[JFischel]

Anyone else see this. The President said that he was open to a CONSTITUTIONAL ban on gay marriages. This disturbs the hell out of me on a few levels. First, who the fcuk CARES -- people are people, let them do what ever floats their boats. Second, the Constitution is the thing that this country is founded on, ameding the Constitution should be reserved for important things like the first one, you know the one about Freedom of Speech. It's not too far of a stretch from banning gay marriage, to some zealot trying to pass something about inter-marriage, then banning other groups...Here's a link to CNN if you're so inclined. I'm not gay, but am part of another minority and thinking like this scares the $hit out of me.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...age/index.html

Regards,

Josh

[forkies]

um, yeah, his stance is quite obvious...

Marriage Protection Week, 2003

President Defends Sanctity of Marriage

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by forkies:
um, yeah, his stance is quite obvious...

Marriage Protection Week, 2003

President Defends Sanctity of Marriage

His stance seems to me to be pretty cynical and weasely. If you read what he said, it's all ifs and maybes. A significant part of his base are social conservatives who are enraged at the decision in Massachusetts and who are generally, pretty rabid on this issue. So he tosses them a bone. At the same time, the reality is that mainstream politicians across the political spectrum routinely affirm their belief that gay and lesbian couples should have no right to equal treatment under the law. Bush has done it. Clinton did it. Gore did it. Hillary has done it. Dean has done it (Vermont's policy is separate but equal). Clark has done it. Gephard and Kerry do it. Leiberman does it. Only Moseley-Braun and Sharpton are for equal rights, and they have no chance whatsoever.

The cynicism is that they toss social conservatives a bone without seriously engaging in the debate. I doubt that Bush will take the lead on a constitutional amendment, but he sure won't say up front that it is a bad thing. Likewise, Clinton supported the Defense of Marriage Act not because he is a social conservative, but because he thought it would be popular and because he didn't think it would change anything concretely.

I doubt that anything will come of this. Constitutional Amendments are often proposed, rarely passed. So what we probably have is a cheap ploy for votes. It's sad that Republicans still do this. It's sad also that Democrats come close to doing the same. Our political leaders should be ashamed of themselves. But that requires them to have shame, and on these kinds of issues where there is no electoral pain for them, I doubt they do.

[Joshua]

His support of the FMA is terrible. I get the impression that he does it more out of party loyalty than for personal reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that he's essentially supporting the same ignorant deprivation of equality that was thrown out in Loving v. Virginia more than thirty years ago.

I was hoping it would become a serious campaign issue in 2004, but it's looking like the none of the Democratic nominees have the backbone to support equality either.

[JFischel]

Beyond the equality concern, I'm worried about using the Constitution for this kind of issue. I went back and looked at the Bill of Rights, and other amendments to the Constitution. The items that are on there are for the most part "important" issues to everyday life -- abolishment of slavery, freedom of speach, etc. I find it terribly worrisome that it's come to talk of amending the Constitution to push a moralistic view on people in the Country. I'm sure the argument could be made for moralistic views being used in the other Amendments, but truth be told they are morals based in right or wrong which all people share. Those who don't share the views and go against them are either visionaries who enact change in the world or they are criminals.

Rant over...*smile*

Josh

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by JFischel:
Beyond the equality concern, I'm worried about using the Constitution for this kind of issue. I went back and looked at the Bill of Rights, and other amendments to the Constitution. The items that are on there are for the most part "important" issues to everyday life -- abolishment of slavery, freedom of speach, etc. I find it terribly worrisome that it's come to talk of amending the Constitution to push a moralistic view on people in the Country.

It's more fundamental than that. The Bill of Rights abridges the rights of government to interfere with the rights of the individual. A marriage amendment would do the opposite and would also interfere with the Tenth Amendment by federalizing a traditionally state issue. The only real precedent for this is prohibition. What a disaster that was.

This is why the FMA is already losing traction. A number of prominent conservatives have opposed a constitutional amendment because they don't like the idea of an amendment to the federal constitution, not because they support marriage rights. Given the height of the hurdle required to amend the Constitution, I don't think they will get the momentum.

However, if activists force this too quickly through the courts, there could be enough of a backlash. Polls indicate that Massachusetts voters support what their Supreme Judicial Court did. Let Massachusetts demonstrate the concept before shoving it down the other states throats through the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The best argument we will have wold be a practical demonstration that the sky didn't fall in Massachusetts. The best argument the other side has is that this is nothing but judicial activism. Push too fast in the courts and we really could lose big and permanently.

[chabig]

- people are people, let them do what ever floats their boats.

Murder? Theft? Incest? Fraud? You support those things?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by chabig:
Murder? Theft? Incest? Fraud? You support those things?

