President Dean: Bush snubs Gay Community, assures Victory for Dean

[dmcowen674]

12-16-2003 Bush pushes for Consitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

President Bush said Tuesday that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

 

[Jadow]

did you hear what he said? He's certainly not pushing it.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Jadow
did you hear what he said? He's certainly not pushing it.

These are liberals...90% of what they think they know is fictitious anyway.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

I didnt know the election came down to Gays. HOW MANY GAYS ARE THERE?!

 

[glenn1]

President Dean: Bush snubs Gay Community, assures Victory for Dean

Yeah, i could see what that 5% of the population who is gay would immediately and as a bloc decide to vote for Dean, therefore making totally moot the votes of the other 95%.

 

[Gaard]

What did our forefathers think of gay marriages Dave. Think of the history for a change!

Is this issue that big of a deal to amend our constitution over? If they want to get married, let 'em. What's the harm?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Gaard
What did our forefathers think of gay marriages Dave. Think of the history for a change!

Is this issue that big of a deal to amend our constitution over? If they want to get married, let 'em. What's the harm?

Apparently a big enough issue to hand over a Presidency without even a fight, think of all the money he will waste.

 

[alchemize]

This gay stuff is so annoying. "They are here, they are queer, get used to it." OK I'm used to it now stop annoying me!

I'm pretty sure it's like #375 on my top #100 issues facing our country, and should be even lower on everyone elses.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Jadow
did you hear what he said? He's certainly not pushing it.

These are liberals...90% of what they think they know is fictitious anyway.

What are you talking about? If Bush is pushing for it, I will support him for it. There are liberals who will support a gay marriage ban.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: alchemize
This gay stuff is so annoying. "They are here, they are queer, get used to it." OK I'm used to it now stop annoying me!

I'm pretty sure it's like #375 on my top #100 issues facing our country, and should be even lower on everyone elses.

I highly doubt that you're used to it if it annoys you so much. You're right though. It really isn't a big deal. So just let them get married if they want to.

 

[heartsurgeon]

5% of the population who is gay

actually, i believe a more accurate estimate is 1-2%

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: alchemize
This gay stuff is so annoying. "They are here, they are queer, get used to it." OK I'm used to it now stop annoying me!

I'm pretty sure it's like #375 on my top #100 issues facing our country, and should be even lower on everyone elses.

Seeking a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage....does that sound like the actions of people who are used to it?

 

[Corn]

It's not like the "gay community" was going to vote for Bush anyway. Evidently Chicken Little doesn't get out and take the heartbeat of America too often.

 

[dahunan]

Why is Government involving itself in religious matters?


Marriage is a creation of religion... just so happens that our Govt, Employers, and everyone else offers different benefits for people who are married... seems odd.. Benefits for religious people?

 

[mastertech01]

If gay marriage is legal, then why dont the states that recognize "common law" marriages declare them married already? Then when lover boy or lover girl decides to swap lovers, thier spouse can sue for divorce, and spousal support.

Im betting if this were the norm, more gay peoples would support such an amendment themselves.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: alchemize
This gay stuff is so annoying. "They are here, they are queer, get used to it." OK I'm used to it now stop annoying me!

I'm pretty sure it's like #375 on my top #100 issues facing our country, and should be even lower on everyone elses.

Seeking a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage....does that sound like the actions of people who are used to it?

Fine. Run it past congress and the states. It will fail. Then can we call it a day?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Why is Government involving itself in religious matters?


Marriage is a creation of religion... just so happens that our Govt, Employers, and everyone else offers different benefits for people who are married... seems odd.. Benefits for religious people?

I'm not religious - I will be married soon (in a registry office, not a church) and I'll still have all the rights of someone who was married in a church and calls themselves religious.

Marriage as a term has already transcended what would be called "civil partnerships" for heterosexuals if we took a logical view in relation to religion (i.e. you can be married in a civil ceremony and be aethist/agnostic/whatever).

