Don't you LOVE G.Bush's plan to ammend the Constitution?

Discussion in 'Gay News' started by lover/young_peace, Jan 23, 2005.

  1. lover/young_peace

    lover/young_peace Senior Member

  2. prism

    prism :o

  3. PhotoGra1

    PhotoGra1 Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Here is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on same-sex marraige:

    On July 9, 2004, in a discussion at Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, a participant asked President George W. Bush about his plans for banning gay marriages in the fifty states. The President should be commended for the beginning of his response, stating, this is, first of all, a very sensitive issue that people need to take a deep breath and debate with the ultimate of respect, for starters (GPO 1220). The President stresses the importance of traditional marriage. He expresses concerns that any redefinition of marriage by itself will weaken marriage, and that history has proven that society has been well served by the traditional definition of marriage. Secondly, says the President, this is a subject which ought not be decided by courts (1220). Another concern expressed by the President, that was both peculiar and predictable, was a court could decide, redefine marriage - a court - the people would get married, and they'd come to another State and say, You must accept me as married - us as a married couple, which then redefines the marriage in the new State. In his conclusion to the question, President Bush said, "and I repeat to you - my own view is, is that if a State - if people decide to - what they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do. This is America. It's a free society, but it doesn't mean we have to redefine traditional marriage" (1220).
    After a quick review of the literature, it becomes apparent that the only thing history has proven about marriage is that it is a changing, and discriminatory institution. By "traditional marriage," it is assumed that the President is referring to opposite-sex marriages. It is important to note, however, that in the broader sense of the word tradition, slave marriages were only recognized at the notion of their masters, and had no legal significance, whites and blacks could not marry each other, and women were viewed as property of their husbands, with few or no rights of their own. Many of these injustices continued well into the twentieth century. Historically, one could correlate changes to traditional marriage with the weakening of marriage, but one should not assume causation. Many things correlate with the weakening of marriage, such as increased oil consumption, space travel, and urban sprawl. It is futile to assume that these absurd correlations caused the weakening of marriage, just as it is futile to assume causation from women's liberation, miscegenation, or proposed same-sex marriage. Each change, or proposed change, in marriage needs to be judged on its own merits, and not as a component of some process causing a corrosion of marriage. In response to the President's assertion that courts ought not decide same-sex marriage, one might ask the President how, then, would a same-sex couple proceed. Without legal recognition by the courts, it is unlikely that any two individuals who decide to proceed with an unrecognized same-sex marriage will be of much effect. As the President continues, he very carefully addresses the ñrightsî of people who oppose same-sex marriage, instead of offering suggestions to protect the rights of all citizens, equally. He is quite candid with his concern that a State prohibiting same-sex marriage will have to accept the same-sex marriage of a couple moving into that State, from another State permitting such unions. In what seems to be an attempt at maintaining a neutral stance on homosexuality, the President then further demeans homosexuals, trivializing it as something that occurs in privacy, which in this case appears to infer secrecy; something that should only be considered behind a closed bedroom door. Surely, the President would not suggest that his own marriage is only to be recognized in the privacy of his own home. Marriage consists of public vows and ceremony, and demands public commitment. One enduring symbol of marriage is markedly public, the ring.
    In 1996, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Actî (DOMA), limiting the federal definition of marriage to exclude same-sex couples. As stated by author William Eskridge, if the sponsors of DOMA actually wanted to defend marriage, they would seek to end threats to marriage that already exist, such as full faith and credit for Nevada divorces, and not for a future scenario that poses only a hypothetical threat, like same-sex marriages (11). Thirty-seven states have adopted laws similar to DOMA, including Virginia. Since they cannot marry, thousands of gay and lesbian Virginians have taken other legal steps necessary to protect themselves and their children. Because of the Virginia Marriage Affirmation Act, the legal protections contracted by many same-sex partners are void. In addition to prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions, this legislation overturns any agreements between same-sex partners that bestow any rights afforded by marriage. This includes many routine contracts, such as medical directives, joint custody arrangements, and mutual wills. For any person legitimately concerned with
    Protecting the institution of marriage against immoral unions, there are other, more appropriate, targets for their indignation. Under Virginia law, for example, a man who rapes and impregnates a 14-year-old girl can be relieved of his crime if he then agrees to marry the girl and her parents consent. Such a rapist marriage would then be recognized in other states. Why not defend against rapist and child molestation marriages? (Eskridge 11)

    Throughout American history, the Constitution has been amended to protect the rights and liberties of the American people. It has been amended to abolish slavery, to keep the government out of people's lives, and to give women and blacks the right to vote. The Constitution has only been used to limit rights one other time, Prohibition, which proved disastrous, and required a repeal. Furthermore, the Constitution has only once explicitly endorsed discrimination, by recognizing slavery and defining slaves as three-fifths of a person. Over two centuries later America still suffers the negative ramifications of this horrific constitutional compromise. It should not now be used, again, to single out some Americans for disparate and unequal treatment. The treatment of homosexuals as second-class citizens, largely by denying them marriage rights, cannot continue, or else the liberty of all citizens is at risk of the whim of what is essentially the logic of a three-year-old, "I don't like it, its bad."
     
  4. Taylor

    Taylor Repatriated

    paragraphs, man. paragraphs.
     
