Bush: Never mind Iraq. Let's get them homos!

[Gentle Giant]

Of course, "Massachusetts" is code word for "vote Republican no matter how much you disapprove of me."

Clearly, this is the most critical issue Georgie has on his plate right now. After all, he already said his successor will have to be responsible for pulling out of Iraq.

President rips SJC on gay marriage
Pushes for ban in nod to social conservatives
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | June 6, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush invoked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court yesterday in calling on Congress to approve a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, telling a group of religious leaders that the ``most fundamental institution of civilization" is in jeopardy because of ``activist judges."

In returning to the divisive issue of gay marriage, the president is seeking to energize social conservatives in advance of the midterm congressional elections. He maintained that without a constitutional amendment, states across the country might have to recognize marriage ``as redefined by judges in, say, Massachusetts."

``Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them," the president said in a speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, as the Senate began the first of three days of debate on the measure. ``And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."

Despite Bush's plea, both sides acknowledge that the amendment will fall well short of the 67 votes it needs in the Senate for approval. The amendment's supporters concede that they lack the necessary votes in the House of Representatives as well.

But GOP leaders say it is important to vote on the amendment anyway to send a signal that Republicans are fighting to preserve marriage as it has traditionally been defined. Focusing on gay marriage served Republicans well in 2004, when 11 state ballot initiatives outlawing gay marriage helped boost conservative turnout in states including Ohio -- where Bush's reelection victory was sealed.

``We ought to have a vote on this amendment every year, whether it's an election year or not," said Senator Wayne Allard , a Colorado Republican who is the chief sponsor of the gay marriage ban. ``People support traditional marriage."

The Senate also will take up other conservative issues in the coming weeks, including a constitutional ban on flag burning and a permanent abolition of the estate tax. But Democrats and even some Republicans say party leaders are making a mistake if they assume that such red-meat issues will work in galvanizing the conservative base this year.

Disapproval of Bush and the Republican-led Congress are near historic-high points, and even many conservatives are upset over the federal government's deficit spending and the president's position on immigration.

By focusing on banning gay marriage instead of soaring gas prices and the war in Iraq, Republicans are revealing themselves to be out of touch, said Joe Solmonese , president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading supporter of gay marriage.

``This year, it's a political tactic that's going to backfire," Solmonese said. ``You have a nation that is demanding answers from its leadership. . . . The American people look at what's going on here and are disgusted."

Senate minority leader Harry Reid, who opposes gay marriage but believes states should be free to make their own decisions on the issue, blasted Bush and Senate majority leader Bill Frist for backing an initiative that is ``without hope of passing" when so many other priorities require more urgent attention.

``The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another," said Reid, a Nevada Democrat. ``This is another one of the president's efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America."

Two years ago, an amendment banning gay marriage drew just 48 votes in the Senate. Supporters believe they will get four additional votes this year, from Republicans who have replaced Democrats in the Senate.

A March survey by the Pew Research Center found that 51 percent of adults nationwide oppose gay marriage. But that's 12 percentage points lower than the disapproval for gay marriage the poll found in February 2004, shortly after the Massachusetts SJC issued its landmark ruling finding a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The first state-sanctioned gay marriages in the nation were performed in Massachusetts in May 2004, and Massachusetts remains the only state in the nation where gay marriage is legal.

But court challenges to state prohibitions against gay marriage are pending in nine other states, and courts in four of those states have found that gay marriages should be allowed. Those cases will be settled by state supreme courts unless the federal constitutional amendment is enacted.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act protects states from having to recognize gay marriages that are sanctioned by other states, though critics maintain that the law is unconstitutional. Bush said that if that act is overturned by the courts, ``then marriage recognized in one city or state may have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else" -- and that the court decision in Massachusetts would set the tone for the whole country.

Governor Mitt Romney's office released a letter yesterday that the governor sent to Frist last week saying that Massachusetts' experience with the issue speaks to the need for a constitutional amendment.

``In order to protect the institution of marriage, we must prevent it from being redefined by judges like those here in Massachusetts," wrote Romney, who is preparing for a possible 2008 presidential run. ``Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?"

But the amendment has split Republicans. Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said marriage should not be defined in the Constitution, a position he shares with Vice President Dick Cheney.

``This is a matter that ought to be left to the states, and the states are taking care of it," said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican.

