Bush backs Gay Marraige Ban Amendment

[yavoon]

are the ppl for gay marriage also for all the other things like polygamy and relatives marrying?

somehow I think this is gna get flamed....

[Sava]

yavoon: I'm not for either... we outlaw weddings for direct relatives... well, it's pretty obvious why. I'm against polygamy, well, I'm not THAT much against it... gay marriage is about the discrimination against sexual orientation... polygamy, well, that's really just about a dude wanting more wives.

that being said, they are different issues... it's a shame gay-haters want to equate them.

btw, on Lou Dobb's Moneyline (CNN), Noah Feldman (asst. prof. of law) just brought up the 1st Amendment issue regarding religion, marriage, and the government.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sava
yavoon: I'm not for either... we outlaw weddings for direct relatives... well, it's pretty obvious why. I'm against polygamy, well, I'm not THAT much against it... gay marriage is about the discrimination against sexual orientation... polygamy, well, that's really just about a dude wanting more wives.

that being said, they are different issues... it's a shame gay-haters want to equate them.

btw, on Lou Dobb's Moneyline (CNN), Noah Feldman (asst. prof. of law) just brought up the 1st Amendment issue regarding religion, marriage, and the government.

well to me it depends on what u think constitutes marriage. obviously if u WANT to allow gay+straight 2 ppl non related marriages only, then I suppose its possible to fish around enough until u find something that fits that.

then again I've been hearing a lot of "if ppl are loving and commited to each other they should be allowed to marry." well I don't see how that rules ANYTHING out.

also if we're carping on how arbitrary "man+woman" is, I don't find "2" any less arbitrary.

[Thorn]

You wanna know how I feel about this, I would kill people to gain my rights, but being that this wouldn't do anything but blow up in my face and not help things at all, I don't do such things.... but I kid you not, I am upset enough to partake in a revolution. I'm sick and tired of gays taking up the ass what heteros decide. We should FIGHT FIGHT!!! CIVIL DISOBENDIANCE IN THE LEAST!!!

[MrFun]

It's somewhat frightening to me, when a president can even consider appealing/pandering to homophobia to INCREASE his popularity for reelection.

[Sava]

then again I've been hearing a lot of "if ppl are loving and commited to each other they should be allowed to marry." well I don't see how that rules ANYTHING out.

I don't really care about the religious or social aspects of those topics... I care about the government's role in it. The government grants certain rights and privilages to heterosexual married couples. Those same rights and privilages should be granted to homosexual couples as well.

Personally, I'd like to see the government not meddle in the private social affairs of people...

so in savaland, the "institution of marriage" would strictly be a topic the churches, synagogues, and mosques deal with... not the government.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Wheile there is a law that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, there is a later law that forbids discrimination on the basis of gender. Thus, the earlier law is invalidated.

Maybe not. Many courts have said that banning gay marriage isn't discrimination on gender, but on sexual orientation. Because women and men who are gay are discriminated equally.

After thinking some time about it I wouldn´t say that it is neither Discrimination against Gender nor sexual Orientation.

You can marry someone, regardless of wether you are male or female, as long as the other person is of the opposite sex.

But there is also no discrimination in sexual orientation.
Regardless of wether you are Homo or Heterosexual you are allowed to marry, as long as you marry a Person of the opposite Sex (and after all there is no law that says, that you have to feel love or sexual desire for your partner to marry him/her)

So I would call it rather some form of Discrimination against the "homosexual lifestyle", as homosexual lifestyle involves living together with a partner of the same sex.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't really care about the religious or social aspects of those topics... I care about the government's role in it. The government grants certain rights and privilages to heterosexual married couples. Those same rights and privilages should be granted to homosexual couples as well.

Personally, I'd like to see the government not meddle in the private social affairs of people...

so in savaland, the "institution of marriage" would strictly be a topic the churches, synagogues, and mosques deal with... not the government.

lil tangent. don't want to say dodge, but the thot crossed my mind. so all u get a smiley.

=D

[Sava]

sorry, I tried to answer your question

[Thorn]

After thinking some time about it I wouldn´t say that it is neither Discrimination against Gender nor sexual Orientation.

You can marry someone, regardless of wether you are male or female, as long as the other person is of the opposite sex.

But there is also no discrimination in sexual orientation.
Regardless of wether you are Homo or Heterosexual you are allowed to marry, as long as you marry a Person of the opposite Sex (and after all there is no law that says, that you have to feel love or sexual desire for your partner to marry him/her)

So I would call it rather some form of Discrimination against the "homosexual lifestyle", as homosexual lifestyle involves living together with a partner of the same sex.

It is not a friggen lifestyle, it is how we live. Unless you consider yourself a heterosexual lifestyle. Lifestyle implies that you CHOOSE for this happen, it is more like homosexual CIRCUMSTANCES, not lifestyle.

What kind of a moron marries someone that they don't love or aren't attracted to, and don't even want to be around, does that make and &(#$(*&$# sense!!??!

If you do it is usually fraud to try and fool the INS.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Thorn


It is not a friggen lifestyle, it is how we live.

someone has to pickup this quote

[Ned]

Originally posted by rah
He may be throwing the fundies a bone, but it sure makes it harder for his more moderate supporters, (like me) to continue to vote for him.

Would have it been so hard to just say that you don't agree but it's up to the courts to decide?

Is not characteristic of George Bush to equivocate. He always takes a simple and clear position. Contrast that with the position of John Kerry who seems to be on both sides of every issue, both against gay marriage and against any effective remedy.

[Giancarlo]

Bush made a mistake. But lets not forget that John Kerry is also against gay marriage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

An amendment banning gay marriage would violate that part of the first amendment because the law is interfering with religious establishments.

Um Sava (again)... AN AMENDMENT CAN'T BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

It doesn't matter if it conflicts. Since it is later in time, it alters prior amendments.

It is not a friggen lifestyle, it is how we live.

[Giancarlo]

Actually this amendment is unconstitutional. And being gay is no more of a lifestyle than heterosexuality.