Article on gay marriage debate, Laura Bush

[JohnnyV]

Hey everybody,

Here's an interesting, even if brief, piece on Laura Bush's comments about gay marriage. It comes from our sister station, gay.com.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?date=2006/05/14/1&from=homepage

As a bi guy with a wife, I think it's so important that I and people like me support our gay and lesbian brethren in their struggle for marriage rights.

So many people on this site know what it's like to struggle with same-sex feelings, but we're legally married to the opposite sex. Sometimes we give gays and lesbians a hard time for excluding us from their activities -- but we have to keep remembering that our loves for our wives and husbands are at least recognized by society.

I really wish more married bisexuals would take a public rule on the debate and fight for gay and lesbian marriage rights.

J

[Flounder1967]

Great Article

I myself beilve in the right for gay marriage. I see as two gay people can adopt kids and either have two man or two women listed on the adoption papers why can't they sign there names to a marrrage certifcate. Just a though for everybody to think about.

The other reason is purely fincial. when two people are married the gov't. tax the people differently. I see that gay married couples will get taxed the same as evrybody else, too much.

sorry i went on a rant.

The article is great and see this issues as big as rights for minorities in the 60's.

:flag3:

[Mrs.F]

I also believe that if two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together...it should not matter if they are MM, MF or FF. :2cents:

Mrs.F :)

[CountryLover]

I'm quite active, and vocal about gay marriage. The bigots in my family know better than to open the subject around me because I'll wear 'em right down on it.

I've taught both my kids to treat everyone with equal respect and dignity. My son and I have had a deep conversation on the subject of gay marriage, (he's 13 now) and he's a firm believer in it, after working through it on his own.

[jenniferhell@hotmail]

i bleve in gay marrage my self its not right for us to think we can exclude others in what we as married couples have in a bound. if you love the other person your with then show that love wether it be mm ff or mf couples we all have the right to be happy

[ezervet]

Whenever i see these sorts of things, i'm really proud that i'm from MA. Its like i'm somehow riding the collective wave of gay civil rights, even though i'm not involved at all beyond telling bigots that they're bigots. :) Kind of silly, but whatever.

You know, I just realized, if this amendment ever passed (which it is not a possibility in the near future, thank god) OUR gay marriages would be illegal. What's that about states' rights you douchebag far right republicans?

/Is a Log Cabin Republican
//Google it, they rock the house

[BiBiologist]

Good article, kind of makes you glad presidents have wives, and a high-ranking Republican has a gay daughter.

There is a gay/lesbian news magazine on PBS called "In the Life," which recently had a story about a lesbian couple who had a civil union in Vermont and had a child by a sperm donor. The biological mother left her partner, took the child and moved back to Virginia, where there is a gay marriage ban pending. The Virginia courts are upholding the bio mother's claims that her former partner has no legal parental rights at all and gives the partner no access to her child, though she would have partial custody under the Vermont laws. So there is now a fight between Vermont v. Virginia that may go to the Supreme Court. Amazing that the politician in Virginia who authored the ban said in effect that gay people can't love each other as straight people do, and their relationships are based on "those sex acts."

That's why I struggle to find understandable ways to explain to otherwise intelligent but ignorant people how this all really works. I've written a letter that I sent to all of our state senators in Minnesota, where I am ashamed to say there is also a same-sex marriage ban proposed as a state constitutional amendment. Promoting understanding and acceptance will take everything we've got, from science, to books, to movies, to letters to the editor and our legislators. I've never been an activist, but I can't sit back and watch this happen.

[Driver 8]

BiBi, like you, I've spend many frustrating hours trying to get the facts out on the same-sex marriage issue. It seems to me that the people we need to reach are (1) legislators and (2) basically open-minded people who believe in fairness but aren't aware what's at stake. I don't think it's worth bothering with (3) people who are so convinced that the sky will fall that they'll discount any actual facts that come their way, but, hey, if anyone thinks they can persuade them, go ahead.

A lot of people in group (2) seem to believe that marriage is basically symbolic, or that it's a religious issue and that same-sex marriage somehow violates others' religious freedom. Often, it's enough to talk to them about the specific benefits of civil marriage, or to point out that many religions already have fairly strict definitions of who may or may not marry - and those definitions aren't written into law. (In the Orthodox Church, for example, marriages are three per customer; if you're widowed three times, you can't remarry a fourth time. It's certainly the Orthodox Church's right to place such a restriction on its members - but just as certainly we can agree that they don't have a right to legally impose this restriction on people outside their church.)

