I just heard that Bush officially announced his support for a Constitutional amendment to legally support discrimination and relegating gay people to the status of second-class citizens (which is all it boils down to). I knew he was probably going to do this, but I was very upset. It still hurts to see how incredibly evil someone can be just to hold onto power.
And if you think my comments above are strong, believe me, I've seriously restrained them.
Re:This is the chicken's way out though
petdance on 2004-02-24T17:18:54
I don't doubt that he seriously wants to do it. I don't think that it's just for the election.Re:This is the chicken's way out though
Ovid on 2004-02-24T18:14:00
I am familiar with the process of amending the Constitution (I've been doing a lot of reading about Constitutional law lately), but I don't know how difficult this will prove to be. When we have prominent Democratic politician's "coming out" against gay marriage, I can see this possibly passing the House. The Senate has a good chance of a filibuster, though until (if) this gets introduced I think there's a good chance that many Senators will not have the moral courage to stand up for decency and announce their intent for filibuster. They're all frantically reading the polls and trying to figure out which way to jump. Never mind that it's people they're hurting.
What I really want to know, though, is how this would mesh with the fourteenth amendment's "equal protection" clause. Currently, banning gay marriage appears to violate that clause. Amendments which alter the Constitution directly are fine, but those which alter other amendments have explicitly stated the alteration -- such as the 21st amendment explicitly repealing the 18th amendment (prohibition). Thus, I'm wondering how lawmakers would deal with the new amendment contradicting the fourteenth. My guess is that they'll just ignore the law and hope no one notices.
Re:This is the chicken's way out though
pudge on 2004-02-25T19:26:17
First, I think your contention that this is "evil" is ridiculous. Let's just say people disagree, shall we?
And no, you don't need to explicitly reference the 14th Amendment. It's a given that a later amendment would overrule a previous one on the specific issue it references, I believe.
As to the amendment itself: it is perfectly reasonable -- how much you may disagree with it -- to want to keep marriage between a man and a woman. An amendment wouldn't even be an issue if the gay rights activists hadn't pushed too far, too fast. If they had waited more time after last summer's anti-sodomy law decision, we might not have seen an amendment being seriously considered. The activists chose to break the law of several states (such as California and New Mexico), and now we are seeing the result: the other side is pushing back.
I don't agree with whatever proposed amendment is being considered, but the gay rights activists brought this on themselves by doing politically stupid things.
I still say marriage is essentially a social/religious institution that the government just recognized *because it was there*, and that the real answer is for the government to stop recognizing it explicitly. Civil unions for all, civil marriages for none. This removes almost every problem that both sides have: one side gets equal rights, the other side doesn't get the definition of marriage changed (let's ignore whether it was being changed in the first place, the main problem is that this is how many people see it).
I see from your later comments, you basically agree.Re:This is the chicken's way out though
Ovid on 2004-02-25T20:09:30
I used the word "evil" because, in my view, Bush is again using deliberately divisive issues and exploiting a minority for attempted political gain. I realize that not everyone will view things this way, though.
It's a given that a later amendment would overrule a previous one on the specific issue it references.
Is it? If that were the case, why would the 21st amendment explicitly repeal the 18th? I'm not saying I disagree, though, as I don't know the law here.
Other than that, I think I agree with you. It's sad that people have to fight for rights that should be taken for granted, but even my gay friends have told me that demanding equality in marriage at this time was pretty stupid.
Re:This is the chicken's way out though
pudge on 2004-02-25T20:46:44
I used the word "evil" because, in my view, Bush is again using deliberately divisive issues and exploiting a minority for attempted political gain. I realize that not everyone will view things this way, though.
Yes, and my view is that you only alienate people whom you already disagree with by attributing motive to the people you disagree with instead of arguing the actual issue. I think this is one of the reasons Gore lost, and I think Kerry is going to get hurt by it too. Edwards was the only one who wasn't engaging in this sort of thing, but he isn't going to win the nomination.
Is it? If that were the case, why would the 21st amendment explicitly repeal the 18th? I'm not saying I disagree, though, as I don't know the law here.
I didn't say you COULDN'T reference it. In this case, the only point of the 21st was to repeal the 18th; it made sense to just do it. For example, the 13th Amendment didn't explicitly mention any other part of the Constitution; it said slavery was illegal, but didn't mention the parts in the Constitution that referenced slavery.
