This is a tangent, but it’s been irking me. Bush said he “believes gay marriage to be wrong”. So not only is he waging a biased social engineering campaign, he’s doing it because of his “faith”. Unless he has studied Koine, Hebrew, and Latin, how does he know that what he believes is what his bible actually says? Obviously, he’s taking his pre-conceived notions and hiding them behind a wall of “faith”.
Furthermore, if you watched his Bush/Cheney '04 Rally on CSPAN, you would notice see how the mob is worked into a frenzy whenever he says the word God. (“Freedom is the Almighty God’s gift to every man woman and child!”) Again, just because he SAYS the word God doesn’t mean he is trustworthy himself. I am actually religious myself but I am terrified how the masses react to his divine name-dropping. He said that the terrorists have hijacked religion (islam in their case) to promote their ideology. HELLO?? Bush has hijacked christianity to further his political aims. Before he decided to send american youths into a desert hell-hole, did he ask himself “what would Jesus do”?
I know that it actually IS bigotry. I guess I wasn’t to clear which side I was on when making that post. I’m simply saying that people who oppose gay marriage are going to use their religion and the fact that God condemns it as their excuse for being bigots.
1: So you think that if/when Kerry trashes Bush in the election, the democrats are going to fixate on him like you republicans do w/Clinton?
2: the ever-popular “if you’re not cheering us you’re supporting the enemy” bullshit is just that: bullshit. Go fuck yourself. When return, bring substance.
I once tried to argue the same thing in GD. Bad idea. I may as well have painted “bigot sympathizer” on my forhead and strolled about The Castro with my middle finger raised.
This is not an issue where cooler heads will prevail, I’m afraid.
The reason Bush is going after gay marriage is simple: it is the only area in which liberal/progressive interests are actually advancing in the U.S.
I mean, where else are advances occurring? The environment? Freedom of speech? Women’s rights? Helping the poor?
:::crickets:::
In all these other areas, liberals and progressives are fighting a holding action at best and in many cases, losing. So those pictures of gay couples getting married are about the ONLY thing that the Pubbies have to scare the moderates and partisans with and distract them with their economic woes and how he got America’s wang caught in a pencil sharpener over in Iraq.
I’m sorry, but gays who push this are playing straight into Bush and Rove’s hands, and you ought to know that.
. . . . In a case that only applies in Minnesota and therefore has fuck-all to do with DOMA or the federal constitutional amendment question.
Well, no, actually, I couldn’t. Because, you see, when you throw a couple state law cases into a discussion of federal law, I naturally assume you do so because you think they have some application. Now you admit that “these decisions apply only to where they were raised” (I assume you mean handed down), which makes me wonder why you cited them in the first place, and why you did not point out that they are state cases, not federal cases. Allow me to point out that the one citing caselaw is you, not me – and good on ya – but if you do and the citation is not actually authority for what you say it is, or where you say it is, I will call you on it. And it is no discourtesy for me to do so.
First, this is incorrect. By defining “marriage” and “spouse” for purposes of every federal enactment, the federal government effectively now refuses to acknowledge any same-sex marriage, wherever it was contracted. If you think that’s had “no effect,” talk to the gay married couple who were demanded to fill out paperwork as two single men at the border, because the feds do not recognize their Canadian same-sex marriage as a marriage. Second, we do now have same sex marriages even in our own country, as you yourself point out. Do you therefore argue DOMA has no effect now? Congratulations on your California marriage, boys, just don’t try to get any federal benefits. This is the damnedest argument for you to be making, to argue that this Act is or has been harmless and meaningless.
Once again, if the case was the impetus for passage of a federal law, who cares what or where the underlying case was? I’m missing your point here.
With all due respect, it doesn’t appear that you do. Not so long as you argue that DOMA means nothing.
:: Patiently :: Yes, I am aware that you are talking about the effects of the issue of a federal amendment being raised at all. That’s what amazes me – that you would weigh the effects of “the issue being raised at all” against a valid law on the books today, and conclude that “the issue being raised at all” is more dangerous. I mean, while Bush is out in West Bumfuck on the stump gasbagging about some future amendment, some night nurse at a VA hospital is telling you that you can’t see your legal husband, because you ain’t married. Holy shit, how can you look at something that can hurt you now, and then look at something that may hurt you in the future, and decide the second is worse? And I’m fairly certain I never said that “only a signed law has an effect on the country,” but if you find my points easier to dispute by misrepresenting them, you go right ahead.
SOL, I’m ignoring your first post in light of your second. You must have had a martini break or something.
DIOGENES –
But it can sure affect people’s civil rights now, right? So what, Clinton’s off the hook because it “wasn’t his initiative” – he just signed it into law – and it was “one of his concessions to the right”? (Translation: He sold y’all out.) If you’re willing to grant “concessions to the right” as a valid rationale for doing something distasteful, why not grant that to Bush as well? And to say that DOMA has been completely ineffective since passage is incorrect; it does not apply to just marriages within the states, it applies to marriages contracted anywhere, which for purposes of U.S. federal law must be defined as “one man, one woman.”
This is by no means certain. It is not clear that a constitutional amendment defining “marriage” could retroactively apply to marriages lawfully contracted before its passage. And it is not clear that the amendment would apply to civil unions at all, even if it passed – which, again is highly unlikely. You assert that it would apply to civil unions, but even the article you cited notes that this is far from certain. So long as the amendment spoke only of “marriage” and defined only “marriage,” it might well have no applicability to civil unions or to any other union short of (or different from) an actual marriage.
That’s not what your own link says. Re-read it if you don’t believe me.
