Bush quits beating around the bush on gay marriage

Yes I do know of Echelon and I also know that it's largely useless. The chance of an actual human being involved in the protection of the president reading my comment is extremely slim. In the unlikely event that someone actually stumbles across that particular comment it will be amidst hundreds of thousands or more likely millions of other logged negative comments toward Bush. And that's just assuming that Echelon could monitor every electronic communication, which it can not, and you'd be nuts to try and figure out a way to log and store. In other words the NSA isn’t currently reading our little discussion, and they wouldn't care if they were so don’t worry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Moose, Mystech, zanket, pegasus,

I would be more than happy to discuss the Constitution with you at a later date, but this thread is more about the gay marriage issue. Maybe I'll start another thread soon, but I really don't wish to get into a lengthy, Tiassa style response now(really boring), and I'm just too lazy and don't really have the time.

As for hoping that Bush ends up on the wrong side of a bullet, Mystech, Cheyney would then become president. Would this make you happy?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you ban gay marriage in a constitutional amendment, then why stop there? Why not ban all marriages that aren't of the same race? 40 years ago those who screaming the same despotic bigotry then about blacks and whites getting married are now complaining about this. Judges is Mass. have said to ban Gay marriage is unconstitutional (at least in there state), and now we have the legislature in the state passing a amendment to their constitution as well. Which would sadly make it constitutional to ban basic rights for millions of American citizens. Thankfully here in Canada no legislation can pass if it is deemed to be in contradiction to the constitution, our judges can stop it. In Canada there hasn't been the "slippery slope" nonsense that you hear from conservatives in the US. I don't know what it is, but Americans are reverting back into a era of stifling rights not expanding them. But I think this is another fruitless attack against history; this only prevents the eventuality that will be gay marriage. Personally I think marriage itself is idiotic and unnatural, but if homosexuals want that "privilege" go ahead, what conceivable threat do homosexuals constitute, divorce is a MUCH greater threat to marriage then anything else. Also I am not seeing how Christian ethos should have a place within gov't, isn't the US secular? The ethics of the US Declaration of Independence states that “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". The Declaration is not a binding document but this is why the US exists. Are all men created equal or is it a lie? Is the US' premise a lie? I don't think so, and I think that this ridiculousness will not go through.

But thankfully I live in a country where human rights are actually respected. You know this breaks the social contract with the population, and it's a sad reversal of enlightenment ideals.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a state issue. Bush has no business mucking around with the constitution "in defense of marriage", as if hetero marriage is a guaranteed protector of christian values. I've never been able to understand the concept of the sanctity of one marriage having any positive or negative impacts on another. From my experience, same-sex couples mostly want to be left alone, but also want to enjoy the same advantages as straight couples with regards to health insurance, life insurance, estate planning, etc.

The right wingers that I have quizzed about this issue claim that if nothing is done, that will be akin to giving license to polygamy, incest, bestiality, and that the definition of marriage will be in jeopardy. You know what, no matter what the dictionary definition of marriage says, I have no interest in marrying a sibling, or asking a goat out to dinner. I mean, I don't even think you could bring a goat into most decent restaurants, even if you wanted to. And then there is the whole question of who pays? But anyway...

I really hope this non-issue just fades away. Let it remain a state issue. It's just none of my damn business what gay couples do with their lives.

 

"I have no interest in marrying a sibling, or asking a goat out to dinner"

Me neither, but apparently you can bang a pony in Holland if you wish.

 

I agree it's none of my bizness about gay marriage, etc.

I believe however, that there is a valid concern regarding the issue that I had not previously considered.

Society is a complicated, integrated system. Marriage, for its faults or benefits is a fundamental part of society and has been established as a particular arrangement for a long time. If you go changing this fundamental aspect of society to allow configurations that have not before been allowed, you're purposefully modifying the base of a significantly integrated system and it's impossible to predict the outcome from it. It is a potentially dangerous endeavor from that perspective.

I would say that it seems to me that gay people should be able to get married - but if I concern myself with the 'big picture' of society, I'm not sure. I'd say it might be smart to try a "test case" like the deal in Mass. or whatever, see how it goes and make decisions based on those results.

Regardless though, right or wrong the majority doesn't like the idea.

Fucking with the majority over issues they hold dear is asking for civil war. You don't have to agree with them but I'd say it's wise to respect their opinion.

 

Mystech – at the moment I’d say you’re right. I think your comment got put on a priority list to check, but absent a few other keywords it won’t get reviewed by a human due to not enough humans to check. In the future, within a couple years, I’d say your comment would earn you a “yellow” designation (by computer only), after which you’d be hand-searched at every US airport. I wouldn’t risk it myself.

I think Echelon has done every email, fax, and phone call within the US and some allies for a decade. They’ve been working on including forums & other databases like this one in the past few years. Unfortunately there’s no way to check their schedule.

