well, the Prez is making his stand. I wonder how this will affect him during re-election time. ideas? thoughts?Chicago Tribune wrote:By Associated Press
Published July 30, 2003, 10:42 AM CDT
WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Wednesday he has government lawyers working on a law that would define marriage as a union between a woman and a man, casting aside calls to legalize gay marriages.
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that," the president said a wide-ranging news conference at the White House Rose Garden.
Bush also urged, however, that America remain a "welcoming country" -- not polarized on the issue of homosexuality.
"I am mindful that we're all sinners and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said. "I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts."
"On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage," he added.
Bush has long opposed gay marriage but as recently as earlier this month had said that a constitutional ban on gay marriage proposed in the House might not be needed despite a Supreme Court decision that some conservatives think opens the door to legalizing same-sex marriages.
The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that made homosexual sex a crime, overturning an earlier ruling that said states could punish homosexuals for having sex.
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia fired off a blistering dissent of the ruling.
The "opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned," Scalia wrote. The ruling specifically said that the court was not addressing that issue, but Scalia warned, "Do not believe it."
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., is the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred on June 25 to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.
To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Pres. Bush vs. Gay Marriage
Pres. Bush vs. Gay Marriage
<center><b><font size=1><font color="#FF9900">"Invaders blood marches through my veins, like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!" -Zim</font></font></b></center>
- FlameBlade
- SMITE!™ Master
- Posts: 8644
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
- Contact:
- Salvation122
- Grand Marshall of the Imperium
- Posts: 3776
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:20 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
what people would it piss off? I'd think (and I'm probably wrong) that the people who'd want to see gay marriages become legal are the minority in the US. we still have a butt load of Baby Boomers alive in the US and their influence is still kicking (to an extent). the BBs would want something like this to be illegal or unconstitutional.
it's things like this that make me think two things. 1) Is it possible that all the negative things said about the Prez' motivation & reasoning is right? 2) I wonder what the wait is like to become a Canadian citizen.
it's things like this that make me think two things. 1) Is it possible that all the negative things said about the Prez' motivation & reasoning is right? 2) I wonder what the wait is like to become a Canadian citizen.
<center><b><font size=1><font color="#FF9900">"Invaders blood marches through my veins, like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!" -Zim</font></font></b></center>
-
- No-Life Loser
- Posts: 11964
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 7:28 am
- Contact:
It just strikes me as a sissy move on his part. Bush is scared that 'the homos' might be able to lead a normal life and he doesn't like them. Rather than building up an actual defense (or offense, since he's better at that) on the issues themselves, he tries an end-around.
<a href="http://heftywrenches.wordpress.com">Agent Zero Speaks!</a>
At the moment you're correct. Over the past month or so, public support for homosexuality has fallen in polls.I'd think (and I'm probably wrong) that the people who'd want to see gay marriages become legal are the minority in the US.
But I believe that the President does not support a Constitutional amendment about marriage.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
let's play Devil's Advocate here for just a moment. let's say that this law reaches all the way to the top and finds itself in the constitution. what kind of a pandora's box would this be opening? am I just paranoid to think that a law like this could endanger the freedoms that we (Americans) enjoy now that such a thing to dictate who you can choose to bond yourself to (legally) is in the friggin constitution??*
*remember, just playing Devil's Advocate here
*remember, just playing Devil's Advocate here
<center><b><font size=1><font color="#FF9900">"Invaders blood marches through my veins, like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!" -Zim</font></font></b></center>
Well, who you can legally bond yourself to is already embodied in law. It's addition to the Constitution would merely make that law harder to change, and nationally consistent.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
Well, it would change things in places like Vermont and Hawaii. It would also change what it takes to modify that law. Repealing a Constitutional amendment is harder than changing a state law. But otherwise, yeah, it wouldn't change much.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
- FlameBlade
- SMITE!™ Master
- Posts: 8644
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
- Contact:
-
- Footman of the Imperium
- Posts: 3036
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:44 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
Couldn't be any worse than him having killed a whole bunch of innocent people in a bunch of countries, fucked the economy, cut way back on a lot of public services and bent over backwards for corporations, which led to double taxing of your average joe.Gunny wrote:I wonder how this will affect him during re-election time
This is just another example of how much of a fuckhead this guy is. No re-election for him.
