Bush: No marriages for gay couples

[Gert T 0]

Religious Right will not be cut because they drop too much money for the Republicans.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Question: Is this a civil union between a gay couple or gay marriage. In politics, both are very very different. I read not long ago in USA Today (I read it everyday on break) that no Democratic contender right now actively endorses gay marriage, but does endorse gay unions. He looks to strictly be talking about Gay Marraige, which means absolutely nothing when it comes to civil unions. Of course, if you can show me where he says he doesn't want those as well, I'll rescind my comments. Otherwise, I don't really see this as a surprise because this has been out there for a long time.

Personally, I think that gays should get equal rights that are afforded from a government marriage in terms of next of kin rights, alimony rights, tax benefits, and so on. They can call it something different for all I care, just make it essentially the same thing in court.

[Guest JMA]

Religious Right will not be cut because they drop too much money for the Republicans.

Sad, but true.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand that picture?

[Murmuring Beast 0]

I actually don't understand it myself, but you catch my drift, right?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

That George Bush is a finger-wielding dictator who is backed up by spacemen? Or that you're comparing the president to Hitler?

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Comparing this ruling to those that Hitler made against gays.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Yes, because Bush is in favor of gassing homosexuals and all..wtf.

[Guest The Flying Dutchman]

Lately, on the internet at least, comparing someone to Hitler is quickly becoming the last refuge of the ignorant. Someone says something you disagree with, you don't have to argue against it ... just post a picture of Hitler and that settles everything.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

In today's society discriminating against the Homosexual society is unacceptable. The Hitler pic was a bit of a joke, I apologise if anyone was offended.

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

In today's society discriminating against the Homosexual society is unacceptable. The Hitler pic was a bit of a joke, I apologise if anyone was offended.

I don't think anyone was offended. I think we're all just kind of astounded by your ignorance.

[Zorin Industries 0]

We had this same debate in the U.K recently, what it came down to is that Gay couples to not have the same sort of rights as married couples. For instance, if they have been together for years and live in the same house when one dies the other has little leagl claim on the property and on any other possesions. Add into this tax breaks and other privalges that hetrosexual couples recieve that gay couples do not and you have a blatanly unfair situation.

 

I find it hard to believe that anyone in this day and age can still think it is right to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation, and that George Bush would come right out and say that he favours outlawing the ability for two people to legally declare there love for each other.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

 

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If One case goes to the Supreme Court anytime soon, then that amendment right there would allow for gay marriages because then it will be fair.

 

Here is my opinion on it: Either allow gay marriages or take away all perks that married couples get. It is only fair to everyone involved. If they made a law saying black people can't marry right now, then all hell would break loose and a riot would come out of it. But homosexuals are the last major group in this country that is ok to blindly hate. You can tell just by everything that isn't good or is stupid "gay".

 

President Bush will NOT lose an election over this. As Vyce said, this will make Bush lose about 30 votes nation wide, 30 out MILLIONS isn't a big deal. It is stupid that he would say this giving the timing of events and the feeling of the GOP being gay bashers. Everyone knows that he isn't in favor of gay marriages, but saying he wants a law to push for an amendment to get rid of it just makes no sense at this time. If he gets reelected and knowing his term will be up, you push for stuff then because it won't hurt him to state these things.

 

As for what will make people vote for or against Bush will be domestic issues. And major ones like the economy. That, I feel, is the major one. Where I live, alot of corporations are going through a lot of shit and people are a little worried if they will have a job come December(I live right near Pitney Bowes as an example). When the economy is hot, less people are worried about jobs, when the econ is in the shitter, people want to be secure and Bush will have to win voters by getting this cycle of a slump to turn into a boom.

[Guest Cerebus]

Well since that amendment has made everything from abortion to forced busing legal why not gay marriages?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Well since that amendment has made everything from abortion to forced busing legal why not gay marriages?

 

Perhaps I'm not as well versed on Roe as I thought I was, but what the hell does abortion have to do with equal protection under the law? In this case, it has EVERYTHING to do with it... I mean, one group of people are blatantly discriminated against, and one group are given perks. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

[Guest Cerebus]

Something to do with denying a woman the right to an abortion is denying "equal protection under the law" or some such. The logic espoused by the majority at the time (and of the SCOTUS now) are sketchy at best which has led a lot of legal scholars to really wonder why abortion should be an issue decided by the courts at all and if Roe is truly in the realm of the judicial jurisdiction.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

While the President is allowed to be religious, he's not supposed to let religion direct his action.

Absolutely wrong.

Maybe you don't seem to understand what I mean:

 

* Going to church, prayers in speeches, etc = Fine

 

* "Hey let's do _______ because the church told me to" = No

 

Slice it however you like. He's either taking away states rights to satisfy his own whims, taking away states rights to act in interest of the church, or taking away states rights to satisfy a fringe element of his party.

 

Either way it's not good.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

It would have been more clear if you wrote:

 

"While the President is allowed to be religious, he's not supposed to let a religious establishment direct his action."

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Ok then. That works.

 

I agree with you on the privatizing marriage thing by the way.

[Guest Powerplay]

Question: Is this a civil union between a gay couple or gay marriage. In politics, both are very very different. I read not long ago in USA Today (I read it everyday on break) that no Democratic contender right now actively endorses gay marriage, but does endorse gay unions. He looks to strictly be talking about Gay Marraige, which means absolutely nothing when it comes to civil unions. Of course, if you can show me where he says he doesn't want those as well, I'll rescind my comments. Otherwise, I don't really see this as a surprise because this has been out there for a long time.

Personally, I think that gays should get equal rights that are afforded from a government marriage in terms of next of kin rights, alimony rights, tax benefits, and so on. They can call it something different for all I care, just make it essentially the same thing in court.

See, that's my opinion. Just let the right keep the word marriage and give gays the same benefits. It's all done then. The big rush to do this now is because the Gay Activist Groups have court cases in both Massachusetts and New Jersey, and after seeing the majority opinion of the Texas Sodomy case (Which was scathing to the point of being almost unnecessary), the whole right is freaked out. I believe Spicy said this before, and that's pretty much it. Just to say, I hope this doesn't create a precident minority of skirting Congress on social issues and instead try to push it through the Supreme Court.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I think gays would be happy with their "civil unions" if it meant they got all the same rights as a married couple. It isn't the stigma of marriage itself, it is everything that comes along with being married. I don't see a problem with it, and don't really understand why anybody would, however what I can't stand is how popular it has become for the right to claim the "sanctity" of marriage is at stake, when all along marriage is about the love two people share for each other.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Gays should have have all the rights that same sex couples have. Just because they are attracted to people of the same sex is no excuse to discriminate against them.

 

Now *I* personally am interested in Marney's reaction to this...

[Guest Powerplay]

Gays should have have all the rights that same sex couples have. Just because they are attracted to people of the same sex is no excuse to discriminate against them.

 

Now *I* personally am interested in Marney's reaction to this...

... I'm guessing you mean "Opposite Sex" here, right? Otherwise, um, they kinda do already.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

*I* personally am interested in Marney's reaction to this...

Same as it's always been. Same sex couples deserve no special consideration under the law. Neither do heterosexual couples. States have no business sanctioning anyone's marriage; government should stay the hell out of private relationships.

[Guest Lil Naitch]

If two people love each other, be it straight or gay, they should be allowed to marry. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.