Gay marriage and Bush

Gay marriage and Bush
: If I ever harbored a thought of voting for George Bush (which I am not sure I honestly ever did) it disappeared today when he went ahead with threats to try to enact a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Good God, you harp against those who would extend the Constitution to mold it to their beliefs and here you vow to amend it to do just that. You say you want less involvement and interference from government and yet you bring government into the bedroom. You talk about bringing the people together and yet you will set upon a long war to drive us apart. You deny that you are ruled by religion but you would have your religion rule us.

  • mksgsk

    I’m against the amendment on the grounds that the majority does not need a constitutional change to protect itself from a minority.
    The problem is lawless civil officials and tyrant judges imposing their values.

  • GCW

    He ‘backed’ an amendment which will never be passed. I, like most people I think, believe we’ll have gay marriage within 20 years.
    But I don’t see how you can vote against Bush just because of this issue. Isn’t the main role of the federal government the defense of the nation? I’m willing to tolerate a lot of misguided social policies in our president, as long as he takes the present war seriously.

  • Mike

    Thanks, Jeff. That was very well said.

  • billg

    What threat, mksgsk, do you need protecting from? And are you suggesting that the U.S. is comprised of a gay minority that scares the bejeebers out of a straight majority?
    Or, is it, perhaps, that you are suggesting that “real Americans need to fit your racial and cultural sterotypes? You know. a nice, white, male society founded on God’s good principles (forget that stuff about the Declaration and the Constitution) that allows other kinds of people to live with them (not next door, of course, but still within the countrt’s borders).
    If “separate but equal” was the great hypocrisy of the 20th Century, this crass political leveraging of simple homophobic fear and bigotry is the first candidate for it’s successor in this century.

  • Dinosaur

    I can overlook the gay marriage amend. And no WMD’s is OK. What I cannot stand is his cluelessness, and mangling of the language. ABB.

  • http://transplantedtexan.blogspot.com Austin Fusilier

    billg – I have no idea where that came from. That was so non sequitor it totally blew my mind.
    Jeff – let’s not get hysterical here. The government coming into our bedrooms? Last time I checked, the Supreme Court overturned a law that intruded into private sexual behaviors. What the amendment will do (whether or not I think it’s correct) is not outlaw homosexuality. It will define marriage. There’s a massive difference.
    What rights are being infringed by defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman? What rights are accorded to me (a heterosexual) that are not similarly granted to a homosexual? I’m hardpressed to find any. If you’ll notice, too, a large part of the debate over this amendment is whether or not it will unintentionally outlaw civil unions as well – with the majority desiring that civil union-ship remain a viable alternative.
    Now, I personally feel that a constitutional amendment is the wrong way to go here; but let’s not say that this is something it isn’t. The amendment is a definition, not a ban.
    On another note, you questioned your own ability to vote for Bush now that he’s committed himself to this amendment process – I must admit I’m surprised. I took all your previous postings on subjects such as the war on terror and your fears that the Democrats weren’t good enough on national security (ie. if we have a Democrat for a president, the war will be set aside, and 9/11 has a greater chance of repetition) to mean that you were solidly in the ‘holding my nose and voting for Bush’ camp.
    I’m curious – are you saying that you’re willing to sacrifice the future of our nation merely because the only candidate who is committed to America’s survival is also for a stricter interpretation of the term ‘marriage’? To paraphrase a commenter at Tim Blair’s blog: over here, we debate the ‘right’ of homosexuals to marry. Elsewhere, they’re summarily stoned.
    Seems to me that the choice is nearly a no-brainer.

  • angell

    Well, I am unwilling to allow a bunch of gay judges redefine marriage for me. If they want to define a union for homosexuals, feel free, don’t do it by destroying the definition that is 2000 years old. No gay Bible for me, thank you.

  • billg

    Austin, the post was premised on protecting the majority from a minority. People want protection when they’re afraid of something. I don’t understand how the marriage of any two people can actually threaten someone else. I can understand people not liking gay marriage, or believing it is immoral or irreligious. But, what are they so afraid of?

  • angell

    No one is afraid of gay marriage–I don’t want to be forced to respect something which I believe is sinful. Marriage is a religious sacrament. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Do I believe in the rights of gays to marry or the Bible? I choose the latter. Gays can have civil unions, gay unons, whatever they want–they can’t have a religious sacrament which is for heterosexuals only–one man, one woman.

  • pete’s concubine

    The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
    So I can’t be married but I can be merried? If the State of Alabama will issue me a merriage license that confers all the legal rights inherent in a marriage license, would you be happy for me?

  • Charlie (Colorado)

    Jeff, not to throw a hint of practicality in here, but who do you plan to vote for, then? Kerry and Bush are, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable: check what Bush said and it’s clear he wants to eliminate gay “marriage” but allow civil unions.
    Edwards is not only against gay “marriage” but has said he’d fight North Carolina adopting a civil union statute.
    Who’s left? Nader?
    And what about the war?

  • john d.

