TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush's Reaction To Gay Marriage Ban's Defeat
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Bush's Reaction To Gay Marriage Ban's Defeat

Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'
Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a move to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts," Bush said in a statement.

"It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue, and I urge the House of Representatives to pass this amendment."

Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment to effectively ban gay marriage failed in the Senate on Wednesday afternoon.

Opponents denounced the failed effort as a "political tool" during an election year.

"Today, we saw President Bush and the Republican leadership attempt to divide America and it backfired, instead dividing their own party," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization. "We saw the politics of distraction fail and fail handily."

Supporters of the amendment vowed to keep fighting for the measure.

"This is a long process," said Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, sponsor of the amendment. "Nobody on our side, I think, ever felt for a minute that this was going to be a one-shot deal and it was going to be over with at that particular point in time."

The proposed amendment, championed by Bush, was killed for this session after a procedural vote to move the measure to the Senate floor for final consideration failed 48-50 -- 12 votes shy of the 60 required by Senate rules.

Six Republicans -- including Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- joined 43 Democrats and one independent to defeat the measure. Three Democrats and 45 Republicans voted for it.

Republicans had expected to muster the votes needed to at least advance the measure, if not the 67 required to pass it. They also expected to force the presumptive Democratic presidential ticket -- Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina -- to vote against it.

A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to pass. Then the proposal would need the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures to be ratified.

Both Kerry and Edwards were on record opposing the measure but decided not to return for the procedural vote since their votes weren't needed to defeat it. They were the only senators not voting.

Kerry, who was in Boston, issued a statement saying the Senate floor "should only be used for the common good, not issues designed to divide us for political purposes."

Edwards, at a campaign rally in Iowa, said "the president and the vice president tried to use our Constitution and the amendment of that Constitution as a political tool, and the United States Senate, they said, 'No. We will not accept it.' "

A Bush campaign aide responded, "It takes a special kind of senator to attack others over a vote that they don't show up for."

Bush did not directly address the amendment's defeat during a bus tour of Wisconsin, but he reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage during a rally in Ashwaubenon, a Green Bay suburb.

"We stand for institutions like marriage and family which are the foundations of our society," he said, drawing thunderous applause from the partisan crowd. "We stand for judges who strictly and faithfully interpret the law, instead of legislating from the bench."

Social conservatives have been pushing hard for the measure since May, when the highest court in Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in the Bay State.

Polls show a solid majority of Americans are against legalizing same-sex marriages, although the gap narrows when it comes to amending the Constitution.

Varying views
Bush's stance was echoed by Republican Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee during debate. "Will activist judges not elected by the American people destroy the institution of marriage, or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children? My vote is with the people," said the majority leader.


Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, talks to Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques on Capitol Hill. Bishop Jane Dixon is at left.
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said the amendment would simply preserve a fundamental institution "that a few unelected judges are trying to radically change." It's not a question of discrimination against gays, he said.

The amendment, as proposed by Allard, would add these two sentences to the Constitution:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Some Republicans objected to the second sentence, saying it was so ambiguous that it also could prevent states from allowing gays and lesbians to join in civil unions.

Other senators expressed concern that the measure would usurp the states' traditional dominion over family law, and some questioned whether it was necessary.

Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, who voted against moving the measure forward, said it was too early to make the assumption that judges might strike down laws such as the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act and 38 similar state statutes that define marriage as a union only between a man and a woman.

"Naturally, there exist concerns about what activist courts might do to undermine these rights and the Defense of Marriage Act," Sununu said in a statement. "But it is premature to amend the Constitution based upon a hypothetical scenario."

McCain went even further, calling the amendment "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." (Full story)

Besides Sununu and McCain, the other Republicans who broke with the GOP leadership on the issue were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado.

The three Democrats voting to advance the measure were Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Zell Miller of Georgia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Afterward, proponents tried to put the best face on the defeat, vowing to press forward until they win.