- FlameBlade
- SMITE!™ Master
- Posts: 8644
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
- Contact:
Honestly, I doubt it'll affect him much. One of his biggest bases of support is the religious right, who are firmly opposed to homosexual marrage. Heck, if he didn't do this, he'd probably risk losing some of them, for not being "hard enough on the homos".I wonder how this will affect him during re-election time. ideas?
We all know how the Christians like to be hard on the homos. I think I saw it once in a porno.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
Note that I did not say "documentary." I said, "porno." There is an absurdity.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
there was a telephone/internet poll done for the local Fox news station about if gay marriages should be illegal. 58% of pollers think it should be illegal. to me, 58% isn't a huge number. it tells me that the pollers are almost evenly divided on the issue. what really facinates me is the poll that was done on Canada recognizing gay marriages and a 70%-something were for it. now that it's moving into the states, US citizens are shying away.
I guess people are saying gay marriages are okay so long as it's not in the US.
I guess people are saying gay marriages are okay so long as it's not in the US.
<center><b><font size=1><font color="#FF9900">"Invaders blood marches through my veins, like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!" -Zim</font></font></b></center>
- Van Der Litreb
- Bulldrek Pimp
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 9:17 am
- Location: Denmark
- FlameBlade
- SMITE!™ Master
- Posts: 8644
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
- Contact:
National polls show roughly the same numbers: 57% against gay marriage, 40% for. When you think about it, that's really pretty insane, given what the response would have been ten or twenty years ago. Good news, in my opinion: marriage should be about what the married couple wants it to be about, not what anyone else thinks. The government has no right to define what is inherently a personal institution.
sure, numbers like those would have caused a stir 10-20 years ago. we aren't talking about 10-20 years ago, we're talking about now. today.
I don't think the gov't should be sticking its nose anywhere near what is or isn't a legal union between two consenting adults.
I don't think the gov't should be sticking its nose anywhere near what is or isn't a legal union between two consenting adults.
<center><b><font size=1><font color="#FF9900">"Invaders blood marches through my veins, like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!" -Zim</font></font></b></center>
- Toryu
- Wuffle Initiate
- Posts: 1058
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 3:31 pm
- Location: Quite far away from Tubuai Island.
Same here in Germany, after we followed the followed the Danish example.Van Der Litreb wrote:Just to throw in some random information:
In Denmark, gay couples can get married at city hall, but not yet in churches.
"What is it about blogs, forums and LiveJournal that just invite stupid fights, Davan? Is acting like an ass a clause in the user agreement?"
Come on, Freedom of Religion cuts both ways. One of the more common arguments I've heard is that recognizing some marriages, but not others, is a violation of the First Amendment-- "recognizing an establishent of religion". If it's ok for a church to marry gay people, it's ok if another church doesn't approve.
to me, it's not about freedom of religion. religion can ignore or approve of anything it wants to. religion doesn't make the laws, the gov't does. gov't should be doing what's best for the freedom of the citizens it serves, not the moral/religious ideas of a single man even if that man is the President.
<center><b><font size=1><font color="#FF9900">"Invaders blood marches through my veins, like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!" -Zim</font></font></b></center>
Sure, churches can sanction whatever marriage behavior they like. That's pretty much what religion does - promote or discourage certain behaviors. However, when the government tries to do the same, in my view it becomes (US) Constitutionally non-viable.Cain wrote:Come on, Freedom of Religion cuts both ways. One of the more common arguments I've heard is that recognizing some marriages, but not others, is a violation of the First Amendment-- "recognizing an establishent of religion". If it's ok for a church to marry gay people, it's ok if another church doesn't approve.
