Bush Calls for Gay Marriage Ban

Remove all ads!

Looks like Ol' Bush is pulling the "get the support of Bible-thumpers" card once again. I wonder why? (From the BBC News site)

 

You haven't given homosexuals a chance to prove they can 'promote the welfare of children and the stability of society.'

Plus, wouldn't two mothers bring up the children twice as well?

 

Over 50% of American heterosexual marriages end in divorce... is that what we call promoting the welfare of children? There's nothing sacred about marriage in the USA anymore. Why "protect" an institution wrought with failure from inside the institution itself? Marriage needs be protected from itself before we can determine what outside factors it needs to be protected from.

 

What Bush is doing is putting forth his vision for America. One that got him just over 50% of the popular vote 2 years ago. Further, if 59% of the country opposes Gay Marriage, then that could keep the Republicans in the house. Bush is just doing what he said he would do in the last election. This could have come sooner if there wasn't people blaming him for a hurricane or terrorist attacks, or the fact that the wars that he got dragged into aren't going as well as he'd hoped.

Good for George W.

 

Oh spare me, Gnarff. "Putting forth his vision for America?" Vision? Did you even read what you wrote?

This "vision" got him 50% of the vote "two years ago," you say. Has he said a damn thing about gay marriage since? No. He was also quite up in arms about gay marriage 2 years before that, too. See a pattern?

It's an election year here, period. If you think George Bush, or any other conservative American politician, actually gives two sh*ts about gay people getting married, you know as little about our political situation as I do about Canadian water polo. Rove (not Bush, mind you) is playing the one ace in the hole he has left to energize the base before election time, period. He's trying to get out the bigot and bible thumper vote, because they're the only people in my country dumb enough to still give him a positive approval rating, conservative or otherwise (real conservatives waved bye-bye some time ago).

We have high gas prices, a medicare drug benefit that doesn't actually benefit anyone but the drug industry, the dollar value reaching terminal velocity, more debt than our nation has probably ever had accumulated at a rate that would make God's accountant sh*t himself, a bloody half-assed war of choice we're stuck with (which, by the way, in case you aren't paying attention, we STARTED - not were "dragged into"), news reports of American soldiers massacreing children, zero international credibility, Iran pissing in our faces, the rest of the world laughing at us, federal endictments of members of congress left and right...and you're telling me that preventing two men from getting married (through a bill that has no CHANCE of passing) being his top priority actually makes him a brave, bold leader? You actually see this pathetic, obvious, desperate pander as a good thing? Pardon me for saying it, but how backwards are your priorities in life, Gnarff?

If a trivial wedge-issue like preventing gay marriage is the ONLY thing that can keep Republicans in control of the house, then they deserve to lose it. It's pathetic that you see this as a virtue.

And for the record, no one blames him for hurricane Katrina. That's not his fault. What is his fault is not doing a damn thing about it when he was given ample warning. And while he (and apparantly you) may think that flying in for a 10-minute photo op 3 days after, while corpses drift by in the putrid waiste-high water is an adequate way of handling the situation, then you'll have to come to grips with your abysmally low standards of "leadership" at some point - most of us happen to find that performance a bit lacking. And when a bible-thumping president invades a muslim country, has a military with a small group of soldiers stupid enough to photograph detainee abuse and permits his subbordinates to cover it up and minimize it, it isn't exactly a stretch to think that Bush's policies are the reason we've seen such an uptic in fanatic Islamic terrorism lately.

Stop babying poor, bullied little George Bush, will you? You're making me blubber. He's had almost 6 years now to make positive change, while controlling every branch of our government, and this is all he has to show for it. His 51% wasn't a mandate - it was a squeaker, and certainly no sign of popularity or strong leadership. He's still president right now for one reason only: people like you think that morality policing trumps just about everything. Record defecits and America the most hated country on earth? Who cares! At least we're persecuting total strangers in the name of a faith they may not even believe in. Because THAT'S important.

Good for George W? You're damn right. That's the ONLY one this is good for. Boy am I glad you can't vote here.

[ June 04, 2006, 18:22: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

/me looks at DR
/me looks at Beren


I agree. Bush is up to his eyeballs in stuff that can ruin thousands-millions of peoples lives. Two guys/girls getting married and raising kids should be the least of his worries. Let social issues go and fix what else he ****ed up.

/me leaves before flame-police arrive.

[ I'm leaving this be for now. Most of the commentary from DR concerns Gnarff's view of Bush, and I'm prepared to accept his post as such. The stickeys for the Alleys lets it be known to all participants that a thick skin is required. But ... *ahem* ... this thread will now be watched very carefully. EDIT: DR's post is very close to the border imho, so my hesistance to condemn it outright thus far is not to be construed as a blessing to test the limits. ] - Beren

[ June 04, 2006, 13:02: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

What a bloody idiot. This has pissed me off to no end this has! How can someone in charge of such a powerful country be so close-minded??

