GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

[AhmedFaisal]

Seriously, that was the last straw for this redneck punk. I have seen gay couples out there that have a better, longer lasting and more loving & caring relationship than most married heteros I know (me being hetero myself). And I have also seen gay couples being more loving and caring parents then hetero couples. This crap is so dug out of the ugliest middle ages junkbox it makes me nauseatic. Next thing they will vote for Apartheid in schools and universities. To quote the man freely, "Its time to put GW Bush and the neocons where they belong, in history's junkyard of discarded lies!". Sorry for the rant, but I got a couple of friends that are gay (men and women) that feel seriously discriminated by this BS from GWB and his cronies, they are hard working, tax paying, law abiding citizens, too, you know.
Cheers,

Ahmed

[IndyGopher]

A couple of things...

First, relax, it won't happen.

Second, this is in no way the least bit surprising. Of COURSE he supports an amendment to ban gay marriage. That's pretty central to the conservative mindset. There are of course exceptions.

They couldn't pass a flag-burning amendment. They couldn't pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
When people who oppose these sorts of things go ape****, the backlash against their extremism does more harm than good. Step back, review your history, and trust that knee-jerk passion-of-the-moment causes almost NEVER get the backing they need for a movement of this size. Granted, Prohibition did, but it didn't last. When you react this way, the implication (or at least the inference) is that you are the lone sane voice out there, and that really puts people off.

[Dippo]

Maybe this should be in the political forum ??

[mactastic]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61825

[AhmedFaisal]

Originally posted by IndyGopher
A couple of things...

First, relax, it won't happen.

Second, this is in no way the least bit surprising. Of COURSE he supports an amendment to ban gay marriage. That's pretty central to the conservative mindset. There are of course exceptions.

They couldn't pass a flag-burning amendment. They couldn't pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
When people who oppose these sorts of things go ape****, the backlash against their extremism does more harm than good. Step back, review your history, and trust that knee-jerk passion-of-the-moment causes almost NEVER get the backing they need for a movement of this size. Granted, Prohibition did, but it didn't last. When you react this way, the implication (or at least the inference) is that you are the lone sane voice out there, and that really puts people off.

You are right of course. But when you or people dear and close to you are affected by this kind of low style political behaviour it becomes hard to stay rational. It doesn't affect me myself much (hetero german living in the US at the moment) but it does affect some very good friends very much and it pains me to see them become the political stabbing tool of a man like that. These are real people with real feelings and shouldn't be abused like that.
Cheers,

Ahmed

[Dippo]

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
Seriously, that was the last straw for this redneck punk. I have seen gay couples out there that have a better, longer lasting and more loving & caring relationship than most married heteros I know (me being hetero myself). And I have also seen gay couples being more loving and caring parents then hetero couples. This crap is so dug out of the ugliest middle ages junkbox it makes me nauseatic. Next thing they will vote for Apartheid in schools and universities. To quote the man freely, "Its time to put GW Bush and the neocons where they belong, in history's junkyard of discarded lies!". Sorry for the rant, but I got a couple of friends that are gay (men and women) that feel seriously discriminated by this BS from GWB and his cronies, they are hard working, tax paying, law abiding citizens, too, you know.
Cheers,

Ahmed

I don't see how not letting people marry leads to institutionalized discrimation. Gay people have the exact same rights as everyone else. This isn't anything close to an apartheid type affair, there is no institutionalized discrimation, everyone is free to marry whomever they want but that doesn't mean the state or nation has to recognize it.

[scem0]

If the state or nation does not recognize a gay marriage but recognizes a hetero marriage then your statement that gay people have the same rights as everyone else is false.

scem0

[AhmedFaisal]

Originally posted by Dippo
I don't see how not letting people marry leads to institutionalized discrimation. Gay people have the exact same rights as everyone else. This isn't anything close to an apartheid type affair, there is no institutionalized discrimation, everyone is free to marry whomever they want but that doesn't mean the state or nation has to recognize it.

