Bush Backs Proposed Ban on Gay Marriage

[Kane]

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-06-03-voa14.cfm

President Bush wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Senators are expected to begin debate on the proposed amendment in the coming week.
President Bush says marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by all religions.
"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," said Mr. Bush. "Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, without weakening this good influence on society."
By recognizing and protecting marriage, President Bush says, government serves the interests of all. So, he wants Congress to approve a constitutional amendment banning homosexual or lesbian marriage.

Amending the U.S. Constitution requires approval by two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures. Lawmakers say the amendment is unlikely to pass.
Opposition to gay marriage has been a mobilizing force for social conservatives, who generally support the president's Republican Party. Mr. Bush backed the amendment before his 2004 re-election, and won in every state where there were similar initiatives on the ballot.
Critics accuse the Bush administration of raising the issue again now to energize conservative voters ahead of congressional elections in November.
President Bush says there is a broad consensus in America to protect traditional marriage, as 45 of the 50 states now define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
So why amend the Constitution?
Because, the president says, judges in some states have overturned laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
"This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts," he added.
In a U.S. public opinion poll last month, 58 percent of those questioned said same-sex unions should not be accorded the same rights as marriage between a man and a woman. Roughly 39 percent said they should be recognized by law as equally valid.
But the Gallup poll showed less support for resolving the dispute constitutionally, with 50 percent backing an amendment and 47 percent opposing such a move.
As the debate moves forward, President Bush says, all Americans deserve to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity.
President Bush Monday meets with religious and community leaders as well as constitutional scholars to discuss the proposed amendment.

He was talking about this a bit last term, but I didn't think he would bring the issue up again. I don't understand Bush! He is so random. One moment he is talking about the war, the next oil American oil adiction, and now back to this. Why can't he focus on one issue, get it over with and then move on to the next?

Although I agree that marriage is between members of the opposite sex, I really don't think government should have a say on anything. Either they should take the word "marriage" out of the constitution or the government should get out of the business of marriage completly.

So yea I am against an amendment that would take a stance on such a reletive issue, despite agreeing with the premise on why it is looking to be banned.

Thoughts?

 

[michaeledward]

Well, since the social conservatives are beginning to recognize that President Bush is not going to deliver for them, they are going to stay away from the polling places in November. This would be a very bad thing for the Republican Majorities in the House and Senate.

By having the proposed Amendment on State ballots, Mr. Rove hopes to keep the Right Wing Christians coming to the polls.

The fiscal conservatives have abandoned Bush, but they will come back to the polls in fear of Democrats. But the social conservatives will just stay home.

 

[crushing]

It doesn't seem like all that long ago when Republicans defended state's rights and the 10th Amendment. But with this, the Schiavo case and medicinal marijuana, the Republicans seem to be more and more in line with the Democrats when it comes to a strong central government. It's just that the two parties chip away at us from different angles when they come to power.

To me, it should be up to the states and not the federal government; and I would hope that the states would NOT enact such measures. However, the great BLUE state of Michigan was one of many states that easily passed an anti-gay marriage proposal on the ballot on the 2004 ballot.

 

[celtic_crippler]

They're ALL in line with taking away your rights and controlling every aspect of your life. Politicians are evil.

 

[michaeledward]

They're ALL in line with taking away your rights and controlling every aspect of your life. Politicians are evil.

That's a might broad brush you are painting with.

One might suggest you run for office and change things.

 

[Ping898]

He's bringing it up to try and get back his conservative base. He knows it won't pass, even the sponsor of the bill thinks it won't pass, but 2006 is an election year for some reps and Republicans want the conservatives to come out and vote, they fear loosing control (majority) in congress. One way to get the conservatives out to vote is to make them think you are catering to their agenda...

 

[crushing]

He's bringing it up to try and get back his conservative base. He knows it won't pass, even the sponsor of the bill thinks it won't pass, but 2006 is an election year for some reps and Republicans want the conservatives to come out and vote, they fear loosing control (majority) in congress. One way to get the conservatives out to vote is to make them think you are catering to their agenda...

But, if even the blue states are passing such bans, is he really catering to a conservative base? It saddens me (may disappoints me is a better phrase) to say it, but Bush's position may be the moderate, at least based on the numbers.

