Bush quits beating around the bush on gay marriage

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mystech, Feb 24, 2004.

  1. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Open up your eyes and get educated on this issue, then.

    Sorry I live in Canada where at least here in Ontario gay marriage is not legal or illegal. Like Abortion...

    Well over half the nation has laws spacificaly banning homosexual marriage, including one on a federal level (The Defence of Marriage Act of 1996).

    From my limited knowledge on the subject The Defense of Marriage Act is really not binding. It's really quite irrelevant because only states can decide the fate of marriage. (This is why Bush shouldn't even touch the subject, doesn’t he have $550 billion in the red to deal with?). I think this issue is so stupid to bring up now, when this is arguably the most important presidential election since Roosevelt.

    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.

    Can I ask you something, if you were a homosexual. Would you fight for a word? Kerry supports civil unions which means you get all the perks of a married couple but without the word married. Can homosexual Americans live with that, isn't that what they are fighting for? Rights, not semantics?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938


    I am a homosexual, and there's a lot more being fought over than a word here. First off there's really no definition or standard for Civil Union, there's no guarantee that it will grant all the same benefits as a legal marriage, and there's no way to enforce that equality. For example, many employers provide health-coverage to the spouse of an employee entirely of their own volition, but will employers grant this same courtesy to someone who is in a "civil union"? The choice is entirely up to them.

    We've tried "separate but equal" before, and it doesn't work. Making a new sort of union to throw homosexuals into is marginalizing, and is essentially just the idea of equality and civil rights being thrown a bone to shut us up while they continue to relegate us to the position of second class citizens. This battle is about more than just marriage, it's about making this nation accept that homosexuals are part of the makeup of this nation, and that that's perfectly fine, that the government is in place party to protect the rights of all of it's citizens, regardless of what completely arbitrary ridiculous divisions some may like to dwell on.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    White House Wanker

    Fine. I'll ask. Is the topic title just a euphemism for "Bush quits jacking off on the issue of gay marriage?"

    Of course, all that means is that he's looking around for someone to screw; nail their ass to the wall.

    Personally, I think Bush is opposed to homosexuality because gay sex is one way to find out just how full of ....

    Never mind. I'll stop there.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2004
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    A more substantial post

    A note on DoMA: The Defense of Marriage Act only stands at all because it has not faced a serious constitutional test.

    You'll notice that nobody's invoking DoMA directly in the fight against gay marriage; that is, the powers that seek to quash gay marriage are not yet willing to rely on a law they know will be yanked out from under them, so they're exhausting every possible delaying option they can find in a vain effort to stave off the inevitable and just.

    Perhaps, when marriage is an option available to all human beings in America and around the world, we can start taking it seriously inasmuch as I think the gay marriage fight can only be about equal rights; I can't imagine why people would get married these days, but I'm also a particular curmudgeon on the issue of marriage.
     
  8. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    I think that's just reading a bit too much into the title. All I meant to convey is that he's finally taken a solid stance on the issue without trying to leave himself some wiggle room to back out of it (like in his most recent state of the union address in which he only made vague threats of supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage).
     
  9. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    I found this to be a little silly as well. It brings to mind images of right-wingers sitting around and patting themselves on the back for the fact that they got their little token frown at gays written into law for all the nation to see.

    I suppose we might see someone try to give it a try once some same-sex couples who married in San Francisco try to assert that they are married in other states which prohibit gay marriage. We'll have to see which is more powerful, the DoMA and fanatic’s ability to ignore the constitution, or reason and the spirit of equality.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    To be honest, I was just trying to be cute. It's not something I'm particularly adept at.
    Some random thoughts:

    - San Fran or Mass? I could easily be wrong, but I thought the San Fran issue was one of civil disobedience intended to run California smack into the Texas decision; furthermore, and again I'm very possibly wrong, I thought we were at a pause where the San Fran licenses were ruled in violation of the law. This would leave a Massachusetts marriage or, perhaps, a Canadian marriage (congrats, Kev & Mike!) being respected in Masschusetts. (The Supreme Court frequently looks beyond our borders for advice. Just ask the majority in Bowers v. Hardwick. And wasn't there some discussion of gay marriage abroad in the Lawrence v. Texas decision?)

    - There is something to be said for due process, but I think Lawrence makes the lower processes moot to a certain degree. Dragging out the process at taxpayer and private expense when you know you're going to lose in the end is just ... wrong.

    Reason and the spirit of equality will win out. Remember that the alternative is to knock marriage of its pedestal completely. In my life, marriage has been reduced to a tax shelter. That's one of the great ironies of Slick Willie; the damage he did to marriage came not from Monica's lips but rather with a stroke of his shiny pen when he signed DoMA.

    And watching that damage exposed and agitated is almost ... almost ... worth watching the clowns pile into and out of the courtrooms in a desperate attempt to put out a fire that isn't really there, but will consume them if they continue to feed it.

    It's a great testament to human luxury that we can waste this much time and effort on something so essentially small yet vitally important and perfectly clear.

