Bush Urges Amendment Banning Gay Marriage!

[Minnie_Beebe]

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/dn/ap4.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/ap/SIG=fmofol/*http://www.ap.org/) 42 minutes ago




By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=%22President%20Bush%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search/search?p=George+W.+Bush)) urged approval of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages on Tuesday, pushing a divisive social issue to the center of the election campaign and setting a clear policy contrast with Democratic challengers John Kerry (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=%22John%20Kerry%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?cs=nw&p=John%20Kerry)) and John Edwards (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=%22John%20Edwards%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?cs=nw&p=John%20Edwards)).

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040224/thumb.saw10302241609.bush_gay_marriage_saw103.jpg (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040224/480/saw10302241609)
AP Photo (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040224/480/saw10302241609)
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040225/thumb.fx11002250107.gay_marriage_calif_fx110.jpg (http://java_script_:%20rs(/)
AP Photo (http://java_script_:%20rs(/) http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/auctions/cam.gifSlideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues (http://java_script_:%20rs(/)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap_av/20040224/vidsthumb.0224kennedy.jpg (http://java_script_:rs(/)Kennedy: Marriage Amendment is Wrong (http://java_script_:rs(/)
(AP Video)

Bush said "activist judges and local officials" from Massachusetts to San Francisco to New Mexico were attempting to redefine marriage and "change the most fundamental institution of civilization" by allowing same-sex weddings. "On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard," he said.

Democrats accused Bush of pandering to right-wing supporters and tinkering with the Constitution to divert attention from his record on jobs, health care and foreign policy. "He is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people," Kerry said.

Both Kerry and Edwards said they oppose gay marriages but would not support a constitutional amendment.

Banning gay marriage is a top priority for Bush's conservative supporters, particularly those among religious and family-oriented groups. But while a majority of Americans — sometimes by as much as a 2-1 margin — oppose legalizing gay marriages, Bush's move could hold political risks, particularly if voters see him as intolerant or question his self-description as a "compassionate conservative."

"The president needs to worry about fair-minded swing voters in America, not a Republican base that he has locked up," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=%22Log%20Cabin%20Republicans%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?cs=nw&p=Log%20Cabin%20Republicans)), a gay GOP group.

Mindful of the high emotions and clear differences on the issue, Bush said, "We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger."

Conservatives were delighted Bush had plunged in. "There is no more important issue for our nation than the preservation of the institution of marriage," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation, a family advocacy group.

Momentum for a constitutional amendment has grown as San Francisco officials have performed thousands of same-sex marriages and have challenged their state law barring such unions. In Massachusetts, the state's highest court has ruled that a state law falling short of allowing full-fledged marriage for gays would be unconstitutional.

Bush softened his announcement by leaving the door open for states to legalize civil unions, which gay rights groups say is an insufficient alternative to marriage. "The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage," said Bush, who had opposed legalizing civil unions when he was governor of Texas.

Republican officials said there was no rush to bring an amendment to the floor in the House. Some conservatives want a broader approach than Bush supports, and others oppose federalizing the issue, at least for now.

"The groups that are for a constitutional amendment are split over what it should be," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "We are trying to bring them all together and unify them."

California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.

"I will say that I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue," said Dreier, a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary." Lewis said changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, said she would fight any amendment. "Never before has a constitutional amendment been used to discriminate against a group of people, and we must not start now," she said.

Amending the Constitution is not quick or simple. A two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate must pass an amendment, and then it would be sent to the states for ratification. It must be approved by three-fourths, or 38 of the 50. Bush's father pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning but it was not approved.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that amendment legislation submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., meets his principles in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women. But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular legislation.

Bush's call for a gay-marriage amendment came as the president sought to regain his footing after he was thrown on the defensive about issues ranging from his Vietnam-era military record to missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=%22Iraq%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?cs=nw&p=Iraq)).

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said.

Answering Bush, Kerry said, "All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign."