If the people you're talking to are open to humor (your good friend who can't explain why she's uncomfortable with SSM might be; your legislator might not be) you might show them this list that's been making the rounds:


1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

[ezervet]

.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
[/list]

Hehe, this was the point that i think won over my father, it invoked the hippie he used to be.

[OralBradley]

As in many aspects of life, religion is not a solution, it IS the problem!

[ezervet]

As in many aspects of life, religion is not a solution, it IS the problem!


Um..no. I would say that the problem, as with 98% of problems faced by people, is that some people are douchebags. People are going to be horrible to other people regardless of the religion. You really think that people wouldn't hate people who are different from them if they were atheists?

[canuckotter]

Here's my take on why Laura Bush made those comments... I'm pretty cynical, so keep that in mind. :)

If the Republicans make SSM a campaign issue, and they win seats, they have to get it passed or they look pretty ineffectual. Since it would be extremely difficult to get the amendment passed at this point (though not impossible) it's a risky strategy. Dubya still has to push for the ban, because to do otherwise dramatically cuts his credibility with the far right, and he's relying on them right now to get anything done. Besides, he probably does support the ban anyway. If his wife wants to say to the Republicans, "Don't make it a campaign issue," then it sends a message to the party that they should try to keep quiet about the issue as much as possible (although obviously some are going to be obnoxious gits and rant and rave about it) while allowing Dubya plausible deniability... He didn't tell people to forget about the ban, his wife did. So he doesn't lose credibility, but the issue gets kind of dropped and forgotten in the background so when the amendment fails, the administration isn't shown as having been defeated yet again and being ineffectual again.

Basically, I think that the administration and the parties are divided enough over the issue that it's not nearly enough of a sure thing, and Dubya's trying to distance himself from it now without pissing off his core supporters. :)

[Driver 8]

I have an even more cynical take, Otter ...

Evangelical Christians are a minority in the US, but they're a loud minority, they deliver votes, and they deliver money ... and by and large they deliver it to the Republicans. Some Republicans have been whipping up anti-gay sentiment very, very hard, to keep this segment of the population loyal.

But they are a minority, and many moderate Americans don't care for the idea of seeing them running the country. Furthermore, although a majority of Americans still don't support same-sex marriage, a majority of them do support some sort of recognition of same-sex relationships ... and, with very few exceptions, the evangelical lobby has opposed even civil unions and domestic partnership. It's not 1986 any more; many, many Americans have out friends and relatives, and they see how exclusion from the rights that marriage confers hurts them; they may not be ready for same-sex marriage, but they're not buying the evangelical rhetoric.

So the Republicans have to keep both groups in their camp. I think this is a more specific version of what we saw from the Bush campaign in 2000: he campaigned as a moderate, but took a much more right-wing position once elected. (I know some old-fashioned conservatives would say that the expansion of government spending under his administrations isn't right-wing at all, but I'll let them chime in for themselves.)

I think that Laura Bush and Mary Cheney's recent, relatively moderate remarks about same-sex marriage are meant to pacify moderate voters before the upcoming election, in the hopes of persuading them that Rove and Bush don't mean what they've said about that Constitutional amendment. (Kind of like what we're seeing on the Democratic side, where Dean has gone around telling Christians that the Democratic party defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, when the official party platform says it's an issue for the states.)

Just my :2cents: as always.

[JohnnyV]

Driver 8,

You took the words right out of my mouth. Exactly.

J

[Long Duck Dong]

not living in the us... the article doesn't get the same amount of reaction outta me

but living in nz where we have the civil union bill... its a interesting picture

the main opposition to the civil union bill was the religion faction..... their claim was that the civil union allowing gays and lesbian the same standing as hetrosexual and that would destroy the basis of marriage

anybody seen the faction with the highest divorce rate in the world ??... one guess what group it is lol

seriously tho..... a lot of the opposition to gay / lesbian marriage in nz was what gays supposedly do in the bedroom.... and if you want me to point out what majority of the world is known for sex offences.... then worrying about what gays do in the bedroom is the lest of anybodies worries

personally i have always believed that we all have the right to be happily married..... it just doesn't mean we will be lol

[anne27]

The Bush family is simply playing both sides of the track for votes, folks. :2cents:

I am a firm believer in equal rights for all and that includes the GLBT community. I wrote my local and state officials when the gay marriage ban was proposed in this state (didn't help any, I'm afraid) and I am vocal to my family and friends on the issue. All my people agree and won't vote for anyone against gay marriage.