Fact is, that it does recognize marriage between men and women which certain rights and benefits attached. Such are inheritance, right to information in hospitals, right to refuse testimony in court, tax benefits, being on the same health insurance as your partner etc. etc.. Some of these can be obtained of course by legal paperwork however there have been many occasions where that was not sufficient as people were still refused information, wills were still overturned etc. etc.. Why should gay people that have decided to stay together and support eachother in a relationship similar to a hetero couple be refused to have these benefits when from the emotional part and the part of commitment they invest equally?
Cheers,

Ahmed

[Dippo]

Originally posted by scem0
If the state or nation does not recognize a gay marriage but recognizes a hetero marriage then your statement that gay people have the same rights as everyone else is false.

scem0

How is state recognition of a marriage a right?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Dippo
How is state recognition of a marriage a right?
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
Fact is, that it does recognize marriage between men and women which certain rights and benefits attached. Such are inheritance, right to information in hospitals, right to refuse testimony in court, tax benefits, being on the same health insurance as your partner etc. etc.. Some of these can be obtained of course by legal paperwork however there have been many occasions where that was not sufficient as people were still refused information, wills were still overturned etc. etc.. Why should gay people that have decided to stay together and support eachother in a relationship similar to a hetero couple be refused to have these benefits when from the emotional part and the part of commitment they invest equally?
Cheers,

Ahmed

Marriage is an institution that exist long before any of these benefits that it allows even existed. Marriage is a cultural tradition of the super-majority in this country and as such should be protected. The tradition cannot be redefine by the courts nor the government no matter what laws are passed. Small minorities seem bent on using the government to infringe on these traditions. Contrary to what some may believe, majorities have rights too.

The governement should work to allow benefits for everyone but marriage should not be open for redefinition by a small minority of people. And they should not be trying to use the tools of government to hijack it for their own uses.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Dippo
Marriage is an institution that exist long before any of these benefits that it allows even existed. Marriage is a cultural tradition of the super-majority in this country and as such should be protected. The tradition cannot be redefine by the courts nor the government no matter what laws are passed. Small minorities seem bent on using the government to infringe on these traditions. Contrary to what some may believe, majorities have rights too.

The governement should work to allow benefits for everyone but marriage should not be open for redefinition by a small minority of people. And they should not be trying to use the tools of government to hijack it for their own uses.

That 'tradition' you speak of once consisted of forced and arranged marriages as well as plural marriage. Should that have been redefined? Would you advocate going back to the time when women were the property of their husbands, because that's how marriage has traditionally been defined? What gives you the right to freeze the definition of marriage we use in 2004? Why not the 1904 definition? Or the 1304 definition? Are we that much better than previous generations to presume we have it perfect right now?

[Dippo]

Originally posted by mactastic
That 'tradition' you speak of once consisted of forced and arranged marriages as well as plural marriage. Should that have been redefined? Would you advocate going back to the time when women were the property of their husbands, because that's how marriage has traditionally been defined? What gives you the right to freeze the definition of marriage we use in 2004? Why not the 1904 definition? Or the 1304 definition? Are we that much better than previous generations to presume we have it perfect right now?

Clearly, I was stating that it is completely dependent on the tradition of the super-majority at the time. If the super-majority of people feel that gay marriage should be included in the "tradition" then there would be no problem, but that is clearly not the case.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Dippo
Clearly, I was stating that it is completely dependent on the tradition of the super-majority at the time. If the super-majority of people feel that gay marriage should be included in the "tradition" then there would be no problem, but that is clearly not the case.

It's not up to the majority, it's up to the courts. If things like this were decided by the majority you'd still see drinking fountains labeled 'colored'.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dippo
Clearly, I was stating that it is completely dependent on the tradition of the super-majority at the time. If the super-majority of people feel that gay marriage should be included in the "tradition" then there would be no problem, but that is clearly not the case.

my view of the US and its constitution is to protect all its citizens from oppression by the State. that's been turned on its head in this case.

do you, in fact, personally know anyone who's gay?

[numediaman]

Originally posted by Dippo
Contrary to what some may believe, majorities have rights too.