Vice is nice, but incest is best.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's more fundamental than that. The Bill of Rights abridges the rights of government to interfere with the rights of the individual. A marriage amendment would do the opposite and would also interfere with the Tenth Amendment by federalizing a traditionally state issue. The only real precedent for this is prohibition. What a disaster that was.

Bravo! Bravo!
I had never really looked at the issue in that way, but you are quite right. It does sadden me that none of the politicians will stand up for what they think is right because the mainstream may not like it. What is so bad about equal rights for all Americans?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by The Mick:
Bravo! Bravo!
I had never really looked at the issue in that way, but you are quite right. It does sadden me that none of the politicians will stand up for what they think is right because the mainstream may not like it. What is so bad about equal rights for all Americans?

Come on, people. There is absolutely no mention of not having "equal rights for all Americans". What you will find in the article is this:

The president -- in an apparent nod to some recognition of gay civil unions -- also said it would be the position of his administration that "whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state."

What Bush is referring to focuses on the specific word "marriage", and that if legislation hit his desk with the aim of ensuring that, at least in eyes of the federal government, the word "marriage" refers to the union between a man and a woman - much like the dictionary definition - he would sign it. Also, he didn't offer this as a "vote-getting" proposition - he was answering questions asked of him by ABC's Diane Sawyer.

In terms equal protection under the law for same-sex unions, he's all for it.

Furthermore, there is no intention here of violating the 10th amendment. Bush even stated "whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state."

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Furthermore, there is no intention here of violating the 10th amendment. Bush even stated "whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state."

... conveniently tossing the political hot potato to the state level.

[Spliffdaddy]

but...but...isn't Dubya a *gasp* neocon?

Surely he has a hidden agenda.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Come on, people. There is absolutely no mention of not having "equal rights for all Americans". What you will find in the article is this:

What Bush is referring to focuses on the specific word "marriage", and that if legislation hit his desk with the aim of ensuring that, at least in eyes of the federal government, the word "marriage" refers to the union between a man and a woman - much like the dictionary definition - he would sign it. Also, he didn't offer this as a "vote-getting" proposition - he was answering questions asked of him by ABC's Diane Sawyer.

In terms equal protection under the law for same-sex unions, he's all for it.

Furthermore, there is no intention here of violating the 10th amendment. Bush even stated "whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state."

I don't think you realize how much he is waffling. Yes, he made the statements above. he also talked about supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment. That's completely contradictory. The FMA would act to prevent states from deciding the issue. That's the whole reason its supporters are promoting it. They are terrified that this will be decided at the state level, so they want to federalize the whole issue in order to prevent states from acting on their own constitutions that in come cases are more clear about equality than the federal constitution.

In any case, it isn't about what Bush says. He's not going to do anything concrete one way or the other as this particular piece of election year waffling shows.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
... conveniently tossing the political hot potato to the state level.

Perhaps he should have recommended that the issue be tossed to theScandinavians, but only after Scandinavians first determine major US domestic and foreign policies.

[Spliffdaddy]

I support a ban on ALL forms of marriage.

If I can save just one person from misery I'll have done my part.


Huck Finn paints a fence while his friends watch. Feeling left out, they ask if they can paint the fence, too.

Huck never told anyone that the job is tedious and unrewarding.


So I am.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Huck never told anyone that the job is tedious and unrewarding.


So I am.

You're tedious and unrewarding?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Huck Finn paints a fence while his friends watch. Feeling left out, they ask if they can paint the fence, too.

Huck never told anyone that the job is tedious and unrewarding.

So I am.

Nice, except it was Tom Sawyer, not Huck Finn.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Nice, except it was Tom Sawyer, not Huck Finn.

Well that's typical... Tom's working while Huck's boinking Tom's wife.

Reminds me of why I got a divorce. I should've just punched myself in the groin, burned $250K, told half my friends to f*** off, and called it even. I wouldn't have wasted 7 years.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Joshua:
His support of the FMA is terrible. I get the impression that he does it more out of party loyalty than for personal reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that he's essentially supporting the same ignorant deprivation of equality that was thrown out in Loving v. Virginia more than thirty years ago.

...that found that you couldn't deny marriage to a man and women based on race? Gay men and women who want to marry (even marry straight members of the opposite sex) are not being denied the right to marry. There is no inequality, unless you can logically claim that unions between same sexes which can not produce offspring are equal in all ways to those that normally can.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

On the other hand, if states want to recognize legal arrangements or contracts between adults for the purpose of inheritance, power of attorney, and other senarios which usually are naturally in place between people who are legally related (by whatever means), I have no problems with that. Of course, that would include platonic friends who may be lifelong domestic non-sexual partners. For instance, I know several sets of older ladies who where widowed who live together who really have no other living family. It would be good for them, or others who wish to co-habitate who have relationships which don't meet the marriage definition but wish to legally link their lives and possesions to others.

