Moment of Irony With George W. Bush

June 5th, 2006 Politics 89 Comments


('DiggThis’)

Share

“America is a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. In this country, people are free to choose how they live their lives. In our free society, decisions about a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people.”

And then? He introduced legislation governing what people do in their bedrooms via a constitutional amendment.

Posted in Politics |
«
»
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

89 Responses to “Moment of Irony With George W. Bush”

  1. Dana says:
    June 5, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    Oh, bovine feces! The constitutional amendment introduced limits legal marriage to heterosexual couples; it does not in any way criminalize or regulate what people may do in their bedrooms.

    Or perhaps you thought you have to be married to have sex?

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    June 5, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    So being married has nothing to do with bedroom activities?

  3. TomY says:
    June 5, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    If you have the wrong chromosomes, the GOP wants to enshrine prejudice against you. There’s only tyranny in that, Dana.

  4. TomY says:
    June 5, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    I wonder if Bush is against the court decision allowing interracial marriage? Or were the people wrong to ban it?

  5. Zython says:
    June 5, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    (I don’t know how to do italics here)

    [i]Or perhaps you thought you have to be married to have sex?[/i]

    Well, if Bush’s base has their way…

  6. frameone says:
    June 5, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    “Or perhaps you thought you have to be married to have sex?”

    Ya, I thought you had to be married to have sex.

  7. Rheinhard says:
    June 5, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Or perhaps you thought you have to be married to have sex?

    I don’t Dana, but there are quite a few on the religious Right, many of the same people in most vocal support of FMA, who do.

  8. BD says:
    June 5, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Dana – If you believe that this amendment somehow dodges the issue of premarital sex, you might want to look at the Abstinence-Only education policies also espoused by this administration.

    This is basic logic directed against gays in the conservative mind. No Sex Before Marriage. No Gay Marriage. No Gay Sex.

    There are a thousand reasons that will be puked up as to why this is a righteous plan, but only one real motive: God told us to hate gay people. And not for who they are, but for what they do.

  9. Dugger says:
    June 5, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    dr p is right.

    Gay people can get married exactly the same as non-gays. Its the definiton of marriage that is at issue. For instance, a straight female could not ‘marry’ another straight female (say for tax benefits). Same as a gay female could not marry another gay femal for whatever reasons.

    Dugger

  10. Oliver Willis says:
    June 5, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    By that illogic the Supreme Court has no reason to exist. The founders would disagree. For better or worse, the Supremes do also exist based on the people’s will – they are appointed by the Presidents

    Alito, Roberts: Bush II
    Stevens: Ford
    Scalia: Reagan
    Kennedy: Reagan
    Souter, Thomas: Bush I
    Ginsburg, Breyer: Clinton

  11. drpedro says:
    June 5, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    Stupid strawman argument Ollie.

    Regardless of the religious right, this amendment simply defines marriage…it makes absolutely no comment on any other issue.

  12. Frank_D says:
    June 5, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    The passage of a Constitutional Amendment requires a complex debate in at least two – third of the states. A Supreme Court decision requires a 5 to 4 vote.
    Which more closely resembles “the will of the people”?

  13. TomY says:
    June 5, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    It also defines homosexuals as being second class citizens because of who they have chosen to love. Got a significant other who’s a foreigner? Want to visit your sick wife? Better hope you’re not gay! Thanks for trying to spit poison on our constitution, GOP! You won’t be forgotten!

  14. Bill L. says:
    June 5, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    What a lying bunch of lumps.

    This is about much more than a “definition.”

  15. drpedro says:
    June 5, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    rhys, exactly what benefits would marriage incur that wouldn’t be obtained through civil union?

  16. drpedro says:
    June 5, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    Now, you want to discuss civil unions?

    I am all for them.

    I no more want marriage to be a word without a defination than I want the color “red” to be without a defination.

    Lefties have no interest in the “rights” of gays than they do in “supporting our troops”. They are politically expedient. If you really cared about gay rights you would stop talking about gay marriage, and ask for civil unions which, I believe, even the Chimpy McBushhitler supports.

