Bush promotes measure against gay marriage

[Jobber of the Week 0]

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

You don't vote for your judges becuase they aren't supposed to be swayed by your opinion. They're supposed to make choices that may not be favored by the herd but are still the right thing nonetheless.

 

The decision to allow interracial marriage was met with very similar complaints to yours. OMG ACTIVIST COURTS were deciding it was unconstitutional to restrict marriage to skin color.

 

 

In short...

 

 

 

 

I also don't see this really being much of an election year issue. At all. Neither candidate really has a differing view on the issue, although one isn't supporting an amendment that everyone knows won't pass.

[NoCalMike 0]

That was a nice little comic strip Jobber.

[Guest INXS]

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

People in Iraq are much better off? How? The place is a hotbed of terrorism and violence.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Constitutional and federal law getting brought into something as dumb as "Can gays get hitched?" annoys me greatly. Leave it to the damn states! There's 50 of them, a few might say "Ok, gays can marry here." in which case, just go to oregon and do it, or whatever. It's totally a regionally-sensitive issue, with conservative locales probably not going for it, whereas it would be different elsewhere. Let people make up their own minds, don't go over the constitution with a crayon.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

QUOTE (A MikeSC @ Jul 11 2004, 10:02 PM)

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 

 

 

You don't vote for your judges becuase they aren't supposed to be swayed by your opinion. They're supposed to make choices that may not be favored by the herd but are still the right thing nonetheless.

 

The decision to allow interracial marriage was met with very similar complaints to yours. OMG ACTIVIST COURTS were deciding it was unconstitutional to restrict marriage to skin color.

 

Jobber: the courts are supposed to only determine whether or not enacted law is unconstitutional and/or provide an interpretation of said laws that are already on the books. I think we all can agree there. This is what the SJC of Massachusetts did to set the ball rolling for gay marriage here in this state.

 

However, it is then the job of the legislature to come up with law that will later on be determined to be constitutional by the courts. However, the right is angry with the SJC over its later rulings, which said that civil unions would be unacceptable, gay marriage was the only law to be called constitutional, etc. It gave the legislature no choice to at least, for now, allow gay marriage, leaving a debacle and a half when the Constitutional Convention rolls around again later this year, to determine whether or not enacted changes to law (ban gay marriage, allow civil unions) will occur. What will happen to all the marriages that have already occurred?

 

It's become extremely messy. It was worse when interracial marriages became law, but with the prior determinations towards the rights of people of color (eliminating the three-fifths law, slavery, voting rights, property, gun ownership, etc.) it was more easy to determine that all (heterosexual) people were equal and deserved the same rights to marry. There isn't much of a precedence in the rights of homosexuals, which is where it makes things even more difficult.

 

Gotta love politics.

--Ryan

...who says, who's it going to hurt to allow gays to marry?...

[Dr. Tom 0]

Leave it to the damn states! There's 50 of them, a few might say "Ok, gays can marry here." in which case, just go to oregon and do it, or whatever.

The problem with that is the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution.

 

So let's say the citizens of Oregon vote on a statewide referendum to allow gay marriages. It's reasonable to presume that gay couples would then go there to be married, many of whom would not live in Oregon. The problem comes into play when those couples return to their home states. The full faith and credit clause says that a marriage recognized by one state must be recognized by all. What if one of those gay couples comes from a state whose citizens voted to reject gay marriages (as many states would, if polling data be accurate)? Are the citizens of that state just supposed to accept something they clearly said they didn't want? Whose rights take precendece here -- the people who got married or the millions who voted to not recognize that marriage?

 

I don't support any amendment that bans gay marriage, since I don't really care what people do in their own homes, and I think anyone stupid enough to want to get married deserves to. But (as much as I despise judicial fiat, and as much as I love states' rights) I think there needs to be something done on a federal level to settle this issue. Otherwise, we're going to see plenty of situations like I outlined above.

[Guest INXS]

I do see the point of not allowing homosexuals to marry in church. I don't see any problem with them legally marrying in say a civil ceremony however. Religously it's not "right" for two people of the same sex to be joined in marriage in church and I personally agree.

[EricMM 0]

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.

 

Fine and dandy vice, some people will think it's 'gross' if gay people can marry.

 

Lah-dee-dah.

 

I don't care why they think that.

 

What part of gay marriage is so damaging to anything that it needs to be outlawed? OUTLAWED!? On what basis? I assume we as a society outlaw things because they put peoples lives in danger (drunk driving, doing drugs, murder...) So what is it about gay marriage that puts anyone in danger?

 

I think punishing one's child physically is far worse than gay marriage, for instance, should I call up the supreme court?