Tony Fabrizio , a Republican pollster, said the issue of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is unlikely to be utilized by Republican candidates in swing districts this fall because it doesn't appeal to the moderate voters who could decide those races. Candidates would much rather be talking about the war on terror and Republican ideas for controlling gas prices, he said.

``I don't get the equation" of emphasizing gay marriage, Fabrizio said. ``You run the risk of looking like you're out of touch."

The proposed amendment states that ``marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." It would nullify the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court ruling, and would prevent other state courts and legislatures from legalizing gay marriage.

The amendment would not, however, prevent states from establishing civil unions that carry benefits that are equivalent to marriage, such as those now in place in Vermont. That point has upset some conservatives, who say the amendment should go further by banning gay marriage .

[jeff54]

Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them

perhaps someone can explain to me how homosexuals marrying weekens other families. If every gay couple in the US got married I don't think it would affect my family one bit

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

Bush: Never mind Iraq. Let's get them homos!

Best thread title in a long time!

The proposed amendment to ban gay marriage is nothing more than legislated bigotry. Period.

[Uli]

Thisis is incredible bigotery. Every Chrisitan homeosexual should have the right to practice premerital abstinence.

[walto]

Originally Posted by Uli

Thisis is incredible bigotery. Every Chrisitan homeosexual should have the right to practice premerital abstinence.

[hornplayer]

``We ought to have a vote on this amendment every year, whether it's an election year or not," said Senator Wayne Allard , a Colorado Republican who is the chief sponsor of the gay marriage ban. ``People support traditional marriage."

Why is that? gonna jam it down our throats in the hopes finally we'll go for it just to get them off our backs?

I don't think so!

[Dr Dave]

The title of the thread says it all: Iraq is going down the tubes, let's change the subject.

[Coda]

It really boils down to Marriage being a sacrament to God. It's a union between Christ and the Church.

The classical Scriptural text is the declaration of the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:22 sqq.), who emphatically declares that the relation between husband and wife should be as the relation between Christ and His Church: "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it.

So my question: Why is it so unpalatable to find a different term that wouldn't stick it to the Catholic religion? Why is the term Civil Union unacceptable if it still provides the same benefits as a traditional marriage?

[claude]

Originally Posted by Coda

"Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it

Jesus H. Christ!! In what universe does this shit still carry weight? And of what relevance is this to a legal discussion?

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Coda

It really boils down to Marriage being a sacrament to God. It's a union between Christ and the Church.

The classical Scriptural text is the declaration of the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:22 sqq.), who emphatically declares that the relation between husband and wife should be as the relation between Christ and His Church: "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it.

So my question: Why is it so unpalatable to find a different term that wouldn't stick it to the Catholic religion? Why is the term Civil Union unacceptable if it still provides the same benefits as a traditional marriage?

God damn it when are you people going to realize that not everyone believes in this shit. Keep your friggin beliefs to yourself. Marriage is not a sacrament to god for everyone. If that is going to be the definition of marriage, then there are a lot of straight people in this country that should not be allowed to be married.

[Scott Dolan]

I still contend that us heteros haven't exactly done the tradition proud, so who cares if the gay folk get a shot at it?

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Jared

Keep your friggin beliefs to yourself.

Ummmm...........

Then what would we do here? Or anywhere for that matter?

[walto]

So my question: Why is it so unpalatable to find a different term that wouldn't stick it to the Catholic religion?

How about "marrriage"?

Seriously, if you go back and look at the fifty zillion threads on this issue when it first came up, I too was skeptical about the need for this term. My feeling was that the main thing was the benefits and if I'd been gay I'd have scorned being "married" anyhow. "Let 'em have their absurd 'sacrament'" was my rallying cry. But as I thought about it more, I realized that this wasn't up to me. The point is, that the right to be married, whether it's worth anything additional to the right to be "civilly joined" or not, is something some gay people want. (Maybe they're Xtian too, or traditionalists, or dopey, or whatever.) I mean the "right" to wear Bermuda shorts, penny loafers and black kneesocks is, to me a silly, useless right, but I can't deny it to some citizens on that basis.

The correct solution to your concern, it seems to me is to call the "sacrament" you're concerned about degrading "Christian Marriage" or "Catholic Marriage" and the Church can do what it wants about that.

At least for awhile...

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by walto

I mean the "right" to wear Bermuda shorts, penny loafers and black kneesocks is, to me a silly, useless right, but I can't deny it to some citizens on that basis

Thank you, walto. My community has suffered in silence for so long. I'm glad that, finally, we are getting some of the respect and consideration that we deserve as human beings.

