Bush and the banning of "gay" marriages.

[Pilmour Boy]

As I'm sure most of you have heard, today Bush announced that he will back a constitutional amendment limiting the definition of "marriage" to being between a man and a woman.

Here is the speech, as reported on both sides of the pond.

The BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3518117.stm
Sky News:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3 ... 88,00.html

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html
Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112314,00.html

I was talking to an American friend of mine last week, and she told me that she expected this to be a big thing in the run up to the election in November. The thing to remember with this is that not only is Bush acting on instinct here, he is also being electorally canny, with a policy that will attract a non-core Republican group- black Christians.

[RaphX]

He said the move was needed to protect "the most fundamental institution of civilisation."

It's good to know that civilisation amounts to discrimination and suppression.

[Greebo]

ARSEHOLE!

That is all

[hr]http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[strikethepose]

what really gets me, and the reason i have been shouting at bush on tv, is the fact that he wants to alter the american constitution, the document which guarantees individuals the inalienable right right to bear arms. One only has to look at the amount of gun crime to see how that has worked out for american society-arent thay also allowed the pursuit of life, liberty etc? And gun ownership is part of that huh? And prohibition?
Anyway what i am trying to say (very inarticulately)...what the hell is the point of having such a document as the constitution if a wanker of an asshole han change it willy-nilly just to grab some votes?
And I agree that it is a very clever ploy on Bush's part (well obviously not Bush's part as clearly he is as thick as ....an amoeba in molasses). He knows with the unpopularity of the war in iraq, the poor econemy and a myriad of other things, that he has virtually no chance of being reelected. Thus, he jumps into this hugely emotive subject area, getting the heeeeeuuuuuuggggeeeee religious right on his side with no effort whatsoever.
And dont get me started on the religious right....


[hr]BOROMIR: Don't call me an idiot, dork.
LEGOLAS: This is no mere dork. This is your King. And my boyfriend.
Silence as entire COUNCIL stares at ARAGORN and LEGOLAS.
ARAGORN: (in Elvish) Great, Legolas. Just great.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Obviously, in Bush's eyes homosexuals aren't real people. Perhaps more worrying than that is the fact it's actually going to win him votes.

[Haunted]

I think its about time they separated the church and state totally. so that it would be upto the church to grant marriages (for it is a religious thing remember) but that the state could grant the rights and privelidges of it (such as parental rigts and so forth) and call it something else. They already have something like that called civil unions but they dont come close to 'marridge'.

Oh and just to clarify its the marridge of church and state I'm against not gay marridge

[Pussycat]

[s]Haunted wrote on 21:02, 24th Feb 2004:
so that it would be upto the church to grant marriages (for it is a religious thing remember)


Marriage is not a religious thing. You can debate it all you like but even the OED has the first definition of the word "marriage" as:

The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.
The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.


The term "marriage" has been hijacked to mean "married in the eyes of God". But the word still means to be "married legally".

Many hetero couples are married outside of a church, but most people wouldn't dream of calling it a civil union. Because it's not, it's marriage. As far as I'm concerned marriage is a private thing that no one else should have any say in. If two people love each other then it should be their choice whether or not to get married. It's not like it hurts anyone else!

However, I don't think they should be married in a church if they do not comply with that churches rules - it would be disrespectful. But I remain hopeful that churches will change their stance on the matter of whether or not it is sinful (which I don't think it is) and then people who happen to be religious and homosexual will be able to get married wherever they like.

Religion in itself is no bad thing, it's when it gets organised that you get people who get a kick out of being a "higher being" compared to others who are below their contempt. And that is very dangerous.

[Setsuna]

Did any of you see a programme on channel 4 recently about 'purity pledges'? I believe it was about a town in Texas where a George W Bush law prevented people from having sex outwith wedlock, or something similar. It was very weird...

I agree. You can kill as many people as you want but you cant marry the person you love. Constitution seems a bit hate orientated.

All hail the United States of America - Land of the Free!

[Guest]

Well I think President Bush is right in limiting marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman.

Let them have a civil union but it definately should not be marriage. That should only be for a man an a woman.

Go Bush!!!!

[ever_nocturnal]

.

[Greebo]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 20:50, 24th Feb 2004:
Well I think President Bush is right in limiting marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman.

Let them have a civil union but it definately should not be marriage. That should only be for a man an a woman.

Go Bush!!!!


I think President Bush is right in limiting marriage to be defined as between a white man and a white woman.

Let them (black men and women) have a civil union but it definately should not be marriage. That should only be for a white man and a white woman.

Same tunes, different discriminations. You are talking pure and utter shite. You call it 'civil unions' in an effort to try and make it seem that you are not being discriminatory when in fact you blatently are.

Why shouldn't it be called marriage? That's what it would be!

(Note: For those slow on the uptake, the parodied quote in bold does not in any way represent my views)

[hr]
http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[grousefanatic]

[s]ever_nocturnal wrote on 22:05, 24th Feb 2004:
As someone who actually is gay, I don't think that the rush to marry in certain towns is the way to go. It has obviously scared authorities and led to this ridiculous idea of amendment.
There is little debate that George W is unfit to rule over any state.


