[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
... would cause society to crumble, so it was said, same dribble just present day.
[/QUOTE]
Nah, it's definitely not going to cause society to crumble.. not in any immediate sense. I mean, the flag burning amendment didn't pass and we're still here!
Thing is, it does open many more controversies if granted. I got a headache arguing this earlier today so I'll have to come back later to list my points :o
I dont think Bush is trying to change the constituition, he is just trying to protect the moral values or whatever is left of them/it in US. Also, maybe one should ask how come the mayor of San Fran not upholding the law of California. Prop 22 any one. This mayor is forging state documents...last I checked it was a serious crime. He should be arrested and tried as a criminal. There is also an issue of defense of marriage, if u get married in one state, other states recognize you as such i.e. married. You do remember that 4 judges in Mass decided that gay marriage was legal in that state, this casues a big problem. I dont want 4 nut jobs in Mass deciding for me and the rest of the nation if gay marriage is legal or not. Texas does not recognize it such and neither do many other states. That is why an amendement is needed to keep these bleeding heart nut jobs from deciding for the rest of the nation.
I think 38 states do have a law which says "marriage" is between a man and a woman. Clinton signed the "Defence of Marriage Act" which says the same thing. California's voters, which is one of the most liberal states, approved the same definition of marriage by more than 60% votes a few years ago. So, its not like the American people are for it and Bush and some conservatives are against it. Its just that, fortunately, a majority of American people are still against calling this relationship as "marriage". This is good.
What the judges in Mass have done, and what Gavin Newson is saying, is that this is against the Equal Protection provided in the constitution of US, and thus the constitution should prevail. Living in the Northern California, I am fairly certain I know why Newson is doing it. He is young, he is smart and he is extremely ambitious. With this one move, he has jumped from just the mayor of SF to a nationally known person and a champion of liberal values. I am sure he has presidential ambitions at some point in the future. But that is neither here nor there, as far as this discussion is concerned.
My one suspicion is that this is a move by gay and lesbian groups to ... as we say in Urdu "maut dikha ke bemaari pe raazi karna" (Show them the death and then they will agree on the illness) - no pun - where they will force most, if not all states, that even if they are not giving them the rights of marriage, they should all atleast give them rights of civil union. That will be a big move forward for that community. The people who are gleefully getting marriage licenses from the City Hall in SF are merely pawns in this big game of chess.
On another note.. Kerry has put his size 11, firmly in his mouth. The guy just can't take a position and stick with it. "Both Kerry and Edwards today opposed Bush and the amendment, though neither made a statement in support of gay marriage." Talk about sitting on the fence :)
Kerry has stated he opposes gay marriage but supports Civil Unions. As far as jumping sides, let me pull up what Bush and Dick had to say on the matter back in 2000.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Kerry has stated he opposes gay marriage but supports Civil Unions.
[/QUOTE]
If that were true, thats exactly what Bush said yesterday. Kerry just has to find a way to disagree with Bush, even if it means he disagrees with himself.
"The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage," Bush said. That opens the door for Civil Unions on a state-by-state basis.
What is Kerry opposing then?
Kerry is just worried that gay marriage will then become a focal point for elections, rather than Bush's record on economy and foreign policies. Kerry wants to avoid that at all costs, especially because liberals are between a rock and a hard place on the issue of gay marriage.
Then why do we need a constitutional amendment when there is a "Defense of Marriage Act" Is it another of Bush's topi drama?
I don’t expect it to be an issue.
Bush in 2000 sung a different tune.
…
Bush’s announcement Tuesday, which the White House said followed a good deal of serious reflection, contradicts Bush’s own statement four years ago that states should be left to “do what they want to do” regarding same-sex marriage.
Asked repeatedly what had changed Bush’s mind, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said only, “His views have always been well known on this very issue.”
It was during a CNN Republican primary debate that year in South Carolina that he was asked about gay marriage. Bush said he would “stand up and say I don’t support gay marriage.”
CNN’s Larry King asked, “If a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?”