"I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions," Kerry said. "I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states"

Edwards, campaigning in Georgia, where the state legislature is debating its own ban on gay marriage, said, "I don't personally support gay marriage myself. My position has always been that it's for the states to decide."

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

Sorry, but the Constitution states that "all men are created equal." And we should all have the same rights to marry and have children regardless of sexual orientation!

This legislature isn't going to go anywhere. They need a 2/3rds majority to pass, and thankfully none of the Democrats will back this, to define marriage in a federal mandate.

This whole thing reminds me of the talk for congressional ammendments during the 1940's and 50's concerning inter-racial marriages. That proved positive, and this debate will too.

To quote Bill Maher, "It shouldn't even be debatable. If gay people want to get married, what do we care?"

[April]

First of all, I don't think we can call marriage "the most fundamental institution" with the divorce rates we have in this country. Heteros have already ruined the institution of marriage as it is.

Secondly, I agree with this statement: Democrats accused Bush of pandering to right-wing supporters and tinkering with the Constitution to divert attention from his record on jobs, health care and foreign policy. It's a re-election tactic.

In his speech, he mentioned something about protecting children. Protect them from WHAT? I'd be more worried about the Catholic priests than I would the same-sex couples, Dubya.

He won't get an amendment out of this. The country is too divided.

"Never before has a constitutional amendment been used to discriminate against a group of people, and we must not start now," she said.
Exactly! It goes against the very document he wants it written into.

It's a diversion. :rolleyes:

[Prisoner]

So who agrees with Edwards and the war criminal Kerry that it is it for the states to decide?

Constitutionally, there is more to it than that. You see, if one state allows gays to be married, all states are required to accept and recognize the marriage. Therefore, the will of one state will be forced on all states. That is hardly each state deciding the issue, therefore, an Constitutional amendment is warranted to decide the issue.

I agree that Congress will not do anything about the issue, they lack courage to do the right thing, which is to represent the will of the people, hell, they won't even represent their own beliefs. Senators Kerry and Edwards are proving me correct since they are trying to walk both sides of the issue. That is hardly a display of leadership, that is cowardice.

Bush is displaying leadership.

[Minnie_Beebe]

To quote Bill Maher, "It shouldn't even be debatable. If gay people want it get married, what do we care?"

[kingclick]

Hmmm.

Marriage is available to all people today that meet certain requirements...

Be over 18 or of legal age.
The two must not be related by blood.
The two must not have other marriages already.
And the two must be made up of a man and a woman.

If you fit these requirements, you too can be married.

So MARRIAGE is available to every person there is no discrimination.

This fight we be long and costly to the American People. And will eventually be lost to the minority.

Here is my proposal to "fix" the problem and a few others while we are at it.

1. Stop using marriage as a legal term. And END the practice of marriages being done by the state. No more marriages for ANYONE. End legal marriages.

2. Institute a new concept called Cojoining. Co-joining would be very similar to marriage but with some distinct differences.
- It would be ONLY a legal contract. There would be nothing "sacred" about it.
- ANYONE could co-join. It would be available for family members to co-join. It would of course be available to same sex unions. And might even be opened to polyamorous unions as well.
- Love would have no effect on it.
- co-joining would last for no LESS than 2 years.
- All co-joiners would be required to sign a pre-join (read pre-nup) agreement. There would be a standard one provided. But it would be encouraged for both parties to seek their own pre-join agreement between them. All pre-join agreements would CLEARLY detail how assets, debts and children would be dealt with in the possibility of a dissolution of the co-joining.
- All applicants would be given a "Rights and Responsibilites of being co-joined" refresher some time before the joining. This would not deal with relationship issues but would just detail the legal impact that co-joining would have upon both parties.
- Marriage would then become a PERSONAL thing. Wherever you wish to be married and by whomever would not matter to the state. If you church wishes to marry you or not. It wont matter to your legal status as co-joined.
- All current marriages would be AUTOMATICALLY Grandfathered in. As well as most civil unions.

