Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Is the writer referring to the polygamy ban?

Really, why would an 'objective' news source headline it as a 'Gay Marriage Ban'? The amendment doesn't mention gay marriage! Not once.

The appropriate headline would be 'Bush Backs Marriage Protection Amendment'.

You're right, here's the Federal Marriage Amendment:

2004 Version (H.J. Res. 106 (108th Congress 2004) and S.J. Res. 40 (108th Congress 2004)):

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. 2. 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.

But give me a break OttO, even Fox News' headline was "Marriage Amendment Could Soothe Angry Right." We all know who this amendment is for, and who it will affect. Maybe the supporters of this amendment are too embarrassed about how they are treating 'thy neighbor' to call it what it is, but in my opinion it is deceitful not to clearly inform the public of the nature of a given law.

I may be wrong, but I thought that the history of Christianity was littered with stories of persecution by groups who felt that Christian behavior:
1) was unnatural (e.g., belief in only one God instead of the pantheon).
2) was immoral (e.g., the sacrament was misunderstood to be cannibalistic).
3) impinged on a sense of self (true, I believe, of all religions but one's own).
4) probably plenty else that anti-Christians felt "morally bound to oppose" (to quote Yar).

Now look who's doing the persecuting. I used to think that the basic right of people to be free of an institutionalized religious prejudice was one of the few things that religious people and I had in common.

Bush can always rely on meaningless issues to stir the masses and revive his dreadfully low poll numbers. The Gov't has no right determining what constitutes marriage, this is a contrived issue designed by homophobes and mislead christian fundamentalists. Anyone with half a heart and half a brain should spit on any such proposed amendment.

As I previously mentioned, Bush is going to use wedge issues in time for the election, in hopes of keeping his party in power. Today, he brought up the gay marriage amendment. He wants to create a federal role in marriage, which is a reserved right of the states. He also wants to create the first amendment that will actually stomp on civil rights, instead of expanding them.

Keep in mind that this is an election year, and staying in power is the only reason they are resurrecting this topic. Even if you disagree with gay marriage, you must look at this president and his beleaguered party. Do you really want this party to stay in power? Is this man a good Christian, honestly???

Micrastur - The Fox Headline called it a 'marriage amendment', NOT a 'gay-marriage ban'. Thanks for the example.

I don't take a Christian view of SSM. I take a Constitutional and practical view.

Persecuting? Give me a break. This shows you don't know what persecution means, particularly as this country has been going through a sort of homosexual renassaince.

Puzzles - if it's meaningless, than homosexuals should back off of marriage, right? Or should it just be meaningless to the side that you oppose?

The govt has every right and obligation to define civil marriage - it's a govt institution!

You are right though - I've come across many people with half-a-brain and they all spit on the amendment.

@The OttoO Show

If you understood properly what I said, it's meaningless because the Gov't has no right to constrain marriage to a certain definition. Why should it be defined between man and woman? Why, answer that question Otto? And why should homosexuals back off marriage?

Homosexuals are born gay. Just as whites are born white, blacks are born black. Maybe we should define marriage as only a white, heterosexual institution.

I hope you have something intelligent to respond with.

Correct me if I am wrong, governing marriage is only applicable after your religion has wed you and your spouse. Otto's claim that marriage is a government institution highlights his naivety in the matter of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, a belief, a cultural indiosyncrasy descript of Christianity or to be even more specific "Abrahamic Religions" (Ref.). You would do well to respond with more thought-out defenses for government legislation of behaviors, as yours was quite thin and poorly explained.

People get "marriage" certificates to register their joint holdings and connections for tax reasons, power of attorney reasons and liability reasons (child support, spousal abuse, and criminal activty). Beyond those reasons, I see no justification as to why more than one man or woman may wed (if they do so willingly) or as to why SSM should not be allowed.

Also, to go along with what this article was originally saying: Bush supporting a gay marriage ban is nothing new, he has been doing so since the last time this issue came around in 2004, when it was also handily defeated.

