|
|
|
|
I would suggest that if you are interested you should go to this link:
http://www.clergyforfairness.org/
I wonder if you have already jumped to the conclusion that this link is a place to sign a petition to endorse this ammendment? It is certainly not such a place but this site is getting together a list of names of those who oppose any such ammendment.
I actually am against making an ammendment such as this one. Now maybe I dont think that gay groups should push for calling marriage to include same sex unions, but I certainly dont see this ammendment as a good thing either.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's very alarming that Bush thinks that banning same-sex marriage in the US constitution is a reasonable step. I don't care what he thinks personally, but using his power to restrict the liberty of other people is nothing more than the abuse of his position. He may be the president of the United States but this does not make his opinion "better" than that of millions of his country's citizens. His opinion undoubtedly has a Christianity-specific basis (at best; at worst, a homophobic one) and religious doctrine has no place in politics.
Then again, the US has always been rather schizophrenic in its attitude to the relationship between the state and the church. The government won't interfere with the church, but it's fine for the church to influence and morally blackmail the individuals within the government.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is further evidence that Bush and his administration are in opposition to their own constitution, which divides state and religion, and that they may be taking steps to overrule it or introduce amendments.
You are too kind, Deeej. I can't see much Christianity in his politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The introduction of this bill is a reaction to horrible approval ratings in nationwide poling. The republicans hope to energize their core voters (christian, homophobe bigots) for the november elections. Just as they did in the last election. And it will probably work.
Those who have introduced the bill have admitted that it is for purely political reasons that the vote is being brought up now.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings
You are 100% correct - and I'm pissed that when there are so many real problems, this is going to be what everyone focuses on.
Regards
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Wouldent it be great if this all backfired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I know your views (though I don't necessarily agreee with them!) and I appreciate your integrity in starting this thread.
It exposes the dichotomy in US internal politics - the State is not to interfere in the freedom of Religion, but Religion is free to interfere in issues of State.
The frightening thing is that this is happening in the most poweful nation on Earth.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had to go back to the link myself and see how most of the reactions here to my post involved saying it was an ammendment virtually started by Bush in some way. Well maybe it is the same party and I should acknowledge that, but mainly I dont like most of my polititions on either side who are in charge. I didnt mind stating marriage to be hetrosexual but I strongly objected to all the other things in the bill which would take away rights etc.
*sigh* It is just so much more evidence of intolerance and fear. We had a problem here in Minnesota with a law concering the right of a person to carry a concealed weapon. There was an attempt to prevent it no matter what the reason the person had to carry a gun. I will acknowledge that there are some people who have some places to go where they could use protection and crime against a lot of those persons has made a case for them to be armed. Yes, there are definitely places in my city where it is not a good idea to wander around. Some of the guys who wanted to carry were taking store reciepts to the bank etc or were running stores in dangerous areas. (Before you argue that they should just leave or not have the job that places them in those places, keep in mind many of these people own the business and it is not easy to just walk away from it and take the loss.) Well the churches had to go to court to get the right to prevent people from having the right to carry guns in the church......... so I hope you can see how rediculous my country can get over something.
I just know that we could work out this whole affair if each side would just sit down and see if they could find some compassion and common sense about this problem, but oh yes, common sense is dead isnt it?
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
To me it is more worrying that this ammendment is being used to up the President's ratings. That means that at the LEAST there are some Republicans that for whatever reason are turned off by Bush. But somehow a hate campaign such as this is more than enough to get them energised and supporting the President again.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blogcritics.org:
Apparently Mr. Bush and several Congressional Republicans are beginning to take heed of recent threats from the religious right, hard-working political activists who, according to Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families, "[are] a major reason why the president is sitting in the Oval Office today."
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/05/042649.php
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This arrived in my mailbox yesterday. Since I am not American there is little I can do. But there are many American on thie Message Board, so this may interest them/you.
________________________________________________________________________
"This week, the Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment [Federal Marriage Amendment]. And I call on the Congress to pass this amendment ..." - June 5th, 2006, 1:45 p.m. EST, White House Press Conference
Just minutes ago, President Bush addressed the nation and issued a slap in the face of every GLBT citizen in this country. Only hours before tomorrow's scheduled Senate debate, he called a press conference to demand the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) - an outrageously discriminatory constitutional ban on marriage and other relationships for same-sex couples.