Republicans will probably lose control soon, but this will be because they are no longer conservative, but have become the big spending, big government, ethics violating, nation building politicians that they defeated in 1994. Of course die hard Republicans will vote Republican, but many conservatives will probably move vote 3rd party. I think this happened some in 2004, but they held on to liberal Republicans and picked up some moderate Democrats.

 

[michaeledward]

Watch for a verdict from the New York State Supreme Court. They have recently heard arguments in a suit concerning gay marriage. It may very well be the second state to legalize. The dominoes have started falling.

 

[Carol]

Several cities in NY have already stated that they will formally recognize same-sex marriages that were performed here in Massachusetts. Wouldn't surprise me at all if NYS is next.

There hasn't really been any big social backlash since it has been legalized here. There are some radio talk show hosts that like to make sport of some community figure (teacher, minister, etc.) being married to a same-sex partner. Oddly enough, that finger-pointing seems to take place because of political differences pf the community figure and not because of any kind of irresponsible behaviour.:idunno:

 

[Kane]

But, if even the blue states are passing such bans, is he really catering to a conservative base? It saddens me (may disappoints me is a better phrase) to say it, but Bush's position may be the moderate, at least based on the numbers.

Republicans will probably lose control soon, but this will be because they are no longer conservative, but have become the big spending, big government, ethics violating, nation building politicians that they defeated in 1994. Of course die hard Republicans will vote Republican, but many conservatives will probably move vote 3rd party. I think this happened some in 2004, but they held on to liberal Republicans and picked up some moderate Democrats.

Which third party? I have being hearing some Republican moving to the Libertarian Party. However it seems that Constitution Party would be what conservatives would be looking for, since they seem to be the most conservative.

 

[CanuckMA]

Maybe I'm off, but wouldn't this be the first constitutional amendment to actually restrict rights?

 

[Kacey]

Maybe I'm off, but wouldn't this be the first constitutional amendment to actually restrict rights?

Sadly, no... think "Prohibition", the Eighteenth Amendment, as follows:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Later repealed by the passage of the Twenty-First Amendment.

 

[Kacey]

As far as the actual issue, I see no reason to pass such an amendment. People who are sufficiently against same-sex marriages will, one assumes, not engage in one - and it's none of their business what other people do. Once it was immoral (and in many places illegal) for inter-racial marriages to occur - and the same people objected when that changed, but change it did, and, in my opinion, the world is a better place because of the change. As with inter-racial marriages, same-sex marriages occur because of an attraction between 2 people who wish to commit to sharing their lives with each other. It's no one else's business, be it the government or moralistic members of the community, to prevent them from sharing their lives in such a way, nor do I see any reason to deny same-sex couples the rights other couples take for granted.

 

[hapki68]

Ugh! The dreaded gay marriage debate. I hope to not get sucked into a long discussion so I'll try to make all my points at one time.

My partner and I have been together 11 years. We are "married" in every sense but legally. Our families are very supportive, and we have nieces and nephews who don't remember a time when, say, "Uncle Pat" wasn't around. They would be very upset if one of us were taken out of the picture. We are a family whether some like it or not.

Our straight neighbors here in Northern Virginia are great as well. We don't live in a "gay ghetto." As I said before, I'm the only gay guy in my dojang, but the straight guys treat my partner and me just like they do the other guys and their spouses. And, yes, we joke about sex. There's no "don't ask, don't tell" b.s.

The religous right has yet to explain how gay marriage affects straight marriage in any measurable way. Massachusetts, the only state that recognizes gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. The Bible Belt has the highest. Enuff said.

If religious conservatives were serious about "defending marriage" rather than demonizing gays, they would try to outlaw divorce or Catholic annulments. duh. But far be it from religious conservatives to take responsibility for their own issues and sins. It's easier to blame someone else for their problems.

And don't quote the Bible to me when you're wearing a mix of fabrics (forbidden in the Old Testament) or letting women speak in church (forbidden in the New Testament -- Corinthians.)

Neither my partner nor I care about the term "marriage." If a four-time divorced man picking up a prostitute and flying her to Vegas to be married by Elvis is a "holy union" that we can't be part of, so be it. We're concerned about the legal rights we're denied, not the name.

For example, if we were in a car accident and my partner seriously injured, I could be legally barred from his hospital room because I am not a family member. I would be dependent on the kindness of the hospital staff for visitation and decision-making.

