Bush says NO to gay marriages.

[attgig]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html



Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals
'We ought to codify that'
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush indicated Wednesday he opposes extending marriage rights to homosexuals, saying he believes marriage "is between a man and a woman."

Bush said it is "important for society to welcome each individual," but administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. "And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

Earlier this month, Bush said a constitutional amendment to block gay marriages might not be necessary, although the proposal has the support of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee.

The question of gay marriage has moved to the foreground of American politics after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that struck down state laws banning sodomy. Canada courts also have recently recognized gay marriages. In addition, the Massachusetts high court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether the state can allow gay marriages.

The prospect has outraged religious conservatives, an important voting bloc in the Republican Party. And a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll suggest the Supreme Court ruling has prompted a backlash: The number of people who have endorsed the idea that homosexual relations should be legal has dropped from 60 percent to 48 percent since the ruling, and only 40 percent of Americans say they now would support civil unions for homosexuals.

"I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush said Wednesday. "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage."

A number of states have passed laws forbidding gays from marrying or barring the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another state. The federal government's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act affirms that states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

The act also defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."



politically actually kinda smart. He already had about 0% of the gay vote anyways....
this will strengthen his hold on conservative america.


right or wrong? eh.....i'm sure you all know where I stand :P

[topane]

Let's see... people can name anyone as a beneficiary in a will and some companies offer benefits to domestic partners. The only difference is that little piece of paper called a marriage license. We already have same-sex marriages.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Then why all the fuss about that "little piece of paper"? Because that little piece of paper means a whole lot to some of us.

[topane]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
Then why all the fuss about that "little piece of paper"? Because that little piece of paper means a whole lot to some of us. That little piece of paper is issued by the state. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is not infringing on someone else's rights, then the state has no concern who is marrying who. I find it very hard to see how two women or men being married can affect my life.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by topane
and some companies

that some is an aweful big work if you don't work at one of those companies.

here's a list of some more marriage rights. many of these have no "non-married" equivilant.

and that only speaks to the legal aspect of the issue, ignoring the social aspects entirely.

[attgig]

my guess is that this will end up with calling gay marraiges something else like... gay-marraiges, and issuing a little piece of paper that says gay marraige license instead of marraige license, and the benefits that are offered to gay married couples will be the same as the benefites offered to married couples...


:shrug:

[zenbooty]

This is a really tough question for me. I can see it from both sides myself, depending on whether you frame the issue as being about gay rights, or being about the institution of marriage.

I believe gay life partners should have all the legal rights and benefits of married couples. However, I believe that we value marriage as an institution because it represents a stable bond and environment for the raising of children. For a society to survive it must grow, must reproduce. It is to our benefit as a society to protect the institution that we have set for this purpose. While gay marriage doesn't prevent anyone from having kids, it does redefine the meaning and importance of marriage in our society, and I think that can be a dangerous thing in the long run, as today's decisions become ingrained in the cultural phsyche years down the road.

[topane]

Aren't they called "civil unions" now? To-MAH-to, to-MAY-to...

[mcs328]

I was listening to the speech live and I think the new article is biased. He didn't say he was opposed but his personal opinion was it was between a man and a woman. He went on to say that how the meaning of marriage will be changed or in his words "codified" by the law.

Other than that he was really kinds mean in his question taking. He told one reporter "That's it, you're threw(sP?)" after the guy tried to ask a follow up question.

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
Then why all the fuss about that "little piece of paper"? Because that little piece of paper means a whole lot to some of us.

Sure does, which is why my wife and I fully support same sex unions. I don't see why others can't share the joy I have. Well, not MY joy, they can get their own damn joy, but a joy LIKE the one we have. Yeah.

[Airencracken]

What happend to seperation of church and state? The state should be allowed to say jack about same sex marriage.

[Nija]

Who would have thought this :rolleyes:.

Most people aren't ready to see the full implications of same sex relationships, let alone them trying to be like "everyone else". I hope to see same sex unions become on the same level marriage, but i don't see that happening in the near future.

Oh well, I can hope it will happen before I die.

[attgig]

Originally posted by Airencracken
What happend to seperation of church and state? The state should be allowed to say jack about same sex marriage.

eh?!?!

people can get married in a courtroom... not at a church... (if that's your train of thought).

and after they get married, they sign a piece of paper that the state gets that tells them that they're legally married... that's the piece of paper that everyone's talking about.
they don't actually need to go to a licensed minister to get married... they can go to a judge and get married in a courtroom.

[Sir_Froggy]

Originally posted by LPMiller


Sure does, which is why my wife and I fully support same sex unions.


there are unions for this?

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by Sir_Froggy



there are unions for this?

Sure. Most Gotapexers have a member in LPMiller's union... membership, that is... :shifty:

:P

[LPMiller]

!!!!!!

You better not have a member in my union!

:bandit:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Airencracken
What happend to seperation of church and state? The state should be allowed to say jack about same sex marriage.

What does does the church have to do with marriage period?

[Hiro]

I like how this whole proposal about illegalizing same sex marrigaes is simply based off the fact that...


"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters...

Kinda nice that it's off what HE thinks.

[bachviet]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


What does does the church have to do with marriage period?
For Catholics, you are not officially (or religiouly) married unless the marriage license is signed by the priest who does the ceremony.

[topane]

Originally posted by bachviet

For Catholics, you are not officially (or religiouly) married unless the marriage license is signed by the priest who does the ceremony. Right, but that's "Married in the eyes of the Church™". The state is the only one that really matters. If I only married my wife in a church and didn't get the official license and I was hit by a bus, she wouldn't have any claim to my possessions (unless it fell under some common-law stuff).

