Support NeoGAF

[APF]

So what do you make of such a move?

Karl Rove is overrated?

 

[bob_arctor]

Karl Rove is overrated?

The guy's probably gonna be indicted. Cut him some slack. It's hard work trying to divide people.

 

[Darmstadtium]

I know I'll probably catch 7 kinds of shit for this post but im going to say it anyway. I don't think gays should be allowed to be married *GASP* I don't have any problems with civil unions whatsoever, but marriage is a religious term and, well, gays don't exactly fit into the religion too well.

EDIT: And yes I'm aware that this is all just politics to get all of the republicans to com out in support of their representatives come november.

 

[maharg]

If marriage is solely a religious term, then the seperation of church and state has failed.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I know I'll probably catch 7 kinds of shit for this post but im going to say it anyway. I don't think gays should be allowed to be married *GASP* I don't have any problems with civil unions whatsoever, but marriage is a religious term and, well, gays don't exactly fit into the religion too well.

But then which religious rules should marriage go by? And how does religion fit in with tax laws related to marriage?

 

[darscot]

The best part of the thread is it's impossible to distinguish between the people that are seriously against gay marriage and the joke posters saying things like but they'll marry a donkey. When people think your arguments are part of a comedy skit it's time to rethink your stance.

 

[vitaflo]

I know I'll probably catch 7 kinds of shit for this post but im going to say it anyway. I don't think gays should be allowed to be married *GASP* I don't have any problems with civil unions whatsoever, but marriage is a religious term and, well, gays don't exactly fit into the religion too well.

I'm getting married in 3 months. Both my fiance and I are athiests. Chew on that one for a while.

 

[maynerd]

I'm getting married in 3 months. Both my fiance and I are athiests. Chew on that one for a while.

You can't be married then you aren't religious! Civil union only for you! Homo lover!

 

[winter]

I know I'll probably catch 7 kinds of shit for this post but im going to say it anyway. I don't think gays should be allowed to be married *GASP* I don't have any problems with civil unions whatsoever, but marriage is a religious term and, well, gays don't exactly fit into the religion too well.

EDIT: And yes I'm aware that this is all just politics to get all of the republicans to com out in support of their representatives come november.

That view is fine as long as you also believe that -- since "marriage is a religious term"-- marriage should have no legal status. Religion doesn't exactly fit into government too well.

 

[Xdrive05]

That view is fine as long as you also believe that -- since "marriage is a religious term"-- marriage should have no legal status. Religion doesn't exactly fit into government too well.

Bingo.

QFT and it doesn't get any more true than that.

 

[ronito]

"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's."

Honestly, I believe Jesus put it best himself. My church is deadset against gay marriage. However, that's their right, if they don't want to perform marriage ceremonies for gay people that's fine. However, I don't believe that it's up to anyone to enforce their exclusionary morality upon others. We live in a world, so render to the world which is the world's.

My wife's white and I'm latino, whenever I think of this I always think that years and years ago it would've been illegal for her and I to be married. Many people that are anti-gay marriage I feel never put themselves in the other position.

 

[Darmstadtium]

That view is fine as long as you also believe that -- since "marriage is a religious term"-- marriage should have no legal status. Religion doesn't exactly fit into government too well.

I believe that marriage should have a legal status, but no more or no less than a civil union.


And @ everyone else - I don't really feel like getting into a debate (although I inevitably would when i posted that) so im just going to ignore your posts.

 

[maharg]

I think baptised should have a legal status. Anyone with me?

 

[Xdrive05]

I think baptised should have a legal status. Anyone with me?

Sure but only after circumcised is a legal status.

We have to pass these laws one at a time!

 

[Mercury Fred]

And @ everyone else - I don't really feel like getting into a debate (although I inevitably would when i posted that) so im just going to ignore your posts.

:lol
Nice strategy

 

[bob_arctor]

Presidential Hall
Eisenhower Executive Office Building

1:48 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Good afternoon, and welcome to the White House. It is a pleasure to be with so many fine community leaders, scholars, family organizations, religious leaders, Republicans, Democrats, independents. Thank you all for coming.

You come from many backgrounds and faith traditions, yet united in this common belief: Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. (Applause.) You are here because you strongly support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and I am proud to stand with you. (Applause.)

