President Bush announced this morning that Monday, he will talk to Congress about the biggest threat to America today. Not terrorism, not our out-of-control budget defecit, not poor education, healthcare or even illegal immigration. No, he's going to speak to Congress about ... gay marriage.
It is called the Marriage Protection Amendment. I'm not sure what exactly this is supposed to be protecting against. Does Steve and Roger marrying affect your marriage any more than Eve and Roger marrying?
Here is the proposed text of the proposed Senate Amendment:
SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment' .SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.
There are a couple of noticeable points about this amendment.
One, it does not outlaw civil unions. But that brings up the point of 'seperate but equal' -- it didn't work with different races, and was indeed deemed unconstitutional after the Civil Rights struggle. Now, people are so afraid of the big bad gay issue, they feel a need to legislate a law explicity aimed at depriving them of some of their civil rights.
That is another point in this issue. If you look at the Constitutional Amendments, you'll notice that nearly all of them have to do with clarifying the government's role in a certain issue or expanding American's rights. The glaring exception is the 18th amendment -- and just how well did prohibition work out?
Banning gay marriage and adding discrimination to our Constitution probably will not pass. But it will give Bush a much-needed bounce among his far-Right, lunatic base.
Being able to be in a relationship is a civil right. Legal recognition of, and tax incentives for such relationship is not a civil right. Such luxuries are reserved for promoting the common good. You can argue that gay marriage doesn't hurt society, but, because most gay couples are not raising or interested in raising families (for the obvious biological reasons), they do not offer the accepted benefits to society that heterosexual relationships offer. Therefore, the government should not waste tax incentives on promoting gay marriages.
Your argument falls flat on a couple of counts (at least). First, more gay and lesbian people than you seem to know of have children (one recent poll put it at 15%). Second, lots and lots of straight people don't have children, and never intend to. Many marry well after childbearing years, for example. Why should we deny these so-called tax incentives to gay parents and grant them to childless hetersexuals? You seem to be implying that we should only confer marriage (and tax incentives) on those who procreate. If so, why should it matter if the procreators are gay or straight?
Second, why assume families must include children? Don't societies benefit from small families as well as larger families? Finally, I am far from convinced the federal government should be involved in marriage law at all. Families survived prior to government (or religious) interventions. State law regarding property and procreation ought be sufficient to cover any government-required support for families, and even that ought to do so only up to the point necessary for all its citizens without regard to sexual orientation.
Basically, this stupid DOMA law is a hate law with no real benefit to society.
1) Many gay couples raise children (I know of several personally -- all who have biological children, although nationally many also adopt). Your argument that "most gay couples are not raising or interested in raising families" is foolish. Many straight families do not raise children. If you want this argument to stick, you'd have to require people to have children as a condition of marriage. No more old people or infertile people getting married.
2) "the government should not waste tax incentives on promoting gay marriages" The government doesn't waste anything promoting marriage. Are you married? It's a pain in the ass to get married, and the economic benefits are slim (when they exist at all). There are two primary reasons for marriage: first, it's the way things have always been done. And second, to foster a stable union where children can thrive. Since tens of thousands of children have gay parents, not allowing gay marriage can only cause harm.
Finally, if you really want to protect marriage, just outlaw divorce. Why aren't the 'family values' crowd pushing that one?
Discrimination is against all our civil rights laws. Also, read the comments in <a href="http://www.progressiveu.org/014405-fundie-fest-2006-get-your-midterm-judgements-and-contradictions-and-politicking-here#comment-45524">this thread</a> for information about the way our tax dollars are being wasted for this election year pander.
marriage is not a civil right? Many americans don't neccesarilly get married for the legal benefits and tax incentives but because they love each other. love between a man and a woman is no different than love between a gay couple. so why are hetero sexual couples allowed all the benefits of marriage and gay couple are'nt because gay couples offered those same rights to profess their love for one another? . marriage would offer gay couples many rights that are not given to them in society today like being to visit loved ones in the hospital becausr they arent family. marriage would allow not only tax incentives for those couples who choose to adopt, but allow the spose rights to inherit in case of the death of the other, be able to visit the other in te houspital because through marriage they would be considered family. Your deffinition of family in reguards to gay marriage is skewed in the sense that there does not have be biological connections to be considered a family. family is many things not just the uninion of a man and wife and their children. In reguards to gay coulples many want to adopt children rather than having their own but have trouble doing so because of government restrictions. there is also suroagacy if a gay chouple chose to have children. So as I see it family is many things and shoud not be defined by the government as marriage only between a man and a woman. They shold have all the same rights as heterosexul couples and not be judged on their sexual orrientaion.
