George Bush

P

PDJ

On a break
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
4,132
Location
brum
From yahoo news.

ASHINGTON -
President Bush on Saturday backed a resolution to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman even though the idea has little chance of being passed in the Senate.

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his Saturday radio address. "Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society."

Democrats say Senate floor time is being wasted on the issue, and accuse Republicans of making a pre-midterm election appeal to social conservatives whose votes were key to Bush's re-election.

This November, initiatives banning same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

"Sadly, President Bush is playing election-year politics with this divisive issue," the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Friday. "He is shamelessly using this ploy to energize his right-wing base. We should never rewrite the Constitution to enshrine intolerance."

The White House said Bush did not devote his radio address to the issue or decide to host a presidential event Monday to again endorse the amendment because it is politically expedient, but because there's a vote on it scheduled next week in the Senate.

"On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations and religious leaders," Bush said in urging Congress to pass the amendment and send it to the states for ratification. "They're Republicans, Democrats and independents who've come together to support this amendment."

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

Bush said the amendment would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat — Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska — has said he will vote for it.

Acknowledging that emotions often run hot in this debate, Bush urged calm.

"As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity," he said. "All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard."

David Buckel, Marriage Project director of Lambda Legal, a national organization working to protect the rights of lesbians, gay men and others, said the amendment would be damaging to the lives of same-sex couples and families, which raise millions of children.

"It would brand lesbian and gay men as legally inferior individuals," he said. "It would write into the supreme law of the land that this group of people are inferior and when it's the law, it's a message to everyone else in society that they have license to discriminate."

In his radio address, Bush struck back at judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation.

"Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years," the president said.

Bush said there is broad consensus in America to protect the institution of marriage.

Voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage, he said. Moreover, he said, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Nothing like a bit of stone age thinking eh?
 
I don't see it as stone age thinking. For me, marriage can only be the union between a man and a woman. I don't care what our law says regarding 'gay marriages'. Being legally permitted doesn't necessarily make it right. Is the next step 'marriage' between a human and his/her pet animal?
 
Along with getting abortions banned wherever possible (several states just signed up, I believe, though they're mostly in 'Deliverance' country), including where the pregnancies are the RESULT OF RAPE AND/OR INCEST. "Y'all gwine hev yer Pappy's babby, now, ya hear?"

That should lead to hundreds of septicaemia-related deaths, punctured uteruses, suicides (men, would you like to have a baby after you'd been gang-raped by three men you never knew?) and Christ knows what-all. No, every li'l baby is NOT a gift from God - a gift is something that's given and received with pleasure, not something forced brutally or evilly upon an unwilling girl or woman. This reduces females back to the Dark Ages of being mere vessels for men's seed - all very Biblical, so perhaps we'll see crucifixion reinstated as an acceptable method of despatching murderers and thieves?

And this from a country that professes to find the Taleban's oppression of women 'unacceptable'. Come back, Osama, all is forgiven.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Jun 3 2006, 08:16 PM
all very Biblical, so perhaps we'll see crucifixion reinstated as an acceptable method of despatching murderers and thieves?
Click to expand...
God forbid that Bush ever reads Talking Horses, please don't give him any ideas
 
If he does click on, Warbler, it'll be because he thinks it's a children's story-telling site, and suitable for him to wead at beddy-bye-byes time.
 
Originally posted by Desert Orchid@Jun 3 2006, 08:53 PM
Is the next step 'marriage' between a human and his/her pet animal?
Click to expand...
I assume that you are talking from the viewpoint of someone who believes in a god? Does this god not differentiate between human beings, whatever their sexual proclivities, and animals?
 
Originally posted by krizon@Jun 3 2006, 08:16 PM
Along with getting abortions banned wherever possible (several states just signed up, I believe, though they're mostly in 'Deliverance' country), including where the pregnancies are the RESULT OF RAPE AND/OR INCEST. "Y'all gwine hev yer Pappy's babby, now, ya hear?"

