Bleh

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/index.html

I really do get nervous when the president starts throwing around the words "sacred" and "sanctity". Does creating a Constitutional amendment saying "Gay people can't get married!" seem completely insane to anyone else?

It's Bush, what do you expect? But yes, his idea toward gay marriages is going in the wrong direction.

yes. why don't we just write hatred into the constitution while we're at it.

I dont see why the 'equal rights for all mankind' ideal is so easily bent to the whims of people like that.

I think a lot of the problem with this whole gay marriage thing is that people are mixing religion with government. I see no reason why 2 people who choose to be gay can't have the same benifits as a straight couple.

Now say if the church(I am Roman Catholic) started allowing gay marriage....better believe I would be in an up roar.

I think most of the problem with this whole situation is taking the former as the latter. Also given the divorce rate...is it really all that sacred anymore?

Fanatics. President or not, they're all the same.
Vote for someone else if you don't like it.

Now that was constructive.

and yet again bush proves to the world that he is indeed a bleeding moron -_-

and while im at it, i think ill tear this apart for s and giggles..

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said. "If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

thereby implieing that marriage is merely a religious thing, last time i checked it was mostly a legal thing, not all people follow the same religion and these days its rare is someone is religious at all

But he said, "... if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

yet hes allowed to change it so the law tells people what they can and cannot be?

The court rejected using civil unions as a remedy, "Because the proposed law by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage, it continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status. ... The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

this is all too true, isnt it about time the government learned from its mistakes? -_-

yes... im done now :p *stabs bush* :p

227

Originally posted by Bulldog
Fanatics. President or not, they're all the same.
Vote for someone else if you don't like it.
And if we did vote against him in 2000?

The article keeps talking about the opinion of the "majority". A majority of people might want gay marriage to be illegal, but the majority doesn't rule in this country, at least not directly. The majority can't vote away the rights of the minority. I can't help but think of slavery laws and the "3/5 a human being" thing. A majority of people were for slavery at one point, but it was still wrong. I can't see any basis whatsoever for laws saying "no gay marriage" other than screwball religious views that shouldn't have anything to do with government.

Originally posted by Flying Mullet
And if we did vote against him in 2000?
Then you wouldn't have had to deal with him.

Originally posted by Dr Unne
I can't see any basis whatsoever for laws saying "no gay marriage" other than screwball religious views that shouldn't have anything to do with government.

It would work a lot better like that if there were not a bunch of screwball religious people voting these screwball religious people into office that are trying to make laws based off of....oh yes, their screw ball religious views.

Damn screwballs :D

Originally posted by Bulldog
Then you wouldn't have had to deal with him.

well, just like a majority are supposedly against gay marriage, a majority of the UWS voters did vote against Bush. Of course, a majority voted against Clinton in 1992 as well.

Originally posted by Bulldog
Then you wouldn't have had to deal with him.
Exactly my point. I did vote against him and I do have to deal with him. Just because he's our president doesn't mean we want him there or put him there.

'Sacred' and 'Sanctity' imply a religious meaning to marriage. Does that mean George Bush would prevent atheists from getting married as well?

I'd imagine his views on atheists are pretty similar to his father's, i.e. "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." If anything, George W. seems to be worse. He doesn't appear too keen on secularism.

I don't like the way he refers to "the people" when, essentially, he's just voicing his own views. When he uses that phrase, it seems to imply that homosexuals aren't people.

"The people" refers to the citizentry. Judges are imposing legalised homosexual marriages on both non-homosexual people (they have to accept it as legal) and homosexual people (they have to accept it as legal). It's not implying anything negative as far as I can tell.

Objectively speaking there seems to be a progression towards accepting homosexuality, and if that is truly the case, then there doesn't seem to be a reason to think that it shouldn't be "legalised". Homosexuals are humans the last time I checked (which I haven't), and if humans can be married under law, then there's nothing wrong with that. It's just been conventional to have a male and female marry.

Incidentally is it okay for a homosexual male and homosexual female to marry each other in whichever states disallowing homosexual marriages?