The ONLY restriction would be age of consent.

What does this do? It removes the government from our "love lives" where they should not be. And separates the church from the state. The "sanctity of marriage can be put in it's proper place. Because the it is not our governments PLACE to be defending the "Sanctity" of a religious concept. And it should also remove ministers as being state officials.

This SHOULD make everyone happy. Now before you THROW OUT the whole concept for one problem. Address the problem. Not the whole issue.

[April]

What does this do? It removes the government from our "love lives" where they should not be. And separates the church from the state. The "sanctity of marriage can be put in it's proper place. Because the it is not our governments PLACE to be defending the "Sanctity" of a religious concept. And it should also remove ministers as being state officials.


Exactly. To me, the only difference between a marriage and a civil union is that a marriage would be recognized by the church.

[Minnie_Beebe]

Marriage is available to all people today that meet certain requirements...

Be over 18 or of legal age.
The two must not be related by blood.
The two must not have other marriages already.
And the two must be made up of a man and a woman.

Um, not in Mass.

And no one has answered Bill's simple question..."If gay people want to get married, what do we care?"

[kingclick]

Exactly. To me, the only difference between a marriage and a civil union is that a marriage would be recognized by the church.

You know. Even though I am a Christian.....It still makes me cringe every time Bush says he needs to protect the sanctity of marriage. It just proves that he shouldn't be in the office.

[April]

Who is it hurting? Does it change YOUR marriage at all? Does it make your heterosexual marriage less valuable if a gay couple shares the title of "married couple"?
All it boils down to is giving them the same rights as straight couples, the rest is semantics.

[Minnie_Beebe]

Psst...it all boils down to the bible. End of story.

[April]

Really. If they want to protect the sanctity of marriage (which, like you said, shouldn't be the government's problem anyway) then they need to enforce laws against adultery and outlaw divorce.

[Minnie_Beebe]

^ Yeah, like in the military where adultery is still a crime.

[Prisoner]

In Massachusetts, the judges are ordering the legislature to come up with a law allowing gay marriage. That is not what judges are supposed to do. The legislature does not work for the judges.

[mom2burgess]

Gay marriage hurts no one. Hell if the church is so against it, let them be married by a judge, like I was. IMO Bush needs to keep his religion out of the office.

[Prisoner]

Would it be permissible for a man to marry his brother?

How about his sister?

How about multiple wives or husbands?

What is permissible in a society in order to claim one's rights?

[Prisoner]

Also, in California, the will of the people was stated when the people voted against gay marriage. But that is not being accepted by the minority. That poses a problem for the process.

[kingclick]

Really. If they want to protect the sanctity of marriage (which, like you said, shouldn't be the government's problem anyway) then they need to enforce laws against adultery and outlaw divorce.

Correct. I think that this just gray's the area between "spirituality" and "government" and those things should be clearer than what they are today.

[kingclick]

In Massachusetts, the judges are ordering the legislature to come up with a law allowing gay marriage. That is not what judges are supposed to do. The legislature does not work for the judges.

I agree. I don't think it is the courts place to tell the legislature to make a law. However, we do have a delima that needs to be dealt with. I don't condone activist judges making laws.

[kingclick]

Gay marriage hurts no one. Hell if the church is so against it, let them be married by a judge, like I was. IMO Bush needs to keep his religion out of the office.

I don't think it's about "hurting" someone. I think it's about making it "the same" as what they have. I think it's also about $$$.

[kingclick]

1. Would it be permissible for a man to marry his brother?

2. How about his sister?

3. How about multiple wives or husbands?

4. What is permissible in a society in order to claim one's rights?

1. Under my co-joining plan....yes.
2. Again under my co-joining plan....yes.
3. That would be debatable. Because then you are changing the way benefits work. As well, responsibilities may become more complicated. But if those details could be worked out or around. I don't see why not.
4. Huh?

[Prisoner]

3. That would be debatable. Because then you are changing the way benefits work. As well, responsibilities may become more complicated. But if those details could be worked out or around. I don't see why not.