Could you imagine the agony of knowing your spouse is dying a few yards away while some random person -- with the backing of the law -- says "no" to your hysterical requests for a final goodbye while quoting scripture to you? We live with that fear.

On top of that, if he died, his distant third cousin we've never met (a legal relative) can take control of his remains and half of our assets, forcing me to sell everything we own and divide the proceeds. Although we have a will, the Virginia legislature passed a law a year or so ago nullifying it to ensure gays and lesbians don't have legal rights that "approximate" marriage benefits... just as the Constitutional Amendment would do. In other words, my partner and I would not be allowed to bequeath each other property. The religous right supports this out of "love and compassion" and "protection of the family."

There are over 1000 benefits that accrue to married couples that gay couples are denied. For example, after working for forty years, why should my social security go back to the Treasury instead of to my partner? I earned that money.

Finally, this debate demeans straight marriage and shows how incredibly strong gay unions are. I've been repeatedly impressed at how many gay couples are able to stay together for decades with all the forces actively working hard to pull us apart. We stay together for one reason alone... we actually love each other. It's rarely for the kids (since we typically don't have them) and god knows it's not for the money or societal blessing.

To straight people who feel we're the cause of your spouse's infidelity or loveless union, I say, "Physican, heal thyself."

Hapki68

 

[Kane]

Ugh! The dreaded gay marriage debate. I hope to not get sucked into a long discussion so I'll try to make all my points at one time.

My partner and I have been together 11 years. We are "married" in every sense but legally. Our families are very supportive, and we have nieces and nephews who don't remember a time when, say, "Uncle Pat" wasn't around. They would be very upset if one of us were taken out of the picture. We are a family whether some like it or not.

Our straight neighbors here in Northern Virginia are great as well. We don't live in a "gay ghetto." As I said before, I'm the only gay guy in my dojang, but the straight guys treat my partner and me just like they do the other guys and their spouses. And, yes, we joke about sex. There's no "don't ask, don't tell" b.s.

The religous right has yet to explain how gay marriage affects straight marriage in any measurable way. Massachusetts, the only state that recognizes gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. The Bible Belt has the highest. Enuff said.

If religious conservatives were serious about "defending marriage" rather than demonizing gays, they would try to outlaw divorce or Catholic annulments. duh. But far be it from religious conservatives to take responsibility for their own issues and sins. It's easier to blame someone else for their problems.

And don't quote the Bible to me when you're wearing a mix of fabrics (forbidden in the Old Testament) or letting women speak in church (forbidden in the New Testament -- Corinthians.)

Neither my partner nor I care about the term "marriage." If a four-time divorced man picking up a prostitute and flying her to Vegas to be married by Elvis is a "holy union" that we can't be part of, so be it. We're concerned about the legal rights we're denied, not the name.

For example, if we were in a car accident and my partner seriously injured, I could be legally barred from his hospital room because I am not a family member. I would be dependent on the kindness of the hospital staff for visitation and decision-making.

Could you imagine the agony of knowing your spouse is dying a few yards away while some random person -- with the backing of the law -- says "no" to your hysterical requests for a final goodbye while quoting scripture to you? We live with that fear.

On top of that, if he died, his distant third cousin we've never met (a legal relative) can take control of his remains and half of our assets, forcing me to sell everything we own and divide the proceeds. Although we have a will, the Virginia legislature passed a law a year or so ago nullifying it to ensure gays and lesbians don't have legal rights that "approximate" marriage benefits... just as the Constitutional Amendment would do. In other words, my partner and I would not be allowed to bequeath each other property. The religous right supports this out of "love and compassion" and "protection of the family."

There are over 1000 benefits that accrue to married couples that gay couples are denied. For example, after working for forty years, why should my social security go back to the Treasury instead of to my partner? I earned that money.

Finally, this debate demeans straight marriage and shows how incredibly strong gay unions are. I've been repeatedly impressed at how many gay couples are able to stay together for decades with all the forces actively working hard to pull us apart. We stay together for one reason alone... we actually love each other. It's rarely for the kids (since we typically don't have them) and god knows it's not for the money or societal blessing.

To straight people who feel we're the cause of your spouse's infidelity or loveless union, I say, "Physican, heal thyself."

