Bush Back Gay Marriage Amendment - Page 2  

You think John Kerry is going to do anything? He was for gay marriage two years ago but then decided to run for president and switched his stance. John Kerry is a another typical do-nothing Democrat--a conservative. He might boot Bush out of office, but the status-quo will be maintained. There will not be federally recognized gay marriage and the gay rights movement will stagnate.

Ralph Nader is the only one who is progressive.

www.votenader.org

You're spot on with this. The sub-24 group overwhelmingly supports gay marriage, something in the range of 70%. The GOP may win themselves some elections now on this issue, but they are most definitely shooting themselves in the foot for the long haul.

We already have a big problem in the Whitehouse right now ( worse than Kerry ever could be ) and Nader isn't capable of defeating Bush.

That's it in a nutshell.

it reminds me of a piece of a bob marley song (an adaptation of a speech given by ras tafari)
"until the philosophy which holds one [people] superior and another inferior is finally, and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is war."

Since I live in Oakland I've had a chance to swing by SF city hall to say hi to the people wating in line to get married.

I wish every clueless bigot with a stupid devil cartoon of a gay person in his or her head could see this. It's one of the most moving things I've ever had a chance to experience. People from all over the country coming to celebrate their love and comittment in full light of day and with the full backing of, at least, the city that they're in.

Every few minutes someone gets a bouquet of flowers from "flowers from the heartland", a chain email that has proliferated like mad that encourages well wishers to wire flowers to random couples.

I encourage everyone to go to same sex marriage album (at the sf Chronicles web page). Look at these people. Look at those faces. Tell me you think they're wrong. Tell me you think what they are doing damages the institution of marriage.

I'm with Kirk-- if you worship a God who thinks this is a sin, then your God is a filthy hater, and so are you.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2003_11_1...44325583265936

Is the Federal Marriage Amendment A Bait And Switch Game?

I've been thinking about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), whose text is available at the website of the Alliance for Marriage. The proposed text of the amendment reads:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

The Alliance for Marriage argues on their website that this language is designed to keep courts from imposing same sex marriage on the states, and to keep legislatures from passing laws authorizing same-sex marriage, but it does not prohibit state legislatures from passing laws creating civil unions for same-sex couples.

(snip)

If the FMA had been designed to do what its proponents claim it will do, it should have been drafted as follows:

Section 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Section 2. Nothing in the first section of this Article shall be construed to prevent either Congress or the legislatures of the several states from providing any other benefits, rights, or privileges, or combinations thereof, to unmarried couples or groups.

I understand this is an issue that brings out people's tempers and passions, but please for the love (or hate) of God (or whomever), don't go throwing around flame bait, and don't respond in kind!

Thanks!

To take the earlier tangent a bit further:

I am glad to see some long-time Republicans re-evaluating things with regards to this year's election. Once I got out of high school and got a bigger taste of the real world (a taste that was definitely reinforced once I graduated and started working and "being out in the world more"), I realized that "voting down party lines" is just nuts.

I used to be so convinced (during the 80s) that the Republicans were the smarter party and better for the country and all that... and then I realized it's all just a big friggin game. The only people who make sense (from either party) are the ones with at least somewhat moderate thinking. People who don't "shoot down a bill" just because it was started by someone on the other side of the isle, but who vote on the merits of the bill (hopefully).

And that's how I try to pick the Governors, Senators and Congressional Reps and Presidential Candidates I vote for. Whichever candidate demonstrates the more capable mind / better ideas, gets my vote. I don't care what party they're affiliated with.

Vote for substance, not labels. Bush is a walking, talking label (Pro-Christian, Anti-Terror, Pro-Marriage, Pro-Taxcut) with absolutely no substance. Even guys like Kerry (who I generally wouldn't endorse) have more going for them. I listened to some of Edward's audio transcripts from the NYT this morning and HE seems a pretty straight talker on the issues.

Theres no question either would make a better President than Bush, and absent Tom Ridge maybe, they'd certainly appoint more respectable, open-minded people to their cabinet posts.

Yeah, it's a big lie. It clearly outlaws states from having even civil unions. It mentions state laws and says they can't require legal incidents of marital status. It couldn't be clearer.

I was reading your post and then I see this... I would wish for people to remain civil and loving towards others. Some Christians hating gays getting married is wrong and gays hating Christians is wrong as well. Lets us not exchange hate for hate. The middle east has seen this fail since 1948. Why not instead shall we choose to love each other and stand up for what is right for all. Let us have the backbone to stand up for integrity and not accept bigotry where ever we tread.

Throwing hateful cheap shots around does nobody any good.