"I think we are going to have a long and extended discussion in the country about what is marriage. ... We won on substance. We lost on procedure," said Republican Sam Brownback of Kansas, noting that Democrats were "definitely" not listening to their constituents.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...iage/index.html

Well, we all saw this coming, but I don't see why he still thinks this is such a significant piece of legislation that NEEDS to be passed. Seriously, doesn't he have more important issues to deal with?

Fantastic decision, good to see the radical religious right take a hit.

Hopefully they'll have enough sense to throw it out once again should it ever resurface.

I love how the issue of gay marriage has made the Democrats supporters of states rights. This should mean that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and others will be supporting the states in their efforts to pass legislation on abortion.

"We stand for institutions like marriage and family which are the foundations of our society," he said, drawing thunderous applause from the partisan crowd. "We stand for judges who strictly and faithfully interpret the law, instead of legislating from the bench."

Two words: Puh. Lease.

This vote was the American system at its best. Bush is trying to make it seem like Senate did something wrong when really what they did was simply how our system is supposed to work. Nevermind that people were calling votes political strategy, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. How can you say that its an error in the system?

And on a more general note, its one thing to have your own ideas and your own views/beliefs, but when you start saying that your way is the only way then the proverbial line has been crossed. Can I say that my left wing liberal ways are absolute truth and everyone should feel the same way I do? No. How can anyone say that? Who are we to judge what is truly right and wrong? I just dont undertand people sometimes...

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok I love how the issue of gay marriage has made the Democrats supporters of states rights. This should mean that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and others will be supporting the states in their efforts to pass legislation on abortion.

My thoughts exactly actually. I also feel it's a blatant chickenshit-stance on the subject, not supporting gay marriage out right but rather twist the issue it a bit and argue such decicions should be made at state level. Feels like they are just avoiding making a direct official stance on the subject because they are afraid to loose votes.



damn those democrats and their chronic lack of spine

quote:

Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie "We stand for institutions like marriage and family which are the foundations of our society," he said, drawing thunderous applause from the partisan crowd. "We stand for judges who strictly and faithfully interpret the law, instead of legislating from the bench." Two words: Puh. Lease.

Marriage is defined as a "the legal union between a man and a women". Unless you have some activist judge who redefines the term 'marriage' (which you do) to mean something else than "man and women", gay marriage should technically be illegal.


My stance on this issue has been well state in the past.
I am against Gay-Marriage.
I am not against Gay-Unions.

And I, much like many Americans are not against Gay Marriage for religious regions. Its not a 'religious right' issue. 80-90% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage.

So although you may disagree with Bush and Republicans on this issue. You must still admit to the validity of the claim - that activist judges have redefined the word marriage to allow for gays to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Marriage is defined as a "the legal union between a man and a women".

Merriam-Webster says:

quote:

Main Entry: mar�riage Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union

Where did you get your definition from? A religious fundamentalist?

I really have a hard time seeing how it is possible to reach the logical conclusion that gays should not be allowed to marry, unless you take as an axiom that gays are worth less than heterosexuals, or at least that they are worthy of less.

I do agree that if the entire "debate" revolves around a merely linguistic preference for one word ("marriage") over another ("union"), then there's no reason to put much effort into the cause. But if there is some - just a little - legal difference between the two concepts, then gays should be allowed to marry IMO, and I fully sympathize with their cause.

Edit: Forgot to state that Bush is a jerk, and any defeat of his is a good defeat

Pushing my own personal feelings on the specifics aside for the moment, I simply can't believe this was ever a meaningful national issue.

Imukruok brought up the point about Dems. pushing states rights. I hope he doesn't find it too surprising that many Dems. do believe in states rights on a number of issues, esp. when it comes to social issues.

On the flip-side, I cannot possibly understand how conservatives, whom are ardent supporters of states rights, find that this issue should not be a state rights issue? Why the separation here, and what is their rationale? It's seemingly okay to ease federal restrictions on every aspect of private businesses. It's seemingly okay to allow states define the majority of laws.

But now it's seemingly WRONG for states to define what constitutes a personal issue like marriage?

Why feel so threatened?