Yes, majorities have "rights" -- but minorities have "rights", as well. And a majority can not infringe on a minority's "rights" -- that what "rights" are all about.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by mactastic
It's not up to the majority, it's up to the courts. If things like this were decided by the majority you'd still see drinking fountains labeled 'colored'.

I glad we have to courts to run the democracy, I would hate to actually be able to vote and have it mean something.

If the majority still supported racial discrimation, then it would still exist. The support for racial discrimination changed during the civil rights movement.

If the courts were all that mattered, then MLK Jr. would have been filing lawsuits and not protesting on the street for all the public to see!

[Dippo]

Originally posted by numediaman
Yes, majorities have "rights" -- but minorities have "rights", as well. And a majority can not infringe on a minority's "rights" -- that what "rights" are all about.

Very very true.

But what happens when the minority "rights" conflicts with the majority's rights? If giving rights to the minority, means taking rights away from the majority, does that do either party justice?

EDIT: gay marriage is the example

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dippo
what happens when the minority "rights" conflicts with the majority's rights? If giving rights to the minority, means taking rights away from the majority, does that do either party justice?

cite examples

[Dippo]

Originally posted by zimv20
my view of the US and its constitution is to protect all its citizens from oppression by the State. that's been turned on its head in this case.

do you, in fact, personally know anyone who's gay?

I have yet to see anybody being oppressed with or without marriage.

Yes, but I don't know any gays that are actively pushing to get married. From what they told me, there are a number of gays that don't want marriage and don't really care about the whole gay marriage thing.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dippo
I have yet to see anybody being oppressed with or without marriage.


seriously, are you blind?

[Dippo]

Originally posted by zimv20
seriously, are you blind?

Would you like to cite some examples of this oppression?

EDIT: Well, I will come back later to see how this thread has progressed

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dippo
Would you like to cite some examples of this oppression?

ah, turned the tables. very clever.

i can do so and even stay on topic. if you're asking about state oppression, it can be demonstrated in the rights denied to gays -- marriage, inheritence, insurance sharing, lack of protection in having to incriminate one's spouse.

this one is harder to prove, but i know gays who have either been denied jobs or fired because of their orientation.

depending on your definition of "oppression," i've seen gay-bashing on the streets of chicago. mostly verbal, but i've seen two actual fights. one, to support the stereotype, was a group of sailors beating up a couple gays outside Berlin nightclub, about 10 years ago. (it was broken up quickly)

honestly, just because you either choose to not acknowledge a problem, or really are just blind to it, shouldn't mean that you can declare that the problem exists nowhere.

i know quite a few gays who are very upset w/ yesterday's announcement, though not surprised. some would indeed like to get married, the rest would like the option. none have yet voiced to me that they don't care.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Dippo

If the majority still supported racial discrimation, then it would still exist. The support for racial discrimination changed during the civil rights movement.

Untrue. One of the major civil rights Supreme Court decisions (Brown v. Board of Education) outlawing segregation in public schools, came in 1952, near the beginning of the modern civil rights movement. Even after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the court actions were required to ensure the enforcement of their provisions.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Dippo
Very very true.

But what happens when the minority "rights" conflicts with the majority's rights? If giving rights to the minority, means taking rights away from the majority, does that do either party justice?

EDIT: gay marriage is the example

Nobody is taking away your right to be married. It is shear lunacy to say that that equal inclusivness of rights equals less of it for you. In fact the opposite is true.

If I hate Joe it does not mean Joe's marriage cheapens my marriage. My marriage is between me and my wife. Are you not going to get married because of homosexual marriage? I even know of a heterosexual couple that is refusing to get married because of the laws against gay marriage. So there. That's real evidence that marriage discrimination hurts heterosexual marriages.

[numediaman]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Untrue. One of the major civil rights Supreme Court decisions (Brown v. Board of Education) outlawing segregation in public schools, came in 1952, near the beginning of the modern civil rights movement. Even after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the court actions were required to ensure the enforcement of their provisions.

well said, Reilly.

as far as the oppression question is concerned . . . the amendment itself denies a right -- therefore, it is oppressive. If gay marriage is allowed, the act of gay marriage does not deny hetrosexual marriage.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Dippo
I glad we have to courts to run the democracy, I would hate to actually be able to vote and have it mean something.