  17. factcheck says:
    June 5, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    If the argument is that civil unions are the same as marriage, then what is the debate about? Let’s let same sex couples marry. You said it yourself that there isn’t a difference.

  18. Frank_D says:
    June 5, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    By that illogic the Supreme Court has no reason to exist. The founders would disagree.
    Great evasion.
    The Supreme Court was never meant to be the Legislature. In fact, they were meant to be an interstate referee, not interpreters of the Constitution. John Marshall took that power unto himself in Marbury v.Madison
    You know, as well as I do, that the Supreme Court is more likely to overturn the states’ laws that forbid gay marriage than two – thirds of the states are to ratify a man – wife marriage amendment anyway, so what’s the problem?

  19. frameone says:
    June 5, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    Per Rhys, I don’t care whether you call it civil unions or marriage but as long one confers diferent obligations and benefits than the other then you’re back to separate but equal which the courts have ruled unconstitutional.

  20. Sundown says:
    June 5, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    Marbury v Madison as judician activism? What next?

  21. factcheck says:
    June 5, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    Civil marriage is a legal contract, giving hundreds of rights to the betrothed. It doesn’t require them to love each other, honor each other, and barely requires them to have sex (once, and then only if the marriage is contested by one of the spouses.).

    If you want to “define marriage”, take it up with your church. On the other hand, if you can come up with a rational reason that same-sex couples can’t benefit from the legal rights from the marriage contract, I’m all ears.

    By saying same-sex couples can’t enter in to a particular kind of legal contract, you are ghettoizing them. Period.

  22. rhys says:
    June 5, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    The “definition of marriage” is the whole point. Marriage is not just “Congratulation, you are married!”. There are a huge number of legal benefits that come along with it. The right to visit one’s spouse in hospital, common control of financial matters, making decisions on each other’s behalf when the other is incapacitated, and so on. It is these benefits that the opponents of gay marriage want to deny gays.

    Civil unions, the supposed way to achieve the above, are a cop-out. They don’t confer all of the same benefits and you know it. And by constantly having two different kinds of spousal arrangements in the law will guarantee that there will always be some people who are denied the rights that others take for granted. And that’s really what this is about: the religious right wants their kind of marriage to be “special” and “better” so they can continue to look down their noses at others with the lesser kind of union.

    The Left does care about the rights of gays – we believe that they are entitled to equal protection under the law. It is the Right that wants to restrict their rights.

  23. rhys says:
    June 5, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    The law used to ban interracial marriage. It took a long string of court cases before it was finally abandoned. In the process, the opponents of interracial marriage cited all kinds of nonsense reasons: “it’s unnatural”, “the races were created by God to be separate”, “the half-breed kids will be discriminated against”, and so on. Eventually the court cases showed point by point that these reasons were nothing more than simple bigotry.

    The religious right is deathly afraid that a court will some day analyse all of their nonsense arguments on gays and come to the same conclusion. Hence the need to write their bigotry into the constitution and force the courts to uphold it against common sense and reason.

    The idea of “traditional marriage” is garbage anyway. Polygamy, anyone? That’s more traditional and Biblical than anything the religious right has come up with recently. Shall we go back to that? How about a woman being a man’s chattel (common law up until the 19th century)? That is “traditional” too.

    They say they only want to stop the gays marrying. Don’t believe them.

  24. Zython says:
    June 5, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    Gay people can get married exactly the same as non-gays. Its the definiton of marriage that is at issue. For instance, a straight female could not  marry another straight female (say for tax benefits). Same as a gay female could not marry another gay femal for whatever reasons.

    So…using that line of logic, if I could have a amendment made defining religion as, say, Scientology, you’d be fine with that. Hey, you still have the freedom of religion, you’re free to join the Church of Scientology just like everyone else.

    exactly what benefits would marriage incur that wouldn t be obtained through civil union?

