Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Drake, civil unions are marriages that just aren't called marriage. You usually see through that sort of semantic bull****, so I'm not sure why you're advocating such a position.

Semantic bull**** is a key to compromise in many cases and I think it's useful here. Civil unions allow for gay couples to get their legal protections and for marriage to officially remain between a man and a woman. It's win-win.

No it's not. Here's the win-win semantic compromise. Let "civil unions" apply to any union, gay or straight, that is sanctioned only by the state. Let "marriage" apply to any union, gay or straight, that's sanctioned by a church.

Further, let civil unions be the only contracts recognized by law; people are free to get married, but they still have to be united in civil union, and rights will be extended to them only based on the civil documents (the analogy here would be to baptismal certificates versus birth certificates).

Do that, and you have a fair compromise.

[Guynemer]

That's a reasonable position in deeply unreasonable times.

Of course, with the RR frothing at the mouth to constitutionally ban gay marriage, it's also a very risky position.

[Drake Tungsten]

Of course, with the RR frothing at the mouth to constitutionally ban gay marriage, it's also a very risky position.

The sad fact is that the RR probably wouldn't have had the public support to pass constitutional amendments in states around the country and push for a federal amendment if homosexuals had been content to work for legislatively-enacted civil unions as opposed to using the judicial system to open up marriage to gay couples. Overreach has already led to a substantial backlash, yet they don't seem to have learned from it.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Of course, with the RR frothing at the mouth to constitutionally ban gay marriage, it's also a very risky position.

The sad fact is that the RR probably wouldn't have had the public support to pass constitutional amendments in states around the country and push for a federal amendment if homosexuals had been content to work for legislatively-enacted civil unions as opposed to using the judicial system to open up marriage to gay couples. Overreach has already led to a substantial backlash, yet they don't seem to have learned from it.

That's nonsense. This is a red state/blue state divide. The "backlash" isn't happening in Massachusetts, Vermont, California, or New York; the agitation for the amendment is eminating from the GOP base in places that never would have allowed civil unions, either.

What's ironic -- per MtG's comments -- is that the deep Red states that will embrace this amendment are typically the hotbed of state's rights.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why would red states need to pass constitutional amendments to block gay marriage if the gay marriage advocates around the nation were working through the legislative process? The conservative legislatures of the red states could easily defeat such attempts. It seems pretty obvious that the constitutional amendments only came about to stop otherwise unblockable attempts to bring about gay marriage via the judicial system. It's concern about a federal court instituting gay marriage and the example of the state constitutional amendments blocking gay marriage that inspired the push for a federal amendment.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


No it's not. Here's the win-win semantic compromise. Let "civil unions" apply to any union, gay or straight, that is sanctioned only by the state. Let "marriage" apply to any union, gay or straight, that's sanctioned by a church.

Further, let civil unions be the only contracts recognized by law; people are free to get married, but they still have to be united in civil union, and rights will be extended to them only based on the civil documents (the analogy here would be to baptismal certificates versus birth certificates).

Do that, and you have a fair compromise.

I said something similar earlier..

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I'd be okay with the marriage/civil-union dicodomy if the dividing line were going to be: If you get married in a church, temple, synagog, mosque, etc., it's called a marriage, but if the govenment marries you -- whether you're gay or straight -- it's a civil union. That'd be okay with me.

...but there's problems with this compromise.

First, lots of people who got "married" under civil law would be upset if they learn they are not "married" but ...uh... "civilly unified."

Second, the people who've gotten married in churches [etc.] would now have to go down and have a civil union ceremony performed. Euuu, such long lines.

[DinoDoc]

Are Oregon, New Hampshire, and Minnesota red states now?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why would red state need to pass constitutional amendments to block gay marriage if the gay marriage advocates were working through the legislative process? The conservative legislatures of the red states could easily defeat such attempts. It seems pretty obvious that the constitutional amendments only came about to stop otherwise unblockable attempts to bring about gay marriage via the judicial system.

Turn your argument on its head: since the nature of marriage is now defined state-by-state; and since no one is pushing a pro-gay-marriage amendment; since the Defense of Marriage Act has already been passed; why push an anti-gay-marriage amendment?

There are only two plausible answers. One is that Bush is trying to rally a disaffected section of his base in advance of the midterm elections. The other is that the Christian Taliban isn't content to keep their own house in order, and would much rather shove their morality down everyone's throat.

Both, I think, are true.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why would red states need to pass constitutional amendments to block gay marriage if the gay marriage advocates around the nation were working through the legislative process? The conservative legislatures of the red states could easily defeat such attempts. It seems pretty obvious that the constitutional amendments only came about to stop otherwise unblockable attempts to bring about gay marriage via the judicial system. It's concern about a federal court instituting gay marriage and the example of the state constitutional amendments blocking gay marriage that inspired the push for a federal amendment.

True. Since any statute purporting to ban gay marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a constitutional exception will have to be carved out by amendment to make any ban on gay marriage lawful.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


True. Since any statute purporting to ban gay marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a constitutional exception will have to be carved out by amendment to make any ban on gay marriage lawful.

