Respect, Dignity, and Same Sex Marriage. Do what now?

[SolGrundy]

I just read this article on Yahoo, since watching the debate itself would’ve just pissed me off. No surprises there: Kerry’s against same sex marriage, Bush is way way against it, Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian. Good, we’re all on the same page.

But Mr. President says this:

Asked by the debate moderator whether he thought homosexuality was a matter of choice, Bush said, “I just don’t know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It’s important that we do that.”

Okay, we’re good. “Tolerance,” yeah whatever, but respect and dignity, I’m all for that. And the best way to treat homosexuals with respect and dignity?

He [Bush] said he was concerned that existing federal legislation against gay marriage could be overturned in courts. “I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the constitution,” he said.

So I realize that this basically boils down to the same argument that has been put forth ad nauseam right here on the SDMB. Minus, of course, the unfortunate phrase “defining the definition.” But I still don’t get the disconnect.

Maybe it’s because I was exfoliating and catalog shopping for antiques while going down on a strange man I picked up in a bar instead of watching the debate. Was there some segueway in there that I missed? I’m pretty sure Kerry didn’t call him on it, because he wants to distance himself from the issue as much as possible, and he probably dropped that hot potato like so many war medals. But did Bush make any attempt at all to explain how banning same-sex marriage is treating homosexuals with “respect and dignity?”

[matt_mcl]

Because we’re ‘called to celibacy,’ duh.

[roger_thornhill]

Sol, I’m only guessing, but I think the respect and dignity needs to be understood in the context of the tolerance. For Bush, the fact that homosexuals can be together and do whatever they want (besides getting married of course) is enough. Perhaps by tolerance he is alluding in however a subconscious way to the de-criminalisation of homosexuality.

[Mockingbird]

@roger thornhill

Sol, I’m only guessing, but I think the respect and dignity needs to be understood in the context of the tolerance. For Bush, the fact that homosexuals can be together and do whatever they want (besides getting married of course) is enough. Perhaps by tolerance he is alluding in however a subconscious way to the de-criminalisation of homosexuality.

Homosexuality isn’t what was recently decriminalized, sodomy was.

That benefitted straight people as well as gays because in many of those states sodomy was interpreted to be anything other than heterosexual penis/vagina intercourse.

While it was rarely used to prosecute heterosexuals it was still written in such a way that anyone could be busted using it.

[roger_thornhill]

@Mockingbird

Homosexuality isn’t what was recently decriminalized, sodomy was.

That benefitted straight people as well as gays because in many of those states sodomy was interpreted to be anything other than heterosexual penis/vagina intercourse.

While it was rarely used to prosecute heterosexuals it was still written in such a way that anyone could be busted using it.

Thanks for the clarification, Mockingbird. I was actually thinking in notional broad-stroke terms - attempting to get inside Bush’s mind - the mind of someone who is of the older generation and might consider anything other than banning homosexuality tolerant.

I actually had no idea that the decriminalisation of sodomy was a recent thing in the US.

[Mockingbird]

@roger thornhill

Thanks for the clarification, Mockingbird. I was actually thinking in notional broad-stroke terms - attempting to get inside Bush’s mind - the mind of someone who is of the older generation and might consider anything other than banning homosexuality tolerant.

I actually had no idea that the decriminalisation of sodomy was a recent thing in the US.

It happened in the past 12 months. It could be seen as what led to the same sex marriage debate.

[roger_thornhill]

@Mockingbird

It happened in the past 12 months. It could be seen as what led to the same sex marriage debate.

Interesting. My understanding is that it happened in England and Wales in the 1960s, so it was never a hot topic while I was growing up.

[Mockingbird]

@roger thornhill

Interesting. My understanding is that it happened in England and Wales in the 1960s, so it was never a hot topic while I was growing up.

Um… I thought during the 1980s under Thatcher that some very nasty anti gay measures were passed.

[roger_thornhill]

@Mockingbird

Um… I thought during the 1980s under Thatcher that some very nasty anti gay measures were passed.

A google search reveals that sodomy was indeed decriminalised in the 1960s (1967, to be precise) in E&W.

Regarding Margaret Thatcher’s premiership, you may be referring, at least in part, to the controversy over Section 28 of the Local Government Act, which was passed in 1988 and concerned the promotion of homosexuality in schools. Section 28 was repealed last year.

[stpauler]

Wanna get more pissed off Sol?

Check this out:(snipping involved)

Lynne Cheney accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of pulling a “cheap and tawdry political trick,” apparently for invoking her daughter’s sexuality in his debate with President Bush.
Asked Wednesday night whether homosexuality is a choice, Kerry noted that one of Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughters is a lesbian, and said she would probably affirm that she was born that way.

Mrs. Cheney made clear she thought Kerry had crossed a line into family privacy when she introduced her husband to a supportive crowd of 800 after a debate-watching party in the Pittsburgh suburb of Coraopolis.

“Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.”

In his earlier debate with John Edwards, the vice president expressed no objection when the Democrat brought up his daughter, Mary. Edwards expressed “respect for the fact that they’re willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It’s a wonderful thing.”

First off, fuck you Lynn Cheney. What the fuck is there to be indignant about?
Kerry didn’t trick your daughter to be a lesbian. He didn’t cover a lesbian with leaves and hoped that your daughter would fall in.

