Bush promotes measure against gay marriage

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5410738/

 

In radio address, president says ‘our nation has no other choice’The Associated Press

 

Updated: 10:34 a.m. ET July 10, 2004WASHINGTON - President Bush says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it.

 

A few activist judges and local officials have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage, Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

 

Leading the chorus of support for an amendment, Bush said, “If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened.”

 

Opening of debate

His remarks follow the opening of Senate debate Friday on a constitutional amendment effectively banning gay marriage.

 

Reflecting the election-year sensitivity of the issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Republicans are using the constitutional amendment as a bulletin board for campaign sloganeering.

 

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of holding inconsistent positions.

 

Kerry and running mate Sen. John Edwards oppose gay marriage, but support civil unions.

 

Bush singled out Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court, which called marriage an evolving paradigm. “That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution,” he said.

 

Bush: ‘Our nation has no other choice’

The president urged the House and Senate to send to the states for ratification an amendment that defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

 

Senate Democrats signaled they will not throw barriers in front of the resolution, paving the way for a vote on the amendment as early as next Wednesday.

 

A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly, Bush said, “yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice.”

 

The vote puts some Democrats and Republicans in a difficult position. One senator acknowledged the political risk in trying to walk a line supporting both traditional marriage and gay rights.

 

“I intend to be your champion on many issues in the future, if you want me,” Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said in remarks directed at gay and lesbian voters. Smith is a leader in efforts to make attacks against homosexuals a federal hate crime.

 

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Thank God our President is here to protect us against the hellish onslaught that is gay marriage.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well that is what happens when pretty much you have lost massive support for other sings such as Iraq and the Economy. Hell, he needs to get his support from SOMEWHERE these days, and looks like he is going to use the good ol' religious right.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

They just covered this as late breaking news on CNN, with the title "War on Homosexuality."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, so they didn't but that's the basic state of mind this clown's sending out there. But we all know gays are the cause of the economic downfall in this country. They've got graphs and pie charts to prove it, damn it.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

Well that is what happens when pretty much you have lost massive support for other sings such as Iraq and the Economy. Hell, he needs to get his support from SOMEWHERE these days, and looks like he is going to use the good ol' religious right.

Ya, because homosexuals can't register to vote...

 

If I was a presidential candidate I'd find something that everybody could agree on, like stopping grave robbers. That's actually been a problem in Mass as of late since it appears one group is going from cemetery to cemetery, collecting little trinkets left at the grave sights by family and then pawning them off. You'd lose the vote of the 6 or 7 grave robbers but hey, you gain a bunch more.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well that is what happens when pretty much you have lost massive support for other sings such as Iraq and the Economy. Hell, he needs to get his support from SOMEWHERE these days, and looks like he is going to use the good ol' religious right.

Except the economy is doing well and Iraq is much better off now than it was a year ago.

 

But if living in denial makes you happy, feel free.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

And this basically becomes a non-issue because NEITHER candidate supports full Gay Marriage. Both I believe support some sort of civil union or state recognition (At least, I know Cheney does in the Bush camp), but neither supports gay marriage in the slightest. So this basically means shit when it all comes down to it.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

And this basically becomes a non-issue because NEITHER candidate supports full Gay Marriage. Both I believe support some sort of civil union or state recognition (At least, I know Cheney does in the Bush camp), but neither supports gay marriage in the slightest. So this basically means shit when it all comes down to it.

Well it still is somewhat of an issue because Bush is calling for a constitutional ammendment. That idea pisses off a lot of people, both liberals and conservatives.

[Justice 0]

And this basically becomes a non-issue because NEITHER candidate supports full Gay Marriage. Both I believe support some sort of civil union or state recognition (At least, I know Cheney does in the Bush camp), but neither supports gay marriage in the slightest. So this basically means shit when it all comes down to it.

Well it still is somewhat of an issue because Bush is calling for a constitutional ammendment. That idea pisses off a lot of people, both liberals and conservatives.

Oh come on, here.

