Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[Flip McWho]

The point I was making is that the right to freedom of religion is an individual right, it is not conferred on collectives. The reason being that it makes no sense as a collective right.

The same is true of marriage. We have a freedom of association as individuals, but we do not have a right to marriage, because a marriage is a union of a man and a woman. You do not have one individual, you have two.

K, I follow.

You missed what I was trying to say. No one has the right to demand marriage benefits. Not even a man and a woman if the society decides that they are not going to provide those benefits. They do not have an entitlement to those funds, nor do they have any such right to the money provided by the state. No one has, whether they are gay or straight.

But they do have a right to be treated equally in the functions of the state. Everyone has an equal claim to all functions of the state that apply to them. The argument here is whether the function of marriage should apply as well. To say nobody has the right to demand marriage is true but irrelevant. The state cannot deny simply to deny.

So the question becomes why shouldn't marriage rights/responsibilities be conferred on gay people? If there are no reasons against allowing gay marriage then to deny them the ability to marry is simply a case of discimination.

A better question would be, do I believe the bond between 2 gay men, or between 2 gay women to be the same as between a man and a woman in marriage? The answer to that would be no. Oh, and btw, 'leads to marriage' presumes that the bond happens before marriage. I can't assume this true for all married couples.

Your can draw whatever connotations out of 'same vein' and 'leads to marriage' as you wish. 'Same vein' was used to mean equal too, and leads to marriage is just my own bias coming through in that I believe it is best for stability in a relationship if that bond is formed before the official union, of course this isn't true for all relationships that become married.

Now, as to whether a gay couple can form a bond that is the same as heteros in marriage is purely a subjective position and it's not particularly fair to render a states position on a matter due to your own personal reflections on the issue.

No, there are fundamental differences between the two.

Ditto above. What are the differences really? The sex? That's only relevant if you assume the connection is based on the ability to procreate which is obviously a biased position of yours.

The state 'recognises' their relationship. Nowhere does that say they have a right to be married. Right are applied to individuals, the state chooses to recognise marriage between a man and a woman because the state derives benefits from this relationship beyond others.

I cannot go from there and say that I have a right to be married; if I cannot find a willing partner, then I cannot exercise my so-called right to marriage. Whereas my right to life remains with me regardless of my marital status.

No, you cannot consent to a right. Rights just are. How can you consent to your own right to life? How can you consent to liberty or association?

What benefits does the state derive from marriage that cannot be the same result of a gay marriage?

You also assume that the good of the state should be paramount instead of the individual. So marriage should only be concerned with how it applies in regards to the individual rather than to the state.
Even still, are there any negative benefits that come from giving gays the ability to get married?

You have the 'right' to be married as long as you fit the criteria. I apologise, my use of the word right has been very loose and has lead to confusion. The right to be married is not akin to the right to life. The right to be married is more the right to not be denied marriage without good reason.

Also, everyone consents to the rights. Sometimes the consent is so obvious that the right can be considered inherent or fundamental.
Such as the right to life. You consent by not killing yourself. Just because this act of consent is something thats fairly natural to do doesn't mean the choice isn't there. The right to life can be considered one of our fundamental rights because it is so obvious.
You consent to liberty because we fight against the opposite. Not really overtly now, but again as above with the right to life.
The right to association is meaningless without the part of association with who you want. Which can be derived from the right above

Do you seriously consider the right to life to be akin to the right granted in the USA's constitution to bear arms for example?

The state makes it no more difficult for him, then it will for me.

True, but the state does limit the free choice of the individual gay person in regards to who they desire to marry, does it not?

What if I desired someone who did not desire me? I could no more demand to be married, then to violate her own freedom of conscience. You see, conscience does not apply to the 'couple' but to the individuals.

