TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bush's new popularity grab
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush's new popularity grab - Page 3

post #61 of 74
I'm a little confused on why people seem to think their personal moral beliefs should dictate the laws that govern a whole country in which not all, and not even most, of the citizens don't agree with them. Living a life based on religion is fine for you, but making other people live their lives based on your religion is unamerican. Yes, I said Unamerican.
Thinking that being gay is a sin has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is legal to ban gay marriage. The question is, is it just to deny the right of marriage to people based on sexual orientation?

And that is the terrifying thing about living in America today. Our rights and freedoms are being stripped away in the name of the Christian god, and everyone who would have protested before is scared into submission.
post #62 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom
I'm a little confused on why people seem to think their personal moral beliefs should dictate the laws that govern a whole country
It is impossible for me to vote without plenty of conviction. I vote for people I could trust. I have voted many times and had not regreted a single vote. People I could trust often think like me. People's moral beliefs influence everything and anything to do, not just politics.

Sometimes a politician makes very good laws but I could not trust him because laws come with addenums and specific "pork barrel" clauses. Some of those are more important than the laws themselves.
post #63 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom
I'm a little confused on why people seem to think their personal moral beliefs should dictate the laws that govern a whole country in which not all, and not even most, of the citizens don't agree with them. Living a life based on religion is fine for you, but making other people live their lives based on your religion is unamerican. Yes, I said Unamerican.
Thinking that being gay is a sin has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is legal to ban gay marriage. The question is, is it just to deny the right of marriage to people based on sexual orientation?

And that is the terrifying thing about living in America today. Our rights and freedoms are being stripped away in the name of the Christian god, and everyone who would have protested before is scared into submission.
I'm not a particularly religious person, and I really resent people who try to tell me what I should believe. Butt out! I won't criticize your beliefs, just as long as you accord me the right to act according to my own.
What you consider "right" isn't universal, and there's no way I want any government telling me what I "should" believe, What separazes Christian fundamentalists from Afghanistan's Taliban? Or Iran's "religious police"?
post #64 of 74
The way I look at it, homosexuals are no less people than heterosexuals, and deserve the same LEGAL rights as anyone else can get. That includes the legal right to marry in the eyes of the state. If a religion thinks homosexual marriage isn't right, they don't have to perform the ceremony and bless the union. But legally, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed the same things as a man & woman - tax provisions, insurance, power of attorney, hospital visitation (as family), adopting children, divorce, alimony, child support, etc. But for the State to refuse to grant them those same rights, entitlements, and responsibilities, is nothing less than discrimination IMO.
post #65 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
The way I look at it, homosexuals are no less people than heterosexuals, and deserve the same LEGAL rights as anyone else can get. That includes the legal right to marry in the eyes of the state. If a religion thinks homosexual marriage isn't right, they don't have to perform the ceremony and bless the union. But legally, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed the same things as a man & woman - tax provisions, insurance, power of attorney, hospital visitation (as family), adopting children, divorce, alimony, child support, etc. But for the State to refuse to grant them those same rights, entitlements, and responsibilities, is nothing less than discrimination IMO.
True.

I cannot see myself criticizing anyone for legislating either for or against homosexual marriage. The way I see this is: we voted for them so they can perform according to their beliefs. If they are voting for a legislation that they don't believe, then they are not worth voting for. I would never trust someone who vote for (or against) anything then recinds the position a year later.

Politicians are people, too. People only function properly when they do whatever they believe is right. So is someone believes it is right (or wrong) we don't really have the right for telling he/her to legislate otherwise.
post #66 of 74
You must remember though, that one of the downfalls of democracy (and there are a few, no system of government is perfect) is that sometimes people elect someone into office who isn't necessarily acting in the best interest of the people. And sometimes people defraud the public when being "elected" into office (for an interesting story about this, read this month's Rolling Stone article on the election in Ohio).

Also, when electing officials you elect the best one for whatever reason, not necessarily because you agree with everything they do. Being elected into office is NOT a liscense to do anything you want. An elected official has been entrusted by a percentage of the people to act in the interest of all people. They should not act only in the interests of those who voted for them, as they have been elected to represent all people in their district, state, or country-- and all people includes those who are gay, those who hate their guts, etc.

What politicians often forget, but most high school government students know, is that exactly. They were elected to act on behalf of all people, not just those who voted for them, because it would be near-impossible to have a true democracy in which all people represent themselves. They are supposed to be representatives, not just going on their own beliefs. If I thought someone with whose views I absolutely disagreed would do a better job of governing by what everyone truly thinks/believes I would vote for them over someone who I totally agreed with.

In short, gay people are part of the population these politicians are supposed to be representing. And they are not doing that well at all by limiting their right to legal marriage. I totally agree with Heidi, if a church doesn't want to do a ceremony, they have every right not to. But the office at Town Hall where they should be able to obtain a marriage liscense does not have any basis that is legal-- discrimination is illegal in every other way.
Catholic churches do not have to marry couples in which one person is not Catholic, but the same couple can certainly get a marriage liscense!
post #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom
In short, gay people are part of the population these politicians are supposed to be representing. And they are not doing that well at all by limiting their right to legal marriage. I totally agree with Heidi, if a church doesn't want to do a ceremony, they have every right not to. But the office at Town Hall where they should be able to obtain a marriage liscense does not have any basis that is legal-- discrimination is illegal in every other way.
Catholic churches do not have to marry couples in which one person is not Catholic, but the same couple can certainly get a marriage liscense!


