Bush to Seek Gay-Marriage Ban in New Term

[Schweddy]

Source: Yahoo News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [size=-1] President Bush (news - web sites) will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a "hopeful and decent" society, his top political aide said on Sunday. [/size]




[size=-1] Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriages failed last year in Congress, but his position was seen as a key factor motivating Christian conservatives concerned about "moral values" to turn out in large numbers and help supply Bush with a winning margin in last week's election. [/size]

[size=-1] "If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman," Bush political aide Karl Rove told "Fox News Sunday." [/size]

[size=-1] Rove said Bush would "absolutely" push the Republican-controlled Congress for a constitutional amendment, which he said was needed to avert the aims of "activist judges" who would permit gay marriages. [/size]

[size=-1]Renewing his push for an amendment -- despite its slim chances of success -- would be a way for Bush to reward his conservative base. The amendment would face a steep hurdle winning the needed approval of three-fourths of the states.

[/size]

 

[heyjoeo]

Bah. Bigotry and hatred continue with Bush/Cheney 04.

That was supposed to be a campaign tactic :-(

 

[WKL815]

What exemplifies "Bigotry and Hatred"? Those are harsh words.

 

[heyjoeo]

What exemplifies bigotry and hatred? The real question is how DOESN'T a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage exemplfy bigotry and hatred. At first, (at least I was hoping) I thought that this gay marriage ban was just to get voters and secure the extreme right in America. However, because he's considering bringing it back, this now leads me to believe that all they care about is keeping "decent and moral" things away from those "disgusting gays." It's absolutely ridiculous

 

[WKL815]

Im not saying one thing or another. I just want to have it explained what about a constitutional amendment defining marriage exemplifies bigotry and hatred? Like I said, those are harsh words which don't really qualify as a DEBATE argument unless backed up with substance. This is a debate forum right? That's why I searched it out.

I am still trying to come to a position on this issue. My gut tells me the amendment would be bad and is not necessary. Additionally, heterosexuals in no way have a monopoly on morality in marriage. They should probably fix that problem before they go denying others the opportunity to mess it.

And if it makes you feel any better, I would be glad to see it not pass. If you want to be angry, try the MA courts and CA mayors who astonishingly tried to make public policy without the entire public.

 

[Schweddy]

The real question is how DOESN'T a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage exemplfy bigotry and hatred.

Here is a quote that I found that sums up my position:
"Opponents [of gay marriage] also see marriage having a shaky foundation in its current state, with the loosening of social morals chipping away at marriage bit by bit. They see promiscuity as damaging to children, child support, and to spousal support. They see divorce as a major problem with marriage. The addition of gay marriage to the mix would weaken it even further, perhaps to the point of collapse. " constitution.net

This has nothing to do with hatred.
I want to keep the traditions that our forefathers and mothers worked so hard to achieve.

 

[heyjoeo]

vague that is a valid argument. One of my teachers uses that. But has Bush come out and said that? Not that I'm aware of.

I was never accusing you of being for or against gay marriage, I was angry because of the crazy administration can't even use the constitution the way it was designed. Also, marriage is a STATE issue. Not federal government.

 

[Schweddy]

"marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots" SFGate

I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. BrainyQuote

If you had accused me of being against gay marriage, you would have been correct.

As far as the constitution, I am at a quandry. I agree with denying gay marriage, but I understand that it really is a states choice. Problem, if one state recognizes gay marriage, there will be suites and advocate judges that will force it on other states screaming unconstitutionality. The only real solution to keep the "sanctaty of marriage" and to circumvent those judges is an amendment.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

What exemplifies "Bigotry and Hatred"? Those are harsh words.

I beleive what Joe was trying to say is that limiting a persons rights based on Race, Religion or Sexual Orientation is "Bigotry and Hatred".

 

[heyjoeo]

Yes you're right Liberal.

Out of curiousity, why are you against gay marriage vauge?

