Goober
Turning Right ...
520 U$D BILLION in deficit for FY '03, IIRC. A few TRILLION U$D in Debt. Please, let us get it right . . .
Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment
- Thread starter aaminion00
- Start date
520 U$D BILLION in deficit for FY '03, IIRC. A few TRILLION U$D in Debt. Please, let us get it right . . .
CenturionV
Warrior Forever
So let me get this strait. Your saying you think bush should let them vote, and if he lets them vote and wins it will be a dark day for the US?
the truth is the gay right movement is scared TO DEATH about this, they wanna sneak it in the back door by having individual states vote on it or by having no votes at all and just having everyone "except" them and not cause any controversy, cuz they know if bush puts it to a vote and the government has to jump off the fencepost and make a real stand a 100% final ammendment on it that the anti-gay side just has more population support, more political support, and more religious support (and yes religion play a MAJOR role in politics) and will win.
The US government as a whole needs to draw a line in the sand and say 1 way or the other, do gays have the right to marry or not? I'm pretty confident that the right side will win.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I agree with this. The people should decide not judges.
Here I was I thinking America was founded upon the belief that the people should have a say in how their governed.
Far from it. 2/3s of both houses of Congress passed the defence of marriage act in 1998 and about 2/3s of all states have a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I predict this proposed amendment will probably be passed within 2 or 3 years.
Will this be before or after we get flying cars and a colony on Mars?
trader/warrior
Deity
governements should not meddle in the affairs of religions.... it`s as simple as that. governements should lead their countries in a way where religion is not a part of the laws.
El genius, thats exactly how it works.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof"
And do explain how gays constitute a race.
Congress should be the ones deciding, but if they decide in favor its so horrible? Make up your mind.
Maybe it's just me but I'm still not seeing the big deal???
Why can't 'they' just be happy with civil unions and leave straight people in peace?
I'm sure gay rights are more important in places like the mid east - where they suffer much violent retribution for their orientation.
Why can't 'they' just be happy with civil unions and leave straight people in peace?
I'm sure gay rights are more important in places like the mid east - where they suffer much violent retribution for their orientation.
Well, in all fairness, many conservatives were saying the same thing about Clinton - "oh, he's firing Tomahawks in the Middle East to distract everyone from the Monica scandal" a few years ago. However, either way, it's a poor excuse for an argument against the action being discussed, in this case, a gay-marriage ban amendment.
Peri
Vote early and vote often
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 3,261
Gay people are a threat to the fabric of our society. We should stop them from marrying and having children otherwise there will be gay people everywhere. I dont want my children being turned gay by these people. Also gay people will take away jobs of decent god fearing straight people.
Park Ranger
Wonder hog
Divorce. Whether an individuals' religion condemns divorce or not, our legal systems attmept to provide a fair arbitration in the dissolution of marriages. Same-sex couples who break up face many of the same issues over how to divide assets, and, yes, child custody.
Gay and lesbian marriages do exist. They are sanctioned, welcomed and blessed by ever larger communities (it seems) in my culture (N.Amercian), at least. As long as they do not have formal recognition, however, we as a society have failed to treat them equally. In Canada (in my layman's understanding of the Constitution) we are chartered to do so.
The "separation" of Church and State is real in that sinners and lawbreakers are not the same. It is not real in that religion enters into politics all the time, and probably always will. Nonetheless, I fail to see why a homosexual should receive different treatment under the law than a liar or glutton, or any other of us sinners.
Gay and lesbian marriages do exist. They are sanctioned, welcomed and blessed by ever larger communities (it seems) in my culture (N.Amercian), at least. As long as they do not have formal recognition, however, we as a society have failed to treat them equally. In Canada (in my layman's understanding of the Constitution) we are chartered to do so.
The "separation" of Church and State is real in that sinners and lawbreakers are not the same. It is not real in that religion enters into politics all the time, and probably always will. Nonetheless, I fail to see why a homosexual should receive different treatment under the law than a liar or glutton, or any other of us sinners.
MikeLynch
Just a Baker Street Muse
Or, as Jon Stewart put it:
Sure, protect the sanctity of marriage with a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
But then shouldn't we also protect the sanctity of marriage by adding a constitutional amendment about adultery? Logically, yes. But ain't nobody gonna support that.
The only reason this is an issue at all is (1) the GOP has made it an issue b/c they know they can get mileage out of it, because (2) gays are still a minority. As someone on this very board posted the other day: "Gay... It's the New Black!"
