The W
Views: 100001112
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.14 1539
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush: Marriage Is For a Man and Woman
This thread has 56 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Next(1896 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (75 total)
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2236 days
Last activity: 1103 days
#1 Posted on
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html
Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals
'We ought to codify that'
Thursday, July 31, 2003 Posted: 12:57 AM EDT (0457 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush indicated Wednesday he opposes extending marriage rights to homosexuals, saying he believes marriage "is between a man and a woman."

Bush said it is "important for society to welcome each individual," but administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. "And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

Bush's comments drew praise from conservative groups, but criticism from gay rights advocates.

"The president has taken a courageous stand in favor of traditional marriage at a moment in American history when the courts are conspiring with anti-family extremists to undermine our nation's most vital institution," said the Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.

But a spokeswoman for a gay rights group faulted the president.

"We are very disappointed that the president is trying to further codify discrimination into law," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group.

Earlier this month, Bush said a constitutional amendment to block gay marriages might not be necessary, although the proposal has the support of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee.

The question of gay marriage has moved to the foreground of American politics after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that struck down state laws banning sodomy. Canada courts also have recently recognized gay marriages. In addition, the Massachusetts high court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether the state can allow gay marriages.

The prospect has outraged religious conservatives, an important voting bloc in the Republican Party. And a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll suggest the Supreme Court ruling has prompted a backlash: The number of people who have endorsed the idea that homosexual relations should be legal has dropped from 60 percent to 48 percent since the ruling, and only 40 percent of Americans say they now would support civil unions for homosexuals.

Even as he made it clear that he did not support the idea of gay marriage, Bush appeared to issue a call for tolerance.

"Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners," the president said Wednesday when asked for his views on homosexuality. "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own."

"I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush added. "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage."

A number of states have passed laws forbidding gays from marrying or barring the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another state. The federal government's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act affirms that states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

The act also defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."
--------------------------------

Also--The Vatican's Anti-Gay Marriage Campaign:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/31/vatican.gay.marriages/index.html





And Marking Out
Slashwrestling.com
Wienerville
Promote this thread!
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3035 days
Last activity: 248 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
All together now:

There is a difference between a "marriage" (as sanctioned by a religious organization) and a "civil union" (as sanctioned by the law). The two need to be separated, or at least more clearly distinguished; a typical church-certified marriage will also be a civil union, but not all civil unions need to also be church-certified marriages to receive the same benefits under the law as said marriages.

A religious organization can come up with all sorts of reasons (including the generic "God says it's wrong") to justify its refusal to recognize a homosexual pairing as a "marriage." Private organizations have more leeway in setting their own rules.

The state, however, cannot use religious arguments (such as "God says it's wrong") to justify refusal of civil-union status. Laws based on such arguments run headlong into First Amendment violations:

* "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", yet such laws would be based directly (and intentionally) upon principles of particular Judeo-Christian faiths

* "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), yet such laws would refuse to honor similar principles of other faiths that _do_ wish to sanction homosexual pairings

...among others.

There may be other, valid reasons why a state may deny civil-union status to homosexuals (I don't see any, myself, but I'm sure some will be argued), but "God says it's wrong" can't legally be one of them.

As for marriages, IMHO, the state should be in the business of certifying civil unions -- no more, no less. Those who get married in church ceremonies already jump through states' legal hoops as well, so this is no change to that system.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. And as far as I'm concerned, there's only one guy I'd want performing my "mawwidge," and he's dead.



"I'm a little dyslexic......earlier, I freed my ass, and I'm hoping that my mind will follow." -- Moon Zappa
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1270 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I wish my party and candidate of choice would get over it already...



"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
- Ben Franklin, 1759
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
Man, is this so difficult? If any two consenting adults want to marry, let them. They're not "anti-family extremists" like that crackpot says; two people that want to officially recognize their love should be able to.



All right, I'm enjoying Rhyno's "man-beast" gimmick: He keeps his hair long, wears full-body wrestling tights with a big "R" on the back and uses the "Rhino Gore" as his finishing move. Can't you imagine him watching the Discovery Channel one day while tossing around possible gimmicks and having one of those "Hey, wait a second!" epiphanies during a rhino segment?

To spruce things up, the WWF should give Undertaker and Kane last names -- like Undertaker and Kane O'Brien, the O'Brien Brothers -- just for comedy's sake. Hopefully the door's still open.

RVD is approaching the always-exciting "The crowd loves him, but he's not getting a major push yet" phase which helps makes wrestling so much fun. It only happens once every few years -- Stone Cold in '96, The Rock in '98, Shawn Michaels in '93 and so on. -- ESPN's Bill Simmons back in 2001
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3476 days
Last activity: 3470 days
#5 Posted on
See previous threads.