Many gay and lesbian couples ARE interested in raising families, via adoption, invitro, & other possibilities. And what about the man & woman who get married who arent interested in having children? They are not "offering the accepted benefits to society" that heterosexual relationships are supposed to then, according to what you have just said. No one asks that the government promote gay marriage, just that it be allowed and accepted.
I'm As Selfish As Selfish Comes
bush needs to join us in the 22 century
It is ludicrous of the president of the United States to propose such an amendment. That he even thinks he has time to consider such a proposal, let alone back it as an amendment to the constitution makes you wonder about his sanity, but it makes one absolutely, positively certain that he does not have the ability to prioritize the very critical matters of war, life and death, the financial well being of entitlement programs and so much more, that are before him and the congress.
It is not hate. It is defining what marriage is. Gay people can still have their rights, but it has a different name. I think it is unfair that so many people want to infringe on what other people believe. You think I am being hateful? I think some people are being insensitive about what I believe.
It is unfair that so many people want to infringe on what other people believe. Where you're wrong is which side is infringing. A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is based on a Conservative belief system, and certainly is not what everyone believes. I certainly don't believe it. So why should government dictate morality? It's a hate law because it discriminates. There is no such thing as "Separate but Equal." We learned that a long time ago.
People can believe whatever they want. But when individual's beliefs (and narrow-minded beliefs at that) infringe on people's equality, that is hate. You can put lipstick on the pig as much as you want, but you're only lying...both to us and to yourself.
I think the name speaks for itself.
Bush's problem is that the small government republicans have walked away from him over out of control spending and this religious right nutcase idea of putting big brother at the head of the table to enforce their social views. Not to mention the gross incompetence running the war even if one is in favor of it (3 years in, one's stomach still turns just at the prospect of the ride from Baghdad airport to town center). But the religious right whines and postures and dumbie Rove falls for it, deciding they're the ones in danger of walking. Very bad move. If they push this, the limited govt. republicans will be further alienated, making a Dem Congress, more, not less, likely. A week of this theme followed by, amazingly, even further poll deterioation and they're going to be confused.
The government should not be telling me who I can and cannot marry. Simple as that. If I want to enter holy matrimony with a pineapple, then I should be able to. This is the government legislating morality - it is stupid, almost as stupid as blindly having religion dictating morality.
Why does it matter if gay people marry? Its not an economic negative. There have always been homosexuals - as far back as written history goes. If society is so pathetic that gays marrying will bring it down, it deserves its death knell anyway! heh!
The main issue (for me anyway) isn't the prohibition of gay marriage, but instead putting such a prohibition into the constitution. The constitution is a document which serves two purposes: 1) to outline how the government is run, and 2) to declare citizens' rights. A right is the opposite of a law, which is what a prohibition is. If we learned anything from the early 1900's, it's that prohibitions do not belong in the constitution.
--Mike
This is an essay I wrote for my Lang & Comp class. Though some parts are not entirely pertinent, I thought I'd share what are still my opinions on the aforementioned topic(s).
The Nuclear Family
Conservative politicians in this country have become increasingly involved with “family values.” Essential to their agenda is the preservation of the United States nuclear family. Groups include the well known American Family Association. Commonly in the eyes of these officials, the nuclear orientation consists of two married heterosexual parents with children. This, they feel, is essential in maintaining the ethics, morals, and love that were essential, they believe, to their successful upbringing. One of the paradigms of this preservation effort includes banning gay unions or marriage, and thus discouraging a homosexual family orientation, excluding all homosexuals who wish to marry or bond via civil union, as well as raise children. Further, promoters of gay rights of all orientation will also be sanctioned. This will cause them to associate the nuclear family idea with sanctioning behavior, and create a greater schism between different parties concerned family values.
These sects are dedicated to promoting and funding legislature that helps to achieve their goals, but fail to acknowledge flaws in their itinerary. The members of groups such as the American Family Association and others approve the segregation of homosexuality, promote the widespread indoctrination of their nuclear “family values,” and do not recognize the line between church and state, a constitutional statute that should be foremost preserved before personal beliefs. Primarily, they turn the idea of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” into a self-centered, exclusionary concept, and do not accept every citizen’s right to marry or equally union.