Other than that, I think I agree with you. It's sad that people have to fight for rights that should be taken for granted, but even my gay friends have told me that demanding equality in marriage at this time was pretty stupid.
I think abortion is a horrible crime, a far worse abridgment of rights than not allowing gays to have the same rights as heterosexuals in marriage. Yet, I don't think I should break laws or push the country where it is clearly not yet ready to go. I am not saying civil disobedience is never proper, but you have to time these things if you want to be effective, else you risk harming your cause.
Re:This is the chicken's way out though
RobertX on 2004-02-24T19:23:38
Actually, about 38 states *already* have DOMA laws. It would not be as hard as you think. If the issue is force, and I think it will be, then an amendment will happen.
Anyone have any stats on how a federal law that allows same-sex marriage affects insurance, taxes, etc? Or is it insignificant.
Anyway, the lawyers will be happy if this passes. Just think - an instant 3% increase in divorce court clients!
Re:Money?
djberg96 on 2004-02-24T17:56:39
Oops - I should clarify. By "this" in that last sentence I meant a law that *allows* same-sex marriage, not a constitutional amendment banning it.Re:Money?
Ovid on 2004-02-24T18:05:41
I don't have the stats on hand -- I doubt the government has ever commissioned a study of the financial impact of gay marriages -- but if we consider some of the financial benefits of marriage (and other special rights automatically granted to married couples), then we get quite a list:
- joint parenting;
- joint adoption;
- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- crime victims' recovery benefits;
- loss of consortium tort benefits;
- domestic violence protection orders;
- judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
So to reverse the adage that many politicians use: heterosexuals should have equal rights, not special rights.
Re:Money?
chromatic on 2004-02-24T18:38:28
Why does this have to be about sex? What about single heterosexuals? What about the celibate? Why not push for equal protection for everyone, where "everyone" doesn't have a little asterisk?
Re:Money?
Ovid on 2004-02-24T18:51:44
I agree completely. I don't think that the special rights that marriage conveys should be something enshrined into law. However, given that married people are going to fight viciously to maintain their special rights, I think the easier tactic is to at least end the discrimination against homosexuals.
Re:Money?
RobertX on 2004-02-24T23:43:03
Money has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with what is moral and right. Same sex marriage is neither. If it takes an act of Congress to cement what a marriage is in stone then so be it. I look at the moral slide this country is making and I do not wonder why talking about God is not allowed anywhere any more. Our founding fathers would weep if they could see us now. And those would not be tears of joy.Re:Money?
Ovid on 2004-02-24T23:59:53
I look at the moral slide this country is making and I do not wonder why talking about God is not allowed anywhere any more.
There is nothing wrong with talking about God. There is everything wrong with a government that is supposed to recognize the separation of church and state failing to do so.
One of the biggest threats our country faces today is the hate and intolerance that the religious right is teaching us. To try and take their values and enshrine them in the Constitution would not only be destroying much of what our founding father's intended, it would also be a repugnant slap in the face to those who preach tolerance.
Various thoughts: the word "God" is not found anywhere in the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence only had two brief references to "Nature's God" and a "Creator".) Article VI Clause 3 in the Constitution explicitly forbids any religious tests for office. This is because the framers of our Constitution did not want private religious beliefs to be a dictating factor of laws (this is further expanded upon in the Federalist papers.)
Of course, simply appealing to our Founding Fathers tends to fall flat when you consider that many of them owned slaves, would have been horrified at women having the right to vote and many of them did not want a popular democracy but rather preferred a rule by the an intellectual and financial aristocracy. Of course, if those values reflect your own, then my point is moot.
Re:Money?
RobertX on 2004-02-25T00:41:02
There is everything wrong with a government that is supposed to recognize the separation of church and state failing to do so.Sorry to inform you that that is NOT in the constitution. At all. Period. Read the document and you will not see it in there.
One of the biggest threats our country faces today is the hate and intolerance that the religious right is teaching us.I do not hate anyone so you are wrong there. You obviously need to look up the word 'intolerant' since you obviously do not understand its meaning.
Of course, simply appealing to our Founding Fathers tends to fall flat when you consider that many of them owned slaves, would have been horrified at women having the right to vote and many of them did not want a popular democracy but rather preferred a rule by the an intellectual and financial aristocracy.Throw the baby out with the bath water. Nice approach.
