community and government, for a sexual orientation that I did not choose, but would not change. You denigrate my life and my love, treat it like something shameful and evil, when it is just as valid as anything you could ever feel.
There is a gay agenda: to be left alone and allowed to live and love in piece. But people like you won't let us.
[quote]In my faith it is impossible for me to believe that homosexuality is okay.[/quote[
And why should I be forced to live by the prescripts of your worthless, filthy religion?
Kirk
My take on this whole thing:
1) Bush is pushing an obvious religious agenda without using religious terminology. Clarity my ass. How about aversion to clarity, Mr. Press Secretary?
Hopefully people are not sheep-like enough to buy it, but I worry a lot of people who are (for lack of a better phrase) "latent homophobes" will support the idea because it suits their views. It's also a means of enforcing a sort of unofficial "class" system upon American couples. I mean, what's left in America that heterosexual couples can have, that gays can't? Marriage. That's it. Gay couples can have kids, they can live together, work together... whatever they want (and that's as it must be in a free society).
But they can't get married with equal ease... and now Bush and his religious fanatics want to BAN it? Pathetic. You don't have to understand or even approve of the gay lifestyle in order to see this is blatant bigotry. It's not even subtle. George and Laura dislike gays (Laura can't even bring herself to talk about it openly) and want to snub them. Simple as that.
2) As others have said, the federal government has no business legislating the personal lives of American citizens. I have yet to hear a single argument which convincingly argues why gay couples should not be allowed to marry. Not one.
If we let them do this, what else are they going to try and legislate? It's embarrassing we've even let it get to this point. It's sort of like certain provisions from the Patriot Act where everyone was like "well gosh, I really don't like the idea, but 9/11 you know... I guess we have to."
No we don't frigging have to agree to ANYTHING! This is OUR country, not President Bush's country. Not Dick Chenney's country, not even Tom Ridge's country (though he was a respectable governor in Pennsylvania I have to admit). If we are disgusted by the implications of making a Constitutional Amendment (!!!) regarding who can and cannot be married in this country, let it be known, people. This is grotesquely UN-AMERICAN any way you slice it.
Call it what you want, this is just another name for "abridgement of freedom". You cannot tell two grown, consenting adults that they aren't allowed to marry, because they have the wrong genitals. That's just absurd. I do agree that a marriage should legally be between only two people, but which two should never be for a government to decide, unless one of the two is under-age.
3) I am of like mind with Kirkland in the sense that, if this actually passes, and/or Bush gets re-elected after having proposed it... it's a clear sign to me that the majority of citizens in this country has lost their understanding of freedom and deserve whatever dark scenarios that come to pass as a result. This is REALLY scary sh*t, if you don't mind me saying so. Every bit as bad as wiretapping laws and holding prisoners without charging them.
This is becoming a country designed to serve the government and not the other way around....
Originally posted by Kirkland
But I don't expect it to pass. It may pass the House, which is filled with yokels and morons and religious fanatic filth. But it won't pass the Senate.
Remember, this is a constitutional amendment, which means it not only has to pass 2/3 of both House and Senate, but also 3/4 of the states. I don't think there's any chance that will happen.
In fact, the president has no legal role in constitutional amendments.
Originally posted by Studio896
Don't let the door hit ya. Like it or not America is a religious country where over 90% believe in faiths that denounce homosexuality. Want seperation of church and state? Then America really isn't the country for you considering it was founded in strong religious beliefs. If a gay marriage ban was voted on by the American people it would pass with flying colors.
... and to people who think simply because the religious people of America "hate gays" simply because they don't agree with them is crazy. In my faith it is impossible for me to believe that homosexuality is okay. However, myself and thousands of other religious people I've met in my life-time do not "hate" them as stated simply because they disagree that too would be against the faith.
You know I'm totally hetero and I don't like this sort of thing. You say it's a religious issue. Well which passage in the bible is it that says it's against god's law? And please no implied references that can be twisted to mean something else. I want direct instructions. Hmmm?
I say live and let live. That's what this country is all about after all.
Originally posted by Moogs
This is becoming a country designed to serve the government and not the other way around....
Yes, and the political calculations conceived by Bush and co. at the expense of civil liberties is a HUGE reason I would not vote for Bush under any circumstance.
Fellowship
Originally posted by BRussell
Remember, this is a constitutional amendment, which means it not only has to pass 2/3 of both House and Senate, but also 3/4 of the states. I don't think there's any chance that will happen.
In fact, the president has no legal role in constitutional amendments.
And there's usually a timeframe involved for ratification--usually 7 years--but this is not mandatory. It could be open-ended.