Then how is it that most states do ban gay marriage right now -- and all states did ten years ago -- yet it was never a problem?

[Zkribbler]

The same way Jim Crow laws weren't a problem in the 1st half of the 20th Century.

That is, there were a problem...but the victims of the problem when unheard.


Heck, I didn't even meet an openly gay person until about 15 years ago.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Drake, civil unions are marriages that just aren't called marriage. You usually see through that sort of semantic bull****, so I'm not sure why you're advocating such a position.

Semantic bull**** is a key to compromise in many cases and I think it's useful here. Civil unions allow for gay couples to get their legal protections and for marriage to officially remain between a man and a woman. It's win-win.

"Separate but equal" is not a win-win situation.


And where do people get the ridiculous idea that just because I draw parallels between the struggles blacks went through, with today's struggle of gays, that I think they are literally the same in all aspects??

[Drake Tungsten]

One is that Bush is trying to rally a disaffected section of his base in advance of the midterm elections. The other is that the Christian Taliban isn't content to keep their own house in order, and would much rather shove their morality down everyone's throat.

Both, I think, are true.

You'll get no argument from me, except on the "Christian Taliban" label.

Of course, the reasons why Bush and the RR want are pushing for a federal amendment are very different from why much of the population would be willing to support one.

And where do people get the ridiculous idea that just because I draw parallels between the struggles blacks went through, with today's struggle of gays, that I think they are literally the same in all aspects??

They aren't anywhere close to the same in almost all respects, which is why it is ridiculous and a bit offensive to cast the push for gay marriage as a "civil rights struggle" on par with the defeat of Jim Crow.

[Flip McWho]

We have rights as individuals. We have an individual right to freedom of conscience, and through protecting the individual rights, we allow people to form groups that enable their collectives to exist. Therefore it is only by the provisions of individual rights can we form these collectives.

Say for example you have a group of Catholics. Now, say you made a collective right, saying that all 'Catholics' had the right to worship.

Now, one man from the parish leaves, does he now lose his right to worship freely? After all it's only the Catholics that have this right, and he no longer wants to go to the Catholic church. This is why we base rights upon ourselves as individuals and not collectives, and this includes marriage.

Sorry bout taking so long to reply.

An individuals right to worship is protected in their right to freedom of religion, this includes whatever practises that come with it. But I don't see how that ties to marriage.

Marriage is no longer an institution of the Church. Started of as such, but now it's the state that must be aware of whom is married. The state cannot discriminate based on a religious position (separation of state and church), and the argument against gay marriage is a religious position.

Calling it a civil union is just a cop out

People have individual liberty, in that they may choose to be with whomever they want, but they do not have the right to demand that the state provide them benefits for making one choice over another.

They do have that right if there is an [obvious] case of discrimination.

Do you agree that two homosexual partners can form a deep and intimate bond in the same vein as a heterosexual bond that leads to marriage?

If it is possible for homosexuals to form such a bond, why are they unable to get the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples that is bestowed by the state upon marriage?

They do not have that right. No one has the right to be married. They have the right to be free and to individual liberty.

Ummm yes they do. Heterosexual couples have the right to be married because the state recognises their form of relationship as valid, whereas they do not recognise that a homosexual couple are capable of forming a bond akin to a marriage of hetero's. Every heterosexual has this right, as long as both parties consent to it. Marriage is a right based on the consent of both parties. Every heterosexual couple has this right (can you think of any that don't?) to get married.

You're right that homos have the right to get married as well. They do, married to females of course. But they are not allowed their freedom of conscious because they are denied marriage to whom they desire, not whom is recognised as a valid marriage partner (the opposite sex) by the state.

Since there are no negatives associated with giving homos the right to marry then the only arguments against falls on religious grounds which are supposedly separated from the state.

The rights and responsibilites that befall a married couple are the states affairs, not the religious.

[Flip McWho]

There are plenty of laws like that. I can't marry my mom. I can't marry someone who is under 16. Are those not also intrusive laws telling me whom I can and cannot marry?

There are good reasons for those. There aren't good reasons why gays can't marry.
- Under 16 is considered too immature to make a responsible decision in regards to marriage
- Isn't marrying family a genetic thing?

The state is not preventing gay people from choosing to share their lives together. The state is saying that they have a special interest in marriage because it is a union unique from any other and ought to be treated as such. Gay people have the freedom to do as they wish, without being constrained by the state.

Your last sentence doesn't follow from the previous sentences.
First sentence is right.
Second sentence needs backing up. What is so unique about marraige that homosexual couples can't achieve?
Third sentence contradicts itself. Gay people have the freedom to share their lives together but they are constrained in that the state doesn't recognise this relationship as akin to marriage.

However, the state is under no obligation to provide the same entitlements to gay men and gay women

They are if there is an obvious case of discimination.

Why are gays not allowed to marry?