 

[MSR]

I am confused all over again, the word marriage describes the union of a man and a woman. A heterosexual union. This English word was invented to describe this heterosexual-sexual union. Get in a time machine and travel back in time in 20 year leaps, going back as far as you can go in English speaking history and each time ask the first person you see to define marriage. The definition will be the same. "The union of a man and woman".

It's like changing the definition of the word "blue" or the word "oatmeal". Blue is not green and oatmeal is not wheat. Marriage is a word that describes a physical reality.

For instance if I say chocolate-covered-cherry is there any question as to what I mean? Are two cherries on a plate a chocolate covered cherry? No. If you smash-up two cherries in a bowl or puree them in a blender ... do they become a chocolate-covered-cherry? No. Cheery spread perhaps.. cherry puree... cherry jam... but never chocolate-covered-cherry.

Is a bowl of flour a loaf of bread? No. You can call it a loaf of bread but that is not the reality. Without all the right ingredients it will never be a loaf of bread. The ingredients to make a marriage are a man and a woman.

If we as a nation are going to have same sex unions then we need to have a word that describes that... call it whatever nifty phrase you can come up with... but bottom line... it will never be a marriage no matter what a state government might say.

Same-sex unions are a new thing.. it has yet to be named. It will take a new term to describe its uniqueness. How boring would it be if we decide that we would no longer have individual words that describe different colors. No more yellow, blue or green... we will just call them all red. Everything, no mater the color... will be called red. Doesn't every color have the right to be called red? Hand me that red shirt... no, no, not that one....

I think that it is clear that President Bush has no desire to outlaw homosexual unions only to preserve the meaning of the word marriage.

 

[heyjoeo]

That's why I support civil unions.

It will shut up those "sanctity of marriage" people, and give the gays the recognition they want (plus benefits a regular married couple would have)

 

[TS212]

*shaking head*

Doesn't the Bush administration have better things to do than act as the nation's bedroom police? I won't go so far as to call everyone who opposes gay marriage a bigot, but I have yet to hear a convincing anti-gay marriage argument.

 

[Schweddy]

Welcome to Debate Politics!
(nice forum concept btw, definatly a bookmarker! Your link not working, had to tweak it to get it to work.)

I have yet to hear a convincing anti-gay marriage argument.

Could it be that you are not listening for it?

I want to keep the traditions that our forefathers and mothers worked so hard to achieve.

+

I think that it is clear that President Bush has no desire to outlaw homosexual unions only to preserve the meaning of the word marriage.

I like MSR's argument about word preservation. If we can maintain the word to mean "between a man and a woman" then I will be content. If it takes an amendment to do it - I will sign.

 

[TS212]

Welcome to Debate Politics!

Thanks! Nice little community you've got here.

(nice forum concept btw, definatly a bookmarker! Your link not working, had to tweak it to get it to work.)

Thank you kindly! I look forward to your participation.

Could it be that you are not listening for it?

No, sir, that's not it. I have run several forums over the last few years and I have heard all of the arguments. I know there are other reasons but generally speaking, the people I've conversed with object to gay marriage for two reasons: 1.) Their religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin. (I respect this, although I vehemently disagree with their position) 2.)They are bigots. IMO, a religious person may also be a bigot, but is not automatically so.

In either case, as I said before, I have yet to be convinced there is a logical argument against gay marriage. Frankly, I feel that if gays were allowed to marry, anyone who objected to the practice would be free to take a stand against it by choosing not to participate in a gay marriage. *shrug*

If we can maintain the word to mean "between a man and a woman" then I will be content. If it takes an amendment to do it - I will sign.

Why? I guess what I'm trying to discern is how you, personally, feel you will suffer if two people you don't even know get married? I am not being facetious here. I truly would like to understand.

 

[Schweddy]

I guess what I'm trying to discern is how you, personally, feel you will suffer if two people you don't even know get married?

On a personal level I will not suffer. I could care less what two people do in thier own home.

I believe that it will further deminish the morals that we have left. A trickle down if you will. There is already poligomy questions.. if I can marry the same sex ... why can I marry more than one? Next, we will see people marrying thier pets or worse - siblings! If we give an inch, we can expect our society to demand a mile.

