Bush Backs Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriages

[JQ Public]

boo to this amendment!...it should be up to the states!!

[stormchazer]

Its not even close to the same thing. Since the beginning of time, marriage has been understood and defined as man and woman. Interracial marriages were a product of prejudice, gay marriage is a moral and nature issue.

Marriage was also once defined as a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman. But not a black man and a white woman or a white man and a black woman.

So, it was about nature too. People couldn't fathom the idea of races being mixed and the impurity of one race or the other being "tainted" by blood of another. And since most people argue that Adam and Eve were white, their thinking is that the white race is the pure race and that God didn't want the races to be mixed.

Although there are Scriptures in the OT where inter-faith marriages or marriages between two people from different lands are forbidden, it didn't speak against marriages of people from the same land but of differing races.

Furthermore, people worried about what the children conceived in these marriages might look like.

So just as gay marriage is a moral and nature issue, so was interracial marriage. And just as interracial was also an issue of prejudice, in some ways, so is gay marriage.

Yes...but in NATURE...same sex people cannot have children...period. Inter-racial marriages were argued against for the same reason that brother-sister marriage is illegal, although prejudice was the key. The concern was genetic flaws would result. When interracial marriage was not allowed, blacks sat at back of bus, used different water fountains, and went to separate schools. Thats discrimination. Discrimination that took 100s of years to overcome. I would hope the gay community would not insult the plight of blacks before the 60's by claiming their same-sex fight to be the same. It is not even close.

Same-sex couples can use the same water fountain as me, ride the same bus as me, eat in the same McDonalds. Same-sex couples can enter civil unions with all the rights of a married couple, but this fight is about the country excepting that gay behavior is mainstream. I'm sorry, but it is not.

[GalvestonDuck]

Blacks don't seem to mind -- I see rainbow-flag wavers on the news, walking side-by-side with MLK Day marchers all the time.

If nature were an issue, why can trans-gendered couples marry legally? They can't have kids by natural means either. And not all straight couples can have kids.

Brother-sister marriages? I moved out of Kentucky five years ago. I hope that's still not going on. :o

[TexasStooge]

This same-sex marriages just makes me wanna puke.

[j]

Sean Hannitty asked some Liberal Gay activist last night if it would be ok for 3 people to get married..

He was making a point, using absurdity to illustrate just how absurd this is (ala Rush). I thoughthis next question to him would be.."How about a sheep"?

I think in Maine, they are already doing that.

[stormraiser]

J. Growing up in MD, we always said that about West Virginia

[rainstorm]

boo to this amendment!...it should be up to the states!!

it was up to the states. every state has a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman. a law passed by the state legislatures. 4 liberal activist judges decided to nullify state law in mass, which effects other states as well. so you see, the states did act on the matter. now its time for an amendment.

[GalvestonDuck]

Duck, here's an article on what Mary Cheney believes on this issue...I thought I read somewhere she was against it, but this doesn't say how she feels, just that she isn't saying anything.

Thanks for posting that article. Hmmm...another gay Republican woman close to my age. Somebody get me her number! j/k

LOL @ them trying to tell her she's working for the enemy. *yawn* Does everyone have to follow them around like a bunch of dumb sheep (speaking of sheep, j ) instead of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions?

Now that I'm not at home, trying to get ready for work:

"Same-sex couples can enter civil unions with all the rights of a married couple, but this fight is about the country excepting that gay behavior is mainstream.

I agree that it's being pushed to an extreme (see my previous posts in other threads because I get tired of repeating myself). As I said, it's just not time. But we really don't have to worry about people suddenly becoming gay because of all of this. There will still be a large majority of people who are straight, getting married, and having babies. The human race won't die out or anything. Gay couples are still going to be here also, regardless of whether they have some kind of ceremony or not. But reading about 26 hundred (or thousand or whatever the number was) couples getting "married" just to spite the rest of us really disturbs me.

I just think this is all being done in ridiculous way (so quit trying to debate me, Jara -- we're standing at the same podium *pokes Jara in the ribs*). Why is our president having to waste his time banning something that's already illegal? Why are people trying to push for the government to regulate what our churches do (which is how I see it and I'll explain more in a second)? Why are gays parading around acting like they're accomplishing something when all their doing is looking as clownish as hooded klansmen, marching around misusing the Confederate banner of pride?