[hang10wannabe]

i agree with bush on this, always have, always will :bandit:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by topane
Right, but that's "Married in the eyes of the Church™". The state is the only one that really matters. If I only married my wife in a church and didn't get the official license and I was hit by a bus, she wouldn't have any claim to my possessions (unless it fell under some common-law stuff).

Exactly, thats why gays arent clamoring at churches to be accepted, they are clamoring at the state capitals. They could care less what churches think, because they are completely irrelevant to the situation.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Exactly, thats why gays arent clamoring at churches to be accepted, they are clamoring at the state capitals. They could care less what churches think, because they are completely irrelevant to the situation.

while your attack on the church is predictable, it still deserves a respose....to say they "could care less" (sic) what churches think is to ignore the enormous upheaval that the american church has gone through over this subject. many demoninations have fought over whether or not to perform gay wedding ceremonies. if the gay community didn't care what churches thought, the aforementioned debate wouldn't exist.

also, gay people don't want to get married solely for financial and legal reasons. they, like many heterosexuals, want the church's acceptance and "blessing" of their union, and in turn from their family and society.

[hapoo]

as far as the church is concerned, wouldn't that be like me wanting to be blessed for being a theif?

[cheapie]

Originally posted by hapoo
as far as the church is concerned, wouldn't that be like me wanting to be blessed for being a theif?

depends on the demonition. demonations that hold the Bible to be complete and to be taken literally, you would be correct.

however, there are many denominations that marry gays, and even appoint them as ministers (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030608-124346-1938r.htm).

there's a church that i pass on the way home from mine that actually has a gay rainbow flag flying.

[Nija]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd

there's a church that i pass on the way home from mine that actually has a gay rainbow flag flying.

how many colors does it have?
6 or 7?

http://www.gettysburgflag.com/images/rainbow.jpg
that's 6 (and the gay pride flag)
http://www.iorg.org/images/cbp_tm.JPG
that's 7 (and a pin, because i couldn't find the flag right away)

it may not always be what you think it is ;)

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Nija


how many colors does it have?
6 or 7?

http://www.gettysburgflag.com/images/rainbow.jpg
that's 6 (and the gay pride flag)
http://www.iorg.org/images/cbp_tm.JPG
that's 7 (and a pin, because i couldn't find the flag right away)

it may not always be what you think it is ;)

i'm pretty sure it's the first one. btw, what the second one?

[hapoo]

International Order of the Rainbow for Girls (http://www.iorg.org/geninfo.htm)

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd


while your attack on the church is predictable, it still deserves a respose

Don't be a jerk. I am a very pious person and I take offense to your implications. I just do not see a connection with religion to this issue besides some kind of vague morality issue, and even then, I don't believe in objective morality so it doesn't occur to me. Again, just because you disagree there is no reason to be a jerk in your response.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Don't be a jerk. I am a very pious person and I take offense to your implications. I just do not see a connection with religion to this issue besides some kind of vague morality issue, and even then, I don't believe in objective morality so it doesn't occur to me. Again, just because you disagree there is no reason to be a jerk in your response.

sigh....you're angry at me for being a jerk?
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oliphant/thoa048.jpg

[molecularfire]

However, I believe that we value marriage as an institution because it represents a stable bond and environment for the raising of children.
Sorry zen... I know that I'm being a jerk for doing this, but this was my honest response when I read this (which is kinda sad because I'm in a quiet study room)...


Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha :heh: :heh: :heh:
With a 50% divorce rate... forget about banning gay marriages, I'm starting to support banning heterosexual marriages.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by molecularfire

Sorry zen... I know that I'm being a jerk for doing this, but this was my honest response when I read this (which is kinda sad because I'm in a quiet study room)...


Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha :heh: :heh: :heh:
With a 50% divorce rate... forget about banning gay marriages, I'm starting to support banning heterosexual marriages. Uh, and this adds anything to the discussion exactly how? :shrug: :rolleyes:

[molecularfire]

I'm just saying that we can't say that the point of marriage is to provide a secure stable environment for raising children when we do absolutely nothing to enforce it. If one starts an argument by saying that being gay is automatically wrong for whatever reason, and make 15 billion logical steps and finally get to the conclusion that being gay is automatically wrong for whatever reason, he/she has accomplished absolutely nothing. Same if you start an argument by saying that being gay is automatically right for whatever reason. Just seems like all the gay debates that we've been having... that's all that is being done. We have never done any research to see if gay marriages would be any better or worse than heterosexual marriages. All we have are two groups one saying yes, and one saying no... and neither with any data.

My opinion... either change marriages so that it will provide a stable environment... or admit that it doesn't do that and try to find something that does. :shrug:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd


sigh....you're angry at me for being a jerk?

Yes, I am. Its all well and good to respond to someone in kind, but you shouldnt be the initiator of it. Frankly CB, I thought it was beneath you.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Yes, I am. Its all well and good to respond to someone in kind, but you shouldnt be the initiator of it. Frankly CB, I thought it was beneath you.

i guess i just got sick of what i percieve as your anti-church/religion/conservative/moral posts. in the event i totally misread your intent, i apologize.

[Airencracken]

Originally posted by attgig


eh?!?!

people can get married in a courtroom... not at a church... (if that's your train of thought).

and after they get married, they sign a piece of paper that the state gets that tells them that they're legally married... that's the piece of paper that everyone's talking about.
they don't actually need to go to a licensed minister to get married... they can go to a judge and get married in a courtroom.

Yeah, I know, but the reason they object to gay marriage is because of religious reasons, or moral reasons or assorted other bull. No one is really challanging the legal implications of gay marriage.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd


i guess i just got sick of what i percieve as your anti-church/religion/conservative/moral posts. in the event i totally misread your intent, i apologize.

No worries. I am anti-fundamentalist but I'm not anti-religion in any sense.