 

I think a compromise would be in order in the US because you have a large portion of the population who is very socially conservative. I think Gay Americans have two options really, fight for marriage or get civil unions. The difference is merely semantical, and you would get the same rights that a married couple does. This lends credence to the idea that gay marriage dosen’t change anything. It hasn't changed anything here, and the social experiment has worked. There are no mass rallies against Gay marriage, there are members of society who don't fancy gay marriage but no one is actually wiling to take that right away from homosexuals. I think it is stupid for ppl to automatically assume that once homosexual marriage would lead to bestiality and other such erroneous sexual deviations. Obviously not, because there is no rational being to consent to the marriage. Society has survived much bigger hits before, like getting rid of feudalism, or fascism, communism, etc. This is really a ping in the barrel; this is not an issue for Bush, nor a issue for politicians but a issue for the courts who are the best ones to interpret the rights of the American citizen.

 

Just put it up for a vote I'd say. See if the MAJORITY of the people really want them in their states. I'm against them for they are illegal in every state that I know of. Just because certain counties make laws, WITHOUT VOTING ON THEM, that doesn't mean they are legal for the states laws supercede those of the counties. Why do gays need to be married? Why not just WILL their estates to whomever they want, I really don't understand this big push for this now so close to the national elections. Why didn't they bring this up 2 years ago? Perhaps 9/11 was still making headline news so they wait until it is time to "STIR THE POT" once again.

 

I'm against them for they are illegal in every state that I know of.

Well there is no law against gay marriage on the books anywhere that I know, so really it's just a custom not a law. The amendments would make that custom into a law. In terms of rights it has decided at least by Mass. judges that it is illegal to not allow Gay marriage.

Just because certain counties make laws, WITHOUT VOTING ON THEM, that doesn't mean they are legal for the states laws supercede those of the counties.

Counties don't matter, what matters is the courts and the legislatures of states. Who holds more power, the Judges or the legislatures of states? I think in the US legislatures hold more power because they can amend constitutions. But if the Supreme Court rules that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional or something of that nature, then what? This is the classic checks and balances that the US has instituted to avoid total control of one level of gov't.

Why do gays need to be married? Why not just WILL their estates to whomever they want, I really don't understand this big push for this now so close to the national elections.

Well these ppl don't have the same rights that married ppl do, hospital visits, property rights, etc. They are second class citizens in the US, now I agree why marriage and why now? But it's not really relevant the issue is before you and you have to start tackling this very divisive issue.

 

Open up your eyes and get educated on this issue, then. Well over half the nation has laws spacificaly banning homosexual marriage, including one on a federal level (The Defence of Marriage Act of 1996). And those states without laws spacificaly prohibiting it refused to issue them up until just a month or two ago, of course.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0206/p01s01-ussc.html

Take a look at the map at the bottom, It'll set you straight. Oh, and remember that the states that allow some domestic privilages still don't allow outright marriage or equal rights, either. You might also check the ACLU's website for some more statistics.

 

Then I guess I have no choice, but to kill you all. </Antonio Benderas> (sorry I just got done watching Once Upon A Time In Mexico, and needed desperately to use that line. . . guess it doesn't carry the same weight unless it's delivered in person by a dark sexy Mexican).

Seriously, though, do you believe what you're saying? Civil war? I hate to admit it but if it came to that It's something I really think would be worth fighting over. I think I've been talking about shooting conservatives for a while now, and it'd only be fitting for me to put my money where my mouth is.

Looking back at history, and heeding the words of a popular gay internet radio personality, I think that before this particular civil rights battle is over we'll have to see people getting sprayed with fire hoses, and police beating people down in the street. No rights without Dobermans biting people, they say.

 

What the majority wants is utterly irrelevant in this situation, because the majority of people would be utterly unaffected by legalization of same sex marriages. The only people that same sex marriage effects are same sex couples, so why not let them decide on it? It's the right of the people to govern themselves that we supposedly value in this nation, not the ability of the mob to deny the minority it's basic rights.

The issue is much more far reaching than you make it out to be. The idea that a person can will their estate to another person means next to nothing in this debate, as the whole next of kin thing is only one of over 1000 benefits provided by the legal institution of marriage! Seriously, look this stuff up, check out the ACLU, try starting here http://www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/index.html or go off and find your own information, or both, just please educate yourself on this issue!

The single biggest reason that this fight is going on right now is because last year the supreme court ruled that Texas' sodomy laws which criminalized homosexual behavior were unconstitutional. The effect of that was that it could now no longer be made illegal to engage in homosexual activity in the United States, essentially de-criminalizing the sexual orientation nation wide. It was only once this step was out of the was that we could begin the push for Gay Marriage, that and the election is now coming up fast, so we want to make it as much of an issue as possible, to force candidates onto one side or another so that it's finally an issue people will take seriously and something can be done about it. Once we have Gay marriage nation wide (oh and we will) I predict that the fight will then begin to do away with the whole "don't ask don’t tell" policy in the military, and allow openly homosexual people to join (Hell half the girls in the marines for instance are lesbians anyway! [this I have on good word from a girlfriend who spent nine months on Paris island]) and at that time I believe we will have eradicated all government institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals, and you people will stop hearing so much shouting and screaming from me. Social acceptance will come gradually after that, and is something we can't legislate, but it's already been cool to be gay for years (look at guys going clubbing for instance, even straight guys will dress like fags to pick up chicks, haha!) so I think we can just start to lay low again, and the country can get back to issues that are actually worth spending so damned much time fussing over.