    What’s the most disturbing about Austin’s comments, and they have prevaled through the right side of the blogsphere as though it’s the truth, is that somehow Democrats wouldn’t protect the United States. I’ve worked for Democrats who deal with National Security issues, and I and anyone else with a single brain cell could tell you that you’re merely selling each other a lie that has no corrospondence to reality. A Kerry presidency will protect American, will go after Al-Qaeda and it’s allied groups. Goerge Bush is not the only thing stopping a 9/11 from happening, it is our military, CIA, FBI, etc.. None of that will change when Kerry is elected. What will change is the government trying to push a strange version of Christianity down my thorat.

  • angell

    Yes, and Kerry’s wife will fund jihadists as her husband fights them. Teresa Heinz Kerry’s favorite charity is the Tides Foundation, a 28-year-old grant-making institution that funds to the tune of hundreds of millions radical groups that, among other things, protest the U.S. invasion of Iraq, demand open U.S. borders, provide the legal defense of suspected terrorists and promote the spread of Islamist ideology in the U.S.

  • Tim

    All of this makes me want to vomit (and I’m gay, so I’m puking in a socially conscious way). Opponents of homosexuality and equality in civil marriage know they will lose at the state level, so they are fighting Gotterdammerung now, and trying to fiddle around with the founding document of this great nation.
    I’m with Jeff. (Not in that way. Oh you know what I mean.)

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    I’ve been reading this opinion all day throughout the blogosphere and usenet. Now I’m going to have to update my blogpost where I theorized that some liberals were “scared stupid” on 9/11 with a new theory that they have been “Bush slapped” back into reality today.

  • angell

    It makes me puke that a few gays think they have to redefine a 3000 year old definition of marriage–you have no right to do that. Have your marriage–but don’t redefine mine. Call yours what you want, but don’t play God with my marriage.

  • Sandy P.

    Robin Roberts posted this at Steve Verdon’s blog:
    And no one’s mentioned it here, I see:
    Consider the result if gay marriage is adopted nationwide by judicial fiat.
    Our political process would be dominated by another Roe v. Wade. Every judicial nomination would become a partisan circus over whether or not the judicial nominee would defend / reverse the gay marriage decision. Perhaps the disaffected would bomb gay marriage chapels as a small hardcore of abortion opponents do.
    Far better that the issue be one for resolution by ballot. If abortion had been handled this way, many people believe that the political furor would have gone away by now. Instead, judicial activism inflamed the issue.
    ———-
    It may not be the topic itself, but the manner in which it is forced upon us.
    If you don’t like the law work to change it. Don’t judgeshop and force it down our throats.
    If the judicial third keeps this up, their wings will be severely clipped. Do you honestly think the other 2 branches will stand for being lackeys? It’s bad enough O’Connor thinks our future judicial decisions should be considerate of European law.

  • http://www.joemaller.com Joe Maller

    Angell, your paranoia is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with this whole debate. No rational person expects government law to affect religious definition of marriage. It shouldn’t, it won’t. Church and State are separate.
    No one is asking to redefine your marriage. All they and we are asking for is equitable recognition under the law. The term is ‘Marriage’. Already religious and civil marriage are two different things. They should and will stay that way.
    What ‘makes me puke’ is the idea that our Constitution, the symbol and hallmark of Western freedom, would be sullied with a divisive, discriminatory amendment that legislates loving, committed relationships to second class status. What also ‘makes me puke’ is the idea that Bush would posit this amendment solely to appease his religious conservative base. Even if it were a purely empty gesture, the possibility of this passing strikes me as completely backwards.
    The only thing I can credit Bush with is, once again, proving to be a man of his word. I unequivocally disagree with him, but he said he’d do this and he did. We shouldn’t be surprised or disappointed. The man who let us down was one we invented.

  • Sandy P.

    W put it where it’s supposed to be, with the people. Not some rogue administrator. You want to blame anyone for this, blame the courts and SF/NM where it belongs.
    He comes out for and against stuff all the time, doesn’t mean this will pass. The ERA didn’t pass.
    If you have no problem with the law being violated by elected officials, you shouldn’t have a problem with laws being violated by the rest of us.
    It’ll come, not as fast as some want, but it will come. The backlash is going to be fierce, but they couldn’t bide their time.

  • http://mithras.blogs.com Mithras

    You say you want less involvement and interference from government and yet you bring government into the bedroom. You talk about bringing the people together and yet you will set upon a long war to drive us apart. You deny that you are ruled by religion but you would have your religion rule us.
    Holy shit, who are you, and what have you done with Jarvis?

  • ic

    “If I ever harbored a thought of voting for George Bush (which I am not sure I honestly ever did)”
    So Bush has lost the vote of someone who has never intended to vote for him, big deal.

  • Tonto

    Anyone so shallow and self-indulgent as to condition his vote on gay marriage … at this point in our nation’s history … is not a good candidate for marriage of any sort. Anyone who draws a moral equivalence between the unavailability of gay marriage, on the one hand, and slavery/Jim Crow, on the other, is morally obtuse. At best

  • Tim

    Wow, the gay marriage issue has really turned over a rock in America’s garden, hasn’t it? Being bathed with waves of smiling hate is illuminating. All of this is nothing but good for the country; at least we will all know where everyone stands.

  • Tonto

    Damn straight, Tim. Reap the whirlwind and all that. Watch the crop circles for signs of mysterious political realignments. Guess which demographics are most opposed to gay marriage? (Hint: they don’t usually vote Republican.)

