Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages

Not really. Marriage means different things to different cultures. Homosexual marriages will just be another variant.

Actually, that is kinda of funny since i myself am an African American, and i dont think being white or black should affect your judgement in this arguemnt... Like I posted before, I have nothing that is hatefully against homosexuals, and I do believe seperation of church and state is corrupeted, I know I was wrong too incorparate this with homosexual sex. But i think that the basis of why some people "dont agree" with homosexual marriges can have some varibles.
1. Homosexuality is prohibited in the bible, most traditional marriges involve a reverend reading from the bible.
2. It can be seen as immorally wrong, religious or not.
3. Its human nature in most cases to hate people that are different from you, whatever color/religion/ or sexuality they are. Im not saying all this is why i dont agree with homosexual marrige, but im guessing its why some others dont.

Apex,

'Ignorant' does not mean stupid.

Wow, that was a great post Cyrus.

And I don't believe Apex is really ignorant, he's just trying to see the other side. Ok, some might call the other side ignorance, but at least he's not.

Anyway, about what Cyrus said; yeah, the country wasn't nearly all built by christains, and if you think that, you're misinformed. Ever heard of the little work of litterature Common Sense? It's the one thing that most people credit as getting the populous on the side of the colonial rebels. You know who wrote it? Thomas Paine.

Civil Unions are recognized by States. Marriage is Federally recognized. They are not equal.

If you want to bring race into it and try to make a comparison, a restroom or a water fountian is a restroom or a water fountian, right? Seperate but equal? You have the same facilities so what's the big deal? It is a big deal and in the civil rights movement it was determined to be unacceptable.

There was a time in history when an african american male wasnt even considered a man. Today homosexuals are deemed second class citizens because a percentage of persons believe its wrong. We are ALL humans and deserve equality. This isnt a question of some persons idea of morality, its about legal rights afforded by the government we all support equally.

btw Cyrus, excellent post.

Yes, but I think all that matters here, in the end, is American culture. Good observation, so let me refine the question:

Do you think this changes the definition/meaning of marriage in the United States? (Q. not just directed at Teeny)

Misnomer,

I didn't say/mean they were equal...re-read what I typed with that in mind. Change the sentence to end with "wouldn't be good enough" if you like...that's more accurate actually. I worded it carelessly since that point was already made in the thread.

Not sure race is a good analogy though (knew it'd come up eventually).

Why not? Please elaborate.

"Do you think this changes the definition/meaning of marriage in the United States?"

Only perhaps, in the context the institution of marriage had been created by various cultures in the past (maybe not even then - i'm not much of a cultural anthropologist). Only in the words where it might mention MAN/WOMAN. Other than that, same sex marriage (if done earnestly) only venerates the institution.

Again, I'm not sure, but I'm thinking about how the concept of "marriage" (which obviously not everyone agrees on) is different from racist segregation, which is something concrete. You can't really say something like "I believe segregation is so and so" (it's a pretty obvious thing), but you can say that when you define marriage.

I don't know, kind of brainstorming "out loud".

Let's remember that until recently in our history, it was illegal for folks from different races to marry. Changing this DID fundamentally change marriage in the US. I think most of us would say for the better, since laws against "miscegenation" made marriage a racist institution. I'd have to imagine that, at the time the laws were changed, there was great tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth about the sanctity of marriage being forever changed.

No, why should it? It only changes the meaning of marriage if you -insist- on a religous definition. If you can seperate religon from the question (something some people are incapable of it seems) then it's simply a union between two people.

The issue of human rights just doesn't mesh well with religon. If you live as the bible (or whatever work of fiction you pray to) tell you, then objective secular human rights are probably something you don't believe in. There are just too many bigoted and prejudicial viewpoints that are at the heart of religon.

This thread is proof of that. There are people who just cannot see their way clear to allowing those who are sinners in their eyes to have the same rights and priviledges they themselves enjoy and take for granted.

The reason? God doesn't like it.

Why is it so hard to get them to admit everyone has equal rights? God doesn't like it. The religous right's tenacity is understandable I suppose, after all, they believe they are soldiers for god or something crazy like that. Why? God wants it that way they say. ANd of course they all know exactely what god wants.

Luckily there seems to be a huge upswell building over this issue. I don't think we can get the genie back in the bottle now.

I look forward to a day when religon is looked upon like a disagreeable left-over from a past age. Something to be taken out to the curb on trash-day. We'd all do a lot better without it.