    1. People who oppose marriage also oppose “civil unions”, so that’s a no-go.
    2. We tried “separete but equal” before, and it didn’t turn out too well.

  25. chum says:
    June 5, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    Why aren’t we having a serious discussion about a Constitutional Amendment banning marriage so to make all equal under the document?

    Let’s make marriage solely a religious designation which only carries with it recognition by sects who prefer it to be between a man and woman only.

    These individuals and those who don’t give a rats ass what Old Testament dinosaurs think can all enter into Civil Union agreements and have the same rights under law.

    Since a third of the children in this country are born out of wedlock how soon will it be before those conceived in a traditional family will be a minority?

  26. Sundown says:
    June 5, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    BTW, actually as Governor of Texas Bush DID want to criminalize private sex acts between gay people.

  27. Rounds77 says:
    June 5, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    I will respect the Right’s sincerity in wanting to protect marriage as soon as they offer a Constitutional amendment to ban divorce. Oh, but wait, that would be taking away THEIR rights, and we can’t have that. Better to deny rights to someone else — a minority group who is easily kicked around and who doesn’t offer anything with the precious notion of “tradition” attached. Conservatives get more and more sickening when they get more desperate. History will not look kindly on them for this.

  28. rhys says:
    June 5, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    “rhys, exactly what benefits would marriage incur that wouldn t be obtained through civil union?”

    Check Bill L’s link for an overview. I’m taking the straight-forward position that there should be no difference between the two (as there currently is). It is up to you to demonstrate how keeping them different somehow serves the public interest better than making them the same.

  29. Joseph Hughes says:
    June 5, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    I love how the president talked about treating people with “tolerance and respect and dignity” while throwing his support behind an amendment that represents an affront to all three concepts.

  30. z_adura says:
    June 5, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    Let’s define the term stupidity constitutionally to mean “anything issued from George Bush’s mouth.” With a 29% approval rating, you have a better chance with that amendment ratified.

  31. Zython says:
    June 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    A serious question for the advocates of same sex marriage.

    Religious institutions get special protection from discrimination cases. One of my high school teachers who’s a rabbi won’t perform interfaith marriages, and she (probably) hasn’t been sued.

  32. Zython says:
    June 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    Yes, drpedro, it must take a WHOLE lot of brain power to manage to ignore every single one of my posts specifically aimed at you.

    The “smart people” thing is, ironically, stupid. This is about giving people equal rights under the law, not equal everything. You’re assuming it’s a slippery slope when there is, in fact, a clearly defined line in the sand regarding these issues.

    Also, this whole “straight people will exploit gay marriage” is stupid as well. Do you honestly believe in today’s heteronormative society that people will risk look like “teh KweeRZorS” just to save a few bucks? Doubt it. This is another example of conservatives thinking that just because they want to exploit the system means that everyone will. Not everyone is an amoral crackpot, you know.

    “Straw Man”
    You say that so much it’s lost all meaning. (Then again, I bet THAT’s a Straw Man too, huh?)

  33. chum says:
    June 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    Besides, if The Kid from Brooklyn is down with gay marriage, and for good reason, who am I to object? Let them all suffer the same fate considering the 50% divorce rate nowadays.

    I remember whrn one had to go to Las Vegas or Mexico for a divorce. How long will it be before there are kiosks in Walmart where a quickie can be got.

  34. buma says:
    June 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    With the exception of the 18th (which was repealed by the 21st) and the 22nd amendments, the Constitution has been steadily revised to give MORE rights to individuals. If ratified, the FMA would be a basis by which the rights and priviledges enjoyed by some are refused to others.

    Of course, it is not the intent of GOP strategists to actually get this thing passed. It is only a mechanism by which to bring out the lemming base on election day. Karl Rove plays these people for saps every two years and they fall for it time and again. Small wonder that many of these same gullible people take the bible literally.

    As a married person, I wish more Amewricans could enjoy the ‘marriage penalty’ built into or federal tax system. If gays want to be married, I say great. And if it means more business for limousine drivers, wedding planners, florists and divorce attorneys, so be it. Look at the free-market benefits to gay marriage. Are these born-again family-values retards a bunch of communists?