“The state can do what they want to do,” Bush responded.
"…the White House did not explain the statement from 2000.
As governor of Texas, Bush opposed civil unions for same-sex couples.
Vice President Dick Cheney’s stance has also been called into question.
He recently has said he would support Bush’s decision on the matter.
But at a vice presidential debate in 2000, Cheney was asked, “Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen?”
Cheney responded, “People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It’s really no one else’s business, in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.”
He added, “I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships. … (I) wrestle with the extent of which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.”
Faisal, you dont think that SF mayor has commited a crime? try forging your driver licnese and see what happens. I am sure you wil be arreseted. Sam principle applies, marriage certificate is a state document that was forged/tempered with just to please homos and bleeding heart liberals and the police and DA in SF does not have the guts to arrest him.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Kaleem: *
Faisal, you dont think that SF mayor has commited a crime?
[/QUOTE]
I do think he is breaking the law of the State of California. His position is that the State law is a violation of the Constitution. This makes the law *void ab initio. Constitution prevails.
The City of SF has, therefore, petitioned the courts to rule whether the law is legal, in the first place.
The State Attorney General (who is a Democrat), is planning to ask the State Supreme Court to rule on the same thing... whether the state law is a violation of the consititution or not.
So, you see, its a circular argument. :)
hmm Bush is against Gay Marriages and Drinking? there goes California!
If only we could get all the saphos and sodomites to California, wth weight of their ignorant evil would cause the San Andres fault to give way...
California would then float off into the sea, and the US Navy could use it for target practice!
Not that I'm opinionated, mind you!
All kidding aside, as has been stated by several here, the issue is legitamizing abnormal and proven destructive behavior.
Should gays have a job and a place to live? Certainly!
But, should they be allowed to raise or teach children? Absolutley not!
They give up the right to parenthood when the choose to embrace deviance!
It is unconscionable to allwow a child to be raised in an environment where abnormal and unacceptable behavior is presented as normal and acceptable! This gives children a warped view of society, and forces them to deal with issues they are not equipped to deal with. The only result is indoctrination into the pc-homosexual fold where there is no right and no wrong.
Making excuses for the many gays because of family or otherwise beneficial and even endearing traits that many gays demonstrate is only the work of - dare I say it World Affairs? - Satan!
But, as I said, it's not that I'm opinionated, mind you!
Peace To All Who Read This....
^ All that is based on the assumption that homosexuals "embrace deviance" rather than reluctantly accept the way they were born. Homosexuality is a part of nature and therefore cannot be abnormal or the work of Satan. That's what makes these types of naive point of views irrelevant in the gay marriage debate.
The comparison to the fall of Greece and Rome advanced by rampant homosexuality is equally inaccurate. Gay marriage seeks to promote and reward commitment, morality and monogamy, not the immoral orgies of Greece and Rome (hetero and homosexual). People are going to be gay whether they are respected with marriage rights or not.
Which means the 'harm to society' argument put forth is also erroneous. Giving legitimacy to same sex couples is not going to make one more person gay or open a bath house on every corner. But it could help a gay person come out of the closet who would otherwise live a miserable life pretending to be something he's not. Or encourage him to not commit suicide. Or not to have a promiscuous homosexual affair while married to a woman.
A way it will help society as a whole (as if equal rights for the individual wan't reason enough) is by picking up the slack in the adoption of dark children who aren't wanted by heterosexual couples. Gay couples can fill the single parent void caused by 50% divorce rates and unwed motherhood -- especially if abortion is ever made illegal and even more unwanted and uncared for children are brought into this world. Since gays are twice as likely to have graduated from college, twice as likely to have an individual income over $60,000 and twice as likely to have a household income of $250,000 or more, gay couples would be able to provide financially secure and stable homes.
Gays should use their considerable purchasing power ($350 billion, which is larger than all of Pakistan) to demand equality and let free market capitalism determine this issue. Now that's a plan a Republican could be proud of.
underthedome....
