Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MrFun
...
But I won't settle for a "separate but equal" bull**** by designating civil unions for gay couples and refusing to fully legalize them as marriage in the same light for heterosexual couples.

We tried the "separate but equal" thingy before with racial segregation before the Supreme Court finally realized that it was nothing but bull****.

That's the reasoning that caused me to switch from being anti-gay marriage to pro-gay marriage.

I have traditionalist friends who are very offended by the thought of something the hold as sacred as their marriage vows begin extended to a gay relationships. They don't have a problem with the equal rights, they just have a problem with the use of the word "marriage." So it just seemed to me to be easier to provide equal rights just using a different name.

Then as I thought about this, my mind inserted the "separate but equal" phrasing....two systems, equal but using different language. That's when my mind changed.

America isn't about division. It's about being ONE nation. "E pluribus unim." Separate is inherently unequal.

Ever since then, I've been listening for an persuasive argument to why gays have to have a different system, why only straights can "marry". I hear things like "that what marriage is"--but I don't buy this it-is-because-I-say-so-and-because-it-has-always-been argument.

The other argument I hear is that "gays can't have kids." First of all, that's just not true. Lots of gay men have fathered children. Lots of lesbian have given birth. Gays just can't have children with each other.

Second, if child birth were the test, then that should be the dividing line. Old folks shouldn't be able to get married. Infertile couples shouldn't be able to get married. Couples who don't want to have children shouldn't be able to get married. None of these unions will produce children.

So, I'm now pro-gay-marriage. Not because I'm pro- gay, but because I'm pro-American.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Wanted to know from someone with a personal aspect.
Thanks.

I thought I gave a personal opinion/personal aspect?

[Ben Kenobi]

The judiciary exists partially for that reason: to check the power of the democratically elected bits of the government so they can't use the will of the majority to oppress minorities.

So when 80% of Georgia wishes to retain the definition of marriage to one man and one woman, the judiciary has carte blanche to overrule such a bill?

Secondly I daresay there's a bit of a difference between the oppression of minorities in the south and what we see now. Where are the beatings, the lynchings of gay people? Why are gay people discriminated against when they are permitted to get married just the same as everyone else?

I would say that the judiciaries have become a law unto themselves, which is hardly conducive to the rule of law in any country. Checks and balances apply to both the judiciary and the legislatures.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the framers meant for unrestricted government by the legislature, they could have said so, rather than going to the trouble constructing a government of limited powers and making the Constitution itself the supreme law, and creating the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government.

And where does traditional marriage violate the constitution?

The most obscene act of public buggery to ever take place in this nation would be to amend the Constution for some assinine tripe like a quasi-definition of marriage. The 18th amendment is ridiculous enough, this would top it entirely.

Then you would also object to activist judges expanding the right to privacy to enforce the provision of marriage to gay people, and their own right to public services?

I agree the state ought to stay out of marriage, but the trouble is that the justices themselves have inserted themselves into the debate in wishing to impose constraints on communities that do not wish to support gay marriage. The amendment to the constitution is an act to check judicial activism, if the judiciary were not abusing their role, there would be no such need for the amendment.

It is only after the judiciaries began to find provisions for gay marriage and overruled the legislatures that the proposal came about for an amendment to the constitution.

If you want the states to have control over their own affairs, then you ought to be very concerned about the judges overstepping their bounds. When a justice in California interprets a law, and then encourages other jurisdictions to recognise gay marriage, then that is a tremendous violation of the right for each state to decide for themselves.

[Ben Kenobi]

MRT:

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207729.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

It isn't that unpopular though. I think the 04 election, the homosexual card showed that perhaps as much as 50% of the country is on Bush's side concerning that. But he's just done so poorly on every issue, and not done much concerning that one, so maybe the fundies will take away his power for not pandering to them enough.

I mean, Harriet Myers anyone?

Many fundies wanted a Sam Alito or a Janice Rogers Brown or any number of qualified applicants. So they were rather instrumental in getting Bush to back down.

I was referring to the current immigration hoopla as an example of where Bush has taken an unpopular stance and has stuck to his guns.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MrFun



I thought I gave a personal opinion/personal aspect?

I wasn't being a smartass. Thank you for telling me.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think you greatly underestimate just how much contempt that the so-called fundies have of the Constitution.

Fundies would be the first to state that the state recognises, it does not define marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

In all fairness, we're not talking about discriminating against gays as individuals, rather we're talking about discriminating against gays as couples. We don't hate gays so long as they're abstinent, we only hate gays when they act gay.

You raise a good point. Individual rights and human freedoms do not apply to collectives. No one has the right to get married, because such right would imply an obligation on the other partner. The union must be voluntary.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Darius871

The response I've heard is that God did create some people with predilections for homosexual behavior just as he created some people with predispositions for alcoholism, greed, violence, heterosexual lust, etc., but they can still get into heaven if their behavior is in keeping with God's word. Just as a naturally lustful guy shouldn't cheat on his wife because God says it's wrong, Homer Sechel should refrain from buttsex because God says it's wrong.

(I don't believe this personally of course but it does address the dilemma.)

Either way the sick bastard set all these people up to fail and then gets angry when they do exactly what he gave them a 90% chance of doing. God needs to see a shrink because his head is screwed up.

[Ben Kenobi]

then where do gays come from? Either god doesn't make mistakes and he intended there to be gays (in which cause the fundies are wrong to claim gays are an abomination and a threat to god's will) or god made a mistake and gays are the result. Oppsies.

Either way you have to look at gays and the idea of god differently.

Not necessarily. God did give men free will, and men choose to sin in many different ways. We are not automatons, each of us makes the decision to act on our feelings or our desires, even if we do not ask for those feelings and desires.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So when 80% of Georgia wishes to retain the definition of marriage to one man and one woman, the judiciary has carte blanche to overrule such a bill?

The Constitution demands equality before the law. If that 80% want to disciminate against the remaing 20% then, yes, the judiciary doesn't just have a blank check but they also have a constitutional requirement to intervine. That's their job as set up by the constitution.

It doesn't matter if that 20% are blacks who are told to sit in the back of the bus & not eat at white only restaurants or if it is gays who are denied the same legal treatment before the law as nongays.

[SlowwHand]

The whole system is based on checks and balances. Overall, it works.

[Ben Kenobi]

We are entitled to equal access to government programs and benefits unless there is a valid counterveiling reason.

Are you entitled to equal access to veterans benefits Zkribbler, if you did not serve in the war? Not all government benefits are distributed equally, many would make little sense if done in that fashion.

I would argue marriage is the same. The state has a great public interest in preserving marriage between one man and one women for both the sake of the partners, and for their children. Ergo, it makes sense that they would provide benefits for this arrangement in order to encourage more marriages.

[Flip McWho]

So when 80% of Georgia wishes to retain the definition of marriage to one man and one woman, the judiciary has carte blanche to overrule such a bill?

Secondly I daresay there's a bit of a difference between the oppression of minorities in the south and what we see now

What about the 20% They're still human too and just as politically and legally equal as the 80%

Oppression is still oppression whether violence is employed to oppress or not.