  35. Jon Swift says:
    June 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    The War of Words …

    The law making English our official national language and amendments to protect the flag and the words marriage and gay are just the first counterattacks in what promises to be a long, hard battle against semantical terrorism. …

  36. rhys says:
    June 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    “I mean, most of you mental midgets here must feel horribly when you see all the intelligent conservatives reply.”

    I’ve never encountered that particular problem. Still waiting for an intelligent conservative …

    “gays can t visit in hospitals?”

    Try typing “gay visiting in hospitals” into Google and see what you get, ignoramus.

  37. Nimrod Gently says:
    June 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    I thought this demonstrably unconsitutional amendment to the constitution was a dead issue.

    Fuck this shit.

  38. drpedro says:
    June 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    all the above “discussion” just points out that the real issue here isn’t making sure gays can visit their loved ones, or get access to bank accounts etc, etc. The real issue is social engineering.

    Hey, why not outlaw smart people? I mean, most of you mental midgets here must feel horribly when you see all the intelligent conservatives reply. I don’t want anyone to feel “unequal”.

    why have marriage at all? just make it ok to sign up all your friends on your insurance plan..! And hell, kids don’t really need a mommy and a daddy. Why not mommy and mommy and mommy and daddy!

    gays can’t visit in hospitals?

    Straw.

    Man.

  39. frameone says:
    June 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    What about federal laws?

    At this point, federal law does not recognize domestic partners. There are over one thousand federal laws in which marital status is a factor. These include rights under Social Security, Medicare, immigration law, veteran’s benefits and federal tax laws. Domestic partners also may not have the same rights as married persons once they cross beyond California’s borders. This is important for parents to consider in their custody agreement.

    http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/family/overview/endingdp.htm#fedlaws

    Close don’t count when it comes to civil unions …

  40. Dana says:
    June 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    A serious question for the advocates of same sex marriage.

  41. buma says:
    June 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    Should have said rights to MORE individuals.

  42. drpedro says:
    June 5, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    Gays have precisely the same right to get married as heteros….as long as they are marrying one person of the opposite sex.
    I’m glad you understand the concept of equal rights……

    and yes, it’s another straw man, non argument

  43. rhys says:
    June 5, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    Dana, what happens now when a Hindu couple walks into a Christian Church and asks for a full Hindu wedding with all the trimmings? They are told “Congratulations on getting married, but I think you want the Hindu priest just down the street”. Churches having rules about who can get married in their institution is as old as marriage itself.

    However, the lack of religious nuptials should never prevent a couple from going down to the local court house and obtaining a civil marriage license. But that’s exactly what the religious right wants here. Not only do they want the right for Churches to discriminate, but the State must as well.

    No one is seriously arguing that Churches be forced to perform the nuptials against their wishes. Your “serious question” is not something that any advocate of gay marriage has seriously advocated.

  44. frameone says:
    June 6, 2006 at 1:06 am

    “Yes, drpedro, it must take a WHOLE lot of brain power to manage to ignore every single one of my posts specifically aimed at you.”

    Why bother. Pedro’s just afeared that he might catch “teh gay.” Idiot.

  45. Zython says:
    June 6, 2006 at 1:06 am

    *sigh* Either you’re responding to this post, or didn’t read it in the first place. Here’s a link that I think even YOU will be able to understand it.

  46. Zython says:
    June 6, 2006 at 1:06 am

    er, stupid non BBCode tags.

    http://www.idrewthis.org/2006/equality.png

  47. rhys says:
    June 6, 2006 at 3:06 am

    “Gays have precisely the same right to get married as heteros& .as long as they are marrying one person of the opposite sex.”

    Half a century or so ago, it was “Blacks have precisely the same right to get married as whites& .as long as they are marrying one person of the same race”. Such arguments were bullshit then, and they are bullshit now. Denying someone the right to marry who they choose is the problem. And your form of “equality” does not address this problem. “Yeah sure, you can get married – to someone you don’t love! Ha ha!”.