What does benefits have to do with this? Keep your government out of my bedroom. Isn't that the liberal argument?

[kingclick]

What does benefits have to do with this? Keep your government out of my bedroom. Isn't that the liberal argument?

Well many companies would be hard pressed to give health benefits to 6 spouses.

[Prisoner]

Currently, they are hard pressed to give the same benefits to same sex couples. The argument is that it is unfair for gays, so the same argument can, and most certainly will be made for the legalization of bigamy as is being made for homosexuals.

Besides, the evil corporations have it coming to them anyway.

[Prisoner]

When all else fails, attack the Christians.

I'd be more worried about the Catholic priests than I would the same-sex couples

Even though a certain person is pretending to ignore me, she is noting that homosexual priests cannot be trusted. Interesting thing for a supposed all accepting liberal person to say.

Psst...it all boils down to the bible. End of story.
And what is wrong with that?

Hell if the church is so against it, let them be married by a judge, like I was. IMO Bush needs to keep his religion out of the office.
Many Presidents, like many people use their spirituality to guide them in their jobs as well as their lives. Many Presidents have shown their faith while in office. Do you need some examples?

[Prisoner]

FLASHBACK 1996:
Clinton Signs Law Backing Heterosexual Marriage

-by Kim A. Lawton in Washington, D.C.

The Republican Congress and the Democratic White House found a rare patch of political common ground on the cusp of the November election with enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act.

President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the first federal law to define marriage officially as a "union between one man and one woman." The legislation comes as the issue of same-sex marriage continues to be debated in many sectors of society, from the church to the corporate world.

DEFENSIVE MEASURE: DOMA moved to a legislative fast track in the waning days of the Republican-controlled congressional session. The measure passed the Senate in an 85-to-14 vote on September 10.

I don't imagine the libs will be commenting truthfully on this.

[April]

I agree. I don't think it is the courts place to tell the legislature to make a law. However, we do have a delima that needs to be dealt with. I don't condone activist judges making laws.


Actually, that's not true. We have a common law system which means that the law is based on case law and precedents and not just statutes and regulations.

*edited to add: Sorry, that quote should have included Prisoner's statement as well. Apparently it only quotes the actual post and not any quotes it may contain.

[kingclick]

Actually, that's not true. We have a common law system which means that the law is based on case law and precedents and not just statutes and regulations.

*edited to add: Sorry, that quote should have included Prisoner's statement as well. Apparently it only quotes the actual post and not any quotes it may contain.
No problem.

The issue isn't precedent (which deals with interpretation of the law) our Judicial System is there to ONLY interprete the law. It's not there to MAKE the law. So when Judge says "make a law" they are overstepping their power. Judges are only interpreters of the law.

[Minnie_Beebe]

In Massachusetts, the judges are ordering the legislature to come up with a law allowing gay marriage. That is not what judges are supposed to do. The legislature does not work for the judges.
Judges there are interpreting the law. Big difference.

[Minnie_Beebe]

Would it be permissible for a man to marry his brother?

How about his sister?

How about multiple wives or husbands?

What is permissible in a society in order to claim one's rights?
Red herrings. Good try though.

[Minnie_Beebe]

When all else fails, attack the Christians.


Even though a certain person is pretending to ignore me, she is noting that homosexual priests cannot be trusted. Interesting thing for a supposed all accepting liberal person to say.


And what is wrong with that?


Many Presidents, like many people use their spirituality to guide them in their jobs as well as their lives. Many Presidents have shown their faith while in office. Do you need some examples?
A little thing called 'seperation of church and state.'

Truth is, it's not hurting anyone and the self-rightious church should keep its nose out of a legal partnership between two people.

Again, its not hurting anyone. It just pisses off the Bible Belt.

[Minnie_Beebe]

FLASHBACK 1996:

I don't imagine the libs will be commenting truthfully on this.
Another red herring.