  • Person of Choler

    Tim, would you feel hated if smiling people objected to your marrying five spouses, or wedding your dog?
    Standard leftist rhetoric “They won’t let do whatever we want and that proves they hate us!”

  • Jeremy

    While I support gay marriage, I will point out, gays have the same exact rights as everyone else.
    Yes, they can get married, just like everyone else, to a member of the opposite sex.
    Obviously, being gay, they don’t want to. But they have that right.
    Heck, they can even marry members of the same sex in non-government ceremonies. Do they really need a government telling them they are married?
    It’s not like say, polygamy, where the government arrests people who do it, even not officially.
    Again, I am constantly amazed how people bash Bush for being a Republican, and following standard Republican policy on this (and things like abortion). It also amazes me that we had a Democrat for President for 8 years, and in that time, the left apparently didn’t care about gay marriage. But suddenly, a Republican is president, and the US is in a war for survival, and suddenly, the most important issue is gay marriage.
    I honestly think we deserves to lose, sometimes.

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    Mithras, McClelland, other Jarvis-mockers, et al — Jeff has always been a-okay with gay marriage, which you would have noticed had your obsession with stuffing him into the “conservative” box due to his pro-war (this war, anyway) position. Jeff has always been a liberal, he just wasn’t a kneejerk toe-the-party-line liberal like you all.

  • http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/ Yehudit

    “destroying the definition that is 2000 years old.”
    1) marriage is way over 2000 years old.
    2) marriage in many cultures throughout the past several millenia and today: allows more than one wife or husband, stipulates a bride-price or dowry, is based on business relationships between families, is arranged by the parents, the spousal units don’t meet until the wedding, and the bride has to immolate herself on the husband’s funeral pyre in the event of his death. Is that the definition you have in mind? No? So can we agree there is not one definition of marriage?

  • Mumblix Grumph

    “…yet you bring government into the bedroom.”
    No-o-o-o-o-o, he’s bringing government into the courthouse, you know, the place where the folks are getting “married”.
    “You talk about bringing the people together and yet you will set upon a long war to drive us apart.”
    (SIGH) No-o-o-o-o-o, the ones driving us apart are the ones flouting the existing laws…you know, the ones who are performing the gay “marriages”.
    Sorry, chief, but not everyone is for gay marriage. Do what ever the hell you want in your bedrooms, draw up any civil contracts you wish between yourselves, but please…leave actual marriage alone.
    Does it really mean that much to you to be able to walk up to your crazy redneck uncle Lou and yell “HAH!!” as you wave a “wedding” ring under his nose?
    By the way, homosexuals are not nearly as fascinating to the average guy as they think they are. We just don’t like to see traditions trashed.

  • Eric

    The point is that this is the United States of America; this is the place where you are supposed to be free to do anything you want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else…this amendment isn’t what America is supposed to be about.

  • http://jeffbrokaw.net/weblog/ Jeff Brokaw

    Go ahead and fret about a non-issue like gay marriage, while nuclear arms are proliferating among terrorists. Al Qaeda and Kim Jong Il and the nutballs running Iran all hope we all pick idiotic issues like this on which to base our vote, so they can resume their quest for enough nukes to do whatever they want.
    This election is about one thing: do you ratify the War on Terror as conducted so far, and want it to continue, or not? This is our big chance to really make a difference in the world by continuing to put pressure on evil; yet we worry about whether homosexuals are allowed to get married. This is the height of silliness. This is the mark of an unserious nation. One hopes we wake up before nukes start going off in our big cities. Bets?
    And Bush is not pandering to the “religious right” here; every poll I’ve heard about shows that a majority is against gay marriage.

  • Mumblix Grumph

    Eric:
    Nice try, but there are many things illegal in America that don’t “harm” anyone else.
    I can’t drive through a red light at three in the morning even if it’s a deserted street.
    I can’t climb in your window and watch your TV while you’re out of the house without permission.
    I can’t put a marble monument of the Ten Commandments outside a courthouse.
    This IS America, and as such, if the people want to change a law, they VOTE on it…the people have not voted on this gay marriage business. Some twit took it upon himself to just say “Aw heck kids, let’s do this wacky thing!”.

  • billg

    Angell, you have no right to use government to compel people to behave according to your personal religious beliefs. You also have no right to prevent government from protecting the rights of people when you don’t like what happens when people exercise those rights.
    That, in part, is why the Constitution ordains separation of church and state. It protects your right to worship as you choose, but it outlaws efforts to use government to coerce behavior based on religious beliefs.
    It’s widely believed in some circles that the U.S. was founded on Biblical principles. That’s wrong, of course. Any attempts to refashion this country to fit someone’s fantasies about history and religion needs to be opposed by all possible means.

  • Pele

    I wouldn’t marry Bush.

