Bush Urges Marriage Amendment (Gay marriage or non-?)

This issue is always brought up. I'm sure no one is surprised.

Originally Posted by MSNBC

WASHINGTON - President Bush rallied support Monday for a ban on gay marriage as the Senate opened a volatile, election-year debate on a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex weddings.

“Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure,” said Bush, who raised the issue’s profile with an event at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

Bush criticized judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation. “Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges,” he said.

Traditional marriage, Bush said, is the cornerstone of a healthy society and the issue should be put “back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people.”

Senate votes this week
There was little chance of that in the near future. Neither chamber is likely to pass the amendment by the two-thirds majority required to send it to the states — three quarters of which would then have to approve it.

Many Republicans support the measure because they say traditional marriage strengthens society; others don’t but concede the reality of election-year politics.

“Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised,” said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. “As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined.”

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will vote against the measure on the floor but allowed it to get there in part to give the GOP the debate party leaders believe will pay off on Election Day. Specter has chosen a different battle with the Bush administration this week — a hearing Tuesday on the ways the FBI spies on journalists who publish classified information.

Democrats: Debate will split society
As that hearing gets under way, debate on the marriage amendment will enter its second day on the Senate floor. All but one of the Senate Democrats — the exception is Ben Nelson of Nebraska — oppose the measure and, with moderate Republicans, are expected to block an up-or-down vote, killing the measure for the year.

Democrats say the amendment is a divisive bow to religious conservatives, and point out that it conflicts with the GOP’s opposition to big government interference.

“A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple,” said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.

Top Democrat will oppose
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who says he believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman, said he nonetheless will vote against the amendment on a test vote Wednesday.

“The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another,” Reid said in remarks prepared for delivery on the Senate floor. “This is another one of the presidents efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract and to confuse America. It is this administration’s way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day.”

Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, which in 2004 began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, on Monday denounced Bush’s move as predictable and “stale rhetoric” aimed at rallying conservatives for this year’s midterm elections.

“It’s politics. It’s pandering and it’s placating a core constituency, the evangelicals,” Newsom said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

White House press secretary Tony Snow acknowledged said there was a political dimension to Bush’s remarks Monday but said the president was not calling senators to persuade them to pass the amendment. “I’m not sure this is a big driver among voters,” Snow said.

Bush’s views on the federal marriage amendment differ from those held by Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter, Mary, is a lesbian.

Cheney said he thinks Americans should do everything they can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into. He said he does not think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.

Emotions run deep
Acknowledging that emotions often run hot in this debate, Bush urged calm during his Saturday morning radio address.

“As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity,” he said. “All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard.”

David Buckel, Marriage Project director of Lambda Legal, a national organization working to protect the rights of lesbians, gay men and others, said the amendment would be damaging to the lives of same-sex couples and families, which raise millions of children.

“It would brand lesbian and gay men as legally inferior individuals,” he said. “It would write into the supreme law of the land that this group of people are inferior, and when it’s the law, it’s a message to everyone else in society that they have license to discriminate.”

Bush said in his radio address there is broad consensus in America to protect the institution of marriage.

Voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage, he said. Moreover, he said, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

This sounds to me like a popularity amendment. It strikes me conspicuous how they haven't done anything about this controversy sooner, especially for how large it has gotten and for how long it has been going on. Now, this has been brought up before, of course, but not with as much fervor as now the Americans are really voicing their views on this issue. I think two years ago a similar thing happened with this coming up.

I agree with Dick Cheney on the issue of the government staying out of peoples' relationships, except when they become too...what's the word...inexcusable. Now as to where one draws this line is up to the person, and that's mostly where we all differ on the subject, besides the natural vs. not natural arguments. My thoughts on this issue are values about which I am strictly stubborn: I believe homosexual/bisexual couples should be able to marry. Having the same rights as a married couple given to the gay community's relationships is what I would love to see. The rights should be shared by homosexual couples. It's still love.

To sum up what side I'm on, I believe homosexuality is natural and that they deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples do, making me against the amendment to ban gay marriage.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11442710/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040224-2.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...marriage_x.htm

Hiya, Alonely :0) Long time no chat. *hopes to ammend that, soon* Get it, ammend? *bursts into annoying laughter* :0P''

This sounds to me like a popularity amendment.

