Same-Sex Marriage-Amendment

[LV426]

I know, it's all over and everyone is innundated by it but Bush is at it again and I want to know the opinion of the people, but I guess I will start here.

Bush amendment proposal prompts strong reaction

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 Posted: 11:40 PM EST (0440 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Reaction to President Bush's call Tuesday for a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban gay marriage fell largely along party and ideological lines.

Bush said such an amendment would "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever."

Top Democrats and a gay civil rights group said Bush's support of an amendment was designed to draw attention from his record as president. Republican leaders said an amendment was needed to protect the foundation of American society.

The Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress to pass an amendment. Then it must be ratified by three-fourths, or 38, of the 50 states. (Challenges in passing an amendment)

A spokesman for Speaker Dennis Hastert said that while it would be difficult for such an amendment to get the 291 votes necessary to pass the House, the issue would still serve to define the choice available for voters come November.

"Sometimes you win for losing," said Hastert spokesman John Feehery, noting the issue would draw a clear line between Bush and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Democrats accused Bush of using the issue for political gain and trying to draw attention away from his record.

"President Bush came to the White House pledging to unite us and is now seeking to divide the country for his own political gain," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a statement.

Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Bush's support for such an amendment makes it clear that his re-election strategy is to "use wedge issues and the politics of fear to divide the nation."

The four-term senator has said he supports civil unions and equal protection for gays and lesbians but that he opposes marriage for them. He also said he believes the matter should be decided on the state level.

Civil unions grant couples most of the rights of state civil marriages, except the name, but provide none of the federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security benefits.

"All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign," Kerry said in a statement.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina said he opposes such an amendment and believes the issue should be left up to the states.

"If [Bush] really wants to help married couples, what he should be doing is helping them with their economic problems, their health care problems," Edwards told reporters during a campaign stop in Georgia.

Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts issued a statement saying Bush would "go down in history as the first president to try to write discrimination back into the Constitution."

"We have amended the Constitution only 17 times. ... [It] has often been amended to expand and protect people's rights, never to take away or restrict their rights," Kennedy said.

As top Democrats slammed Bush's announcement, several top Republicans supported the move, describing it as necessary for the foundation of American society.

"We're in the process right now of judges and vigilantes -- people taking justice into their own hands and deciding to change the law without either the courts or the legislature acting," said Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

He was referring a ruling by Massachusetts' highest court directing the state Legislature to allow same-sex marriages and the decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Santorum said that allowing the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses "devalues what marriage is."

Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate, said an amendment that would disallow same-sex marriage would not be discriminatory.

"Every culture in the world, every civilization in the world for over 3,000 years, has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The constitutional amendment merely states that again," he said on CNN Tuesday.

The leader of the nation's largest gay and lesbian political organization said Bush's call was a "desperate" attempt to help his re-election bid.

Cheryl Jacques, president of Human Rights Campaign, accused Bush of wanting to "bash gay and lesbian families."

"These are the desperate acts of a desperate president who is going to try and drag this country through a cultural war to jump-start a failing campaign," Jacques said.

But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment would allow states to establish civil unions.

That position did not sit well with some social conservatives, who want an amendment that would prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages and civil unions alike.

If an amendment "authorizes state legislatures to confer the entire legal substance of marriage, without the name of marriage, upon persons who are not married, then it takes away with one hand what it gives with the other," said a statement by Michael Schwartz, a spokesman for Concerned Women for America.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado, has submitted a proposed marriage amendment enthusiastically supported by many social conservatives.

Other conservatives oppose revising the Constitution and many moderate Republicans oppose a ban on same-sex marriage.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who co-sponsored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, considers that law sufficient to address the issue and thinks a constitutional amendment is "awfully strong medicine," an aide said.

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton, defines marriage only as the legal union of a man and a woman and allows states to ignore same-sex licenses issued outside their borders if they so choose.

CNN's Ted Barrett contributed to this report

[Darth Cluich]

The thing is that, if this proposed amendment gets through Congress, as this article notes, it will require the ratification of 38 States for it to become law. Unfortunately, 38 States already have laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman. In other words, if it gets through Congress, ratification's pretty much a given.

[LycanSpectre]

Santorum said that allowing the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses "devalues what marriage is."

I dont see how.

Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate, said an amendment that would disallow same-sex marriage would not be discriminatory.

Bullshit.

This all sounds like one big case of homophobia to me. I do not understand why all these people are so opposed to these marraiges. If you ask me, its none of their buisness. If homosexual couples want to get married, let them.

[Darth Cluich]

Hell, if I wanna marry a wombat, they should let me.