Jara, you mentioned civil unions. I want to make sure I get this straight -- are you saying those are legitimate now? In other words, it's all about the phrasing of the terms and not the union itself that people are against? None of it really makes sense to me on either side -- those for "marriage" and those against it.

You see, my problem is that I don't think anyone is really coming forward to say what it is that they want, what it is that they don't want, and what it is that they agree on. Marriage is a no-go, but gay unions are okay? The whole damn thing is confusing to me, which makes it hard to figure out what they (gays) are fussing about.

So, define gay union. Are we talking about that little legal ceremony with a justice of the peace and a document that says they are "legally" united? Sounds the same as a legal marriage to me, although no one wants to call it that because "marriage is between a man and a woman."

If it's already accepted, as long as it's called a "union" and not a "marriage", then what in the world is the big kafuffle about? Gays just need to be happy that they can have their unions and have the same legal benefits as married couples.

Now, let me tell you what I don't plan to see in my lifetime, but what I want -- I want to have a ceremony (I'll refrain from calling it a "wedding") in a church, where I will "unite" (I'll refrain from calling it "marry") with the person I want to spend the rest of my life with (I'll refrain from calling her a "spouse") because I want to be in a committed, monogamous relationship, as sworn to before the eyes of my Lord and Savior and all my family and hers.

So, if it's not called a "marriage" or a "wedding" but it's a "ceremony" performed in my church, in addition to a legal union, is that acceptable? Because I don't just want some legal crap to give me benefits. I'll take it. But that's now what I look forward to. I've explained what's important to me. Furthermore, the government can not regulate how I worship or what my church does. So, if 845 years after I die, either the pope or the Southern Baptist Convention decides to perform "ceremonies" for gay couples (but not marriages), would people accept that?

[Anonymous]

Everytime I think about this "issue" it just baffles me more as to how it could be the subject of so much debate; how could anyone thinking reasonably object to gay marriages? Perhaps there are some good logical reasons why it shouldn't be done, but I haven't thought of any yet. All I see is discrimination driven by arbitrary traditional values... and a moron who wants to include it in a Constitutional amendment... and unfortunately happens to be a world leader. His quotes about "protecting the most enduring human institution" (where "protecting" = excluding a minority) are downright sickening, especially considering that that "sacred" institution was arguably created for legal purposes and to oppress women. It seems to me that, much as we look back at what some Southern leaders had to say on African Americans in the first half of the last century, we will be looking back on this winner that we elected President fifty years from now with the same type of shame and regret (with regards to social issues; not that he has been particularly terrible in every respect). The trend is always there... over the past two centuries we've slowly but surely begun to eliminate descrimination (and have come a very long way today with racial minorities, women, etc.)... why should it stop here? And what the hell are those who despise discrimination towards the aforementioned groups yet continue to look down upon homosexuals thinking... other than what modern culture and religion is telling them to?

Another depressing aspect of this debate is its reminder to us that most politicians will abandon their beliefs and reason in order to please the majority... Kerry has (from what I've read) previously said he supports gay marriages, yet now he's non-committal because it's campaign time and most of the voting population is against it. This is the ONE thing I admire Bush for; he doesn't seem to let popular opinion sway his views as much as some of the Democrats do... now if only his views weren't based on an ancient fairy tale we'd be in good shape .

Just for the record, I am NOT homosexual, just very disturbed by the treatment and discrimination they receive by some heterosexuals.

[JQ Public]

well if all the states are against it there is no need for an amendment! It just seems like their scared of states changing their views with time.

[mf_dolphin]

I restate my stance on this issue for Brettjrob My befief is that marriage was first a religous sacrament defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. Later it was also adopted by the legal community to designate the legal relationship. What is happening now is that the courts are involved in mandating a change definition of the term. What is at the core of the debate for most I've talked to is the term "marriage" itself. Discrimination is the infringement of one's legal rights. If the goal is to end discrimination then why is the legal civil union not sufficient? From my point of view it's because the term "marriage" carries both the religous as well as societal connotation of approval. The courts don't have the right to decide those factors. The courts should provide for the LEGAL protection only. JMHO

[Rainband]

I think the seperation of church and state will come up as an issue. I am happy for the acceptance by Bush of Gay Unions and for now that will have to do.