The fact that a tiny but vocal minority of Americans desire to have homosexual "marriages" does not mean that they have a "right" to them, any more than the desires of other tiny (but less vocal) minorities of Americans gives them a "right" to pedophilic "marriages," incestuous "marriages," or polygamous "marriages". Where exactly is the line? Maybe the "Man Boy" love association should be given free reign as well. You might say "that would never happen" but that is where we are heading. When abortion was legalized the courts never dreamt that some many babies would be killed but they are. There are so many arguments against same-sex marriage that biblical ones don't even need to be mentioned.
Re:Money?
phillup on 2004-02-25T06:21:12
Sorry to inform you that that is NOT in the constitution. At all. Period. Read the document and you will not see it in there.
You are right. It is an ammendment to the constitution.
Meanwhile, slaves were discussed in the constitution. Did that make it right?
And... I don't particularly care about homo/hetero-sexual marriage.
I believe marriage is a vow between two (or more) people. If those people want to follow some religious teaching... more power to them. And, as you will notice, I see no reason that it can't be between more than two people.
It isn't the governments place to insert itself into the personal relationships of it's citizens. The mistake was starting from the beginning with not treating all humans equally.
Establishing preferential treatment for a class of people is just plain wrong.
And, as far as the "line" goes... there is this thing called the age of consent. That is the line.
Defining "marriage" does not change the age of consent. It doesn't stop a man from living with two women. It doesn't stop gay people from living with each other. It doesn't stop incest. It doesn't stop pedophilia.
Crimes are crimes, and passing another law is not going to change that one bit.
And... it isn't against the law for people of consenting age to have sex with each other.
Marriage and sex are not the same thing.Re:Money?
RobertX on 2004-02-25T17:09:01
"And, as far as the "line" goes... there is this thing called the age of consent. That is the line."Really? Since sodomy was illegal and now isn't what makes the age of consent out of bounds? Nothing. Get the right Judge on the bench at the supreme court level and wow that changes as well. Never happen? Please. Don't be naive. There is a group called MANBLA that is after just that.
"And... it isn't against the law for people of consenting age to have sex with each other. "Actually you are not correct. That is what sodomy was. But now that has been struck down. And if that was struck down so can every other law based on a morality that this country no longer espouses. So how far down that slope are we going to slide now?
Re:Money?
phillup on 2004-02-25T17:34:25
Since sodomy was illegal and now isn't what makes the age of consent out of bounds?
We, as a country, have a long established history of age based laws. The only thing I can see that will change that... is the far right's insistence of extending "rights" to a fetus. They will (ironically) be the ones to "pierce the veil" of age based laws. But they aren't bright enough to see that...
When the mouth and genetials come in contact, you have sodomy.
It isn't just a "gay thing". It is a sexual act.
What is "moral" about a law that says a man can't lick a certain part of his wife's body?
Why should the government be able to tell a husband and wife how they can and can not have sex?
That isn't morality... it is something left over from the dark ages when people did not know about hygiene. Then it got incorporated into a religion... and now a group of people believe they have a right to tell others how to behave themselves in private.
How is that moral?
BTW, how do you think (insert diety of choice) feels about these guys?Re:Money?
Ovid on 2004-02-25T17:45:57
Interested quote from the second article: Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species.
Obviously we need a Constitutional Amendment to ensure they cannot be protected by the Endangered Species Acts.
Re:Money?
rafael on 2004-02-25T22:14:07
I find this kind of argument completely silly. More than 450 species of animals eat raw meat and go naked out of their nests/holes/etc. Should humans do the same thing? Bloody hell no -- I wouldn't, for sure. Even if there was no homosexuality at all in nature, that wouldn't justify discrimation against human homosexuality in any way.Re:Money?
Ovid on 2004-02-25T22:32:25
Well, actually, before I became a vegetarian, I used to eat raw meat all of the time. I had no problem with a nice, raw steak with a bit of salt (I'm not kidding.) As for being naked, I really don't have a problem with that, either, but US society has clearly identitified Janet Jackson's right tit as a greater threat to society than watching murder acted out on TV, so who am I to argue with such brilliant reasoning? Now if you had pointed out that cats often cripple their prey and play with it before eating it, then I think you would have had a stronger argument
:) I should add that I wasn't intending to suggest that "it's OK for humans because animals do it". Instead, I *think* the original poster of that link was pointing out that homosexuality is not this unnatural abomination that it's often painted as.