Declaring legal civil partnership for heterosexual partners would be an issue of equality in relation to the above IMHO. The religious fundies don't want it called marriage because marriage overlaps with religion "between a man and a woman" - though as I've already shown God has nothing to do with being called married or not today, or enjoying the rights thereof if you are heterosexual.

The real problem is for religious gay couples who want a religiously sanctioned marriage where their religion doesn't subscribe to such things. They need to choose a different religion or convince their spiritual leaders to "rethink" the interpretations of their holy texts. The government should sanction civil partnerships regardless of gender of partner. It's for the church to renounce weddings outside of churches/state sanctioned as "only civil partnerships" if it wants to take a clear view on this.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[maluckey]

Gays don't ever vote conservative, and the ones I know never vote Republican anyways.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm fur whatever gets me elected. Where are the votes? I don't give a sh!t who can marry or not; I care about winning. As long as the bigots don't want gay marriage, I'm fine with that. I'll support it.

 

[nutxo]

I think bush would lose more votes by supporting gay marriage than he would gain.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm fur whatever gets me elected. Where are the votes? I don't give a sh!t who can marry or not; I care about winning. As long as the bigots don't want gay marriage, I'm fine with that. I'll support it.

Why does not supporting gay marriage = bigot?

 

[DT4K]

LMFAO at your title.
Can you find a gay person who voted Republican?

That said, I strongly disagree with conservatives on this issue.
I think they are huge hypocrites on this one. They claim to be in favor of personal liberty and less government interference in private life, so who the hell gives them the right to tell people they can't get married.

If a church doesn't want to perform gay marriages because of their religion, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
But the state should provide the same legal rights to a couple who is commited enough to choose marriage, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

And making a distinction between a "marriage" and a "union" is just stupid. It serves to separate the two when they both have the same purpose. If they really want to maintain the traditional religious meaning of marriage, maybe the church ceremony should be called a marriage while the state license should be called a union for both hetero and homo couples.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Shanti
LMFAO at your title.
Can you find a gay person who voted Republican?

That said, I strongly disagree with conservatives on this issue.
I think they are huge hypocrites on this one. They claim to be in favor of personal liberty and less government interference in private life, so who the hell gives them the right to tell people they can't get married.

If a church doesn't want to perform gay marriages because of their religion, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
But the state should provide the same legal rights to a couple who is commited enough to choose marriage, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

And making a distinction between a "marriage" and a "union" is just stupid. It serves to separate the two when they both have the same purpose. If they really want to maintain the traditional religious meaning of marriage, maybe the church ceremony should be called a marriage while the state license should be called a union for both hetero and homo couples.

That's the crux of it when it comes to "marriage is religious" - not last time I checked down at the registry office it wasn't. Plenty of aetheists getting married there! (see my previous post for more explanation of my view on this)

Cheers,

Andy

 

[DT4K]

I agree. You don't see anyone arguing that non-religious people shouldn't be able to get married.
There are millions of people in this country who aren't particularly religious (including me) and they still get married.
For all these people, it is not a religious institution. It is a pledge to another person to be their partner in life and it is a recognition by the state that because of this pledge, special legal rights should be afforded between these two people.

And this pledge and these legal rights should be available to anyone who chooses it.

People who oppose it and want to keep the religious meaning of marriage are free to get married in a church that does not condone gay marriages. That is up to the individual church to decide if it is allowed or condoned by their religion.

The church is allowed to discriminate based on their religious teachings and interpretations. The state should not be allowed this same discrimination.

 

[Strk]

I never got the issue with this. It is just so lame that a gay couple cannot do what they want, but a hetero couple can get married, cheat on each other, physically abuse each other and get divorced and do it all over again, yet the gay couple is "ruining" the sanctity of marriage.

The only reason to ban it is a religious matter, which the government should have no say in. Personally, I think any 2 individuals should be allowed to marry each other by any legals means available outside of a place of worship.