Technically, the Bill of Rights and even the Declaration of Independence by "These/the United States" were ALso "Popularity Ammendments"... Of course, they weren't exactly ammending anything, but you get the idea. Our country was founded on what the majority of people (who were represented) wanted (or at least thought they wanted).

But I'm one of those weird people who think we should never have fought the Revolutionary War >.>

EDIT: Oh, and no, "marriage" is not a Christian word. It is a word used from close to the beginning of civilization and referenced often by the Jews (even before they were called "Jews")--and no doubt other peoples who branched from the same places the "Jews" did/do...which is everyone as far as I can tell :0P'

I have one particular atheist friend (and no doubt others are of the same mind) who would be quite offended by your idea. They consider marriage part of basic morality, and have faced extreme criticism at home and abroad with the idea that "unless you have 'religion' you cannot be moral." So they, at least, would beg to differ when claiming marriage is a religious term alone.

Originally Posted by Big Bro Davidia

Hiya, Alonely :0) Long time no chat. *hopes to ammend that, soon* Get it, ammend? *bursts into annoying laughter* :0P''



Technically, the Bill of Rights and even the Declaration of Independence by "These/the United States" were ALso "Popularity Ammendments"... Of course, they weren't exactly ammending anything, but you get the idea. Our country was founded on what the majority of people (who were represented) wanted (or at least thought they wanted).

But I'm one of those weird people who think we should never have fought the Revolutionary War >.>

EDIT: Oh, and no, "marriage" is not a Christian word. It is a word used from close to the beginning of civilization and referenced often by the Jews (even before they were called "Jews")--and no doubt other peoples who branched from the same places the "Jews" did/do...which is everyone as far as I can tell :0P'

I have one particular atheist friend (and no doubt others are of the same mind) who would be quite offended by your idea. They consider marriage part of basic morality, and have faced extreme criticism at home and abroad with the idea that "unless you have 'religion' you cannot be moral." So they, at least, would beg to differ when claiming marriage is a religious term alone.

Yes, I get it, amend. Haha. *Humors you*

Ah, thank you for the correction. I haven't heard it that way before. But, at the same time, I thought "marriage" even to Christians meant the joining of a man and a woman in holy matrimony. Does it say anything about having to be Christian? I'm actually asking, no sarcasm or rhetoric involved.

Originally Posted by Big Bro Davidia

But I'm one of those weird people who think we should never have fought the Revolutionary War >.>

You ARE weird.

In any case, that does change my argument a little, and thank you for the information. I'll edit my post a bit now.

“The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another,” Reid said in remarks prepared for delivery on the Senate floor. “This is another one of the presidents efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract and to confuse America. It is this administration’s way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day.”

The homosexual counterculture has split society, not efforts to "avoid the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day." This is a "tough, real" moral question "that American citizens are confronted with each and every day." I say we do something to settle it, so as not to divide our nation any longer. Yay for political maneuvering. Vote on your side of the fence--or else you might as well not be there. Obviously you're the one who's divided, Mr. Senator.

“A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple,” said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.

What else are we to vote for, Mr. Senator? A peaceful agreement between men? Oh, no. The process of voting is very cutthroat. The only interest in either party is to win. Your only interest in this very statement is to strengthen your position, win the Senate vote, and get reelected, thereby maintaining your political influence. Bigotry? Why, yes, Mr. Senator.

This sounds to me like a popularity amendment.

Like the repeal of Prohibition and the 19th and 24th amendments. All law-making involves an attempt to maintain a political image.

It's still love.

But not married love, even according to you.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

But not married love, even according to you.

It's only not married love because they're not allowed to marry in the majority of the US. I don't even feel people have to be married to love one another. Why does that matter? It does indeed sound and look better on profiles and the works, but being married doesn't necessarily define love as being stronger.

Originally Posted by Alonely

It's only not married love because they're not allowed to marry in the majority of the US. I don't even feel people have to be married to love one another. Why does that matter? It does indeed sound and look better on profiles and the works, but being married doesn't necessarily define love as being stronger.