[LycanSpectre]

Hell, if I wanna marry a wombat, they should let me.

Only if the wombat is consenting. :p

[Darth Cluich]

Only if the wombat is consenting. :p

Don't worry. There won't be any shotgun wedding for me and my wombat just yet. ;)

[WhiteCrowUK]

Thing which annoys me here is this to many people is not offensive - the idea of same sex marrages has been around for decades.

But what it shows is how fast government can react to something if they really want to.

How many times does legislation which should help make people safer, or God forbid regulate a global company take years to get any momentum - and we're told we shouldnt rush into it!?!

[kaycee]

I think people should beable to marry who they want. It shouldn't effect those who oppose gay marriages. It's not like it's going to make them turn gay or anything right? To each their own. Who gives a rip?

One thing I don't think is right, is for gay people to raise children. I'm sorry but a child needs a mother and a father (male and female). Not gayness. The enviornment would be deceiving. They need to be raised in a normal enviornment and become the person of their choice. I realize that kids raised by a male and a female sometimes do become gay, but thats their choice or they were born that way (thats a whole other debate) but at least they were raised by both mother and father figures. They were raised in the proper enviornment.

Imagine kids going to school being razzed constantly because they have gay parents. If people want to be gay, fine. Be gay, marry gay, do all the gay stuff all you want but don't involve children for your own selfish needs. If they want kids, marry someone of the opposite sex and have them. Don't be gay and adopt them because you can't conceive with your gay partner.

[LV426]

I think people should beable to marry who they want. It shouldn't effect those who oppose gay marriages. It's not like it's going to make them turn gay or anything right? To each their own. Who gives a rip?

One thing I don't think is right, is for gay people to raise children. I'm sorry but a child needs a mother and a father (male and female). Not gayness. The enviornment would be deceiving. They need to be raised in a normal enviornment and become the person of their choice. I realize that kids raised by a male and a female sometimes do become gay, but thats their choice or they were born that way (thats a whole other debate) but at least they were raised by both mother and father figures. They were raised in the proper enviornment.

Imagine kids going to school being razzed constantly because they have gay parents. If people want to be gay, fine. Be gay, marry gay, do all the gay stuff all you want but don't involve children for your own selfish needs. If they want kids, marry someone of the opposite sex and have them. Don't be gay and adopt them because you can't conceive with your gay partner.


I have to disagree with you on the point of children. There are so many married couples out there that have kids and just don't give a damn about them. These kids are sometimes abused and neglected and end up with more problems. You said kids need a mother and a father but what about single moms? Should they not be allowed to have kids because there is not father? And what about single dads? Should their kids be taken away because their kids have no mother? A mother and a father does not a family make. Why deny a child a loving, caring home simply on the basis of sexual orientation? Kids get teased all the time for having a poor parent, or a parent with a mole on their face, or a fat parent. There will always be something that a child will be teased about but if that child has a caring environment, and someone who loves them and understands the teasing and being picked on, then they are more likely to get past the torture of childhood and make it to adulthood without killing their classmates.

Maybe I am biased, my Egg Donor (aka mother) was a piece of shit, but my dad is the most wonderful man in the world and I wouldn't trade him for anything. He also happens to be gay. Not that this affected me all that much because I learned later in life, but I was exposed to gay men my whole life and never grew up with a biased or homophobic reaction to homosexual individuals. If my dad wanted to adopt a child now ( gods I hope not, I have two annoying sisters as it is and I wanted to be an only child), I would support him and his partner. However my dad is getting up there and he has a cat that I think fullfills that whole child niche for his partner. Stepmom is younger but he's cool and my sisters and I call him our wicked step mom which he gets a kick out of, especially after we made him watch Cinderella.

Anyway back on topic, I think that if one person, two people, 3 people, or 10 people can give a child or children a caring, loving, and supportive home, then let them and stop bitching about their sex lives. See my stastics on abused children in the U.S. that are now living in the foster care system, you can find them in the Abortion thread.

[moonspirit]

ok, these are my own opinons so feel free to reply to them, ignore them, or PM me death threats..id be happy to give out more :D :p

I know, it's all over and everyone is innundated by it but Bush is at it again and I want to know the opinion of the people, but I guess I will start here.

..."President Bush came to the White House pledging to unite us and is now seeking to divide the country for his own political gain," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a statement...


:( power is everything. anyone and everyone would do anything for it.



...Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts issued a statement saying Bush would "go down in history as the first president to try to write discrimination back into the Constitution."...
*sigh* this is to everyone out there: everyone is diffrent, thats what makes us who we are. no one is alike, no one is the same--deal with it!! if we can not accept each other and atleast show some kindness then guess where it will take us? "united we stand, devided we fall". :banghead:


This all sounds like one big case of homophobia to me. I do not understand why all these people are so opposed to these marraiges. If you ask me, its none of their buisness. If homosexual couples want to get married, let them.
i personily think its mostly because of they're religional views. i agree with you 120%, if 2 people want to get married then they should. NEVER mess with love no mater who you are and who is in love

[kaycee]

I have to disagree with you on the point of children. There are so many married couples out there that have kids and just don't give a damn about them. These kids are sometimes abused and neglected and end up with more problems. You said kids need a mother and a father but what about single moms? Should they not be allowed to have kids because there is not father? And what about single dads? Should their kids be taken away because their kids have no mother? A mother and a father does not a family make. Why deny a child a loving, caring home simply on the basis of sexual orientation? Kids get teased all the time for having a poor parent, or a parent with a mole on their face, or a fat parent. There will always be something that a child will be teased about but if that child has a caring environment, and someone who loves them and understands the teasing and being picked on, then they are more likely to get past the torture of childhood and make it to adulthood without killing their classmates.

Maybe I am biased, my Egg Donor (aka mother) was a piece of shit, but my dad is the most wonderful man in the world and I wouldn't trade him for anything. He also happens to be gay. Not that this affected me all that much because I learned later in life, but I was exposed to gay men my whole life and never grew up with a biased or homophobic reaction to homosexual individuals. If my dad wanted to adopt a child now ( gods I hope not, I have two annoying sisters as it is and I wanted to be an only child), I would support him and his partner. However my dad is getting up there and he has a cat that I think fullfills that whole child niche for his partner. Stepmom is younger but he's cool and my sisters and I call him our wicked step mom which he gets a kick out of, especially after we made him watch Cinderella.

Anyway back on topic, I think that if one person, two people, 3 people, or 10 people can give a child or children a caring, loving, and supportive home, then let them and stop bitching about their sex lives. See my stastics on abused children in the U.S. that are now living in the foster care system, you can find them in the Abortion thread.

Nice post LH. I almost look at this in a different way. You're right. What's best for the child is what really matters, not the sex of who raises the child. But, even with understanding all that you've said, I still don't think it's right.Hopefully, gayism will become so accepted, that it wont matter to anyone who raises children. But for now, there are alot of people who frown upon it just because gayism isn't accepted enough. I don't know, maybe it's just me but I don't think it's right to involve children.

[LycanSpectre]

See my stastics on abused children in the U.S. that are now living in the foster care system, you can find them in the Abortion thread.

Thought I'd provide a link, since there are more than one Abortion threads. :)

Roe vs Wade Challenged Again (http://www.werewolf.com/vb/showthread.php?t=371 0&page=3&pp=10)

[GhostBat]

Jesus Christ, the mere thought of Bush and anyone else wanting to outlaw same sex marriage pisses me off to no end. No one should be able to say someone can't fall in love with a person of the same sex and take it to the next step in marriage. If we all outlaw same sex marriage, why not just outlaw marriage all-together. It's completely discriminatory to say same sex marriage is wrong, while marriage bewteen male and female is ok. Who has the right to determine something like that? NO ONE. Period.

[_wistful_]

let's hold it right there. i have a few friendly points to make with kaycee.

at least they were raised by both mother and father figures. They were raised in the proper enviornment.

it sounds to me - correct me if i'm wrong - that you are saying that two gays together is not natural or proper. yet you are agreeing that they should have the right to be married? contradicting yourself much? who's to say what is right? not you. not me. not him nor her. we are each entitled to our own opinion, and it is my opinion that we shouldn't use that to influence the lives of others *cough bush cough* and/or dictate how you should live based on just an idea!?

Be gay, marry gay, do all the gay stuff all you want but don't involve children for your own selfish needs. If they want kids, marry someone of the opposite sex and have them. Don't be gay and adopt them because you can't conceive with your gay partner.

just think: what if the situation was reversed, and the majority was homosexual, you included? would you consider it selfish to want to spend your life with someone that you love? (not directed at you.) And for all the reasons that married couples or opposite sex partners decide to have/adopt children, do basic family values vary depending upon sexuality? think on that. i do agree, however, that it would be very difficult for kids to grow up with same-sex parents in today's society. people are cruel, especially those who view gay relationships as unnatural and improper. gay couples may want to consider that before deciding that they want to take a child into their home. that is, of course, assuming the law would allow.

and please don't use the word gay to imply something's wrong, or that it's bad.