You never responded to the "slippery slope" argument. If this is merely a civil rights issue, where will it end, then? Not trying to be alarmist... but if we accept that this is a civil rights issue, then polygamy, polyandry, group marriage and incestual relationships have as much right to marriage as gays and lesbians. Where, and why will you then draw the line?
Faisal, just as heterosexuals are not allowed to marry an animal, family member, tree or multiple people, neither should homosexuals be allowed. That is a separate argument. They are just asking for the same rights as everyone else already have-- to enter into a recognized, monogamous union between two people who are in love. To ensure that definition, perhaps the compassionate conservative should be fighting for a constiutional amendment defining marriage as a union between two people.
No one is taking the rights of gays to civil union. Problem is that the gay and lesbians want to go way further than that. Thats pretty much what every is saying (Bush included)... give them rights to civil unions. Why call it "marriage"? Its not "marriage". Marriage is not a new concept, neither is homosexuality. These are all as old as mankind.
For centuries and centuries, marriage is always hetrosexual.
If you start tinkering with the definition of marriage and make it an issue of civil rights and equal protection.. then all adults have a right to marry whichever way they want. One-man-One-man, Two-men-One-Woman, Two-women-One-man, Father-marrying-his-daughter etc etc. Why don't you then give them equal protection too and reaffirm their civil rights and they also have a claim to call their relationship as "marriage". After all, we have taken out any issue of morality and religion out, and reduced it to a simple case of civil rights and equal protection. Then you don't have any basis to say that any of these is harmful to society and hence we will not permit it. Society's best interest will then become irrelevant. Each individual's civil rights will then be deemed superior.
If thats the road you want to go down... thats where it will end.
Faisal, Gay marriages have been legal for years in Scandinavian countries and no such "slippery slop" exits, it's simply a weak scare tactic.
Rapist, murders, child molesters, and thieves are all allowed to marry, yet you are concern that gay marriages will cause the chaos, that logic just doesn't add up.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Rapist, murders, child molesters, and thieves are all allowed to marry, yet you are concern that gay marriages will cause the chaos
[/QUOTE]
"Rapists, murders, child molesters and thieves" all enjoy marital rights only in hetrosexual marriages.... and being a rapists etc is different than marriage. Which direction are you going???
And the concern is not with homosexuality per se.... its with the argument that in law-making, morality and greater good of society is irrelevant and subservant to an individual's civil rights. Gay marriage is just a poster child for this argument, but the depth of this precendence is not limited to gay marriage.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
No one is taking the rights of gays to civil union. Problem is that the gay and lesbians want to go way further than that. Thats pretty much what every is saying (Bush included)... give them rights to civil unions. Why call it "marriage"? Its not "marriage". Marriage is not a new concept, neither is homosexuality. These are all as old as mankind.
For centuries and centuries, marriage is always hetrosexual.
If you start tinkering with the definition of marriage and make it an issue of civil rights and equal protection.. then all adults have a right to marry whichever way they want. One-man-One-man, Two-men-One-Woman, Two-women-One-man, Father-marrying-his-daughter etc etc. Why don't you then give them equal protection too and reaffirm their civil rights and they also have a claim to call their relationship as "marriage".
[/QUOTE]
The argument is for TWO people in love - just as it is for heterosexuals, not 3 or 4 or fathers or brothers.
So if we legalize gay unions the word 'marriage' would lead to two men/one woman or father/daughter and civil unions would'nt? Toying with the word 'marriage' is semantics only.
If Bush is in favor of civil unions, then being the compassionite conservative that he is, he ought to work for that right before adding the first Amendment that actually takes away rights.
Slavery, suppression of women and lack of human rights were also in place throughout civiliation for centuries and centuries. Democracy is evolving and conservatives have always stood in the way of progress for the rights of the minority.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
The argument is for TWO people in love - just as it is for heterosexuals, not 3 or 4 or fathers or brothers.
[/QUOTE]
Not really. The argument is, infact, that adults have a right to call their union, whatever form it may be, a "marriage", because otherwise it is a violation of their civil rights and equal protection.
