Bush Opposes Gay Marriage?

[TotallyOz]

I am absolutly shocked that Mr. Bush is opposed to gay marriage and will have his lawyers looking into something to stop this.

 

Quote:

 

On one simmering domestic issue, the president said he opposes gay marriage, and suggested his administration might propose legislation on the subject.

 

"I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that," he said.

 

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030730/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_13

[Guest fukamarine]

>I am absolutly shocked that Mr. Bush is opposed to gay

>marriage and will have his lawyers looking into something to

>stop this.

 

I too, read/heard this on CNN this morning. One more utterance that proves beyond a doubt that this turd who calls himself President is completly out of step with the times he is living in.

 

I tend to get myself really worked up about all this crap - then I sit back and heave a sigh of relief, realizing that I don't live in Bush Country but in oh so enlightened Canada!

 

But I feel for you guys who have a tough uphill battle.

 

fukamarine

[Doug69]

>I am absolutly shocked that Mr. Bush is opposed to gay

>marriage and will have his lawyers looking into something to

>stop this.

 

Which Democrats are for gay marriage? Virtually none that I have heard, including Hillary Clinton, who expressly opposes gay marriage.

 

There is already a federal law which prohibits any federal marital benefits being distribtued to same-sex couples, even if they are legally married in one of the states, called the Defense of Marriage Act. It was signed into law by Bill Clinton, supported by Hillary Clinton, and voted for by most Democrats.

 

The vast majority of politicians in both parties - including those who support "domestic partnership benefits" or "civil unions" - oppose gay marriage. So why is Bush's opposition any more outrageous?

[Doug69]

You left some stuff out that Bush said:

 

From today's Las Vegas Sun (http://www.lasvegassun.com/drudged/073004994.html):

 

<<Bush also urged, however, that America remain a "welcoming country" - not polarized on the issue of homosexuality.

 

"I am mindful that we're all sinners and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said. "I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts." >>

[+ deej]

At last, a non-inflammatory post from you! Congrats!

 

I actually caught my breath when he made those remarks. It sounded ALMOST like he was headed for support for gay marriage. It genuinely surprised me.

 

Then he did the 180-degree turn saying he believed in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

[BewareofNick]

Because Bush is the duly elected pres... wait, no, that's not exactly right

 

because Bush is the Supreme Court appointed President of the United States. Then again, his words indicate that he's not out to conduct a witch hunt like so many other Repiglicans, so that's a good thing.

[Will]

There's a difference between "marriage" and a "civil union." There are lots of couples who are "married" simply by an act of the state. And Quakers marry without the benefit of the state at all. It's all in what you call it. As for me, I think we should lobby for "civil unions." After we get those, we can call them anything we want.

[Guest drock56]

As for me, I think we should lobby for "civil unions." After we get those, we can call them anything we want.

 

------------I agree - a rose by any other name would smell as sweet

[Doug69]

>------------I agree - a rose by any other name would smell as

>sweet

 

Yeah - it's called "separate but equal" - they used to tell black people that this was just as good, too, but they soon found at it wasn't.

 

Gay people are either treated equally under the law or we aren't. No self-respecting gay person should celebrate a result whereby the law allows only heterosexual relationships to attain a certain legal status ("marriage"), but excludes gay relationships from that legal status.

 

To do so is to celebrate one's own inequality, and inferiority, under the law - a rather perverse reaction.

[Will]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't know what the legal distinction between "marriage" and "civil union" is. We have it only in one state, Vermont, don't we? Does anybody know if there are differences regarding inheritance rights, child custody, and so forth? I certainly would never argue for some kind of second-class status. My argument rests on the assumption that marriage and civil union would be indistinguishable under the law. If they weren't, well, that would be another story.

[Doug69]

>Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't know what the legal

>distinction between "marriage" and "civil union" is.

 

In Vermont, there is no meaningful difference with regard to the legal rights which gay or straight couples can receive, other than the fact that gay people can't get "married"; they can have only "civil unions."

