Senators Larry Craig and David Vitter sponsor marriage protection amendment

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yg17, Jun 27, 2008.

  1. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #1
    You can't make this stuff up

    A senator who pleaded guilty to soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, and another senator who was proven to be a frequent customer of the DC Madame are proposing an amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage, with such gems like:

    I guess it's acceptable as long as you pay for it. Hypocrisy at its finest. IOKIYAR anyone?
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #4
    Nice to see senators voting their conscience vs opinion polls...oh wait, reverse that.

    What a couple of ******s. I can at least try and respect this position from Senators with "traditional" backgrounds - but the hypocrisy in this case is too much...
     
  4. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #5
    Why on earth does marriage need protecting in the first place?
     
  5. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #6
    Call me crazy, but I think this will ultimately help the gay rights cause.

    We all know that this amendment will fail in subcommittee or committee (it always has), so this is really just an attempt on the part of Craig and Vitter to regain some of their "moral ground." On that note, both of them will fail miserably. Every time this amendment is brought up in the news, their names and their actions are going to be Topic #1, and in the end, the public will hate them for their hypocrisy and will want to distance itself a little more from the anti-gay crowd.

    Mind you it isn't going to turn public opinion around overnight, or even very drastically, but it's one of the small steps towards dismantling the opposition on this issue.
     
  6. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #7
    Marriage doesn't need protection. But homophobia does. They're losing, and they know they're losing. They're fighting to try and maintain some chance that there will be a successive generation of people who believe like they do. I'm rather enjoying watching them drown. :eek:
     
  7. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #8
    how classic, Vitter and Craig, GOP can't find better people to make this more convincing? What a Joke. Why dont they just ban divorce?
     
  8. benmrii macrumors 65816

    benmrii

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    NC
    #9
    It's not atypical for someone's soapbox topic to be one that they are actively engaged in, either as an addiction or a lifestyle they can't stop or accept.

    That's why Eliot Spitzer hiring prostitutes after cracking down on them doesn't surprise me so much. Nor does Florida Representative Bob Allen joining Larry Craig's Gettin' Freaky in Public Restrooms club.
     
  9. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #10
    Oh well, they're just doing their part to help the Republicans win in the Fall. It's 2004 all over again; but I think the momentum is too far in the other direction for this little spectacle to work this time.
     
  10. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #11
    Because they're insecure and can't "save" themselves, so they're projecting and trying to protect those who don't really need protecting. With feel good legislation that, as said, won't pass anyway and will just help to point out the hypocrisy. Leaving people to wonder if this is where the GOP's priorities are at, whether they should support them. Suspecting these 2 will be losing their jobs anyway.

    It is kinda funny if you think about it.
     
  11. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    Craig also wants to protect bathroom stall privacy rights.:p
     
  12. Andrew Henry macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #13
    I agree with the section that you quoted, marriage should be between only a man and a woman, I'm all for civil unions etc. etc. but marriage IS only between a man and a woman.
     
  13. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #14
    Not any more. Better get used to the fact that your life will be just the same tomorrow.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    Excuse me, but you're going to have to prove that. Link please.
     
  15. scotthayes macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    #16
    what is the difference between marriage and a civil union?

    Reason I ask, in the UK, as far as I know, there is no legal difference between a man and a woman getting married in a civil ceremony (i.e. a non religious wedding) and two men or two women doing the same. Just when it's two men or two women it's known as a civil partnership.
     
  16. Andrew Henry macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #17
    Not anymore?

    And don't get an attitude, I could honestly care less, I was just stating my opinion, what people do in their personal lives is their own business. If it makes the gay community feel better about it, then great, but in a lot of peoples eyes, it won't ever be "marriage".
     
  17. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #18
    That all depends on which definition of "marriage" you use. The legal or the religious?

    Legally there are 2 (or is it 3, I'm not keeping track as well as I should) states that have legal marriage between same sex couples. So the legal side of marriage is now open to both opposite and same sex couples (although not everywhere).

    The religious marriage doesn't apply to heterosexual couples who don't get married by a religious figure since the religious sacrament was not performed.

    Religious "marriage" is up to each and every individual church to define and is currently in most of the churches I know, still restricted to a heterosexual couple.

    There is a definite difference between religious and legal marriage, the fact that they use the same term to define both unions only confuses the issue and leads to opposition that doesn't really exist. A large portion of this country is in favor of Civil Unions, what they fail to realize is that the legal aspect of marriage is exactly that, just called by a different name. If we abolished legal marriage and instituted civil unions for everyone in the legal domain, we'd have a lot less opposition, of course if people could see the difference between the legal and religious aspects of marriage it would accomplish the same.
     
  18. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #19
    correct that's one of the main problems here ... even more confusing if you country allows priests to form the legal one as well
    here it is strictly seperated
     
  19. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #20
    Actually I don't really have a problem with that. Seems that just because your a priest should not bar you from performing the legal service provided that you meet whatever requirements are placed on anyone to perform the legal ceremony.

    If anyone can go in and fill out the paperwork, pay a fee, and get a license/document that allows them to perform a legal marriage then there's no reason a priest or other religious figure should not be allowed to do that and combine the religious and legal aspects into one simple ceremony. Just as same sex marriage does not force you to marry someone of your same gender, having religious figures able to perform the legal requirements does not force anyone to get married in a religious ceremony.
     
  20. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #21
    there is no such thing as a "marriage license" here ... you have to go to your town hall
     
  21. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #22
    Trouble is, it isn't really done that way. There is no paperwork, fee, or license. The fact that you are a member of the clergy is your license to perform a marriage and sign the marriage certificate. At least, that's how it is in California.

    For example, I went and got myself ordained through an internet "church" (I'm an Atheist, and they had no problem with that) so that I could perform the ceremony for my sister and her husband. Totally legal in California. Of course, no one ever checked my qualifications. What it really means is that any fool could sign a marriage certificate, and it would only ever be a problem if there was a legal challenge to the validity of the marriage.
     
  22. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #23
    And there's you're equality, if "any fool" can manage to get qualified fairly easily then why not let the clergy perform the ceremony as well. I'd rather it be somehow done through an application to the state or some other more easily documented path but if it's easy enough for anyone to do it then I don't have problem with clergy doing it as well.

    Of course the fact that you have to be clergy is mildly disturbing (thank God for internet churches). It would be much better if marriage was something that could be done by any Notary Public and then at least there's some legal check on the whole mess.
     
  23. Andrew Henry macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #24

    Thank you for this post, basically what I was trying to say, the religious community probably won't recognize gay marriage as marriage at all. It would be a lot less confusing if they weren't using the same term. Like I said, I'm all for the union between man/man or woman/woman, it doesn't bother me in the least, but there are many people who would be onboard with the idea if it wasn't called "marriage".
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #25
    With a marriage, someone can marry you in a ceremony and the paperwork gets filed with the local gov. With a civil union, you file paperwork with the local gov and if you want, someone can marry you in a ceremony. Big difference.

    In a funny, semi-related story:

    The Dangers of Auto-Replace
    And some funny pics from here:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page