[April]

Even though a certain person is pretending to ignore me, she is noting that homosexual priests cannot be trusted. Interesting thing for a supposed all accepting liberal person to say.

Actually, Prisoner, I do have you on ignore. The only time I see your posts is when someone else quotes them. Looks like your psychic abilities are a little off today, bud. I never said homosexual priests could not be trusted. I said that PEDOPHILES like the Catholic priests are more dangerous to our children than a gay couple who wishes to be married.
I also never referred to myself as an all-accepting liberal. There are a lot of things I don't accept. Like people with closed minds and people that call me a liar. By the way, I'm more of a moderate...just a little left of center. Don't presume to know my entire belief system based on a few posts on an Internet message board.

[Prisoner]

Judges there are interpreting the law. Big difference.
Try to keep up, the judges ORDERED the legislature in Massachusetts to come up with a law that permits gay marriage. That is not an interpretation.

[Prisoner]

Red herrings. Good try though.
Why not answer the questions? They are valid questions.

[April]

Since you like to have "proof" of everything....here ya go.

[Prisoner]

A little thing called 'seperation of church and state.'

Truth is, it's not hurting anyone and the self-rightious church should keep its nose out of a legal partnership between two people.

Again, its not hurting anyone. It just pisses off the Bible Belt.
What separation of church and state? The President puts his hand on a Bible and swears an oath to uphold the laws of the land. As do many other officials.

Truth is, it's not hurting anyone and the self-rightious church should keep its nose out of a legal partnership between two people.
Your use of the word LEGAL shows that inevitably, the government is involved. After all, they are the one's who make the laws.

[Prisoner]

Another red herring.
Thanks for p[roving my point.

[kingclick]

Since you like to have "proof" of everything....here ya go.
OOoooh. That was cool. How did you do that image? I REALLY need that skill. I wish this board had the same quoting procedure that BBboards did.

Anyway sorry to be off topic. Back to your regularly scheduled bickering. LOL

[April]

Paint Shop Pro has a screen capture feature. :D It is pretty cool. I've used it in similar situations. A girl sent me a nasty e-mail and then denied it, so I opened the e-mail and took a 'screen shot' of the e-mail as it appeared on my screen. :D

Anyway, I forgot something...
I can't recall the specifics but didn't the judges order the legislature to clarify the existing laws about marriage in a way that it would include homosexual couples? Something like that is actually fairly common.

[Minnie_Beebe]

Why not answer the questions? They are valid questions.
They are red herrings and have nothing to do with this topic. It's a diversion tactic and a fallacy.

[Minnie_Beebe]

What separation of church and state? The President puts his hand on a Bible and swears an oath to uphold the laws of the land. As do many other officials.
What separation you ask?

Myth:
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution.

Response: That is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise. What the the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There is nothing there about a "fair trial," but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional.

Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Contitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.
As to the bible thing, the president as well as anyone else can opt to affirm without the bible. I've done it in court.

[kingclick]

Wow. That was a great post! Why don't you do that more often. Clear, consise and full of straight forward information with NO personal attacks or insults!

Wait...did you write that?

Oh. I guess that answers my question. Thanks for changing it to give credit to the original author.

[Beck]

This is a simple thing actually. Just ban marriage. Then we wouldn't have this problem with gays.. and we wouldn't have divorce and all that happy crappy that goes with it. Just let everyone live with whomever they want, and get benefits for whomever they are with at that time.

No big deal!

[Minnie_Beebe]

Wow. That was a great post! Why don't you do that more often. Clear, consise and full of straight forward information with NO personal attacks or insults!

Wait...did you write that?

Oh. I guess that answers my question. Thanks for changing it to give credit to the original author.
What the hell are you talking about. I didn't edit my post. The credit was always there. Go bash someone else.

[Minnie_Beebe]

This is a simple thing actually. Just ban marriage. Then we wouldn't have this problem with gays.. and we wouldn't have divorce and all that happy crappy that goes with it. Just let everyone live with whomever they want, and get benefits for whomever they are with at that time.

