Bush backs constitutional ammendment to ban Gay marriage

[Sazar]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html

now... while I don't think anyone had a doubt as to what he felt about the matter.. a constitutional ammendment?

and the worst thing is he makes absolutely NO mention of the financial rights of gay couples and/or an alternative to marriage for them either... gay's are people too and IF you take marriage away... what is the alternative and what about the financial implications?

[1stFlight]

Originally posted by Sazar
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html

now... while I don't think anyone had a doubt as to what he felt about the matter.. a constitutional ammendment?

and the worst thing is he makes absolutely NO mention of the financial rights of gay couples and/or an alternative to marriage for them either... gay's are people too and IF you take marriage away... what is the alternative and what about the financial implications?

I'm of the mind that Bush just created a losing battle for himself, it's one thing to be anti-gay marriage but this action is going to be billed as attempting to legistalte discrimination. There is no postive way to spin that.

[sytaylor]

No matter how you dress it up, it stinks of in-tolerance, and I can't see how that would win middle america.

[Voudoun]

I'm not familiar with most of the US constitutional ammendments, but isn't it a bit heavy handed to use a constitutional ammendment for something like this?

I hope this doesn't go anywhere.

Voudoun

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by sytaylor
No matter how you dress it up, it stinks of in-tolerance, and I can't see how that would win middle america.

amen to that. i doubt this will go anywhere though.

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by Voudoun
I'm not familiar with most of the US constitutional ammendments, but isn't it a bit heavy handed to use a constitutional ammendment for something like this?

I hope this doesn't go anywhere.

Voudoun

Well no not really, because the constitution as it stands pretty much gurantee's equality for all. You'd have to ammend that in order to get this through, because ever day laws cannot break the constitution.

[druga runda]

Well I think Bus did us all a favour and this will hopefully cement his exit come November.

btw... what were his advisers thinking??? now that's phreaking weird... I guess he surrounded himelf with fundamentalists who cannot see further than their own nose

[Voudoun]

Originally posted by sytaylor
Well no not really, because the constitution as it stands pretty much gurantee's equality for all. You'd have to ammend that in order to get this through, because ever day laws cannot break the constitution.

Of course, it's the only way he could do it.

It does kind of seem that they're making their own hole bigger, but one thing I can't get a handle on in England, is what broad public opinion is on this in the US.

Voudoun

[Riptide]

My understanding is that the majority of US citizens are against recognizing gay marriages. That said, I'm not sure whether I believe an amendment is necessary or not. Why not let the states decide this on an individual basis? Anyone care to comment on that aspect of it?

Second question. Assuming you were to go with the states deciding individually, what would happen if a gay "married" couple were to move from Kalifornia to a state that wouldn't recognize their marriage license like MT?

[Voudoun]

Originally posted by Riptide
My understanding is that the majority of US citizens are against recognizing gay marriages. That said, I'm not sure whether I believe an amendment is necessary or not. Why not let the states decide this on an individual basis? Anyone care to comment on that aspect of it?

Thanks.

If it's left at state level though would a state that doesn't allow gay marriage recognise marriages enacted in another state? If not that would surely be an inconsistency with hetero marriage. Would gay spouses lose their marriage rights in some states? If anything happened to one of them in such a state what would happen then? That would be difficult to navigate wouldn't it?

Voudoun

[vampireuk]

I think letting states vote on it would be a better idea rather than just changing the constitution to make them illegal.

[Sazar]

its always been very quaint to see people argue about marriage and the sanctity of the institution and the like but the fact is neither the dems nor the reps have done anything about granting the civil unions (the only viable alternative @ the moment) the kind of attention it deserves...

consequently saying on the one hand you are going to seek a constitutional ammendment and on the other doing absolutely nothing to bring some form of parity to the financial discrepencies between a marriage and a civil union you are effectively handcuffing these people...

I feel that perhaps there should be a nationwide referendum on something like this... non-binding to get a feel for general public opinion rather than a segment here and there.. as a demoratic nation I fail to see how this could be a bad thing...

recall that it was a mere 50 odd years ago that there was the same sort of argument v/s inter-racial marriages...

[Riptide]

Originally posted by Voudoun
TWould gay spouses lose their marriage rights in some states? If anything happened to one of them in such a state what would happen then? That would be difficult to navigate wouldn't it?

Hence my second question. :) ;)

I have no idea. Someone who knows more about law could be valuable in this discussion perhaps. :D

[Voudoun]

Originally posted by Riptide
Hence my second question. :) ;)

I have no idea. Someone who knows more about law could be valuable in this discussion perhaps. :D

I think we were writing at the same time.