His motivations are clear: With his administration on the ropes and far-right, anti-gay groups threatening revolt, President Bush is willing and eager to make GLBT Americans into second-class citizens if it will bring him political gain.
We must not take this attack sitting down - we need your help to fight back.
This week's vote could to be closer than the FMA vote in 2004, so it's even more critical that we act now. In the hours remaining before tomorrow's FMA debate and the Senate vote likely on Wednesday, we need your help to send a strong, overwhelming message to the Senate...
Here's what we need your help to do in the remaining hours:
Make an emergency gift. Help us generate opposition to the FMA and the anti-GLBT extremists behind this outrageous ban. The fight isn't over with this week's vote -- we must continue to generate opposition to this extraordinary assault on the Constitution and on the rights of GLBT citizens across America. The vote goes to the House of Representatives next and with President Bush using the White House as a bully pulpit, your support is even more critical to the future fight. Click here.
Overwhelm your Senators with email. Even if you've already written, write your Senators again to let them know you strongly oppose the FMA. Click here to flood their inboxes with email!
Get everyone you know involved. We need as many people as possible to contact their Senators before the vote. Click here to spread the word to your pro-equality friends and family, and urge them to contact their senators as well!
We must leave no doubt in the minds of our leaders: The Federal Marriage Amendment would undermine the Constitution, which in more than 200 years has never once been amended to deny rights to a group of Americans. We will not stand for that legacy to be desecrated now, or ever.
Thank you again for you unwavering support.
Warmly,
Joe Solmonese
President
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is one voice of sanity that has reached my inbox (a statement to the press):
___________________________________________________________________________
Conservative Judaism views the application of equality as a standard which cannot be eroded by any other determinant, race, religion or history. Our Faith Members are not unfamiliar with discrimination and worse... we will reject it, however garbed and rationalized, will fight for equality and will be determined in our stance by genuine equality, neither discrimination per se nor discrimination garbed in the dress of double standards.
All Americans are entitled to equality under the civil laws of the
United States. Marriage being both a religious and a civil status, Conservative Judaism does not support any action by the federal government or by any state or local government that discriminates and denies equal protection of the civil laws to gay and lesbian Americans who seek to have relationships recognized when they fall within the bounds of the civil law. Where the civil law recognizes certain rights and obligations as following from a relationship created under the civil laws, those rights and obligations should not be denied to any two Americans seeking to create such a civil relationship.
The federal government of the United States has no authority to define
the religious elements of a marriage for any religious group. While our
scholars may debate the status, rights and obligations under Jewish law of various individuals who seek to conform their lives to Jewish law, no matter what Jewish law may or may not provide concerning marriage, there is no reason for Congress to seek to pass a Constitutional amendment, which limits or discriminates against the civil or legal rights of any individual or group.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... though I understand that the amendment proposal does not command unanimous approval, even within the Republican Party, so the likelihood of success is small.
But the depressing thing is that there are so many influential idiots in the most powerful nation on Earth.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who's afraid of the big bad gay marriage amendment?
Bush's feeble "family values" ploy is just a dutiful payoff to his base -- and it won't make much difference in November.
By Michael Scherer, Salon.com http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/06/gay_marriage/
June 6, 2006 | WASHINGTON -- There is something queer about this week's Senate crusade to outlaw gay marriage. If you listen closely, the leaders who oppose single-sex unions refuse to talk about gay people. They talk about activist judges, welfare rolls, the rights of voters and the birthrate of single mothers in Scandinavia. But there is not a gay man, a lesbian woman or a bisexual teenager in the mix.
Kansas Republican Sam Brownback, a 2008 presidential contender, led the charge for a constitutional amendment on the Senate floor Monday, dominating the debate with a handful of blue-and-white charts that he said showed the need for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He had line graphs, bar graphs and circle graphs. He spoke about French law and Dutch sociology. He went on about the benefits of two-parent families. "It's important that a child be raised between a loving couple," Brownback declared, a phrase that seemed, at first, to be an argument in favor of gay marriage. "Developmental problems are less common in two parent families." He said that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births and called for more research on marriage. But the Republican senator made no real mention of men who love men or women who love women.