That should lead to hundreds of septicaemia-related deaths, punctured uteruses, suicides (men, would you like to have a baby after you'd been gang-raped by three men you never knew?) and Christ knows what-all. No, every li'l baby is NOT a gift from God - a gift is something that's given and received with pleasure, not something forced brutally or evilly upon an unwilling girl or woman. This reduces females back to the Dark Ages of being mere vessels for men's seed - all very Biblical, so perhaps we'll see crucifixion reinstated as an acceptable method of despatching murderers and thieves?

And this from a country that professes to find the Taleban's oppression of women 'unacceptable'. Come back, Osama, all is forgiven.
Click to expand...
As someone who believes in God - I'll come to Brian's question later - I believe all life, but especially human life, is precious. I cannot begin to imagine the emotional and physical trauma undergone by a girl or woman subjected to abuse of the nature described by Krizon. I can well understand that they would deeply resent, even hate, the 'fruit' of such an abonimable act.

However, does the unborn child deserve to be murdered? Is that not a form of revenge against the attacker(s), taken out against an innocent victim?

This is clearly a deeply emotional topic and one which tends to polarise opinion. For that reason, I have said my piece in response to Krizon's posting but will respectfully now withdraw from that element of the debate.

Brian, my perception of and belief in what is right will clearly differ from others. I believe marriage is the union bewteen a man and a woman. If others believe it should go beyond that, then I am entitled to question the point at which they would start to question others' proclivities.
 
'Marriages' as we traditionally think of them in our modern, Western society, are really fairly new developments. They're usually based on mutual attraction (love) and by two consenting people. Women used to just be given to men to use as they willed, the women were just goods, chattels, with no rights over their own bodies and certainly no protection against brutality and slavery. They could be changed, swapped, sold, sent into slavery or just disposed of at the will of their owner - their 'husband'. The Romans - wrongly seen as the moral superiors to other races - championed such a system, and it's a system which the Roman Catholic Church did nothing to alter for centuries during its relentless repression of female emancipation. I have a non-Catholic, non-religious female's angry and appalled view of such debasement of women, which biases my outlook on the issue of enforced impregnation and the misogyny inherent therein.

Of course, there are still millions of arranged unions worldwide every year, where culturally the notion of mutual attraction plays second fiddle to material stability and social reputation, with or without a belief in a god.

I don't see a marriage as anything other than a contract between two people. Once you accept it as a contract, I don't see the problem with it being between two people of the same gender. It isn't a 'union' in the sense that it will produce the offspring of both contractees, but then, thousands of barren male/female unions don't do that either, unless courtesy of donor mothers, donor fathers, and a number of variations of the reproductive system. (None of which were envisaged by Jesus or, to my very limited knowledge, sanctioned by any of His apostles, current or latterday. I assume that Catholicism views the production of a barren couple's child via a sperm donor as adultery, and thus a mortal sin.)

What is a marriage? A contract. What is a family? Pretty much whatever you make it nowadays: man/man with adopted kids; woman/woman with one receiving donated sperm from a chum; man/woman with donated eggs... or a widow with her husband's frozen sperm... :blink:
 
I was under the impression that "God" gave us the choice to act as we wish, to believe in "Him" or not etc etc.

Assuming for a second that such a "God" exists, would "He" want the governing bodies of this world to remove that choice, on "His" behalf?
 
Defeated by one vote thank God.

From yahoo.com

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing a defeat to
President Bush and Republicans who hope to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.

Supporters knew they wouldn't achieve the two-thirds vote needed to approve a constitutional amendment, but they had predicted a majority of votes. Instead, they fell one short, 49-48.

That was one vote more than they got last time the Senate voted on the matter, in 2004. Later that year, Republicans gained four seats in the Senate.

"We were hoping to get over 50 percent, but that didn't happen today," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the amendment's supporters. "Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better."

"We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan.

Wednesday's vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally in the Senate. The 2004 vote was 48-50.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush sees the issue in the long view.

"The defeat does not mean that he is despondent or he gives up on it," Snow said. "He knows that it's a long fight."