    In a way, I think we should be proud of the homophobes because they remind us how freaking great this society really is. And yes, it will be greater when it's truly equal, but the human drama can provide moments of humor if you let it. In a symbolic way, it's ironic that Ashcroft is on the "injured reserve" list right now. Who hasn't wondered if his God didn't send a divine email to tell him to take a load off and shut up for a while. (Oh, and stop hiding nipples! Why do you think God made them, John? They're beautiful!)

    Sorry ... digression.

    (By the way ... that's about the only reason I'm theistic at all in practice. So I can ask John Ashcroft how he feels about God from time to time. Or some similar effect. It really is useful now and then. Another digression, I know, but why not clear up one of the mysteries of the Sciforums Universe while the opportunity presents itself. Nor is it news, I know. But I need to repeat myself from time to time, and it's not worth starting a topic over. Okay, back to the program ....)

    If you look through tables in history textbooks or notes in the World Book Almanac (at least, they were there twenty years ago) you'll find that some states ratified original and nineteenth-century amendments around the 1930s. Probably just a symbolic affinity; I've never looked into it.

    Additionally, somewhere at Sciforums I recall mention of the "missing Thirteenth Amendment," which tale, in my opinion, promises a spectacular ratification war if Bush and the GOP manage to cram an amendment through.

    To save you the long read, in case you don't want to put up with it:
    In other words, if an Amendment somehow passed, thirty-four states would have to ratify it. Fifty fights, how many lost documents, do you think? How many clerical mistakes? There's a strong case that we are entitled to another Amendment to the Constitution (the "missing" Thirteenth), but the issue seems to be the lack of a single piece of paper out of thirteen.

    And hey, this is the 21st century. I can't wait to see the fight in Congress. And if an Amendment somehow passes Congress, the show is going to be one of the greatest in human history.

    And all, apparently, because some people worry about what you do in your bedroom with another consenting adult.

    Cracks and shards ... what luxury we humans enjoy.

    Nothing excuses the superstitious phobias, the sick denials and wild overreactions. And I, too, would like to see this issue settled properly as soon as possible.

    But in the meantime ... what a show. Seriously, this is one you can enjoy. Because you know that in the end, justice will prevail.

    Conservatives never want to actually take it this far. They'd rather hold the issue at arm's reach and pretend to ignore it. Because they know they can't go this far and screw it up. No matter what they do, the homophobes will lose. Either their Amendment will fail, or every homosexual in the country will turn out in the streets; every bisexual will join them; and when you add up the number of their friends who still think it's hip to know gay people, that's going to be one big freaking party in the streets. Pasties and g-strings for all. Sequins and boas and those silly feather helmets that the showgirls ... er ... yeah ... wear. Nude bicycle corps riding everywhere. Rhythm. Lots of rhythm. The drums alone will be enough to drive blue blood insane.

    What a show, indeed.

    If I invoke a "Bush standard," I could say the war is already over, with the Lawrence decision. But then I wouldn't know what to call the Amendment fight. Not guerillas. Not an insurgency. Not resistance. Well, maybe. What the hell are we calling the Iraqis? Oh, yeah, "terrorists." The war is over. All that's left is mopping up the terrorists.
     
  11. Eddie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    36
    It's a matter of economics. If the federal government of the United States recognizes gay marraiges and confers all the economic benefits to gay couples that hetero couples currently enjoy, the economy could tank.

    A large increase in the number of spouses could eventually mean a drastic increase in the amount of Social Security benefits paid to surviving spouses. The nation's Social Security system is already in need of revamping. Such a change could bankrupt it completely.

    The tax base would dwindle to a certain extent. You know the elected officials of the United States will take the easy route and increase the tax base rather than cut spending.

    The health insurance industry will be severely affected, premiums will rise substantially, and health care coverage will become even less affordable for the average citizen.
     
  12. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    As I understand it the situation in San Francisco is that Mayor Newsom is insisting that the marriage licenses issued are legal and binding. No court has countered him on this just yet, all that has happened is that SF has been ordered to stop issuing the licenses while a decision on their legality and validity is still forthcoming. Massachusetts hasn't started issuing same sex marriage licenses yet, and won't start until this May. So yes, in all likelihood it will probably be a Massachusetts marriage license that's to put the DoMA to the test, but at this moment one from SF could also start down that road.
     
  13. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    If it were really a matter of economics then more moderate republicans (those not necessarily of the religious right) would be jumping all over that argument and beating it to death. There's nothing that Republicans like more than flogging economic issues to death with their own bizarre interpretations of how things work.

    Our economy seems to be able to handle mass outsourcing of labor, and deficits well into the trillions without immediately imploding and self distracting, somehow I think that a few more married couples isn't going to make any noticeable mark. Take a look at the 1950s, that wonderful age of conservative values when marriage was far more common than it is today. Did high rates of marriage strain the economy back then? Not at all, the idea is absurd because there's very little financial difference to take into account.

    If you're going to make an argument against same sex marriage, do try to make sure that there's something there; this angle is completely without substance.
     
  14. bitterchick Why must you taunt me so? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    53
    "A note on DoMA: The Defense of Marriage Act only stands at all because it has not faced a serious constitutional test."

