Ban on "gay" marriage

[Guest guest]

 

Bush pushes for gay marriage ban

By Associated Press

Saturday, July 10, 2004

 

White House - President Bush is making a fresh push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

 

In his weekly radio address, Bush says legalizing same-sex marriage would mean redefining the most fundamental institution of civilization.

 

He blames a few activist judges and local officials for taking it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage.

 

The remarks come a day after the Senate opened debate on a constitutional amendment that would define marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

 

Bush says letting courts define marriage as a legal contract cuts off the institution from its cultural, religious and natural roots.

 

A vote on the amendment could come as early as Wednesday.

 

 

[Gauracandra]

I oppose gay marriage. However, I also oppose a constitutional ban because I don't think the constitution should be monkeyed around with. Now its a ban on gay marriage. Tomorrow its a ban on Christian displays. The constitution should delineate basic rights and obligations of the government, not restrict rights. Its a very specific document. The federal government has certain obligations. These are listed. All other items not expressly in the constitution are left to the states and the people. The problem I have is this notion that the constitution is a "living document" which allows its to be constantly maleable.

 

The constitution is a CONTRACT. It is a contract between the governed and the government. Who has a living contract that changes in time? A contract must be read in a very exacting manner, none of this open door, change with the times business.

 

Now there are times changes can and should be made to the contract. But these should be very, very rare.

 

Unfortunately, now much of the constitution is meaningless. If its not to be a strict constructionist reading, then all you have is Republicans and Democrats trying to get their guys on the Supreme court. This prevents a real discussion of the issues.

 

For instance abortion. Since the Supreme Court has ruled on it, and found a right not expressly found in the constitution, all the politicians can take a cowardly way out and pretend there is nothing they can do. If on the other hand they had to pass a law supporting abortion, 1st, 2nd, 3rd Trimester, in each and every state (everything not expressly stated in the constitution is left to the states and the people) it would create a real discussion of the issue. Instead both parties just fight to get their guys on the court and the law becomes pretty much a grab bag.

[Guest guest]

Sanctimonius garbage from the most anti-christian on the face of the earth. Typical for the age though.

 

I dont oppose gay amrriages, a civil rite is a civil right. If two folks commit to each other, there is no harm in the state recognizing the commitment, which this is all about. This garbage against the homos is just an extension of the garbage against anyone who doesnt accept bush as a christ figure, the will of god in action, violent action against the innoicent, and often protecting demoniac guilty ideologies

 

These hypocrites want to make a perfectly normal and righteous request for consideration of human rights something involved with sodomy and other pornographic thought. Yet their perverted christian crusade against Iraq has real sodomy, real snuff flick pornography, and they feel quite okay about it. They justify sodomy by the military against an enemy that had no threatening gesture toward the US, yet they completely came unglued against the last demo prez because he had an indiscreet affair with another consenting adult.

 

We can certainly discuss the sin of adultry, of letting animal sensual nature dictate detrimentally against the intelligence which should have control of the mind that comes up with all these weird scenarios of false enjoyment, but this is not what the debate is about. No one is less perverted than the other, so no one can cast a stone.

 

Hell, why doesnt the military come out against bush's perverted works against them, denying them healthcare, rehabilitation, mental health care. Actually, the military has a lot in common with the homos wanting the same rights.

 

And does anyone really think this vote, said by all who know as doomed from the outset, is nothing more than a hate tool used by the neocon fascists to hang a scarlett letter around the neck of the liberal senators (and others not-so-liberal, rather sensible elected officials) by publishing the result of the vote? If you do, well I bet you believe bush the traitor/deserter/murderer really had his military record "accidentally" destroyed.

 

mad mahax

[Guest guest]

On the issue of the constitution I don't have enough background to comment further but you have given me more to think about.

 

Wasn't it the constituiton that said blacks were to be considered two thirds human? I'm not sure. I see your point though about a trend to changing it. The future could bring it to a state where it would be beyond recognition.

[Gauracandra]

Yes, that was one of those cases where changing the Constitution was justified. Many of the framers of the constitution wanted slavery abolished, but feared that in the early stages of the formation of the country it would be too controversial and would split the country. It was believed that they could tackle that issue perhaps 15 or 20 years later. But it kept being pushed back and back, until the country literally was torn in two close to 100 years later during the Civil War.

 

People have stopped trying to persuade one another of the superiority of their ideas. Instead they now just want to control the Supreme Court because they can manufacture laws.