If the majority still supported racial discrimation, then it would still exist. The support for racial discrimination changed during the civil rights movement.

If the courts were all that mattered, then MLK Jr. would have been filing lawsuits and not protesting on the street for all the public to see!

No, support for racial discriminition changed because of the civil rights movement. It changed because the races were (forcibly in many cases) integrated and none of the awful predictions that were made came to pass. It changed because the courts decided the majority was stripping a minority of their rights, and it stepped in to make it right. It changed because once integration started people saw how stupid and backwards segregation was. The majority did NOT wake up one day and decide they had been wrong and they would immediately pass laws granting blacks equal rights. The beauty of this country is that the majority could support segregation, but they still couldn't make it legal. But they would be free to think segregation was ok.

And now the predictions have begun again, predictions of the decline of western civilization, the desecration of the sacrement of marriage, yadda yadda yadda. Gays have now been married and guess what? the world hasn't ended. My marriage hasn't been devalued. Has yours? Or anyones that you know? People aren't showing up at the courthouse asking to marry their dog or their sister. In short, the world has_not-ended!

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Dippo
Very very true.

But what happens when the minority "rights" conflicts with the majority's rights? If giving rights to the minority, means taking rights away from the majority, does that do either party justice?



I'm confused. How does giving gay people the right to marry infringe on your rights, exactlyl? And what right exactly does it infringe on?

[JamesDPS]

I'm all for the equal rights of everyone regardless of gender, race, orientation, or anything else that is an inherent human trait. I totally agree that Bush's proposed amendment is tantamount to reinstating segregation, but what really shocks me is that the majority supports such an idea -- obviously, the entire situation will take a lot of time for everyone -- just as there were more than a few generations between the abolition of slavery and full racial equality in this country.

However, I would like to make this point: why is the validation of marriages even still a government activity? I thought that the entire point of a secular government was the separation of church and state. The solution I would support would be to abolish all state-supported marriage entirely, and only recognize civil unions within a governmental framework, and civil unions would, of course, be available to everyone regardless of orientation. MARRIAGE, on the other hand, is a religious institution -- that is the very basis of the argument against allowing gay marriages. Let CHURCHES decide who can get married, not the state. This would satisfy everyone -- the same civil rights would be available to everyone, no one's rights would be lessened, and churches could honor gay marriage (or not) on the basis of their own doctrines.

Why hasn't an amendment along THESE lines been proposed?

[Calliander]

I fail to understand a few things in the many arguments on this subject, most of them with the positions of people opposing legal sanction of same-sex marriage. Since that puts me in the same ballpark as the proponents of the idea, I guess it could be said that I support the idea.

Tradition. I have a personal dislike of traditions. I don't believe anyone should have to follow my example, though. The following comment was made:

Marriage is an institution that exist long before any of these benefits that it allows even existed. Marriage is a cultural tradition of the super-majority in this country and as such should be protected. The tradition cannot be redefine by the courts nor the government no matter what laws are passed. Small minorities seem bent on using the government to infringe on these traditions. Contrary to what some may believe, majorities have rights too.

I agree with this statement, but with different reasons. Government should not mandate marriage. However, with that comes the freedom for people to define "marriage" however they please. For me, marriage is between consenting adults who truly love one another. In my opinion, there should be no consequences or responsibilities to marriage. This keeps it exactly what it should be: a bond between (two) lovers. Of course, the next thing to be said of my comments is this.

The governement should work to allow benefits for everyone but marriage should not be open for redefinition by a small minority of people. And they should not be trying to use the tools of government to hijack it for their own uses.

Personally, I don't think "marriage" even HAS a solid definition to speak of. Wedlock has so many different meanings to so many different people that it's absolutely ludicrous to say that it could even BE redefined. The tradition to which opponents refer is the tradition of a specific religious sect. Is it really fair to let the tradition of one group of people (no matter how much of a majority they may be) rule the fates of everyone else, especially when government shouldn't be involved? The purpose of government is NOT to appease the majority, it's to (attempt to) make everything fair for everyone.