But you're missing something here. The two gay individuals that both desire to get married to each other are denied the ability to get married because of why?
Two consenting individual gay people are not akin to your desire of somebody who doesn't want you. Its akin to a man and a woman who are just about to get engaged. The 'right' (again, sorry about the wrong use of the word) applies equally to both those individuals in that hetero case but doesn't apply to both individuals in the homo case.

Again the question, why deny individual people the ability to marry who they want too? (just stick with two people marriages here)

The state will not intervene tear them apart.

Agreed, but the state does deny gays the ability to get married to the [consenting] individual of their choice.

First of all, consider this. You are arguing we should recognise a union that cannot produce children. Ergo, you lose the argument that incestuous marriages are bad because they may produce bad genetics. For why should we assume that any couple in marriage is going to have children? We cannot, therefore, it makes no sense to say that we should bar incestuous relationships.

No. I never said a union cannot produce children, that would dissolve the majority of hetero marriages. All I'm saying is that marriage does not necessarily produce children. It's impractical and simply a strawman to assume that any relationship will not end in children.

An incestous couple have greater likely hood of producing children because of their heterosexual nature (and I realise that logically this would mean that homosexual incestous relationships are fine and dandy so hey) and because of this likelihood and because of the risk of genetic defects in the children the marriage is banned.

As for age, girls at 12 have been considered marriageable and mature enough to enter a marriage. What has changed between then and now? Society has decided that they ought to protect children, and for that reason they have set the marriage ages the way in which they have.

Aye, agree wholeheartedly. But this falls under a whole 'nother ball park featuring around when does a child become 'mature', which would involve countless posts by Ozzy on the issue. But whats that gotta do with the gay marriage debate?

Remember, we're talking about two gay individuals of age who are willing to marry each other but cannot due to state intervention.

Why are they constrained from sharing their lives together if they possess the freedom to do so by the state? Are you saying that unless gay people get married, they cannot sustain their relationships?

Sorry, I shoulda been clearer. They are constrained from sharing their lives in the same manner as a heterosexual married couple even though the bond between the two types of couples are for all intents and purposes the same and the gay couple desire to get married but cannot [to whom they wish].

Gay people have the freedom to share their lives together but they are constrained in that the state doesn't allow the recognition of this relationship as akin to heterosexual marriage even though the two individuals involved may satisfy all requirements bar being of opposite sex.

The union of a man and a woman, is the only union in which children can be produced

Heres the juice.
You assume children as a natural consequence of marriage. Yet it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. We allow people too old to get married, we allow infertile people to get married. We allow people to get married who go on to have no children. Children are obviously not a requirement for marriage.

So we move onto the next juicy part of stability. I'd have to see proof that gay relationships are of a less stable nature. Secondly, stability isn't an issue otherwise divorce would be illegal and wouldn't be on the rise.

The state for all practicality does not consider marriage based upon the stability and children it provides. Don't get me wrong, a stable marriage is the best environment for a child to be raised in but the raising of children is another area of debate. However, stability and procreation are essential parts of the catholic view of marriage isn't it. Catholicism was removed from the state along time ago.

Lastly. Marriage should be about what most people recognise it as about. Love. If two people love each other enough to want to get married, then heck, you have my consent and well wishes.

[Flip McWho]

The American Indian Church alone has the right to use peyote in their religious services, a right not granted to individual members of the church to do so on their own time.

So they're only allowed to exercise their religion in groups then?

[SpencerH]

As long as each state has the right to acknowledge (or not) the legality of same sex marriages performed in other states (and they do), a constitutional amendment on this issue is just ridiculous play to the religious fanatics.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
So they're only allowed to exercise their religion in groups then?

Only the peyote ritual. The point being it is a right exclusively given to a group and not to individuals.

We are also given rights as states. States are sovreign within the U.S., not the citizens. A U.S. citizen outside of a state has fewer rights than one who lives in a state. For example, Puerto Rican residents cannot vote for either Congress or the President, yet they are American citizens. Those are rights we have collectively, not individually.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
As long as each state has the right to acknowledge (or not) the legality of same sex marriages performed in other states (and they do), a constitutional amendment on this issue is just ridiculous play to the religious fanatics.