 

A bit of a side issue -

Here is Amendment 1 of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Here is Amendment 10 to the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Now, for instance we have lawyers who are suing cities in the U.S. trying to have a cross removed from the city insignia. Why? Because a cross is unconstitutional, so they say. No it is not!!!! In the first place we can debate what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means given that the founders certainly utilized Christian traditions. The founders were primarily trying not to have a state religion, like the Anglican church in England. However, this does not mean that religion cannot be part of government. But I'm getting sidetracked.

 

Notice what it says "Congress shall make no law..." Then what else does it say? 10th Amendment - all other powers not specifically allocated to the government, nor prohibited to the states, are left to the states and the people.

 

Now if you read this directly, there is nothing "unconstitutional" with a city having a cross on their symbol. Set aside whether Congress can have Christian symbols. The constitution lays out the powers the Government has, what it can and can't do, and lays out a few things states cannot do, and then says "Everything else not mentioned here is left to the states and to the people" In other words if a City wants to have a cross on their emblem, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Why? Because the constitution doesn't say anything one way or the other. Its left to the people.

 

But if you don't read the constitution in a literal, constructionist manner, then you say "Since Congress can't support a religion, then neither can any element of government even if it is as small as a town council." The problem is the constitution doesn't say "Town councils shall not...." It only says "Congress shall not..." If we stick with a literal reading it becomes very clear.

[Guest guest]

Yes we never here the a__holes at the ACLU quoting that part. They are the ones suing San Diego over the cross.

 

Scum lawyers will kill this country if they can. The Aclu is at the same time defending NAMBLA in some court action to defend their right to free speech.

 

For those that don't know NAMBLA stands for North American Man Boy Love Association. They are an organized group of homosexual pedophiles that want to abolish all laws against having sex with minors INCLUDING INFANTS. They had a web site that offered details on how to abduct and seduce children. Those from civilized countries will have a hard time believing this.

 

But then why not? If it's ok to kill children in the womb why not have sex with them in the crib?

[Gauracandra]

In the U.S. Constitution this is the only mention of religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

 

Thats it!!!

 

So from this we have the ACLU saying the Boy Scouts can not camp on state or federal property. Why? Because the Boy Scouts believe in God. Ok, lets look at this logically. A Boyscout camp sits around in Yosemite cooking over a camp fire. Now someone tell me where that implicates Congress in ESTABLISHING religion. Congress is doing nothing.

 

Of course then we have "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If the Boy Scouts can't use federal property because of their belief in God, then you have effectively prohibited their free exercise of religion.

 

This is why the Constitution must be read literally. You will not find any right to abortion anywhere in the Constitution. So when the Supreme Court makes up a law taking away the rights of States to regulate abortion, is it any wonder that the public gets angry? They undermine the democratic process to allow the voters to set standards in their communities.

[Gauracandra]

I forgot to mention the ACLU tried to force New Mexico to change the city name of Las Cruces (the cross). What about Corpus Christi (the body of Christ), or San Diego (Saint Diego), or San Francisco (Saint Francis), or Los Angeles (the angels). They tried against Las Cruces if you can believe it, but lost. So now they are going for a cross on a city emblem.

 

They start small, and like Animal Farm, before long people will have forgotten what happened and think it was always like this.

[Guest guest]

They have become true enemies of mankind. I don't mean that as an overstatment for emotive effect I mean it literally.

 

They attack the smaller communities because they often don't have the finacial resources to fight back.

[Guest guest]

 

I would prefer if our government stayed out of promoting religion. The cross to me is a symbol of hatred and oppression. It represents centuries of witch-burning, pagan-killing, idol-smashing, crusades, gay-bashing, etc. And don't get me started with those ten commandments monuments! They should all go. "Thou shalt not make any graven images" is a direct insult to many religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and many indigenous faiths.

[gHari]

 

Was marriage a scriptural creation or was it a legal creation? Seems to me that someone has stolen from someone.

 

[Guest guest]

without 'offense of' image

 

should read 'Thou shalt not have any 'concocted ' graven image

 

after all somewhere He looks like 'a chariot in the sky' , 'a thunderous voice from the heavens,' as well 'a burning Bush'--- 'no political pun intended'

[krsna]

Man invented..

Man discovered WEAPONS and invented HUNTING,

Woman discovered HUNTING and invented FURS.

 

Man discovered COLORS and invented PAINT

Woman discovered PAINT and invented MAKEUP.

 

Man discovered the WORD and invented CONVERSATION

Woman discovered CONVERSATION and invented GOSSIP.

 

Man discovered AGRICULTURE and invented FOOD

Woman discovered FOOD and invented DIET.

 

Man discovered FRIENDSHIP and invented LOVE

<font color="red"> Woman discovered LOVE and invented MARRIAGE </font color> .