Hapki68

I totally understand what you are saying. In recent months I have become more open to gays getting married and stuff, and it may have to do with the fact that I am a deist/pantheist/atheist. You can't expect the same thing from the Religious Right. You have to keep in mind that their minds are shackled with the dogma from the Bible. It is sad that people believe a book from the bronze age is anything more than a myth (no different than the Iliad) and the literal word of God.

I have always believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and still do. But this is for semantic reasons (and what marriage has always been). No freethinking mind would believe there is any "harm" in same-sex marriage. You know, there maybe some people that think marriage is between members of the same sex only. There maybe some that think other forms of union such as polygamy is okay too. And there is nothing wrong with that.

This is why marriage and the business of marriage should be taken out of the government. Marriage is something private and no government can tell people what marriage is. The government's job is to protect the life, liberty, and property of all individuals regardless on how they live their life. If the government got out of the business of marriage I think things would be better in society. There would be no conflict because marriage would be up to the individuals to decide.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Cryozombie]

You can't expect the same thing from the Religious Right. You have to keep in mind that their minds are shackled with the dogma from the Bible. It is sad that people believe a book from the bronze age is anything more than a myth (no different than the Iliad)

Wouldn't you agree?

No. As a Christian I wouldnt agree... and its ****ing stupid that EVERYONE keeps associating Christian = Anit-gay/Anti-Abortion/totaly closed minded.

Just like EVERY stereotype, there is a reason for it, of course, but its STILL just a stereotype... Whats next? Every Hispanic is Illegal?

 

[OUMoose]

No. As a Christian I wouldnt agree... and its ****ing stupid that EVERYONE keeps associating Christian = Anit-gay/Anti-Abortion/totaly closed minded.

Just like EVERY stereotype, there is a reason for it, of course, but its STILL just a stereotype... Whats next? Every Hispanic is Illegal?

I agree it's a stereotype, however it's one that the people in question keep living up to (or down to depending on your viewpoint) time and time again. I don't think Kane was referring to the average joe schmoe who is a good church-goer and says his prayers, but more to the right wing fundamentalists who are a bomb jacket away from being a terrorist. (note: Please forgive the expression, it was only meant as a comparison)

:asian:

 

[heretic888]

Y'know. . .

It's kinda funny how "the sanctity of marriage" is only "under attack" on even-numbered years, ain't it?? I mean, it's almost as if there's something else going on here. . .

As Judge Judy would say, "Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining."

Honestly, it will be interesting to see if the American people actually buy into this cheap political trick. They tried it in 2004 and it worked (and please note that there was been no legislative discussion of same-sex marriage since the presidential election).

Maybe they're hoping for a repeat two years later??

 

[heretic888]

I have always believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and still do. But this is for semantic reasons (and what marriage has always been).

What it's always been in the West maybe. . .

Marriage has very different forms in other cultures, and we don't see them falling apart under the weight of their own moral degradation or some other such nonsense. In fact, cross-cultural data repeatedly debunks the idea that "marriage" has to be between a man and a woman. The only logic behind any of this stuff is Appeal To Tradition.

Besides the "it's always been that way!" argument runs rather hollow, anyway. I mean, not so long ago "marriage" had always been between two persons of the same skin color (interracial marriage was quite illegal). Not so anymore. If we go back even further, we will generally see that only persons of certain socioeconomic status could legally marry (I'm talking Middle Ages here).

Anyone with half a clue about human historical trends knows that gay marriage is going to happen, whether social conservatives like it or not. The same arguments were leveled against interracial marriage and lost. Same deal here.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

No. As a Christian I wouldnt agree... and its ****ing stupid that EVERYONE keeps associating Christian = Anit-gay/Anti-Abortion/totaly closed minded.

Just like EVERY stereotype, there is a reason for it, of course, but its STILL just a stereotype... Whats next? Every Hispanic is Illegal?

Well, Technopunk, to be perfectly fair. . .

All of that "anti-gay" stuff is in the Bible (especially the Old Testament). Most Christians I know of regard the Bible as their "holy book" (if not the "infallible Word of God"), so you just gotta put two in two together to get four.

Now, I'm not saying that if you're a Christian you, by definition, will be "anti-gay". Not at all. I'm just saying that the association between Christianity and homophobia isn't "just because". There's a reason for it.

Laterz.