This week, the Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification so we can take this issue out of the hands of over-reaching judges and put it back where it belongs -- in the hands of the American people. (Applause.)

The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.

America is a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. In this country, people are free to choose how they live their lives. In our free society, decisions about a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people. (Applause.)

The American people have spoken clearly on this issue through their elected representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by large bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, 19 states have held referendums to amend their state constitutions to protect the traditional definition of marriage. In every case, the amendments were approved by decisive majorities with an average of 71 percent. (Applause.)

Today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage. The people have spoken. Unfortunately, this consensus is being undermined by activist judges and local officials who have struck down state laws protecting marriage and made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.

Since 2004, state courts in Washington and California and Maryland and New York have ruled against marriage laws. Last year, a federal judge in Nebraska overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, an amendment that was approved by 70 percent of the population. And at this moment, nine states face lawsuits challenging the marriage laws they have on the books.

Some argue that defining marriage should be left to the states. The fact is, state legislatures are trying to address this issue. (Applause.) But across the country, they are being thwarted by activist judges who are overturning the expressed will of their people. And these court decisions can have an impact on our whole nation.

The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by the courts, then marriage recognized in one city or state may have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriage as redefined by judges in, say, Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own state laws or their state constitutions say.

This national question requires a national solution. And on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come not from the courts, but from the people of the United States. (Applause.) An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice. When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution, the only law a court cannot overturn.

The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider this week would fully protect marriage from being redefined. It will leave state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A constitutional amendment is the most democratic process by which our country can resolve this issue. In their wisdom, our founders set a high bar for amending the Constitution. An amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate, and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures. This process guarantees that every state legislature and every community in our nation will have a voice and a say in deciding this issue. (Applause.)

A constitutional amendment would not take this issue away from the states, as some have argued. It would take the issue away from the courts and put it directly before the American people. (Applause.)

As this debate goes forward, every American deserves to be treated with tolerance and respect and dignity. (Applause.) On an issue of this great significance, opinions are strong and emotions run deep. And all of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another. All people deserve to have their voices heard and a constitutional amendment will ensure that they are heard. (Applause.)

I appreciate you taking an interest in this fundamental issue. It's an important issue for our country to debate and to resolve. And the best way to resolve this issue is through a constitutional amendment, which I strongly support. God bless.

(Applause)

 

[Darmstadtium]

:lol
Nice strategy

LOL I tried to think of a better way to word it, but I couldn't so I just decided to flat out say it.

 

[Dilbert]

I think baptised should have a legal status. Anyone with me?

I think gay people should pay fewer taxes!

 

[Aurora]

Almost as bad as when Bush wanted to strip Atheists from their citizenship.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Almost as bad as when Bush wanted to strip Atheists from their citizenship.

Someone will run on this platform one day if we keep heading in the direction that we are...

 

[maynerd]

I still don't get this. Why do we NEED to ban gay marriage? Who is it hurting? Is it because some people just don't like the idea? I mean seriously what's the issue here?

 

[bob_arctor]

I still don't get this. Why do we NEED to ban gay marriage? Who is it hurting? Is it because some people just don't like the idea? I mean seriously what's the issue here?

The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.

Won't you please think of the children?

Also, great find at C&L:

"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict" (Gilmore, 1975, p.108).

 

[psyadam]

I know I'll probably catch 7 kinds of shit for this post but im going to say it anyway. I don't think gays should be allowed to be married *GASP* I don't have any problems with civil unions whatsoever, but marriage is a religious term and, well, gays don't exactly fit into the religion too well.

EDIT: And yes I'm aware that this is all just politics to get all of the republicans to com out in support of their representatives come november.

There are little things like "bereavement leave" that only come with marriage and are not included in civil unions. Picture this: You are happily married to another guy and suddenly he dies. You would not get leave from work if this happened because you're not legally married. Also sick leave in case your partner gets injured and is in the hospital, a gay guy would want his partner by his side for moral support for his recovery. The big one though is probably the ability to file a joint tax return.

"Marriage" is very much a legal issue. Where do you think the term "legally married" comes from? There are legal documents that are signed when a couple gets married.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Won't you please think of the children?

