Bush plans to ammend the Constitution

[Immortal Goat]

Bush plans on sending an ammendment though Congress that will effectively ban gay marriage.

Yes, I know that's all we need, another gay marriage thread, but this one is slightly different.

Bush has specifically mentioned religious roots as one of the main thrusts that he is attempting to ban gay marriage. This is what really drives me crazy. We have the separation of church and state for a reason, and that is to avoid intolerance and bias such as this.

I'm not saying that gay marriage is right or wrong, I am just saying that the government has no right to regulate it like this.

Comments??

[Perndog]

Religious basis for legislation is not the same as establishment of religion, and the majority rules in this country. The majority of people in this country are Christian and will therefore support laws based on Christian values.

Homosexuality, however, is too hot of an issue to press like this and a lot of Christians don't have a problem with it. There's no way 2/3 of Congress will get behind such an amendment.

[Immortal Goat]

Actually, according to a poll I saw on my local news, 60% of Americans are opposed to gay marriages. It is really sad that our country can be so intolerent of other people when we are supposed to follow the idea that "all men are created equal".

[Perndog]

60% is not two thirds and Congress members, for all their faults, are generally a little smarter than the redneck majority.

[Immortal Goat]

I realize this. I am just commenting on the fact that our country is very intolerent in their beliefs about other lifestyles. Too many people have been swimming in the same gene pool, I guess.

[El Blanco]

The Constitution is meant to put limits on the government, not the people. this is a pretty shitty idea.

[Emu]

I bet Vince was the only one who voted yes. :lol

I know a few people whose justification for the "all men are created equal" thing is that gay peoplea re subhuman and therefor don't have the same rights everyone else does. Then again, these are the same guys who couldn't find Germany on a map of Deutschland.

[derrida]

Religious basis for legislation is not the same as establishment of religion, and the majority rules in this country. The majority of people in this country are Christian and will therefore support laws based on Christian values.

Homosexuality, however, is too hot of an issue to press like this and a lot of Christians don't have a problem with it. There's no way 2/3 of Congress will get behind such an amendment.

Are you from the US? If you are, I should hope you know that in merka the majority only rules insofar as it abides by constitutional law, or, more accurately, the legal wisdom of the Supreme Court.

[HickMan]

DOWN WITH THE GAYS :rolleyes

[Perndog]

Are you from the US? If you are, I should hope you know that in merka the majority only rules insofar as it abides by constitutional law, or, more accurately, the legal wisdom of the Supreme Court.

See the first phrase in my post. Religious morals dictating public policy is nothing new and is not prohibited by the establishment clause.

In addition, there is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing sexual freedom.

And to top it off, we are discussing a possible constitutional amendment here. It doesn't have to be constitutional because the motion itself is to change the Constitution.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Gays, by definition, cannot get "married".

It is against the law.

California is having trouble enforcing their laws concerning gay marriage.

Therefore, I agree with the amendment.

I support civil unions for EVERYONE and believe that marriage should be a church function and have nothing to do with govt.

[Perndog]

The problem is that most people, even non-church types, are into the idea of marriage, and "civil union" is a much less significant thing in their minds. To only allow heterosexual marriage would cement the popular notion that homosexuals are a lesser form of humans.

That and marriage confers more and different legal privileges than civil union does.

Personally, I'm not in favor of the whole concept of marriage; monogamy is fine, but the only ceremony two people need to be faithful to each other is a promise between the two of them. Marriage was just a license to have sex back in the days when they invented Christianity, and now its only relevance comes from its continued overemphasis by society. But oh well.

[Immortal Goat]

Gay bashing should never have come about in Christianity to begin with. Jesus NEVER said anything about gay people, and he NEVER wanted people to be condemned. It was the apostles, who came AFTER Jesus, that said that homosexuals were deviant. I just researched it in my bible. Jesus never said a goddamned word about gays.

[Emu]

Yeah, but who the hell ever listened to anything Jesus actually DID say?

[El Blanco]

Gay bashing should never have come about in Christianity to begin with. Jesus NEVER said anything about gay people,

Ya, but the Old Testement does mention homosexuality as a sin.

and he NEVER wanted people to be condemned.

I agree. Hate the sin but love the sinner. Cast the first stone and all that.

It was the apostles, who came AFTER Jesus, that said that homosexuals were deviant. I just researched it in my bible. Jesus never said a goddamned word about gays.

You should have gone back further.

[Brandon]

Gay bashing should never have come about in Christianity to begin with. Jesus NEVER said anything about gay people,

Ya, but the Old Testement does mention homosexuality as a sin.
So? Are you a Jew? Isn't the basis for your religion the New Testament, rather than the Old?