Let's ignore my suppositions and personal opinions, though. How, exactly, does allowing same-sex marriages injure/damage/harm the tradition of marriage? Will people become crazed, anarchic, destroying everything in their path if same-sex marriages are allowed? I highly doubt this is the case. As such, I fail to see how banning same-sex marriages protects the tradition.

If we leave marriage alone, what reason(s) do we have to deny homosexual unions the same rights as heterosexual unions, as this amendment suggests?

This does not, however, change the fact that I feel marriage is stupid and a poor choice by most of the people getting married today. I hope that my view and wordy discussion sheds some more light into this murky issue.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by JamesDPS
However, I would like to make this point: why is the validation of marriages even still a government activity? I thought that the entire point of a secular government was the separation of church and state. The solution I would support would be to abolish all state-supported marriage entirely, and only recognize civil unions within a governmental framework, and civil unions would, of course, be available to everyone regardless of orientation. MARRIAGE, on the other hand, is a religious institution -- that is the very basis of the argument against allowing gay marriages. Let CHURCHES decide who can get married, not the state. This would satisfy everyone -- the same civil rights would be available to everyone, no one's rights would be lessened, and churches could honor gay marriage (or not) on the basis of their own doctrines.

The problem is that the word marriage has so many different meanings now a days. In the church it means a union between to people (primarily a man and a woman although a few churches have allowed gay marriage) blessed by God. For the gov't it means a union that carries with it some benefits.

Let's make sure we are clear on this, marriage benefits are not rights. The real argument shouldn't be about denying rights but about whether or not there is a good reason for the gov't to extend those benefits to same sex couples.

Regardless an ammendmant is a terrible horrible awful idea. If the majority feel we should extend those privileges to the minority than what reason do we have to oppose it other than on religious grounds?

It seems to me the situation boils down to the following. Society felt that providing benefits to married couples was beneficial to society. Heterosexual married couples were thought to contribute to society and so they were to be provided incentives for marrying. This is the same reason we might provide benefits to non-profit organizations. We as a society feel that they provide a beneficial service and we should make it easier for them to do so. Now we have to ask ourselves if we think that providing these benefits to same-sex couples is beneficial or detrimental to society.

[JamesDPS]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
The problem is that the word marriage has so many different meanings now a days. In the church it means a union between to people (primarily a man and a woman although a few churches have allowed gay marriage) blessed by God. For the gov't it means a union that carries with it some benefits.

Let's make sure we are clear on this, marriage benefits are not rights. The real argument shouldn't be about denying rights but about whether or not there is a good reason for the gov't to extend those benefits to same sex couples.

Granted there are a few perceptions of what "marriage" is, but I think it is fair to say that they overwhelmingly tend toward a religious definition; the very argument against gay marriage bases itself on the "sanctity" or holiness of marriage. Civil unions are by definition the joining of two people by the courts or government. So what I'm saying is that the priviledges of "marriage" should be honored by civil union, which should not discriminate on any grounds whatsoever. Marriage could then remain in the non-secular (i.e. non-governmetnal) realm -- this might even be better than the existing system as some people (agnostics or atheists, for example) might not want to be "married" because of the institutional religious implications, but want a union recognized by the state.

Also, the question isn't whether or not those who are married recieve more civil rights than those who are not. The question is whether or not the benefits and priviledges given to married people should be unattainable by homosexuals. Just as tax benefits for students are not RIGHTS, it would still be discriminatory to offer benefits to, say, one ethnicity and not another. That is the issue at hand.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by JamesDPS
it would still be discriminatory to offer benefits to, say, one ethnicity and not another. That is the issue at hand.

Ah, but look at your analogy. They aren't being limited because of WHO or WHAT they are, they are being limited by something that they choose to do. Also they aren't LOSING anything, they just aren't GETTING some benefits. This actually happens allready in our society. During the draft years you could recieve the benefit of not being in the draft if you belonged to a religious faith that objected to violence. This wasn't a right, it was a privilege based on their choice.

[mactastic]

Drinking fountains aren't a right either. Nor is being allowed to sit in the front half of the bus.