The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.

This is just a terrible, terrible statement.

What's the divorce rate in America now? ~50%? As if the only families that can pass along good values are hetero families ::rollseyes::

In America, we just trade one type of discrimination for another...

 

[bob_arctor]

This is just a terrible, terrible statement.

What's the divorce rate in America now? ~50%? As if the only families that can pass along good values are hetero families ::rollseyes::

In America, we just trade one type of discrimination for another...

The caption says you are wrong. We love everyone. Except fags. They aren't people anyway.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Marriage is a religious thing. Do you think it's right for the government to force churches to marry certain couples? If we're going to do that we might as well go ahead and wad up the constitution and toss it in the can.

Untethering the government from marriage means that those benefits normally awarded to married couples can be awarded to ALL consenting adults in other forms, and that religious people who strongly value marriage (or calling it marriage) can still get married if they so choose.

Think about it. It's the only best answer for this issue.

Churches can refruse to marry people now-- and do. Nothing would change by allowing gay couples to marry. Churches would be free to recognize (or not) whatever marriages they care to.

I know a gay couple that was married in a church. THe church, in this case, was more progressive than the state in which I live.

 

[psyadam]

Nothing says you have to get married in a church. Do atheists marry in churches? (Ok, technically the unitarian church is still a church)

 

[Xdrive05]

Churches can refruse to marry people now-- and do. Nothing would change by allowing gay couples to marry. Churches would be free to recognize (or not) whatever marriages they care to.

I know a gay couple that was married in a church. THe church, in this case, was more progressive than the state in which I live.

My point is that marriage is NOT a right, and the government should leave marriage in the churches where it belongs. IF churches want to marry gay couples, there's no reason to stop them from doing so. Apparently this simple concept goes right over our president's head.

The state should NOT marry ANYONE, gay or straight, since marriage is a religious institution. The state should not christen babies and the state should not hold communion for the body of Christ. Instead, the state can (and should) facilitate civil unions to any consenting adults so that their financial and legal assets may be combined. That's my position.

And then if churches want to discriminate against gays, more power to them. I will certainly frown upon it, but it's their right to marry whoever they see fit. In the meantime, gays get full equal access to the legal status of what we now call "marriage."

 

[CharlieDigital]

The state should NOT marry ANYONE, gay or straight, since marriage is a religious institution. The state should not christen babies and the state should not hold communion for the body of Christ. Instead, the state can (and should) facilitate civil unions to any consenting adults so that their financial and legal assets may be combined. That's my position.

That's way too logical for the majority of America. In otherwords, it'll never happen.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The problem is that marriage is a de facto right currently, whether you think it is or not. It confer legal advantagess that *actually make sense* regarding property and medical care. Unless you have a well-defined replacement for that social framework, we aren't doing away with state-recognized marriage anytime soon. Nor shoudl we bother to-- it's a completely workable system. Now we just have to stop restricting it to people whose biology attracts them to people with different parts and extend it to people whose biology attracts them to to people with the same parts.

Apart from the widesprad bigory, this is a very easy issue to address. It's the bigotry that's the issue, not the involvement of the state in marriage.

 

[maynerd]

My point is that marriage is NOT a right, and the government should leave marriage in the churches where it belongs. IF churches want to marry gay couples, there's no reason to stop them from doing so. Apparently this simple concept goes right over our president's head.

The state should NOT marry ANYONE, gay or straight, since marriage is a religious institution. The state should not christen babies and the state should not hold communion for the body of Christ. Instead, the state can (and should) facilitate civil unions to any consenting adults so that their financial and legal assets may be combined. That's my position.

And then if churches want to discriminate against gays, more power to them. I will certainly frown upon it, but it's their right to marry whoever they see fit. In the meantime, gays get full equal access to the legal status of what we now call "marriage."

I'm sorry but marriage IMO is no longer a relgious thing when it factors into things that are outside of the church. Things like estate distributions, visting rights etc...those aren't religous rights but seem to require marriage to be legal. Now if they want to change the fact that marriage does NOTHING legally binding or allow extra benefits to people then fine marriage can be relgious only.

 

[GilloD]

This is disgusting. I have rarely been more ashamed to be an American. It is, however you look at it, discrimination. And they're writing it into our most cherished and basic document.