Unless you believe the government's role is to uphold the moral edicts of a particular religion, then this issue is utterly asinine. Threatens marriage? I don't see my future marriage as threatened by this.

[theapportioner]

The amendment in question is vaguely worded as it now stands and could very well be interpreted as banning civil unions and domestic partner benefits currently provided by some states.

However, many conservatives see marriage as a states issue and so it may be quite difficult to get a federal amendment passed even if a clear majority of Americans oppose gay marriage.

If you are seriously bothered by this amendment proposal, I encourage you to write to Senators and Congresspeople, esp. moderate and conservative-leaning Democrats. aclu.org and other websites make it easy to do this.

[theapportioner]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same issues that killed the Massachusetts constitutional convention (for now) come up again here. It'll come down to the matter of civil unions. Vagueness will probably be unpalatable to many, and I doubt 2/3 would endorse an amendment that explicitely allows or prohibits civil unions. An amendment would be an extreme step to deciding this matter.

[punkgrrrlie10]

Actually, according to a poll I saw on my local news, 60% of Americans are opposed to gay marriages. It is really sad that our country can be so intolerent of other people when we are supposed to follow the idea that "all men are created equal".

On CNN they said 60% were against the idea of gay marriage but much less supported a constitutional amendment to ban it.

[El Blanco]

So? Are you a Jew? Isn't the basis for your religion the New Testament, rather than the Old?

No. Jesus came and completed the Law. He didn't scrap it all and give us a new one. He expanded it. By your logic, "Thou shalt not kill" no longer applies to me.

Unless you believe the government's role is to uphold the moral edicts of a particular religion, then this issue is utterly asinine. Threatens marriage? I don't see my future marriage as threatened by this.

Please refer to my original post in this thread. It sums up any opinions I have that are relevent to this issue.

[Perndog]

Didn't he scrap a lot of it, though? I thought some of the rules went bye-bye along with the whole vengeful, capricious God idea.

[El Blanco]

As our underatnding of God expanded, many of the old laws were re-interpretted. The only law off the top of my head that I can remember being scrapped is the not eating pig deal.

Other than that, the rest were either given new meaning (ie sacrafices) or still kept. He still encouraged keeping the sabbath.

[Brandon]

No. Jesus came and completed the Law. He didn't scrap it all and give us a new one. He expanded it. By your logic, "Thou shalt not kill" no longer applies to me.
Not necessarily, because doing harm to one's neighbor is decried in the New Testament as well as the Old.

Please refer to my original post in this thread. It sums up any opinions I have that are relevent to this issue.
The second part of my post was just generally addressing the topic, not your points. I guess I should have clarified.

[Brandon]

As our underatnding of God expanded, many of the old laws were re-interpretted. The only law off the top of my head that I can remember being scrapped is the not eating pig deal.

Other than that, the rest were either given new meaning (ie sacrafices) or still kept. He still encouraged keeping the sabbath.
Hey Blanco, does that mean we should still keep menstruating women away from churches?

[El Blanco]

Yes, because there are certainly no instances of Jesus reaching out to everyone in His time. Obviously, He wants people singled out for ridicule and to be ostricized.

[Perndog]

He'd be a lot cooler if he did.

[Brandon]

Yes, because there are certainly no instances of Jesus reaching out to everyone in His time. Obviously, He wants people singled out for ridicule and to be ostricized.
Well? Did he specifically mention that rule as null and void?

How about adulterous women? Should we still stone them to death?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm pissed about this. I've been saying all week that this is what it would take for Bush/Rove to deflate a Roy Moore 3rd party run, and he went and did it.....

Oh, and I'm against the proposed legislation, too. :/

[El Blanco]

Yes, because there are certainly no instances of Jesus reaching out to everyone in His time. Obviously, He wants people singled out for ridicule and to be ostricized.
Well? Did he specifically mention that rule as null and void?

How about adulterous women? Should we still stone them to death?

Holy shit, you have no clue what you are talking about. Have you ever heard of the story where Jesus prevented the mob from stoning the adultress to death? Thats where we get the saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". That exact fucking story.

Do you actually want to have a real discussion or are you interested in only antagonizing people with faith in something greater than themselves to feed some bullshit pretentious attitude of your?

If its the former, fine. I may not have all the answers(I am sure I don't) but I will do my best to satisfy your inquiries.

If its the latter, I'll be ingoring you from now on.

[Big Papa Goat]

He didn't specifically knock out the pork thing. When one of his disciples was going to eat without washing his hands (or some weird jewish ritual or somehting like that) Jesus said that it was not what goes into a man, but what comes out of him that makes him clean or unclean. I think thats how it went down. I know that statement is in the bible anyway.

