Bush Shuns Calls to Legalize Gay Marriage

[Sava]

Bush can define marriage as a bond between man and woman... that's fine... but legalize civil unions... for any two consenting human beings.

Personally, I consider marriage to be man/woman.

my stance:
gay 'marriage'
gay civil union (legally identical to marriage in terms of legitimacy, legality, and taxes)

on a side note, Bush's true colors as a Christian fundy are shown... "all people are sinners" or whatever... that's bull****. And personally, that brand of Protestantism is sickening. IIRC, if you murder billions, but then accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and repent, you still go to heaven. That's an extreme case, and hardly an accurate portrayal of all denominations, but nevertheless, part of some people's beliefs. I think the idea that we are all sinners is dangerous because then the religion is basically giving a free pass to people who do bad things because they know they can repent, accept Jesus, and sneak into heaven (theoretically)

[David Floyd]

Sava,

Actually, you misunderstand the way salvation works. It's based upon the condition of your heart, not what you say you believe. So, if you plot and scheme and kill a million people, planning all the while to "repent", God's gonna know. It doesn't work like that.

On the other hand, if you ARE a mass murderer, and after the fact truly repent, then yes, you will be saved. But you're talking about two completely different scenarios.

That's the Biblical teaching, at least.

[DRoseDARs]

Well, now that Ming (or at least one of the mods...doesn't matter either way) has taken care of the flames/off-topic/spam that I knew were coming when I started the thread, I shall now post my reponses to some of the serious posts:

Bush's "We're All Sinners" comment:
I'm sorry, but I'm just not comfortable with ANY politician in the US government making such a blatantly religious remark. While refering to "God" can be viewed as a very general and vague symbol, making such a clear statement of personal religious beliefs has never set well with me, especially when made in conjunction with talk of law-making.

Bush supporting a ban, well duh:
Um, yeah, I get that. My point on that count is that the President of the United States has to be especially careful when taking sides publically in regards to social issues. Social issues are far more touchy subjects for most people than say economic ones. Dear Leader Bush has decided to publically alienate a section of the US population. Banning "Gay Marriage" may effectively ban "Civil Unions" by association. That is part of the agenda of the far right: to deny to homosexual couples ANY and ALL of the same and equal rights afforded to heterosexual couples. If they get their ban on gay marriage, they WILL seek to destroy any attempt at civil unions.

Codify:
Sadly, Slick Willy had signed the Defence of Marriage Act some years ago, so Bush is just following the political fad of pandering to the Religious Vote, even though he's a fundy himself...go figure.

Sloww's Picture:
Thank you for making the effort to NOT be a hardass in this thread, unlike some people in here...

"Marriage:"
Marriage has always existed first and foremost as a contract between 2 groups of individuals wishing to combine wealth, territory, or secure peace between themselves. Religion has played second fiddle to that fact for most of history. Even Love often never placed the highest priority in such arrangements prior to the ceremony. Religion, specifically CHRISTIANITY, most certainly had not invented Marriage.

What the Religious Sects are trying to do is rewrite history. Marriage was always a legal contract; only to the devote of any organized religion did it take on such religious connotation. In modern times, non-secular marriages occur everyday WITHOUT ANY mention of ANY God. My mom and stepdad spent several weeks searching for and interviewing various priests and judges to find one who would perform the ceremony in just such a way, and in January of 1997 they found one and were wed. They did it not because of love (they already had 17 years of it...my entire life out of her womb...so they didn't need a piece of paper telling them they were in love) but out of the realization that we could financially benefit from a state-recognized marriage, among other benefits.

The fight for Gay Marriages is a fight for equal rights under the law. Marriage is a legal contract that many people apply religious attributes to (re: added to, not preexisting to). Gay couples do not need a piece of paper telling them they are in love, anymore than straight couples need to be told they are in love; they need that piece of paper to guarantee their equal access to the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples in such arrangements.

Gay adoption:
It has already been said that there are no studies that support the claim that children raised by gay couples are in danger. Gays are just as loving as straights, and just as fallible. To claim otherwise shows a willingness to claim the "mud races" are a bunch of uncouth, backward primitives that need to be domesticated "for their own good." Meaning: it is just as absurd and ignorant.

State vs. Federal handling of this issue:
This issue is about equal rights. Either the Federal government needs to enforce the 14th Amendment and allow Gay Marriage or the benefits of the legal institution of Marriage in this country need to be abolished outright, thereby eliminating the debate all together. Social issues of this magnitude should NEVER be allowed to be decided at the State level since A) each State is likely to reach different conclusions and B) the Federal government again has the 14th Amendment to worry about, only this time from 50 different directions.

