Bush Back Gay Marriage Amendment  

Is anyone surprised?

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?"

Well the only good thing about this is that Bush doesn't know any better than to once again shoot himself in the foot. This will be an unpopular move even with heterosexuals. Good luck on election day Mr. Bush.

I guess this is non-responsive to the question, but here it goes:
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 am a firm supporter of gay marriage and I think this is really stupid. Look, I'm fine with people who think it's wrong or something... that's their opinion and I'm not about to tell them how to think. But to amend the constitution in order to prevent it? That's going overboard. I mean, imagine if the Jim Crow laws were actually Jim Crow amendments. Do we really have to take preventive measures just to prevent gay people from marrying? Is it really that awful?

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.

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.


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.


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

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.

This is no way to get people to support your cause. I am not sure what is more sad.. The topic of this thread or your reply to it.

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.

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

Eh, I'm not sure if I'd actually move to Canada if this passed. But I'd certainly consider it. I mean, I can handle living in a country full of religious nutcases. I can even handle having one of them as my president, though I don't like it. But when they start imposing their own personal beliefs on everyone, as if they're the only people who matter, that's when I get really pissed. The government has no right to tell people how to live their lives, and anyone who supports a ban of gay marriage while also saying they want smaller government is a hypocrite. I'm actually surprised so many politicians take a strong stance on this issue - I would think that many republicans would oppose gay marriage but not actually take action against it, since doing so is basically supporting a powerful, intrusive government that controls people's personal lives.

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.

Just because 90% of religious people believe something... doesn't make it right.

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.

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.

Why would anyone want to keep two people from marrying?

Do you think god cares?

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

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

Like Fellows, I have to say I was a bit surprised to see Kirkland's vehement response, given how well-reasoned most of his other posts have been (at least those I've read recently). But everyone has their "push buttons" that really set them off I guess, otherwise you're not human... I certainly am no saint in this regard.





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....

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.

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.

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

And there's usually a timeframe involved for ratification--usually 7 years--but this is not mandatory. It could be open-ended.

Yeah... I forgot about how hard it is to Amend the Constitution.

There's almost no chance it's going to happen.

But we have our divide and conquer issue on the table don't we.

Awww that Bush... he's such a Uniter aint he.

The US has a serious problem. Anyone care to give me a list of governments / societies that have LEGISLATED about the difference between gay people and straight people to limit their rights?

C'mon. Play the game. Give me one (there's been a few).

Clue: the worst ****ing scum-sucking maggot-peckered murderers the planet has ever seen. The worst. I can understand exactly why Kirk feels this bad.

(Edit: I have to acknowledge before others do that anti-gay sex legislation has been a feature of many countries for years, not just the US but everywhere ... but most countries are tending to *remove* restrictions. I'll leave the post here because that's still the way I feel about the situation).

Does he not have to sign the Bill that passes the amendment at the Federal level? I am not an expert on American legislative procedure, but in Canada constitutional admendents still need Executive signature (although in Canada - as in most Parliamentary systems - this signature is effectively symbolic: "Royal Assent"). Is the President's signature not required in the U.S.?

Nope. The two-faced, dividing, lying sack of sub-human feces can smirk his way through this, backing a Hate Amendment to the Constitution without ever having to have the courage to put his pen to paper.

Bush if such filth that if I were to step in him, I wouldn't scrape him off my shoes, I'd burn the shoes. The same goes for everyone my parents included who will be supporting him in the Fall.

Kirk

oh yeah...regarding the substantive issue in this thread:

This proposed amendment is just pathetic election-year posturing by the President - he knows that he cannot get this through.

The scary thing about it, however, is that if he could do it right away, he would.

And while it is posturing, it is still fomenting hatred. Anyone who uses such hatred - and plays on the hatred of others -as a way to get elected deserves contempt.

Anyone else think this is a sign that Bush has been backed into a corner. It's only going to get uglier from here on out.

Interesting reading:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index....64340071973047

Well, I'm not sure how I'd feel if someone called for an amendment against me and my type in our founding document, the essence of our country. It's hard to imagine how I'd feel, but I think I'd consider it war, and I think I'd be pretty damn pissed.

You are exactly right! I could start a thread on the benefits of a secular society with provision for religious expression in private life but absent in political persuasion.

I have never understood the rigid religious rules and regulations of any religion. The theocracies in the middle east such as Saudi Arabia with strict rules for women etc. I mean are the men so afraid they may see a woman in lust? Sounds weak to me. In America are Christians so afraid of gay marriage?