"Marriage" is a cultural construct which is recognized in law. The law can not define that which it never created. IF there is a cultural shift which changes the minds of the majority of Americans that unions between same sexes which can not produce offspring are equal in all ways to those that normally can, you might be able to swing "gay marriage". I don't think it will happen any time soon though, but good luck.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
...that found that you couldn't deny marriage to a man and women based on race? Gay men and women who want to marry (even marry straight members of the opposite sex) are not being denied the right to marry.

You obviously don't understand Loving v. Virginia. The argument you just gave is structurally identical with the one Virginia tried to use to justify their ban on interracial marriages. That's one of the ways legal cases are applied. You look at the underlying structure of the argument. When the structure is the same, the case is generally applicable. And here they are the same. I'll spell it out for you:

Virginia said their law didn't prevent anyone from marrying, it was just that a black couldn't marry a white, or a white a black. A black could marry a black and a white could marry a white. The Supreme Court wasn't terribly impressed with Virginia's argument. The law clearly prevented Mr. and Mrs Loving from being married. It is no consolation to tell them that they could marry other people, but not each other. They didn't want to marry other people.

You are saying that the gay marriage ban doesn't prevent anyone from marrying, it is just that a man can't marry a man, and a woman a woman. A man can marry a woman, and a woman can marry a man. It's the same argument that Virginia used, just with gender instead of race. Because of that, it doesn't work any better.

The reason it doesn't work is because it ignores reality. The reason a gay person is a gay person is precisely because he or she is attracted to a person of the same sex and not a person of the opposite sex. What's the use in telling a gay person they can marry a person of the opposite sex when you know that's an empty offer?

If you find that hard to understand, try this: Suppose you were told that you could marry anyone you liked, except that the person could not be the opposite sex from you. Would you be impressed if the law said quit whining, you can marry anyone you like, as long as its a man? Would you really accept that argument? Would you really think you had equal marriage rights if the only people you could legally marry were males?

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Virginia said their law didn't prevent anyone from marrying, it was just that a black couldn't marry a white, or a white a black. A black could marry a black and a white could marry a white. The Supreme Court wasn't terribly impressed with Virginia's argument. The law clearly prevented Mr. and Mrs Loving from being married.

You obviously don't understand Loving V. Virginia. The prohibitions is because of the color of their skin. The ONLY disqualifier was the colors of their skins. All other identifiers which would make their marriage equal to those of a white man and a white women, or black man and a black women where present. The same can not be said of unions between same sexes. The consitution clearly prohibits discrimination where the sole determination is based on the color of ones skin. It does not prohibit discrimination when the parties involved don't even meet the most basic criteria.

You are saying that the gay marriage ban doesn't prevent anyone from marrying, it is just that a man can't marry a man, and a woman a woman...

A marriage is the union of a man and a women, which normallly results in the natural creation of offspring (where legal). The very basic nature of the union itself prevents partipants who are not able to satisfy it's requirements. It the same reason why the government does not recognize as "marriage" a union between a father and a daughter or an animal and a human (among other reasons).

The reason it doesn't work is because it ignores reality.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

The reason a gay person is a gay person is precisely because he or she is attracted to a person of the same sex and not a person of the opposite sex.

..and the reason why a married person is a married person is because they want to engage in a long-term union with a member of the opposite sex, whom they may end up (intentially or otherwise) creating offspring with.

Would you be impressed if the law said quit whining, you can marry anyone you like, as long as its a man? Would you really accept that argument? Would you really think you had equal marriage rights if the only people you could legally marry were males?

If "marriage" was a union between members of the same sex, which should never result in the creation of offspring, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. I can't imagine wanting any part of it. I personally don't have a problem with "ignoring reality" and forcing people to create new defintions and exceptions to logic based on my personal desires.

On the other hand, if I wanted to set up some kind of legal contract with someone the opposite sex, and the courts said I couldn't, I might have a problem with that. That goes above and beyond protecting a cultural and historical concept. This would be the case with same sex partners, or opposite sex partners who do not wish to be legally considered "man and wife" with all the responsibilities that entails.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
The consitution clearly prohibits discrimination where the sole determination is based on the color of ones skin. It does not prohibit discrimination when the parties involved don't even meet the most basic criteria.
.

Where does it say that? Look at the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. It doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, if your arguments are this conclusory, I doubt that it is worth arguing with you on this.