 

First off, most people don't care because they realize it will never get passed. It's an act, and they know it. Both sides are looking for a moral victory on the issue, and they'll get it. That's all this; acting like you are fighting for something that you have no chance of deciding, and the public IS smart enough to realize this much.

 

Secondly, at the end of the day nothing will change at all because of this stuff. Kerry doesn't want gay marriage, Bush doesn't want gay marriage. Zsasz's comment applies just as much to Kerry as to Bush because they both don't want full gay marriage.

 

Maybe I see this as a complete non-issue. All this constitutional amendment stuff is being done because all this is being done through the court system, where no one has any power and there is no middle ground: Either there is no gay marriage, or there is. The SCOTUS is gonna have a hell of a time with this one...

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I do think Bush's continued support of the ban on gay marriage is a big policy question. It's enough to ensure that I'll never vote for him. Though I know it wouldn't pass Congress, I have no desire to have someone who'll promote the issue - whether he personally believes it or not - in the nation's highest office. Neither candidate supports it, but Kerry isn't looking to ban it. Yet. He gets the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

[Vyce 0]

Thank God our President is here to protect us against the hellish onslaught that is gay marriage.

You do realize that John Kerry's position on gay marriage is more SIMILAR to that of George W. Bush than it is different, don't you?

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Thank God our President is here to protect us against the hellish onslaught that is gay marriage.

You do realize that John Kerry's position on gay marriage is more SIMILAR to that of George W. Bush than it is different, don't you?

I think I missed the part where he even mentioned Kerry.

[Guest No Survivors]

Well that is what happens when pretty much you have lost massive support for other sings such as Iraq and the Economy.  Hell, he needs to get his support from SOMEWHERE these days, and looks like he is going to use the good ol' religious right.

Except the economy is doing well and Iraq is much better off now than it was a year ago.

 

But if living in denial makes you happy, feel free.

-=Mike

All these things are true, as is the fact that our economic recovery was one of the slowest in history(1), job growth isn't keeping up with population growth,(2) and the war in Iraq was nearly fumbled due to a combination of bad intelligence, and poor planning.(3)

 

As for gay marriage itself-If Hitler can't turn gays straight, and ex-gay groups deny bisexuality exists (as well as the fact that medical community has warned against the idea that homosexuality is simply a matter of "choice"(4) , then this debate is nothing more than a cynical manipulation of the public's trust for political gain.

 

Especially once you know the players behind the scenes.

 

Political activist groups like the Paul Cameron's FRI and the FTC rely on false statistics and a misrepresentation of legitimate research when making their case. ((5))

 

The leaders of the Christian Coalition (6), tell their loyal viewers, and the world, America is evil.

 

It's no wonder why our courts have ruled against them.

 

Only one side is telling the truth.

[Guest SP-1]

You people do realize that this isn't news, right? A relationship between Bush, gay marriage, and a constitutional amendment to ban it has been debated adn talked about for quite some time now. Bump an old thread or something. Geez.

[Justice 0]

Well that is what happens when pretty much you have lost massive support for other sings such as Iraq and the Economy.  Hell, he needs to get his support from SOMEWHERE these days, and looks like he is going to use the good ol' religious right.

Except the economy is doing well and Iraq is much better off now than it was a year ago.

 

But if living in denial makes you happy, feel free.

-=Mike

All these things are true, as is the fact that our economic recovery was one of the slowest in history(1), job growth isn't keeping up with population growth,(2) and the war in Iraq was nearly fumbled due to a combination of bad intelligence, and poor planning.(3)

 

As for gay marriage itself-If Hitler can't turn gays straight, and ex-gay groups deny bisexuality exists (as well as the fact that medical community has warned against the idea that homosexuality is simply a matter of "choice"(4) , then this debate is nothing more than a cynical manipulation of the public's trust for political gain.

 

Especially once you know the players behind the scenes.

 

Political activist groups like the Paul Cameron's FRI and the FTC rely on false statistics and a misrepresentation of legitimate research when making their case. ((5))

 

The leaders of the Christian Coalition (6), tell their loyal viewers, and the world, America is evil.