</rant>

[kaycee]

let's hold it right there. i have a few friendly points to make with kaycee.



it sounds to me - correct me if i'm wrong - that you are saying that two gays together is not natural or proper. yet you are agreeing that they should have the right to be married? contradicting yourself much? who's to say what is right? not you. not me. not him nor her. we are each entitled to our own opinion, and it is my opinion that we shouldn't use that to influence the lives of others *cough bush cough* and/or dictate how you should live based on just an idea!?



just think: what if the situation was reversed, and the majority was homosexual, you included? would you consider it selfish to want to spend your life with someone that you love? (not directed at you.) And for all the reasons that married couples or opposite sex partners decide to have/adopt children, do basic family values vary depending upon sexuality? think on that. i do agree, however, that it would be very difficult for kids to grow up with same-sex parents in today's society. people are cruel, especially those who view gay relationships as unnatural and improper. gay couples may want to consider that before deciding that they want to take a child into their home. that is, of course, assuming the law would allow.

and please don't use the word gay to imply something's wrong, or that it's bad.

</rant>


I'm not contradicting myself at all, so get the fuck off me already. I said I think gays should be allowed to marry. I think that's fine, I didn't say it was natural because it isn't. I also don't think they should raise children. And you said so yourself at the end of your post so it seems you contradict yourself. I see LH's points, and understand them, but still am opposed.

It's ok for you to voice your opinion, but not ok for me? Bite me asscrack.
There's a few friendly points for you.

[Shandrel]

Something that seems to be missed here.....
1. what's next? pagansim?
I have heard there have already been many little laws passed starting a ban on it
i.e. single white males can not have more than 9 tattoos on their body of religouse origin unless it is christian......
2. what about the anti-sodomy laws also ( trying or have been?) passed under the people's radar?? you can't have same sex sex.... ?
this act has disturbed me to no end. where does bush get off saying that becuase HE doesn't beleive in it that it is wrong? i mean come on, there is a rumor.......
(3) that he is going to make pot legal right before election time...... you don;t think to make up for lagging votes now do you? In this country, church and state are now so intertwined i doubt we will ever recover. like i said, whats next????( and also the whole idea is soo basicly stupid it's almost laughable, seriousely, how many gay men died and fought
defending this country to be told they can't marry......)
i am also waiting for the jim crow laws to be reinstated. seems like that is where the country is now going.

[LycanSpectre]

Something that seems to be missed here.....
1. what's next? pagansim? there have already been amny little laws passed starting a bann on it
i.e. single white males can not have more than 9 tattoos on their body of religouse oregin unless it is christian......WTF is that???
2. what abotu the anti-sodomy laws also passed under the people's radar??you can't have same sex sex.... again WTF is that?

Would you mind citing your sources?

Also, beware the slippery slope fallacy.

[wolfwolf]

The point to all this is not whether or not you think homosexuality is natural (look at animals, some of them are gay too) but freedom of religion. Just because Christianity doesn't approve of it, doesn't give them the right to turn this into a Christian country.

Everyone deserves legal equality. This country is not a theocracy.

[Darth Cluich]

Well, seems this thread's gone to hell in a handbasket... :rolleyes:

[Shandrel]

i'll find those sources again :D *hopefuly it's not a joke i have been fooled before not perfect,not claiming to be)

[LV426]

Black Pastors Rally Against Gay Marriage
March 23, 2004


By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - More than two dozen black pastors added their voice to the critics of same-sex marriage, attempting to distance the civil rights struggle from the gay rights movement and defending marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040323/capt.gaja60503230346 .gay_marriage_civil_ rights_gaja605.jpg
AP Photo



"When the homosexual compares himself to the black community, he doesn't know what suffering is," said the Rev. Clarence James, an African-American studies professor at Temple University.


Jones and 29 pastors rallied late Monday with their supporters at an Atlanta-area church where they signed a declaration outlining their beliefs on marriage and religion.


The declaration is meant to pressure state representatives to approve a constitutional ban on gay marriages, which will be considered again by the Georgia House as soon as this week.


The declaration, to be presented to state leaders Tuesday, says same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and marriage between a man and a woman is important because it's necessary for the upbringing of children.


"To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement," the statement said. "People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong."


Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Georgia, but supporters of the ban say the constitution needs to be changed to make sure a judge does not direct Georgia to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.


"It is a threat to who we are and what we stand for," said Bishop William Shields of Hopewell Baptist Church. "If nothing else gets us out of the pews, this ought to."


But the Rev. Paul Turner, a gay pastor from Atlanta who helped organize a pro-gay marriage rally last month outside the Georgia Capitol, disagreed: "How do they figure that it's not a civil rights issue?"