[EricMM 0]

Religously it's not "right" for two people of the same sex to be joined in marriage in church and I personally agree.

 

Depends on your religion, INXS. My church will do it.

 

Do some fucking research before you make such statements.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Eric, in this case, the outlawing would not be because of a "danger," but because it's a concise way to head off what could very easily be a legal nightmare.

 

Keep in mind I don't agree with the proposed amendment.

[Guest Cerebus]

We're at war with evil terrorists who behead on camera as SOP and have developed a culture completely devoted to our destruction.

 

Our intelligence community is in shambles.

 

Our Army is overstretched and equipped for the wrong sort of war.

 

Our deficits are skyrocketing and tax cuts have magically been paired with big spending.

 

And Bush is obssessing about gay people getting married.

 

Andrew Sullivan was right. There will be a civil war in the Republican party soon between the people who see what is important and the ones who obsess with meaningless side issues and have shit on American conservativism.

[EricMM 0]

Tom I understand it may be a complex legal issue, but what about popular opinion should make this illegal? Nobody likes ugly people, should they be illegal too? Should it be illegal for two ugly people to marry, or to raise a kid, knowing that ugly people are more likely to have ugly kids?

 

Just because MILLIONS of people don't approve of it doesn't mean it should be ILLEGAL ANYWHERE. Thats where I'm drawing a blank.

 

Why should it be a state's right to chose which two people can marry?

[Guest Loss]

This is one case when it doesn't matter what the majority of the public believes or doesn't believe, because legalizing gay marriage will only affect gay people. No one else will be affected at all.

 

I'm sorry, but I can not see vocal opposition to gay marriage as anything but hate speech. If you don't hate homosexuals, do you consider them your civil equals? And if you consider them your equals, shouldn't they have the same rights you have?

 

I'm not casting a vote for anyone in this election who promotes discrimination, what is in fact what issuing a ban on gay marriage is. It's pure, unadulterated hate, and it's going to take a compelling argument to convince me otherwise.

[Ace309 0]

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.

Did you sleep through high school Civics?

 

A) Bush has nothing to do with the actual enactment of the federal amendment, aside from cheering on the sidelines.

 

B) The Supreme Court couldn't "slap down" anyone about a duly-enacted amendment to the Constitution. An amendment can't be struck down as unconstitutional for reasons that I hope are obvious.

[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.

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.

He's already said before, on several occasions, that he'd be in favor of civil union legislation. Civil unions is as far as EITHER candidate is going to go on the issue.

 

And Bush shouldn't do a damn thing to try and favor the religious vote. Ultimately, when it comes down to it, who are most of them going to vote for? John Kerry?!

 

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.

 

Good lord.

 

I think, perhaps, you're exaggerating JUST a tad.

[Guest Loss]

I don't know how big of a difference "the gay vote" will make this November, but I do know more are voting in this election than any before. They seem to think Kerry is more likely to give in on the issue, which is just wishful thinking. Neither candidate has my support, but I can tell you for sure that many churches are telling their congregations they have to keep Bush in office to ensure that gay marriage isn't legalized and that Kerry has had a large gay turnout at every event in this area.

 

I think the last estimate on gays was 10% of the population, but I'm not sure if that's right or not.

[NoCalMike 0]

Neither candidate supports gay marriage. Kerry is solidly behind civil unions and the rights that come with it, and Bush is kind of wishy-washy even on Civil Unions.

 

Nader though is in full support of gay marriage as he falls under the banner of equal rights for all citizens.

[Guest INXS]

Religously it's not "right" for two people of the same sex to be joined in marriage in church and I personally agree.

 

Depends on your religion, INXS. My church will do it.

 

Do some fucking research before you make such statements.

:sigh: If we're being pedantic about it, I mean protestant and catholic churches. To explain a little fuller, by "church" I don't mean a specific building I mean church collectively. As in the catholic church.

 

There is no need to flame me either.

 

Some people...

[EricMM 0]

Again, INXS, my chuch is a protestant church. UCC based.

 

We have an Open and Affirming policy.

 

It's 'our' stance on the whole issue, based upon how we (correctly) interpret the bible.

 

I didn't flame you. I said you should maybe do some research before you make blanket statements. Just because you don't know something doesn't give you carte blanch to make inaccurate statements about it.

[Guest INXS]

I'll explain a little further...in America do you have a head of the catholic church and a head of the christian/protestant church? What are their views on gay marriage?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I'll explain a little further...in America do you have a head of the catholic church and a head of the christian/protestant church? What are their views on gay marriage?

There is no single Protestant church. There are several different ones.

[EricMM 0]

several to say the least.

 

They range from Baptist to Pentecostal to UCC to Calvinist? to I dunno Quakers...

 

Any christian who is non-catholic is 'protestant'.

