Bush supports amendment banning gay marriage

[RussSchultz]

Joe it's an ad hominem attack, if she had the presence of mind she would have pointed out that the right to marry multiple people is denied equally to all ... so it is not an issue of discrimination. Wether to allow discrimination based on sex for non-polygamous marriage is a question of discrimination. Just cause she didnt have the presence of mind to point out the difference between the issues doesnt give you the right to pretend to be equally stupid and do as well.

Um, the right to marry the same sex is denied to all, so where's the differentiation?

Its all a question of where you draw the line.

 

[Natoma]

Because you can say "What if" to anything Joe.

Right. Don't see your point.

You asked why it wasn't a pertinent question. That was my answer.

With people asking in the 40s to be able to marry interracially, I'm sure they probably heard something like "Well why don't you just let the faggots marry too huh?"

Why are you bringing interracial marriage into this....you're deflecting from the issue at hand.

There is a difference between bringing up a precedent and bringing up a hypothetical.

 

[Natoma]

Joe it's an ad hominem attack, if she had the presence of mind she would have pointed out that the right to marry multiple people is denied equally to all ... so it is not an issue of discrimination. Wether to allow discrimination based on sex for non-polygamous marriage is a question of discrimination. Just cause she didnt have the presence of mind to point out the difference between the issues doesnt give you the right to pretend to be equally stupid and do as well.

Um, the right to marry the same sex is denied to all, so where's the differentiation?

Its all a question of where you draw the line.

Yay we have a three peat......

 

[DemoCoder]

I support separation of church and state. Marriage is a religious institution. All people, gay or straight, you should only be recognized *legally* as being in *civil unions* There should be one federal regulation that consistently applies to everyone in a union, in terms of benefits, rights, et al. Gays and straights should have equal rights under such a Federal Civil Union statute.

When it comes to marriage, that's a religious matter, and it is up to various religions to decide whether they want to permit same-sex "Marriage".

That said, I am against a "gay marriage ban" in the constitution. Why? The constitution is a document that traditionally grants freedoms to individuals, primarily, by restricting what the government can do. Here we are, adding amendments into this great document for the sole purpose of *removing freedoms* from people. (except for the income tax amendment)

I view a Gay Marriage Ban amendment precisely as I view Prohibition. It's a big mistake, and like prohibition, it would be a waste, because eventually another amendment would be passed to rescind it in the future.

Ultimately, this falls to the states. Why do people in Tennesee care if people in Boston allow same-sex unions? Live in your own state, leave others alone. Vive La Difference.

 

[John Reynolds]

Because you can say "What if" to anything Joe.

Right. Don't see your point.

With people asking in the 40s to be able to marry interracially, I'm sure they probably heard something like "Well why don't you just let the faggots marry too huh?"

Why are you bringing interracial marriage into this....you're deflecting from the issue at hand.

No, he's not. It's the same horse manure I hear at work from several of the fundies I work with: allow gay's the right to marry and you open Pandora's box of societal corruption. Same fear-based, knee-jerk reactions were probably had by those who supported miscegenation laws years ago. We must draw the line somewhere!

My work fundies also bring bestiality into the argument. I love that one.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

There is a difference between bringing up a precedent and bringing up a hypothetical.

No difference...it's not the issue at hand.

Bigamy has been legally banned, yes? Did society as we know it falter? Come crashing to a halt? Did that stop people from having relationships with multiple partners?

We've got precedence that limiting the definition of marriage doesn't cause the end of the world, too.

 

[RussSchultz]

Ultimately, this falls to the states. Why do people in Tennesee care if people in Boston allow same-sex unions? Live in your own state, leave others alone. Vive La Difference.

Because the next step is the 'full faith and credit clause', where somebody granted a marriage in state A will try to wedge themselves into state B that does not allow such unions.

Plus, the issue at stake isn't unions, it's marriages. (p.s. I agree with your get rid of the marriage and make it all unions)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No, he's not. It's the same horse manure I hear at work from several of the fundies I work with: allow gay's the right to marry and you open Pandora's box of societal corruption.

Um, John....