People who believe this would have fit right in with Orville Faubus' staff.
One does not choose to be gay, so your argument about "turning children gay" has no merit. One DOES, however, choose to be an adulterer, so it actually makes MORE sense to constitutionally protect marriage from the Big Scary Threat of Adultery than the Big Scary Threat of Gay Marriage.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I'm not against the sanctity of marriage. In fact, I don't give a damn about that. I am just against activist judes redefining a historic institution against the wishes of the people because of their own narrow moral beliefs. Marriage means a union of a man and a woman. He doesn't mean a union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or three men and four women, or a man and a goat. It means a union between a man and a woman. Just like heterosexual means relations between a man and a woman. That is the definition of the word.
The problem the way I see it is that homosexuals (and others) want the rights of marriage, which is perfectly understandable and acceptable. That can be gotten through a civil union of equal worth, i.e. state benefits and recognition, as marriage. However some people don't want just that. They want to attack the beliefs of people they dislike, i.e. the religious right. They don't just want equality for homosexuals, they want to force their agenda on the rest of the country. They want to change the definition of marriage for no other reason then because they dislike it being protected as just a union between a man and a woman. I fully support the fight for a civil union of equal worth to marriage but I am fully against the redefinition of the word 'marriage'. It is just picking a fight when there is no need too. Be pragmatic and compromise is my message. You can't always get what you want so get what is necessary. Get a civil union of equal worth and move on.
SideshowBob
Ah, winter finally.
But isn't Bush altogether against gay people? It's not as if he is endorsing civil union. He's a plain homophobe (I bet I know what he's got in his closet) giving homosexuals the same right's and the same possibility to love and take care of their parners doesn't threaten the family as an institution (whether the parents are straight, gay, or religious or not)
10:03 on a Tuesday morning
in the fall of an American dream
a man is doing what he knows is right
on flight 93
Loved his mom and he loved his dad
loved his home and he loved his man
but on that bloody Tuesday morning
he died and American
[chorus]
Now you cannot change this
You can't erase this
You can't pretend this is not the truth
Even though he could not marry
Or teach your children in our schools
Because who he wants to love
Is breaking your God's rules
He stood up on a Tuesday Morning
In the terror he was brave
And he made his choice and without a doubt
A hundred lives he must have saved
[chorus]
And the things you might take for granted
Your inalienable rights
Some might choose to deny him
Even though he gave his life
Can you live with yourself in the land of the free
And make him less of a hero than the other three
Well it might begin to change ya
In a field in Pennsylvania
[chorus]
Stand up America
Hear the bell now as it tolls
Wake up America
It's Tuesday Morning
Let's roll
(Melissa Etheridge)
10:03 on a Tuesday morning
in the fall of an American dream
a man is doing what he knows is right
on flight 93
Loved his mom and he loved his dad
loved his home and he loved his man
but on that bloody Tuesday morning
he died and American
[chorus]
Now you cannot change this
You can't erase this
You can't pretend this is not the truth
Even though he could not marry
Or teach your children in our schools
Because who he wants to love
Is breaking your God's rules
He stood up on a Tuesday Morning
In the terror he was brave
And he made his choice and without a doubt
A hundred lives he must have saved
[chorus]
And the things you might take for granted
Your inalienable rights
Some might choose to deny him
Even though he gave his life
Can you live with yourself in the land of the free
And make him less of a hero than the other three
Well it might begin to change ya
In a field in Pennsylvania
[chorus]
Stand up America
Hear the bell now as it tolls
Wake up America
It's Tuesday Morning
Let's roll
(Melissa Etheridge)
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
Marriage simply put is the relation between persons married to each other. Arguing about the semantics is petty when compared to denying people rights based on their sexual orientation.
MrPresident, you seem to be saying that you support homosexual unions being granted the same legal benefits that we now associate with a legal marriage. But at the same time you want to create a whole new set of laws that rule them, you want to create a 'civil union' that is separate but equal to 'legal marriage'.
In theory this works out OK though it seems quite petty to me, that's me.
In practice this is nearly impossible. The various legal benefits of marriage will have to then be enumerated and copied piecemeal. Why even do this? If all the rights that these couples deserve are already defined under the legal term marriage then I see no substantial reason to create a separate but equal civil union. Except perhaps to pander to people who view homosexuality as a sin.
