My opinion of Bush is a low as anyone’s, but I don’t believe he is a homophobe. And his statement about sinners is actually an inoffensive way of saying “judge not.” And I don’t think he really gives a rat’s ass about whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal. He’s just saying what his constituents expect.
What pisses me off, and I’ve mentioned this before in other threads, is the notion that marriage is a sacrament or sacred, and should therefore be regulated by * the government*! WTF?
Which seems to be along the lines of the Pope’s position on gay marriages:
:rolleyes:
Really? I find it trivially easy to believe. A man who mocks the execution of a retarded woman is certainly not going to feel any qualms about harboring irrational fear and hatred of gays, IMO.
But that’s exactly the point. You don’t run around saying “judge not” in situations where some abstract issue is clearly wrong or cleary right in your worldview, even as a Christian. Nothing about the speck and the beam says anything about not judging the rightness or wrongness of things in the abstract. It is not, as Ayn Rand claimed, a commadment to nihilism, an abdication from moral judgement. It doesn’t render one incapable of saying in the abstract whether murder is wrong or loving relationships are okay. It’s simply against hypocrisy in condemnation of other people, which is a side issue from discussions of morality in the abstract.
So yeah, at the very least, it’s a big cop-out. Bush was asked a question about morality of something in the abstract, and he responded with a statement about being wary of judging people and how no one is morally perfect. Well, sure, no one is perfect, but what does “perfect” mean? What should we strive to do or not do? So speck-n-beam doesn’t address the question. Worse, it certainly means he definitively passed up the opportunity to affirm that homosexual relationships are okay. He doesn’t bring up “judge not” when he declares that the war on Iraq was just and moral against those who claim it was immoral. So he is willing to make moral judgements: he just isn’t willing to defend homosexuals. He isn’t willing to say “there’s nothing wrong with homosexual love or couples.” Maybe you can convince yourself that he simply hasn’t made up his mind on whether it’s wrong or not, but I have a hard time buying that idea from a President with, as the reporter noted, such strong and openly voiced moral opinions on a whole range of subjects.
And that’s a big part of the issue, and where people like Bush and Kerry and others who’ve drummed this line are fish out of water at the moment: they have these claims about marriage and society, but they are unwilling to offer their rationale for defending them. Is “Bush believes that marriage is between a man and woman.” his principle for wanting an amendment or whatever? If not, what IS his justification? Why DOES he believe that? And why is he loathe to reveal why he does?
The fact is, WITHOUT the idea that gays are sinners and their relationships are wrong, it makes no sense. What other objections are there to gay marriage that are not either insubstantily or basically made up onthe spot, ad hoc, just to avoid admitting that the sinner issue is what’s key? So either Bush does think they are sinners, or he, like Kerry clearly is, is politically pandering to those who do.
And remember, these legal overatures are not only to restrict marriage for heterosexuals couples. They are also to reject any sort of second-class union like civil unions with benefits. Ironically, this is a movement to break up couples and families. What is the basis for this? It better be something substantial.
I totally agree. You’ve taken the words right out of my mouth, Apos.
Bush missed his chance to say something affirmative, something that would point the nation and the Republican Party in the direction of attracting gays. His use of the “sinner” parable was confusing. It required an effort to figure out that he wasn’t insulting gays. His opposition to gay marriage could have been stated a lot less negatively. I was quite disappointed in Bush’s statement.
Well, I’m gay, and I don’t feel personally threatened by Bush on that matter. I do feel threatened by his economy-busting, his warmongering, his lying, his broken promises, and by many of the people who manage him. I don’t think Bush cares what people do, he just wants to get re-elected (or selected. And I don’t think the Republican party is interested in “attracting gays,” any more than it’s interested in women (unless they’re rich) or Blacks (unless they’re rich).
My partner and I will get married, or have a civil union ceremony, when it’s available to us on the same footing as anyone else. We don’t want a “gay marriage”.
And again, I ask, how can you call marriage a “sacrament” and in the same breath demand a Constitutional Amendment concerning it?
And let’s be fair: Bush is hardly the only person saying things like this. As I pointed out, Kerry is doing so as well. So are the Clintons. All of them think marriage is between a man and woman… but don’t ever really explain their rationale, either in religious terms or in terms of what harms they think it could cause society. Bush is singular only in that he is not even advocating any sort of second-class alternative.
If someone said that many of his supporters thought that race mixing was immoral, I have no doubt that Bush would solidly reject that idea.
I’m not sure what he’d say if someone suggested that being a Jew instead of accepting Christ was immoral. On one hand, Bush’s brand of Christianity has worked hard to try and make a safe place for Judiasm within its theology. On the other hand, it still doesn’t go as far as trying to argue that it’s not at least a little bit wrong to not accept Christ (usually with the idea that the time for Jews to be properly converted is during the Revelations events). The question is, if someone asked Bush if he thought that it was wrong for a Jew to not accept Christ, and he responded with the everyone’s a sinner- speck/beam thing, would we rightly conclude that he thought that Jews were sinners since he refused to say that they weren’t? I think many people might: but it would also be relatively inoffensive sentiment, because Jews and Christians have learned to tolerate the fact that they have different ideas about morality in which each is lacking from the other’s perspective.
So, assuming that it is relatively inoffensive to admit to a religious position, is it a huge deal if Bush thought that homosexuality is a sin? I mean, it’s a big deal from the perspective of people who care about homosexual rights and want to see change, but is it really such a big deal that a President has religious views with which others disagree?
It is when he has “lawyers working on” getting his views made a Constitutional Amendment.
I think this is really interesting, and it jibes with what Andrew Sullivan has been arguing. The idea that all gay couples and also all the major leftist gay activists are trying to push gay marriage is highly misleading. In reality, gay marriage is something that many leftist gay activists have always been either indifferent to or even openly hostile to. It’s only been recently that it’s been put on the agenda, and that agenda setting has been done as much by gay and gay-friendly conservatives, libertarians and indepedants as it has by anyone. The leftist activists were really the last to fall so far in the movement, and many of them are STILL ambivalent.
Then you aren’t paying close enough attention.
You wont’ get that chance in the U.S. if Bush has his way. He wants to make it illegal for a state to recognize either a marriage or even a civil union for homosexuals.
But I already covered that. Obviously it’s a big deal in that he is working against gay rights in practice, regardless of what he personally believes. I’m just saying that, if Bush came out and said “I believe homosexual sex is sin, based on my understanding of the Bible but…(and then repeated a call for tolerance and the sinner thing)” would it really be such a big scandal? Aren’t his legal actions much more important than his beliefs?
He’s following the lead of his Supreme Court pets, Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia.
If the federal government seeks to expand and protect the rights of minorities, it’s a violation of state’s rights.
If the federal government seeks to restrict and remove the rights of minoroties, it’s a judicious use of federal power.
That’s federalism.
See, that’s what I suspect-I don’t think he gives much thought to gays and such. It’s not a big issue with him.
BUT, he does have to pander to his constituents, and probably feels an obligation to pay lip service.
That being said, I DO think this is a threat to homosexuals, and I think it’s disgusting. Whatever his personal feelings are, really doesn’t matter-it’s what he DOES that counts.
THAT is the scary part.
You want a civil union and many of us want marriage.
It’s not just a term.
It is equality.
Separate is not equal.
Diogenes, my research books may be wrong, I’m willing to concede that. Any suggestions for non-biased books where I can go look this up for myself? Not that I don’t trust you or anything…
Yes. He would lose a healthy portion of his funding/donations and his voter base, because they would see it as condoning the actions of all us people who’re attracted to people with similar genitalia.
His legal actions are being led by his beliefs.
I doubt it. He: says homosexuality is wrong. He also says that it should be tolerated. And gays can’t marry. That seems, like it or not, fairly mainstream for most of his constituency.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they are being led purely by politics, who knows? When he has legal actions, his beliefs seem sort of irrelevant.
Yeah, I said marriage or civil union, mockingbird. Don’t much care what it’s called if it’s equal. Many countries require a civil ceremony (not merely a license) prior to a couple’s having a religious marriage service, a policy indicating that marriage is a function of the state, and, that if you choose to believe it is also a sacrament and made better, prettier, more expensive, etc. by having another ceremony, you are free to do so.
In the US, however, you can be married in a religious ceremony after merely obtaining a license. It seems to me that churches/religious groups have the absolute right to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for any stated reason, and it’s up to the members to like it or lump it. But I don’t want the state deciding I’m second-class and can have only what it will dole out.
I guess I’m older than some of you, but I’ve never anticipated being able to marry my partner in the US, so my disappointment is not very deep or very bitter. We’ve taken all the legal steps available to us to bind our lives, our incomes, our property and investments together. We’re certainly happier in our relationship than Newt Gingrich seems to have been in any of his (legal) ones. So fuck 'em.
From today’s Globe and Mail:
Now, I’ve never been Mr. Chrétien’s biggest supporter, but at least he recognizes that a Roman Catholic Prime Minister should not attempt to impose a Roman Catholic state.
“Land of the Free.”
:laughs up sleeve:
:thinks a bit longer:
:weeps:
Why couldn’t Canada have been more to the South? I don’t like snow and cold.
I guess you could try Vancouver.