 

Yes. But it sounds like having to prove the sun shines or grass is green.

Some judges apparently smoke strange things and try to replace the legislative.

Yeah. And it shouldn't be necessary.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13121953/site/newsweek/

 

And to think America was supposed to be the "Land of the Free". It'd be funny if it wasn't so depressing.

Chev, forgive me if I'm reading your post wrong, but are you supporting the ban?

 

Yes, you are reading me right, I am. No marriage with the name and benefits of normal marriage, no adoption of children by homosexual couples should happen.

 

In your opinion.

 

It is perfectly acceptable for the church and its community to hold gay marriage in contempt. Every church has the right to admit into its community only those who meet the standards of its teachings and beliefs. Is America a Christian society? You bet. Can you imagine the president taking the oath of office on the Koran? I for one, could not.

Now, politics is another matter. The government should not be a theocracy in its approach in crafting policy - that is according to the Founders. Amercia has too many different belief systems in its community to have only one set of beliefs as its standard in crafting policy; there can be no consistency in its approach because its citizens comprise so many different belief systems. That is why we have separation of Church and State. The government has no right to impose the religious values of one group onto another. If it did, that would be just plain Un-American.

 

I'm still trying to find support to the theory that homosexuality is harmful to society. Homosexual encounters where common place for Roman patricians, Greek aristocrats and politicans and Macedonian nobles (not to mention Babylon was purported to engage a wide variety of sexual practices including homosexuality). Clearly however they don't compare to the heights of Christdom (specifically in the terms of sanitation and architecture).

Also within in the USA homosexual households have a higher earning power then heterosexual households. That should stand, from the capitalist point of view, that homosexuals are actually better for society in an economic sense (being since that they have a limited family life, they can devote more time into the corporate world). Since the economy is the predominate determining factor of national success, a nation-state of homosexuals would create a more successful economy and therefore nation then a heterosexual counterpart.

 

Just as a compliment to Chandos' last post (and perhaps as a clarification of my own position) I'm personally against gay marriage, but for civil unions. The only reason I'm against gay marriage is because I believe it's wrong to force any church, through the law of the land, to endorce a union which it considers contrary to its teachings. If the official position of a given faith changes and they declare their approval of gay marriage, then fine. But until that happens I'll be against it. You can't remove the rights of one group in order to bestow rights to another. Despite this, on a moral level, I see no problem whatsoever with a gay couple being joined for life. Heterosexual couples haven't exactly been a perfect example in this regard, so dismissing gay couples' desire to wed out of hand is IMO neither fair nor logical.

I believe civil unions are an appropriate middle ground, and at the very least a step in the right direction. Marriage is, first and foremost, a religious institution - so the position of the church should be respected. But under American laws married couples are awarded very specific rights, protections and priviledges. I see no good reason why these same benefits should be denied to life-committed couples of any flavor, gay or straight. So it recognises the union in every meaningful legal respect, it just doesn't force any church to accept or recognise something it considers contrary.

Part of why the anti-gay marriage crowd piss me off so much is because they won't even entertain the idea of a middle ground solution on this issue. It's their way (read: their morals) or the highway. It's more important for them to force their moral standards on people they will never meet or probably ever come in contact with than it is to do what's best for everyone involved. I believe that's un-American, and certainly un-Christian.

If social conservatives were so concerned about "protecting family values" and staving of the "attack on traditional marriage," they would be better served counseling existing married couples in an effort to slow the alarming divorce rate in this country, as Ilmater's Suffering pointed out. They should be up in arms about quicky Vegas weddings, domestic abuse, etc. Not persecuting people who want nothing MORE than to be joined for life. Or here's an idea: how about promoting family values WITHIN the gay community, instead of demonizing them? The modern marriage is fragile enough on its own; the union of gay couples certainly isn't going to make straight people LESS inclined to get married than they already are.

 

So you think this is just grandstanding? Fair enough. Incedentally, I know nothing about Canadian Water Polo...

The oil companies and drug companies. I'll grant the conflict of interests there.

Saddam Hussein started this mess when they invaded Kuwait. The conditions to end the war were made. Hussien has broken several of them, so the return of war was delivered as promised. Admittedly, there was no winning this one, but that didn't mean that the war could be avoided.

And of course the American people wouldn't support measures to shut Iran up. Maybe the next time terrorists strike then we can do something about it...

It's not like the Democrats have a pure record in such matters. Maybe Law enforcement has finally caught up to the corruption scams on his watch. If this would have happenned 8 years ago, we'd be slagging Clinton just as hard for that.

I look at this as trying to do something right for a change.

What is FEMA? That was an attempt to prepare for such an emergency. They dropped the ball horribly. Bush tried to do something, but it didn't work.

I've been stuck with Chretian as Canadian PM for about 10 years, and Paul Martin wasn't much better. Compared to these clowns, King George doesn't seem that bad.

But that fails to explain 9/11. There are those in the Muslim world that are trying to push them to start World War III. Even without such incidents, there's still be some horrid terrorist strikes.

By that logic, youy will NEVER sea another mandate in your life time.

Not in America, but some of the new governments in the Middle East it could happen. The laws of the land ought to reflecxt the society as a whole. While Christian morals don't need to be strictly enforced, Government is within it's rights to uphold them in it's laws.

But ignoring them doesn't accurately reflect society either. Government should reserve the right to uphold portions of religious teaching in it's policy.

But if they continue to refuse, then the America you know of will cease to exist.

And those societies fell. Without a strong moral core, there is nothing to unite the society.

But Money is not the be all and end all. What portion of Americans hold to this?

But is it really that simple? If it was, wouldn't they have done that yet?

I think this is the biggest reason for pushing the ammendment.

Actually, it's more about stemming the tide of things that we consider immoral. I will never support open violations of what I consider morally wrong.

Agreed. Society made divorce too easy, and working through problems less inviting. Marriage takes sacrifice and committment. Refusal to give these things is what has cheapened marriage and eroded the family. But the Gay marriage battle has forced it's issue now...

Of course. Increased penalties for domestic abuse, and making divorce a more difficult process could do this...

 

oh, what the fundies want a ban agains is these "civil unions" you speak about, DR. Nobody is dreaming about forcing churches to endorse gay marriages; what the "dirty liberals" are trying to pass are laws which will give the same legal protection to same sex couples as to traditional ones.

This had me laughing. Bush, as a person, seems to me pretty open minded (too dumb by half, but that's another matter). I doubt he cares one way or the other. However, he has to whip up his base. No harm meant, just politics as usual, understand

 

Watched MTV lately? Wealthy people also have a lower crime rate, are less likely to exhibit signs of stress, less likely to have marital trouble and increase the earning potential of their children (not to mention wealthy people are also easier on the social security system).

Anyway since just about every study that has been deemed "credible" shows that homosexual household is essentially the same as a heterosexual household, only with less chance of domestic violence (since there is less likely to be a power differencial, both social and physical, in a same sex marriage).

 

911 had nothing to do with Iraq, despite the many times that the president openly stated that Iraq had connections to Al-Qaida (which they didn't....something the president damn well knew). He lied about why we were going to war. War was completely unnecessary since he also had already disarmed his WMD (which the intelligence community and the president also damn well knew). This was either a war of vendetta (an assasination attempt was made on George the first), of greed (oil), "unfinished business" (there were some in the first Bush administration who were also part of the second one that weren't too happy about leaving Saddam in power), or a combination thereof. Regardless of the reasons for the war, the fact remains that Bush lied about why we were going to war, what it would cost, and how long we'd be there. I for one, am far more alarmed by a lie which leads to bloodshed than a lie about a blowjob. Hell, I'm more alarmed by Bush's lies than I am by Nixon's lies.

 

Actually, that's the biggest reason NOT to push an amendment. Once it's a constitutional amendment, it's done - gay marriage will be a sweeping national ban. So if a church does indeed decide it will allow gay marriage (which they are well within their rights to do), it won't matter because the amendment would already be in place. This issue should be left up to states, where it belongs. This is NOT a constitutional issue, and making it so is the worst kind of divisive politics. This amendment forces this particular moral code on everyone, and that's not what the constitution was intended for. This is precisely why separation of church and state was such a good idea, and it's also why this amendment will never pass.

No - because the bible-thumping right won't allow legal protections of any kind for gays, aside from basic liberties (which I'm sure they'd even take THOSE away if given the chance). This amendment is an attempt to prevent meaningful benefits of any kind to gay couples, even apart from marriage. That's why this amendment is so reprehensible...it doesn't stop at just marriage, it closes the door on the possibility of civil unions, too. It's like forfeiting the game in favor of one team and then banning the sport so you can never play again. That's not an American ideal at all.

But that's just it - gay marriage has no bearing on the success or failure of heterosexual marriage. Claiming that gay marriage is an "attack" on traditional marriage is simply dressing a wolf up like a puppy. No heterosexual married couples are affected in any way whatsoever if a gay couple gets hitched. But that's the only way conservative leaders can get people riled up about the issue without sounding like hateful bigots. It's a lot easier - and certainly more appealing - to get behind someone yelling "traditional family values are under attack" than it is the guy who yells "we don't want those disgusting fags getting married!" Most people don't want to think of themselves as bigots, so they hide their prejudice under the blanket of "I'm a good christian." But bigotry's bigotry, no matter the justification.

Gay marriage hasn't forced this issue - evangelicals have. They aren't content to have a debate about it, they'd rather just amend the Constitution so the debate is killed off for good and they get their way. Not only is that cheap, it's intellectual cowardice.

[ June 05, 2006, 08:48: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]