It's just a matter of being consistent. No where did I personally say what you are accusing me of.

 

[Natoma]

I support separation of church and state. Marriage is a religious institution. All people, gay or straight, you should only be recognized *legally* as being in *civil unions* There should be one federal regulation that consistently applies to everyone in a union, in terms of benefits, rights, et al. Gays and straights should have equal rights under such a Federal Civil Union statute.

When it comes to marriage, that's a religious matter, and it is up to various religions to decide whether they want to permit same-sex "Marriage".

That said, I am against a "gay marriage ban" in the constitution. Why? The constitution is a document that traditionally grants freedoms to individuals, primarily, by restricting what the government can do. Here we are, adding amendments into this great document for the sole purpose of *removing freedoms* from people. (except for the income tax amendment)

I view a Gay Marriage Ban amendment precisely as I view Prohibition. It's a big mistake, and like prohibition, it would be a waste, because eventually another amendment would be passed to rescind it in the future.

Ultimately, this falls to the states. Why do people in Tennesee care if people in Boston allow same-sex unions? Live in your own state, leave others alone. Vive La Difference.

Couldn't agree more, save for the last paragraph. I don't think it's an issue that should be left up to the states. Rights, imo, should be mandated by the federal government. That way, if you get married in Boston, the people of Tennessee can't take your marriage away because they don't think it's "good".

Basically what you were alluding to when you spoke about a federal arrangement for civil unions/marriage/whatever in the first part.

 

[Natoma]

There is a difference between bringing up a precedent and bringing up a hypothetical.

No difference...it's not the issue at hand.

Bigamy has been legally banned, yes? Did society as we know it falter? Come crashing to a halt? Did that stop people from having relationships with multiple partners?

We've got precedence that limiting the definition of marriage doesn't cause the end of the world, too.

And we've got precedence that expanding the definition of marriage doesn't cause the end of the world either.

Society didn't falter and crumble because of 100+ years of slavery and subjugation in our society either Joe. Doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, that it wasn't a complete betrayal of what our constitution stands for, i.e. the granting of rights to individuals. It has only once been used to take away the rights of individuals, and that failed miserably.

 

[epicstruggle]

I support separation of church and state. Marriage is a religious institution. All people, gay or straight, you should only be recognized *legally* as being in *civil unions* There should be one federal regulation that consistently applies to everyone in a union, in terms of benefits, rights, et al. Gays and straights should have equal rights under such a Federal Civil Union statute.

Wow, I actually agree with you. Ive been talking with friends about this very thing. Keep marriage completly out of govermnents hand. The civil union form should be made as broad as possible so that we will NEVER have to revisit this issue ever again.

When it comes to marriage, that's a religious matter, and it is up to various religions to decide whether they want to permit same-sex "Marriage".

Are we sure that church's wont be sued to allow gay marriaes. Just asking.

That said, I am against a "gay marriage ban" in the constitution. Why? The constitution is a document that traditionally grants freedoms to individuals, primarily, by restricting what the government can do. Here we are, adding amendments into this great document for the sole purpose of *removing freedoms* from people. (except for the income tax amendment)

the constitution does restrict those not born in this country from being able to run for president. So it does restrict, in some sense, and it has discriminated in the very begining against women and minorities. Yes amendments have usually been added for more freedoms.

I view a Gay Marriage Ban amendment precisely as I view Prohibition. It's a big mistake, and like prohibition, it would be a waste, because eventually another amendment would be passed to rescind it in the future.

True. But in this case civil unions would be legal so, and the difference between the two (marriage/union) is just the name.

Ultimately, this falls to the states. Why do people in Tennesee care if people in Boston allow same-sex unions? Live in your own state, leave others alone. Vive La Difference.

The full faith and credit clause will force the person in tennesee to recognize boston's same-sex union.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

When it comes to marriage, that's a religious matter, and it is up to various religions to decide whether they want to permit same-sex "Marriage".

Are we sure that church's wont be sued to allow gay marriaes. Just asking.

The courts would have no jurisdiction in this case. Religions can choose to recognize whatever union they please.