Just to be clear what we are talking about.

You are confusing constitutional rights with human rights.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by mactastic
Drinking fountains aren't a right either. Nor is being allowed to sit in the front half of the bus.

Just to be clear what we are talking about.

You are confusing constitutional rights with human rights.

Except those were based on RACIAL discrimination, not choice based. Getting married is a choice.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Except those were based on RACIAL discrimination, not choice based. Getting married is a choice.
Sitting in the front of the bus is a choice.

Is being gay a choice?

It's not about the choice to get married, it's about discrimination based on how you were born.

Is your arguement changing from 'it's not a right' to 'gay rights are all choices'?

[mactastic]

The bottom line is that blacks were denied sitting in the front of the bus, or at the same lunch counter, or some other 'benefit' (definetly not a constitutional right) because of who_they_were. Gays are being denied a benefit in much the same way. However, I would suggest that when we look back at what we call the civil rights movement we are looking at what you would call the civil benefits movement. You are taking the definition of rights too literally, or you are confusing the two.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by wwworry
Nobody is taking away your right to be married. It is shear lunacy to say that that equal inclusivness of rights equals less of it for you. In fact the opposite is true.



hear hear! exactly what i was thinking about the thought that the minority's rights in this case would infringe on the majority's rights... how???

it would certainly infringe on homophobic peoples' rights to be bigots i guess... hmm


krizoitz- have you had extensive conversations with gay people and how they came to 'be' gay? did they choose it? i think if you look at various threads on here from the past, you'll find quite the opposite... or are those gay people fooling themselves? do you know their minds better than they do?

[IJ Reilly]

I always thought the concept of a "Gay Conservative" was sort of an oxymoron, but it seems the White House may not have counted on this reaction to its political calculations.

Gay Conservatives Fight Bush on Wedding Vow

A key GOP group plans a campaign against the proposed constitutional amendment in several states crucial to the president's reelection.

By Johanna Neuman, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Angered by President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely the union of a man and a woman, gay conservatives are laying the groundwork for a campaign against the proposal in swing states, such as Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Ohio, that are critical to the president's reelection.

Log Cabin Republicans, the largest GOP organization on gay issues, is exploring options from grass-roots voter mobilization efforts to television and radio ads — all designed to convince fellow conservatives, as well as moderates and independents, that the White House is "playing politics" with the Constitution.

"A constitutional amendment is a call to arms for gay conservatives," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the group, which is planning its annual convention in Palm Springs in April. "A lot of gay conservatives who have been extraordinarily loyal will not remain silent. This is a breach."

In the last few months, Guerriero has visited Missouri and Ohio to assess the political climate and talk to activists. In the last year he has traveled to 26 states and 87 cities to prepare for the largest presence ever of gay conservatives and their allies at the Republican National Convention, which will be in New York this year.

He said that since Bush's announcement on Tuesday embracing the amendment proposed by Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (R-Colo.), anger among gay conservatives was boiling over.

"The feeling is, if you want a cultural war, you'll get it," he said Wednesday in an interview. "We don't want history to record that we stood silent when our president and our party tried to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution."

Some gay conservatives who work in the Bush administration or who hold political office say they feel a special sense of betrayal, and they share a conviction that the White House has miscalculated the political fallout.

[...]

"The day word came out that he was going to support a constitutional amendment, my phone was ringing off the hook, with straight Republican friends saying, 'He just lost my vote,' " said Rebecca Maestri, a lesbian activist who works on Iraqi redevelopment issues for the U.S. Agency for International Development.

David Catania, a Republican at-large member of the Washington, D.C., City Council, said he believed the administration had "grossly miscalculated this issue in terms of the electoral landscape." Catania, who has raised more than $50,000 for the president's reelection, said he was so livid that he stopped soliciting contributions for the campaign and would not vote for Bush.

"I'm a vested Republican and my stomach is turning," said Catania, who has won citywide election three times as a Republican in the predominantly Democratic city. "To say I feel betrayed is an understatement."

[...]