Puzzles - Civil Marriage is a govt endorsed contract - the people have every right to define it as they see fit and every right to preserve for what it has always been.

Whether homoexuals are born that way or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

eSantiago - you are wrong so I will correct you. Civil marraige has nothing to do with religion. Your church can orm gay marriages but only as a religious union. It won't be recognized by the state. Likewise, you can go down to the courthouse in most locales and get married without anything but an ID - you don't need religious endorsement to be granted a civil marriage. what you do need are two unmarried people, a man and a woman.

SSM and polygamy are not endorsed by the govt because they have no societal benefit. I'll ask you a question: WHY do you think that government is interested in marriage to begin with? What is the reason for civil marriage?

Otto - What exactly is marriage if nothing but civility? The term "civil marriage" is fascist positioning term use by politicos to make the opposite seem un-civilized (or immoral). I suggest a old name, "Marriage", not that I like old fashioned things but this seems to fit.

I don't think you have said anything that corrected me. Marriage IS and always has been a religious institution. You can get married "legally" (marriage certificate) by a judge as they have the legal precedent to register/witness your union and officiate the government paperwork (sign it). Pastors/Reverands/Priests/Imams also have a block on a marriage certificate (typically Witness, some states have a block called Minister) for them to sign. Why should that be on a government document? I mean, where is the relevance?

There is social benefit to SSM and polygamy, ie. instead of children who growing up fatherless (or motherless) they can grow up with multiple mothers/fathers. Structure is important in a household, but who the heck does the government think they are telling civilians what structure is correct? Its entirely none of the governments business, as is their religion!

And that's not even the implication I am getting at, I really think you are backing up my statement that marriage is a religious institution with this statement (so you really didn't correct me).

Your church can orm (form?) gay marriages but only as a religious union. It won't be recognized by the state.

No it won't, because marriage is a religious institution, and to tell people one-way or another is correct on marriage is to legislate a sanctioned institution of a specific religion (ie. moral bigotry).

Okay, so you got married by a military chaplain which indicates to me that you didn't go through the typical marriage process and doesn't change my assumption that you don't understand it. Get over yourself - it wasn't a criticism, it was a response to your denial that their is such a thing as civil marriage (one of the many definitions of 'civil' is "of the state". Maybe you should get a better dictionary). And please don't tell me that I may be misusing a defintion of a word. I am not. Frankly, we are splitting hairs over nothing and getting off subject, unless you are flat-out denying that governments grant marriage licenses!

As far as your examples: of course marriage is delegated by states and counties - I have already stated that. What does this change?

And as far as the 9th Amendment: When it says 'not delegated...by the Constitution', what do you think an amendment does? It DELEGATES SOMETHING NEW TO THE CONSTITUTION! An amendment defines the Constitution and further sets the guidelines to what laws can and cannot do.

And your example of the 1st Amendment is a new one and clever but erroneous in every sense of the word.

As I've already laid out (and you have completely ignored), civil marriage (again, for those of you who are having a tough time with this - marriage licenses granted by governments) has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION!

I do love these kinds of discussions though - first it was about religion. I respond and instead of discussing my response, you spin off into percieved Constitutional violations. What's next?

eSantiago's smartly argued "version" of the 1st amendment is as new as Thomas Jefferson.

The 1st amendment makes it so you are free to have your religion, and I am free to have mine. The 9th amendment protects us just in case my religion interferes with yours, or yours with mine. Freedom of religion does us no good without freedom from religion.

Imagine some new age, lefty, nut bar managed to slick-willy his way into office, and then felt he had the mandate to start legislating the worship of relative moral values, or legistlating that we spend a set amount of time learning homosexual's lifestyle in order to promote a healthy, what-he-thinks-is-ordained-by-God understanding of diversity. Would you not want protection from his religion? If your preference was to stay away from homosexuals, you shouldn't have to worry if a ruling party's religion finds that course of action to be morally unacceptable.

Hey Bush is on a roll, why not take away women's suffrage and start segreation again.