Bush Will Push For Gay Marriage Ban

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Cascarino's Pizzeria, Nov 7, 2004.

  1. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
  2. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Interesting that he's comfortable with civil unions for gays. So it's just 'marriage' that's the problem.

    Why not just have it be a civil union, PERIOD, and leave the 'marriage' part of it up to the church in question (or not, if you use a Justice of the Peace, or the captain of the Love Boat, for that matter). I mean, it's a relgious/moral arguement, so why not just get the government out of the equation, period?

    EDIT: Even for me, this is a rushed and poorly-written post. I hope it's clear that I have NO problem with gay marriage and very much want gay people to have the same legal protections for their unions as my wife and I have. So why not just pull the rug out from under the silly distinction between legal marriage and civil unions? This way, if conservative Baptists want to ban gay marriage, they can--no gay weddings in Baptist churches, no church blessings or recognitions of such unions. Likewise, liberal Methodists could allow such things.
    The government stay neutral, and each religion is free to work out their own arrangements based on their values and the views of their adherents.

    Then Congress could spend time worrying about one of the few THOUSAND other things they should be working on.
     
  3. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    B/c for many it's jot just about debasement of the idea of gay and lesbian social affirmation, it's about affirmation, institutionally of heterosexuality in a Judeo-Christian conext. Governments are the organs that decidedly affirm, or debase, societal folkways and mores.
     
  4. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Actually, Mel, I get that--check out my edited appendage to my post.

    Thanks for answering, though. ;)
     
  5. Noix de Coco

    Noix de Coco New Member

    Aug 2, 2004
    Northern VA
    Bush is just a religious nut who doesn't understand that our founding fathers did not want nor intend for Church and State to mix. To him, as President, the Bible outweighs the Constitution in importance in all aspects of his life, including his policy decisions. We need to stop this madness!!! A President is SUPPOSED to uphold the Constitution, and the ideals of the ones who wrote it. Get over it Bush, gay people exist in the US and in the world, and they, just like heterosexuals, are PEOPLE too, and are entitled to RIGHTS, including the right to get married. :mad:
     
  6. Section106

    Section106 Member

    May 1, 2003
    Hampton,VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Isn't this a "Separation of Church and State" issue? If civil unions are constitutional, or at least acceptible to the Bushcorp paradigm, then shouldn't gay marriage be also? It is the Church that sanctions and defines marriage and the State should stay out. If passed I fear that this ban could be a dangerous precedent that will erode the separation of Church and State.
     
  7. obie

    obie New Member

    Nov 18, 1998
    NY, NY
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The irony in FMA is that social conservatives have for years trumpeted the "states' rights" movement, saying that the Federal Government should just butt out of what are essentially state issues, yet are in favor of a federal amendment that would trump all of the state laws that were passed by their constituencies on Tuesday.
     
  8. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    I hope he had the decency to send Gavin Newsome a thank you note.
     
  9. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    No, you need to "get over it" and realize that the vast majority of Americans aren't going to except gay marriage for sereval decades at the earliest. I have no desire to hand the Republicans 3-5 points or more every election for something that most European countries don't even have. There are quite a few liberals against gay marriage (just look at any gay marriage thead on Bigsoccer). Keep it up and we could even lose a majority of the Hispanic vote!
     
  10. Noix de Coco

    Noix de Coco New Member

    Aug 2, 2004
    Northern VA
    We can't keep walking that middle ground, teetering between not wanting to piss the Conservative Democrats off, and doing what should be done. We will not win elections that way. It didn't work this time, and it won't work in the future. We have to find another way to revive the Democrats...

    BTW, I don't deny that there are liberals that are against gay marriage, just like I don't deny that there are conservatives for gay marriage.
     
  11. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    That would make sense if the country were evenly divided on this issue. Why you and others here can't appreciate the folly of supporting gay marriage is beyond me.
     
  12. Noix de Coco

    Noix de Coco New Member

    Aug 2, 2004
    Northern VA
    We just send a confusing message if we don't put our foot down and stand for something. We aren't going to appeal to people when they can't differentiate between us and them. Running on the same issues/grounds/positions as the Republicans is not going to buy Democrats votes.
     
  13. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    This is NOT the issue to take a stand on. There are plenty of other (far more important) issues worth fighting for like universal health care that I'm not willing to give up for gay marriage.
     
  14. Noix de Coco

    Noix de Coco New Member

    Aug 2, 2004
    Northern VA
    OF COURSE there are more important issues than this. This SHOULD NOT be an issue that governs the elections.

    However, it's an issue that's going to be brought up again and again by this administration. It's already in the news! And it is an issue we should take a stand on. The Democrats need to change or they're not going to win more elections.
     
  15. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Exactly, we need to stop scaring away Americans (who would otherwise vote for us) with a social agenda that only sells in a few places like SF. There's absolutely no good reason for Ohio to vote Republican.
     
  16. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    It's precisely what Clinton said to Kerry. Bill was looking for Kerry to apply some good ol' Clinton triangulation to the issue. And to Kerry's credit he essentially told Bill to stuff it. Maybe he wasn't smart, but he also took a stand on scapegoating an entire group of people. Rove had no trouble in making the most important vote in years about morals and gays ("they're not voting for us anyway"). It's why they're still in power and while they'll go down as an extra-strength version of the Nixon presidency.
     