IMNOHO, in the future the politicans backing a proposed constitutional admendment now will be scorned and looked down on like the ones who segregated blacks in our past.

[Driver 8]

anybody seen the faction with the highest divorce rate in the world ??... one guess what group it is lol
And in the US, the state with the lowest divorce rate is ... Massachusetts, currently the only state with legal same-sex marriage.

In fact, of the states with the ten lowest divorce rates, nine are "blue" states (i.e., supported Kerry) and of the states with the ten highest divorce rates, nine are "red" (i.e., supported Bush.) Here are the statistics (http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS2.shtml).

[jamiehue]

Driver 8,

You took the words right out of my mouth. Exactly.

J
ditto. ya know on second thought ditto is now a used up word,precisely thats better!

[canuckotter]

I have an even more cynical take, Otter ...

Sadly, one lesson I've learned in life is that no matter how cynical you are about politics, you're never cynical enough. :) I completely agree with what you wrote... All parties are trying to make sure they appeal to everyone.

[12voltman59]

Pat Robertson is back at it again--the latest out of the mouth of the man who "speaks to God":

Robertson: God Says Tsunami Possible For U.S.

POSTED: 9:19 pm EDT May 17, 2006
UPDATED: 5:14 am EDT May 18, 2006

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- The Rev. Pat Robertson says God has told him that storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year.

The founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network has told viewers of "The 700 Club" that the revelations came to him during his annual personal prayer retreat in January.

"If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8.

He added specifics in Wednesday's show.

"There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest," he said.

Robertson has come under intense criticism in recent months for suggesting that U.S. agents should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.
Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Story posted at this website: http://www.wftv.com/news/9235304/detail.html#

The article obivously doesn't provide Robertson's rationale for issuing such a statement, but knowing what he has said in the past--it is no doubt in part because America "accepts and tolerates" homosexuality.

[12voltman59]

Breaking news:

Senate panel meets to consider proposal; meeting held in a special room in a secret meeting, votes on approving measure--it now goes to the full Senate for consideration:

Senate panel OKs gay-marriage ban

By Andy Sullivan
Reuters
Thursday, May 18, 2006; 2:55 PM



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate panel advanced a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on Thursday as the committee chairman shouted "good riddance" to a Democrat who walked out of the tense session.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," The Senate Judiciary Chairman, Republican Arlen Specter, told Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold, who refused to participate because, he said, the meeting was not sufficiently open to the public.

"I've enjoyed your lecture too. See you later, Mr. Chairman," Feingold told the Pennsylvania senator before storming out of the private room where the meeting took place.

The testy exchange highlighted tensions over the proposal, which seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages.

The measure passed 10-8 on a party-line vote. Specter said he voted for the amendment because he thought it should be taken up by the full Senate, even though he does not back it.

The gay-marriage ban is one of several hot-button social issues Republicans are raising to rally conservative voters ahead of November's congressional elections.

Because the measure seeks to change the Constitution, it must pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority and then be approved by at least 38 states.

The Senate is expected to take up the bill in early June.

The bill's sponsor told reporters he does not expect it to pass the Senate but wanted to keep the issue in the public eye.

"If we quit bringing it up here and talking about it here, in effect we leave the decision-making process to the judicial side," Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard said.

A similar effort failed in the Senate in 2004.

Gay marriage has been a hot topic since a Massachusetts court ruled in 2003 that the state legislature could not ban it, paving the way for America's first same-sex marriages in May the following year.

At least 13 states have passed amendments banning gay marriage while two -- Vermont and Connecticut -- have legalized civil unions. California, New Jersey, Maine, the District of Columbia and Hawaii each offer gay couples some legal rights as partners.

Legal challenges seeking permission for gays and lesbians to marry are pending in 10 states. Most recently, a Georgia state court struck down a state ban on Tuesday.

Just over half of all Americans oppose same-sex marriage, according to a March poll by the Pew Research center, down from 63 percent in February 2004.