You gave a great example here. Town Halls marry based on whether your a [heterosexual] citizen. Not based on your beliefs or lifestyles. Do they refuse the right to marry a man that cheats? No. What about someone who may be physically challenged? No. So then so what if you're gay?

I also like the idea of the church's right to refuse a marriage. Heck, I use to be in a string quartet that did weddings. One church that we were suppose to play at told the bride & groom he would refuse to marry them if they had anything other than the organ playing.

We're suppose to be a nation of separate church and state, however we still have a thick gray border. This issue is obviously in that thick,gray border. The law was established based on a person's belief or what their version of the bible says. We have WAY too many religions now to base our laws on one particular one.
post #68 of 74
From what I heard, the Defense of Marriage Act of 2006 already prevents most (if not all) states from recognizing same sex marriage.
post #69 of 74
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
That's not exactly true... The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996:
What the law does is say that no state will be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage in their state, so if you go to Massachusetts and get married, you're only married in Massachusetts or another state which will recognize your marriage. It also defines what marriage is according to federal law-- which is between one man and one woman-- but it does not say that other marriages defined by a state are illegal or that they can't legalize them. It just says federal law does not have to recognize them.

I assume you mean the Marriage Protection Act of 2005? If so, it's still not true, all that did was prevent the courts from ordering states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states...again. If you're talking about something else, I'd love to see a link!
post #70 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
That's not exactly true... The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996:
What the law does is say that no state will be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage in their state, so if you go to Massachusetts and get married, you're only married in Massachusetts or another state which will recognize your marriage. It also defines what marriage is according to federal law-- which is between one man and one woman-- but it does not say that other marriages defined by a state are illegal or that they can't legalize them. It just says federal law does not have to recognize them.
That is actually what I meant. No other state besides Massachusettes is likely to establish gay marriage before 2010, and since other states don't have to honor the gay marriages performed by Massachusettes...........adding a Constitutional Amendment is unnecessary.
post #71 of 74
Yes, but states are free to choose to recognize them if they want, you originally stated that states would be forbidden to do so. Just clearing it up!

Also, some states have much more lenient policies. Check out the chart at the bottom of this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense...iage_Amendment.

It's appalling to me that my state passed a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting it, but the man who pushed it through is one of the most crooked politicians in the history of Ohio, excluding the current governor and well, James Traficant...
post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by caprice
Why do you want to legalize your union? I am trying to figure out both sides here.
Why wouldn't a couple, gay or straight, want to legalize their union? The same reasons that ANY couple that is in love would want to legalize their union.
It ticks me off that Bush would bring this up again, knowing his efforts would fail AND potentially bring up a very painful subject for a large portion of our society, for political gain. I am beyond ashamed of him.
post #73 of 74
Aside from the simple fact that for straight people, marriage is the natural progression of a relationship between two people who have decided to be committed for life, and so why not for gay people as well, there are several other reasons.

Think of all the benefits marriage gives you. Visitation in hospital in cases where it is family-only, life insurance, joint tax returns, buying of houses/property/assets, shelter from the law in the same sorts of things that result in divorce now, etc. Gay couples do have children, sometimes from previous straight marriages, and the new partner often has absolutely no rights at all. What if one of them dies? Where do the kids go, where does the house go, where does everything go? Of course they can have wills, but things happen to people who don't have them, and then the state decides. Often, wouldn't everything go to the parents of the partner with no children, when if they were married everything would stay with their spouse and the children.
Another huge issue is health insurance. My university currently offers "partner" benefits for long-term gay couples, but most places do not. If they were married, the whole family would get the insurance benefits, which in a country with no universal health care, is extremely important. And pension plans and all that sort of stuff.
This is what is meant by legal marriage. It is an economically sound idea, and also provides stability to both partners. And why shouldn't they have that? More importantly, why shouldn't their children?
post #74 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom
Aside from the simple fact that for straight people, marriage is the natural progression of a relationship between two people who have decided to be committed for life, and so why not for gay people as well, there are several other reasons.

Think of all the benefits marriage gives you. Visitation in hospital in cases where it is family-only, life insurance, joint tax returns, buying of houses/property/assets, shelter from the law in the same sorts of things that result in divorce now, etc. Gay couples do have children, sometimes from previous straight marriages, and the new partner often has absolutely no rights at all. What if one of them dies? Where do the kids go, where does the house go, where does everything go? Of course they can have wills, but things happen to people who don't have them, and then the state decides. Often, wouldn't everything go to the parents of the partner with no children, when if they were married everything would stay with their spouse and the children.
Another huge issue is health insurance. My university currently offers "partner" benefits for long-term gay couples, but most places do not. If they were married, the whole family would get the insurance benefits, which in a country with no universal health care, is extremely important. And pension plans and all that sort of stuff.
This is what is meant by legal marriage. It is an economically sound idea, and also provides stability to both partners. And why shouldn't they have that? More importantly, why shouldn't their children?
Very eloquently put!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bush's new popularity grab