If two consenting adults decide to join in a union, that's their business. Who is the government to legislate the legitimacy of love? Foul. There's no reason for this other than brazen political pandering.

And is this all we have to worry about? Iraq? AIDS? Poverty? Afgahnistan (Afghani-where?)? Katrina fallout? Global Warming?

And what do we pick? Dudes doing dudes.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Many a thing wrong with this thread:

1) Marriage is NOT a religious institution. Its been around since organized religion took flight. Just because the church said, "We'll take that, thanks." doesn't mean its their institution.

2) This amendment will never pass. It was never intended to pass. The intention here was a quick grab at a few more approval points from the fence sitting states. Thats why Bush wants it passed so bad.

3) The only reason why this garbage is even being considered is because of religious/hate groups like SBC which grows in population not unlike a festering disease epidemic. An epidemic of stupidity and groupthink.

 

[Crisis]

Well, the Senate just turned down Bush's gay marriage ban.

Link here.

 

[Y2Kev]

This was raised kinda early in the election cycle to be a true "get out and vote" motivator.

 

[scorcho]

it's disgusting, but is this without precedence in American history? have past parties rallied voters behind a platform of almost detached, unemotional bigotry in order to curry more voters?

 

[scorcho]

This was raised kinda early in the election cycle to be a true "get out and vote" motivator.

not really, primary season is just starting and this is the first of what is to be many salvos to divide the country into two camps - those who love America and those that don't.

 

[bob_arctor]

it's disgusting, but is this without precedence in American history? have past parties rallied voters behind a platform of almost detached, unemotional bigotry in order to curry more voters?

Dunno if this was used to curry votes or just as a show of plain ole hate, but either way it's ****ed up:

In December of 1912, an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to abolish racial intermarriage: "Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited." These anti-micegenation laws were declared unconstitutional by The Supreme Court in 1967.

In a reaction to the Johnson-Cameron (inter-racial) marriage, in 1911 Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia introduced a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages. In his appeal to congress, Roddenberry stated that

"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict" (Gilmore, 1975, p.108).

 

[maynerd]

This was raised kinda early in the election cycle to be a true "get out and vote" motivator.

I heard on the radio some republican wants another vote in a month.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

The House is developing their own version for next month.

The prohibition of 1920 was an anti-Catholic measure.

The suffrage of 1919 for women was meant so the black vote can get pushed out by millions of new voters (women).

Hatred in the Constitution became the norm in the late 1800s when religion started infesting America.

 

[bob_arctor]

Hatred in the Constitution became the norm in the late 1800s when religion started infesting America.

Wasn't it technically in there from the very beginning though? "All men are created equal"--except for Indians, blacks, and women.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Wasn't it technically in there from the very beginning though? "All men are created equal"--except for Indians, blacks, and women.

Correct.

There's a handful of lines in various articles of the constitution that address Indians, and they're almost always preceded by the phrase "except for" + something.

Any high school U.S. History book will have the original constitution inside (usually somewhere near the back of the book, just before the index), with lines through the parts that have been since removed.

 

[bob_arctor]

Correct.

There's a handful of lines in various articles of the constitution that address Indians, and they're almost always preceded by the phrase "except for" + something.

Any high school U.S. History book will have the original constitution inside (usually somewhere near the back of the book, just before the index), with lines through the parts that have been since removed.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around Howard Zinn's assertion that the Constitution/Revolution was a clever way for the colonial elite to overthrow the British elite without having to worry about slaves, poor whites and Indians from ganging up to overthrow them. Nationalism FTW!

 

[SpiffyG]

Well, the Senate just turned down Bush's gay marriage ban.

Link here.

Good. If he proposed a ban on marriage in general, I wouldn't be opposed.

 

[worldrunover]

In the words of Kinky Friedman, why shouldn't gays be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us?

Seriously, the main thing that bothers me about all this is it's a lame political stunt in an election year. This, along with things like abortion, are hot-button topics that don't affect 98% of the population AT ALL.

I'm always amused (or saddened?) by people who vote republican soley for reasons such as these, and then have the audacity to bitch about the war or the economy. Boggles the mind.