  • http://jatblog.blogspot.com JAT

    My concern is a state-supported marriage between two people of the same gender is one step away from state-support for these two people to adopt children. While the children of same-gender couples are common sitcom TV fodder, I think the development of these children will be found lacking.
    To address some of the claims made in earlier comments, I do not think that “conventional” married couples fear that state-supported same-gender marriage will somehow harm their family specifically, rather they fear the future of “families” consisting of two mothers or two fathers, physically incapable of propagating, but legally allowed (one might say encouraged?) to adopt.
    Further, the use of the word marriage to describe the legal position the states may or may not take is a concern because it is derived from the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, one of a few Holy Sacraments, such as Baptism and The Eucharist. The state’s definition of marriage, and the legal status it includes, is a direct consequence of the religious Sacrament. State-supported same-gender “marriage” implies that the state somehow superseeds the original, religious definition. The state can certainly give same-gender couples a new legal status, but they cannot change the religious definition nor perception of the Holy Sacrament. (Note that this argument only applies to the use of the word marriage, and not the concept in general.)

  • Hipocrite

    What was it I said about the liberals for Bush squad?
    Oh, right. “Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.”
    The fleas are certainly out in this thread. This is the heart and soul of the Rethuglican party.

  • anne.elk

    Jeff,
    Glad to see you’re shaking off your two year hysteria. 9/11 was terrible, tragic, never to be forgotten, but it has been used and abused by Bush many times to abuse and rob the American People. I am hopeful for you that this shows intellectual and emotional growth.
    Take it slow, take it easy, step outside and take a deep breath, and redo your blogroll.
    You may wish to consider thanking your honest critics in your comments for our constant support of you in your darkest hours and may even wish to tell your past posse it’s time for them to move along. “Eric, Dennis, Andrea, Get off my blog! You’re a dead duck. You’re powerless. We know about you. And we don’t want to play. Maybe — Maybe there are others like you around. Maybe you’ve caused a lot of suffering, a lot of history, but that’s all over. We’ll be on guard now, ready for you. So ship out! Come on! Haul it! Yeah, out already.”

  • Sandy P.

    –you have no right to use government to compel people to behave according to your personal religious beliefs.–
    Should we flip that around and take out religious?
    anne – 9/11 was not tragic – it was an atrocity.

  • Mumblix Grumph

    “The fleas are certainly out in this thread. This is the heart and soul of the Rethuglican party.”
    Yes, yes…we’re evil because we have a different opinion than you.
    Thanks for being so open minded.

  • http://youngcurmudgeon.typepad.com Eric Deamer

    Jeff:
    You’ve got McClelland and “anne.elk” and “Hipocrite” and “Mithras” and all the people who insulted and belittled you in the very recent past all on your side. Don’t you feel special now?
    btw, I totally agreed with your post and I write pro gay marriage stuff all day long. I just think it’s ironic. The minute you (or me) or anyone who was open-minded towards Bush says anything that’s anti-Bush all these twits come out with their stupid, over-the-top rhetoric and brain-dead partisan politics and are all like “Welcome. Join us” and it just makes you (me at least) want to defend him in spite of it all. They (and Michael Moore, Al Franken, etc.) must truly be covert Republican party operatives.

  • Mike

    Hi Eric -
    Please remember that not all of us blasted you (and others) with over-the-top rhetoric for supporting Bush’s war policies. We just disagreed with you (and rightly so).

  • http://mithras.blogs.com Mithras

    Bin Laden can kill Americans, but he can’t overthrow our constitutional democracy. Only Americans can do that. Perhaps Jarvis has just realized this.

  • Ebb Tide

    In my own, totally unscientific!, poll which I conducted amongst people I know, and work with, and correspond with, I have found that people under 30 years of age think marriage should be for everyone, of whichever sexual persusion they happen to be, and that people over 30 say things like they are for “civil unions” but are against “gay marriage.”
    In other words, the generation younger than mine does not need anything put in the Constitution-thank you very much- and there are more important things going on, so… the people who WANT an amendment had better hurry up and do it, since if you take enough time to consider it, write it, draft it, send it to the states for ratification, get people to vote on it, it will be a moot point, no one will want it.
    This seems to me to be an amendment that if given enough time, will repeal itself. Those are the best ones (moot amendments), saves lots of time and effort and cost in having to update all those school books. Those Prohibition people taught us this lesson once.

  • billg

    –you have no right to use government to compel people to behave according to your personal religious beliefs.–
    Should we flip that around and take out religious?

    No, Sandy, we shouldn’t. Government nforcement of religious beliefs, even if held by the majority, has no place in this democracy. Church and state are separate. When politicians deliberately leverage irrational fears and bigotry by appealing to religious values, they violate our trust and their obligation to uphold the Constitution.

  • http://www.b-born.com/wp Bruno Bornsztein

    The Constitution is not a dictionary. I don

  • Anonymous

    anne.elk’s comment reeks of an egotistical thought-policeman, perhaps more than any other comment I’ve seen on a blog (and that’s saying something).
    Jeff, I could say something like “see what crazy freaks THOSE people are, you should be afraid of THEM;” however, I think it’s a bit better for you to be open minded and make your own decisions on each issue, rather than to join up with goosesteppers on either side.
    Oh, and I’ll remain anonymous while casting this stone, given anne’s past support of blog anonymity.

  • Anonymous

    and one more thing,
    Bruno, the Constitution can’t tell you it’s wrong, but I really hope you’re not selling webcam footage of Skippy and Spanky.

  • Declan

    Now removing buzz machine from Bookmarks – auf wiedersehen!