  17. skipshady

    skipshady New Member

    Apr 26, 2001
    Orchard St, NYC
    Which reminds me - didn't Clinton partially blame pressure from gay rights groups for the inadequacy of the don't tell/don't ask policy?

    Personally, and perhaps a little unrealistically, I hope marriage becomes a possiblity for all gay couples. But it's just not happening any time soon. There won't be a gay equivalent of Brown v. Board of Education, and National Guards aren't going to be sent to the Little Rock Courthouse so that a gay marriage is performed.

    That's because gay marriage is not even the most important gay-specific issues. Protection from workplace discrimination and hate crimes, hospital visitation rights, and child adoption - all that stuff is way more important than marriage.
     
  18. 1953 4-2-4

    1953 4-2-4 Red Card

    Jan 11, 2004
    Cleveland
    What's wrong with you and your partner getting a "civil union?" All the advantages and protections of marriage, just not called "marriage."


    You gays have to learn how to play politics, and politically, you've won--you are being offered the advantages of marriage. In exchange, you have to call it something else.

    Why are you still b!tching?
     
  19. fishbiproduct

    fishbiproduct New Member

    Mar 29, 2002
    Pasadena Ca.
  20. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    You're falling into a Bushian trap. Taking a stand is only good if the stand itself is good. In a political context, the negative fallout from taking a consistent stand of pro-gay marriage far outweighs the benefits of "staying the course".

    Bush keeps saying we know what he stands for. Yes - however most people disagree with those stances. Just because you're obstinate, doesn't make you right.

    As to the substance of this, Kerry needed a better way to spin the gay marriage issue. There are many liberals who aren't in favor of it either (here's one right here) and Kerry's campaign needed to do a better job of distancing him from it.
    That Democrats will force everyone to gay marry is, of course, a Rovian election tactic. But it worked, and if the Democrats are going to win, they're going to have to fight fire with more than incoherent Kerry language.
     
  21. ThreeApples

    ThreeApples Member+

    Jul 28, 1999
    Smurf Village
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The reason for this is that they are afraid that the federal courts will rule that all of the states will have to recognize the Massachusetts gay marriages because of the Full Faith and Credit clause. Thus the actions of one state's court, making a ruling based on its own state constitution, would trump all of the state laws that were passed on Tuesday and previously.

    I honestly have no clue how likely such a Full Faith and Credit ruling is to happen, but if you accept it as a possibility, then the only way that states can ensure their right to continue to disallow and not recognize gay marriages is to pass a constitutional amendment. You might disagree with these states' desire on this issue, but it is motivated by states wanting to make sure that the federal courts butt out of what is essentially a state issue. I do recognize that the FMA's nationwide prohibition goes beyond this basic motivation.
     
  22. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    You're in Cleveland, and you don't you that Ohio just passed an amendment that banned civil unions?

    I believe this is the point where R. Lee Emery would inquire as to what your particular malfunction was, and make a passing observation about the lack of nerve endings in your testicular area.

    Ben, what would it have sounded like in 1964 if someone had said "I'm not willing to give up the Great Society for black people voting"? Or "I'm not willing to give up on union laws so a bunch of women can have abortions"? Read what these people are passing. They're banning common law marriages. They're undermining the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution, as well as proposing foolish amendments. Just because they've convinced the Moron Majority that they're willing to accept civil unions, and this is just an argument about terminology, that doesn't make it so.

    You don't always get to choose the issue. Yes, the correct answer is "Why the ******** are we talking about this? Aren't we supposed to be at war? Seriously, what the ********?" But it's out there, and the Democratic Party is going to have to make some kind of stand. Just like, ideally, the Republicans would have to make a stand on "You're disgracing and endangering everything America stands for by screwing up the war on terror."

    We're not going to reach the kind of people with priorities that screwed up. We have to reach for the remainder of the moderate, libertarian, sensible Republicans. If it makes you feel better, we lost the snake-handling bigots back in the 1960's. They're not coming back, and I for one don't want them back.
     
  23. 1953 4-2-4

    1953 4-2-4 Red Card

    Jan 11, 2004
    Cleveland
    Judging by his passion for the issue, I'm just surmising. Plus, Ben is a good name for a gay. Ben-Gay. Get it?
     
  24. 1953 4-2-4

    1953 4-2-4 Red Card

    Jan 11, 2004
    Cleveland
    The conversation is of Federal law. Why are liberals so tangential all the time? Do you just type anything that occurs to you between hitting your doobie, and forget what the discussion of the thread is about?
     
  25. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    I feel comfortable saying the not only Ben and nicephoras, but many others here would have been saying something very close to that in that time, if the Dems and Reeps were in the same situation they are in now. Of course, that very scenario is 100% conjecture, so my guess springs from nothing, and thus ultimately means nothing.

    But I can say that this notion of taking lessons from Rove or Al Davis or whomever, and submitting that you willing to become, or abdicate, whatever you need to to win, or even the massaged, triangulated expression of that approach, guarantees that your winning will simply be the Reeps losing, which in this election was the starting point, but with only four years in office if you have success with that strategy you will never move the nation anywhere, and willbe subject to movement from the nation everywhere.

    As if gridlocking the status quo is enough for everyone; only someone really really comfortable where they are, and totally, failingly unaware, in any intimate way, of the ills of this nation systemically inflicted upon its citizenry would ever intimate that larger notion.

    I could be wrong.
     

Share This Page