[Brandon]

Yes, because there are certainly no instances of Jesus reaching out to everyone in His time. Obviously, He wants people singled out for ridicule and to be ostricized.
Well? Did he specifically mention that rule as null and void?

How about adulterous women? Should we still stone them to death?

Holy shit, you have no clue what you are talking about. Have you ever heard of the story where Jesus prevented the mob from stoning the adultress to death? Thats where we get the saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". That exact fucking story.

Do you actually want to have a real discussion or are you interested in only antagonizing people with faith in something greater than themselves to feed some bullshit pretentious attitude of your?

If its the former, fine. I may not have all the answers(I am sure I don't) but I will do my best to satisfy your inquiries.

If its the latter, I'll be ingoring you from now on.
The reason I asked you about those two issues in the "old law" is because you claimed the only rule he completely overturned was the dietary restriction. We just covered two prime examples of how he completely opposed parts of the Jewish Law.

[Big Papa Goat]

You know whats a dumb idea? Respect for religion. >:


And I really mean that

[El Blanco]

The reason I asked you about those two issues in the "old law" is because you claimed the only rule he completely overturned was the dietary restriction. We just covered two prime examples of how he completely opposed parts of the Jewish Law.

I said it was the only one I could think of that was scrapped. Adultery is still a sin, but Jesus wasn't preaching about the sin in this case. It was about our attitudes towards it.

Its not the Law he really went after (although He did adjust it to make it less ceremonial and more meaningful) but the way we observed it.

[Brandon]

Adultery is still a sin, but Jesus wasn't preaching about the sin in this case. It was about our attitudes towards it.

Its not the Law he really went after (although He did adjust it to make it less ceremonial and more meaningful) but the way we observed it.
Well, the Law claimed that the divinely ordained punishment for an adulteress was stoning. The crime and the punishment are both a part of the same system. By challenging the punishment, Jesus did go after the Law itself and not merely "the observance."

[Comrade Rocket]

You know whats a dumb idea? Respect for religion. >:


And I really mean that

Your Preaching to the Choir... no pun intented

[mburbank]

In addition to religous traditions, Bush stresses the idea that marriage being defined as solely between man and a woman is 'time honored'. That's powerful argument. Here are some other lengthy historical human traditions that we've done some redefining of in the last relatively short few hundred or so years.

Slavery.
Voting being restricted to white, land holding males.
Citizenship being restricted to white, landholding males.
Child Labor.
Ritual Animal Sacrafice.
State sanctioned religous prohibition.
State sanctioned freedom of speech.

Laws on all these things were tolerated, even enshrined in law for the vast bulk of human recorded history. I don't see as that's much of an argument.

[Brandon]

Also, if Mr. Bush is so fucking concerned about preserving the "sanctity of marriage," why has he not, say.. outlawed divorce?

[Immortal Goat]

Because that would piss off 50 percent of the country, rather than just a measly 40.

[mburbank]

Naldo; I understand your position on marriage vs. civil union and even think it's reasonable (isn't that scary) but since I can't imagone any politician suggesting a formal division between the legal an religous deffinition of marriage, and that in the eyes of te state no one would be married, why would you agree with Bush on one side of the equation?

Ie. Yes, Gays should be denied legal marriage and everyone should hve legal civil union instead, but all we intend to do is deny gays marriage.

[Emu]

This pisses me off:

also, i haven't seen the news today, but there's lots of livejournal talk about our president outlawing gay marriages? well, i think that's a wonderful idea. i do not believe that 'gay' or 'bi' relationships are something God wanted to happen, and i don't think people are 'born that way'. some people would argue that 'if God loves me, He would want me to be happy', or 'it's just the way God made me', but God doesn't want YOUR happiness (or their) for you, He wants HIS happiness for you, which should be want you want- because it's perfect! God created woman for man, not in any other way or form. i think our president is doing a VERY good thing in showing that this is not the way relationships are supposed to be. and it really bothers me when 'bi' and 'gay' people say that they are Christians, too- because Christianity is based upon the idea of submitting to Him. with that submitance, Christians are blessed, and God gives us His joy and a taste of His happiness. i'm really happy with the decision that our president has made (if the livejournal talk is right).

I found this when one of my friends directed me to it, posted on a livejournal of one of her friends'. It epitomizes the thought process of a good 90% of my school. Makes me sick.

[Anonymous]

The other day, a thought occurred to me:

This whole ban gay marriage thing seems like something that will really put off swing voters. Perhaps Bush knows this, but is doing this as a cynical jab at the Democrats, saying that with their current choices of candidates, and with Nader there to take votes from them, they have no chance of beating him, even if he alienates a lot of people with a proposal like this.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I really hope we go after all kinds of adulterous behavior, since we're defending marriage and family and stuff. Hey, and I'd say shitty ass work weeks with less money adjusted to inflation, record setting hours, and less benefits due to a shift towards a part-time economy, probably play a big part in taking time from couples and families.