  • http://youngcurmudgeon.typepad.com Eric Deamer

    Mithras:
    Thank you for illustrating my point.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Let’s get practical and talk about what gays say.
    More than one gay has said that the idea of fidelity is a non-starter. It won’t fit what Andrew Sullivan referred to as the complicated lives of gay men.
    So we have an institution supposedly marriage but with adultery built in. Can one party sue for divorce–or alimony or the house or child support–if the other party is unfaithful if infidelity is built in to the original agreement? Yes? No? On what grounds?
    So now comes a straight marriage with a divorce over infidelity and the straying party doesn’t like having to pay the alimony or whatever. Does he look to the gay marriage for a precedent? Can he claim discrimination on account of his sexual orientation?
    Will we have hetero marriages with infidelity built into the document or vows?
    This is only one worm of a large can.
    What gays claim they want is available without marriage. Get a will and a personal representative and you’ve solved most of what they claim is their right.
    BTW. The insistence that opposition is religious is BS. The proponents of gay marriage know better, but if they can convince others that resistance is based on religion, then they can claim First Amendment protection. If opposition is based on something else, they have to scramble for a logical reaction, and they don’t have one.

  • Lee

    Well Jeff, who are you going to vote for Nader? He is the only guy out there that actually supports gay marriage. Besides an amendment requires the support of the American people and what is wrong with democratic participation? If this is just a simple matter of Republican Right Wingers vs everyone else then why wasn’t gay marriage made legal years ago? Obviously this is a complicated issue and it will require civil debate, not self rightreous posturing. And when I say self righteous I am not talking about Bush.

  • anne.elk

    “Will we have hetero marriages with infidelity built into the document or vows?”
    No fault divorce was widely seen to be an advancement over the days of the snooping PIs and the cameras. What state (of confusion) do you live in that still cares about infidelity?
    Many people (Atrios? Yglesias?) have compiled quite long lists of the rights that come with marriage that are difficult if not impossible to easily obtain through a lawyer, assuming you can afford a lawyer.

  • Anonymous

    Kerry, Edwards and Bush have the same opinion on “gay marriage,” So why are you behaving as though Bush’s support of Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act implies he is imposing some sort of religious zeal? Where do you get that?
    Honestly, for 8 years I watched Clinton go to church on Sunday with a bible in his hand, and no one ever considered him a religious nut.
    I have seen no such pictures of Bush smiling at the camseras, bible in hand, rushing up the steps to his church, but because he proclaims his faith and he is a Republican, he is a right wing religious fanatic setting out plans for another inquisition of sorts?
    What the hell am I missing here?
    Another thing Jeff, you were NEVER going to vote for Bush anyway because you belong to the same class of pseudo-intellectual self-congratulating East Coast liberals who would never like Bush anyway. Your pretense of suprise and moral indignation at Bush’s statement yesterday seems a little less than genuine.
    Go, vote for Kerry, and then I never want to hear you rant and rave about you being there on 9/11 smelling the jet fuel, watching people die and having a building fall on top of you. Just cut that crap out because it doesn’t fly in the face of your statements here. You obviously can not see the forest through the trees with what your ideology blinding you. Ditto for Andrew Sullivan.
    While all of you blather on, you forget, always forget, that it’s the Congress and Senate that make laws and amend the constitution, then the states. Not Presidents. Write to your congressman if you don’t wish this bill to be introduced. You don’t sacrifice public safety and hand over our national security to the UN and France (as Kerry wishes to do)because of opposition to gay marriage.
    I swear, it’s 2000 all over again. Let’s all vote on morality, because that’s what this who page is about.

  • Catherine

    The above post is mine.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Anne, you make my point. Not the one I posted, but another one.
    Those who promote gay marriage aren’t interested in marriage as marriage but in something else.
    Who cares about infidelity?
    Thanks for letting us know where you come from and what the motivation of this whole thing is.

  • anne.elk

    No Richard, you purposefully twisted my words.
    For better or for worse, heteros (you (presumably) and I) have already created a world in which no fault divorce is the norm. I asked an honest question, do you know of a state where no fault divorce is not the norm, where infidelity matters? I am not an expert on divorce, but I know of no such state.
    Thus, our heterosexual predisposed government has already taken the position that infidelity does not matter. That position had nothing to do with gays.
    Twist twist twist — par for the course from the nut parade.

  • angell

    billg, you have no right to use government to compel people to behave according to your personal beliefs. You also have no right to prevent government from protecting the rights of people when you don’t like what happens when people exercise those rightsand speak out against your redefining marriage. To redefine marriage is to make it meaningless.
    That, in part, is why the Constitution ordains separation of church and state. It protects your right to worship as you choose, but it outlaws efforts to use government to coerce behavior based on religious beliefs. And it should prevent government from destroying religious sacraments and making a sham of them. Give gays government unions, but leave religion alone.
    It’s widely believed in some circles that the U.S. was founded on Biblical principles. That’s right, of course. Any attempts to refashion this country to fit someone’s fantasies about gay marriage needs to be opposed by all possible means to prevent homosexuals’ destroying an ages old tradition and beliefs. Homosexuals can not dictate what I will believe.

  • http://mithras.blogs.com Mithras

    Eric Deamer-
    Thank you for illustrating my point.
    I really don’t think you have a point.

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    >You’ve got McClelland and “anne.elk” and “Hipocrite” and “Mithras” and all the people who insulted and belittled you in the very recent past all on your side.
    Wrong. I’m still basically making fun of him and will continue to point and laugh at him when he gets suckered into believing outrageously transparent propaganda.

  • Eric

    Thing is I support Bush, and will vote for Bush in November, my only beef is this Gay Marriage issue. Who cares if they want to get married? Who cares if they want that piece of paper? I frankly don’t, it’s a no issue with me, we have more important matters to pay attention to like the Iran’s Mullahs, That little whacko in N.Korea, what’s left of Al Q & the economy. The Government shouldn’t be telling anyone who can & who can’t get married (unless of course a child is involved), that’s not the Governments job, last I checked Republican’s are supposed to about conserving the constitution not meddling with it, so why not ignore this crap and concentrate on the bigger issue eliminating the terrorist & the rest of their ilk eh?
    So, I say let them marry…let them go through all the things straights go through…including the blood & cash draining divorces that happen nowadays…let’s see how long this enchantment with Marriage will last.

  • billg

    Angell, the U.S. was not, repeat not, founded on Biblical principles. That’s just so much wishful thinking.
    No one is challenging what you believe. No one is suggesting that the government should destroy religious sacraments. If two gays want to be married in a church and that church refuses, that’s the right of the church. If two gays want to be married in a civil ceremony, absent of any religious overtones, no church has a right to prevent that. That’s what separation of chutch and state means. If you believe that all weddings — church or civil — contain religious overtones, fine, that’s you own opinion, but a lot of people don’t. If you believe that all weddings ought to be religious ceremonies, fine, but a lot of people disagree. I’m sure God will still shine on whatever marriages she wants to shine on, regardless of who presided at the ceremony.
    This country still harbors people who believe that their religion teaches them that white people are superior, that women should subjugate themselves to men, etc. Most other people call those beliefs racism and sexism. Justifying Bush’s amendment on religious grounds is bigotry spun from the same cloth.

  • http://youngcurmudgeon.typepad.com Eric Deamer

    Robert McClelland:
    So you’ll continue to insult and belittle and behave like a cretin, well no surprise.
    Mithras:
    My point is that your statement though perhaps emotionally satisfying was extreme rhetoric that presupposes an either/or dichotomy that need not exist, and that “perhaps Jarvis has just realized this” is condescending and snide. Just because one doesn’t want the constitution amended to exclue a small group of citizens of a basic right, doesn’t mean that one also will accept such a sophmoric minimization of the threat that Islamofasicm in general (not your simplistic and reductive personalization of it as Bin Laden, as if this is all about one man) poses to the democracy you claim to be concerned about. Just imagine what would have happend if Flight 93 had succeeding in destroying the White House or the capitol, significant numbers of the cabinet or of the congress dead, total pandemonium and panic, a possible widespread acceptance of or even demand for harsh anti-civil-liberties measures that would make the Patriot Act look like a picnic, our most basic national symbol destroyed emboldening Jihadis the world over. Imagine what would happen with a suitcase nuke or a chemical attack taking out the president and the first 10 pillars of the line of succession, or if the Jihadis accomplish their goal of killing millions at once. You don’t think that this would pose a threat to our constitutional democracy that’s at least equal if not greater to that posed by proposing stupid Amendments? Your rhetoric is myopic and smug and I would hope Jeff Jarvis is intelligent enough not to be bullied into accepting it by people like you just because he happens to agree with you on this one issue (just as I do).

  • angell

    Homosexual activists have made it clear that they want to redefine marriage.
    One of the proposed changes is to split the religious and civil components of marriage apart, leaving the churches to marry couples and having the government register any voluntary relationship, heterosexual or homosexual, for the purposes of benefits and legal obligations. On the surface such a change may seem to accommodate the need for autonomy on the part of the churches. However, the change may be untenable for orthodox institutions such as the Catholic Church. There is a possibility with such changes that churches will eventually be forced to marry homosexuals or face severe penalties under anti-discrimination laws. If the gay activists succeed, church law will be worth nothing and churches will need to kow tow to the gay agenda. Is that fair? Are they changing my beliefs to suit theirs? I believe homosexuality is a sin–so sue me.

  • http://mithras.blogs.com Mithras

    Jesus, Eric, them’s a lot of big words. Let’s break it down, shall we?
    “perhaps Jarvis has just realized this” is condescending and snide
    Yes, it was. Funny, too, in a dry way.
    not your simplistic and reductive personalization of it as Bin Laden, as if this is all about one man
    It’s shorthand, not reductionism.
    Just imagine what would have happend if … [parade of horribles]
    I have. I still imagine it, because it still might happen. And what I think would happen is basically what has already happened – turmoil, fear, panic, hatred, coping, reflection, reprioritization, acceptance.
    You don’t think that this would pose a threat to our constitutional democracy that’s at least equal if not greater to that posed by proposing stupid Amendments?
    Nope. Terrorists can nuke New York, but they can’t destroy the idea of it. They can kill members of Congress, but they can’t kill the republic.
    Stupid amendments can. The politics of hate can.
    Your rhetoric is myopic and smug …
    No, my rhetoric is about preserving liberty. And your rhetoric is fearful and simplistic. Terrorists threaten our safety, not our liberty. George W. Bush threatens our liberty.
    What are you going to do about it?