Not any Republicans I know, Seminole! We must travel in different circles! And, I thought my California proposal did have some merit! 
David Limbaugh did a good job defending the anti-gay position:
**‘Gay Marriage’ is Not about ‘Rights’ **
David Limbaugh
Friday, Feb. 27, 2004
Proponents of traditional values are making a tactical error in allowing the homosexual lobby to frame the issue of same-sex marriage merely as one of equal rights for gays. Much more is at stake.
Let me raise a few questions. Do you believe that marriage is properly an institution between a man and a woman? Do you believe marriage, so defined, is an indispensable building block of our society? If you answered yes to these questions, do you believe that there is something wrong with you for wanting to preserve an institution that you believe is essential for society? Are you a homophobe? Are you full of hate?
The gay lobby, in its tireless determination, has succeeded in framing the same-sex marriage issue as one of equal rights instead of the right of a society to preserve its foundational institutions. They have painted those who nobly want to preserve these institutions as hateful, homophobic bigots.
But opposition to same-sex marriage not about “rights,” and it’s not about hate or bigotry. No one is preventing homosexuals from living with one another. All homosexuals have a “right” to get married and to have that marriage sanctioned by the state.
But in order to do that they must marry someone of the opposite sex – that’s what marriage means and has always meant. When they insist that society be forced to redefine marriage to sanction same-sex unions, they are attempting to establish new and special rights.
What’s worse is that if we view this from the narrow perspective of “gay rights,” we are overlooking that these “rights” will not be created in a vacuum, without consequences to our society. It’s not as simple as saying that homosexuals will have the right to live together and receive the “legal incidents” of marriage.
If they coerce society into placing its imprimatur on same-sex marriage, they will have eroded one of the fundamental supports of our society. But in our postmodern licentious, amoral culture, we are so hung up on radical individualism we no longer seem to comprehend that society has a vital interest in establishing rules grounded in morality and enforced by law.
This is the larger issue underlying the marriage turf battle. Does our society even have a mandate anymore to base its laws on moral absolutes? Or does our myopic zeal for pluralism, “tolerance,” “multiculturalism,” “secularism,” and moral relativism require that we abandon the moral pillars upon which our system is built?
I know it is chic to subscribe to the mindless notion that we can’t legislate morality or that we can’t even base our laws on our moral and religious beliefs, but that thinking is as destructive as it is nonsensical. We have always based our laws on our moral beliefs and must continue to for them to have any legitimacy.
It is completely possible to base a nation’s constitutional system on specific religious beliefs and simultaneously guarantee the rights of its citizens to exercise other religious beliefs. That’s precisely what our predominantly Christian Framers did. They built a system on Judeo-Christian roots, which they believed would guarantee, not threaten, political and religious freedom. America’s history conclusively vindicates them.
They designed a governmental system grounded in the laws of nature established by the God they believe created them in His image and Who was therefore the source of their inalienable rights. A society so founded has an interest in preserving the moral foundation established by this God and observing His laws of nature. And the protection of this interest is wholly consistent with, indeed essential to, guaranteeing an ordered society with maximum political and religious liberties.
We are so spoiled with our freedoms that we never stop to think that they are based on a moral foundation, which, if uprooted, will uproot our liberties as well. You don’t have to be an ardent churchgoer to grasp that we cannot continue in our rebellious and narcissistic quest for unrestrained liberty with impunity.
If we persist in demanding freedom without responsibility; if we recklessly reject self-control and moral parameters; if we defy the laws of nature established by an omniscient God, we can expect chaos and the eventual erosion of liberty.
It is chilling that those who want to preserve our unique system and the unparalleled freedom it guarantees are viewed as a threat to that freedom, when, in fact, they are its sacred guardians.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/27/90226.shtml
That about says it all! The Gays can holler all they want - I, for one, am not buying into their fantasy of normalcy nor will I support their dangerous and harmful agenda!
I recently heard there is a gay flag burning being held soon - if there is, I’ll be there!
Peace To All Who Read This…