Heck, I like this "defending social institutions" stuff, it could set a very progressive precedent. Then again, I'm a Liberal, and there's simply NO WAY the Republican "not in favor of social engineering" Party would try to define and codify what private, free, and consenting adults do with their lives, right? I mean, it's only big government liberals that support that kind of stuff, right?

[El Blanco]

I really hope we go after all kinds of adulterous behavior, since we're defending marriage and family and stuff. Hey, and I'd say shitty ass work weeks with less money adjusted to inflation, record setting hours, and less benefits due to a shift towards a part-time economy, probably play a big part in taking time from couples and families.



Some how I get the feeling that we'll see a crack down on goods and entertainment aimed at single men 18-30 before we see that taken care of.

[Big Papa Goat]

Why isn't adultery a crime?

[Emu]

One word: mormons

[Big Papa Goat]

Bigamy isn't adultery and outside of Utah, mormons don't count for shit. And Bigamy is a crime. Even in Utah. >:

[El Blanco]

I think adultery is a crime in some states, its just too much of a pain in the ass to prosecute.

[Brandon]

Naturally, since the Republican party is mobilizing to preserve the "sanctity of marriage," they'd all have clean marital histories, right?

1. Rush Limbaugh has been married three times.
2. George Will has had an affair.
3. Newt Gingrich has had an affair.Shall we tackle some others? Or am I just making ad hominen attacks "so typical of the left?"

And while we invoke the Old Testament, here are a few choice tidbits:

Deuteronomy suggests that if a man marry a woman and she is not a virgin, that she be stoned to death. Interesting.

In Kings, Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines. So much for Jerry Falwell's attack on polygamy.

[El Blanco]

3. Newt Gingrich has had an affair.

You forgot the bit about him divorcing his wife while she was a CANCER WARD.

[Brandon]

You forgot the bit about him divorcing his wife while she was a CANCER WARD.
Oh, that too. :)

[Brandon]

Andrew Sullivan's in an interesting position these days. This amendment fiasco has really given him a clear indication of how little his rights matter to the administration he's been blindly supporting.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Looks like this is becoming ever and ever more unlikely to happen, and in the process, Bush has simply started a wild fire with the issue that is spreading beyond San Francisco. Then again, IMO, this was never intended to happen. This was merely a political volley ball that Bush needed to throw out there in order to show that it isn't HE who opposes this, but merely the corrupt Democrats and the U.S. Congress (not to mention most state houses, even Georgia's).

From politics1.com:

"GAY MARRIAGE BAN AMENDMENT APPEARS DEAD IN US SENATE. The US Constitution places many obstacles in the path of proposed amendments, including the requirement that each house of Congress approve the amendment by a 2/3 vote and that 3/4 of the states ratify it by similar votes. That said, it takes just 34 votes in the US Senate to kill the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage endorsed by President Bush. It now appears that there are well more than 34 Senators on record as saying they will not support a constitutional amendment. Many are opponents of same-sex mariage, but they either oppose the concept of placing an issue like this in the US Constitution or maintain an amendment isn't currently needed. Don't believe us? You can look their names up in online searches of news stories. Here are the names of the 45 announced amendment opponents (or those saying that leaning strongly against the amendment): Lamar Alexander (R-TN), George Allen (R-VA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joe Biden (D-DE), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), John Breaux (D-LA), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Jon Corzine (D-NJ), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Edwards (D-NC), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Bob Graham (D-FL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dick Lugar (R-IN), John McCain (R-AZ), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Harry Reid (D-NV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), John Warner (R-VA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Dems who have yet to announce their views -- but are likely to oppose the amendment -- include some traditional liberals like Dan Akaka (D-HI), Mark Dayton (D-MN), Dan Inouye (D-HI), Carl Levin (D-MI), Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). Even some uncomitted Republicans who would be expected to support it seem to be leaning against the amendment. Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) -- a conservative who says he strongly opposes gay marriage -- said he was "very cool to the idea of an amendment.""

[theapportioner]

Hey Kev, do you know of any good sites that keep a tab on what bills before congress are subject to debate, and when?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Congress.org isn't all that bad. You can do searches based on issue and stuff. I used to check out another website where you could search by issue, bill #, committee, and/or those who were endorsing it. But for the life of me, I can't recall which site that was. If I remember I'll let you know, but Congress.org is pretty cool....

EDIT: Ooh, the Library of Congress site isn't too bad, either: thomas.loc.gov