DMC



"WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO?" -Malone, The Untouchables
Net Hack Slasher
Banger








Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3591 days
Last activity: 2010 days
#6 Posted on
We cannot undermine marriage! It should be a sacred vow between a man, a woman and the Fox Network that allows America to vote for the best possible bride

Seeing how marriage nowadays has the same success rate as Torrie Wilson getting someone over. It might not be a bad idea to see other side of the fence has better luck at this marriage thing LOL

All kidding aside, VSP pretty much says it all. Thinking just seems to be going backwards and I don't get is whats it to anyone else if homosexuals get some sort of licence from the state. I just don't get it.

(edited by Net Hack Slasher on 31.7.03 1634)


cause there's limits to our liberties.
'Least I hope and pray that there are,
cause those liberal freaks go too far.

I'll crush all opposition to me
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay
If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on
I think part of the reason the marriage sucess rate is so low these days is that people have taken marriage and made it a selfish thing. It is not about 2 people, it is about family.

The point of marriage is to produce children. It is recognized by the government because we need a next generation to survive as a nation. Beyond that, a family is the best place to instill morals and values to children. It has been proven that "illegitimate" children are far less likely to succeed in life, and far more likely to either be in jail or wind up needing handouts from Uncle Sam. As such, married people recieve benefits, most often tax-wise, to have and support kids.

Marriage never has been and never should be, first and foremost, about what "two consenting adults" want. It is about the children. In my eyes, the only acceptable reason for the government recognizing marriage at all is so it can support the creation of future generations in the best possible environment. I agree with Bush here that the government's "official" definition of marriage should be limited to a man and a woman.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for civil rights. If two guys fall in love, want to move in together, and want to make a vow to each other to spend all eternity together, that is fine by me. No one should stop them from doing that. But as far as the government goes, until those men can combine their DNA and create an offspring, I would just assume it not be considered marriage. I don't want tax breaks and all of the other sanctioned benefits of official marriages going to just anyone who decides to say "I do." I want that stuff going to support the healthy rearing of our next generation.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 31.7.03 1333)




Still on the Shelf #17 - Pete, the P.O.'d Postal Worker
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on
So Pool, should a woman who is post-menopausal be allowed to marry? Or a man who has had a vasectomy? Because their marriage is just as capable of producing children as two guys getting married, and thus is solely about two people.



She was worth 800 miles driving to see her play - Brenda Weiler

blogforamerica.com
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on
Just to clarify, I am not referring to civil marriages, I am referring to the government's official recognition of them for the purpose of benefits. I view these as separate items. In my opinion, no one should recieve government benefits for simply being married. If a man and a woman get married and never produce a single child, their status in the eyes of the government should be as if they were single. So no, a post-menopausal woman should not recieve any benefits from the government for being married. A sterile man should recieve no benefit for being married. Some might say this is unfair, but I disagree. After all, the perks of being married are not intended for the adults. They are for the kids.

I oppose the government recognizing homosexual marriages because I feel it is a step in the wrong direction. They need to roll back the benefits of marriage in the eyes of the government, not give them to more people.


(edited by Pool-Boy on 31.7.03 1409)




Still on the Shelf #17 - Pete, the P.O.'d Postal Worker
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
I actually think I agree. My only caveat is what if a Gay couple has kids - through adoption, artificial insemination (Lesbians only), or from a previous relationship? Should they not have the benefits also?



"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 135 days
Last activity: 29 days
#11 Posted on
Having read what both vsp and Pool-Boy have had to say on the subject, I wonder if perhaps, rather than discussing whether or not the government should recognize same-sex marriages, what we really need to consider is whether or not the government should continue to recognize any marriages. Perhaps we've reached the point in history where the state needs to look at marriages the same way it looks at friendships, i.e, as personal relationships with which it should not get involved in any way, shape, or form. Maybe it's time for the law to stop drawing distinctions between individuals who are single vs couples who are married when it comes to matters such as taxation, estate settlement, etc. Now, this is just my opinion, of course, but I firmly believe that before the topic of whether or not the state should recognize same-sex marriages can be intelligently discussed we first need to define what (if any) benefits the state derives from recognizing any marriages, and if said benefits warrant the continuation of this practice.



Patiently waiting to be Stratusfied.
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#12 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I don't want tax breaks and all of the other sanctioned benefits of official marriages going to just anyone who decides to say "I do." I want that stuff going to support the healthy rearing of our next generation.

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 31.7.03 1333)




I'm not the most intelligent when it comes to these issues, but I actually pay a penalty tax for being married (which, thankfully, W is trying to eliminate). Unless I have children, the gov't actually is telling me that I will be punished fiscally for being married.