Point in case 1: That article is over 6 months old and doesn't at all account for the huge influx of jobs as of late and outsourcing starting to go down.

 

With 2: Lets look at a wider graphic view of this nice little statistic. Or hell, look at the actual percentage change: It's about a two percent drop. Looking at the chart, these drops regularly occur about once or twice a decade, plus you are ignoring that this was starting with Clinton (You can say he peaked and I'll agree: The percentage was steadily decreasing at the end of his administration, which caused this peak. Therefore this started under HIS watch).

 

On 3: Arguments can be made both ways, but this war has also had overcovered to the point of which its being made into a far greater 'disaster' than it truly is.

 

Does 4 even have a point, or are you just trying to come off as better or smarter by citing your footnotes?

 

5 and 6 are just presenting easy, slow moving targets that don't have any real relevance in the entire topic besides citing more articles.

 

It's no wonder why our courts have ruled against them.

 

Not really, because none of these reasons are relevant in any way to any of the recent court decisions.

 

Only one side is telling the truth.

 

And lets end it with obligatory ambiguous shot at the other side, while completely ignoring the current argument:

 

Kerry's stance has very little difference from Bush's stance when stood next to each other. Since there is nothing the President can do to stop the Court system (Without choosing not to enforce the ruling, which is PR suicide nowadays), this is literally a non-issue.

 

One side obviously doesn't know what the subject matter is.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Well that is what happens when pretty much you have lost massive support for other sings such as Iraq and the Economy.  Hell, he needs to get his support from SOMEWHERE these days, and looks like he is going to use the good ol' religious right.

Except the economy is doing well and Iraq is much better off now than it was a year ago.

 

But if living in denial makes you happy, feel free.

-=Mike

The economy is doing well? WHERE? Not where I live.

 

The economy is doing better, but not WELL when compared to Clinton's term.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Thank God our President is here to protect us against the hellish onslaught that is gay marriage.

You do realize that John Kerry's position on gay marriage is more SIMILAR to that of George W. Bush than it is different, don't you?

Kerry does not support a constitutional amendment. Kerry supports Civil unions, which Bush does not.

 

So what was your point?

[Justice 0]

The economy is doing well? WHERE? Not where I live.

So? Ancedotal evidence means jack shit. What if I were to say it's doing well where I am, then is it recovering or what?

 

The economy is doing better, but not WELL when compared to Clinton's term.

 

Clinton firstly thrived on the internet bubble, secondly brought us to where we are now because the decline began during his administration, and thirdly it really isn't much since Reagan's era outshines his as well.

 

Let's face it, people: After 8 years of prosperity, we will always have 4 years of shit. That's how our economy works. We get fat over 8 years, then we work out out and flush out the useless shit so we run the 4 minute-mile again.

[Justice 0]

Thank God our President is here to protect us against the hellish onslaught that is gay marriage.

You do realize that John Kerry's position on gay marriage is more SIMILAR to that of George W. Bush than it is different, don't you?

Kerry does not support a constitutional amendment. Kerry supports Civil unions, which Bush does not.

 

So what was your point?

Cheney supports Civil Unions, and I've never heard Bush speak out against Civil Unions. If Cheney really has as much power as you guys make him out to, what makes you think that Bush would ban Civil Unions as well?

 

The fact is that the Constitutional Amendment is a useless and futile gesture, and in the end, both men support the same realistic solution. If you can see this, then you are too naive to help.

[Guest No Survivors]

Well that is what happens when pretty much you have lost massive support for other sings such as Iraq and the Economy.  Hell, he needs to get his support from SOMEWHERE these days, and looks like he is going to use the good ol' religious right.

Except the economy is doing well and Iraq is much better off now than it was a year ago.

 

But if living in denial makes you happy, feel free.

-=Mike

All these things are true, as is the fact that our economic recovery was one of the slowest in history(1), job growth isn't keeping up with population growth,(2) and the war in Iraq was nearly fumbled due to a combination of bad intelligence, and poor planning.(3)

 

As for gay marriage itself-If Hitler can't turn gays straight, and ex-gay groups deny bisexuality exists (as well as the fact that medical community has warned against the idea that homosexuality is simply a matter of "choice"(4) , then this debate is nothing more than a cynical manipulation of the public's trust for political gain.