Supporters lost three key "yes" votes. Two Republicans changed their votes from yes in 2004 to no this time: Sens. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. And Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., did not vote this time because he was traveling with Bush.

All told, seven Republicans voted to kill the amendment. The four others were Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

Gregg said that in 2004, he believed the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that state would undermine the prerogatives of other states, like his, to prohibit such unions.

"Fortunately, such legal pandemonium has not ensued," Gregg said in a statement. "The past two years have shown that federalism, not more federal laws, is a viable and preferable approach."

A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as the proposed amendment does, according to a poll out this week by ABC News. But an equal majority opposes amending the Constitution on this issue, the poll found.

"Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. He told the Senate on Tuesday he does not support the amendment.

The tally Wednesday put the ban 18 votes short of the 67 needed for the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment.

Republicans had hoped for a better showing given their four-seat gain in the Senate after the 2004 election, with supporters predicting more than 50 votes in favor of sending the measure for an up-or-down vote, called cloture.

Asked whether Bush could have done more than voicing his support for the measure in recent days, Brownback replied, "He could have done more, but he doesn't have a vote in this one."

Sen. Wayne Allard (news, bio, voting record), R-Colo., acknowledged supporters of the amendment never were sure how the votes would fall Wednesday.

"We have never really, I don't think, got a real hard grip on the cloture vote," Allard told reporters. "Since the last election we had, we figured we would know where everybody was."

But the defeat is by no means the amendment's last stand, said its supporters.

"I do not believe the sponsors are going to fall back and cry about it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah. "I think they are going to keep bringing it up."

The House plans a redux next month, said Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner told reporters. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote."

The defeat came despite daily appeals for passage from Bush, whose standing is troubled by sagging poll numbers and a dissatisfied conservative base.

The
Vatican also added muscle to the argument Tuesday, naming gay marriage as one of the factors threatening the traditional family as never before.

Democrats said the debate was a divisive political ploy.

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."

In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage — 19 with constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become ratified, it would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the only Democratic senator who supports the amendment, voted "yes." The only other Democrat to vote in favor of moving forward with an up-or-down vote Wednesday, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, opposes the amendment itself.

Three senators did not vote: Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and John Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
 
I can't see anything to be thankful for in that result, i speak only about the male aspect of course.
 
Derek, do you not think that view is now either defunct or fascist? The time has gone since people were stoned to death for being homosexual and I am thankful we have moved on. Should homosexuals still not be allowed to marry because the Bible says they shouldn't? Personally, I think the Bible is a work of fiction anyway so don't live my life according to the laws laid down therein.
 
PDJ,
of course the bible is a work of fiction, your mate wrote it.

By the way, see no reference made by Bush that Homosexuals should be stoned.

I don't agree with Gay (male) marraige, period.

Let them live together and give them whatever rights you like.
 
Derek, point 1 is meaningless. Can you explain? I am 28, not 2000 years old.

Point 2, Bush doesn't need to say they should be stoned, his thinking belongs in the same era.

Point 3, that is your belief but can you explain why you disagree with it? Is it just a generational thing?Do you have a problem with lesbians marrying as you reference only men? If not, why not?

Point 4, I would like them to live together and have the right to marriage, thank you.
 
OI!! Bog off with that 'generational' bit, matey! :angry: Whatever Derek opines or not, it's nowt to do with being in one's 60s.
 
Denial of the right to civil marriage for gays is blatantly a civil rights violation. I don't understand why some people don't mind gay couples having all the rights and status in law of marriage, but are offended by the actual use of the word. It's completely illogical.
 
PDJ.

Point 1: if you are only 28, what is the proof that the Bible is a work of fiction?

Point 2: you are entirled to believe what you like about Bush, i don't have to share them.

Point 3: is a really stupid question.

Point 4: there is no need to thank me, we are all allowed an opinion.
 
It's because they don't understand that 'a marriage' means, simply, 'a union' - as in a marriage of butter and eggs, a marriage of lime and banana, a marriage of two pieces of furniture, et cetera - two items, unionized, mixed/drawn/brought/blended together to make one - in this case, a legal partnership.
 
Back
Top