  • angell

    No, Democrats threaten our Liberty. John Kerry does. His wife is down right scary.
    She says:”And modern heroes, dare I mention?” she said. “Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel and Nelson Mandela and John Brown, Che Guevara, who reminds us, ‘At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.’ Our quests like theirs are to shake the very foundations of the continents.” Yes, I get you, Mrs. Kerry–you need a patsy in the Whitehouse to get about your business. Sick!

  • Bryan C

    Jeff, get a grip. We’re in the middle of a war that none of the other candidates have a clue how to win, or even how to fight. As Catherine pointed out above, Bush’s stance is no different than Kerry or Edwards.
    I support gay marriage in principle, but I have to admit that the majority of people in this country do not agree. And they may have a point. There are many, many unintended consequences that need to be identified, aired, and debated. We can do this the wrong way, by fragile and contentious judicial fiat ala Roe vs Wade, or the right way, by calling it something else and letting the citizens of each state hash it out as they’ve always done. The President’s position is not hypocritical or contradictory — he just wants it done the right way.
    And what’s this about never seriously thinking about voting for Bush? I hope just you’re just speaking from anger. If you can say all the things you’ve said so eloquently, and then admit that none of it really matters to you in the voting booth, then I’m extremely disappointed.

  • http://mithras.blogs.com Mithras

    Angell-
    I notice that you don’t include a cite for the quote. Is that because you’re quoting Lynne Stewart, not Teresa Heinz Kerry?

  • bobbygale

    Oh come on people if GWB was not in the White House would gays have the legal right to marry? Did he create this issue? If not supporting gay marriage makes the man a fanatic or a bigot then he has a lot of company. sheesh.
    This is just silly.

  • Andrew X

    Astonishingly, there are 68 posts above, and i don’t see one that actually talks about the amendment specifically as it has been proposed.
    What is on the table NOW basically says (paraphrasing)… “No law shall compel any state do define marriage as anything but a man and a woman… etc.”
    That’s where we start. Does anything there tell you that Massachusetts is not allowed to allow gay marriage? No, it simply says that a same-sex couple who get married there cannot go to Kansas and sue to compel the state of Kansas to do something it’s legislature and people are not ready to do.
    That’s all. And Mr. Bush has, in his speech, allowed for state by state differences, and called for decorum in addressing this question. All the amendment does is disable the Full Faith and Credit clause. That’s it.

  • http://mithras.blogs.com Mithras

    Jesus, Andrew X, this again? DOMA already does what you say the amendment does. If FMA is same as DOMA, then why have an amendment?
    The article Jarvis links to says, “[Bush said] he supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, declaring that such a measure was the only way to protect the status of marriage between man and woman. … Mr. Bush did not suggest specific wording for an amendment…..”
    So Bush did not specify which version of the amendment he is backing, but his meaning is clear. What part “banning gay marriage” DON’T you understand?

  • Andrew X

    The part that keeps a judge from overturning DOMA at whim, which is not unlikely.
    That part.
    If it is one and the same, why be so afraid of it? The wording is clear.
    I think this is more about judges than about gays. If Bush plays it that way, he may come out ahead, and rightly so.

  • Andrew X

    BTW, the wording is Congresswoman (Muskgove.. somethinglike that) from Colorado. It is the amendment currently on the table, the starting point if you will.

  • Andrew X

    Marylin Musgrave (R – Colorado)
    Musgrave’s proposal, called the Federal Marriage Amendment, states: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

  • Andrew X

    Which part of the above “bans gay marriage in a state whose legislature says it is OK? Anyone?

  • http://mithras.blogs.com Mithras

    Okay, I’m having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Bring back (the old) Jarvis. At least it was a challenge.
    Andrew X – “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” That bans same-sex marriage, okay? And the second sentence bans civil unions. End of story.
    If it is one and the same, why be so afraid of it?
    It’s not one and the same. FMA goes much further than DOMA. Even if it were the same, DOMA has already been challeneged in court and survived. What’s the need to constitutionalize it? Only to prevent a future congress from repealing it.

  • http://blogumentary.typepad.com Chuck Olsen

    I would just like to thank “angell” from the bottom of my heart. I wish I could hand you some sort of Blog Oscar for “No gay Bible for me, thank you.” Wonderful!

  • anne.elk

    Andrew X, so the Colorado legislature passes a law saying that gays can have civil unions and that those civil unions are to be treated in Colorado with (many of) the benefits of marriage: insurance, can see the spouse or children in the hospital, etc.
    But then those right wing fundamentalists in Florida sue the State of Colorado in Federal Court:
    “… [No] constitution of any State, nor state … law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
    And the Antony and Clarence Show overturn the Colorado Law.