 

Especially once you know the players behind the scenes.

 

Political activist groups like the Paul Cameron's FRI and the FTC rely on false statistics and a misrepresentation of legitimate research when making their case. ((5))

 

The leaders of the Christian Coalition (6), tell their loyal viewers, and the world, America is evil.

Point in case 1: That article is over 6 months old and doesn't at all account for the huge influx of jobs as of late and outsourcing starting to go down.

 

With 2: Lets look at a wider graphic view of this nice little statistic. Or hell, look at the actual percentage change: It's about a two percent drop. Looking at the chart, these drops regularly occur about once or twice a decade, plus you are ignoring that this was starting with Clinton (You can say he peaked and I'll agree: The percentage was steadily decreasing at the end of his administration, which caused this peak. Therefore this started under HIS watch).

 

On 3: Arguments can be made both ways, but this war has also had overcovered to the point of which its being made into a far greater 'disaster' than it truly is.

 

Does 4 even have a point, or are you just trying to come off as better or smarter by citing your footnotes?

 

5 and 6 are just presenting easy, slow moving targets that don't have any real relevance in the entire topic besides citing more articles.

 

It's no wonder why our courts have ruled against them.

 

Not really, because none of these reasons are relevant in any way to any of the recent court decisions.

 

Only one side is telling the truth.

 

And lets end it with obligatory ambiguous shot at the other side, while completely ignoring the current argument:

 

Kerry's stance has very little difference from Bush's stance when stood next to each other. Since there is nothing the President can do to stop the Court system (Without choosing not to enforce the ruling, which is PR suicide nowadays), this is literally a non-issue.

 

One side obviously doesn't know what the subject matter is.

First off, thanks for your thoughts. It will be an honor to debate you.

 

A few things-

 

I quote articles, not to make myself sound smarter (me smart? , you have no idea how ironic that statement is), but because

 

1.I type slow.

 

2.I read fast.

 

3.And I prefer the people I debate be able to reference my sources of information, so they can catch me on any mistakes I make rather than the argument devolve into shouting our opinions at each other.

 

I'll respond to points 1&2 of your rebuttal after I've researched your answers properly, but 3 is a legitimate concern with the Bush administration-media coverage has little to do with the issue. Whether it's FOX, CNN, CNBC, or any of the others, they don't have the time to present a nuanced case, and any attempt to argue a case based on their coverage usually results in polarized b/w thinking. (For the record, I agree with the war, but not with how the operation was executed afterwards.)

 

4-is to demonstrate the troubles with claiming gays make a choice to be gay. Since much of the country still believes it's optional, it's no wonder why gay marriage is painted as an issue of morality, rather than tolerance.

 

5-6-those slow moving targets have legitimate political clout, due to their ability to deliver votes in this country. If you'd read up on who's mobilizing voters against gay marriage, their names come up often. Paul Cameron's work, for instance, is frequently cited in conservative christian literature.

 

Believe it or not, the arguments of these people have been used in our courts...and thrown out just as quickly.

 

Now you know why.

 

For Bush to claim it's happening due to irresponsible judicial activism is simply more divisive partisan rhetoric in an election year-not that we didn't already know that, it's just that I felt the need to prove it rather than wasting anyone's time by restating what others have said.

[Guest CronoT]

Bush's plan for getting re-elected? Fuck over every homosexual's future and relegate them to second class citizens. I hope the Supreme Court bitch-slaps Bush over this.

[Justice 0]

Ah, okay. You came off the wrong way. Allow me to appologize, then.

 

On #3: I believe that there are definitely some problems with Iraq, and things could have gone off better. I'd be dumb to say everything went off perfectly. But I feel that there are certain parts (Particularly the casualty count and guerilla fighting) that has been drastically blown out of proportion. Certain things (like this new information on the attempts to get Uranium from Niger by Iraq) have lacked coverage, and there are positive things that should be getting coverage that aren't (The rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure for one). I think both sides can say that the media has done a half-hearted effort in trying to exam Iraq from any side, pro-war or anti-war, and what results is nothing getting told and everyone bitching.