But since the Supreme Court overturned a Texas sodomy law in November, evangelical Christians have been pressing the administration to intervene. In his State of the Union address in January, Bush vowed to "defend the sanctity of marriage" against judges who "insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people."

That speech was the final straw for Carl Schmid, a Washington consultant who in 2000 helped Bush beat back a strong primary challenge by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) among gay voters.

"I will vote for him, but I cannot vocally support him," said Schmid, who said he told Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Marc Racicot earlier this month that the White House was going to be on "the wrong side of history. America has changed. I don't know why he's so beholden to a minority."

[...]



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-amend26feb26,1,376211.story

[numediaman]

"I will vote for him, but I cannot vocally support him," said Schmid.

wow, he'll stick a knife in his own heart rather than vote for another candidate! Is this loyalty or stupidity? Hopefully he is just saying this publicly, but when in the privacy of the voting booth will vote his conscience.

[numediaman]

more from Luckovich:

[zimv20]

Originally posted by numediaman
more from Luckovich:

good one

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
krizoitz- have you had extensive conversations with gay people and how they came to 'be' gay? did they choose it? i think if you look at various threads on here from the past, you'll find quite the opposite... or are those gay people fooling themselves? do you know their minds better than they do?

I have never ever ever claimed that Gay people CHOOSE to be Gay. Never. I am just trying to point out that we aren't talking about "rights" here we are talking about privileges. The argument needs to be whether it is a good thing to extend those privileges to gay couples and why. I'm not saying which side is right, i'm just trying to frame the argument in what I see is a more accurate framework.

[JamesDPS]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Ah, but look at your analogy. They aren't being limited because of WHO or WHAT they are, they are being limited by something that they choose to do. Also they aren't LOSING anything, they just aren't GETTING some benefits. This actually happens allready in our society. During the draft years you could recieve the benefit of not being in the draft if you belonged to a religious faith that objected to violence. This wasn't a right, it was a privilege based on their choice.

First off, and I think mactastic already made the point, being a homosexual is not a choice - if you're gay, you're gay from birth, and it is sad that we live in a day and age where some people still can't admit that. Getting married IS a choice -- for heterosexuals. That choice is not available to homosexuals (except in San Francisco right now), and that is the issue at hand.

To perhaps clarify the "ethnicity" analogy in very simple terms: if there were a Constitutional Amendment to make it illegal for blacks to marry (regardless of any benefits or priviledges), that would be an obvious and gross violation of human rights. You wouldn't be able to say blacks were "choosing" to be black, and therefore couldn't marry.

The comment, "Also they aren't LOSING anything, they just aren't GETTING some benefits" doesn't make sense. Riding the front of the bus was a priviledge exented only to "non-blacks" until Parks made a stand. Are you saying blacks should not be able to ride in the front of the bus because they would only be "GETTING" a benefit, not "LOSING" one? And as far as the draft goes, the opportunity NOT to serve is available to ANYONE who can prove themselves a "conscientious objector", one way of doing so being the strict following of a religious doctrine against killing.

[Edit, for completeness]: Regarding the "good of society" (should priviledges be extended to a group that doesn't have them), I think I understand what you're saying and it would make sense if the issue were something that COULD be chosen or earned, such as getting a driver's license. But when the deciding factor is something like ethnicity, religion, or in this case orientation, it is discriminatory not to offer the priviledge -- so asking the question "should gays be given the priviledges straight married couples have" is somewhat like asking "should blacks be given the same priviledge to drive that everyone else (over 16 who can demonstrate ability to operated a motor vehicle) has available to them". To answer "no" is fundamentally wrong, and no one would publicly say so unless they wanted to be branded a racist.

[Edit] Sayhey - thanks for pointing out my inaccuracy, that I said "gay from birth" -- I think it hasn't been determined what the cause of homosexuality is, whether it is genetic or what (although that seems most likely), but I just wanted to make the point that someone who is gay does not choose to be, and that they are gay basically their whole life, even before puberty. To illustrate with an example, I asked a good friend of mine about when he knew he was gay, and he said "ever since I was a kid" which really surprised me, since I expected that he "discovered" being gay maybe in his teens. And, of course, I'm sure it's different for every individual. The point is, homosexuality is inherent, (almost certainly) not a result of environment or free choice.