In fact, the principal argument mounted by social conservative leaders like Brownback has more to do with the fragile state of heterosexual marriage than homosexuality. Their convoluted logic works like this: If society approves of long-term homosexual monogamy, then the "institution of marriage" will be weakened. This will lead straight people to abandon monogamy and harm the welfare of the nation's children, who benefit from stable, two-parent families. "Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them," explained President Bush in his Monday address to amendment supporters. "And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."
This is why Brownback has been spending so much time studying Nordic marriage trends. He believes there is a direct (albeit inverse) correlation between gay marriage and heterosexual fidelity. "Where gay marriage finds acceptance, marriage virtually ceased to exist," he said in the Senate, reading aloud from one of his big blue-and-white posters, this one labeled "Scandinavia." "The institution no longer means much of anything."
These straight-marriage-in-trouble arguments are everywhere in the current debate. Just a few hours earlier, they had dominated a Monday press conference in the Capitol, just a few feet off the Senate floor. "When marriage declines, children and society suffer," explained Matt Daniels, the founder of the Alliance for Marriage, an umbrella group of churches and synagogues that wrote the anti-gay-marriage amendment. "Violent crime, youth crime, welfare dependency and child poverty track more closely with family breakdown than with any other social variable, including race and income level."
Daniels, who describes himself as the child of a single welfare mother, had gathered black pastors, Hispanic leaders, rabbis and a Mormon elder to make the case against lasting homosexual bonds. But rather than talk about gay marriage, a dozen speakers, including Colorado GOP Sen. Wayne Allard, took turns expounding on the importance of loving, two-parent homes for children. They talked about the damage done by deadbeat dads in the inner city, and the importance of family in minority communities. As the Rev. Eve Nunez, an Arizona pastor put it, "America has been wandering in a wilderness of social problems caused by family disintegration."
The press corps who had gathered for the event appeared universally baffled by the argument being made from behind the microphones. "How would outlawing gay marriage encourage heterosexual fathers to stick around?" asked the first wire service reporter to be called on for questions. "Why not outlaw divorce?" another scribe asked Allard later.
In many ways, the institution-of-marriage argument is tailored for sound bites, not serious debate. It appeals directly to those Americans who already believe in a wave of secularism that is destroying the country's moral fabric. But it may also be an argument of last resort. As it stands, the polls say about three in five Americans oppose gay marriage, though only two in five support amending the Constitution to ban it. That said, almost all the trend lines point in a liberal direction. Last month, the Gallup Poll reported that 54 percent of Americans believe that homosexuality should be considered an "acceptable lifestyle," up from 34 percent in 1982. In the same time period, the percentage of Americans who think homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal has risen from 45 to 56 percent. Young Americans are the most likely age group to support gay marriage and the least likely group to consider it a make-or-break issue, a fact that should make Republican political strategists wary.
Furthermore, the American Psychological Association has concluded that gay and lesbian parents are as likely as straight parents to provide supportive healthy environments for their children. There is no scientific evidence that children of homosexual parents are more likely to suffer abuse, psychological hardship or homosexual tendencies. Gay couples have been found to be just as happy -- and just as unhappy -- as heterosexual couples and similarly committed to long-term relationships. Despite significant social stigma, the APA describes multiple surveys that show between 40 and 60 percent of gay men and 45 and 80 percent of lesbian women are currently involved in romantic relationships.
Given these facts, it is perhaps understandable that activists who argue against gay marriage focus their fire on the failures of heterosexual marriage. It is also understandable that journalists, who are themselves largely baffled by the paucity of data behind the argument, focus on reporting about the politics of the issue. As it stands, there is no hope that the marriage amendment will pass Congress. This has led Democrats to cry foul, as if it is a great outrage that a political party would attempt to score political points in Congress.
But both Republicans and Democrats say there is little evidence that the ploy will have any real impact on the 2006 election. "These kinds of issues, they may affect the national atmospherics, but in terms of how we run elections, we are focused on local issues," said Ed Patru, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is coordinating the GOP's 2006 House effort. Religious groups are also not treating it as a partisan issue. James Dobson's Focus on the Family has taken out radio and print ads in 13 states, claiming that 16 senators do not "believe that every child needs a mom and dad." But of the group Dobson has targeted, most of them are not up for reelection this year and six of the senators are Republicans, including popular stalwarts like New Hampshire's John Sununu and Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter. A separate ad in USA Today, paid for by Dobson's group and its ally, the Family Research Council, attacked both Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain for opposing the amendment.