  • Andrew X

    Mithras, your cute ‘battle of wits’ comment is the kind of thing that precludes any understanding across the ‘cultural divide’. Real nice.
    I should have been clearer that I consider “Marriage” vs. “Civil union” to be a semantic where compromise can be found. The right can hold “marriage” as sacred, as they need to, while the left can derive the same or similar benefits under a different name.
    If the first sentence defines the semantic of that word, the second most certainly does NOT ban ‘civil unions’, quite the opposite. One more time for that brilliant wit of yours (you started that)… “Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
    This clearly does not “ban” ANY individual behavior… at all. What it bans is “the REQUIREMENT to confer”… i.e. it bans a requirement that the State MUST do X Y Z. In other words, the people being banned here are not individuals, but rather authorities of the government, court or otherwise, banned from forcing a state liscensing authority to do something it’s own laws have not allowed for, or are in agreement with.
    But if a state merely calls it “Union status” or whatever, the issue of “marriage” does not arise, because it is not defined or mentioned here at all, and states can do whatever they wish in that context. “Marriage” is thus protected, mollifying the right, and what Massachusetts does and what Kansas does regarding other arrangements will be very different. Thus, full faith and credit can be offered for marriage, but not for something specific to Massachusetts law, and Kansas can not be REQUIRED to accept “Union Status” or whatever. That is what it clearly says.
    Now this sets aside whether Kansas “ought” to extend full faith and credit across the board. I will not address that here. I merely say that to decide what it right because… “Well, I’m right” and then have courts enforce that across the land against the will of voters and legislators would be a bad bad bad mistake.
    Anne’s “Anthony and Clarence show” cannot overturn civil unions based on the FMA, because there is no mention of it in the FMA. Just marriage, which the amendment itself has defined. Tout fini.
    But boy, if Colorado DID OK such unions, and then those judges just said, “Too bad, we don’t like it, overturned, la de da…” based on just there own interpetation of FMA and nothing else, basically spitting in the eye of the Colorado legislature…. BOY, would that tick a lot of people off.
    People get REALLY ticked when courts act that way.
    Get it?

  • Richard Aubrey

    Okay, Anne, let’s try again.
    No fault divorce exists. The issue is not divorce, but splitting up the goodies, or the kids, or custody. We already know that, whatever the fault is, mothers almost always get the kids.
    Still, if she is shown to have been screwing around, she may not. Unfit mother. But what if the marriage has infidelity built in? Can that count?
    And what if she, in a straight marriage, points to a gay marriage where it really doesn’t count?
    Presuming it doesn’t, of course, which is not certain.
    As I say, those who promote gay marriage are frequently disparaging straight marriage, which is indicative, even if they themselves are straight.

  • anne.elk

    Andrew X: “legal incidents thereof” — look it up.
    Aubrey: uh, I have no idea what you are trying to say, but in particular, “simple” screwing around on the mom’s part will have no effect on whether she gets the kids or not or how much the husband will have to pay in support. Try facts next time.

  • http://mithras.blogs.com Mithras

    Andrew X -
    I’m sorry, you simply have no idea what you’re talking about.

  • Pele

    Would it be better for the adopted children of same sex couples if marriage were allowed??
    This should be fun!!!

  • Andrew X

    Anne, I know what “legal incidents thereof” means, but you’re missing the point. The operative words here are “Neither/nor this law… shall be construed to REQUIRE…”.
    Let’s try a different tack….
    “Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be enacted that confers marital status or the legal incidents thereof unmarried couples or groups.”
    THAT…. bans gay marriage. It bans it. Flat out. But those are my words, written to make the point.
    THIS is what is on the table…
    “Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
    Thus, Massachusetts is perfectly allowed to do whatever “legal incidents thereof” they want, and administer them how they wish, as long as it is done by Massachusetts law. All it says is that no law may be passed that REQUIRES other states to confirm the same status, based on full faith and credit.
    And let us remember that this is the starting point. As any law is negotiated, and anti-gay-marriage partisans are starting the ball rolling, we can assume that, like in any negotiation, they are asking for about the max they think they can possilby get from the start, assuming it will be watered down.
    I said elsewhere that I think the first 72 hours after this announcement is not a rational time for discussion, because people just are gonna be too blistering hot over it on all side. The constitution is VERY difficult to amend, thank God and the founders. Everybody chill.
    Mithras… yes I do.

  • angell

    Well, it will be more interesting when courts start sanctioning groupies as parents. Talk about screwing with kids just so homosxuals can play house. In Minnesota, a court already assigned parental-rights status to three adults . The judge said it would be in the best interest of the child if custody was shared between two lesbian lovers and the sperm donor. Coming next to a courthouse near you
    will be demands for polygamy, polyamory, transsexual marriages, and open marriage. We want them to have the right to pretend to be normal parents and they deserve the same rights as all Americans. Right? Why not?

  • anne.elk

    Andrew X, this will be my last post on this, but while it does use the word “require”, it never uses the word “other”. There is no “other states”, there is “any state”.
    So Florida wingnuts sue Colorado in Federal Court because Colorado is one of ANY STATES that pass a civil union giving their citizens the legal incidents of marriage.
    Google it — there have been several proposed amendments that DO ALLOW for a state to pass civil unions while granting OTHER states the right to not acknowledge those unions. This amendment specifically (intentionally?) does not do this.

  • Andrew X

    Anne. Fine. I’ll leave it at that.
    Suffice to say, all morality aside, if it does NOT allow some leeway for civil unions, and a single word could do that, it ain’t gonna pass.