Until SCOTUS rules anyway. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act is clearly unconstitutional, as it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. As soon as a gay couple wed in Massachussets decides to move to another state and demand legal benefits, we'll see a court case. Given the reactionary nature of the current court, however, I don't expect them to rule in favor of the Constitution, though, conceivably, they might just allow a lower court ruling stand.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act is clearly unconstitutional, as it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Not according to the wide variety of legal opinions I've looked at, but then again those are probably 'reactionary' as well.

If, OTOH, DOMA was deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS then the amendment would pass (very quickly I think).

[chequita guevara]

I doubt it. I think the law was only passed knowing it would be knocked down if challenged. The Constitution requires the acts of one state to be recongized by another, or we'd have to get married every time we moved to a new state.

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

[SpencerH]

I dont have time to look for a better source. This is only from wiki but it contains the relevant arguments.

"The clause has been the chief constitutional basis for the repeated attacks on the DOMA. Regardless of whether DOMA is constitutional, most legal scholars recognize that it is more probably superfluous given the public policy exception. For even if DOMA is deemed unconstitutional, the long precedence of the public policy exception weighs in against the recognition of same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in states whose public policy prohibits it. Moreover, the Full Faith and Credit Clause is of dubious applicability to marriages, which are not "public Acts" (understood to refer to statutes), "Records," or "judicial Proceedings."

As of early 2004, 39 states have passed their own laws nearly all of which specifically reject same-sex marriages recognized in other jurisdictions. Many of these laws have been passed in the last few years. By taking a legal stance on the issue these states have helped inform the Supreme Court what the public policy of the various states are before the Court takes up the issue and it is left to review the constitutionality of those policies.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion to the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that he feared application of the full faith and credit clause to the majority’s decision in that case might destroy "the structure . . . that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." If Scalia's dissenting opinion held true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal loophole allowing same-sex marriages and obliging all other states to recognize them.

Likewise, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health is being eyed by observers on both sides of the issue because of similar concerns stemming from this clause.

Supporters of the DOMA, however, have claimed that the clause could very well be used to defend the law. They say that the clause’s explicit language spelling out the role of Congress is precisely what makes the law Constitutional, without the further need for the Federal Marriage Amendment. They point out that Congress has made several laws, including those on firearms controls and safety standards, employment discrimination, disability, and rights to unionization, and environmental protection, which have all withstood Constitutional attacks on the basis of full faith and credit."

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
reactionary nature of the current court

[Kuciwalker]

Anyway, Spencer is right: the public policy exception exists for exactly the purpose of preventing this sort of thing, one state passing a law that automatically overrides other state laws.

[RGBVideo]

A quote which caught my eye

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As opposed to those who have been overturning multitudes of bills passed democratically through state legislatures everywhere?

I think you greatly underestimate just how much contempt that the so-called fundies have of their unelected judges choosing to overrule their wishes. The Republicans are going to be just fine in 2006, regardless of the media which can't wait to see Bush hit Nixon's numbers.

Bush, unlike the democrats is willing to take a politically unpopular vision of the country, and stick with it. The democrats just pander to whatever they think people want to hear.

Really?

BUSH: They said we could, even though we're the strongest military, that if we don't do something quickly, we don't have a clearer vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that. -source, dated October 2000

BUSH: I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile. -source, dated October 2000

Versus

PRESIDENT BUSH: We'll bring food and medicine to the Iraqi people. We'll help that nation to build a just government, after decades of brutal dictatorship. The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. source, dated March 2003.

Sticking with his guns, eh? Want more?

PRESIDENT Bush said yesterday that he wanted Osama bin Laden, the Saudi exile, "dead or alive" in some of the most bellicose language used by a White House occupant in recent years.