 

So, it's a perfect case of "separate but equal." The law says: "we will keep you separate from heterosexual couples and exclude you from the institution of marriage, but don't worry, because we'll give you the same legal rights and benefits."

 

The "separate" part, however, is quite problematic (at least in my view), because embedded into that law, and any future laws like it, is the premise that, as a legal matter, gay relationships are still something different in kind and quality than heterosexual relationships.

 

As long as that totally unjustified, always discriminatory premise continues to exist, then the law will continue to reflect and entrench the view that gay relationships and gay people are different, less, something "other" - a premise which, aside from being wrong on its own, can lead only to all sorts of inequality, mischief, and outright unfairness.

 

It is only once the law categorizes gay relationships exactly the same as it categorizes heterosexual relationships is there true equality under the law. Accepting anything less is to endorse the view that a critical and legally recognized institution - "marriage" - is so sacred and venerated and important that the only way to preserve its value is to exclude gay couples from it. That is not a premise which I think any gay person should accept.

[trilingual]

Also, "marriage," although it is regulated by the states, brings many federal benefits, like being able to file joint income tax returns, obtain survivor Social Security benefits, sponsor a foreign fiancé or spouse for immigration purposes, etc. that a "civil union" doesn't confer. (At least not until a court somewhere determines that if a "civil union" is indistinguishable from "marriage" it has to confer all the benefits of "marriage," and not just some of them.)

 

I'm with Doug69 on this one. I want exactly what heterosexual citizens have. Not one whit more nor one whit less. Equal means "the same." And we're all entitled to be treated equally under the Constitution. That's what Sandra Day O'Connor said in her concurring decision in the Lawrence case. So we may live to see the day when we really ARE treated equally in every respect here in the U.S.

[Flower]

I agree, deej--not only was it a nice post, but refreshing and more important--informative--at least for me--I had not read or heard about Bushes "speck in the eye" quote from the bible--it is sorta a step in the right direction (for both Bush and doug69)}(

[TotallyOz]

Well, I just think back to my days as in the Bible belt and the sermons of my youth. Love the sinner but hate the sin. How possible is that? Bush views homosexuality as a sin and homosexuals as perverts. But, he still wants to welcome anyone? BULLSHIT

 

This President is a fucking hypocritic asshole. Perhaps he just needs a good fuck. A friend of mine once told me, "Once you have been fucked in the ass, you look at the world in a whole new perspective."

[TotallyOz]

I agree. I want the exact same thing. Nothing less and nothing more.

[Guest]

>As for me, I think we should lobby for "civil unions." After

>we get those, we can call them anything we want.

>

>------------I agree - a rose by any other name would smell as

>sweet

 

As the partner of a foreigner who may or may not get asylum in this country (and will be deported if he doesn't), I'm feeling first-hand the sting of the defense of marriage act. A civil union (or even a foreign marriage) doesn't mean jack shit as far as the U.S. government is concerned. I'm for equal protection of the laws (still a pipe dream 140 years after the passage of the 14th ammendment).

[guyinsf]

I can understand being upset by Bush's statement, but shocked? It isn't like the guy has given us any reason to believe that he's anything but right wing. I cannot believe that Log Cabin Republican types actually give credence to the few crumbs that get thrown our way (oh, a gay man involved in HIV issues -- wow, how radical).

[guyinsf]

Thank you for confronting the truth. I cannot believe that anyone falls for that double-speak. I know I sure feel "welcomed" by someone who singles out my "sin" and says I should not be treated equally because of it while not pursuing laws to punish every other citizen for his or her sins.

 

>Well, I just think back to my days as in the Bible belt and

>the sermons of my youth. Love the sinner but hate the sin.

>How possible is that? Bush views homosexuality as a sin and

>homosexuals as perverts. But, he still wants to welcome

>anyone? BULLSHIT

>

>This President is a fucking hypocritic asshole. Perhaps he

>just needs a good fuck. A friend of mine once told me, "Once

>you have been fucked in the ass, you look at the world in a

>whole new perspective."

