Bush constitutional amendment

[danmand]

After having solved the problems in Afganistan and Iraq, the Prez is now setting his sights on the terrorist lesbians and gays, who are destroying the USA from within.

 

[gramage]

if Dubya honestly goes through with ammending the constitution to deny rights to a group of people, he will go down in history as the man who forever tainted one of the most powerful documents ever created to preserve human rights.

 

[hedway]

I thought Republicans were supposed to be for getting government out of your face. The opposite seems to be true.

 

[xarir]

if Dubya honestly goes through with ammending the constitution to deny rights to a group of people, he will go down in history as the man who forever tainted one of the most powerful documents ever created to preserve human rights.

"Forever" is a long time. If he's idiotic enough to try this (and sadly, he probably is), I think it will take until the next President to undo the damage and have this ammendment reversed.

I wonder though, why President Bush thinks gay marriage is a Bad Thing for the US. I'd be interested to hear his argument on that (assuming he actually has one).

 

[gramage]

correct me if I'm wrong and I probably am, but even when a part of the constitution is rescinded doesn't it remain part of the written document? I think even if it is removed almost immediately it ever existing will be horrific.

 

[tolkienreader]

While I'm against muddying up the constitution with an amendment banning gay marriage I am firmly against gay marriage.

Why?

The reason why the gay community is looking for marriage rights is to force corporations and the government to give them the same benefits as a typical married couple. They forgot the fact that the whole point of giving married couples those benefits is so that they can afford to raise children. Two gay men, or two gay women are not going to be reprodocing any time soon.
They can profess their love all they want, but they are not going to force corporations to give their partner health benefits.

Lets say, you think they should have the right to get married. Could I for instance marry my brother so we could share benefits? Could a brother marry a sister? Would it be ok if the brother and sister to get married if they promised not to reproduce? Is there a constitutional right for a brother and sister to reproduce ? How about a father and a daughter? If I can marry another man, could I marry a woman I love as well, so I have two spouses? Would they all be eligable for benefits?

There is a slippery slope argument here. If they can find a church to wed them, fine. If they want the government to provide them married couple benefits, get out of here!

 

[EnergizerBunny]

The reason why the gay community is looking for marriage rights is to force corporations and the government to give them the same benefits as a typical married couple. They forgot the fact that the whole point of giving married couples those benefits is so that they can afford to raise children. Two gay men, or two gay women are not going to be reprodocing any time soon. They can profess their love all they want, but they are not going to force corporations to give their partner health benefits.

What about adoption?

 

[Goober Mcfly]

<Devil's Advocate>

Good point, EB. If gays are allowed to marry and adopt all those unwanted babies being aborted, we could stop abortion! How would you answer that?

</Devil's Advocate>

 

[gramage]

I'm just trying to get my head around how Tolkein just equated gay marriage with incest. thats just rediculous

 

[tolkienreader]

Gays can (in most places and maybe all adopt children. To say allowing gays to marry and adopt to prevent abortion is a red harring. Woman don't have abortions because there aren't enough people to adopt their babies. New borns are in fact highly desired, and there are plenty of people willing to adopt them.

To address the point, however, the number of gay couples adopting children is tiny. They don't want to get married so they can have children. To this small minority, they could have joint custody of the children. We can't design law about a small minority of cases.

Would like to see someone respond to where and how far down the slope we should go.

 

[tolkienreader]

To address Gramage's point, I equated gay marriage with incest in that I would like a defination of how far should you would allow marriage to go.

If it is legal for two gay men to marry, can two straight, related men marry? If not, why not. They love each other. Do they have to have sex? Clearly not, because two gay men who are incapable of having sex should by this argument be able to get married.

Would have responded in one post, but the other post slipped in while I was typing this one.

Basic question - how far do we take it.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

I do see what tolkienreader is saying. The subject of homosexuality is a moral issue, as is incest. What matters is what society will tolerate. Homosexuality used to be as taboo as incest. Not anymore. Will incest be far behind?

A good question, IMHO.

 

[EnergizerBunny]

Would like to see someone respond to where and how far down the slope we should go.

Community standards my man, the community standards of the majority. When the majority of the community says that sister fuckers can marry their sisters, well then you have sister fucker and sister marriages.

Hold a referendum. That's democracy.

 

[Snook.fr]

I would like a defination of how far should you would allow marriage to go.

I would Allow it All....if we ban Gay Marriages, what's next?
Then (no offense) Fat People will not be able to get married? then why not extend it to Bald People? (damn, with no hair they shouldn't be able to marry Right?)

If it is legal for two gay men to marry, can two straight, related men marry? If not, why no

Technically they Cannot, but France has already Accepted the fact that 2 people living under the Same Roof (regardless of sex or situation (like Brothers and Sisters)), can make a "PACS" which has All the Benefits of Married Life (without the Love and Sex).

Let's stop being so uptight.....

 

[Quest4Less]

Anyone who wants should have the right to live together and have the same rights as married people... HOWEVER...

Mariage (sp?) has religious attachments and I know of no religion that allows gay/homosexuals....

So, it should be called something else.. perhaps "life companions"? And have all the same rights and benefits.

 

[Back Burner]

I'm kind of down the middle but you know one day 2 straight guys (or girls) are going to get married just to take advantage of the system.

Back Burner

 

[Ickabod]

I wonder though, why President Bush thinks gay marriage is a Bad Thing for the US. I'd be interested to hear his argument on that (assuming he actually has one).

Because 9/11 changed everything.

 

[Ickabod]

I thought Republicans were supposed to be for getting government out of your face. The opposite seems to be true.

Republicans ARE for getting government out of your face. Now even they are catching on to this fraud.

I think one of 2 things is happening here. Either 1)The Bush people are getting spooked by the polls showing their guy falling like a brick and they're getting desperate. To use a sports metaphor, when the momentum is going drastically against one side, they panic and start taking stupid chances....which usually only makes things worse. Or 2)Bush himself is unhappy with the slide and is deciding to actually take over the decision making duties from Rove and Cheney. And in the process, showing that he's in way over his head.

Note: Pure conjecture of a possible maybe. Nothing more.

 

[james t kirk]

In order to enact a constitutional ammendment, President Shrub will require a two-thirds majority vote in both houses
for passage and then ratification by three-fourths of all fifty states.

I may be naive, but I can't see him getting 2/3 of the house of representatives, ever.

So the point is not.

 

[xarir]

A bit extreme perhaps ...

I'm kind of down the middle but you know one day 2 straight guys (or girls) are going to get married just to take advantage of the system.

I know a lady at work who married a Canadian guy just so that she could get her Canadian citizenship. Once that goal was achieved, she left him. The split was (by her account) amicable. He now lives with some other lady and she now lives with some other guy. They still see each other from time to time (so she tells me). Technically they're still married even though they now live with "new" partners.

So clearly, "traditional" marriage between a man and a woman is wide open to blatent system abuse.