No big deal!
I like her answer.

[Prisoner]

What separation you ask?
As to the bible thing, the president as well as anyone else can opt to affirm without the bible. I've done it in court.
Big deal, that is what you chose to do!

It is called an option. Hence the use of the word opt, by you, or maybe you didn't use the word who knows.

[April]

Or at least remove "marriage" as a legal term and put it back in the churches. Everyone who wants to have employee benefits and tax breaks can get a "civil union" regardless of gender.

Pagans have a tradition called "handfasting". It is strictly a 'religious' ceremony and can be performed without a legal 'marriage license'. In the eyes of the Goddess, they are united but in the eyes of the law they are not unless they choose to have it legalized as well. It's two different things and you can have one without the other.

[Michele]

Or at least remove "marriage" as a legal term and put it back in the churches. Everyone who wants to have employee benefits and tax breaks can get a "civil union" regardless of gender.


Perfect solution. One that I don't see why everyone doesn't agree with???

[Prisoner]

They are red herrings and have nothing to do with this topic. It's a diversion tactic and a fallacy.
They had everything to do with the topic of marriage. You just skirted the issue by accusing me of something that I did not do, in other words, not debating, rather baiting.

KL answered the questions and we discussed it.

Besides, you do not even know where I stand on the issue of gay marriage.

The problem is that this is going to turn into an emotional debate instead of a legal debate. Bush is talking about the legal and constitutional aspects, while oponents will try to steer the debate toward the emotional aspect.

I personally do not want the Constitution muddled with such issues that are based on the current "it's cool to be gay" fad that is so prevelant these days.

I also do not want elected or appointed officials deciding to thwart the will of the people. Therefore if judges and Mayors continue to do as they are, there will then be a need to further define marriage.

[kingclick]

Or at least remove "marriage" as a legal term and put it back in the churches. Everyone who wants to have employee benefits and tax breaks can get a "civil union" regardless of gender.

That IS a great idea....I wonder....didn't I read this idea a little earlier? Oh yeah. It was what I proposed. I guess great minds think alike. :D ;)

[Beck]

Cool to be gay fad huh? Imagine that??

Like I said. Just do away with marriage completely. Call it civil union and church union, I don't care, but just let people love who they want to love...and unite with/marry/or any other term you care to use in this place.

[Minnie_Beebe]

They had everything to do with the topic of marriage. You just skirted the issue by accusing me of something that I did not do, in other words, not debating, rather baiting.

KL answered the questions and we discussed it.

Besides, you do not even know where I stand on the issue of gay marriage.

The problem is that this is going to turn into an emotional debate instead of a legal debate. Bush is talking about the legal and constitutional aspects, while oponents will try to steer the debate toward the emotional aspect.

I personally do not want the Constitution muddled with such issues that are based on the current "it's cool to be gay" fad that is so prevelant these days.

I also do not want elected or appointed officials deciding to thwart the will of the people. Therefore if judges and Mayors continue to do as they are, there will then be a need to further define marriage.
You can say whatever you'd like but you offered red herrings as a question to my OP.

Red herring - dictionary.com is your friend.

[Michele]

That IS a great idea....I wonder....didn't I read this idea a little earlier? Oh yeah. It was what I proposed. I guess great minds think alike. :D ;)

Sorry KL, I agree with yours as well. This just seemed so much more simple. :) My brain is fried today. That's my only excuse.

[April]

LOL KL...I agree with most of what you had said, except for the multiple partners and making it available to relatives. I do think that it should only apply to "romantic" relationships.

[Minnie_Beebe]

I like the idea of just outlawing marriage and all legalities concerned with it. That way anyone can be with whomever they want to.

[April]

The problem I have with outlawing all legalities concerning marriage is that many of our estate, insurance, and tax laws are based upon it and it would uproot the system entirely. I think those laws also need to be rewritten to cover people who are 'united' rather than 'married'.