Re:Money?
phillup on 2004-02-25T23:04:01
Instead, I *think* the original poster of that link was pointing out that homosexuality is not this unnatural abomination that it's often painted as.
That was the intent.Re:Money?
RobertX on 2004-02-25T17:58:29
We, as a country, have a long established history of age based laws.We, as a country, have a long established history of marriage based on one man and one woman. If that changes, anything is up for grabs.
Re:Money?
Ovid on 2004-02-25T18:17:03
We, as a country, had a long history of segregation. We, as a country, had a long history of denying women the right to vote. We, as a country, had a long history of many other things. Similar arguments as yours were raised for segregation and women's suffrage. Just because "that's the way we do things" doesn't make those things "right".
Of course, even then your statement is ridiculous. Many states had anti-bigamy laws, but it wasn't until the Morrill Act of 1962 that the we outlawed bigamy "as a country", and that was widely viewed as a reaction of the country against the Mormon church. Again, more religious persecution by the government. That's stupid. After centuries of fighting religious persecution by people just like you, you'd think we'd grow up.
Re:Money?
phillup on 2004-02-25T23:12:58
What does marriage have to do with "anything"?
You aren't seriously saying that there is a relationship between marriage and sex are you?
The correlation is weak, at best.
This entire issue is about discrimination... not sex.
Passing a constitutional ammendment limiting marriage to a man and woman changes nothing about sex.
It simply codifies the preferential treatment the government gives married people as a legal form of discrimination against people of the same gender.
Seriously, is that the only qualification required?
I can see it now... let's see... one dick... check. One vagina... check. Benefits allowed.Re:Money?
rafael on 2004-02-25T07:24:17
I don't understand why Americans are so much attached to their constitution. A constitution that does not mandate absolute separation of church of state is anti-democratic; be it two centuries old or not. One of the problems here is that some people continue to think that civil marriage and the form of marriage practiced in their favourite religion are related in some way; they are not. Several religions authorize polygamy; should a government allow it, then? So why a government should ban a form a marriage on the basis that religion X or Y is against it? The only important point is, does banning this form of marriage goes against the basic rights of every citizen?Separation of Church and State
Ovid on 2004-02-25T15:48:21
I've been hearing the "no separation of church and state" claim for a while now. People who utter it are absolutely right that those exact words are not in the Constitution. However, they're dead wrong that it's not mandated. I don't know who started this ridiculous lie, but many people have been parroting it blindly that it's become this piece of Right Wing Christian propaganda that they keep throwing at unsuspecting people (mind you, I have no problem with Christians or people who are right wing, though it might seem otherwise. I have a lot of problems with those who want to force their beliefs down my throat.)
The first sentence of the First Amendment read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now one might want to know what the full implications of this are. If my boss gives me an order that I don't understand, I have to ask for clarification rather than simply ignore it and this is what our courts routinely do. If they're unsure of the intent of the law, they'll go back and read the circumstances under which the law was created, try to figure out what problem the lawmakers were trying to solve and consider how other courts have ruled on the matter. While I think that the first amendment (and the line in the actual constitution forbidding religious tests) is pretty clear, going back and reading the historical underpinnings make it pretty rock solid what the intent was.
I find it sadly ironic that many of my ancestors came to this country fleeing religious persecution, only to have their descendents discover that religious persecution is alive and well.
Re:Separation of Church and State
RobertX on 2004-02-25T17:02:29
No it isn't in there. It isn't even implied. That whole argument is from taking one statement out of context from a letter written to a church that was afraid another church was getting "national" status like the church of England. That is a historical FACT. Nothing you can say changes it. You are part of the "say it long enough and a lie becomes the truth crowd".
Re:Separation of Church and State
pudge on 2004-02-25T19:40:52
No, there is nothing in the Constitution mandating a separation of church and state, as that phrase is understood today. The very assertion is ridiculous, because the people who wrote, voted, and ratified the First Amendment used religion in the government in many ways.
Maybe you mean something different by "separation of church and state" than most people today do. Most people think it forbids putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of a government building; the historical context does not support that interpretation at all.
The point of the First Amendment was simply to prevent government from pushing particular religion on its people. But where many people today go wrong is where they assert that religious influences -- or even recognition -- of and by the government are unconstitutional. SCOTUS and Congress still pray to open their sessions, our buildings and currency recognize God. The line is crossed when the lawmakers say someone else has to follow suit.