"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive'. [..] All I want and America wants is to see them brought to justice. That's what we want."

source, dated September 2001

Versus

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive?Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. [..] So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. -source, dated March 2002

Bush has no principles. Fight against al-Qaeda, fight against teh homoes, fight against teh brown people; all are issues in which he has turned the policies he has been "deeply committed to" full 180° after his short-sighted approach has lead to a sudden, major crisis which has caught the attention of the public. His leadership is based on polls and election stunts, and you are a fool to think otherwise.

[Dinner]

So are we now free from the threat that the evil gays will force religious people to get divorced? That's what they meant when they said gay people getting equal rights was a threat to marriage, right?

[RGBVideo]

What's unbelievable is that some of you are even bothering to debate this issue while it's damn obvious nothing's going to change after the election. Republicans raised a big fuss over this exactly same amendment back in 2004 and they're doing it again to get the votes of frustrated, angry sex-starving young men like Ben.

It's amazing that guys like Ben are stupid enough to think that a party which needed to import hookers into the largest city of Americas during their national convention there is truly a party of "moral values" just because it raises a big fuss over sexually irregular people before every election.

edit: this was meant as a follow-up to my own post, not as a reply to Oerdin

[Sikander]

Civil Unions for all, Marriage anyhow, anyway, anywhere defined by whatever group wishes to do so but no government recognition of it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There's a big difference.

Bush has to try to sell his vision to the people.

The judges just overrule the popular vote.

You mean as in the Gore versus Bush election result ?

Those Republican flavoured judges who overruled the popular vote were wrong were they ? Good to see you so in favour of the Democratic candidate in that dispute then.

Americans looked to the United States Supreme Court in Washington - the highest court in the land on national or constitutional matters - to resolve the legal battle for the US presidency.

When it finally delivered its verdict on 12 December after almost two days of deliberation, it in effect ruled out any further recounts of disputed votes in Florida, making a victory for George W Bush a near certainty.

In theory, the US Supreme Court is the most powerful branch of US Government. It has the power to declare state law, federal law, executive actions or state supreme court decisions in violation of the US constitution and therefore have them reversed.

Seven of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents, giving the court a distinctly conservative character.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1037451.stm

Me, I liked this divine intervention:

God Announces He will smite Bush later today

In a stunning development this morning, God invoked the "one nation, under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance to overrule this week's Supreme Court decision that handed the White House to George Bush.

"I'm not sure where the Supreme Court gets off," God said this morning on a rare "Today" show appearance, "but I'm sure as hell not going to lay back and let Bush get away with this bullsh!t."

"I've watched analysts argue for weeks now that the exact vote count in Florida 'will never be known.' Well, I'm God and I do know exactly who voted for whom. Let's cut to the chase: Gore won Florida by exactly 20,219 votes."

Shocking political analysts and pundits, God's unexpected verdict overrules the official Electoral College tally and awards Florida to Al Gore, giving him a 289-246 victory.

The Bush campaign is analyzing God's Word for possible grounds for appeal. "God's ruling is a classic over-reach," argued Bush campaign strategist Jim Baker. "Clearly, a divine intervention in a U.S. Presidential Election is unprecedented, unjust, and goes against the Constitution of the state of Florida."

http://mindprod.com/politics/overrule.html

Bush relies on these people:

Everyone at PHC, including the academics, also signs a statement of faith which includes these assertions:

The Bible in its entirety … is the inspired word of God, inerrant in its original manuscripts, and the only infallible and sufficient authority for faith and Christian living.

Man is by nature sinful and is inherently in need of salvation, which is exclusively found by faith alone in Jesus Christ and His shed blood.

Satan exists as a personal, malevolent being who acts as tempter and accuser, for whom Hell, the place of eternal punishment, was prepared, where all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/godsarmy.html

It had to be one of the most singularly repulsive displays of politicized American born again belief- Stepford Christianity.

What would Jesus say?

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.