 

#4: I completely agree with you, I just suppose I don't see it as being very revelant in the argument at hand. I suppose I focused much more on Kerry's view and Bush's view arugment more than the actual article because that's where the discussion went, so no harm, no foul.

 

Overall, I took offense more towards the first 3 points, and the last 3 I didn't see relevant to the argument since most of it has been in comparison of Kerry and Bush.

 

By the by, I do know why they've been thrown out, and frankly I'm not really concerned with the issue since I really have no control over it and it won't affect me in either way. I just hope, though, that people don't start using the courts as a way to bypass voters when it comes down to controversial issues. I'm not sure it's Judicial Activism, I'm just hoping it doesn't encourage it.

 

And wow, it's nice to meet someone who doesn't come off as completely smarmy all the time. I'm a lot less combative when people are, well, a bit more civil and a bit less flame-warish.

[Guest MikeSC]

First off, thanks for your thoughts. It will be an honor to debate you.

 

A few things-

 

I quote articles, not to make myself sound smarter (me smart? , you have no idea how ironic that statement is), but because

 

1.I type slow.

 

2.I read fast.

3.And I prefer the people I debate be able to reference my sources of information, so they can catch me on any mistakes I make rather than the argument devolve into shouting our opinions at each other.

 

I'll respond to points 1&2 of your rebuttal after I've researched your answers properly, but 3 is a legitimate concern with the Bush administration-media coverage has little to do with the issue. Whether it's FOX, CNN, CNBC, or any of the others, they don't have the time to present a nuanced case, and any attempt to argue a case based on their coverage usually results in polarized b/w thinking. (For the record, I agree with the war, but not with how the operation was executed afterwards.)

 

4-is to demonstrate the troubles with claiming gays make a choice to be gay. Since much of the country still believes it's optional, it's no wonder why gay marriage is painted as an issue of morality, rather than tolerance.

 

5-6-those slow moving targets have legitimate political clout, due to their ability to deliver votes in this country. If you'd read up on who's mobilizing voters against gay marriage, their names come up often. Paul Cameron's work, for instance, is frequently cited in conservative christian literature.

 

Believe it or not, the arguments of these people have been used in our courts...and thrown out just as quickly.

 

Now you know why.

 

For Bush to claim it's happening due to irresponsible judicial activism is simply more divisive partisan rhetoric in an election year-not that we didn't already know that, it's just that I felt the need to prove it rather than wasting anyone's time by restating what others have said.

Well, first, I would like to welcome you to the boards. Somebody capable of debate without flaming is rare. I'm hardly the poster child for it, but I do appreciate it when I see it.

 

Point 3: I do believe that the press has a desire to "end a war" as they believe (rightly or wrongly is a debate) they did with Vietnam. Thus, I do believe that the press, all things being equal, would rather print the bad in these situations, simply because "changing government policy" is a sign of power.

 

Former gays? I don't believe you can ever become not gay --- as you said, it's unlikely to be a choice. However, while we can't prove homosexuality can be "overcome", neither can we prove it's "genetic". It's the most likely possibility, but proof is scant.

 

Bush's beef is that courts --- as they did with Roe v Wade --- are "finding" laws in documents with precious little actual basis behind them. Bush seems to be supporting the Constitutional Amendment simply because there are no alternatives.

-=Mike

[Guest CronoT]

Bush seems to be supporting the Constitutional Amendment simply because there are no alternatives.

-=Mike

Bush is supporting the Constitutional Amendment so he can kiss the asses of all the Bible-thumping, extreme right-wing nutsos. See Pat Robertson for an example. I am a Christian, but I am somewhat torn over this situation.

 

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. Consequently, it also guarantees freedom from religion. So, Bush's proposal is not only illegal, because it is attempting to force a religious social value upon people, but because I think it is morally wrong.