[Dis]

I'm sorry, I draw the line here.

marriages aren't for gay people.

Why would you want to ruin your lives like heterosexuals anyways?

you can have your civil unions, but a marriage is a religious ceremony. end of story.

[Giancarlo]

I don't think marriage is for gay people either. Rather unions. I think Bush is still up for discussion on that. The man isn't a homophobe and I am damn well going to vote for him in 2004.

[Robert]

Originally posted by BustaMike


Of course Cyber, and it was probably stupid to allow women to vote too, as men have been in charge of everthing throughout history .

No, democracy is evil anyway
Theocracy is the only solution

[Robert]

Originally posted by The Templar


Nah, it was stupid to stop feeding the lions with Christians.

Here kitty, kitty, kitty!

Don't worry, those games are still happening at places in the world, just not in good old Rome anymore.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Bush Shuns Calls to Legalize Gay Marriage

Why is it his job to intrude on what is essentially a state matter?

More interestingly, on which federal power would a federal ban against state laws establishing gay marriage be based? The SC rarely enforces the limitation of federal powers, but this looks like a stretch.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez
I don't think marriage is for gay people either. Rather unions. I think Bush is still up for discussion on that. The man isn't a homophobe and I am damn well going to vote for him in 2004.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=88570&highlight=marriage

"I don't see by allowing gay marriage.. how this will infringe on the rights of heterosexuals.. I don't see how it is possible and why such an inference would be made. So you are absolutely right MRT (I thought I never say that) about Boddy."--Fez

You're such a sycophant it's unbelievable. Will you change any and every one of your beliefs to be in sync with Bush? I'm appalled you'd fall into this for the sake of being an unwavering loyalist.

I feel bad for your boyfriend as well, since you obviously consider your relationship with him as being second-class compared to heterosexual ones.

Another quote from you in that thread:

"True liberty is equal rights for all."

Too bad you don't believe this.

Bush is violating one of his supposed core principles by calling for Federal legislation to override the prerogative of State governments. For a states-rights conservative, this is utter hypocrisy. It is also a reversal of his initial reaction to the SCOTUS ruling, in which he said such legislation is unneccessary. I'm curious about your claim that Bush is open to dicussing Civil Unions. He has NEVER indicated this, so your assertion is baseless.

If you think Bush is so gay friendly, why in 1999 did he tell the Madison Project, a right-wing political group that "he would not appoint anyone who is known to be gay" to a Federal post?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Dissident

you can have your civil unions, but a marriage is a religious ceremony. end of story.

Odd, if you go down to city hall in Manhattan they issue a marriage license which you can then proceed to use in either a civil ceremony (presided over by a judge) or a clergyperson who does marriages. Guess marriages aren't strictly religious - at least not in New York.

Of course nobody is saying that churches, mosques, synagogues, ashrams, etc. have to perform or even recognize gay marriages. Religious institutions are after all free to hate monger if they so choose.

[Dom Pedro II]

*sigh*


Still waiting for that asteroid....

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by The Templar


Odd, if you go down to city hall in Manhattan they issue a marriage license which you can then proceed to use in either a civil ceremony (presided over by a judge) or a clergyperson who does marriages. Guess marriages aren't strictly religious - at least not in New York.

It's true all over. In fact, my cousin married his second wife in a civil ceromony because he divorced his first wife after marrying her in a Catholic ceremony. The Catholic Church wouldn't perform the second ceromony because they don't recognize divorce, and thus consider him still married to his first wife. US law recognizes the divorce and subsequent second marriage. And that's all you need to know about whether marriage is a primarily religious or primarily civil institution.

I've said it before in threads like these, and I'll say it again: the only fair options are (1) legalizing gay marriage, or (2) legalizing civil unions, but have them apply to anybody married by a judge or other civic official, whether the couple is gay or straight; marriage can be reserved for those married by religious officials -- but that has to include gay marriages, if you can find a church that will perform them.

[Dis]

that is just proof there should be two kinds of marriages.

I think when people get a ceremony by anything other than a priets/minister/etc it should be called a civil union- no matter what their sexuality is.

I don't think 2 drunk people who fly to vegas to get married should have the same classification as 2 people who spend thousands on a religious ceremony.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
More interestingly, on which federal power would a federal ban against state laws establishing gay marriage be based?

I'd like to know that as well.

[C0ckney]

btw, getting back to the russia thing (because i really don't care about gay marriages ). turkey and japan have beaten russia on their own in wars (although turkey do have a pretty dismal record against the ruskies), the turks were alsp involved in the crimean war and sent troops, along with piedmont-sardinia.