Rove: Bush to AGAIN Push Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

[Lincoln]

If love or 'true love' is the foundation of civil marriage then the state has no business with it at all. The fact is many people who love each other cannot legally marry. Allowing anyone who is 'in love' to marry opens up a can of worms that no state can close. I know the love thing is a real nice emotional argument but it really does not hold water when you are asking the state to sanction it. On the other hand a civil union with a ceremony of one's choosing along with more compassionate laws that allow people to inherit property, visit life partners in institutions etc. would solve the problem without resurrecting Webster from the grave and asking him to change the long standing definition of a word because it makes a select group of people feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[Theben]

I guess only the fundies are allowed to have warm fuzzies... odd that denying marriage to another is what does it.

[MrFun]

What is odd, is that gays and lesbians are not allowed to establish stable relationships that are legally recognized, and then they are critcized for not "settling down." (although a significant number of gays and lesbians do settle down in spite of lack of legal recognition)

[Berzerker]

While polygamists cannot marry as many as they wish, at least they can marry someone whom they wish. Gays cannot marry anyone whom they wish.

Sure they can, the opposite sex. The majority placed a restriction on homosexuals and the majority placed a restriction on polygamists - both restrictions deny the essence of being a homosexual or a polygamist. Why do so many homosexuals support the latter restriction while condemning the former?

In other words, polygamists can in fact participate in marriage, just not to the degree they wish. Gays cannot participate at all. Big difference.

Homosexuals can participate too, and many do.

Because, if one assumes that people generally marry for reasons of love, then gays by definition cannot marry. Polygamists can.

Not if they already have a spouse.

I insist? I thought I said I was open to giving the idea a fair hearing.

Why? So you can decide? I call that insisting... Why would they need a hearing from you, it ain't your business. And let's not dance around this, most homosexuals vote Democrat. The Democrats and the Republicans are why people can't marry whom they wish whether they be homosexual, bigamist, or polygamist...

Well, I guess you got gays coming and going, don't you. If they are not willing to consider polygamy, they are "selfish hypocrites". If they are willing to consider it, they are "sitting in judgement".

First, I said they were selfish hypocrites for refusing to support polygamists, not because they are willing to consider legalising polygamy. You said you'd give polygamists a fair hearing as if you're in authority to do so. That means you are sitting in judgement of them since you will hear their gripe and decide what to do about it. Tell us Democrat, what happens when the majority of Democrats tell polygamists to stick it? I watched this debate over gay marriage and I watched spokespeople for your cause repeatedly deny they wanted polygamists to be free too. That is HYPOCRISY and it's sickening!

Your arguments are akin to claiming that someone is a hypocrite for advocating women's suffrage without simultaneously advocating multiple voting for some already enfranchised group.

I claim that homosexuals are selfish hypocrites for wanting the freedom to marry whom they want while denying that freedom to others (y'all have something in common with the fundies ). You rationalise this hypocrisy by saying you'd "hear" the other side which I presume means you will decide. How are you any different from Bush? He will "hear" and decide too... The only difference is he will decide against you and you haven't decided for or against polygamists yet (you vote Democrat when you can, true?). If so, you and most homosexuals in this country have already decided against the polygamists by electing politicians who keep polygamy illegal.

I think it's safe to say that in our society the majority's definition of marriage is one based on a foundation of mutual romantic love. Based on that definition, gays cannot currently marry, polygamists can.

You reject the majority's definition of marriage and then claim it supports you? That majority would add "between one man and one woman" to your interpretation. But even according to your characterisation, polygamists can't marry whom they love.

It's real simple, most homosexuals want the freedom to marry whom they want but deny this freedom to polygamists.

[Robert]

Theben: I find it next to impossible to believe that after 5+ years of the same argument against Cybershy wrt homosexuality, Imran finally made him change his position in 2 posts.

If you would've read my posts carefully, you would've read that I didn't oppose gay-mariage from the first post on. I was more playing devils advocate, explaining why people were against it, and I was explaining the position of the anti-gay-mariage camp.

I have never been anti-gay or anti-gay mariage.
I have voiced another opinion then the regular opinion on this issue on this board, and most people immediately take that as a anti-gay point of view. Or a bigot-position.

And it's true, I thought that the "it's a long-time ceremony" argument was a valid one, eventhough I didn't share it as the ultimate argument to be against gay mariage.

I have to opinion that I can't tell non-christians that they should follow a moral-code they don't believe in.
Besides that, even as a christian I have no strict opinion on homosexuality. I think I cannot even tell my fellow-gay-christians what they should do, since I'm a happy maried hetereosexual. How could I be all happy, and tell others to not be that happy?

That has been my point-of-view for years already.
It just bugs me how people in this thread and in general, cannot understand and won't even try to understand how difficult this issue is for some groups of people. And I still don't understand why there's so much fuss about something that's only a ceremony.
I mean, have these people been as angry about the way kim-jon-il rules North Korea?