 

You know what man I have no idea. I think I might be getting politically paranoid. It seems that the vitriol has thickened over the last decade or two. It seems like there are a lot of people stirring the pot. I can't tell though if it just seems that way to me because I have kids and I'm more uh.. sensitive to dangers in the world and the world they'll inherent and blah blah. In this case I certainly hope that was a stupid comment on my part.

Ack. Should people's lives be sacrificed for gay marriage? That's harsh.

Please, step away from the weapon.

Seems to me that people need to excercise some patience regarding this stuff. The time is coming for sure. If you rush it too much violence will ensue. It doesn't seem worth it to me. LOL. I spent my whole life not wanting to get married and take the ability to get married for granted I suppose, but if it hadn't been for my children I'd have never got married I'd guess.... so marriage seems uhm... utilitarian to me (from the state-sanction part). I mostly think that the state shouldn't involve itself with marriage at all. Maybe you should be able to form a "civil union" with whomever you want, giving them hospital visitation, etc. Crap I dunno.

If this were a life and death issue I might feel differently, but I don't think it is, so I think it's imperative for the communities to be patient and let society soak in their sexuality a little before throwing them into the deep end (as many see it). I see no reason for people to get physically hurt over this shit, so hopefully I'm just being paranoid and I'm terribly wrong about all that.

 

Oh come on now, as an American it's practicaly my duity to imply that I want to go to war with and kill anyone who I might in any sort of round-about way be able to accuse of taking away my freedom, it's only right and proper.

 

Wes, I appreciate your stance there, its totally understandable, because you, like most all Americans, have absolutely no stake in the gay marriage issue, whatever way it goes nothing at all happens to you.

But look, the right is playing the "Since the beginning of civilization..." card, so I would say by that logic, if marriage has been around in its present sacrosanct form since the beginning of civilization, then gays have been waiting for round about eight thousand years. That’s some patience if you ask me, we want this done in our lifetimes.

 

wes

you make good points, but when the matters of justice and equality are at hand, i think it is a risk worth taking. the same argument as aboove could have been made against abolishing slavery, allowing women and minorities to vote, intergrating schools, etc. all of those turned out pretty fine in the end i think.

 

I agree, but to me those are significantly more "life and death". Slavery? That was worth a war, and I had no stake in it. Women and minority votes? That's closer, but more important than marriage IMO.

To me, gay marriage is not worth a war or even one death. Not because of my lack of stake in it per se, but because I don't really respect the institution much to begin with. To me it is wholly utilitarian and geared towards raising children more than anything. Besides the traditionalism aspect and how it effects my kids and the related tax stuff, I probably wouldn't be married... no, not because I don't love my wife, but because I don't give a fuck about the government's sanctioning of my relationship. It's really none of their business as far as I'm concerned. I've never been in a situation that I'm aware of where I needed to visit my wife in the hospital or whatever except when she was giving birth to the kids, and then they let me in even before we were married (with the first one) so I don't see the problem.

It is important in maybe three contexts?

- traditionalism: families have married parents and that makes kids feel secure (really just a matter of societal "this is the way it is supposed to be" with no real justification besides that).
- government: policy and stuff where you get to visit your family in the hospital and such - this is the only point that makes the issue valid IMO.
- personal: whatever it stands for between you and your partner or you and your religion or whatever.

Gay people have been traditionally ostracized, so the 'acceptance' into society over the recent years is a real positive deal, ultimatey indicative that gay marriage will be accepted. I'd say another 20 years or so is probably enough time for the old people who are really really against it to die off.

Governmental stuff, yeah, there should be something for that. There might be now actually, but it's likely highly unconventional like a binding contract of some sort or power of attorney or I dunno. Then you'd have to remember to take your paperwork with you to the hospital and blah it probably would be a real pain in the ass because people don't deal with it on a regular basis. I dunno. Regardless there probably should be some standard means to apppoint the important people in your life to the government so when something comes up they're authorized for whatever.

And as far as the personal goes, gay people get married all the time like that. The government has shit to do with it.

I think that marriage "between two people" should be cool, but this puritan assed nation still has a lot of issues with sexuality, homosexuality, etc. Forcing your "enlightened" agenda down their throats won't happen. Let them ease into it, let the old people die off a bit... etc. It seems obvious to me that gay marriage will be acceptably addressed by government sometime in the relatively near future (30 years tops it seems to me based on the pace of change I'm perceiving).

I really think though, that rather than expanding "gay rights", "people's rights" shouldn't have anything to do with the government endorsing their sexual relationships, but should address only how their relationship(s)(sans sex) affect their needs from the government.

So really since I don't care much for government involvement in the issue to begin with, it seems that maybe gay people are being a little overly dramatic about this issue. Say it isn't so. Hehe.

 

Bush quits beating around the bush on gay marriage
Isn't Bush's problem that he doesn't want to condone gay couples to beat around the 'bush'.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!