I actually think the federal government telling a local public school board that they cannot choose to have prayer in classrooms is precisely what the First Amendment is meant to prohibit.
I find it sadly ironic that many of my ancestors came to this country fleeing religious persecution, only to have their descendents discover that religious persecution is alive and well.
Much of this is reactionary. I don't excuse it, but when you tell a group of people that teachers can't pray in public school classrooms -- something that would have been anathema to the Founding Fathers -- then people tend to push back a bit; they see the prayer issue as a radical and incorrect interpretation of the Constitution (which I agree with) which gives them more cause to be upset by any perceived encroachment of their religious liberties.
Re:Money?
pudge on 2004-02-25T19:25:56
A constitution that does not mandate absolute separation of church of state is anti-democratic
No, you have it backwards: any Constitution that DOES that is anti-democratic. If you tell people they cannot have laws that mandate Christian teaching in public schools, even if a majority favor such a law, you are rejecting their rights as a democracy. This is an issue of liberty, not of democracy, and it is why the U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy.
One of the problems here is that some people continue to think that civil marriage and the form of marriage practiced in their favourite religion are related in some way; they are not.
They are related in very specific ways. They are separate things, but that does not make them unrelated. Marriage is only recognized by government *because* of the social/religious exercise of it. When people say marriage between a man and a woman is recognized because of the special place it holds in society, that's entirely true. However, society is changing. And with it, we should decouple civil marriage from social marriage, so they are less related than they are, and with that process would come a changing of the name of "civil marriage" so there is no (or less, anyway) confusion.Re:Money?
rafael on 2004-02-25T20:53:53
I don't agree with the 1st point : a democracy, besides listening to the majority of citizens, is built on a small set of moral principles, notably that every citizen is equal under the law. A government that has a religious bias (or a public school, part of the governement) is simply promoting religious discrimination, which isn't better than racial or sexual discrimination.I remember, when civil unions were introduced in France, a far-right deputee who was against them waved a Bible in the Assembly. This provoked a huge scandal, as most people (both from left and right camps) perceive this as a direct attack against the Republic. It's perfectly OK to argue for or against law -- that's what the Assembly is for --, as long as you keep religion strictly in the private sphere.
I agree completely with the 2nd point. I personally favor a deprecation cycle of the civil marriage (do I sound like a pumpking enough?), progressively introducing "civil unions" (or whatever name sounds good). Call different things by different names.
Re:Money?
pudge on 2004-02-25T21:22:04
A government that has a religious bias (or a public school, part of the governement) is simply promoting religious discrimination, which isn't better than racial or sexual discrimination.
That's your opinion. You present it as fact. One could make the same argument about incest or pedophilia: it's discrmination! You're not treating people equally! I happen to think those are good discriminatory policies that benefit society. Simply noting they are discriminatory does not mean it's a bad thing.
And regardless, this was already decided, for us, 230 years ago. The Founding Fathers rejected democracy, in large part, because it allowed the majority to abridge the rights of the minority. They didn't collapse into philosophical arguments about whether or not it was really a democracy if it was capable of that; it was accepted that a democracy -- one man, one vote -- was too dangerous for this and other reasons, and that a republic was better.
If you want to define "democracy" in terms other than "one person, one vote," fine, but that's not what I call a democracy. I hear your point that a democracy is based on the ideal of equality, but that does not mean that policies the democracy enacts are anti-democratic if they don't fit your view of what equality is. And that's the biggest reason why we don't have a democracy, because there is nothing in the system that prevents such tyranny of the majority.
It's perfectly OK to argue for or against law -- that's what the Assembly is for --, as long as you keep religion strictly in the private sphere.
To me, that reads as perfect nonsense; religion is nothing more than a life-governing philosophy, no different in essence than existentialism, for example. Yet I never hear people complaining about using "non-religious" philosophy to argue for or against laws.
And if you say, OK, let's not have laws based on Thoreau either, then I don't know what that even means. I just can't separate my philosophical views from my "other" views, they are intertwined entirely. You're asking that I keep my philosophies separate, which is simply impossible for me, and for most religious people.
I know some people have these biases against philosophies that have some basis in a higher being, but that is their problem, not mine. I shall use my philosophies wherever I am, in whatever I do. It's just lucky for you that my religion, my philosophy, dictates that I don't push my philosophies on other people.:-)
Call different things by different names.
Yep. That's the whole point, in a nutshell.