If we allow only 2% of the population to change the traditions of the rest of the 98% - we are in for some pretty bad falls.

 

[WKL815]

Vague, you are my ideological friend.

But the slippery slope argument is never a good one.

There's got to be another reasonable stance to take.

 

[Schweddy]

Vague, you are my ideological friend.

Nuk nuk... why thank you. (I think )

Ideological arguments are held everyday on the floor of congress. Why are they not valid here? One must simply look at the future and possibilities.

How about this...
Fact: The penis and the vagina were created or evolved to procreate.
Fact: Marriage (common law, state instituted, or by religion) is by nature a forum for procreation.

Allowing homosexual marriage is unnatural as they cannot procreate.

 

[WKL815]

That's a more reasoned argument than a slippery slope one. That's all I was saying. Ideologies should be debated. But fear what might be allowed in the future if one thing is allowed now, is not a valid point.

In contrast, the liberals like to use the slippery slope argument when discussing the Patriot Act out of fear the information acquired by the Patriot Act will lead to a restriction on their other civil liberties. I don't buy it.

I argued this with a few people at my office and I asked them to give me an example. They said what about ATM video footage of a secretly gay man going into a gay bar being aired and outing him. I said okay, but that footage would have to be misused by the holders of that information. They said exactly, there is potential for abuse. I said okay, but anyone with a camcorder on a stakeout could take footage of that man going into the bar and out him. He went out in public. They conceded my point there and we moved on. I don't think I changed minds, but I welcome more debates about it.

 

[WKL815]

To clarify what I meant is that you and I share ideologies. Not that you are too ideological and my friend to boot. =)

 

[heyjoeo]

Whoah! Did I miss a lot. The solution to the "Flood Gates" problem that vauge stated would have to be a strict definition of a union between two humans. That would pretty much cover everything. Man/Woman, Man/Man, Woman/Woman. Can't be Man/Woman/Woman cause its between two humans, Can't be Man/Horse....well you get the idea. I just don't see this as being much of a problem.

 

[WKL815]

I guess I don't understand why states can't just be allowed to differ in their marriage laws if we want to leave it up to States rights?

I've heard that if they leave it up to the States then it will even come around to the courts under equal protection?

That's the whole reason the federalized definition of marriage is being bantered around, right? To make it uniform among all the states?

 

[heyjoeo]

I guess so. You could just leave it all up to the states. However, the majority of America are straight and would vote for gay bans in almost every state in the U.S.

There are so many other issues we should debate, this should be set on the sideburners.

 

[TS212]

Evening Vauge,

Hope you had a good day.

You said: I believe that it will further deminish the morals that we have left. A trickle down if you will.

Me: Oh, I don't know about that. I'd say the bimbos who go on Fox reality shows to pick up midget husbands are taking care of that. ;-P

Seriously, I don't see what gays can do to harm morals that we straight people aren't doing ourselves. And while we're on morals, whose morals are we speaking of specifically?

You said: There is already poligomy questions.. if I can marry the same sex ... why can I marry more than one?

Well now, see, I think you ought to be able to. Consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they please. Polygamy isn't for me, but I don't believe I have the right to tell other law abiding adults whom they should or should not marry. *shrug*

 

[Schweddy]

Me: Oh, I don't know about that. I'd say the bimbos who go on Fox reality shows to pick up midget husbands are taking care of that. ;-P

Seriously, I don't see what gays can do to harm morals that we straight people aren't doing ourselves. And while we're on morals, whose morals are we speaking of specifically?

Ment in jest, but very valid point!

I was refering to America's morals. As it stands in the here and now, sex is ok. Homosexual acts are ok. Soon, sex with children will be ok - if we keep on this path. I am not concerened about me personally, but my children and grandchildren (hopefully).

Many have said that the fall of the Roman empire was due to homosexualism. I believe that history repeats itself. Is this a valid argument? No it's just an opinion.