As an American's reply on the BBC website said, the US Constitution promises to acknowledge the rights of all the people of the country ... from their history we can see that those in power haven't necessarily followed all those rules for their country. Perhaps there's small print that no one noticed at the bottom that says "This constitution does not apply to all these minorities etc...". I wonder if all the Californians who voted for Arnie are having second thoughts. Perhaps California should become its own country ... I know several people from that state who would like that, and it would leave the authorities free to allow whatever union/marriage/civil rights they wanted.

[Mister Frodo]

[s]ever_nocturnal wrote on 22:05, 24th Feb 2004:[i]
As someone who actually is gay, I don't think that the rush to marry in certain towns is the way to go.

Maybe homosexuals would get greater respect from society in general if something was done to address the perception of promiscuity in the community. As someone who is actually gay too, one of the problems is that a lot of people think that gay guys go out every night and find a different guy to shag, and admittedly, some do. Many just interested in putting as many notches in their bedposts as possible. Society sees that and thinks we are all like this.
Perhaps if more young gay men would step up to the challenge of monogamy and committed relationships, a greater respect and tolerance would emerge.

[Sleigh]

[s]Mister Frodo wrote on 00:41, 25th Feb 2004:
Maybe homosexuals would get greater respect from society in general if something was done to address the perception of promiscuity in the community. As someone who is actually gay too, one of the problems is that a lot of people think that gay guys go out every night and find a different guy to shag, and admittedly, some do. Many just interested in putting as many notches in their bedposts as possible. Society sees that and thinks we are all like this.
Perhaps if more young gay men would step up to the challenge of monogamy and committed relationships, a greater respect and tolerance would emerge.

And no straight men do this? Or indeed women I suppose.

[grousefanatic]

[s]grousefanatic wrote on 00:40, 25th Feb 2004:
[s]ever_nocturnal wrote on 22:05, 24th Feb 2004:[i]
As someone who actually is gay, I don't think that the rush to marry in certain towns is the way to go. It has obviously scared authorities and led to this ridiculous idea of amendment.
There is little debate that George W is unfit to rule over any state.


As an American's reply on the BBC website said, the US Constitution promises to acknowledge the rights of all the people of the country ... from their history we can see that those in power haven't necessarily followed all those rules for their country. Perhaps there's small print that no one noticed at the bottom that says "This constitution does not apply to all these minorities etc...". I wonder if all the Californians who voted for Arnie are having second thoughts. Perhaps California should become its own country ... I know several people from that state who would like that, and it would leave the authorities free to allow whatever union/marriage/civil rights they wanted. It's also kinda funny that the Attorney General for CA has told Arnie where to go. I wonder when they finished the conversation, he said "Alright, I shall leave now but i'll be back " Oh dear sometimes I scare myself, I think I've used too much Olbas Inhaler!



[hr]
veni vidi nates calce concidi - i came, i saw, i kicked ass

[grousefanatic]

[s]Sleigh wrote on 00:47, 25th Feb 2004:
[s]Mister Frodo wrote on 00:41, 25th Feb 2004:[i]
Maybe homosexuals would get greater respect from society in general if something was done to address the perception of promiscuity in the community. As someone who is actually gay too, one of the problems is that a lot of people think that gay guys go out every night and find a different guy to shag, and admittedly, some do. Many just interested in putting as many notches in their bedposts as possible. Society sees that and thinks we are all like this.
Perhaps if more young gay men would step up to the challenge of monogamy and committed relationships, a greater respect and tolerance would emerge.

And no straight men do this? Or indeed women I suppose.
[/i]

Trust us, as gay men, we know that there is a greater stereotype for "open relationships", just watch Will&Grace for a few episodes and listen to Jack reel off his list of men! I can assure you it's very like that, especially in places like London, Manchester and Blackpool, having been to all of the above

[hr]
veni vidi nates calce concidi - i came, i saw, i kicked ass

[Prophet Tenebrae]

If anything, it's ironic that in a nation that supposedly prides itself on the seperation of Church and State - that this is an issue which the State wants to so desperately involve itself for obvious gain.

[neutrino]

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

[Sleigh]

[s]grousefanatic wrote on 00:51, 25th Feb 2004:
Trust us, as gay men, we know that there is a greater stereotype for "open relationships", just watch Will&Grace for a few episodes and listen to Jack reel off his list of men! I can assure you it's very like that, especially in places like London, Manchester and Blackpool, having been to all of the above.

I can say that I know some straight men that can reel off a list of their conquests too. I just don't see that as a reason. Not that I'm against gay marriage you understand - go for it. Interesting how everyone seems keen to point this out in this thread isn't it?And watch Will and Grace? Dear God no. It's just not funny.

[echo]

For those with a love of irony
try
http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/001085.html

The repulisigan governor of Texas (Bush's annointed heir of the state) has been having some trouble

[hr]Manchester, so much to answer for