Fellows

This is also what I've been trying to say. Not that I'm superior to anyone here because of my age. It's just that if you live long enough you begin to see patterns that you've seen before. Especially in political matters.

Yes most definately vote for the best candidate! Republican, Democrat, or Independent ( in this particular case vote democrat since we all really would be much better off without Bush )!

I knew what GWB was like from the get go. Hell I'd rather have Nixon back than this guy! I really despised Nixon so that should tell you something. However at least Nixon was intelligent.

I apologize Fellows. Going straight from the joy I saw at city hall to the grim reality of national politics made me particulary jumpy.

Thanks for the moderating council.

I understand

I think it is only natural that there is another thread about Bush. I mean come on Bush started this notion of an amendment.

As for your 2nd paragraph above, Who cares? Who cares if it is smart from a political standpoint? Who cares if it will further solidify his "grasp" on the religious right? Who cares if his stance will not lose him any votes?

I think what I am trying to get across to you SDW2001 (and this is coming from a former Bush supporter) is that after seeing Bush in office it is all about votes for Bush.

votes votes votes... votes over integrity at that.

I just have a little too much integrity to stomache the actions of Bush.

Sorry..

Fellows

Yeah, I do have to agree that from a political standpoint, it is probably a good move for Bush. It'll get him a few more votes in the short run, and it forces the Democrats to declare their stance on the issue.

That doesn't change the fact that proposing an amendment like this makes Bush a jerk who wants nothing more than to bend the people of this country to his own personal belief system. If he had simply declared his stance on the issue, it wouldn't have spurred this discussion.

Yes, it does. You hate me and everyone like me through your bigotted actions of deeming your relationship with some woman more valuable than my relationship with a man. But its all love. It's all equal. It's all valuable, and it should all be legally recognized in the same (or as close to the same) manner possible.

I am just as valuable as you. My relationship is just as valuable as that between any two heterosexuals. And anyone who argues otherwise is a filthy, bigoted monster, and I hope they die slowly and painfully.

Live and let live, until you **** with me and mine.

Kirk

Not possible when scum like Bush and his vacuous, evil supporters declare war on my very humanity.


Fundamentalist Christians spread nothing but lies, loathing and evil. They are a danger to every innocent person in this world. Look at what their influence is leading Bush to do.

I will not hug those who would harm me. I have no more cheeks left to turn.

Kirk

SDW:

And finally, whether you think gays should be able to marry or not, what's with all the name calling? I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a "gay hater". It's just that I feel we need certain social standards, and this is one of them. Gays should be able (and ARE able) to live their lives and be together...they just can't be married. Comparing this to things like Jim Crow is patently absurd"


Social standards? I thought people who live together for long periods of time and perhaps start families are SUPPOSED to get married... in the strictly "socially responsible" way...

What makes gays socailly substandard and unfit for marriage?
They can't make the exact same commitment as straight people?
What social standard are you maintaining by keeping them from marrying?

From the Political Survey thread.

Blame it on the gays! I've never read that in the history books.

The mongolian empire fell because of it?

Hmmm... Alexander the Great was gay?

Was Napolean?

The pharoes... that must be it.

Greece? the Roman Empire?

THE GREAT BRAVO NETWORK WILL FALL BECAUSE OF QUEER EYE FOR THE STRAIGHT GUY!

Is this the "there goes the neighborhood theory"?

"I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another. "

crap post removed

Here's the latest polling from annenberg

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycent...naes/index.htm

link on the top right.

The amendment is a loser... the only place it flies is in the south and among republicans... I'm sure Bush has seen those numbers too.. so this is defintely a ploy to firm up his support in the south and on the right.

It seems the pool shows most people just want to maintain the status quo... the younger you are and the more left of center or independant you are the more you are for gay marriage... but its' close.

Bush is rolling the dice... if younger voters turn out... this issue could really hurt Bush.

I wasn't aware of Jesus being a major civilization. Or of having an empire either.

How do you know Jesus was not gay? Did he ever say anything against homosexuality? Did he ever sleep with a woman?

You're quite right. I was referring to (I don't know) the Jewish diaspora, or something. My post was crap and I just edited it away. Your post preserves it.

[edit: another crap, and offensive, joke removed.]

I don't support gay marriage. Do I hate gays? No. Do I believe a marriage is between a man and a women? Yes.

The main point should be that the government should not be dealing with marriage at all! Marriage should be a religious rite, and ultimately a bond between two consenting partners gay or straight, to declare undying love.

Unfortunately, the government has always been involved in marriage. Marriage between a man and a women. It seems to me that providing all the benefits to the married couple is simply the government's way of encouraging a couple to raise children in a safe and secure environment. Does it work all the time? No. But it helps guarantee the strength of the country in tomorrows world. The children will always be the future, and to that extent the government has used marriage to promote a strong union between a man and a women, so children can be raised appropriately. A homosexual couple cannot produce offspring. It's basic biology. I've lost my train of thought now. Oh well...