As for marriage being a religious institution, I think it's correct to say that marriage is not necessarily a religious institution, but that to the majority of married people, that is how they view it (in one way or another, whether the ceremony was performed religiously, socially, or just legally); it is more than just a legal contract to the vast majority of married people, it is a spiritual bond. The very fact that just about the only argument against gay marriage seems to be that it "destroys the SANCTITY of marriage" points to the fact that (to the POLITICIANS) marriage is something sacred, not secular. So legally define civil union as secular and marriage as sacred and I think a lot of problems might be solved with minimal stepping-on-toes. But, as I said, I may be wrong (otherwise why would I post? I want to hear the other side!)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Never. I am just trying to point out that we aren't talking about "rights" here we are talking about privileges. The argument needs to be whether it is a good thing to extend those privileges to gay couples and why. I'm not saying which side is right, i'm just trying to frame the argument in what I see is a more accurate framework.

Here's the question I ask: is it okay to guarantee privileges to one group of people but not another?*

Even religions are protected under this rule. And there's no arguing that religion isn't a choice. Should we forbid certain people of certain denominations from getting married too?


*not counting age limits

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I have never ever ever claimed that Gay people CHOOSE to be Gay. Never. I am just trying to point out that we aren't talking about "rights" here we are talking about privileges. The argument needs to be whether it is a good thing to extend those privileges to gay couples and why. I'm not saying which side is right, i'm just trying to frame the argument in what I see is a more accurate framework.

Marriage is not a privilege. It is RIGHT of consenting adults! What on earth would give you the idea that it is a privilege? :confused:

To whomever thinks "marriages" as a religious institution: :confused: I've never in my life thought of marriage as a religious instiution. Baptism and communion. THOSE are relgiious instiutions (to name a few).

[Neserk]

Originally posted by numediaman
"I will vote for him, but I cannot vocally support him," said Schmid.

wow, he'll stick a knife in his own heart rather than vote for another candidate! Is this loyalty or stupidity?

stupidity

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I have never ever ever claimed that Gay people CHOOSE to be Gay. Never. I am just trying to point out that we aren't talking about "rights" here we are talking about privileges. The argument needs to be whether it is a good thing to extend those privileges to gay couples and why. I'm not saying which side is right, i'm just trying to frame the argument in what I see is a more accurate framework.

So when you talk to people about MLK, Rosa Parks etc., do you refer to them as leaders of the 'civil privileges' movement? Is that a more accurate framework for how you see it? And if you do, do you see that as demeaning to what they struggled for? Or do you, like the rest of us, refer to it as the 'civil rights' movement?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I have never ever ever claimed that Gay people CHOOSE to be Gay. Never. I am just trying to point out that we aren't talking about "rights" here we are talking about privileges. The argument needs to be whether it is a good thing to extend those privileges to gay couples and why. I'm not saying which side is right, i'm just trying to frame the argument in what I see is a more accurate framework.

Krizoitz,

I think your argument about marriage as a priviledge instead of a right misses the point. I understand you are not saying that, even if it is a priviledge, it shouldn't be extended to gay couples. However, the right in question is what is called the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment. That is most definately a right not a priviledge. The presumption must be made that we all stand equal before the law unless their is some overriding interest of the State that mandates inequality. There can be no such showing in this case. What harm to marriage is done by the extension of it to gay couples?

JamesDPS,
I have to take issue with your statement that "being a homosexual is not a choice - if you're gay, you're gay from birth." While I agree with the first part, it does not necessarily follow that sexuality has biologically determined origins - gay or straight. There can be many ways in which we are conditioned by our environment to how we are attracted to others. It could be a combination of both biological and environmental factors. What ever the reasons it is clear we don't make a choice.

[Opteron]

Who really cares.

Bush is a HARD line conservative, who is all for "Truth Justice, and the American way." Conservatives by nature are just that, conservative, anything but "the norn" is bad, evil and should be shot with a high powerd rifle.

If gay men or women which to be married, just let them. Love is Love.