 

And thats most Christians.

[Stephen Joseph 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.

 

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

 

Only one side is telling the truth.

Hi.

 

I'm an economist.

And what you said below, is pretty much false.

 

The economy right now, if you're watching the leading and concurring indicators, about to head into growth levels only seen once in the last twenty years. Yes, I'm talking the mid-1980s so-called Reagan Recovery.

 

Talk about anything else, but remember this. If you lie about the state of the economy, I will call you on it.

 

oh, and so I'm not typecast as a dirty conservative

 

We should let people marry whoever.

Oh yeah, and Brad's an allright guy. And his facts are right. But they're VERY misleading. You really need to look at the whole picture here.

 

Anywho, I have actual work to do, you know, as an economist.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Are the citizens of that state just supposed to accept something they clearly said they didn't want?

 

Yes, because the citizens probably won't know or really give a shit, and the couple didn't get married IN Oklahoma, or what have you. So I guess it'd be a big "tough shit" for people in protest of it. They'd look dumb for it soon enough, and it'd fall out of fashion.

[Guest Xias]

I must question why some of the people above me are debating the religious aspects of gay marriage. The last time I checked, none of us (well, at least, none of us who are sane) are trying to push to be allowed to marry in all of your churches. Hey, you want to have a mass every week that goes an hour-and-a-half long and bashes homosexuals and bi-sexuals to all hell, go right ahead. Jeebus knows when we get together, we do the same thing to heterosexuals (and, uh, homosexuals) anyway. So obviously, what I'm saying is, we're not expecting to be married in your church.

 

When someone proposes forcing churches to perform gay marriages against their will, then I will stand right with you in debating that. But we are talking about legal rights here, not religious ones. Whether you believe it's "right" or not as defined by your religion, how much of American social policy is defined by religion? Is there a fine charged everytime someone divorces? Hell, is there a fine charged everytime we have sex outside of marriage in general?

 

Finally, I'll pose one last question to all the heterosexual Christians who are so against gay marriage: When's the last time you actually read the Bible? When's the last time you actually followed what was in there? I'll bet any amount of money that, unless you're some type of uber-loser, all of you people condemning gay marriage are doing plenty of sex outside of marriage. The last time I checked, the Bible put all sins equally, not a few sins higher than the rest. So instead of worrying so much about what sex my partners are, how about you worry about trying to follow the Bible word-for-word in YOUR own life? Then maybe you can come talk to ME about MINE.

 

Thank you very much.

 

-Xias

[NoCalMike 0]

I just can't stand when people use religion to justify anything, because more times then not, people will SUDDENLY BECOME RELIGIOUS, if they happen to agree with something the bible is against, but after the issue is dead, they will go back to their lives living however the hell they want to regardless of what the bible says.

[Guest Xias]

I just can't stand when people use religion to justify anything, because more times then not, people will SUDDENLY BECOME RELIGIOUS, if they happen to agree with something the bible is against, but after the issue is dead, they will go back to their lives living however the hell they want to regardless of what the bible says.

Yeah, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. If people can come out so strongly with the Bible on things like gay marriage (which, by the way, doesn't directly effect them in any way whatsoever), why can't they apply the Bible to their own damn lives? So many of them just don't do that, which is why I say, worry about following the Bible on things like "no sex before marriage" before you worry about whether or not OTHER PEOPLE and the SECULAR government are following the Bible.

 

-Xias

[Guest SP-1]

I must question why some of the people above me are debating the religious aspects of gay marriage. The last time I checked, none of us (well, at least, none of us who are sane) are trying to push to be allowed to marry in all of your churches. Hey, you want to have a mass every week that goes an hour-and-a-half long and bashes homosexuals and bi-sexuals to all hell, go right ahead. Jeebus knows when we get together, we do the same thing to heterosexuals (and, uh, homosexuals) anyway. So obviously, what I'm saying is, we're not expecting to be married in your church.

 

When someone proposes forcing churches to perform gay marriages against their will, then I will stand right with you in debating that. But we are talking about legal rights here, not religious ones. Whether you believe it's "right" or not as defined by your religion, how much of American social policy is defined by religion? Is there a fine charged everytime someone divorces? Hell, is there a fine charged everytime we have sex outside of marriage in general?

 

Finally, I'll pose one last question to all the heterosexual Christians who are so against gay marriage: When's the last time you actually read the Bible? When's the last time you actually followed what was in there? I'll bet any amount of money that, unless you're some type of uber-loser, all of you people condemning gay marriage are doing plenty of sex outside of marriage. The last time I checked, the Bible put all sins equally, not a few sins higher than the rest. So instead of worrying so much about what sex my partners are, how about you worry about trying to follow the Bible word-for-word in YOUR own life? Then maybe you can come talk to ME about MINE.