[kingclick]

LOL KL...I agree with most of what you had said, except for the multiple partners and making it available to relatives. I do think that it should only apply to "romantic" relationships.
Multiple partners isn't something I'm for but I'm open.

However I don't think the government should be in our bedrooms telling us what kind of sex we are having. So going further I don't think the government should be telling us who or how we should be loving. There is no reason it should be restricted to only "loving" couples.

[kingclick]

The problem I have with outlawing all legalities concerning marriage is that many of our estate, insurance, and tax laws are based upon it and it would uproot the system entirely. I think those laws also need to be rewritten to cover people who are 'united' rather than 'married'.
That is probably a BUNCH easier than having a huge fight over a Constitutional Amendment.

[Minnie_Beebe]

I think marriage just creates more problems than it solves.

[April]

That's why I'm divorced. LOL

[April]

Multiple partners isn't something I'm for but I'm open.

However I don't think the government should be in our bedrooms telling us what kind of sex we are having. So going further I don't think the government should be telling us who or how we should be loving. There is no reason it should be restricted to only "loving" couples.


Ok, how about people who cohabit and are not related by blood, regardless of whether they are in love or not.

[kingclick]

Why not? If they are willing to make the legal commitment. It's about equal access right?

[April]

When I think of the legal ramifications of civil unions, I'm thinking about things like tax breaks, laws that determine who gets what in the event of your death, insurance coverage, etc.
I think we would bankrupt the insurance companies, which is already in trouble, if we start letting people be 'civilly united' with whomever they want just to get insurance coverage especially if there is no limit on how many unions you may have, as you proposed.
And you think people get nasty when it comes to wills and estates now, it'd be even worse if civil unions like this became involved.
I don't want these civil unions to become nothing more than a business deal. It takes away from the original intent which is to solidify romantic relationships in a non-religious format.

[kingclick]

But there is no way to regulate who is "in love".

[April]

That's why I said people who cohabit and are not otherwise related. Look at how many loveless marriages people are in already. No, you can't regulate who is in love and I'm not saying we should.
But that doesn't mean I think just anyone should be able to get a civil union. For example, if I'm a straight female (which I am :D) and my best friend needs insurance coverage, I shouldn't be able to get a civil union just for that purpose. To me, that's the equivalent of people marrying US citizens just to get their 'green card'.

[kingclick]

That's why I said people who cohabit and are not otherwise related. Look at how many loveless marriages people are in already. No, you can't regulate who is in love and I'm not saying we should.
But that doesn't mean I think just anyone should be able to get a civil union. For example, if I'm a straight female (which I am :D) and my best friend needs insurance coverage, I shouldn't be able to get a civil union just for that purpose. To me, that's the equivalent of people marrying US citizens just to get their 'green card'.
And how could the government stop you from doing this? And why shouldn't you be able to do it?

[April]

Same way they verify that immigrant's marriages to US citizens are valid.
You shouldn't be able to do it because it would bankrupt the system.

[kingclick]

But that same argument can be made against gay marriage. In fact it HAS been made.

And are you saying that we should employ people to start checking on the validity of "love" in a relationship?

[April]

But that same argument can be made against gay marriage. In fact it HAS been made.

And are you saying that we should employ people to start checking on the validity of "love" in a relationship?

It may have been made about gay marriages but I don't think it's true of gay marriages.

No, I'm not saying that. In fact, I said Look at how many loveless marriages people are in already. No, you can't regulate who is in love and I'm not saying we should. I'm saying that if there is a question of the validity or the motives of the marriage, like there is in immigrant/US marriages, they could check it the same way they check those.

[Minnie_Beebe]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/GayMarriage/GayMarriagegifs/Gay-Marriage/kirk6666.jpg

::

[kingclick]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/GayMarriage/GayMarriagegifs/Gay-Marriage/kirk6666.jpg

::

So basically what you are saying is that we should base our marriage laws on the bible. You might want to read up on the concept of Church and State. There might be a good thread out there that deals with this issue.

[Minnie_Beebe]

Didn't get it, did ya. LOL

It's trying to show that this piece of the bible applied to Ruth and Naomi and their union.