[Anonymous]

If the goal is to end discrimination then why is the legal civil union not sufficient? From my point of view it's because the term "marriage" carries both the religous as well as societal connotation of approval. The courts don't have the right to decide those factors. The courts should provide for the LEGAL protection only. JMHO

You make an excellent point, and if civil unions were to become the law throughout the nation, I'm sure that would satisfy many homosexuals. In fact, I must say I understand that the term "marriage" has a history of association with the church, and as such it is not completely necessary that the term be applied to unions between two people of the same sex... AS LONG as those unions are in all ways completely equivalent to marriage (literally to the point where the sole difference is the term; and the only ones concerned about the 'sanctity' of a mere word/term are the religious, so both sides are satisfied).

My real problem is with the underlying feelings that are motivating people to be in strong opposition to homosexual marriage... sure, there are some like yourself who are fine with civil unions... but there are also many who simply see homosexuals as inferior and unworthy, and are expressing their hidden thoughts/feelings through issues like these. They claim to be tolerant and loving, yet clearly have a superiority complex with regards to homosexuals (and oftentimes other groups) justified only by tradition and ancient scripture, not by logic or reason. Logic and reason tell you certain things on this issue: 1) if many homosexuals tell you that they cannot 'help' being homosexual, you take their word for it and assume it's probably true (although you can't ever prove 100% one way or another until you gain access to their conciousness, just as you can't ever prove 100% that your spouse loves you until gaining access to theirs)... 2) if this is indeed the case, and there are chemical/biological differences responsible for homosexuality, then society should be understanding of this and allow/help them to live life to the fullest, knowing that nothing is going to "reform" them or make them turn straight.

As far as I'm concerned, condemning/scorning gays and lesbians is hardly any different than mocking or putting down someone with a physical disability... although many of the more religious people in our society would be appaled at the thought of doing such a 'sinful' thing, they are engaging in essentially the same type of behavior when they look down upon gays and openly make it known that they think their lifestyle is 'wrong' and 'disgusting'... in both cases, they are judging someone negatively because of a natural abnormality.

[mf_dolphin]

... AS LONG as those unions are in all ways completely equivalent to marriage (literally to the point where the sole difference is the term; and the only ones concerned about the 'sanctity' of a mere word/term are the religious, so both sides are satisfied).

Herein lies one of the big difficulties with this issue. Legal equality is one thing but "moral" equality is something that you can't legislate or dictate through the courts. If legal unions were legally the same as marriages, which was proposed in Mass and rejected by the court, why is the push on for the "marriage" label? The simple answer is that it's not just a legal discrimination battle but an attempt to force the other issue as well.

... My real problem is with the underlying feelings that are motivating people to be in strong opposition to homosexual marriage... sure, there are some like yourself who are fine with civil unions... but there are also many who simply see homosexuals as inferior and unworthy, and are expressing their hidden thoughts/feelings through issues like these. They claim to be tolerant and loving, yet clearly have a superiority complex with regards to homosexuals (and oftentimes other groups) justified only by tradition and ancient scripture, not by logic or reason.

While I understand you feelings but we can't make laws on what we "feel" are people's motivations. There is nothing in our constitution or laws that says we have to like or accept the lifestyles of anyone, gay, straight or whatever. It says we can't discriminate. When you go to write laws based on what you feel people think then we've lost a huge part of our freedom....

I personally oppose the gay lifestyle and feel it's against what I believe in. However, I accept people for who they are. I believe that I have to answer for my actions I feel that everyone else will as well. I'll leave the judgement up to God...


btw Thanks for the sensible discussion of differing ideas

[Stephanie]

Great points brett & Marshall!

I personally feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman - as the bible intended. HOWEVER, I believe that gay couples should have the same legal benefits as a husband and a wife. I do feel that civil unions should be allowed.

[Anonymous]

While I understand you feelings but we can't make laws on what we "feel" are people's motivations. There is nothing in our constitution or laws that says we have to like or accept the lifestyles of anyone, gay, straight or whatever. It says we can't discriminate. When you go to write laws based on what you feel people think then we've lost a huge part of our freedom....

Agreed... what I was explaining were my personal reasons for questioning those who oppose gay marriage, not what the courts or legislature should be focusing on.

BTW, although I respect everyone's right to their opinion, I would like to see a real rebuttal not fully dependent upon religious faith to what I had to say in the original post, particularly the second and third paragraphs. I am puzzled as to how people can come to the conclusion that homosexuality is "wrong" and that openly opposing it (and thus causing grief for some who are homosexual) is acceptable, despite considerations such as those I posted, and would love to see your thoughts.

[mf_dolphin]

Well I can't deny my faith so for me to make an arguement without acknowledging it's place would be impossible. It's like saying I want you to run a marathon without breathing. It's just not going to happen lol I will however address a couple of your later points from my point of view.

They claim to be tolerant and loving, yet clearly have a superiority complex with regards to homosexuals (and oftentimes other groups) justified only by tradition and ancient scripture, not by logic or reason.

Being tolerant and loving does not mean you can't disapprove of behavior that you feel is wrong. That's not being judgemental or having a "superiority complex" it's having a mind and using it to make personal decisions based on your own values. As humans we do that every day. As a parent I can tell you I love all my children but at the same time I abhor some of the things they've done. That's the way it was with my parents and probably every parent since the beginning of time LOL The fringe on either side of this issue are just as bad as one another. I won't dare try and justify either's behavior.

Logic and reason tell you certain things on this issue: 1) if many homosexuals tell you that they cannot 'help' being homosexual, you take their word for it and assume it's probably true (although you can't ever prove 100% one way or another until you gain access to their conciousness, just as you can't ever prove 100% that your spouse loves you until gaining access to theirs)...

Since I'm on my third marriage (18 years this time) I'll pass on the spouse comment My personal belief is that there are people that profess to be gay that are just experimenting or rebelling against society. I also believe that there are people as you say, because of a difference in chemical or biological make up are indeed born with a tendancy to being gay.

2) if this is indeed the case, and there are chemical/biological differences responsible for homosexuality, then society should be understanding of this and allow/help them to live life to the fullest, knowing that nothing is going to "reform" them or make them turn straight.

Again, I fully support legal rights and protection for all people. I just oppose the judicary imposing a legal definition on a religous sacrament.

I'm getting the evil eye from my cats (snack time) so I'll try and post some more later

[BocaGirl]

There's something that really bothers me here. I've been married to the same guy for more than half my life, so obviously I believe in the sanctity of marriage!

Okay, so now I see all these people blathering about about gay marriage and how terrible it is and how it destroys the sanctity of marriage and the fabric of American life - so much so that we need a Constitutional amendment to stop it.

But at the same time, one of the most popular ships on tv is My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance - a show that I believe takes the concept of holy matrimony and reduces it to money grubbing nothingingess.

Where's the hue and cry against that show? (Duck, I know you liked it, Sorry. I was planning to hold my tongue.)

Kinda like the Janet Jackson thing. How did all the parents who hid their children's eye at the sight of Janet Jackson's - ahem- you know - explain the meaning of all the Viagra and Cialis ads. My son is 19. But I cringed everytime an ad came on, wondering how a little one would react to those two people in bathtubs as the announcer said something like "When the time is right.....will YOU be ready?......."

BocaGirl

[GalvestonDuck]

But at the same time, one of the most popular ships on tv is My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance - a show that I believe takes the concept of holy matrimony and reduces it to money grubbing nothingingess.

Where's the hue and cry against that show? (Duck, I know you liked it, Sorry. I was planning to hold my tongue.)

It's okay, Boca!

In regards to MBFOF, IMO, they were just setting up for the wedding as actors would on a soap or TV drama. There was nothing real about it and the TV audience knew it was not intended to be real (or some I'm guessing from what I did see, because I didn't see that much, but I knew what the premise of the show was).

OTOH, if they had gone through with the ceremony and continued the charade from there, I would have been offended by it.

Just heard Rosie is gonna get married now. What next?

[sunnyday]

Who is Rosie marrying?