  5. What change is Bush making to the constitution?
     
  6. PhotoGra1

    PhotoGra1 Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    The Defense of Marriage Act:
    An Act To defines [sic] and protect the institution of marriage. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act". SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES. (a) IN GENERAL. Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following: ?1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: ïï1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.ÍÍ SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. (a) IN GENERAL. „Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ïï?7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse' In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. 1 USC 1 note. Defense of Marriage Act. Sept. 21, 1996 [H.R. 3396]

    From what I understand, this is now an Act, he wants to make it a constitutional ammendment. I think it is funny that traditional marriage is said to be between a man and a woman, and otherwise would be redefining marriage, but the legal definition did not contain any sex/gender terms until 1996...
     
  7. Ocean Byrd

    Ocean Byrd Artificial Energy

    Of course! It goes along SO well with the prohibition of cannabis...
     
  8. gertie

    gertie Senior Member

    there is so much about bush that just leaves an uneasy feeling in te pit on my stomach and of my very being. he scares me.
     
  9. Leki

    Leki Member

    -_- It really does suck. Well although young (n.n;...and also not able to marry) I'd love to get married to someone of the same sex. I really do hate Bush *grabs pickett signs*
     
  10. thespeez

    thespeez Member

    One really needs to ask why the hell is government involved in marriage anyway?
    This is a matter to be agreed upon by the individuals in question and the institution with which they made the commitment, if one exists. Besides monogamous gay unions, there are also unions of an alternative persuasion (i.e. polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, etc.) which don't have a blessing from a government body.
    www.libchrist.com
     
  11. daniel

    daniel Member

    I don't like it for sure!
     
  12. SpliffVortex

    SpliffVortex Senior Member

    bush is not perfect but at least the fags can go to a local gun shop and buy a AR-15 OR a AK 47 WOULD A BUNCH OF SKIN HEADS MESS AROUND WITH A PISS OFF FAG WITH AR-15 =NO BLESS BUSH.
     
  13. freakoflove

    freakoflove Member

    I think Bush is one of the world's biggest idiots and biggest dumbass I've ever seen. Why would he take away someone's right to love???? I came up with a quote a couple of weeks ago...
    "How is taking away your right to love liberty and justice for all?"
     
  14. Taylor

    Taylor Repatriated

    there should be a comma in there... sorry, I'm an english freak.
     
  15. andcrs2

    andcrs2 Senior Member

    I am very confused. What is the foundation for your quote?

    Another question: Love cannot Exist w/o Marriage?


    I'm surprized nobody has posted the following when the Constitutional Amendment/Convention crap starts...
    And that's how it was for the next ten nights. A flare, spurting out from Mars - bright green, drawing a green mist behind it - a beautiful, but somehow disturbing sight. Ogilvy, the astronomer, assured me we were in no danger. He was convinced there could be no living thing on that remote, forbidding planet.

    "The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one," he said.
    "The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one - but still they come!"

    -Jeff Wayne

    Move along Folks - just more knee jerk reactions...
     
  16. SkeeterVT

    SkeeterVT Member

    Sooner or later, Bush & Co. are going to find out the hard way that there is a formidible legal barrier that stands in the way of amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

    That barrier is the First Amendment's "establishment of religion" clause. You know, the clause that bars the government from favoring any one religion over another or enshrining into law any particular religious doctrine.

    I've been arguing in my Web blog and in letters to the editor for more than a year now that banning same-sex marriage constitutes a government endorsement of a religious doctrine that condemns homosexuality as a sin. That clearly violates the First Amendment, especially since the Supreme Court removed the last legal justification for it by striking down the nation's last remaining anti-sodomy laws in June 2003.

    Article VI of the Constitution not only binds Congress to uphold, support -- and OBEY -- the Constitution as "the supreme law of the land," but it excplicity FORBIDS "religious tests" for qualifying for any public office or trust. "Trust" can be interpreted to include statutory legislation and constitutional amendments. I defy anyone to prove to me that banning gay marriage doesn't constitute a "religious test" -- especially since it's the Religious Right that's pushing the hardest for it.

    Moreover, contrary to popular belief, civil marriage is a SECULAR institution, separate and distinct from the RELIGIOUS sacrament of "holy matrimony."

    Seems everyone in the gay-marriage debate has forgotten that civil marriage is only 200 years old -- created by the states at the turn of the 19th century to address the then-widesprad practice of religious institutuions refusing to accord the sacrament of holy matrimony to interfaith couples, insisting that the bride and groom must be of the same faith.

    How ironic. But the bottom line is this: There is no way that Congress can do an "end-run" around the First Amendment. The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment is therefore, illegal.

    They've also forgotten an even uglier attempt by Congress in 1910 to pass a constitutuional amendment banning INTERRACIAL marriages, admid a racist outcry by whites over Jack Johnson's headline-grabbing marriage to a white woman. Johnson was the first African American to win the world heavyewight boxing championship in 1908.

    Johnson was highly flamboyant -- and openly defiant of the rigid racial strictures of his era. Indeed, he was a man who was 80 years ahead of his time.

    "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it." -- George Satarnaya

    -- Skeeter


     
  17. sm0key42o8

    sm0key42o8 Senior Member

    You thought BUSH was bad before. He is on his way out in four years no matter what he does. Look at all the fucked up shit he did when he knew he was running for reelection- but now he cant get reelected-BE AFRAID, VERY AFRAID!!!
     
  18. andcrs2

    andcrs2 Senior Member

    By all means.
    Our System of Checks and Balances has vanished/absolutely ceased to function...


    Don't yall's knees ever hurt from all the jerking?
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice