February 25, 2004
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE
This is one issue that just wonít go away. Yesterday morning, President Bush declared his support for amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriages. The reason, Bush said in a prepared speech, is that several states in recent months have ignored the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (which defines "marriage" as a union between a female and a male) by allowing non-heterosexual couples to secure marriage licenses. But for Bush it doesn't stop there. He also said:
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Marriage, in these united states, has numerous definitions. George W. and his supporters see marriage only through a prism established by a churchÖ a religious union. But what about civil marriages with a justice of the peace? What about shotgun weddings in Las Vegas, or reality TV shows that marry people off for the opportunity to win boatloads of money? Should a constitutional amendment be passed to prevent these types of marriages as well? The fact is, one in two traditional marriages do not survive in this country, so what was it again that our esteemed President said? Oh yeah, that's right... "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.
Really? Well, I can only speak for myself, but if I'm fortunate and worthy enough to marry the girl / women of my dreams, I won't be marrying her to satisfy or tend to any of the cultural, religious or natural roots our President speaks of. We'll choose to marry because we both feel that our worlds will be an ever better place with us committed to one another together and forever. What's so wrong with anyone choosing the same for themselves, regardless of their gender?
Posted by Mikal at February 25, 2004 4:33 AM
| TrackBack
I heard an interesting comment the other day. "If marriage was really based on love, then why don't I marry my brother?"
Anyone who has been married before or is currently married will probably echo my thought. Marriage is actually intended to help two people become legally connected to allow them to share the responsibilities of life. The choice of adding a religious aspect to the ceremony is up to the couple.
I think GW is sticking his nose in too many places. Which part of the Constituion or Bill of Rights will he ammend next? He and his cronies are scary. The government has no business telling people who they can and can't marry. Whatever happened to separation of Church and State? He's inposing his Christian views on legislative decisions. I say let anyone who loves another person, regardless of gender, be legally married. It's none of my business. Live and let live.
How does my marrying another man, and being faithful to him (or not!) affect a husband a wife who lives next door to me? It doesn't. Period. Let government be government, not the religious police.
Funny how his campaign speeches about States Rights and a kinder and gentler nation seem to go right out the window.
I agree with you about reality TV shows, Las Vegas weddings, where is the Sanctity of Marriage in that. But also what about banned divorce and making adultery a criminal offence again. If the President want to strengthen marriage then he should include them in the constitutional amendment. Otherwise his Sanctity of Marriage is nothing more than bigotry.
Looks like everyone is in agreement so far. This is so easy to understand it makes me wonder where the other folks come from. Allowing gay and lesbian people to marry one another can not possibly do any harm to "the institution of marriage". It has survived well despite what straight men and woman have done to and with it for centuries. As usual, in this administration, fear and greed determine decisions. Fear of gay men and lesbian men multiplying and taking over the earth with their sinful ways. What planet are these neoconservatives from? Where do they get their news and knowledge? Al Sharpton has said it best about the upcoming Presidential election. It will be between the Christian Right and the right christians.
STILL WAITING FOR AN UPDATE - APPARENTLY YOU DON'T RESPOND TO YOUR EMAILS - SENT OVER A WEEK AGO.
RLV
The notion that the u.S. Constitution will actually be amended to restrict marriage between consenting adults is ludicrous. Marriage licenses are regulated on the State level as Diana rightly pointed out. The last time the u.S. tried to restrict behavior by Constitutional Amendment best left to the State level was the 18th - Prohibition. And we all know how well that went.
It will take two thirds from both houses and two thirds of the States to ratify it which is not going to happen.
Here are some interesting poll results on the subject.
http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=10792
51% Favor a Constitutional amendment while 45% Oppose - 4.5% Don't Know.
Anyone gander a guess on how many Americans would favor or oppose an amendment banning DIVORCE between heterosexual couples.
===========
The Constitutional bluff is a classic political red-herring. I believe the issue of gay marriage will be more of a political hot potato for the Kerry/Edwards campaign (probably the P/VP ticket) than the Bush campaign. Bush has thrown down the gauntlet, confident that the majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage in general (unrelated to ratifying an amendment). Half of all Democrats oppose same-sex marriage while 75% of Republicans oppose it. Additionally, the all-important 65+ age group opposes same-sex marriage 75-21. On this particular issue, the Bush team has split the Democrats in half while shoring up the base from his own party and capturing the WWII generation to boot. (HIT) Kerry/Edwards will have to do some swift manuevering to persuade the old time blue-collar union-type conservative Democrats that their stance on gay-marriage isn't an important presidential litmus test (supporting gay-civil unions but not supporting gay marriage isn't going to cut it). Simultaneously, the President has taken the heat off of him concerning his NG service. (HIT, again)
While I think what Mayor Newsom is doing is heroic and long over due I also think it was poor timing. Before it's all over, Bush may have sunk their battleship on this one.
===========
Rob, haven't heard from you in a while, either. Drop me a line. I just had my first son 3 months ago.
I'm going to put a slight damper on this spirit of this post.
The government does have a right to say what marriage means. After all, the government agencies, insurance agencies, housing agencies, and a vast array of other agencies are the ones doling out benefits to a married couple. For example, the insurance agency gives lower rates to men once they are married. This amount is based on actuarial figures, calculated over long periods of time.
I'm as liberal as the next, but in legal and financial terms, the government does in fact have a right to say what marriage is. There is no quick way any government can legalize gay marriage without having thousands of reciprocal affects.
I disagree. Government on any level should not be in the business of doling out benefits to married couples any more than it does for single folks. By engaging in this practice, the government is regulating (read controlling) behavior. Private insurance companies as well as any private company (from family farms to large tobacco or oil companies) should be able to make a profit without the use governmental funds.
However accepting your premise for just a moment, the government is US and therefore WE should be allowed to define what marriage means. A representative republic does not imply a abdication of duty from its people.
The reason that married men enjoy lower insurance rates is because they engage in riskier behavior as compared to single men. This is a result of them "settling down", not because they married a women (sorry ladies). Stipulating your premise entirely regarding insurance companies, the assumption that men who marry other men would not "settle down" and engage in less risky behavior is false.
I'm as conservative as the next person, but the government DOES NOT have the RIGHT to say what marriage is. Government has no rights, only the people do.
Article IX of our Constitution states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Article X states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
These amendments should be defended as vigorously as the first and second Amendments.
I understand insurance companies lower the rates of married men because they are more settled down. But, to say it is not because of women is completely wrong. Who the hell else are they currently marrying other than women to be settled down to? Of course it is due to women - otherwise they wouldn't currently be considered married.
The government has the right to give benefits to married couples. It also gives benefits to lower income people, disabled people, and a host of other categories. The government has the right to do this because we as a people have asked for it. You take away the married benefits in this country and see how many people complain. Hell, Republican Bush is attempting to lower the taxes for married people himself. Even the Democrats don't make a fuss about that one.
Many of you non-socialist types are always the first to tout some "less-government intervention" mantra but are always the first to complain when the corporate world sticks it in your ass and the government ignores it.
Ooops...forgot to sign my name above. :-P
Great dialogue folks! Thought the Catholic of the group should weigh in on this. To me, it is more than just a civil/political issue or a granting/taking-away of rights. It's more like a darn tetrahedral, with confusing and compounding angles that can be argued from many differing positions. Ultimately, social relationships are difficult to define, let alone regulate through Constitutional amendment (we've tried before to control social interaction). As social beings, we require these sorts of relationships and interaction to be human. To constrict them is to squelch an aspect of human essence. I'm not a supporter of religious 'marriage' of gay and lesbians in the Catholic church (or any Christian church for that matter), but do support access to all the privileges granted to anyone incorporated into a relationship of significance that adds to the fabric of human social relations. The thin-line that we tread here is the implications on the welfare of the definition of a social relationship that is considered a 'marriage'.
Re insurance companies giving men better rates once they're married -- married women get better rates, too, though the discount isn't as big.
And some insurance companies already do recognize some same-sex couples as "married" for rating purposes. I know several gay couples insured with Farmers, and they get the same discounts as straight married couples. And this isn't a state with gay marriage licenses or civil unions.
Post a Comment:
|