And incidentally, the 1st Amendment is worded "respecting the establishment of religion." There is, of course, no clear indication in the document itself whether that means no laws respecting religious establishments, or the establishment of a state religion, or both.
The government shouldn't have anything to do with respecting the marriage in any case; the government shouldn't even be /involved,/ or should let any two people who choose to marry do so. Why should the government have control over sanctioning unions? The union is personal and possibly spiritual; it doesn't need to be governmental.Cain wrote:True, but then we get into the issues of the government saying: "We'll respect the marriages if you belong to Churches X, Y, and Z; but not A, B, and C, because they allow homosexual marriages." That would be a clear First Amendment violation.
I favor the Danish solution; let the churches do as they choose, but let anyone marry who wants to.
Because here in the United States there is a sizable portion of the population who feel morally obligated to tell you how to live your life. We have a strong and long-running history of Evangelical Christians. Take a look at our most famous of religious ancesetors, the Pilgrams. These are the people who thought Cromwell was a /good/ leader.3278 wrote: The government shouldn't have anything to do with respecting the marriage in any case; the government shouldn't even be /involved,/ or should let any two people who choose to marry do so. Why should the government have control over sanctioning unions? The union is personal and possibly spiritual; it doesn't need to be governmental.
--
Ratlaw
By request all posts end in "Bla-DAMN!"
Ratlaw
By request all posts end in "Bla-DAMN!"
Why not? I completely agree that the personal and spiritual side should be outside the government's influence, but why should the legal?I don't think the gov't should be sticking its nose anywhere near what is or isn't a legal union between two consenting adults.
The problem as I see it is that the union is more than just personal (and possibly spiritual) - there is a societal aspect as well. And it's at that point the government begins to have an interest. There are certain benefits to having the government recognize the union as valid, so doesn't the government get to say what it considers valid?The government shouldn't have anything to do with respecting the marriage in any case; the government shouldn't even be /involved,/ or should let any two people who choose to marry do so. Why should the government have control over sanctioning unions? The union is personal and possibly spiritual; it doesn't need to be governmental.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
I don't think there should be legal benefits to marriage. The knife of my opinion cuts both ways.Big Jim wrote:The problem as I see it is that the union is more than just personal (and possibly spiritual) - there is a societal aspect as well. And it's at that point the government begins to have an interest. There are certain benefits to having the government recognize the union as valid, so doesn't the government get to say what it considers valid?
Fair enough (and not unexpected). Given the situation as it is now, with legal benefits for government-sanctioned (for lack of a better term) marriage, should the government be able to set the guidlines for which marriages it sanctions?I don't think there should be legal benefits to marriage. The knife of my opinion cuts both ways.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
I'm not really sure where you pickde up the basis for this, but no. As I see it, the government sanctions all marriages if it is to sanction any. Where that marriage happens is up to the individuals involved.True, but then we get into the issues of the government saying: "We'll respect the marriages if you belong to Churches X, Y, and Z; but not A, B, and C, because they allow homosexual marriages."
Then again, I'd much prefer it 32's way, but I think it's easier and more realistic to expand the benefits more inclusive rather than completely do away with them.
- Anguirel
- Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
- Location: City of Angels
We already have a pile of laws regarding unions. They're called becoming incorporated, forming a joint pool of assets of a group of individuals and creating a single legal entity. We don't need separate fucking rules to deal with what is and always has been a religious institution. We should dump the present marriage laws wholesale...
32: the state can, actually, tell you which car you can buy (well, drive on public roads, which is essentially the same). They need to meet certain guidelines and if they don't then the manufacturer gets into legal trouble and if you request it be built to illegal specifications and then register and drive it on public roads... you'll also be in legal trouble. If it includes other illegal bits, such as illegal armament, then it can't be legally sold at all. For that matter, you can't legally purchase a vehicle obtained or imported by illegal means.
