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?
In fact, the president has no legal role in constitutional amendments.
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.
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
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...
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.
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?
a question from the ignorant: what benefits does marriage [presently] grant [the afflicted] from the government? a consise list would be appreciated.
Good question - I've wondered about that too. And I'm married. Here's a rundown.
Quote:
Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes_and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse?s behalf.
Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse?s close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium_(loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can?t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
Comments
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.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Jesus was not gay, though. What happened there?
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?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
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.]
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?
Originally posted by BRussell
In fact, the president has no legal role in constitutional amendments.
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.
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
Originally posted by Crusader
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...
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.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
[edit: another crap, and offensive, joke removed.]
Heh. Isn't that about 3 just today?
Originally posted by Crusader
Marriage should be a religious rite
Why?
Originally posted by Crusader
A note: This is a joke. Leave the states alone. There is no friggin point!
Sorry?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4333446/
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?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...22.html#002601
Originally posted by thuh Freak
a question from the ignorant: what benefits does marriage [presently] grant [the afflicted] from the government? a consise list would be appreciated.
Good question - I've wondered about that too. And I'm married.
Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes_and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse?s behalf.
Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse?s close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium_(loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can?t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.