I would personally find the arguments of "threatening the family" too damn hilarious if they weren't so sad. It's unfortunate that my Senator Brownback feels his religious beliefs are justified in his bigotry for co-sponsoring this ridiculous and bogus Amendment. His arguments are logically invalid and erroneous, and it saddens me to see that the only thing conservatives (and granted some democrats) fall back on is religious beliefs to justify their stance.

And I fail to fall for the "most Americans don't support gay marriage" argument. I find Yoepus' %s suspect, and the % range differs depending on which poll you read, but granted they all do tend to show the majority feel it should be banned.

This, however, falls into the logical fallacy of argument from majority (or population). History provides us with a number of mistakes from the majority voice, including slavery, interracial marriage, and hey even Creationism.

As we have clearly seen, the history shows that the majority is not always right. And BTW, those same polls show that the younger generations feel gays should be allowed those marriage rights, so I guess Conservatives will have to contend with the "majority" issue sooner or later.

But as I said, it's sad that this became such an issue. Don't we have much bigger fish to fry?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Where did you get your definition from? A religious fundamentalist? I really have a hard time seeing how it is possible to reach the logical conclusion that gays should not be allowed to marry, unless you take as an axiom that gays are worth less than heterosexuals, or at least that they are worthy of less. I do agree that if the entire "debate" revolves around a merely linguistic preference for one word ("marriage") over another ("union"), then there's no reason to put much effort into the cause. But if there is some - just a little - legal difference between the two concepts, then gays should be allowed to marry IMO, and I fully sympathize with their cause. Edit: Forgot to state that Bush is a jerk, and any defeat of his is a good defeat

Thank you, I completely agree and thats what Im saying.

If you want to make this into a debate about words then fine. Call it a union. What we who support "Gay marriage/union" really want are the same rights for homosexual men and women that heterosexual men and women have the privelage of. Who are you to say that someone should not be entitled to everything that comes along with a marriage simply because of their sexuality, WHICH, by the way, you cant even prove is a choice? Even if it IS a choice, THIS IS AMERICA. Remember freedom? If you sit there and say homosexuals should not be able to marry/unionize/whatever then youre saying you dont think they should have the same freedoms as everyone else.

oh yeah... bush has a stellar record for protecting state's rights

As Republicans gain power, enthusiasm for states' rights wanes

quote:

WASHINGTON -- Traditionally the champions of small government and states� rights, President Bush and his allies in Congress have aggressively pursued policies that expand the powers of Washington in the schoolroom, the courthouse, the home and the doctor�s office. Sometimes over the objections of states -- and often at the behest of business -- Republicans have passed or are promoting legislation and regulations that make Washington the final arbiter on environmental standards, class-action lawsuits, medical malpractice cases and Internet taxes. The extent to which this administration has subordinated states� rights in carrying out its political agenda is �somewhat breathtaking,� said Michael Greve, who heads the Federalism Project at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Federal power has always been associated with Democrats, creators of the New Deal and supporters of the 1937 Supreme Court decision that gave Congress, with its authority to regulate interstate commerce, wide berth in entering areas that normally are the prerogative of states When Newt Gingrich led Republicans to a majority in the House in 1995, he stressed that �we are committed to getting power back to the states, we are committed to breaking out of the logjam of federal bureaucrats controlling how we try to help the poor. But Gingrich�s commitments often came with a catch requiring states to fall in line with federal policy: Some of the money available under the massive 1996 welfare law, for instance, was tied to states starting abstinence-only education programs, and states seeking money for new prisons under a big crime bill had to show that criminals were serving 85 percent of their sentences. George W. Bush, the former governor of Texas, ran as a strong states� rights advocate until the Florida election dispute, when it was Al Gore arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court that the Florida state supreme court should have the final say on a recount. Bush insisted that the highest federal court step in. Bush has since significantly increased the federal government�s reach with two of his biggest legislative achievements. The �No Child Left Behind� education act inserts federal testing requirements and progress reports in an area that has always been under state and local control. The �Patriot Act,� a result of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, has given federal law enforcement greater authority to supersede states where necessary in investigations and prosecutions of criminal activity. The education act, said Greve, was �really a big, big marker in many ways, and a big, big turnaround.� Republicans have recognized the dilemma of being both proactive legislators and pro-states� righters. �I am essentially a states� rights person... I believe the federal government often usurps a lot of states� rights,� Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said this year in attempting to explain why his proposal to limit federal highway money to states that provide illegal aliens with drivers� licenses is a federal rather than a state issue. David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, which advocates limited government and individual liberties, said there are inevitable tensions when conservatives try to use federal power to override the actions of more liberal state governments. But he said there�s also been a �hubristic� streak in the Bush administration, �an attitude that we know what the policy should be, for instance, for accountability in schools.� Backed by the business community and after failing in 2003, Republicans in Congress this year will again be pushing bills to move class-action lawsuits from state to federal courts, where damage awards to plaintiffs are less generous, and put federal ceilings on what state juries can award in medical malpractice cases. GOP lawmakers, with support from some Democrats, also are trying, over the objection of some states, to impose a permanent moratorium on Internet access taxes after succeeding at supplanting some tougher state laws with anti-spam legislation last year. In addition, Republicans are trying to give the Securities and Exchange Commission and federal banking regulators ultimate authority over banking fraud and investor rights, angering state officials who say it will undercut their anti-fraud campaigns. The National Association of Attorneys General, in a letter to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said the OCC�s proposed rule that might exempt national banks from state consumer protection laws was �a radical restructuring of federal-state relationships in the area of banking.� Bush also signed a bill that, while increasing protections for people�s financial information, was criticized by consumer groups for pre-empting tougher state privacy laws. Congress has used federal controls over highway money to compel states to adopt a national standard for drunken driving. The interstate commerce clause also was the basis of a new law restricting private ownership of lions and tigers. Fourteen states have filed suit to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing new rules allowing coal-burning electric plants to make upgrades without installing more pollution controls. Republicans also have extended the federal reach in areas important to social conservatives: Bush in 2001 restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and this year signed a bill that for the first time makes it a federal crime to perform a certain type of abortion. Federal officials are also taking legal action against medical marijuana laws in California and Oregon�s assisted suicide law. Cato�s Boaz said the next big fight will be over GOP attempts to stop state moves to sanction gay marriages. �Some conservatives are saying we need one national policy, but that would be an unprecedented federal intrusion into marriage law that has always been controlled by the states,� he said.

I'm all for gay marriage, only their hot lesbos!

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Merriam-Webster says: Where did you get your definition from? A religious fundamentalist?

Yea exactly

Open up any pre-90's dictionary and read the definition of the word marriage.

Then consider the following argument:

Since almost all marriage laws were written prior to the 90s, the definition of the term marriage is what it was when the laws were written. Not what it has been politically correctedly adapted to mean today.

Unless you disagree that we should try and interpurt the laws in the initial spirit they were written, you would agree that from a legal stand point gay marriage is illegal.

quote:

I really have a hard time seeing how it is possible to reach the logical conclusion that gays should not be allowed to marry, unless you take as an axiom that gays are worth less than heterosexuals, or at least that they are worthy of less.

Why worth less? Gays are different. They've told us this, and I accept that - I have no issue with it. But being different fundamentally means we can not be equal. Gays from their fundamental nature can not marry - by the traditional definition marriage is between a man and a women. That's ok. Because I can not marry myself either (which I'd love to do!) nor can a man chose to have a child. Our differing sexualities place physicial limitations on us which have often been extended to become legalistic limitations.

quote:

I do agree that if the entire "debate" revolves around a merely linguistic preference for one word ("marriage") over another ("union"), then there's no reason to put much effort into the cause. But if there is some - just a little - legal difference between the two concepts, then gays should be allowed to marry IMO, and I fully sympathize with their cause.

Perhaps for me it is a linguistic concern as you say. I do not think there is any more benfit to a marriage than a union aside from religious conotations. I am not against gay couples, or gays making a commitment to living as a couple and enjoying any advantages or disadvatnages of being a couple. If marriage gives any benifits over a union I would believe it would dervive from the fundamental purpose of marriage - a stable structure for raising children - and would apply mainly with child benifits.