The Defense of Marriage Act is the first present-day piece of legislation that represents conservative nuclear family preservation. The act “does two things. First, it requires that no state shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to same-sex ‘marriage.’ Second, it defines the words ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ for purposes of Federal law” (Letric). This act pushed through congress in 1996, helped states gain individual power in the scope of same-sex marriage. Nearly all states followed suit in the acts passing by heeding the newly coined, federal definition of “marriage” as between “one man and one woman.” All but Massachusetts, which has now restricted same sex marriages to in-state couples only, (LA Times) have banned gay marriage, given it would be unlawful in terms of the DOMA. By banning gays, they effectively steal an estimated 4.5 million gays in America (Adherents) away from a right to marry. Those who wish to attempt marriage in Massachusetts cannot for several years if their citizenship is outside of the state. This legislation is flawed. It first bases its conclusion of “marriage” based off of a subjective interpretation: what one group thinks marriage means. States have little room in establishing same-sex marriage laws, given the overlook of the aforementioned federal definition
Several million’s individual rights are taken away due to the DOMA, and must take a segregated backseat to the agenda of the nuclear family conservative. Any sanctioning of gays or any group is widely agreed to be unjust. This DOMA helps to accomplish the goal of about 3 million members of the AFA (AFA), but prevents legal citizens of the United States attain their Declaration right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This act, though with “just” goals in mind to the AFA, damages and alienates the gay community, and is therefore unjust and wrongly geared towards equal rights of family values. Any group who tries to legislatively prohibit a chunk of the population in the interest of “preserving family values” is actually demoting the structure of the US family, disallowing 1.5%, or 3 million members, of the population from their right to legally marry and face all of the benefits and repercussions entailed by marriage. Children will be raised surrounded by this segregation, and taught by supportive parents that it is moral, and that preserving the agenda comes first (ethics second). Corrupt and self-centered values will continue to ascend through generations to come.
Many of these conservative advocates argue that gays who have been allowed to marry in various European countries seldom do marry, thus decreasing an incentive to legalize their marriage in the U.S. This attitude has a connection with the statistics of fidelity in gay relationships. According to Timothy J. Dailey, about 1.5 percent of men in homosexual couples reported fidelity, contrary to about 77 percent of married, straight men admitting fidelity (Dailey). Their “promiscuity” is likely the source, according to the author, and therefore shows an unfit or undesirable place for gays at the marriage table. Dailey fails to recognize the duration of time homosexuality has been welcomed in Western society, and how long gays have actually had time to marry and pursue married life. Fidelity has always been a common problem in straight married couples. Even after thousands of years of “preserving marriage,” couples still see a 50% divorce rate in America, which excludes 50% of individuals who could participate and provide statistics to those who publish these studies. The pressures of maintaining marriage and fidelity are felt more by a homosexual couple while in the moral eye of many scorning citizens and politicians. Homosexuals have never had a chance to work at marriage in the U.S., and these statistics can therefore not truly represent infidelity, since AFA and kin do not promote fidelity and commitment through homosexual marriage.
The American Family Association acknowledges its political influence and ability to change, while also acknowledging their purpose in their mission statement. It reads: “The American Family Association exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect biblical truth” (AFA). This establishes their association as a group concerned with preserving the church. The organization does so by enacting legislation that reflects “biblical truth,” while preventing gay citizens from a free lifestyle as is entitled to every legal citizen. By creating, supporting or significantly helping pass legislature that accomplishes their mission, they are coercing the government to sponsor their religious beliefs. This dispels the constitutional separation of church and state, and the contribution the DOMA makes to American laws is unreasonable due to its direct opposition to our constitution. Further, this proves the unjust nature of the DOMA, and other acts that represent the agenda and beliefs of groups such as the AFA. Their actions represent religious indoctrinization rather than balanced political change.
The AFA and other nuclear family preservationists aim to attack gays, alone with other aspects of society that coerce “tradition,” though they coerce others in the process of preserving their view of “tradition.” Through legislature, they segregate homosexuality and its supporters. Through their success, they further indoctrinate their attitude to others who adapt to the new legislature, and through a more widespread adult audience, the audience of children, future moral students, increases. These children will be raised to accept flawed family values as they become more commonplace. They will be encouraged to further preserve religion through the constitution, and reject homosexuality and supporters.
Though “traditional marriage” or “nuclear family” is nowhere cited in the Declaration of Independence, “the pursuit of happiness” certainly is. With the AFA legally influencing states to ban gay marriage, those who are homosexual are stripped of their own potential pursuit of happiness. Their efforts do not accomplish the “biblical truth” they wish U.S. culture to represent. Biblical truth in itself is not concerned with segregation and unjust behavior. The AFA is driven by fear of homosexuality diluting marriage tradition, and this fear misguides their agenda. Their accomplishments, if furthered, will continuously drift farther from their aforementioned mission statement and “biblical truth.” This country need not tolerate the AFA’s legal and sociological phobia towards homosexuality. We should let those who wish to preserve “tradition” do so in a fair, private pursuit the Declaration entitles them to.