Despite predictions to the contrary, the current debate does not appear to be another stroke of Machiavellian brilliance from presidential advisor Karl Rove, but simply a dutiful payoff to the president's base voters. "He couldn't not do it," explained Richard Viguerie, a prominent conservative activist who believes that gay marriage will not have much of an impact in 2006. "He's got an election coming up and he is 30 percent in the polls. Nothing, Dr. Samuel Johnson told us, focuses the mind like an impending hanging."
Whatever its role in the 2006 campaign, the debate on gay marriage will continue. At the Monday morning press conference, Allard announced that he hoped the current debate over amending the constitution will become an annual rite in Congress. "It takes a while, I think, for the Senate to realize how the Americans feel," said Allard, whom Time magazine described last month as one of the five worst senators. "It takes a while for the American public to realize what has happened."
He was referring, yet again, to the continued erosion of stable, heterosexual, two-parent homes in America. Time, of course, will tell if he is right. But it's a long shot, to say the least. The American people are not given to amending the Constitution to punish one group of people (committed gay and lesbian couples) for the sins of another group (uncommitted straight couples). The last time it happened was the 18th Amendment in 1919, when the United States decided that the danger of alcohol abuse for some outweighed the pleasures of an evening drink for many. Fifteen years later, the American people realized the error of their ways and ended Prohibition. Despite predictions to the contrary, our union remained strong.
Copyright ©2006 Salon Media Group, Inc
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this guy states my position on this pretty well. I am against this ammendment for the exact reason that it takes away some rights for a group of people. I dont have a problem with defining marriage as hetrosexual as its basis and that other unions should be called something else. If it went that way I dont think it would take very long for the distiction to become blurred and that it wouldnt make any difference anymore.
The best point the writer makes is that same sex marriage or unions or whatever you want to call it, has made no impact on regular hetrosexual marriage but that those marriages have been falling apart on their own and it is not really a gay problem at all. I agree 100% with that!! Marriages fail in the country because of a lot of things, but I dont think the gay movement or any number of same sex unions have had the slightest thing to do with it. Most marriages fail over economic matters; who earns the money and who spends it and on what it is spent. I also firmly believe that these days, infidelity is not much better for a hetrosexual couple than it is for a gay couple; although my feeling is that many of us will include many gay one night stands as a couple when it is more like a hetrosexual going to a whore house. Perhaps promiscuity is more prevelant in the gay community than in the hetrosexual world, but I would not like to bet on it. I think that in the past, pressure from the church and society in general kept many couple together in spite of a bad relationship or cheating, which is not the case so much these days.
I know a lot of what I say tends to be odd and almost contradictory, but I want to say why I say what I do. I really believe that it is good to have strong families and I have worked as a social worker and saw all the bad results of one parent families. I think that the majority of people will end up in a hetrosexual union of some kind and it is to society's benefit that those unions be strong so it is reasonable to try to endorse marriage.
That being said, I dont happen to think that allowing same sex unions to have the same legal standing is going to hurt marriage at all. I hesitate to make marriage be all-inclusive as that causes a lot of hate and discontent amoung a lot of those who are mis-informed. If same sex unions are given the same rights and priveledges as a marriage but just not called a marriage, then eventually this will become a non-issue. I personally dont have a problem with the term marriage including someone of the same sex but I know that many people bristle at that. Why not ease into this and get something instead of nothing. It is like the old saying about attracting a lot more bees with honey than with vinigar.
I will always be against these ammendments if they say anything about denying rights to some group.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
|
|
|
The US constitution was hard won. It cost blood. Having someone change it for political gain is almost treasonable, surely?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US Senate has blocked a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that had the backing of President George W Bush.
The motion gained the votes of 49 senators, 11 short of the 60 needed to allow the process to go forward.
Mr Bush said he was disappointed but called it "the start of a new chapter in this important national debate".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5056474.stm
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