If it is beyond that realm, I will agree with you and say that all benifits enjoyed by marriage should be shared by a union as well (aside from any child benifits stated earlier).

My biggest opposition to terming it gay 'marriage' is the historical significance of the term. Throughout all our history - with many a homoerotic tales and society - gays don't marry one another, I'd just hate to break a trend for no reason.

Gays should try and respect hetrosexual norms, such as marriage, just as hetrosexuals have come to respect homosexuals.

Interracial marriages used to be illegal, and the concept of a black person and white person loving each other and living together was repulsive to most people.

Call me biased, but I don't see how same-sex marriages are wrong. Massachusetts isn't in complete chaos. Canada seems to be doing just fine. What's the huge leap of reasoning needed to see that if two breeders love each other and can get married, so can two fags.

And don't give me that tradition shit. Things change. Traditionally, women were subservient to men, staying at home, making sure dinner was done when the Old Man came back from work. Traditionally, those who you conquered or captured became your slaves - it goes back I'm sure much longer than the Oh-So-Sanctimonious Marriage these religious bigots seem to be talking about. Traditionally, songs of praise to the goddess Hymen were sung at lavish marriage ceremonies.

Time changes. Tradition changes. Society changes. Get it through your heads.

Apples and oranges. My marriage is interracial.
My marriage is not same sex, nor would I even contemplate it.
Don't even try to draw any conclusions by comparing the two.

The "point" of all the time wasted on the debate in the Senate was not to talk about the issue of Gay Marriage, which most people do not think is important enough to spend all that time talking about it.

The point was to avoid talking about and voting on bills that people on both sides of the spectrum consider important like appropriating funds for rail security and passing an energy bill.

It was a case of keeping the floor "debating" when they knew there was no way they could get 67 people to vote yes to the amendment.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by osuracnaes Interracial marriages used to be illegal, and the concept of a black person and white person loving each other and living together was repulsive to most people. Call me biased, but I don't see how same-sex marriages are wrong. Massachusetts isn't in complete chaos. Canada seems to be doing just fine. What's the huge leap of reasoning needed to see that if two breeders love each other and can get married, so can two fags. And don't give me that tradition shit. Things change. Traditionally, women were subservient to men, staying at home, making sure dinner was done when the Old Man came back from work. Traditionally, those who you conquered or captured became your slaves - it goes back I'm sure much longer than the Oh-So-Sanctimonious Marriage these religious bigots seem to be talking about. Traditionally, songs of praise to the goddess Hymen were sung at lavish marriage ceremonies. Time changes. Tradition changes. Society changes. Get it through your heads.

There is one key difference in all of your examples, osuracnaes:

Biblically, and I think morally, inter-racial marriages are ok, and I find it sad there was a time where they weren't. Slavery is also not condoned biblically, or morally (all men are created equal, etc). As far as women being subservient to men, that's a bit of a grey area since the bible can be construed as a bit sexist at time (according to our "modern" ways of thinking).

Same sex marriages, I believe, are not morally or biblically correct. I have friends that are gay, and they will always be my friends, and I judge them on who they are, not what they do in their bedroom. However, marriage is a word and a belief that was granted to us by God. I won't go into the "history" of marriage, but I think a lot of people (including myself) believe that it's just not right for two people of the same sex to be "married". I would be all for some *other* legal way of joining them together (for tax purposes and celebration purposes) - they can call it a "partnership" or something.

Marriage should be the same as it always has - a man and a woman.

Same sex "marriage" just feels wrong to me, and I trust that feeling. I think a lot of people are the same way.

quote:

Originally posted by emander Apples and oranges. My marriage is interracial. My marriage is not same sex, nor would I even contemplate it. Don't even try to draw any conclusions by comparing the two.

