Originally posted by BRussell
That's why I phrased it as a question. What is your opinion on the amendment? And again, I'll ask you to fill in the rest of the "legally necessary" clause. Why not just call it what it is: If he supports the amendment, he doesn't want gay marriage or gay civil unions anywhere in the country. It would outlaw states from interpreting their own constitutions as allowing gay marriage, not to mention civil unions or even recognizing other states' gay marriages.Maybe he won't push this, or maybe he'll favor one with different wording. What about you - would you support this? Or a different one?
I doubt the amendment has the energy to get passed. I couldn't see myself supporting it because I'm not against homosexual unions.
I'm sorry if I'm so picky about words, but sometimes people just toss them around with no meaning and when they get burned they get pissed off at others. Marriage as a concept is not just supposed to go with the flow in my opinion. I'd much rather adopt alternative forms or words that hold a truer meaning to the new understanding. Polls like the one I posted, show that others feel this way, but truly don't wish to be hateful or withhold rights to homosexual couples. They just don't want language and the concepts associated with them dictated to them.
Now with regard to Bush and homosexual marriage, I don't see him supporting them. I do think he would support an amendment to prevent them. However you also add civil unions in there and believe it or not, I do think Bush would support civil unions. I recall Cheney going on record as supporting civil unions when asked since he has a child who is homosexual.
This I just don't agree with at all. That's like saying the fight over slavery was simply an argument over the semantics of the words "human" and "property." No, this really is a substantive issue of rights, of whether gays are allowed to be married like straights or not. I mean I suppose you could argue that any rights issue is a semantic one: abortion (what is the meaning of "murder" and "life"), "speech," "freedom," etc. But in the end, there's a substantive difference for real people depending on how you define the terms, and that's what is really important.
Well we will have to agree to disagree here. I do appreciate you thinking it through though. You are correct that there are indeed differences in how these semantic arguments pan out. I've argued that I wouldn't even call what most heterosexual people do today marriage. So I've said I would give them civil unions as well. More and more people seem to live in temporary relationships and wish to have the legal requirements to each other left more open. I find it most amusing that while some homosexuals are fighting to marry, many more heterosexuals are fighting to just live together.
You've seen me argue on both sides of these types of issues and have seen me waste many a word on family court issues. We've spent lots of cultural currency informing everyone that families don't only come in one form. Why do we insist on only calling the legal means of putting them together one word?
Marriage to me means a man and woman committing together for life and share their obligations (especially the children) for that time frame as well.
What percent of the time do you think this still applies nowadays?
That is the family court side. Men who are forced into legal commitments for years, at times even via fraud totally against their will. Men who commit to women they believe are more modern in their beliefs and then are told by courts that she is helpless, the nurturer, she should stay home and take care of their children while he earns more AFTER the divorce, etc.
So maybe that will help you understand my position a bit. I'm seeking more options than just marriage for everyone. But I don't want to enlarge marriage because it brings LOTS of baggage with it. This baggage shows up whether we believe it or not. It especially shows up in areas I have posted about with regard to family courts. There people, usually men, are being forced into the mold of marriage when they haven't committed in any way to that model.
I'll give you my "experience" family wise with these issues.
I have a gay aunt who has had multiple long term relationships. I don't think she would want to call them marriages or have the legal obligation of marriage associated with each one even though they typically lasted a minimum of 5 years.
I have a gay uncle who has been with the same man for likely 20 years now. I'd attend whatever sanctioned committment ceremony they cared to have in a second. They both have rings and by their own definition are married.
I have a father who has lived with his "girlfriend" for 9 years. They don't wish to get married because of legal entanglements that would occur. They do wish there was a way for them to commit without that happening. I personally know that they could write up pre-nups, etc. But courts can overturn those and do at times using the baggage of what they consider marriage to mean.
I have a brother who has a girlfriend. They have four children in their household. The first is from a prior relationship by the woman. The second is by a prior marriage on the girlfriends side. They have two children together. I believe they remain unmarried for a few reasons. One is that spousal support is calculated in odd ways and the woman might lose support from the fathers of the two earlier children. I believe she also gets to claim more things from the government since she is by all definitions considered a "single mother." They won't marry because of what she would lose both from previous relationships and because of what they would lose from the government.(and no I don't consider this to be right either)
The government only has two distinctions for peolple. Single or married. They need a third (at a minimum) so the choices aren't between telling someone they are committing fraud, hating "single mom's", or forcing someone to marry when it is obvious they don't want that level of committment.
We need more options and more words instead of a catch-all.
Just my very long two cents,