32: the state can, actually, tell you which car you can buy (well, drive on public roads, which is essentially the same). They need to meet certain guidelines and if they don't then the manufacturer gets into legal trouble and if you request it be built to illegal specifications and then register and drive it on public roads... you'll also be in legal trouble. If it includes other illegal bits, such as illegal armament, then it can't be legally sold at all. For that matter, you can't legally purchase a vehicle obtained or imported by illegal means.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
The "legal benefits" of marriage aren't that great. Joint credit histories, and generally automatic survivorship, are the most common "benefits". Individual states have more-- many states are "communal property" states where your partner's assets are considered your own, and vice-versa. Oh, and automatic custody of children that come from the marriage. There are other potential benefits, but they vary.
I agree with 32, though-- reducing the few marriage tax benefits, in favor of household benefits (meaning, the presence of children) would be more appropriate in light of the new century.
And for those who don't think marriage is inherently religious, or at least spiritual-- what's the difference between a long-term cohabitating couple, and a married one? Other than how the law treats you, which is what we're debating ATM.
I agree with 32, though-- reducing the few marriage tax benefits, in favor of household benefits (meaning, the presence of children) would be more appropriate in light of the new century.
No. Again, because marriage is an inherently religious belief, our government has no right so sanction or disallow any. They may not want to extend household benefits to homosexual couples, but that's different than sanctioning/disallowing marriage.Given the situation as it is now, with legal benefits for government-sanctioned (for lack of a better term) marriage, should the government be able to set the guidlines for which marriages it sanctions?
And for those who don't think marriage is inherently religious, or at least spiritual-- what's the difference between a long-term cohabitating couple, and a married one? Other than how the law treats you, which is what we're debating ATM.
- Salvation122
- Grand Marshall of the Imperium
- Posts: 3776
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:20 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
- FlameBlade
- SMITE!™ Master
- Posts: 8644
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
- Contact:
- Salvation122
- Grand Marshall of the Imperium
- Posts: 3776
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:20 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
- Salvation122
- Grand Marshall of the Imperium
- Posts: 3776
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:20 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
Not really, since I was refering to marriage in the purely religous sense, and you're talking about it from a legal perspective, which is entirely different. You can have a marriage service, but unless you have a marriage license, the state doesn't care. From the church's point of view, you wouldn't be in an adulterous relationship, and any offspring would not be illegitimate; the government would take quite the opposite view.
But what happens if, say, someone comes from another country with different laws? Someone from India, for example, may not have a marriage certificate, but the state will recognize the marriage as the same as one conducted here in a Christian church. Or someone from a thrid-world nation, or someone from a theocratic country, where the legal and church regocnition are one and the same.
That's why the Canada thing is causing such a controversy. Until now, the US has always recognized a legal marriage from another country, even if our existing laws would get bent in the process. For example, many countries permit marriage for teens and adolescents. If a man from Singapore and his 12-year old wife were to come here, their marriage would be treated the same as any other-- and in fact, he would be exempt from child-molestation charges for having sex with his wife.
That's why the Canada thing is causing such a controversy. Until now, the US has always recognized a legal marriage from another country, even if our existing laws would get bent in the process. For example, many countries permit marriage for teens and adolescents. If a man from Singapore and his 12-year old wife were to come here, their marriage would be treated the same as any other-- and in fact, he would be exempt from child-molestation charges for having sex with his wife.
A vow.And for those who don't think marriage is inherently religious, or at least spiritual-- what's the difference between a long-term cohabitating couple, and a married one?
A marriage is not just a promise that, "I will always love you." A marriage - even in the most secular sense - is a promise made before, and with the participation of a community. It is witnessed by family, friends, and neighbors. It is affirmed by the group that these two people have entered into union, giving their relationship a special social standing.
Last edited by Marius on Fri Aug 01, 2003 6:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
*points to [edit]
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.