Pres. Bush vs. Gay Marriage

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:17 pm

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.

well, the Prez is making his stand. I wonder how this will affect him during re-election time. ideas? thoughts?

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:21 pm

For some reason...I'm doubting that states would ratify it...

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:25 pm

It'll never even get to Congress. There's no point. It won't pass, and it pisses off people you want to vote for you.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:36 pm

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.

Cazmonster · Post by **Cazmonster** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:41 pm

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.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:42 pm

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.

At the moment you're correct. Over the past month or so, public support for homosexuality has fallen in polls.

But I believe that the President does not support a Constitutional amendment about marriage.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:49 pm

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

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:55 pm

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.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:08 pm

so you're saying that it wouldn't change much, just making it nationally recognized.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:13 pm

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.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:21 pm

Hmmm....Then Vermont can secede to Canada?

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:03 am

Gunny wrote:I wonder how this will affect him during re-election time

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.

This is just another example of how much of a fuckhead this guy is. No re-election for him.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:21 am

CE: you forgot a minor detail. US is full of fuckwits.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:56 am

I wonder how this will affect him during re-election time. ideas?

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".

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:58 am

We all know how the Christians like to be hard on the homos. I think I saw it once in a porno.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:19 am

Marius, note that I did not say "Christians". I said "Religious right". There is a difference.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:42 am

Note that I did not say "documentary." I said, "porno." There is an absurdity.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:28 am

The government needs to stay the hell out of morality, bedrooms, marriages, and religion, and the President needs to stay out of having "government lawyers working on a law."

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:38 am

marius: Sorry, long rough day. :cry

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:30 pm

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.

Van Der Litreb · Post by **Van Der Litreb** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:07 pm

Just to throw in some random information:

In Denmark, gay couples can get married at city hall, but not yet in churches.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:19 pm

Gunny: Note that it's a Fox Channel...Fox has this conversative slant going...

I'm more interested in nation-wide polls...

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:43 pm

very true FB. I haven't seen any national polls yet.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:51 pm

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.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:16 pm

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.

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:00 pm

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.

Same here in Germany, after we followed the followed the Danish example.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:08 pm

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.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:15 pm

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.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 8:29 pm

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.

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.

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.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 8:40 pm

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.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 8:58 pm

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.

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.

I favor the Danish solution; let the churches do as they choose, but let anyone marry who wants to.

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 9:05 pm

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.

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.

Big Jim · Post by **Big Jim** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 9:26 pm

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.

Why not? I completely agree that the personal and spiritual side should be outside the government's influence, but why should the legal?

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.

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?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 9:54 pm

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?

I don't think there should be legal benefits to marriage. The knife of my opinion cuts both ways.

Big Jim · Post by **Big Jim** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:14 pm

I don't think there should be legal benefits to marriage. The knife of my opinion cuts both ways.

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?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:38 pm

Nope. I get legal benefits with my government-sanctioned car, but the government doesn't have a right to tell me what kind of car I can buy.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:47 pm

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."

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.

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 · Post by **Anguirel** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:25 pm

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.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:12 am

Yeah, I thought about that after I posted.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:23 am

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.

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?

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.

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 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:45 am

One is sanctified by God, and the other is not. Depending on your interpretation, cohabitation might be considered adulterous or Lustful, one of which is a Major sin and the other a Deadly. (I personally don't buy that, unless you bear a child out of wedlock, but there are a great many who do.)

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:51 am

So, the difference is religious?

Thank you, that's exactly my point. If marriage is religious, then our government shouldn't recognize it at all. First Amendment.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 4:22 am

There's that, and "common law marriage"

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 5:09 am

Cain wrote:So, the difference is religious?

Yeah, I'm stupid - I read it "for those who think marriage is inherently..." Kinda left out the negative. Disregard.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 5:47 am

Hey, no harm done. I kinda suspected you weren't defending the religious right. Besides, you helped prove my point.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 5:55 am

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.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 6:19 am

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.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 6:25 am

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 vow.

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.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 6:35 am

And long-term cohabitating couples don't have an equal vow to one another, or an equal commitment?

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 6:36 am

*points to [edit]