I completely agree with Downtown Bookie when it comes to the gov't recognizing marriages for economic and legal matters. Why would it matter if a gov't recognized a marriage or not? Would people stop getting married or stop having children? Would family values and marriage success rates deteriorate anymore than they have today?
wordlife
Head cheese








Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3363 days
Last activity: 2647 days
#13 Posted on
Reverend, while you pay a penalty tax to some extent, you also get the benefit of having much higher thresholds on deductions than your average person does. So your saying that married people should be able to have their cake and eat it too? Yeah, that's real fair.

As for this issue, let them get married. The divorce rate is what? 60%? I mean the freakin yuppies are calling their first marriage their "trial marriage"! Are heteros afraid that the alternative lifestyle society will have a better divorce ratio than we do? Furthermore, they all work and most of them make a ton of money. Let them do it and see how they do, all they want is a chance and to be honest with you they just want the same rights as everyone else. I find that we are willing to cave in to every other minority group and give them pretty much whatever they want except gays, which I dont understand.

Furthermore, in response to the whole thing about marriage being there to have kids, thats a crock! Marriage is about two people getting together and making a union b/c they care about each other. I have no plans on having children, so you are saying that if I meet someone I love I dont have the right to get married to that person?
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#14 Posted on
    Originally posted by wordlife
    Reverend, while you pay a penalty tax to some extent, you also get the benefit of having much higher thresholds on deductions than your average person does. So your saying that married people should be able to have their cake and eat it too? Yeah, that's real fair.


Wordlife,

If I had single filing status and simply lived with the woman who is my wife, and we filed separately, we would each pay more tax than we do by filing separately when we are married. That's not an opinion, that's fact. (Believe me, we checked on our returns last year)

Higher deduction thresholds probably help people who can afford to spend their incomes on deductible items such as charities, etc. Me? I foolishly squander my disposable income on things like rent, food, heat, and other items which the gov't does not deem as deductible expenditures.

Thus, the only the reason the government gets more from me is because I am married.

"Yeah, that's real fair."

Oh, and by the frickin' way, why the hell would anyone want cake if they couldn't eat it?

(edited by Reverend J Shaft on 1.8.03 0934)
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2236 days
Last activity: 1103 days
#15 Posted on
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/rauch.htm
(Thanks for Shaddax for the link)

The Marrying Kind
Why social conservatives should support same-sex marriage

by Jonathan Rauch


Last year the Census Bureau reported a statistic that deserved wider notice than it received: during the 1990s the number of unmarried-partner households in the United States increased by 72 percent. Cohabitation has actually been on the rise for decades, but it started from a small base. Now the numbers (more than five million cohabiting couples) are beginning to look impressive.

Marriage, meanwhile, is headed in the other direction. The annual number of weddings per 1,000 eligible women fell by more than a third from 1970 to 1996. A lot of factors are at work here—for example, people are marrying later—but it seems clear that one of them is the rise in cohabitation. Couples are simply more willing to live together without tying the knot.

Whether this is a bad thing is a contentious question, but it is almost certainly not a good thing. Cohabitation tends to be both less stable and less happy than marriage, and this appears to be true even after accounting for the possibility that the cohabiting type of person may often be different from the marrying type. Research suggests that marriage itself brings something beneficial to the table. Add the fact that a growing share of cohabiting households—now more than a third of them—contain children, and it is hard to be enthusiastic about the trend.

Whom to blame? In part, homosexual couples like me and my partner. Cohabitation used to be stigmatized. "Living in sin" it has been called in recent memory, even among the educated classes. Today cohabitation is often viewed as a different-but-equal alternative to wedlock. Although the drift toward cohabitation would no doubt have happened anyway, the growing visibility and acceptance of same-sex couples probably speeded the change. As one gay activist told the Los Angeles Times last year, "Just the term 'unmarried partner' gave it a dignity and social category."

So (conservatives say) it's true! Homosexuals undermine marriage! To the contrary. The culprit is not the presence of same-sex couples; it is the absence of same-sex marriage.

The emergence into the open of same-sex relationships is an irreversible fact in this country. Traditionalists may not like it, but they cannot change it, so they will have to decide how to deal with it. The far right's plan—try to push homosexuals back into the closet—is not going to work; the majority of Americans are too openhearted for that. Indeed, the currents of public opinion are running the other way. An annual survey of college freshmen found that last year 58 percent—a record high, and up from 51 percent in 1997—thought that same-sex couples should be able to marry.

Seeing those numbers and others like them, conservatives are desperate to stave off same-sex marriage. For that matter, many moderates remain queasy about legalizing gay marriage; they are sympathetic to homosexuals, but not that sympathetic. Liberation-minded leftists, who spent the 1970s telling us that our parents' marriages were outdated and stuffy, were never crazy about matrimony to begin with. As for gays, the vast majority want the right to marry, but most agree that domestic-partner benefits and other "marriage-lite" arrangements are a lot better than nothing.