If it was down to individual states, could there be a federal provision to force non-marrying states to recognise gay marriages to get around the problem of a gay spouse dying in a non-recognising state? It seems that this issue of recognition could be a real legal nightmare. If so, would it be any better than the current situation?

For myself, I think marriage is something for the people concerned and that really the state (by this I mean country), has no business getting involved.

Voudoun

[Sazar]

marriage in any one state is recognised in all teh states as it stands now...

[UDawg]

The thing you guys are over looking is the judges legislating from the bench. They are over reaching their duties and telling the people what laws they should have. That is not the place of the judicial system.

It blows my mind that the Mass state supreme court told the legislature to create a law. WTF is that. The judicial system has no power to do that. The legislature should say "screw you and know your place" Then pass an amendment.

The people of California passed a law banning gay marriage. The mayor said screw you and ignored what the people want. When the courts tells the legislature what to do they are telling the people you have no voice, we know better. These judges are un-elected and out of control.

I did not favor a constitutional amendment to define marriage but the tyranny of these rogue judges has forced this. When the rule of law is ignored then we have no democracy. Judge Roy Moore did the exact same thing and everyone was up in a tizzy but when it is a liberal judge and mayor it is now ok. Breaking the law is wrong no matter who you are.

This is not about gay rights. This is about the rule of law and the definition of marriage. I no more have the right to marry a gay man than a gay man has the right to marry another gay man but we both have the right to marry a woman. There is no inequality here.

[aapo]

Originally posted by UDawg
This is not about gay rights. This is about the rule of law and the definition of marriage. I no more have the right to marry a gay man than a gay man has the right to marry another gay man but we both have the right to marry a woman. There is no inequality here.

Would you say there would be no inequality, if we both had the right to freely kick your nuts at will, but none of us would have a right to kick my nuts? It would be the same for both of us. :angel: :nutkick:

[Riptide]

Originally posted by UDawg
The thing you guys are over looking is the judges legislating from the bench. They are over reaching their duties and telling the people what laws they should have. That is not the place of the judicial system.
<snip>
I did not favor a constitutional amendment to define marriage but the tyranny of these rogue judges has forced this. When the rule of law is ignored then we have no democracy. Judge Roy Moore did the exact same thing and everyone was up in a tizzy but when it is a liberal judge and mayor it is now ok. Breaking the law is wrong no matter who you are.
Well said. :) :D

:clap:

[saturnotaku]

I was always taught that the legislature makes the laws and the judiciary interprets the law. It seems to me like these judges failed 4th grade history.

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by UDawg
This is not about gay rights. This is about the rule of law and the definition of marriage. I no more have the right to marry a gay man than a gay man has the right to marry another gay man but we both have the right to marry a woman. There is no inequality here.

heres is the catch ... gays dont *want* to marry a member of the opposite sex. if you are gay, there is no point in marrying a woman.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
heres is the catch ... gays dont *want* to marry a member of the opposite sex. if you are gay, there is no point in marrying a woman.

You see this is not about preference. This is where you are confusing. The argument the homosexual lobby is that there is not equal rights. First of there isn't any right to marry. Second they then say it is not equal. Well it is because I cannot marry another man and a homosexual cannot marry another man but we both can marry another woman. There for it is equal.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by aapo
Would you say there would be no inequality, if we both had the right to freely kick your nuts at will, but none of us would have a right to kick my nuts? It would be the same for both of us. :angel: :nutkick:

LOL touchet :p

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by UDawg
You see this is not about preference. This is where you are confusing. The argument the homosexual lobby is that there is not equal rights. First of there isn't any right to marry. Second they then say it is not equal. Well it is because I cannot marry another man and a homosexual cannot marry another man but we both can marry another woman. There for it is equal.

But you can both marry a big in some states.. ;) Seriously though, the difference is you can marry the person you love, they can't. Can you imagine being denied that? You can question the word "love" all you like but the biology is the same either way.

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by UDawg
You see this is not about preference. This is where you are confusing. The argument the homosexual lobby is that there is not equal rights. First of there isn't any right to marry. Second they then say it is not equal. Well it is because I cannot marry another man and a homosexual cannot marry another man but we both can marry another woman. There for it is equal.

if theres no right to marry, there is no grounds to deny two persons to marry either. and yes, this is about preference. the argument "no man can marry another man (straight or gay) therefore its equal" is utterly absurd and completely without logic.

[UDawg]

love is a choice.