Re:Money?
rafael on 2004-02-25T21:59:58
Incest and pedophilia hurt people, and thus hurt the Republic, such as thievery, murder and other crimes. Homosexuality does not, nor does having a darker skin or another ethnic origin. Discrimination happens when it targets a class of people instead of individuals, and when the incriminated individuals didn't hurt the society in any way.To me, that reads as perfect nonsense -- what I was saying is that it's a perfectly sensible point of view in France, where the common opinion is that religion has nothing to do with politics. Politics deals, in the French view, with the problems of the Republic and of individuals considered as citizens (and tax-payers:), religion or philosophy with the problems of individuals not considered as citizens: their fields of action are thus de facto separated. I think that's an important cultural difference, which can be partly explained by 150 years of fight between the first three Republics against the Monarchies and Empires which were backed by the Catholic Church -- something that wasn't experienced by the US.
Re:Money?
pudge on 2004-02-25T22:32:33
Incest and pedophilia hurt people, and thus hurt the Republic, such as thievery, murder and other crimes. Homosexuality does not
In your opinion. Many millions of people would disagree with you. That's the point. That's why you're wrong when you say absence of religion-state separation is anti-democratic, because you're defining terms the way YOU want them defined, which is itself anti-democratic. In a democracy, majority rules in everything, including how the terms are defined. If the majority rules homosexuality can be legislated against because it is harmful to society, so be it.
I agree with you, but I know many people who disagree. I know many people who think homosexuality -- say, two gay lovers living in the apartment upstairs -- hurts society. Who gets to decide whether or not that's true? In a democracy, it's the majority. This is why democracy is bad, and why you're wrong when you say that $foo is anti-democratic (unless $foo has to do with not allowing people to vote).
Re:Money?
rafael on 2004-02-25T23:05:52
Fair enough. And in fact I did point out (in my other blog, the one with non-perl rants and without comments, follow the appropriate link) that there are, indeed, societies that are hurt by homosexuality. I just don't think that the current French society -- the one I live in -- is threatened by homosexuality, or by giving a legal status to same-sex unions.Re:Money?
hfb on 2004-02-25T20:12:32
What about domestic violence where men beat the crap out of their wives? That's neither moral nor right yet unsurprisingly there is little legislation for it much less a constitutional amendment. What about prostitution and human trafficing that is rife in the US? A few people are in love and want to share in the legal benefits that come from a civil union and somehow it's the most immoral act one could imagine.
You can't legislate religion or morality. Stalin figured that one out the hard way. One would have thought prohibition would have given the US that impression too. Keep your religion where it belongs, in the church.
Finland has a state church, the lutheran church, but they keep it where it belongs which is out of politics. Not only are gay marriages and unions recognised but there has been no appreciable decline in civilisation here. In fact, it's a hell of a lot more civil than the US where people seem to have the idea that right is might.
People with views like yours make me glad each and every day that I forsake the US for a more civilised place to live.
Re:From a different Point of view
zatoichi on 2004-02-25T17:00:10
I am not for same-sex marriages but not for religious reasons. I am not for an amendment either. I hope it does not come to that.Re:From a different Point of view
pudge on 2004-02-25T19:45:58
Yes. I oppose this amendment even more than I oppose ERA. ERA was dumb because it was entirely redundant, but at least it wouldn't really have done any harm (in addition to doing nothing beneficial). However, for someone who believes that the state should keep marriage between a man and a woman, a Constitutional amendment is probably the only way to do it.
My political take on this is that Bush doesn't want it, but supported it for two reasons: 1. the gay rights activists pushed him into it, because (as just noted) there's really no other way to do it unless you think DOMA will withstand judicial scrutiny, which is questionable at best, and 2. John Kerry cannot win on this issue. He will oppose the amendment, and oppose gay marriages, so he won't win any votes, and will lose many of the "NASCAR dad" votes to Bush.
I don't know which of the two factors is greater. If I had to guess, I'd say the former -- I think he'd have done it regardless of the looming election -- but there's really no way to know.Re:From a different Point of view
zatoichi on 2004-02-26T01:31:36
I actually do not think the election was his main motivation. I won't say it wasn't "a" motivation but I don't believe it was "the" motivation. I think the Massachusettes decision was a wake-me-up about Judicial predjudice and I also think that San Francisco blantantly issuing marriage licenses against the law really forced it at this time.
I just hope it doesn't come to an amendment.