Sources
Letric Law Library. “’Defense of Marriage Act’ 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis.”
7 May 1996. .
Mehren, Elizabeth. “Massachusetts Curb on Gay Marriage Upheld.” LA Times.com
.
Adherents. “Composite U.S. Demographics.” Year 2000. United States.
.
American Family Association. “AFA Online.” 17 April 2006. .
Dailey, Timothy J. “Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married
Couples.” Family Research Council. 7 April 2004.
There are plenty of grammar errors, that wasn't my final draft, and sorry about the spacing.
I always figured that people married each other because they wanted to show their commitment to that other person. 1) How could it hurt my neighbor if I married my girlfriend? 2) I honestly don't care what people would think because I'm not making that commitment to them; I'm making it to her. I'm promising that I love her and that she is the only one for me. 3) So what if we don't have children at the moment? I know numerous heterosexual couples that don't have kids. They never wanted to have them. They got married because they loved each other. I also know a lot of gay couples who have children. Those kids are the most loved, most well taken care of, and well balanced kids I have ever seen.
4)If this passes, the government is taking away my privilege as an American citizen. If heterosexuals can marry, so can I.
Amendment XIV
(Privileges and Immunites)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You are completely right about the govt infringing on the rights of its citizens, though the amendment you cited does not have any power over the federal govt. The fourteenth amendment speaks directly to the states -- not the federal govt.
The only claim the federal govt had over marriage is under section 8 of article 1 -- giving the federal govt the ability to determine taxes, commerce, and a range of other random duties.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1
So I guess in theory they could stretch section 8 of article 1 to include marriage because of the tax regulations surrounding it. Kind of funny how the federal govt has to stretch the constitution near the breaking point to pen such discrimination into law.
I hope that our legislature loves this country enough to understand the severe implications of such a hateful amendment. It doesn't fit into the mantra of the US -- the home of the free! -- but I guess slavery didn't exactly fit into the mantra either.
The government has absolutely no business legislating marriage in any form no matter what the circumstances. It is a religious institution. If a chruch wants to marry two people, that is their business; to that end, the government should only recognize civil unions.
problem solved.
bush needs to join us in the 22 century
All over the world, and most parts of America, folks are living in the 21st century. Perhaps you have time travel capability, but ( I dare say) the other 99.9% of us on this planet do not.
Now to my main point:
It's interesting how nobody seems to remember when Bush said that he supports gay unions (via the liberal media - ABC-BS). That doesn't fit with the liberal agenda or the staple liberal talking points that he's a racist, sexist, bigot homophobe. And yet we're supposed to bite the pillow for those "progressives", like Kerry & Dean, who openly tell us that they "love us" and will turn around and give us the rusty shank as soon as it's politically advantageous. We were supposed to bend over and support Kerry with ass loads of cash, love and adoration, meanwhile he's running around undermining gay marriage in his home state of Assachussetts.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.
I think that Bush is absolutley disguisting. How can he even have the nerve to think up a plan about forbidding gay marriage when thousands of US citizens are getting killed in the war!!! Where are his priorities. People need to get over the whole homosexuality thing and let individuals do what they want. It's their life not Bush;s. Who is to say that Bush makes decisions in our lives today? No one does becasue it shouldn't be that way.
They can't "get over it". They have serious moral objections to the mere thought that a woman might love another woman instead of a man, or a man loves another man. Bush and his neocon buddies are just sticking to what they know, the literal interpretation of the bible. As any morally correct person knows, homosexuality is the work of Satan, and will send you to hell, therefore your protectors, the God-fearing Republican Party will fight with all its might to bring God back to the fallen people (Read: Democrats), and save them from their plight, all in the name of a 2000 year old book.
People are saying marriage isn't a right. How is that possible? What heterosexual couple do YOU know that isn't allowed to be married? How many heterosexual couples are unable to adopt children? How many heterosexual men and women can't share the benefits they get from work with their partners?
If you want to argue that marriage isn't a right, fine, but back it up. It appears to be a right to just about anyone, as long as you're an adult and you're NOT GAY.
www.progressiveu.org/blog/greenisgreat
...and has been recognized as such by the Supreme Court of the United States on many occasions. The most notable of those occasions is, of course, the famous case of Loving v. Virginia...
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.