"This is just a way for those conservative leadership in the black community to say, 'Look, this isn't a matter of civil rights because we're black and we didn't have a choice in being black.' And they think gays do, and that's not true," Turner said.


Meanwhile, in St. Paul, Minn., supporters of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage gathered by the thousands in one of the largest Capitol rallies in memory.


The crowd, waving hundreds of signs, filled the Capitol steps, the parking lot, the steps below that and spilled onto the lawn. The House is expected to pass the bill Wednesday, with a Senate committee planning to take up the measure later in the week.


Elsewhere Monday, two Unitarian Universalist ministers in New York facing criminal counts for officiating at same-sex weddings pleaded innocent. Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged after marrying 13 gay couples during a public ceremony in New Paltz, about 80 miles outside New York City.


Each misdemeanor count of solemnizing a marriage without a license carries a fine of $25 to $500 or up to a year in jail, although the district attorney has said he does not expect to seek jail time.

[Wraywolf]

Mmm, smells like bullshit.

[LV426]

Gay congressman speaks out against same-sex marriage ban
Senate panel considers constitutional amendment
Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Posted: 5:39 PM EST (2239 GMT)
http://www.norml.org/images/pressconference/BarneyFrank8.jpg

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Speaking in highly personal terms, a gay member of Congress on Tuesday challenged supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, asking "who are we hurting" when homosexuals want to express the same emotional commitment as other Americans.

"All we are saying is, 'Please, can't we in our lives do this?"' said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. "When I go home from today's work and I choose because of my nature to associate with another man, how is that a problem for you? How does that hurt you?"

He drew no immediate reply from Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans supporting the proposed amendment.

Frank's appeal was unusual in Congress, where lawmakers clash vigorously on matters of politics and policy, but seldom refer to their personal lives -- much less sexual orientation -- in an attempt to influence legislation.

His remarks were supplemented by more traditional criticism from Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, who accused unnamed supporters of the amendment of seeking to use it for political gain.

"There are those who would like to politicize this issue and they'll use whatever means available to them to maximize whatever value they find politically," said the South Dakota lawmaker. He said he opposes the measure, adding that supporters are "not even close" to having the two-thirds support needed to prevail.

At the same time, committee approval of what would be the 28th amendment to the Constitution is not in doubt, and the appearances by Frank and other members of Congress as witnesses amounted to a dress rehearsal of the arguments likely to unfold when the matter comes before the full Senate.

Judges criticized
Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, the Colorado Republicans who are the amendment's main sponsors, said it is needed to curb the power of "activist judges" seeking to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

"A few state courts, not legislatures, have sought to overturn both statute and common perception of marriage by expanding the definition to include same gender couples," said Allard.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who presided over the hearing, agreed, saying, "these activists have given us no choice -- either we define marriage in the Constitution or they will redefine it for us, and the people will lose out."

Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, an opponent of the amendment and a black lawmaker, invoked the civil rights struggles of the 1960s in which he took part. "I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on same sex marriage," he said.

But Musgrave, speaking moments later, bluntly challenged that argument. "Of course, this amendment is not about discrimination," she said. Musgrave, who is white, said "all the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are struggling" with the issue. She quoted one, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Alabama, as saying he had yet to decide his position.

In a telephone interview, Davis said, "I do not compare the gay marriage movement to the civil rights amendment," and said there is a difference of opinion among black lawmakers on the issue. While Davis said he opposes gay marriage, he also said he does not yet have a position on the proposed amendment, and accused President Bush of attempting to use the issue for political gain.

The flare-up of racial politics in the Senate committee hearing added another dimension to an intensely controversial issue.

The issue has gained election-year momentum in the wake of a court ruling in Massachusetts, a spate of same-sex marriages in San Francisco and elsewhere, and Bush's call for Congress to vote on a proposed amendment.

Polls consistently show the public opposes gay marriage. But the division of opinion is far closer on the question of a constitutional ban, and Republicans appear eager to require Senate Democrats to vote publicly on the issue.

The proposed amendment says that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," and adds that courts may not cite the U.S. or state constitutions to rule that it extends to same-sex couples. Supporters of the amendment unveiled changes on Monday that they said would allow state legislatures to pass laws recognizing civil unions or other same-sex relationships.

Frank's home state has played a major role in the national debate on gay marriage in recent months, following a ruling by Massachusetts' highest court that the state's constitution guarantees gay couples the right to marry. The legislature is laboring to write a constitutional amendment on the issue, with a public referendum to follow.

"If people decide to allow it, you who do the constitutional amendment will cancel the rights of the people of Massachusetts and I do not think that is an appropriate response to make here," he said. "And certainly not to the threat that millions of people are threatening to commit love."