Just to prove that I have always had this opinion:

first post in this thread:

CyberShy: But oh well, since you guys apparantly prefer fighting over everything, as usual, I'll surrender. You can count me in your happy "Pro gay-mariage" camp.

I still stand on the: "since you guys apparantly prefer fighting over everything" thing.

my 2nd post:

CyberShy: But again, I don't want to be a stay in the way for two people if they want to marry. I would hate anyone who would tell me that I shouldn't have been allowed to marry my wife for sure as well.

me again:

CyberShy: Well, I don't know how things are at your place, but overhere, or better: in my situation: I do not treat gay people as 2nd class citizen.
I'm sorry that there are still people who do see you that way. I do very condemn that.

and:

CyberShy: I am quiet moderate on this issue. I'm a christian, I'm a very orthodox christian, but nevertheless I don't want to oppose gay-mariage, and I'm sad that much christians make gay-mariage as one of their key-issues.

I'll grand you guys your victory, I did indeed surrender on the "mariage has always been a hetero thing without restrictions" opinion.
Imran is right, there have been all kinds of mariage through the ages. It's not possible to claim that mariage has been a uniform thing through all times and places.

And if mariage has never been the same, it's no valid argument to use it to keep mariage the same right now.

--------------------

mindseye: So, if it DOES occur in nature, you will support gay adoption???

Homosexual behavior - including parenting - is much more common in nature than many people realize. Homosexual parenting (by male couples, female couples, or both) has been observed in the following species: [insert list here]

Let me be clear, if a (lesbian) mother receives a child, and want to raise it with her girlfriend, and even let's her girlfriend adopt that child, I have no problems.
Same if a gay-man has a child with a woman, he wants to raise his own child with his male-partner, I have no problems.

But here we're talking about a child who's still with his/her father or mother.
That's something different then when a child gets two all-new parents.

BUT, I'd rather see a child to be raised by two gays then to spend it's youth in a orphan-house, or to live on the streets.
In fact I'd rather see a child to be raised by two loving and caring gays, then by an unfaithfull fighting pair of heterosexuals.

But, and pherhaps it's more a principal issue, I most of all prefer a child to be adopted by a man and a woman, who can be a father and a mother.
Not by a single father or a single mother.
And orphan's life is hard enough, grand him or her a father and a mother.

Arrian: And Odin, it's not just "right-wing nuts" unfortunately. They may have started that rhetoric, but it's spread.

This is btw exactly the kind of reasoning I really oppose to. Why are they nuts if they have another opinion on an emotional issue?
Don't forget, mariage is still a ceremony, it comes with emotions. And pherhaps those emotional arguments are invalid, they are valid because it's a ceremony. Ceremonies do come with emotions. The pro-gay-mariage camp has emotional arguments as well.

Don't expect any understanding from 'their side' to 'your side' as long as you won't accept and respect their emotions on this issue.

CyberShy

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Lincoln
If love or 'true love' is the foundation of civil marriage then the state has no business with it at all. The fact is many people who love each other cannot legally marry. Allowing anyone who is 'in love' to marry opens up a can of worms that no state can close. I know the love thing is a real nice emotional argument but it really does not hold water when you are asking the state to sanction it. On the other hand a civil union with a ceremony of one's choosing along with more compassionate laws that allow people to inherit property, visit life partners in institutions etc. would solve the problem without resurrecting Webster from the grave and asking him to change the long standing definition of a word because it makes a select group of people feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[Berzerker]

How could I be all happy, and tell others to not be that happy?

Do unto others...

But marriage laws in this country were not about love, they were about children. Love needs no endorsement from 3rd parties. The state has no business deciding who can marry whom, but the state does have a role in making laws dealing with custody issues and inheritance.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by alva

Hmm, indeed.
I did some googling on it, so far:

Holland,
Belgium,
most of Canada: ( Ontario , British Columbia , Quebec, Yukon territorie , Manitoba , Nova Scotia )
US: (Massachusetts)
Spain: expected in 2005

New Zealand soon.

Although we haven't got to gay marriages yet (and I don't think we will for some time), there is a Civil Union Bill that grants equal legal rights to any defacto relationship - with no exception towards homosexual relationships. The idea of legalising gay marriages will, I imagine, fade completely into the background when this is passed, as the way I see it, there will be no difference.

Whilst reading this thread I started to wonder what could be banned by such an amendment. A 'marriage' between those of the same sex, obviously. But what does this mean? That you could have a ceremony akin to marriage, but just not call it a 'marriage'? That gay people cannot cement their relationship beyond the defacto stage? That homosexual relationships cannot be officially recognised at all?

Although I don't think the last is what this means, I don't know for sure. What would this mean in the US, can someone tell me please....?

The point made about polygamists is a fair and interesting call. However homosexuals make up a far greater proportion of society than polygamists do, and it is only reasonable to accept a more widespread lifestyle before one that is not. Maybe one day there will be just as many who want to cement their polygamous relationships, and that issue will need to be addressed, however that day is not now. Maybe in parts of the US, but as far as I know the rest of the world doesn't have very many polygamy supporters.