If you're not willing/can't marry someone, it's not a good idea to try to fake it. It's considered adultery--doing things intended for marriage outside of marriage.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

If you're not willing/can't marry someone, it's not a good idea to try to fake it. It's considered adultery--doing things intended for marriage outside of marriage.

"Fake it"? Fake what? Love or marriage? There are select homosexual couples that "fake it". That's the same exact thing with heterosexual couples, if you mean love.

Adultery? To love when not married? Hardly adultery.

I don't understand what you're getting at. Fake love or fake marriage? And what does that even have to do with this amendment or what I said?

Originally Posted by Alonely

[color=deepskyblue]"Fake it"? Fake what? Love or marriage? There are select homosexual couples that "fake it". That's the same exact thing with heterosexual couples, if you mean love.

I was talking marriage--and, yes, they come from both sides. But it's impossible for a homosexual couple "not" to fake it, if they can't marry.

Adultery? To love when not married? Hardly adultery.

To act as though married when a couple is not is adultery.

Originally Posted by Bushy

Traditional marriage, Bush said, is the cornerstone of a healthy society and the issue should be put “back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people.”

Healthy society? No
Hands of the American people? Ha yeah, I couldn't see bush doing that...

Originally Posted by LionHarted

I was talking marriage--and, yes, they come from both sides. But it's impossible for a homosexual couple "not" to fake it, if they can't marry.



To act as though married when a couple is not is adultery.

You're saying that by loving one another, homosexuals are "faking marriage"...? Even the ones who have no desire to get married? Just love makes it adultery?

In marriage, love is a must, from what I understand of Christianity (though correct me if I'm wrong). Using that logic, no one should love or have children if they're not married. If they can't love before marriage, why would they get married in the first place, if they're not in it for the marriage benefits? That's not adultery, to love like a married couple, and that is an aspect of marriage.

Alonely: No, you certainly do NOT have to be a Christian to get married. In fact, the Bible talks about marriage between peoples of different faiths (or faith vs. lack of faith, rather) quite explicitely. Since Christianity is not something you are born into by the flesh, but rather a new walk in the Spirit which diverges from the "old man" which is considered to be "dead", it is EXPECTED that Christians will be in difficult situations which cause trouble and strife (as in engaging in homosexual activities or being married to someone who has not chosen to walk with God) when they first come to Him. Otherwise, there would be no reason to even seek God--we would not need Him!

The "prescriptions" for these circumstances are different for each, of course, but I think it is important for this thread that we at least know they are included in the Way (a.k.a. so-called "Christianity").

And you are quite right--it is mandated that, in marriage, love be the driving force of the marriage. Without love, we are nothing and can do nothing which is of any value. Marriage in Christianity should mirror Christ's love for the Church (the Bridegroom is Christ and the Bride is the Church, the analogy often goes, Biblically). Thankfully, we also know that Christ loved us before we loved Him--and that Truth (in simile) is what keeps Christian families together when they are seeking Him and His will.

However, I'm not sure what you mean by "if they can't love before marriage". "Love," in itself, is not limited within the confines of marriage. However, how that love is formed, what type of love it is, and how it is acted upon is much more complex and these dimensions of love have a greater bearing on the application of the idea.

If we did not have love before marriage, then it is like saying that God did not love us before we came to Him. It is, then, again, a matter of the depth of love into which one is immersed rather than the absence of love which becomes the issue.

Originally Posted by Alonely

You're saying that by loving one another, homosexuals are "faking marriage"...? Even the ones who have no desire to get married? Just love makes it adultery?

No. In cohabitating, homosexual intercourse, parenting etc., couples mimic things that are generally intended for married couples. I don't appreciate people misrepresenting my posts.

Using that logic, no one should love or have children if they're not married.

Love is a prerequisite of marriage. Marital acts are not. I am talking about the marriage benefits--the taking of things that are to be left for marriage. Sure, the love has to be there before the marriage can take place, but certain expressions of that love require a level of committment that only marriage can provide.

“Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure,” said Bush, who raised the issue’s profile with an event at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

And such irony too. From what I've understood, the definition of a family should be a couple in love and in support of each other until the end of time or death do them apart. Yet, Bush started this bul***** about "undermining"