 

[John Reynolds]

Um, John....

It's just a matter of being consistent. No where did I personally say what you are accusing me of.

I didn't mean by post to be directed at you, but past restrictions on minorities, whether ethnic or sexual, is relevent and fair material to bring into this discussion. IMO.

Some of the people at my new job just grate my nerves so I'm venting a little at times. One of them believes we need to kill the entire middle east, continue to deny gays the right to marry, continue to deny foreign-born citizens eligibility to the presidency, etc. He absolutely fails to see the separation of church and state (I quoted George Washington's famous Treaty of Tripoli statement, "In no way is the US government based upon the Christian religion," and he about fell out of his chair). Most narrow-minded, judgemental human being I've met. And of course he just adores Bush.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Some of the people at my new job just grate my nerves so I'm venting a little at times. One of them believes we need to kill the entire middle east, continue to deny gays the right to marry, continue to deny foreign-born citizens eligibility to the presidency, etc. He absolutely fails to see the separation of church and state (I quoted George Washington's famous Treaty of Tripoli statement, "In no way is the US government based upon the Christian religion," and he about fell out of his chair). Most narrow-minded, judgemental human being I've met. And of course he just adores Bush.

Hey, does he also think that women wearing pants and working is wrong too? I think I knew him and his friends when I was working at US Steel.... :|

 

[MfA]

The government can do any damn thing it wants, until the next elections/revolution, but gay marriage is about discrimination based on sex by government ... disallowing polygamy isnt about discrimination at all.

 

[DemoCoder]

Some of the people at my new job just grate my nerves so I'm venting a little at times. One of them believes we need to kill the entire middle east, continue to deny gays the right to marry, continue to deny foreign-born citizens eligibility to the presidency, etc. He absolutely fails to see the separation of church and state (I quoted George Washington's famous Treaty of Tripoli statement, "In no way is the US government based upon the Christian religion," and he about fell out of his chair). Most narrow-minded, judgemental human being I've met. And of course he just adores Bush.

Hey, does he also think that women wearing pants and working is wrong too? I think I knew him and his friends when I was working at US Steel.... :|

Hey, I am completely against everything John said his co-worker believes, but I take issue with part of your last statement. Women should be allowed to work, but they should wear short skirts and high heels to work. Preferably, a constitutional amendment should guarantee this "right" to us men.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Hey, I am completely against everything John said his co-worker believes, but I take issue with part of your last statement. Women should be allowed to work, but they should wear short skirts and high heels to work. Preferably, a constitutional amendment should guarantee this "right" to us men.

Yeah, I like that idea...but I fear for me nuggers to endorse it as me wife probably wouldn't take kindly to it.

I really did find it hilarious working in the late 90s in a high-tech field to find people honestly believing that women were somehow mentally/physically/emotional inferior to men. It cracked me up to no small end, it really did.

The idea of amending the constitution to define marriage is just insane BTW. I'm with Bill Maher that if the word "marriage" goes into the constitution than the word "birthday" had best be in there too with some rules on how to celebrate it.

 

[Humus]

Marriage is a religious institution.

I agree entirely on everything else you wrote, but I disagree with this particular line. Marriage is an institution that exists in all current and previous cultures known to man. It exist regardless of religion or lack thereof. The likely conclusion is that it's rather a deeply human desire to get together two and two.
Surrounding the marriage, since it's a part of every culture, there are many kinds of different ceremonies, rules and morals, which depends on religions and culture, but the marriage itself is not the product of any religion.

 

[DemoCoder]

Well, I agree and disagree. Marriage for romantic love is a recent invention. Historically "marriage" has been about two things: property rights, and proving paternalism.

People were "getting together" even before marriage. I think marriage may have come about once populations increased and diseases became more rampant. The probability of being cuckholded or of a father ditching a family increased in higher population densities, the response, was probably some public ritual that informed everyone of who was off limits and what their responsibilities were.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

..but gay marriage is about discrimination based on sex by government ... disallowing polygamy isnt about discrimination at all.

Sorry...don't see how it's any different. I don't see how you can say one is a form of discrimination and the other isn't.