BTW: To those Republicans who voted for Bush: Who knew we had voted for a big-government, fiscally imprudent, country building democrat?

The Gay Marriage/Civil Union Amendment proves in heightened relief that Bush is NO FRIGGING DEMOCRAT.

yeah, i also recall the president not being able to declare war on his own, but where there's a will, there's a way i guess. (like, it wasn't REALLY "war"...)

if he can't get the amendment, then i assume we will see a series of smaller laws, guidelines, etc., both on the state and federal level, that will somehow "discourage" homosexual unions.

p.s. apologies for any typos... slashed my finger open on some beveled mat board, so i'm working at 9/10 capacity.

How's Neil Bush doing with that whole "Sanctity of Marriage" thang?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in596033.shtml

AP)_In the annals of embarrassing presidential relatives, Neil Bush is no Billy Carter or Roger Clinton.

But his messy divorce has produced some eye-opening disclosures.

Among them: He had sex with women who showed up uninvited at his hotel rooms in Asia; he had an affair and may have fathered a child out of wedlock; and he stands to make millions from businesses in which he has little expertise - including a computer-chip company managed in part by the son of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin.

For his part, Bush defended the fees he has received for consulting jobs. But he gave little insight into whether the women who offered him sex in Hong Kong and Taiwan were perhaps paid by mysterious benefactors.

In a deposition taken last March and reviewed by The Associated Press, Bush told the attorney for his wife of 23 years, Sharon, that the women did not ask him for money and he did not pay them anything.

Asked how he knew what to do when he opened his door and saw a woman standing there, the 48-year-old Bush replied: "Whatever happened, happened."

"It's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her," said the attorney, Marshall Davis Brown.

"It was very unusual," Bush replied.

Sharon Bush also accused Neil of fathering a child with the woman he now plans to marry. The woman's ex-husband has filed a defamation lawsuit, and DNA testing has been requested.


I'm glad the bush family is setting a shining example. hehe

let me help you get back on the train...

Gay people can adopt... lesbians can certainly get pregnant...

And they all can be parents like the rest of us.

Having equipment that fits doesn't make you a good parent. Or even a family.

Heh. Isn't that about 3 just today?

Why?

A note: This is a joke. Leave the states alone. There is no friggin point!

Sorry?

The President said it was a state's right issue in 2000... now it seems it's a Federal issue BECAUSE the states are doing what they want.

Here's some photos some need to see.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4333446/

Marriage does not equal children, nor should it.

Sterile, fixed, and post-menopausal couples still marry for other reasons.
some people think the world is too crowded already and plain don't want to add more mouths.

Should these people have reduced rights in their union because no offspring result?
Should adoptive parents have more marital rights than no-child couples, but less than biological parents?

Does, let's say, Aunt Edna deserve to suffer lesser protection for her 3rd marriage than her 1st?
Does the fact she's no longer ovulating impact the love or commitment she may feel?
Should she be denied insurance, or tax benefits, or fired because her union doesn't fit the views of those who mistakenly confuse a pair bond with procreation?
If it's not about kids, why else might she be "punished" versus a "fertile marriage".

Children may become a factor in Divorce settlements, and couples who might otherwise divorce have been known to prolong failing marriages for the sake of continuity for their children, but States differ, and cultural backgrounds differ.

Marriage != baby making


as for the logic that poll numbers reflect snapshots of opinion, yeah... so?

Probably more than 80% of Americans are Omnivorous, while only a small proportion are Vegetarian/Vegan.
If the majority tried to add a Constitutional Amendment just because they were the majority,
and somehow (explicitly or implicitly) reclassify non-Carnivores as "unequal" or afforded "lesser rights",
because Carnivores felt threatened somehow, it would seem equally absurd,
and ought to receive equal scorn before being declared UnConstitutional and tossed out.

Equal protection. All people are created equal. it's all about the E word.

Singling out any group, be they Herbivores or Homosexuals or HyperThyroids,
and legislating lesser rights and discriminatory treatment just because you lack tolerance...
sounds like bigotry very thinly disguised. Different doesn't mean unequal.

Here in Canada, particularly in BC, which now recognizes Gay Marriage,
the issue is argued back to the Canadian Charter of Rights. Equality.


Wonder how this amendment will go over in Utah with some Mormons?

Sounds like Delay isn't even supporting it yet.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...22.html#002601

a question from the ignorant: what benefits does marriage [presently] grant [the afflicted] from the government? a consise list would be appreciated.