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's top Democrat, said the gay marriage ban was a waste of time for a committee that needs to tackle a wide range of other pressing issues, from judicial nominations to oversight of the National Security Administration's domestic-spying program.

"I didn't realize marriages were so threatened. Nor did my wife of 44 years," Leahy said.

Leahy said Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, who supports the ban, has expressed support for polygamists in his home state of Utah.

"I never said that," Hatch responded. "I know some (polygamists) that are very sincere. ... Don't accuse me of wanting to have polygamy."

© 2006 Reuters


Story posted at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051800901_pf.html

[red_riding_hood_27]

I don't know where to stand on this issue. I once had the thoughts that it is wrong to be homosexual and that it was even worse to marry. Now, I have no clue wher I stand. I do have to say though that the only reason Hetro has a higher divorce rate is because we are the only ones who can marry. And if the gay community can marry it will take about 20 years to see then what the divorce rate versus hetro would be. I know I am supposed to be open minded becuase of my husband sexuality. I don't know if I will ever get comfortable with Little Jonny having two moms or dads. However, that goes back to the religion I was raised in. I don't see religion as the bad aspect as everyone else does. It is only a few that get in the news that make religion the bad guy.

The Over 30 generation will age and the new 16 year old ones will become of age to vote. They will be more tolerant of people different then them. They are learning what political correctness is and to respect people that are different. Life teaches us that change can be good or bad

Angela

[JohnnyV]

Angela,

I'm a big supporter of gay marriage, but can understand why you would have some strong objections to gay marriage, based on your difficult experience last fall -- if I recall corectly, you found out that your husband was bi after being married for a while.

A lot of the research I do deals with religion and my theory that the Bible does not condemn same-sex relationships... but that's a long, long thread. I'll just add to what you said by predicting that more liberal forms of Christianity will grow in the next century, and the older generations of anti-gay Christians, no matter how they fight and holler, will end up losing out to open-minded religious people who read the Bible more closely and understand what passages like Genesis 19 (the end of Sodom) are really implying.

For me, gay marriage is so important because I know how much I have benefited from being married. As a bi male, I feel guilt that my gay "cousins" don't have the option. Every community needs rituals and traditions to bring people together and instill a code of condict in people's hearts. Right now, with marriage off limits, many gays and lesbians have turned to "coming out of the closet" as their major unifying ritual.

But coming out is far inferior to marriage as the main binding ritual of a community, IMO, for a couple reasons. First, the emphasis on coming out puts the spotlight on adolescence and young adulthood, which then contributes to the gay community's prejudice against older people and its obsession with the beauty of youth. Second, coming out focuses on your sexual activity without focusing on a specific partner, so I think that by focusing so much on coming out, people end up defining themselves by their sexual activity and risk becoming hypersexualized. Third, coming out is very uncertain and risky, whereas marriage is a tradition that moves someone toward certainty and stability -- in marriage, you not only know what gender you love, but you know the PERSON you love and who loves you back.

But without marriage as that anchor, gays and lesbians will continue to depend on the tradition of "coming out" as their mainstay, and that's not healthy the way I see it.

Just some thoughts.

J

[canuckotter]

I'll just add to what you said by predicting that more liberal forms of Christianity will grow in the next century One of the things I love about Canada... One of our largest churches, the United Church, has been performing gay weddings for years, and has had openly gay ministers for even longer. I've never felt anything but welcome when talking with United Church clergy. (Which is good since my wife's father is a United Church minister. ;) ) Heck, even the Anglican church is now allowing gay priests, and some of the members of their clergy have been openly advocating allowing gay marriage for years.

[JohnnyV]

canuck,

That's great, promising news. Thanks for letting us all know. I hope that American Christian congregations will move more in those directions. I know there are American religions that are.

Since I'm still a devoted Catholic, I have to steel my resolve for the big fight of the next few centuries. The current pope may be followed by an even bigger reactionary, or by a visionary from Latin America.... I'll be on pins and needles waiting to see. In all likelihood, Catholics will have to wait three or four hundred years for women to be priests or for gays to be accepted.

But that doesn't mean we liberal Catholics can't break ranks with Rome and fight the good fight, each in our own ways. I plan to bring lots and lots of lesbian couples to the baptism of my baby!

J