What I'm getting at in my bathroom/water fountian analogy is saying this:

People suggest that gay people get civil unions and straight folks get marriage all to themselves. After all, whats the difference if they are the same except the title.

I add that this restroom and that restroom are exactly the same except the sign on the door "whites only". What's the difference? After all they are exactly the same except the title.

Well, in the civil rights movement "equal but seperate" was deemed not equal which is the basis of the Mass. Supreme Court ruling. So, in accordance with existing law that already set a precident during the Civil Rights movement Civil Unions and Marriage are not equal and to seperate the two is indeed discrimination.

I also want to add that this conversation has further enlightened me and changed my own views on the subject. I rescind my earlier comment that "I dont care what it is called so long as it is equal". I now feel nothing less that Marriage is acceptable. Anything else less, however equal in appearance, is still discrimination.

Daemioth: I want to take your Idea one step further.

Civil Union should equal all rights and Benifits for a couple
and
Marriage should be a religious standing only.

Meaning that if a couple want to declare their love publicly and get all the benifits entitled to a couple together they should be able to get a Civil Union.

and then if the couple is religious and want to declare their love in front of their god they can get married by thier church.

Of course then You would have Gay churches marrying gay couple in front of thier God. so some people that are pissed now would still be pissed then.

*************************************************

If Bush gets this into the cinstitution ( Doubtful ) then I think this will be the first time that something has ben put into the constitution to deny someone rights.

Hey, Rick--

Actually, I may not have been precise enough in my wording, but what you said is exactly what I meant. I'm glad we're on the same page.

I've been watching this thread; seen some very disturbing posts and some very uplifting ones. Will be curious to see how things turn out once the shit hits the fan with all this.

Personally, I think the mayor of San Fran may one day be regarded as the next Martin Luther King Jr--he's fixing something that really does need to be fix, and he's taking tremendously bold steps to make his statement.

But I noticed a leviticus quote - or a partial... the complete reads :

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death"

(Don't even get me started with Deuteronomy )

The same age old partial quote is bandied around to say that homosexuality is 'wrong and dirty' -- but noone ever completes the quote and says 'we must kill them all'

Why is that?

You can't really have on without the other - saying the first half of the quote is 'THE WORD' and the other half isn't.. either the whole quote is BS or it's all true..

Which one is it?

(reason #245600 why I turned my back and became an athiest)

Siggy.

On that note, I'd also like to congratulate him and the other people who are really risking careers and reputations by doing this. In this day it's shocking to discover there are some politicians who will risk it all by standing up for what's right.

Wouldn't it be something if Washington were filled with people like these? Who will do the right thing for no other reason than it's the right thing to do?

"Oh alright alright alright, you gay people can have your marrage. As long as I and all my other heterosexual friends can still think ourselves better then you, and be better then you lawfully."

This is how I see that post.

Personally, I believe our forefather's decision to seperate church and state should ring true to this day. I myself dont understand why its taking us... lets see... OVER 228 YEARS to do it.

igh:

If President Bush and our congress ratifies that constitutional amendment, it will be the first amendment to LIMIT the rights of United States citizens. Thats FRIGGING HORRIBLE!

I mean, I thought the government would see more clearly how this proposition is blatently violating the original purpose of the Constitution.

Reading a good deal of the replies to this thread, I've changed a few of my beliefs in the solution to this problem. I used to believe that a Federal Civil Union system would solve everything. Now, Im starting to have my doubts.

UNLESS:
(Note: Ill call the government of today the "old government" and the government after the stuff I propose the "new government"

1. Marrage is null in the new government.
   
2. All couples who were Married in the old gov. are now automatically bound by a Civil Union in the new gov.
   
3. Civil Unions in the new gov. give everyone the same rights as Marrage gave in the old gov.
   
4. Marrage is no longer recognized as a legal term, it cannot be used to seperate a group of people from another in a legal document.
   
5. Civil Unions are applicable to all persons marrage was applicable to, and Homosexual couples.
   
6. All laws mentioning marrage, will be rewritten to mention Civil Union.
   
7. Marrage becomes a term used in only representing the religious celebration.
   [/list=1]
   
   Now that is an astounding amount to do if Civil Union is to = Marrage.
   
   Allowing homosexuals the right to marry would solve all of that in one single swoop, and no drastic changes in the way people think and common termonolgy have to be made.
   
   So, either change marrage to Civil Union, and allow homosexuals, or allow homosexuals to marry. The latter sounds less legally time consuming to implement.
   
   
   Keeping both Marrage for the Heterosexuals, and Civil Union for the Homosexuals, is a reenactment of 'seperate but [not quite] equal'.
   