What about other institutions that grant benefits to married couples without it being enshrined in law? As soon as you separate out homosexual marriages you will find that people who consider homosexuality a sin will fight against granting every possible benefit of marriage to civil unions. Some will argue against adoption, others against inheritance, etc. etc. etc.
On a more personal note I would mention that we are in fact dealing with peoples rights. There are currently in the US many homosexual people who consider themselves married in the eyes of God and man, if not the government. Many of these people have children and have built lives together. They are indeed being denied the rights that other people who have committed to building a life together enjoy, simply based on their sexual preference.
MrPresident, you seem to be saying that you support homosexual unions being granted the same legal benefits that we now associate with a legal marriage. But at the same time you want to create a whole new set of laws that rule them, you want to create a 'civil union' that is separate but equal to 'legal marriage'.
In theory this works out OK though it seems quite petty to me, that's me.
In practice this is nearly impossible. The various legal benefits of marriage will have to then be enumerated and copied piecemeal. Why even do this? If all the rights that these couples deserve are already defined under the legal term marriage then I see no substantial reason to create a separate but equal civil union. Except perhaps to pander to people who view homosexuality as a sin.
What about other institutions that grant benefits to married couples without it being enshrined in law? As soon as you separate out homosexual marriages you will find that people who consider homosexuality a sin will fight against granting every possible benefit of marriage to civil unions. Some will argue against adoption, others against inheritance, etc. etc. etc.
On a more personal note I would mention that we are in fact dealing with peoples rights. There are currently in the US many homosexual people who consider themselves married in the eyes of God and man, if not the government. Many of these people have children and have built lives together. They are indeed being denied the rights that other people who have committed to building a life together enjoy, simply based on their sexual preference.
Nice spin. All the gays wanting to get married, and their friends in the media and courts, have made this into an issue. Most people want things to stay as they are now. There is no need for them to make an issue of it. They do, however, have to respond to all the nonsense about gay marriage being shoved down their throats every day because those doing the shoving demand they respond, positively. When they get a negative (or even an indifferent) response, "gay rights" activists get angry and start calling names. ex) from a previous post: **** you Bush!
As stated previously, Bush is the man.
Little Raven
On Walkabout
Who are the "activist judges" you're talking about? The judges don't operate in a vacuum. If a person or entity brings a suit, they have to determine the validity of that suit in the eyes of the law. That's their job. They are not supposed to care about "the will of people." Implementing the will of the people is the job of the legislature. The courts merely interpret the law. Which judges do you label activist, and on what legal grounds do you disagree with them?
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
I simply cannot fathom how people can ignore the great injustice being done to homosexual families in this country. Can you not understand why a homosexual would get angry when you tell him/her that he does not have the right to have a family, or to have his/her comitted relationship legaly recognized by the state. Do you not see why they would want to raise this issue any way they could? Do you really think that this is equivalent to your feeling imposed on by their argument? Or your opinion that gay marriage is 'nonsense'?
Unbelievable, the only way I can understand this is in terms of people thinking that homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexuals thus deserve to be second class citizens, and then not wanting to come out and say that. Am I missing something else here?
Stop kidding yourself, they are not harming you - you are harming them.
Unbelievable, the only way I can understand this is in terms of people thinking that homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexuals thus deserve to be second class citizens, and then not wanting to come out and say that. Am I missing something else here?
Stop kidding yourself, they are not harming you - you are harming them.
Laughing Gull
charts, graphs, databases
I pose the question: what do you do with a hermaphrodite that wants to marry a man or a woman?
they're part man, part woman
do you deny them the right to marry at all? either way they go, if they're marrying a man or a woman, its a same-sex marriage!
they're part man, part woman
do you deny them the right to marry at all? either way they go, if they're marrying a man or a woman, its a same-sex marriage!
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
I'm happy for gay couples to obtain state-acknowledged union, but not to get "married". I'm happy for gay couples to obtain the security of a common law "marriage" (etc), but not to obtain benefits which are designed to encourage reproduction. Marriage and the nuclear family is a system of reproduction providing a stable and healthy environment for the bearing and upbringing of children. Making state-acknowledged union of a homosexual couple equivalent to marriage would hence not be something I could support.
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
@calgacus - is it that you are in complete denial about how many homosexual couples currently have children, that you don't think they should be given any help in providing a stable and healthy environment for the bearing and upbringing of children, or that you think that homosexuality is a sin, and so that a homosexual couple could not possibly provide a stable and healthy environment for the bearing and upbringing of children?