Of course, the AP writer for this article lied when he/she said that Edwards brought up the daughter first:

IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President.

I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: “Freedom means freedom for everybody.” You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family’s experience as a context for your remarks.

Wow, it looks like that moderator brought up Cheney’s family, as a matter of fact, she brought up the fact that Cheney was using your family experience (aka daughter) ALREADY!
So fuck you Lynn Cheney for acting indignant about someone bringing up your daughter’s sexuality especially after your husband already brought it up. Fuck you for acting like this, which is ashamed.

[WhyNot]

At the risk of trying to explain a man I despise, I did watch the debate, and what I took from Bush’s statement was: Right now, individual judges in individual states are essentailly re-writing the definition of marriage for us, because they are the ones deciding same-sex marriage lawsuits. Obviously, according to Bush, we don’t want a bunch of judges redefining what marriage is, because that’s up to the people. If his constitutional amendment is passed, it will require ratification by each state, so that presumably people will notify their legislatures as to whether or not it should be ratified. He did seem as if he was trying to put it in the hands of the people, rather than the hands of a few judges.

Which, the rat-bastard, actually made me go, “huh.”

Fuckwad.

[Fear_Itself]

Proposing constituional amendments on hot button issues is just a tactic used by the right wing that allows them to appeal to their conservative base, but not take responsibility for actually implementing the law. Bush knows that the same sex marriage amendment hasn’t ghost of a chance of passage, but by supporting it, he can score some brownie points with his base. The same is true of all the toss-away amendments proposed by Republicans in the last ten years:
anti-flag burning amendment, anti-abortion amendment, school prayer & pledge of allegiance amendment, ensure confirmation of presidential appointees amendment, tax increase limitation amendment, restrict U.S. birthright citizenship amendment, ad nauseum. The sole purpose is to pander to conservative voters, and to be able to point at their opponents and say, "Look, Senator Taksenspend is against marriage (or flags, or America). This is about manipulating voters; the last thing on their minds is actually changing the law.

[Rashak_Mani]

Ban gay marriage… but respect them… huh ? Definetely something wrong there.

I think Bush should favor gay marriage… we all know that once people get married the sex decreases a lot… more gay marriages means less sodomy going on… (humor off)

[Polycarp]

I would really like to have one of the half dozen or so articulate Bush supporters explain what his thinking on this is, insofar as they aren’t purely the sort of glittering generalities that comes out of political campaign speeches.

Because bluntly that disconnect is a glaring one to me as well. I can grasp the annoying Constitutional law perspective, though I damn well don’t agree with it. But the jump from position A to position B sounds so vast a gap to cross that frankly I’m not making it.

[Evil_Death]

@stpauler

Kerry didn’t trick your daughter to be a lesbian. He didn’t cover a lesbian with leaves and hoped that your daughter would fall in.

Ten out of ten for this little gem, but you’ve really gone off the deep end here. Kerry was using Cheney’s daughter being a lesbian as a weapon against her father. This is not kosher, and Mrs Cheney has every goddamn right to be indignant.

[matt_mcl]

Folks, why are we trying so hard to figure out the rationale behind what Bush said? He’s trying to appear not to be a huge homophobe while attempting to pursue a homophobic agenda. In other words, he’s blowing smoke. That’s really not much of a stretch for him.

[ZipperJJ]

Not to take away from the Bush hating in this thread, as I loathe the man, but I agree with Mrs. Cheney (!!!) that Kerry sounded like a complete ass answering his half of the segment with “Dick Cheney’s Daughter Is Gay”. That’s seriously rude. Not to call someone gay but to make mention of it on national TV completely out of the blue. His answer had zero to do with the question.

[stpauler]

Here’s the full text of the question:

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let’s get back to economic issues. But let’s shift to some other questions here.

Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

BUSH: You know, Bob, I don’t know. I just don’t know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It’s important that we do that.

And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.

And that’s to be honored.

But as we respect someone’s rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn’t change – or have to change – our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it’s very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman.

I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.

It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.

I’m deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.

My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman.

But I’m concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we’ll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don’t think that’s in our nation’s interests.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?

**KERRY: We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as. **

I think if you talk to anybody, it’s not choice. I’ve met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I’ve met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that.

The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we’re a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can’t discriminate in the workplace. You can’t discriminate in the rights that you afford people.

You can’t disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I’m for partnership rights and so forth.

Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they’re proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately.

(nitpick) Kerry never said that Dick Cheney’s daughter was gay. He said “lesbian”. (nitpick)

Could Kerry just be pointing out the highest profile GLBT Republican there is right now and asking if that person made a choice? I could see how Mrs Cheney could be indignant if her daughter wasn’t campaigning for her father. But she is.

She’s now dropped out of the RUC and is a well-paid staffer at President Bush’s reelection campaign, which has used the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment as a centerpiece to turn out right and evangelical voters. She’s refused to comment on the amendment and campaign aides “have essentially declared Mary off-limits to reporters,” according to the Baltimore Sun.

Sorry, hun. You’re campaigning for the party and so is your daughter, expect to be brought into the bright spotlight.

[susan]

Good morning! I just sent another $100 to Basic Rights Oregon.

[jayjay]

Mary Cheney is fair game, Lynn’s little hissy-fit notwithstanding. If she wanted to not be a part of the election-year rhetoric, she should’ve stayed home instead of working on the campaign of an overtly homophobic administration.