Bush Bans Gay Marriage

[Harmless Pigeon]

George Bush today announced that he would be seeking a constitutional amendment, to block gay marriage. He stated that he wanted to preserve marriage in its current state.

I know that there's another forum topic about Homosexuals and whether they should be able to get married, but I want to discuss the actual reasons behind his decision. Because, frankly, I'm outraged. I don't understand this-I equate this comment with racism-it's disgusting.
I have heard ramblings about how he is using this to put the Democrats in a tight spot over this subject during the upcoming Presidential Election. I was under the impression that the Republican Party was between right wing and centre-right. This is a fascist policy.

I don't see how this puts him in a good position against the democrats. Surely there is support for gay marriage in America?

edit: I'm a Liberal Democrat supporter (they're a British Centre Left party).

[Del Murder]

We'll take this to world events then, just to make the difference clear.

[Agent Proto]

Just because he disapproves of gay marriages makes him a racist?

[The Man]

I severely doubt it'll fly; it'll take the support of what, like 80% of the legislature to pass? I don't agree with it though.

As far as I'm concerned, gay people should have the same civil rights as everyone else. If Christianity or any other religion refuses to recognize those as marriage, that's their right, but it shouldn't be the place of the government to deny that to people.

bleh.

[Yamaneko]

It has a good chance of passing, I think.

[Del Murder]

For the record, the majority of people in this country do not want to legalize gay marriage. It didn't pass in California, and we're one of the more liberal states.

[fire_of_avalon]

This doesn't make sense to me at all. I don't even really understand the concept of a marriage license on a certain level. Why is the government allowed to have any form of control over something that is a traditionally religious affair? I mean, when it boils down to it isn't marriage just another ceremony like baptism? The bond and connection are already there, it's just making it official, right? So if two people already know they're going to spend the rest of their lives together, why does the government have anything to do with it? When did marriage change from being proof of an incredible love between two people to a national finance tool? I think we have to look at the lack of morals it's taken for America to monetarily corrupt the most sacred "institution" known to man before we look at the so called lack of morals homosexuals obviously brandish if they love one another this much.

[Del Murder]

There are tax benefits to being married, as well as property issues and child custody. Whether or not gay people just want these things or that they also want to be recognized in their unions I cannot answer.

[Mr. Graves]

Unclesimpson35: Gay marriage is, to me, no worse than making a white lie. It's just....I don't see what the crisis is.

Just said that in an IM convo, right when I was viewing this thread. And I would say more, but Manny covered it. *nod*

[eestlinc]

there's actually a tax penalty for being married.

Anyway, it's not racism but it is bigotry. If nothing else it is showing a preference for "Christian values" in our Constitution, which is not good. I think the majority of America may be against this currently but it'll change. It's the same as civil rights for women or blacks or other minorities. Allowing gay marriage is the right thing to do, and it will happen eventually. This amendment is just the backlash, but you can't fight progress, at least not successfully.

[Agent Proto]

I don't agree with gay marriages, but that doesn't mean I won't allow gay couples the same priviledges as straight couples. If gay marriages are recognized by the government, that's still cool, even though I disagree with the idea of gay marriage. Gay couples do need to be recognized by every states though.

[Chickencha]

This is ridiculous. The government has absolutely no business defining who can and can't marry. It's fine with me if the Catholic church doesn't want to marry a couple of the same sex, but the government should treat people equally.

I don't think it has a very good chance of passing. A constitutional amendment requires a 3/4 majority to pass, and that's tough to get. I believe I saw a poll somewhere that said 50% of Americans think gay people should have the right to marry. (Although even I'll admit that those numbers seem pretty high.) Of course, the people wouldn't be voting on the amendment directly, so that makes things a little bit trickier.

Problem is, though, if it does pass it'll be really tough to repeal.

This also puts pressure on Democrats to take a stance on the issue one way or another. Gay marriage has been an issue lately, but it hasn't been much of an election issue. Perhaps Bush is looking to make it one.

[Tokki Wartooth]

Originally posted by Agent Proto
Just because he disapproves of gay marriages makes him a racist?

werd.

I think he meant to say "homosexualist" or something.

[DocFrance]

If a man is allowed to marry another man, who is to say that a man can't also marry his sister, an eight-year-old girl, a cow, or even his favorite chair?

[eestlinc]

there's a difference between a man marrying a man and a man marrying a chair.

the only reason Bush is making this an issue is because he wants to use fear to divide the american people before the election. he also wants to throw a bone to the hard-line conservatives.