What makes them so different? I am drawing conclusions by comparing the two. Please, explain.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil There is one key difference in all of your examples, osuracnaes: Biblically, and I think morally, inter-racial marriages are ok, and I find it sad there was a time where they weren't. Slavery is also not condoned biblically, or morally (all men are created equal, etc). As far as women being subservient to men, that's a bit of a grey area since the bible can be construed as a bit sexist at time (according to our "modern" ways of thinking). Same sex marriages, I believe, are not morally or biblically correct. I have friends that are gay, and they will always be my friends, and I judge them on who they are, not what they do in their bedroom. However, marriage is a word and a belief that was granted to us by God. I won't go into the "history" of marriage, but I think a lot of people (including myself) believe that it's just not right for two people of the same sex to be "married". I would be all for some *other* legal way of joining them together (for tax purposes and celebration purposes) - they can call it a "partnership" or something. Marriage should be the same as it always has - a man and a woman. Same sex "marriage" just feels wrong to me, and I trust that feeling. I think a lot of people are the same way.

You're throwing this word, 'biblical' at me. I won't go into my thoughts on the Bible/religion. As far as slavery goes, it is encouraged many times in the Bible. Ex. 22:2-3, Lev. 19:20, Lev. 25:44-46, etc.

You say "it's not right." What makes it not right? My morals say it's right for a gay couple to have the same priveliges as a straight couple. Same sex marriage just feels perfectly fine to me, and I trust that feeling. I think a lot of people are the same way.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil There is one key difference in all of your examples, osuracnaes: Biblically, and I think morally, inter-racial marriages are ok, and I find it sad there was a time where they weren't. Slavery is also not condoned biblically, or morally (all men are created equal, etc). As far as women being subservient to men, that's a bit of a grey area since the bible can be construed as a bit sexist at time (according to our "modern" ways of thinking). Same sex marriages, I believe, are not morally or biblically correct. I have friends that are gay, and they will always be my friends, and I judge them on who they are, not what they do in their bedroom. However, marriage is a word and a belief that was granted to us by God. I won't go into the "history" of marriage, but I think a lot of people (including myself) believe that it's just not right for two people of the same sex to be "married". I would be all for some *other* legal way of joining them together (for tax purposes and celebration purposes) - they can call it a "partnership" or something. Marriage should be the same as it always has - a man and a woman. Same sex "marriage" just feels wrong to me, and I trust that feeling. I think a lot of people are the same way.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Argument denied.

quote:

Originally posted by emander Apples and oranges. My marriage is interracial. My marriage is not same sex, nor would I even contemplate it. Don't even try to draw any conclusions by comparing the two.

No kidding...I found that comparison rather offensive too, as I have a very good friend who's white, and she married a very devout Catholic from the Dominican Republic, and they'd shudder at the comparison. When you get down to basics, it's still a marriage between a man and a woman, and cannot be compared to a same sex marriage.

I heard something else today, which really made me think about the long-term effects that same-sex marriages (or partnerships) have on children. There was a woman on one of the news channels today who had given testimony before the Senate about the marriage amendment. She's now an adult, but was adopted by two lesbians back in the 1970's - one of the first adoptions by a same sex couple. In her testimony, she came out strongly against gay marriage.

Instead of having a normal childhood, her "parents" expected her to defend their lifestyle, as well as trying to live the life of a grade-schooler or a teenager. The child didn't ask to be placed in a same-sex household, and she shouldn't have had to be the spokesperson for her two mothers' social experiment.

Here are some fun quotes to kick around for a while. Enjoy.

"The American Constitution is remarkable for its simplicity; but it can only suffice a people habitually correct in their actions, and would be utterly inadequate to the wants of a different nation. Change the domestic habits of the Americans, their religious devotion, and their high respect for morality, and it will not be necessary to change a single letter in the Constitution in order to vary the whole form of their government." ----Francis Grund

"[P]erfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he . . . introduces confusion and disorder into society . . . [thus] where licentiousness begins, liberty ends." ----Samuel West

"Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith." ----Horace Greely

". . . Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed . . . so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger." ----Patrick Henry

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ----John Adams

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom." ----Patrick Henry

this is how dumb this issue will get when and if same sex marriage becomes legal.

my good (male) friend, a guy i've known worked and partied with for four years, has agreed to marry me if this shit falls through.

we've thrown this idea around to other male friends and co-workers and and have gotten a decent response. they think it would be fairly cool to marry your best bud not just in protest but for the benefits.

and yeah i'm very secure in my hetero-ness. not that sure about Zach though. it would be an open marriage, no doubt.

oh yeah. did i mention that we're in the military?