 

One of the fine lines between Christianity and Islam, is that Islam practitioners believe that if a nation or group of people will not convert to Islam, then it is their religious obligation to kill them. Now, Bush is trying to do something similar to homosexuals. Bush's plan will essentially put a scarlet letter on all of them. But instead of an A, it will be an H.

 

I understand and accept that one of my responsibilities as a Christian is to try to bring people to Christ. But, the concept of forcing my or other people's values on somone else simply because what they do doesn't agree with me, is simply apalling.

 

I cannot, in good conscience support this amendment.

 

P.S.: I wanted to make sure I spelled conscience right, so I checked a dictionary website. Something interesting popped up.

 

Main Entry: con·science

Function: adjective

: exempting persons whose religious beliefs forbid compliance <conscience laws, which allow physicians…to refuse to participate in abortions —W. J. Curran>

 

 

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

 

From a legal standpoint, a law cannot run one-way. If a law can be made to protect a person for their beliefs, then that law must also respect the beliefs of the person on the other end of the "table."

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Point 3: I do believe that the press has a desire to "end a war" as they believe (rightly or wrongly is a debate) they did with Vietnam. Thus, I do believe that the press, all things being equal, would rather print the bad in these situations, simply because "changing government policy" is a sign of power.

 

I don't think it's as much about a power trip by the media than instead the requirement to keep circulation numbers up. As much as we all love that uplifting story about something, it only will keep the attention of a public for a short time period. It's why our heroes are often forgotten; their service is shuffled aside for the next heart-wrenching story that makes you feel good at the end of it. But the stories of corruption, destruction, and suffering, keeps you reading. It's a psychological effect taught by journalism professors for all young ones to pick up on, because that human suffering, and the need to watch others suffer, will lead to better viewership. There's a reason as to why "if it bleeds, it leads" came about. Now, one of the benefits of providing the news, and providing the angle of said news, is that you are in control of your audience. If there are no other viewpoints being presented, sure, you wind up being in complete dominance, and capable of changing opinions. Hello groupthink. Hence the phrase: The media don't tell you what to think, but what to think about.

 

If changing popular opinion is something the media is looking for, they sure could be doing a better job of it. Sure, we all make Fox News jokes, but to their credit, they show the positive spin on things, while some others are always negative, all the time. Some are showing more balance, which helps. So no, I don't think that government policy change is something going on with this war coverage. If they were, I'd think Iraq would be over by now. Anyways.

 

Bush's beef is that courts --- as they did with Roe v Wade --- are "finding" laws in documents with precious little actual basis behind them. Bush seems to be supporting the Constitutional Amendment simply because there are no alternatives.

 

I won't even touch the whole Roe vs. Wade, because nobody ever wins that one.

 

The law as written in Massachusetts, which lead to the gay marriage ruling, was that it referenced two people. Not a man and a woman (which, if someone deemed unconsitutional, would be overstepping the bounds of the courts, in my mind), but as defined as merely two people. This is how we got to the point where we did in MA. The SJC did itself no favors with its later rulings (which I'd source thru LexisNexis archives, but that's the problem with being off-campus), which kept talking about discrimination being unconstitutional, and how they would not accept anything short of gay marriage being legal.

 

Therein, the court ruled that marriage was open to homosexuals, but the Constitutional Convention of MA could change that law so marriage would be defined between one man and one woman. Civil unions have always been a possibility here. It may take a compromise between both sides of the debate for now in order for any progress to ever be made.

 

--Ryan

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush is supporting the Constitutional Amendment so he can kiss the asses of all the Bible-thumping, extreme right-wing nutsos. See Pat Robertson for an example. I am a Christian, but I am somewhat torn over this situation.

 

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. Consequently, it also guarantees freedom from religion. So, Bush's proposal is not only illegal, because it is attempting to force a religious social value upon people, but because I think it is morally wrong.

Bush isn't kissing their BUTT because he doesn't need to. They're with him regardless and Robertson's influence on national politics is beneath even Bill O'Reilly (whose impact is, to be generous, non-existant).

