Our president has officially announced his desire to have a consitutional amendment that prevents homosexual couples from being married, but allows for a "civil union" where full rights are "guaranteed".

Apparently Bush missed the part of intro to political science where "separate but equal" was found to be inherently discriminatory. And the part about separation of church and state. And the 14th amendment.

He also keeps insisting the people should decide this matter, since he also seems to have missed the basic concept of why we have a republic and not a democracy.. because the majority can too easily trample the rights of the minority.

Nobody said Bush was smart.

ya know what?... I`m staying outa this one

Isn't he supposed to be trying to win the public's favour for the next few months.

 

Or did I just answer my own question...

He was never going to get that groups votes in the first place so he may as well appeal to the right wing gay haters as much as he can. If your going to do something, its best to do it through fully.

Even Tom DeLay (House Majority Leader R-Texas) opposes a constitutional amendment on gay marriage. I think such an amendment would devalue the constitution, and would believe so regardless of my opinion on gay marriages.

yay for canada

Our president has officially announced his desire to have a consitutional amendment that prevents homosexual couples from being married, but allows for a "civil union" where full rights are "guaranteed".

 

.....and the part about separation of church and state.

 

Marriage is a church function, civil union is what the government handles. I say let the churches decide if they want to marry people.

That's just another way for the government to discriminate.

How can that be a rule, I don't get it. In israel the state is not 100% seperated from religion, so in order to get married you MUST marry in a religious form. But the usa should (err correct me if I'm wrong?) be democratic and religion-seperated from the state so WHY would this rule be anything *but* descriminating?

 

~moo

blike said in post # :

Marriage is a church function

 

The only way I can see that you can get this is by circular reasoning, combined with the no true scotsman fallacy.

 

Marriage can (and often is) secular as well duder.

blike said in post # :

 

Marriage is a church function, civil union is what the government handles. I say let the churches decide if they want to marry people.

 

No, the government gives you a amarriage license which states you are legally married. The rights granted to a couple with a civil union and a marraige are VERY different.

Unfortunately in israel it's different. You get marriage ONLY if the religious institute "allows" you to get married.

 

That's why many go to get married OUT of the country..

 

but anyways, how can bush stop gay marriages by law?? isn't that against the constitution?? I really don't get it :|

 

~moo

Aegir said in post # :

The rights granted to a couple with a civil union and a marraige are VERY different.

How so?

Neurocomp2003 said in post # :

yay for canada

 

lol

that's what I was thinking.

 

U.S. couples who want to get married will just come up to Canada to do that.

 

:/

NSX:

 

"U.S. couples who want to get married will just come up to Canada to do that"

 

That does not mean it would be recognized in the uS, which is where it would count for Americans

It's a civil rights issue; "separate-but-equal" policies are inherently unequal.

When i heard of this i was appalled. I hope it is the downfall of Bush. He now has lost the vote of the entire gay population, and any open minded person.

Sayonara³ said in post # :

How so?

 

Well, for example say a guy gets into a car crash and is put in the hospital. If the guy is married to a woman, his wife can make any decision that needs to be made on his behalf. IF the same guy is gay his partner cannot make any of those decisions.

Aegir said in post # :

Well, for example say a guy gets into a car crash and is put in the hospital. If the guy is married to a woman, his wife can make any decision that needs to be made on his behalf. IF the same guy is gay his partner cannot make any of those decisions.

I'm not sure I follow.

 

You said that the rights were different for civil unions and marriages. In your example above I assume that you mean the man and the woman are married. Did the gay couple get married, or do they have a civil union?

 

If the former, would having a civil union instead of a marriage grant them that right? If the latter, would marriage grant them that right?

I believe that a marriage grants that right and a civil union does not.

Does that then mean that a civil union would deny the same right for a heterosexual couple?

Yep.

Ooh, the sticky side of marital law. You may as well ask why a common-law marriage doesn’t hold the same weight. All three would afford the same rights in the eyes of the law, but outside the judicial system it is another matter.

Cheers faf, a much simpler answer