The problem is that we do need to allow for a pluralistic open society over a control freak variant where by all actions are controlled by the so-called "morality police"

Just look at this example where by "live and let live" is thrown out the window:




Taken from This Link

This is the part that gets my attention:

It is a shame that women in the middle east should be treated this way or gay people in the United States.

Fellowship

I knew they wouldn't answer my question. I'm not here to step on anybody's religious beliefs. However I think this is based more on a feeling ( perhaps from their childhood ) than religious text.

I'm in no way religious and consider myself pretty liberal, but allow me to play the devil's advocat for a minute.
Why is there an institution like 'marriage' in the first place? I would say to create an (economical) stable environment to have and raise children. So by definition, this would exclude gays.
Also, marriage includes certain obligations, and certain right, including the right to adopt children. I rmmbr, here in Belgium (one of the first countries to made civil unions possible between homosexuals) that was exactly the reason why gay marriages weren't allowed. (They are allowed now, but homosexual couples still cannot adopt children, i believe).
However, nobody seems to make those arguments, almost everybody says: 'oh, we love gays, and they can have all equal rights BUT marriage is a religious institution, our religion says no can do, so it's no can do. This, to me, is utterly mmm...incomprehensible. That's like banning pre-marital sex because that is also what is writting in your bibles.
Somehow i think if we would just delete the word 'marriage' from the discussion, and simply replace it with anything else, nobody would have a problem. Of course that is not gonna happen, but it's too bad that a simple semnatics thing has to unveil the religious extremism that some still propagade.
What is mayb even worse, is that this extremism is also fake. It is extremism Ã* la carte. Of course this has always been the big contradiction of religion: people pick out those issues that suite them, and leave out the rest. Gays are a bit strange and i don't really know them: the bible says they cannot get married, so we'll limit their civil rights.
But hey, life long commitment is somewhat of a drag, so divorce should of course be possible, no matter what the bible says about marriage.
Hypocrisy? U betcha!

Actually I understand the anger and rage of Kirkland. I too would be pissed.

Fellows

Studio896, you were out walking in the barnyard and you stepped on it...

One of the main reasons religious fanatics, err, the christian right and history-ignorant Americans harp on the "United States was meant to be Christian" is the following:

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge (of Allegiance) in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ] In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored. In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

The founding fathers were wise enough to know that superstition, err, religion must NOT be the guiding force of the country's government. Of course this has been bent backwards and forwards throughout American history.

Talking about someone who probably slept through every history class he's ever been in; our President. Now he wants to amend the Constitution to "protect" us straight people. What a pathetic and dangerous shmoe he is. As for all those supposedly "intelligent" people in his administration...sheeesh.

I poke a lot of fun at Christian believers, however, I will say people like Fellowship have my respect. Religion and Corporate greed are the two most dangerous factors on this world now.

Apart from faggits.

(I know that this is the Declaration and not the Constitution but I got confused and George Bush now indisputably deserves cheap shots.)

So much for state's rights, eh?

What a ****ing buffoon this vegetable we have as a president is. I try not to hate the guy, but he is unbearable.

If he really pushes this thing he is putting his foot in the bear trap. We can only hope someone rides up in November and finishes him off, for his own good.

I heard David Cross say that Bush is the worst president ever. I scoffed at first, but the way this guy is heading... jeez.

groverat, like I stated in another post, I've been a Republican most of my life. We are at a critical juncture in this country.
This knucklehead and his "advisors" have to go!

I'm no fan of John Kerry, but dammit, if he represents the Dems I will vote for him the devil be damned...

WOW!

Like I've always said Bush is bad for democrats, bad for republicans, bad for americans, bad for us all. It's nice to agree with you groverat!

You know I too "was" a Republican my entire life. I grew up with teachers from 4th grade onward trying to indoctrinate me to the democratic party. I sort of despised this and as I became older formed some fiscal conservative beliefs. I will say however that I am not a social conservative and the pandering by Bush and other "republicans" to the religious right has put a bad taste in my mouth. So much so that I will vote for Kerry even if I do not like everything about the guy.

The Republican party is going to dig itself a grave with the younger generations being alienated.

Fellows

You have never heard of the Young Conservatives of Texas. ;-)

I'm afraid the country took a large wrong turn when this guy got into office. I'm not trying to say I told you so but, this is what I've been trying to convey. Not a blind hate of the man ( as in just left vs. right ) but real reasons to dislike him. I knew what he was capable of.

I'm not clairvoyant or a rocket scientist. All it takes is a little study of the man.
As a president I'm afraid he's a disaster waiting to happen.