As for this gay marriage thing, ya'll be laughing outta the other side of your mouth when it comes out that Osama bin Laden is married to a man and honeymooning in Tora Bora. Bush is developing strategery!

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Thank you, walto. My community has suffered in silence for so long. I'm glad that, finally, we are getting some of the respect and consideration that we deserve as human beings.

I don't recall Walto saying anything about "respect and consideration".

[walto]

Yeah, you're still not getting any of that.

[Monte Smith]

It's all such a joke to you people who can coordinate your leg coverings and footwear, isn't it?

[Slurpy]

*I'm* considering whether Coda knows the difference between kneeling down and bending over?

[Scott Dolan]

The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing.

[sonic1]

Scott, I was not referring to Coda sharing his opinion. I was referring to his constituency legistlating their belief system, and imposing it on other people.

[Scott Dolan]

My apologies, Jared.

Was reading on the fly again.




*edit*

But then again, the Christians could in turn say the same exact thing to you. Right?

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

My apologies, Jared.

Was reading on the fly again.




*edit*

But then again, the Christians could in turn say the same exact thing to you. Right?

I would not legislate my personal religious ideals onto them. I would not try to dictate other people's lives according to my own beliefs. Live and let live.

It is not the opinion that god makes a marriage that bugs me. It is the fact they are trying to legislate that we all believe that way or follow that belief. And that, ironicly, is totally against the ideals of christianity. Free agency is supposed to be the basis for which to make such decisions. So when I say, "fuck off" it refers to their attempts to control my life, or the lives of people around me. They need to just fuck off and live their own friggin lives and let people decide for themselves how to live.

[Scott Dolan]

I agree.

But if you look at it from their perspective, what you're saying is essentially the same things they're saying. Just from the opposite side of the fence.

It's going to constantly be a battle that nobody will win.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Coda

It really boils down to Marriage being a sacrament to God. It's a union between Christ and the Church.

Then why do you get divorced in a court room?

[Scott Dolan]

Blam!!!

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I agree.

But if you look at it from their perspective, what you're saying is essentially the same things they're saying. Just from the opposite side of the fence.

It's going to constantly be a battle that nobody will win.

I don't agree with that. I am not telling them how to live. I am not telling them that in order for them to have a recognized marriage, they have to marry a member of their own sex, or that they have to believe how I believe, or that they have to do anything beyond their belief system. That is what they are telling us. And what they are telling gays is that they have to marry the opposite sex. Hell, they don't even accept gays as real people.

They are essentially telling people that their definition of a marriage, which has a religious background, is the definition for all of us.

I believe in letting the definition of marriage to be open to allow all types of people to recieve the same rights, rather than saying only people who want to marry the opposite sex have the right to marry.

And if they had their way, they would take it further, and we all know that.

No, it is not the same.

Unless me telling them not to control other peoples' lives is controlling theirs, and I don't accept that as a valid argument.

[lynn]

Catholics also have to get an anullment. Henry VIII had some issues with this.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Jared

I don't agree with that. I am not telling them how to live.....or that they have to believe how I believe, or that they have to do anything beyond their belief system.

But you are, Jared. Look, I pretty much agree with you on this issue. Probably 100%. But you are telling them they have to believe what you believe.

They don't believe gays should be able to marry. That's them forcing their belief on you.

You are telling them that gays should be able to marry. That's you forcing your belief on them.

Do you get what I'm saying?

[jesus marion joseph]

Yeah, but one belief is grounded in constitutional principles, and the other is grounded in religious doctrine.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

But you are, Jared. Look, I pretty much agree with you on this issue. Probably 100%. But you are telling them they have to believe what you believe.

They don't believe gays should be able to marry. That's them forcing their belief on you.

You are telling them that gays should be able to marry. That's you forcing your belief on them.

Do you get what I'm saying?

So if I believe Jews should not be allowed to walk on the street then that is my belief, valid as yours?

No, sorry. When your "belief" effects the liberty of other peoples' lives then it is no longer a belief but an act of oppression.

There is a difference that I think we need to, as a democratic society, define. The people who drove planes into the twin towers were also following their "beliefs". When your belief alters someone elses ability to choose for themselves, particularly when nobody is being harmed, that is where we need to stop being pussies, and say no.