 

Man discovered TRADING and invented MONEY

Woman discovered MONEY and that's when it all got worse...

[theist]

Still LOL

[Guest guest]

Here is the solution. And it is simple, too.

 

Legal contracts are approved between two people who affirm to the court that they wish to live as one. Gays and straights are constitutionally equal, provided they obey the law (forget the sodomy angle, because straight and gay have equality in that regard as well=;-).

 

So the issue is MARRIAGE.

 

My solution comes from Roget's Thasaurus. GAY=MERRY.

 

So we can have Gay MERRIAGE, and straight MARRIAGE.

 

Hows that for a solution? Any comment?

 

mad mahax

[Guest guest]

 

I think this whole thing will end up the same way that the controversy over interracial marriage did in the 1960s. A Gallop Poll conducted in 1968 showed that fully 72% of the country opposed interracial marriage, with 48% of those saying it should be criminalized. Yet it was legalized anyway, with the help of the Supreme Court (conservatives were much less organized in those days!).

 

In contrast, a Gallop Poll taken in June 2004 reported that 55% of Americans opposed gay marriage and 39% approved. 68% approved of civil unions for gays.

 

It's really only a matter of time, in my opinion, but I think it will take a while due to strong opposition from highly organized conservatives and religious extremists.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Marriage is eternal. Krsna "invented" it when He married Srimati Radharani under the "gandharva" rite. And Vasudeva Krsna "invented" it when He married Rukmini and all other queens of Dvaraka.

 

In ancient times there was no distinction between legal and religious as there is nowadays. The two were one and the same. The Church was the State, and the State was the Church. Period.

[theist]

 

I think this whole thing will end up the same way that the controversy over interracial marriage did in the 1960s. A Gallop Poll conducted in 1968 showed that fully 72% of the country opposed interracial marriage, with 48% of those saying it should be criminalized. Yet it was legalized anyway, with the help of the Supreme Court (conservatives were much less organized in those days!).

 

In contrast, a Gallop Poll taken in June 2004 reported that 55% of Americans opposed gay marriage and 39% approved. 68% approved of civil unions for gays.

 

It's really only a matter of time, in my opinion, but I think it will take a while due to strong opposition from highly organized conservatives and religious extremists.

 

 

Actually it has no semblance to interacial marriage. But I have little doubt that someday it will be approved. As kali-yuga grows people become more confused. So the gender confused will seem quite natural. And those that can still differentiate between male and female and the natural order that that God established will be considered "extremists".

 

 

[Guest guest]

The mind is a source of endless traps. Its imagination will wander all over and concoct so many pitfalls. But it won’t know it’s a pitfall because its logic simply wraps on top of itself in an endless circle of confusion. Life therefore becomes purposeless, a sort of floating existence that begins and ends and is done. “Fun” is the only purpose, the momentary flashes of excitement. Because of this everything becomes short-term thinking, the here and now, rather than the long term, what to speak of the eternal. Civilizations begin to stagnate and crumble when they accept homosexuality. Why? The mentality that accepts homosexuality is the mentality that sees no purpose to life other than the temporary titillation of the senses. What is needed is to break out of this circle.

 

What purpose does homosexuality serve? To my mind none. This doesn’t mean homosexuals are bad people, or make no contributions to society. But the act itself generates nothing of positive value. No good comes from two men having sex with one another (in fact it can be argued a great deal of bad comes from it). But the mind today has become confused and thinks that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Why? “Because they love one another, and marriage is about love.” Do you see the trap of the mind here? It decides that two things are “similar” must be the same. But if a sister and brother love one another, we don’t allow them to get married (its incest). “But they love one another. They too should be allowed to get married. Marriage is about love.” Wrong. Do you see the overlapping endless circle of confusion? Marriage is intended to regulate the unregulated senses in order to propagate the species in an orderly manner. This leads to great good and stability, and progress in society.

 

Then we here the argument “But is discriminatory not to allow them to marry.” Of course it is. All public policy is discriminatory. When an elderly person pays 25 cents to ride the bus, but an 18 year old pays 75 cents, that too is discriminatory. It’s a public policy decision about what is best for society. There is a purpose for it.

 

So when it comes to homosexual marriage the advocates should point out the good that comes to society by having two men having sexual relations under the auspices of marriage. I can think of only one. Its possible (though I think unlikely) that the disease spreading due to the destructive homosexual “culture” may be reduced if they are given a forum in which they will remain monogamous. I doubt it but it is possible. But the arguments about “love” or “discrimination” don’t hold water. Life must have purpose for the benefit of society. If you can’t argue on purpose (not I want, but the benefits), then the argument is just a trap of the mind.