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok I heard something else today, which really made me think about the long-term effects that same-sex marriages (or partnerships) have on children. There was a woman on one of the news channels today who had given testimony before the Senate about the marriage amendment. She's now an adult, but was adopted by two lesbians back in the 1970's - one of the first adoptions by a same sex couple. In her testimony, she came out strongly against gay marriage. Instead of having a normal childhood, her "parents" expected her to defend their lifestyle, as well as trying to live the life of a grade-schooler or a teenager. The child didn't ask to be placed in a same-sex household, and she shouldn't have had to be the spokesperson for her two mothers' social experiment.

strangely, i totally agree with your statement expressing her childhood in the 1970s.

But does any child have a choice of the environment in which he/she is raised? I know children of alcoholics who detest drinking, children of pot-heads who hate to smoke, and children of heterosexuals who turn gay.

the 70s were a time where anyone practicing a "abnormal" lifestyle were constantly on the defensive (funny, considering disco and quaaludes), and yeah, the parents were being irresponsible to expect a child to conform to and defend their chosen lifestyle.

what happens if someone comes forth and explains their own childhood as being supportive and loving in a same sex upbringing? should we cast them out as being themselves abnormal? arguing on a case-by-case basis seems a little short-sighten in this light.

if two people are able to demonstrate the level of responsibility required for adoption, should we discriminate based on sex? It's funny that the same people who generally are pro-life, don't want the unwanted children their policies produce in the hands of people who's lifestyles seem strange.

I'd love to see the bumper sticker: "I'm pro-life and i adopt"

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Open up any pre-90's dictionary and read the definition of the word marriage. Then consider the following argument: Since almost all marriage laws were written prior to the 90s, the definition of the term marriage is what it was when the laws were written. Not what it has been politically correctedly adapted to mean today. Unless you disagree that we should try and interpurt the laws in the initial spirit they were written, you would agree that from a legal stand point gay marriage is illegal. Why worth less? Gays are different. They've told us this, and I accept that - I have no issue with it. But being different fundamentally means we can not be equal. Gays from their fundamental nature can not marry - by the traditional definition marriage is between a man and a women. That's ok. Because I can not marry myself either (which I'd love to do!) nor can a man chose to have a child. Our differing sexualities place physicial limitations on us which have often been extended to become legalistic limitations.

Nice argument. I've never considered anyone being opposed to gay marriage because of a high respect of tradition. Of course, to be consistent, you would also have to oppose working men owning shares in the companies they work for, as that would interfere with the classical employer-employee relationship.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Perhaps for me it is a linguistic concern as you say. I do not think there is any more benfit to a marriage than a union aside from religious conotations. I am not against gay couples, or gays making a commitment to living as a couple and enjoying any advantages or disadvatnages of being a couple. If marriage gives any benifits over a union I would believe it would dervive from the fundamental purpose of marriage - a stable structure for raising children - and would apply mainly with child benifits. If it is beyond that realm, I will agree with you and say that all benifits enjoyed by marriage should be shared by a union as well (aside from any child benifits stated earlier).

I think that there are societal benefits from being married that even law cannot take into account. Take a gay at a job interview, who is asked whether she is married (as married people are seen as having some order in their life). Further, lots of applications include only the boxes "married", "engaged", and "single". What is someone in a civil union supposed to do?
Hence, I'm for gay marriage - but that may also be because I've never been one to accept traditions on account of them being traditions.

Just for the record: I think that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. It's insane that there are orphanages and stable working homosexuals who want to adopt at the same time.

Civil marriage and religious marriage aren't the same thing, nor is there any compelling reason why they ought to follow the same rules.

There is no real debate on this topic because there doesn't exist an even remotely compelling argument against gay civil marriage.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.