So back to homosexual marriages. For the sake of argument, and as I am still unsure about what such an Amendment could mean, I will take it to mean that a gay relationship could not be legally recognised in the same way a heterosexual marriage would be. Why would one support this? By preventing legal privileges from being extended to gay couples, this becomes a discrimination of a lifestyle in the eyes of the law - something quite important, and far more drastic than if all the Amendment did is said that gays could not call themselves 'married', whilst still enjoying the same legal protections as those who were married. It seems to me that the arguments against gay marriages are that 'the sanctity of marriage needs to be protected' and that 'marriage is for a man and a woman only' ie one sector of society only. The only reason I can think of for denying legal rights to someone is if you think they did not deserve such rights - that sounds like a disapproval of the lifestyle for the reasons that it harms themselves (being gay does not under any stretch of the imagination) or society. Ergo, such an Amendment, if passed, shows that the law disapproves of gay lifestyles and thus gay people themselves within society, something that many conservatives here have gone to lengths to distance themselves from.

Am I missing the point? Is there some other way such an Amendment could be taken, apart from it legally saying that being gay and not disapproving of yourself is wrong? If I am right in this assessment, do any of those conservatives who have claimed 'not to have a problem with gay people' in fact DO have a problem, as they support such an Amendment?

[Berzerker]

Although we haven't got to gay marriages yet (and I don't think we will for some time), there is a Civil Union Bill that grants equal legal rights to any defacto relationship - with no exception towards homosexual relationships.

If it passes you'll have to let us know if marriage declines as people see they can get the same benefits without the commitment. That's the argument against civil unions anyway...

[MrWhereItsAt]

Well according to one of the Christian websites espousing the greatness of heterosexual marriage in NZ, over 19% of people in long-term relationships in NZ are not married, as of the 2001 census. That's sizeable.
Of course they said that 81% were married, but I think my number is even more impressive for what it is

Plus our PM has gone on record as saying she would have opted for a Civil Union rather than marriage had it been an option in her day. God I love this country.

[Berzerker]

If that number is accurate, it will be interesting to see if marriages decline after a decade or two.

[mindseye]

Berzerker,

You seem to be making rather tortured presumptions regarding my "giving a fair hearing" to polygamy. My meaning (which I had hoped was obvious) is that I can hardly decide my opinion on a given issue without first acquiring accurate information (i.e. "a fair hearing").

From what I know about how polygamy is currently implemented, it seems that it usually involves a very young woman becoming the "spirit wife" of a much older, already married man. This raises concerns on my part that these young women are being socially and religiously coerced into a relationship that they may not have freely entered into under other conditions. Perhaps this is not a fair assessment, which is why I feel the advocates of polygamy need a chance to make their case before I can decide if I personally support it or not. How you can object to my wanting to form an informed opinion is beyond me.

As for your other arguments, until you can show that the initial marriage of a polygamist is somehow significantly different than a "standard" hetero marriage, I'm afraid your arguments hold little or no water.

---

An additional point that I somehow neglected to make earlier is that polygamy is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Another significant difference. Generally, our society does not arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of factors (e.g. birth) over which the individual has no responsibility.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker

If it passes you'll have to let us know if marriage declines as people see they can get the same benefits without the commitment. That's the argument against civil unions anyway...

Why is it assumed that civil unions would require less commitment?

Is it significantly easier to terminate a civil union than to file for divorce?

I am not terribly familiar with divorce law, hopefully someone can explain the difference. Here's all I found online after a hasty search, from Vermont Nat'l Education Assoc.:

How does a couple terminate a civil union? In virtually the same manner as would a married couple.

[Drachasor]

The whole "gay marriage leads to polygamy" line of reasoning is flawed on numerous levels. For one, Gay Marriage *still* requires two and only two people, just like heterosexual marriage. Just because you are allowing any two people who willingly agree and care for each other to get married does not somehow mandate allowing more than two people to be bound together by marriage.

Indeed, there are many arguements against this that in no way infringe upon gay marriage. There is the very real potential of favortism in a polygamist marriage which doesn't lead to emotional health. There is the fact that we don't have infinite numbers of women and men, so polygamy is inherently unequal and exclusionary. Also, polygamy tends to make people be considered as objects more; when you have a marriage between two people, then there is much more incentive to make a meaningful relationship, but when you can get many people to marry you, then it encourages a "quantity" thinking rather than a "quality" one. There are other reasons on top of these as well.

Of course, I will say the polygamy reasoning is more sensible than the bestiality/children/object marriage reasoning that some also use. That isn't saying much though.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by mindseye

Why is it assumed that civil unions would require less commitment?

Is it significantly easier to terminate a civil union than to file for divorce?

I am not terribly familiar with divorce law, hopefully someone can explain the difference. Here's all I found online after a hasty search, from Vermont Nat'l Education Assoc.:

How does a couple terminate a civil union? In virtually the same manner as would a married couple.

IMHO, one could certainly make it just as difficult to terminate as a regular marriage.

-Drachasor