We are not talking about all civil rights, or even broad civil rights. We are talking about the right of gays to marry. I respect your right to think that’s the most important issue going right now. I just point out that you cannot reasonably expect everyone to agree with you. To a man who has lost his job and is trying to figure out how to support his family on his wife’s income alone, this may not be true. To parents who watch the news anxiously every night, hoping not to hear their daughter’s unit mentioned as taking casualties in Iraq, this may not be true. At this point in time, at this point in our country, other people may think other things are more important. And my only point is that you’re not really in a position to say they’re wrong, much less decree they’re all a bunch a homophobes if they vote for the guy you dislike. What if this issue is so far off their radar it doesn’t cross their minds at all? Are they still a bunch of bigots then?
By characterizing him as a “little jug-eared loon” whom you would have voted for “for the entertainment value,” I assume you concede you would have thrown your vote away rather than vote for the guy who didn’t line up with you on this issue. And fair enough, I guess; but under those circumstances, your refusal to recognize that more than one issue may drive an election would have effectively meant you had no say in who governed you next. It’s hard to see how that’s a better option than voting for one you consider the better candidate overall, even if you dislike his or her stance on one issue.
Bush isn’t worried that the radical right wingnuts will vote for Kerry. He’s worried that they won’t vote at all. Given the low margins of victory in several states last time around, Bush knows that if even 1% of the radical right wingnuts who voted for him last time stay home this time he’s out of a job.
Thing is, he could’ve made one statement about the anti-marriage amendment and that would have been enough of a sop to the wingnuts. They’d have had their little Bush quote to put in their fundraiser mailers and church bulletins and fake-ass partisan “voter guides” and all would have been well. Yet he continues to go on about it.
Jodi, I’ve explained my position repeatedly and you’re not satisfied by it, and that’s fine, but I’m done anyways. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Speaking as a conservative who nonetheless has no problem with gays or gay rights, I would like to ask you just which countries are more “advanced” than the U.S. in terms of human rights for gays? If there is a country anywhere where gay rights are protected by law; the citizenry in general is accepting and happy about gay couples; and gay marriage is legal, I’ve not heard of it.
I’m not saying this isn’t the case. I just want to know who these countries are that are so superior to the “backwards” U.S., which so far as I know has led the world in peacefully changing its societal mores regarding race, women’s rights, freedom of speech, etc., for the last half century or so. This is a different country in almost every way than it was 50 years ago, and these advances have been acheived democratically and without civil war, and I don’t recall any particular country or group of countries being held up during that time as a shining beacon of advanced humanity for us to emulate.
Canada? Are you sure. And don’t most of the Scandinavian countries have a sort of half-way arrangement where same-sex couples share most of the rights and benefits of heterosexual unions but still can’t legally marry?
And even if the countries you cite do allow for gay rights and gay marriage, this has only been the case for the last few years. With the exception of Denmark in 1989, almost all gay rights and marriage legislation by these countries has taken place in the either the late 1990s or in the 2001-2003 era.
I don’t think the adoption of this type of legislation over the last 4 to 8 eight years by a handful of mostly Scandinavian countries justifies the labelling of the U.S. as “culturally impaired,” or “backward.” And when you look at the overall number of countries in the world that either do not endorse gay orientation or punish it outright, I would say that the U.S. is among the vanguard of countries pushing to eliminate prejudice and the denial of rights to gays.
Well ,as a Gay person who was married earlier this year, my Government issued marriage certificate from Ontario shows me VERY clearly that Canada is WAY ahead of the U.S. on Gay rights…
Canada has leveled the playing field for Gays and Lesbians… Pension rights, immigration rights, marriage rights…
It’s very strange… growing up in Canada in the 70’s, I used to see the U.S. as a leader in Gay and Lesbian rights… However, over the past decade, Canada has shown itself to be miles ahead of the U.S. on rights…
And unfortunately, I don’t see the U.S. catching up any time soon with Bush and cronies in office… :mad:
Canada is no more a monolithic nation than the U.S. Individual provinces have taken major steps toward recognizing gay marriage, though others have not. The Federal government is putting itself back together after the recent election, with no party having secured a majority, so full-scale Federal recognition might take a little while.
Well first you request a list of countries that are more advanced then you force a definition of same. You have been given several countries that actually are more advanced but might not fit your definition exactly, and only respond about one (Canada) and then only to state that “full-scale Federal recognition might take a little while.” This seems a little weasely to me.
A person’s sexual orientation is just about the least interesting thing about them, in my opinion, unless I am having sex with them at the moment. Two people who want to enter into a marriage and assume all the rights, rewards, risks, and responsibilities therein should not be denied due to their sexual orientation. A country whose sitting president believes otherwise and tries to amend the Constitution to make it so, and who is supported in this endeavor by roughly half of the populace, is backward in that regard.
Oops, Starving Artist, I screwed that up badly. Sorry to attribute **Bryan Elkars ** quote to you, and totally out of context. My apologies to both of you.
Its a blackmail issue. A considerable majority of Americans respond to certain “hot buttons”, and no politician can survive, much less lead, if he cannot offer some lip service. The best analogy that comes to mind is Bush the Elder, and his bold campaign to rid the nation of the horror of “flag burning” desecration. It was all stuff and nonsense, of course, no rational legislation could be drafted to achieve the stated goal, even if the goal was worthy. It was legislation to regulate interstate commerce in pigeon milk, an obnoxious program to correct a non-existent problem.
Texas legend has it that Lyndon Johnson, in his first run for state office, advised his press contact to start spreading the rumor that his opponent had sexual relations with his cattle.
“Lyndon, you can’t do that! You can’t go around saying your opponent screws cattle!”
“No, but if I work it just right, I can make him deny it.”