   ==Chris

And heres a problem with elevating marriage to 'holy matrimony' so all us righteous-god-fearing-breeders can feel smugly superior;

what about us athiests?

Hell, if it were called 'holy matrimony' I'd go for 'civil union' and to hell with the rights -- I'd rather lose a few rights than be associated with people like the poster...

Siggy.

Aww, come on....like any of these rouge mayors who are doing this are doing it for the reasons they want you to believe. They aren't taking a risk, they're getting huge free popularity; it's a political move. I mean, do you really think it's a political gamble for the mayor of possibly the most liberal city in the country to do this? The other guy is "Green party", and they're just dieing to get attention.

If they really cared about the issue and were willing to risk their careers they could have just done something like this on their own, but they're just riding the wave the Mass. courts created. At least the Mass. court didn't break any laws, though. Just my opinion of course.

Huge publicity?!

You think giving an entire city's gay community legal rights to marry is a publicity stunt??? You act like it takes no guts to pull something like that off. Newsom isn't running for president. He's married. He's got nothing to prove.

You want to talk about a publicity stunt, let's question Bush's motive for publicly announcing his willingness to ban gay marriage. Considering how virtually impossible it will be to enforce that, you give me one reason why that wasn't a publicity stunt.

On the other hand, what Newsom did is having a domino effect. There are other cities throughout the country who are following his lead. I haven't heard a single name of any of the mayors doing what Newsom's doing right now, so are they doing it as a publicity stunt to? Or, no, you're going to say they're just following the crowd? Gimme a break.

These are people who are saying "No, the law is wrong." These aren't people who are saying "Look at me, me monkey, me don't follow the rules." Takes a lot of desperation to claim there's some alternative motive in this whole mess, to raise awareness of oneself rather than to raise awareness of a repressed group of people.

I beg you to tell me otherwise.

Now I'm going to return to my usual observant post.

Not taking a risk? How about being voted out next election by an angry majority? Perhaps being impeached? It's happened if you've forgotten recent history. How about the risk of alienating political allies?

For a politician, these things are death. California's former governor? His career is over. He won't be in any meaningful public office again. Don't be naive, these guys are taking huge risks for somehting they beleive in.

[/B]

... And given the right circumstances im sure the other 77% would FIRE upon the 23% of said American MARINES

Amen! hehe

lol...well we'll see if Gavin Newsom is re-elected. I don't think this will hurt his chances, let's put it that way. I have heard of the second (I believe) Green Party NY mayor to do this, btw. I'm sure it was big news locally... Green Party isn't exactly right wing either, so his "political allies" won't be going anywhere. Gray Davis...totally different subject.

I agree that changing the definition of Marriage would be procedurally easier. But easier isn't always best.

I think several people here on both side of the issue have stated that the laws should remain at the state level. This is part of the rationale for why an Amendment would be a bad way to "fix" this.

I know people (from other countries mostly) who think we should abolish States rights in this country and just have one set of laws for everyone. Of course these people have no plans to go back to Brazil or Russia where they have these simplifications in place. And, as far as I know, the EU won't force all laws to be the same in Europe.

Our entire system of government is designed to make change HARD, not easy. Otherwise we would just elect a dictator for a few years at a time, or simply let the Senate decide everything.

Here is a link about women in Daytona protesting in favor of going topless on the beaches there:

http://www.wftv.com/news/2888490/detail.html

This is a regular controversy in Daytona, and other places too. So, using this "Dictionary is easier to change" logic, why not just pass a law that says "woman" = "man". Now there would be no way to enforce topless restrictions in Daytona. Furthermore:

No need for a sloppy modification to the Constitutions known as the ERA.

No need to argue any more about unisex toilet facilities.

Discrimination in employment on the basis of sex would be a thing of the past.

Oh, and by the way:

No need to change any current marriage laws.

I'm not serious about this of course. But I think it points out the possible complications of just changing word meanings instead of changing laws. Like that southern state that redefined the speed of light to be 100,000 MPH so it would be easier to remember. Politicians have too much power now, we don't need them meddling with our dictionaries, or physics books either. They tend, on average, to screw up more than they fix.

Finally, dealing with laws at three different levels, and having multiple government entities able to challenge one another as they are doing now has a nice "laboratory" aspect to it. Whether its regulation or deregulation of electric systems, mandating of MDTA in gasoline, or school vouchers, the messy complex way we do things now yield up a lot of evidence usefull in helping everyone agree on what we should all be doing in the longer term.