 

Thank you very much.

 

-Xias

I'll bite. I read 3/4 of the book of Daniel this afternoon, prayed for around 15-20 minutes, and spent the day working on a film project and spending time with my family.

 

I'm a virgin. I've had plenty of opportunities over the years to put an end to that.

 

I have no plans to have sex outside of marriage. I am falling hard for a very beautiful girl who holds the same values and works two jobs and has an active life of her own.

 

I am friends with two lesbians (who are together), and know several former homosexuals. They know I'm against gay marriage and they know I'm a bible believing Christian pursuing an education in Theology and Biblical Languages. Yet we co-exist and love one another. Oh, and I myself have had to deal with bi-sexual tendencies born out of a psychological reaction to the loss of my father as a 5 year old.

 

So there's one answer. I don't know if there are any others on this board, but there IS one who reads God's Word and tries his best to do what it says because I know God personally and have seen Him work in my life and the lives of so many others.

 

 

The Bible isn't about Word-For-Word. Not in the way most people take that. Jesus explained what God meant with the Old Testament Law and Jesus wound up condensing the parts that weren't applicable only to the ancient Jewish culture that they were specific to. Some of those laws were canceled out. The important ones are essential truths to the human condition and the divine teaching, and Jesus upheld, explained, and provided a living example for them. He also summed them up: Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

 

You asked. Now you have an answer.

[Guest Xias]

I'll bite. I read 3/4 of the book of Daniel this afternoon, prayed for around 15-20 minutes, and spent the day working on a film project and spending time with my family.

Okay. I just wanted to see if anyone here was actually a real Christian and not a hypocrite "casual" Christian, like so many others I've dealed with who have this viewpoint. I can say that I respect your opinion a LOT more now, at least a lot more than aforementioned "casual" Christians.

 

I am friends with two lesbians (who are together), and know several former homosexuals. They know I'm against gay marriage and they know I'm a bible believing Christian pursuing an education in Theology and Biblical Languages. Yet we co-exist and love one another.

 

I never said this wasn't possible. My dad doesn't agree with my bi-sexuality and doesn't think gay marriage should be made legal, but we co-exist and love each other just fine. You don't have to try and throw the "I'm friends with two lesbians" card to prove you're not a homophobe- I can tell the difference by now between a homophobe and someone who just has different viewpoints. You're obviously the latter, not the former, so we have no issue here.

 

Oh, and I myself have had to deal with bi-sexual tendencies born out of a psychological reaction to the loss of my father as a 5 year old.

 

This is where I will bite. I don't believe that "bi-sexual tendancies" come from psychological issues- I believe that people are just born heterosexual, homosexual, or bi-sexual. Period.

 

I myself have had "bi-sexual tendancies" as long as I can remember, and I've never had any psychological issues. I had divorced parents, but it was a clean divorce and I saw my dad three weekends a month, so it wasn't as if I was lacking a father figure. I wasn't emotionally abused. I don't suffer from any psychatric illnesses. I'm a normal, well-adjusted human being.....who just happens to be bi-sexual.

 

The Bible isn't about Word-For-Word.  Not in the way most people take that.  Jesus explained what God meant with the Old Testament Law and Jesus wound up condensing the parts that weren't applicable only to the ancient Jewish culture that they were specific to.  Some of those laws were canceled out.  The important ones are essential truths to the human condition and the divine teaching, and Jesus upheld, explained, and provided a living example for them.  He also summed them up:  Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

 

But the debate comes as to whether or not the passage in the New Testatment that supposedly "condemns" homosexuality is clear, or if the only place where it's clearly condemned is in the OT. I'm far from a biblical scholar, but from my understanding it's in the OT where it's clearly spoken out against. And hey, it makes sense, too- we were trying to populate the world, and homosexuality is an enemy to that. But at this point, the world really doesn't need any more populating.

 

Is it as clear in the NT? From what I understand, it is not, which is why there are many Christians who support homosexuality and gay marriage, and not all of them are gay themselves. I'm friends with many of them, and they believe in Christianity just as strongly as you do.

 

You asked.  Now you have an answer.

 

And I thank you.

 

-Xias

[spiny norman 0]

That's fine that your religion is against homosexuality.

 

But the thing is, because of your religion should those who wish to have sex out of wedlock? It is socially acceptable. So why is it unacceptable for gays to marry? Though it isn't acceptable according to your religion, can't society accept this seeing as how the United States is not a Catholic state.

Up until recently it was seen by the bible that women are the possession of men in marriage (and to many people this is still the case). The interpretation of the Bible's teachings have changed before. It will change again undoubtedly.