[Troll]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
A marriage is the union of a man and a women, which normallly results in the natural creation of offspring (where legal). The very basic nature of the union itself prevents partipants who are not able to satisfy it's requirements.

If I were sterile and knew before marriage that it was a biological impossibility that I could have children, then according to your logic, I don't "satisfy the requirements" of marriage.

Basically, you're saying the discrimination here is based on the ability to reproduce. You say that is not gender or race discrimination but you don't say why it is justified to discriminate against people on this basis. You think it's not okay to discriminate against people on the basis of their race but it is okay to discriminate against them on the basis of their capacity to reproduce. I'm not sure I understand what relevance biology has to marriage. Marriage is social recognition of a union if you ask me. Society doesn't accept certain unions based on its societal values, true enough. But I think you need to stick to the argument that American society simply isn't ready to recognise these unions rather than claim some absolute entry requirement.

Of course American society wasn't ready for interracial marriage either. Sometimes society needs a kick in the pants!

[SimeyTheLimey]

No, I think his best argument is his marriage is a union between man and woman, therefore marriage is a union between man and woman one. It's nice and compact. Circular, even.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
but...but...isn't Dubya a *gasp* neocon?

Surely he has a hidden agenda.

rofl!

I'm sure the socialists on this forum think so! I am completely against gay marriage myself. It just isn't right, not according to any religion or social convention. I think those gay boys must have been too ugly or socially inept to get a girl that they've given up on it. I'm sure they could be cured or something. I am constanly amazed at how much I agree with President Bush. I have not been so happy with a president since Reagan! He does all the right things for America. He makes me proud to be born and raised in the U S of A!

[macvillage.net]

Since when can the government on any level discuss marrage?

That's a religous thing.

Civil Union is the state part of the Marriage process.


The real reason behind this is to prevent gay adoption. Many states favor (or plan to) those who are married for adoptive homes, rather than single adults. Prohibiting the legal union of homosexuals, prevents Children from being put in those homes, on a federal level, rather than a state level... or at least that's what the Church group's literature has been pushing for several years. Because gay people adopt and "spread the disease".

I'd say this is on the level on preventing interracial marriages. Another thing I wouldn't be suprised if Bush wanted to reopen (based on his previous stances on topics). Hey, now that Strom is dead, he could right

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Troll:
If I were sterile and knew before marriage that it was a biological impossibility that I could have children, then according to your logic, I don't "satisfy the requirements" of marriage.

The government's acknowledgement of the cultural/religous construct of "marriage" is essentially a form of "afirmative action" for those who come together in a traditional manner which normally results in the creation of new life. Like affirmative action for minorities, not everyone who meets the most basic requirements have the same level of need, or any need at all. Regardless, as long as you meet a set of criteria where it's supposed that the average person who does meet the criteria would benefit, all people who do so get to reap the benefits. Most affirmative action programs aren't means tested after it can be shown that the proposed recepient meets the basic critieria (being a minority). Neither is marriage, after it can be determined that the most basic critieria is met.

Basically, you're saying the discrimination here is based on the ability to reproduce. You say that is not gender or race discrimination but you don't say why it is justified to discriminate against people on this basis. You think it's not okay to discriminate against people on the basis of their race but it is okay to discriminate against them on the basis of their capacity to reproduce. I'm not sure I understand what relevance biology has to marriage.

As we can see, in other measures, we DO legally discriminate based on race or miniority status. Your inability to see what " relevance biology has to marriage" ignores the most basic elements of biology. The consumation of marriage is an act which DOES have biological ramifications, and most people who are married end up creating new life. This is not the case with members of the same sex who wish to unite.

Marriage is social recognition of a union if you ask me. Society doesn't accept certain unions based on its societal values, true enough. But I think you need to stick to the argument that American society simply isn't ready to recognise these unions rather than claim some absolute entry requirement.

I've already acknowledged that if society recognizes that the unions of people of the same sex are equal in every way to those of the opposite sex, then it's possible to expand the definition of marriage to include them. Given the whole "creation of life" thing (quite a big difference, if you ask me), I'm not sure that's going to happen. Otherwise, I think it's more than fair to create new laws and legal arrangements to help those who might want to enjoin in a more "family" way who don't meet the criteria of "marriage".

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, I think his best argument is his marriage is a union between man and woman, therefore marriage is a union between man and woman one. It's nice and compact. Circular, even.

I guess if that was my argument, you'd have a point. I wasn't aware that the current defintion of marriage was really in debate. I thought that the debate was that the current definition should be changed.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
'd say this is on the level on preventing interracial marriages. Another thing I wouldn't be suprised if Bush wanted to reopen (based on his previous stances on topics). Hey, now that Strom is dead, he could right