 

And one can find same-sex marriage wrong and not be totally due to biblical reasons.

One of the fine lines between Christianity and Islam, is that Islam practitioners believe that if a nation or group of people will not convert to Islam, then it is their religious obligation to kill them. Now, Bush is trying to do something similar to homosexuals. Bush's plan will essentially put a scarlet letter on all of them. But instead of an A, it will be an H.

There is a world of difference in "I think gay marriage is wrong" and "gays must die". Extremist views are a problem with these topics.

From a legal standpoint, a law cannot run one-way. If a law can be made to protect a person for their beliefs, then that law must also respect the beliefs of the person on the other end of the "table."

Yes --- but leaving this issue to the states to decide is infinitely better than a decision by judicial fiat. Win the argument on its merits.

I don't think it's as much about a power trip by the media than instead the requirement to keep circulation numbers up

A very valid argument and one I completely missed, honestly.

Therein, the court ruled that marriage was open to homosexuals, but the Constitutional Convention of MA could change that law so marriage would be defined between one man and one woman. Civil unions have always been a possibility here. It may take a compromise between both sides of the debate for now in order for any progress to ever be made.

And I think the anti-gay marriage side IS open to compromise. The biggest beef people like me have is that our voice is being completely ignored in an issue that is best handled by the legislatures, not the courts.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Well that is what happens when pretty much you have lost massive support for other sings such as Iraq and the Economy.  Hell, he needs to get his support from SOMEWHERE these days, and looks like he is going to use the good ol' religious right.

Except the economy is doing well and Iraq is much better off now than it was a year ago.

 

But if living in denial makes you happy, feel free.

-=Mike

Well I keep hearing about more of OUR soldiers being killed all the time. I won't call the economy "good" til its starts to pay off for ME. More rich assholes getting richer doesn't mean shit to ME or the majority of people I know. Show me the money. Show me the proof.

 

Gay people can do what they want. It's their right. The right likes to believe that since thay "have religion on their side" they have the moral high ground. Even though most of them support this bullshit war, which features lots of people getting killed everyday.

[NoCalMike 0]

I still don't see how gay marriage hurts anyone, or why anyone would even go to the effort to put forth a constitutional amendment in the first place to ban gay marriage.

[Vyce 0]

Gay people can do what they want. It's their right. The right likes to believe that since thay "have religion on their side" they have the moral high ground. Even though most of them support this bullshit war, which features lots of people getting killed everyday.

 

It's very early in the morning, and I don't really have time to point out how incredibly ridiculous I find your point of view.

 

So I'll just say this: as I've said many times before, the majority of people in this country are against gay marriage - and while that doesn't make the majority right, I'm sure that those tens of millions (perhaps hundreds of millions) who aren't peachy keen with the idea of gay marriage don't ALL believe that way because a) they're conservative or b) because of religion.

 

And I'm gonna say this, too: this is virtually a political NONissue in terms of the election. The differences between Kerry & Bush on this are almost negligible - and come November, people are going to decide whether to vote for Bush or Kerry on much bigger issues than this one.

[NoCalMike 0]

Gay people can do what they want. It's their right. The right likes to believe that since thay "have religion on their side" they have the moral high ground. Even though most of them support this bullshit war, which features lots of people getting killed everyday.

 

It's very early in the morning, and I don't really have time to point out how incredibly ridiculous I find your point of view.

 

So I'll just say this: as I've said many times before, the majority of people in this country are against gay marriage - and while that doesn't make the majority right, I'm sure that those tens of millions (perhaps hundreds of millions) who aren't peachy keen with the idea of gay marriage don't ALL believe that way because a) they're conservative or b) because of religion.

 

And I'm gonna say this, too: this is virtually a political NONissue in terms of the election. The differences between Kerry & Bush on this are almost negligible - and come November, people are going to decide whether to vote for Bush or Kerry on much bigger issues than this one.

Well since neither candidate supports gay marriage, I think it is more telling to see if they both support civil unions, and if SO, would Bush be more likely to cave on that issue if the religious right start pulling on their strings.