[theist]

Nicely said. Since homosexuals don't need societies sanction to have homosexual relationships why do they seek it through marriage. They list things like hospital visitation and decision making rights in case the person is because incapcitated. Also inheritence rights. All focused upon themselves with no gains seen for society as a whole. None of which I care one way or another about and which could be accomplished beforehand already through filing power of attorney documents etc. and a will.

 

Also they want spousal health benefits and other benefits from the state in case someone unexpectantly dies. This does effect society but not in a positive way.

 

The real problem I have with it though as it gives them all legal rights to adopt children and raise them in a homosexual atmosphere. Many studies have been done showing the chid's deep pyschological need to be raised by a male as well as a female parental figures. And those must be responsible in their roles which should be well defined. This is a great detriment to society.

 

I see no positives for society as a whole. While I acknowledge that seeing homosexed people people as a target of ridicule and even violence needed to be challenged and done away with the idea that their lifestyle is just a variation on the 'normal' is actually a corosive agent notion.

 

There really is an intelligent design behind the family structures throughout nature including human and we should live within those bounds.

[Guest guest]

This is all part of a broader problem in society. People are becoming educated that there is no purpose to life. Set aside whether this religion or that religion is "factually" correct in its stories. Religion atleast says contemplate the eternal and by so doing as a by-product causes mankind to consider the immediate, the long term, and the eternal.

 

You struck the nail on the head when you said "All focused upon themselves". This is the crux of the matter. A relatively modern equation has developed and percolated through the culture. The idea is that there is no real purpose to life. Its all just happenstance. And if it is just happenstance, then what is the purpose of life? There is none.

 

But one: Perhaps the purpose of life is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This is what we are told. So we intellectualize our actions and conclude there is nothing good or bad, right or wrong, nothing has purpose except what I, Myself can experience. Eventually we run out of experiences, and turn to drugs, or sex, or something else to take our mind off of our immediate displeasure.

 

The problem with this is that a society that governs itself on this principle will in fact lead to more displeasure and pain.

 

The converse is not to view pain and suffering as something to be avoided at all costs. But rather to accept the burdens of this life and to rise above them through a focus on higher goals.

 

A man and woman seek pleasure. The woman gets pregnant. Since the formula says to maximize pleasure, the logical action is to abort the child. Children are a hindrance ot pleasure. Abortion of children and homosexual marriage are part of the same phenomenon, played out in different ways.

 

We create a disposable culture. A culture of short term thinkers. Where what matters is "Me, Me, Me." Why should homosexual marriage be allowed? "Because I want it." What is its purpose? "It doesn't matter. I WANT IT. If you have it, I want it too."

[Guest guest]

 

It is best for society if we support marriage and monogamy for everyone, including gays. Of course gays should be encouraged to marry and become monogamous, it's just plain commonsense. Just imagine how promiscuous heterosexuals would be if they were not encouraged or even allowed to marry!

[Guest guest]

 

I agree. It's not just a matter of selfishness. It's a matter of civil order and encouraging sense control in the form of monogamy and commitment.

 

Also, it's not a matter of confusion. Homosexuals just happen to be born with homosexual orientation. There is no confusion about that, it's just the way they are. We have to deal civilly with them and incorporate homosexuals into society in the best way possible. They aren't just going to disappear and go away! Many societies including our own have already tried to deal with homosexual people by criminalizing them, imprisoning them, hanging them, etc. It just didn't work!

[theist]

Sanctioned marriage is not necessary for monogamy. In this age it is not working well for heterosexuals. It is for legal reasons that it is sought and also it is a social acceptance issue with them. Well it should never be socially acceptable. Like it or not Prabhupada made that point very clear.

 

And no one "happens" to be born anything. Today's birth is due to our mental condition at the time of our last death.

[Guest guest]

The concern however is for those who are homosexual who are not genetically predisposed. Can you guarantee that every homosexual is genetically gay? If not then the ramifications are very bad for society. If one person can be "turned" homosexual because of the wandering mind, then the entire culture can be turn such as well. If you say it is part environment, part genetics, that is bad as well. That would suggest that as the environment (say society's willingness to accept homosexuality) changes, that the number of homosexuals will increase. Why did it once flourish in pagan Greece? But when the Greek culture changed to Christianity it faded away to a minority activity?

 

So this is the problem.

 

The same thing happened with birth control. We were told that with contraceptives unwanted pregnancies would be a thing of the past. But the culture changed to accomodate the new possibilities. Today one out of three pregnancies ends in abortion, and one out of three births is out of wedlock. What happened? The culture changed. It degraded itself.

 

This push for acceptance of homosexuality is simply further degradation of the culture.