>

[Doug69]

>Thank you for confronting the truth. I cannot believe that

>anyone falls for that double-speak. I know I sure feel

>"welcomed" by someone who singles out my "sin" and says I

>should not be treated equally because of it while not pursuing

>laws to punish every other citizen for his or her sins.

 

I agree with this entirely - but don't you get that the view that Bush expressed yesterday (that marriage should be confined to heterosexual couples) is a view that the overwhelming majority of politicians in both parties has publicly affirmed?

 

There is already a federal law which was enacted in 1996 barring the recognition of same-sex marriages on the federal level, even if individual states recognize such marriages. That law was enacted with the broad support of both parties, and signed by President Clinton.

 

That means that, as of now, even if an individual state (say, Massachusettes) decided to recognize same-sex marriages, those couples would be barred from receiving any rights or benefits conferred by the federal government to married couples, many of which are the most important legal rights which marriage brings (immigration rights, tax benefits, etc.)

 

This issue is too important to be exploited for partisian gain or to advance the interests of one political party. Elected officials in both parties have been vigorous opponents of same-sex marriage, and still are. It is unfair and wrong - and, more importantly, counter-productive - to single out Bush for advocating a position which virtually every other significant politician, Democrat or Republican, advocates.

 

I will, however, say this: if what Bush meant yesterday was that he is going to support tinkering with our Constitution in order to codify a constitutional amendment to permanently enshrine marriage as an exclusionary institution to be preserved for heterosexuals only (and he obviously left this deliberately vague), then he has crossed a line which is unforgiveable, not to mention alarming.

 

I can't wait to hear what these Democratic candidates have to say about this issue. I wonder whether at least one of them will give a response that is coherent and which actaully takes a position. I'm not holding my breath.

 

>

>>Well, I just think back to my days as in the Bible belt and

>>the sermons of my youth. Love the sinner but hate the sin.

>>How possible is that? Bush views homosexuality as a sin and

>>homosexuals as perverts. But, he still wants to welcome

>>anyone? BULLSHIT

>>

>>This President is a fucking hypocritic asshole. Perhaps he

>>just needs a good fuck. A friend of mine once told me,

>"Once

>>you have been fucked in the ass, you look at the world in a

>>whole new perspective."

>>

>

[Doug69]

>I can understand being upset by Bush's statement, but

>shocked? It isn't like the guy has given us any reason to

>believe that he's anything but right wing.

 

Nobody should be shocked by this statement. You can count on one hand the number of prominent politicians in either party who favor same-sex marriage. The vast majority of Democrats are expressly opposed to same-sex marriage. Why isn't there the same

[TotallyOz]

Well, Doug, I agree with you in several ways. As a more legal expert than I am, tell me this.

 

If Mass does allow gay marriage and even if the Federal ban is in effect, would that not mean that the ban would be challenged on Constitutional grounds.

 

I don't think this has happened yet. And, I do think when one state allows marriage, that the Federal law will be challenged and with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, wouldn't this tend to make you believe that the Federal law would be struck down?

[Rick Munroe]

>I can't wait to hear what these Democratic candidates have to

>say about this issue. I wonder whether at least one of them

>will give a response that is coherent and which actaully takes

>a position. I'm not holding my breath.

 

Howard Dean did not make any new comments on it yesterday but on his site, in the section on gay issues, it says: "Governor Dean believes the “Defense of Marriage Act” is unconstitutional and will support legal challenges to its validity."

[Doug69]

>Howard Dean did not make any new comments on it yesterday but

>on his site, in the section on gay issues, it says:

>"Governor Dean believes the “Defense of Marriage Act” is

>unconstitutional and will support legal challenges to its

>validity."

 

Well, that's nice to hear. But does he also mention on his website that he believes that marriage should be reserved only for heterosexual couples, and that he supports the continued exclusion by the State of gay couples from the institution of marriage?

 

Or did he leave that out?

[Will]

Got it, finally. Thanks to Doug69 and Unicorn for straightening (pardon the metaphor) me out on this subject.

 

If I understand correctly, under Vermont state law there is no legal distinction between couples whom the state authorizes to enter into a marriage and those who enter into a civil union. In other words, in Vermont all civilly united people have the same rights, both singly and as a partner in a couple.

 

But is it also correct that, under Federal law, couples married in Vermont have rights that are not extended to those people who have a civil union in Vermont? If so, does the distinction hold for heterosexual couples who, for one reason or another, also contract civil unions in Vermont?

 

If so, and as the "Defense (sic) of Marriage Act" codifies, the Federal government does in fact interfere in the states' rights to determine whether or not a couple can enter into a marriage or civil union. If the Immigration Service (sic) discriminates and if the IRS discriminates, both federal agencies, in effect, deny the states' right to equate a civil union with a marriage. As somebody pointed out just now, therefore, the Defense of Marriage Act is almost certainly unconstitutional. But I wonder if the IRS and the Immigration Service's regulations aren't also unconstitutional, if, in fact, they rest on the possibility of negating the states' right to determine the composition of a marriage and/or a civil union.

 

It must be screamingly obvious that I'm no constitutional lawyer. Therefore, this discussion has helped put me on the correct (according to my political philosophy) side of this issue. Heretofore I hadn't been paying enough attention.

[Doug69]

>I don't think this has happened yet. And, I do think when one

>state allows marriage, that the Federal law will be challenged

>and with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, wouldn't

>this tend to make you believe that the Federal law would be

>struck down?

 

This is a very interesting issue, and unforutately (or fortunately), the outcome is far from clear, although I think that the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is painfully clear.

 

What's so interesting is that, from a constitutional and legal perspective, DOMA is probably one of the most anti-conservative pieces of federal legislation ever enacted. DOMA is so offensive to states' rights - which has, since the formation of the Republic, confined the power to define "marriage" exclusively to the States -- that it's difficult to imagine a law which overstepped the bounds of Federal power more overtly than this law.

 

As a result, it should be the judicial conservatives who are most constitutionally hostile to DOMA (even though they want to keep the law), and it should be the judicial liberals who most vigorously defend the law (even though they want to get rid of it).

 

Over the past 5-7 years, there have been numerous federal laws which the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated on the ground that those laws attempted to regulate areas which were traditionally and constitutionally the province of the States to regulate. Those laws which were stricken on this ground constituted a far less severe invasion into the rights of the States than DOMA entails, and those laws were struck down by the conservative-moderate wing of the Court, with the liberal wing voting to uphold them.

 

If those justices have any intellectual consistency at all (and who, really, at this point believes they do?), the conservative judges ought to be eager to strike down DOMA as an intolerable abridgement of states' rights, and the liberal judges ought to be vigorously defending it as a proper exercise of federal power. Somehow, that scenario is hard to imagine, to say the least. So, although DOMA is plainly unconstitutional on the ground of federalism/states' rights, the outcome of a constitutional challenge remains unclear.

 

Another quite compelling reason why DOMA is unconstitutional is because the Constitution mandates that the laws and judgments of one State be given "full Faith and Credit" in all of the United States. It has been extremely common - and still is - for states to have different laws definining "marriage." In the South, for instance, many states allowed girls who were 13 years old to marry, even though such couples could not get married in, say, Northern states. But, the Constitution required that the Northern states give "full Faith and Credit" to the Southern States' laws and judgments, and they wree thus required to recognize and treat that couple as married, even though that couple could not legally marry in the Northern state.

 

Although there have been some very narrow exceptions recognized to this doctrine where States are not required to recognize other States' laws, those exceptions have always been very narrowly applied (lest they eat up the rule), and have never, as far I know, been applied to marriage laws before.

 

Sorry if this sounded like a legal brief, but you asked.