    Very true. The Defense of Marriage Act is an attempt to act as a mini-amendment, or an amendment-lite, if you will. Same - sex unions are legal in Vermont; if a couple from Massachusetts was married in Vermont, Massachusetts would be constitutionally bound to recognize the union as legal and valid pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Defense of Marriage Act explicity say that in this limited circumstance, the Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't apply.

    If the Supreme Court were to actually apply the actual constitution to its deliberation, the DoMA would be struck down. This one reason why the opponents *need* a constitutional amendment -- in order to fight the Full Faith and Credit Clause, you need a weapon of equal power.

    Another reason: despite the fact that sex is not a "protected class" under the Fourteenth Amendment, like race, the Court has always treated it like it is, giving any law that has disparate impact on that class "strict scrutiny." A state law prohibiting same sex marriage, if that "strict scrutiny" is applied, could not withstand a constitutional challenge. Hence, another argument for an amendment.

    A side effect such an amedment would have would be to make it impossible to pass an "equal rights amendment," making sex an actual "protected class" with the same protections as those already included in the Fourteenth Amendment.
     
  15. Eddie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    36
    I was not making an argument for or against same sex marriage. Regardless of which side you're taking, economics is a major consideration:

    http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2004/opinion/20040209234013.shtml
     
  16. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    This article provides no information that would back up your previous assertion that allowing homosexuals to marry would bankrupt the government.

    That in itself is a moot argument anyhow, it's quite a bit like saying if we stopped incarcerating minor drug offenders that unemployment would skyrocket because that would be all the more people out there in the labor force. It’s not a factor that we should take into consideration when weighing the issue.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2004
  17. Eddie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    36
    With respect to bankrupting... The assertion was that if the Federal Government of the United States recognized same-sex marriages then it could bankrupt the Social Security System that is already in trouble. I'll run some numbers for you shortly.

    It's not a factor? Who shouldn't take it into consideration? The main difference between the Federal Government recognizing "civil unions" rather than "marriage" is the economic difference. One of the main reasons that the gay community wants same-sex unions to be recognized as "marriages" rather than "civil unions" is to reap the economic benefits of "marriage"...?
     
  18. Psycho-Cannon Home grown and Psycho Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    744
    A friend of mine made a good point this morning that i can't disagree with.
    I don't see anything wrong with Gay relationships, if your gay your gay, thats all their is to it, but "marriage" in the common sense is a religious thing, iand if that religion says that gay relationships are evil then thats their right and we can't force them to change their mind because its not politically correct.
    Now don't get me wrong i don't see why gay couples should have any less rights than straight couples but you can't exactly call it a christian marriage when the same religion condems such relationships, give them the rights so that if they want to tie them selves into a legaly binding relationship as a straight couple would, all the power to them, but you'd have make it a different ceremony.
    If you can find a church willing to hold it and give their blessings then again power to them but those fighting to make traditional marriage legal for gay couples are, as much as i hate to admit it, being a bit selfish in not relaising that they are trying to foist their own views onto a religious institution.
     
  19. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    454
    this doesnt really make sense. it is still two people in the population getting married. what is the difference if every man marries a woman, every woman marries a woman or every man marries man. in the end you end up with the same amount of people getting married. the system should be able to adapt as if every man married a woman which would have the same econimc impact as the other two scenarios or a mixing of all 3. your economic argument is lacking severely.
     
  20. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Well listen well and you'll have plenty of ammunition to bury his ill-conceived argument for good. I've only heard this same argument about 50 times, and I have to essentially give the same reply every time. It's an argument that rests largely on a poor grasp of the issue, and I'm only too glad to help you get a better idea of what this fight is all about.

    Marriage is not just a religious thing, but a civil thing. Our government has never been in the business of providing a spiritual marriage for it's people, our separation of church and state wouldn't allow it. The government recognizes and issues the civil institution of marriage (Which pre-dates Christianity and likely in most places religious marriage in general). It has nothing to do with political correctness, but instead equal protection under the law.


    Now why in the world should a marriage issued by the government be called a Christian marriage? Our government isn't Christian or Islamic or Jewish or Buddhist or affiliated with any other church. It's secular, and represents members of just about every religion in the world, and issues marriage licenses to all of them regardless. Even atheists can marry in this nation. It should be clear from that that religion, and certainly Christianity (Which is worthy of note only because it is Christians who are raising the biggest stink about this issue) has absolutely no part in our government's civil marriages and the benefits that they bestow.

    As it stands in the US if you can find a religious organization that will perform a marriage ceremony for you then you are free have that ceremony, regardless of who you are. This does not, however necessarily mean that the government will issue you a marriage license.

    Let me set you straight here, regardless of how the gay marriage issue turns out in this country, no religious institution will be forced to perform a religious ceremony for a homosexual couple. It's simply outside our government's power to legislate. No one is pushing right now to force any church to perform ceremonies, that's why this fight isn't being taken to the churches. The only thing that we are fighting for is to make the government hold true to it's promise of equal protection under the law, and issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
     

Share This Page