[kingclick]

The bible is no justification for Gay Marriage or against. The bible has no place in this debate (In My Opinion). By you bringing it in will encourage others to think that they can bring in their scriptures. Of course you CAN bring it in, but be prepared that other bible thumpers will respond.

[Prisoner]

What exactly is a Bible thumper?

[kingclick]

What exactly is a Bible thumper?

Someone who whips out the bible to justify their actions. Even though most people don't really care about what the bible says in the conversation.

[Prisoner]

I wanted some clarification on the Bible thumping bit, so I started a thread there.

http://www.theconversationcafe.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16253#post16253

[Prisoner]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/GayMarriage/GayMarriagegifs/Gay-Marriage/kirk6666.jpg

::

Are you truly trying to say that the two verses in the comic are proof of God's approval of homosexual marriage?

You could not be more wrong.

Maybe you should actually read the Bible and not some activist cartoon version.

[Tuba Dude]

Psst...it all boils down to the bible. End of story.

And the bible has.. what to do with this, exactly?

[Prisoner]

And the bible has.. what to do with this, exactly?
She is trying to perpetuate the gay agenda by posting a comic book that portrays a lie about a book from the Bible.

I set the record straight in the below thread.
http://www.theconversationcafe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1674&page=2

What I don't understand from the liberals who post garbage like this cartoon is that it is just as easy to post the truth and then the debate is being intelectually honest.

[Beelzebub]

Are you truly trying to say that the two verses in the comic are proof of God's approval of homosexual marriage?

You could not be more wrong.

Maybe you should actually read the Bible and not some activist cartoon version.


You are missing the point. It points out hypocrisy in the bible. Gay marriages are wrong in the eyes of god, yet it took place in the bible.

[kingclick]

You are missing the point. It points out hypocrisy in the bible. Gay marriages are wrong in the eyes of god, yet it took place in the bible.

Beelzebub, Read the rest of the thread. He goes on to PROVE that no such thing actually happened.

[Minnie_Beebe]

Dude?

I thought that went the way of the 80's.

[April]

Oh no. It's back. Right along with Strawberry Shortcake.

[Beelzebub]

Beelzebub, Read the rest of the thread. He goes on to PROVE that no such thing actually happened.


Kingloser, read my post. I explained the point of the comic strip, nowhere did I state it was true.

[kingclick]

Kingloser, read my post. I explained the point of the comic strip, nowhere did I state it was true.
Beelzebub,
Where did I say that you stated it was true? Making up words and putting them in my mouth

You say that the comic shows that gay marriage was in the bible. How so?

[Beelzebub]

The comic is supposedly quoting the bible.

you then replied with;

"Beelzebub, Read the rest of the thread. He goes on to PROVE that no such thing actually happened."

I never said it did happen. Hence I never stated it was a true representation of the quote quote.


Prisoner thought MB was trying to back up homosexual marriages with a bible quote. She was pointing out the hypocrisy in the bible, not that the bible condones same sex marriages.

I never said it was correct.

[Mabel]

Doesn't everyone say Dude? I do, in all sorts of context. Did you know dude means elephant butt hair? Carry on :)


sorry for the derail ROFL

[kingclick]

The comic is supposedly quoting the bible.

you then replied with;

"Beelzebub, Read the rest of the thread. He goes on to PROVE that no such thing actually happened."

I never said it did happen. Hence I never stated it was a true representation of the quote quote.


Prisoner thought MB was trying to back up homosexual marriages with a bible quote. She was pointing out the hypocrisy in the bible, not that the bible condones same sex marriages.

I never said it was correct.
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. Sorry about that.

[Beelzebub]

Doesn't everyone say Dude? I do, in all sorts of context. Did you know dude means elephant butt hair? Carry on :)


sorry for the derail ROFL


Actually Dude comes from the combination of dud and attitude, it was supposedly created by Oscar Wilde meaning a man with a sharp dress sense :cool: