More gay marriage crap.

[chcr]

Bush Vague on Gay Marriage Amendment

1 hour ago

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - The White House refused to commit President Bush on Wednesday to supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, although conservative groups say they already have received high-level assurances that he will take that step.

Link
Can you say "trying to play both sides?" I knew that you could.

 

[Gonz]

oh, stop it

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. (Applause.)

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

 

[PT]

OH hell. Gonz, do we really have to do this again? You are wrong, deal with it.

 

[Gonz]

How am I wrong?

 

[Gotnolegs]

Let me get this straight.

An act exists that defines marriage as being between "a man and a woman" and makes it clear that one state cannot change this ruling in another state. But by making it a point of law that is exactly what the Mass courts have done right?

So if this is the case (I could easily be worng) Gonz is right and as the law stands it should not be allowed.

The other argument is that this is a simple human right issue and gay people should have the same tax benefits and such as married couples and so should be allowed to marry, which is purely an ethical issue and imho is fine. So Gonz is wrong.

It sounds to me like you are arguing two slightly different subjects...

Now guessing that I haven't quite got to grips with this does someone want to explain it to me using real small words.

 

[Leslie]

but isn't that the same dealie with the different ages able to marry across the states? doesn't that make the same problem? are you gonna start griping bout that now Gonz? huh? huh?

 

[Gonz]

the bold part

not all states have passed the marriage protection act

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

 

[chcr]

Completely missed the point there, Gonz. Everyone knows Bush is 100% for a ban on gay marriages, 100% for a constitutional amendment addressing same. Until the election, they'll be doing this wishy-washy bullshit to play both sides. They took a stand last week, this week they're not so sure? At least have the courage of your convictions.

 

[chcr]

How am I wrong?

The mind simply boggles.

 

[Gonz]

They took a stand last week, this week they're not so sure? At least have the courage of your convictions.

I missed it, have a link?

 

[chcr]

I missed it, have a link?

Bush has said in the past that he supports strengthening the federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. But he has declined to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and his statement Tuesday gave no specifics of how he believes that stronger definition should be accomplished.

I stand corrected. I guess that's not what he meant at all then (until after the election, anyway).

 

[chcr]

On the Democratic side, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination, said, "I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples - from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision."

Here's an interesting point from the article.

 

[PT]

So Kerry is saying it's ok as long as they don't call it marriage? Is that what you're getting from this?

As long as they get the same benifits as married people, I doubt most gay people would care what they call it.

 

[Ms Ann Thrope]

I believe that Kerry, like Clinton, is a Republican dressed in Democratic clothing.

 

[chcr]

So Kerry is saying it's ok as long as they don't call it marriage? Is that what you're getting from this?

As long as they get the same benifits as married people, I doubt most gay people would care what they call it.

I'm not so sure, PT. I think some gay people care very much what it's called. The part I don't understand is why so many people who say they're not homophobic are against it. What other possible reason could you have?

 

[Ms Ann Thrope]

I'm still waiting for someone to use the phrase "separate but equal."

 

[chcr]

I believe that Kerry, like Clinton, is a Republican dressed in Democratic clothing.

And I believe (as I've said before) that the difference between republicans and democrats is simply marketing.

 

[BeardofPants]

I believe that Kerry, like Clinton, is a Republican dressed in Democratic clothing.

That appears to be the only way to get them in.

 

[PT]

I'm not so sure, PT. I think some gay people care very much what it's called. The part I don't understand is why so many people who say they're not homophobic are against it. What other possible reason could you have?

That I agree with. It's classifying them as a second class citizen, saying their needs and feelings are not right. Yet we are taught to understand and be compassionate. It's a fucked up world indeed.

 

[Gonz]

So Kerry is saying it's ok as long as they don't call it marriage? Is that what you're getting from this?

Why did it take a democrat to say what I've been saying since the beginning?

I believe that Kerry, like Clinton, is a Republican dressed in Democratic clothing.

The part I don't understand is why so many people who say they're not homophobic are against it.

Piss on that. Why must one be (fill in the minority)phobic just because they disagree? That is utter bullshit & you damned well know it.

saying their needs and feelings are not right.

They aren't. We're back to a miswired gene.