The result is the ABM Pact: Anything But Marriage. Enroll same-sex partners in the company health plan, give them some of the legal prerogatives of spousehood, attend their commitment ceremonies, let them register at city hall as partners—just DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE. In America, and in Europe, too, ABM is rapidly establishing itself as the compromise of choice. Gay partnerships get some social and legal recognition, marriage remains the union of man and woman, and everybody moves on. A shrewd social bargain, no?

No. The last thing supporters of marriage should be doing is setting up an assortment of alternatives, but that is exactly what the ABM Pact does, and not only for gays. Every year more companies and governments (at the state and local level) grant marriagelike benefits to cohabiting partners: "concessions fought for and won mostly by gay groups," as the Los Angeles Times notes, "but enjoyed as well by the much larger population of heterosexual unmarried couples." To which might be added what I think of as the Will & Grace effect: homosexuals are here, we're queer, and nowadays we're kind of cool. ABM, perversely, turns one of the country's more culturally visible minorities into an advertisement for just how cool and successful life outside of wedlock can be.

I doubt that most homosexuals would take their marital vows less seriously than heterosexuals do, as some conservatives insist. Even if I'm wrong, however, surely the exemplary power of failed or unfaithful gay marriages would pale next to the example currently being set by a whole group—an increasingly fashionable group—among whom love and romance and sex and commitment flourish entirely outside of marriage. And can you imagine social conservatives telling any other group to cohabit rather than marry? Can you imagine them saying, "The young men of America's inner cities won't take marriage as seriously as they should, so let's encourage them to shack up with their girlfriends"?

Those who worry about the example gays would set by marrying should be much more worried about the example gays are already setting by not marrying. In getting this backward the advocates of ABM make a mistake that is both ironic and sad. At a time when marriage needs all the support and participation it can get, homosexuals are pleading to move beyond cohabitation. We want the licenses, the vows, the rings, the honeymoons, the anniversaries, the benefits, and, yes, the responsibilities and the routines. And who is telling us to just shack up instead? Self-styled friends of matrimony. Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why they undermined marriage in an effort to keep homosexuals out.





And Marking Out
Slashwrestling.com
Wienerville
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3035 days
Last activity: 248 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
    Oh, and by the frickin' way, why the hell would anyone want cake if they couldn't eat it?


Because last time, some of us did not get our... piece of cake.

/Milton




"I'm a little dyslexic......earlier, I freed my ass, and I'm hoping that my mind will follow." -- Moon Zappa
wordlife
Head cheese








Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3363 days
Last activity: 2647 days
#17 Posted on
1>

Wordlife,

If I had single filing status and simply lived with the woman who is my wife, and we filed separately, we would each pay more tax than we do by filing separately when we are married. That's not an opinion, that's fact. (Believe me, we checked on our returns last year)

Higher deduction thresholds probably help people who can afford to spend their incomes on deductible items such as charities, etc. Me? I foolishly squander my disposable income on things like rent, food, heat, and other items which the gov't does not deem as deductible expenditures.

Thus, the only the reason the government gets more from me is because I am married.

"Yeah, that's real fair."

Oh, and by the frickin' way, why the hell would anyone want cake if they couldn't eat it?

(edited by Reverend J Shaft on 1.8.03 0934)



Well, my mother is a single mother and she is not allowed to take deductions that she would otherwise be allowed if she was still married to my father...For example, my mother cannot claim education credits for my brother and sister (which would total to 2,000 more back my mother would get)but she cannot take them b/c of the threshold.

And the deductions that you are referring to (ie charity) would not matter b/c you could take those anyway even if you are single. The deductions I am referring to are education credits, rental real estate deduction, IRA deductions, etc. that married people get that the average single person cannot.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1270 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Then there are those who belive that gay marriage leads to Polyamory i.e. group marriage.

Some people will go to amazing lengths...



"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
- Ben Franklin, 1759
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#19 Posted on
Nobody's criticized Bush for basically coming out & calling homosexuality a sin?

And I'm not buying the "won't somebody think of the children?" argument, either. So what if a man & a man or a woman & a woman get married? That's going to stop heterosexual couples from getting married & raising a family?



vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3035 days
Last activity: 248 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Bumper sticker of the day: "If you don't approve of gay marriages, don't have one."





"I'm a little dyslexic......earlier, I freed my ass, and I'm hoping that my mind will follow." -- Moon Zappa
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Next
Pages: 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: Denver to vote on Anti-Stress Initiative
Next thread: Gay HS Redux: Lawsuit Filed
Previous thread: More Politics
(1896 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Because more than money and deals, he craves attention.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush: Marriage Is For a Man and WomanRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.147 seconds.