  48. oldseal says:
    June 6, 2006 at 5:06 am

    Sure is a lot of time and energy being spent on this subject. We all know it’s just a way to get the American Taliban to support a failing regime. It’s not going to pass, but it gives the Republicans a way of staying off the REAL issues that concern this country and apease their “base”.

    If the Republican leadership really cared about anything written into the Constitution, this wouldn’t be up for debate, there wouldn’t be a “Patriot Act”, domestic warrantless wiretapping, there would be no questions about why lying about oral sex, is more impeachable then lying to invade another country.

    It’s all about power. Or should I say the wish to retain power. What’s really sad about all of this. There are going to be to many people who will fall for it. All while more servicemen die, the price of Gasoline goes up, people loose jobs…

  49. Jamey says:
    June 6, 2006 at 9:06 am

    Come on, Pedro, Frank, et. al. Do we REALLY need to amend the Constitution to tell everybody what a marriage is, or is this just about them uppity gays?

    Let’s privatize marriage: get the states out of the game. If individual churches and recognized religious/civil organizations will perform the ceremony, then that should be the end of that. There, marriage is protected! Glory be!

    I’m sure free marketers and small government Cons would be onboard with that (rolls eyes).

  50. TomY says:
    June 6, 2006 at 9:06 am

    Separate but equal. Conservatives never change. On the plus side, at least it’s a fight, that 20 years from now, we can say we were on the side for decency and humanity. And once again, conservatives were on the side of suffering and injustice.

  51. Roni says:
    June 6, 2006 at 10:06 am

    drpedro Says:
    June 6th, 2006 at 10:14 am
    Marriage has meaning, and when you just decide to up and change that meaning for no good reason, well, that leads you down the path to changing a lot of other definitions for no good reason.

    What if your definition (which we all understand is gospel) of “no good reason” conflicts with, say, Frank’s or Dugger’s definition of “no good reason”?

  52. TomY says:
    June 6, 2006 at 10:06 am

    It’s simple: Cons are for social engineering except when they’re against it.

  53. Michael says:
    June 6, 2006 at 10:06 am

    How is it that the court looks over all the laws, finding there’s no law against something, then saying “I guess it’s OK”, being activist?

    Isn’t that sorta what courts are for?

  54. frameone says:
    June 6, 2006 at 10:06 am

    “I am agaisnt social engineering … We live in a society of laws and traditions, most there for a good reason.”

    Naturally pedro, the idiot, doesn’t see the conflict between these two statements.

  55. drpedro says:
    June 6, 2006 at 10:06 am

    We didn’t until upitty activist judges began to ply the social engineering trade.

    I am not religious, at all. I couldn’t care less about what any religious document says about marriage, gaydom, or anything else for that matter.

    I am agaisnt social engineering. I am against social anarchy where everyone gets an opinion and by definition it’s ok. I don’t want people to be able to marry multiple other people. I don’t want people to be able to marry children….all for a simple reason. We live in a society of laws and traditions, most there for a good reason.

    Marriage has meaning, and when you just decide to up and change that meaning for no good reason, well, that leads you down the path to changing a lot of other definitions for no good reason.

    The “separate but equal” and “but interracial marriage was banned” are silly straw man arguments. Equal is equal, gays have the exact same rights I do. If you want to take the argument a step further, what about polygamists? How about bestiality? Are they suffering under a “seperate but equal” problem?

    If you are interested in true gay “rights”, push for civil unions. Inside of a year the laws can change, and folks can then visit their loved ones in hospitals, etc, etc.

    You disingenous liberals couldn’t care less about gay rights, you are interested in a political football. Even my LIBERAL gay friends say that!

  56. SaveFarris says:
    June 6, 2006 at 11:06 am

    How is it that the court looks over all the laws, finding there s no law against something, then saying  I guess it s OK , being activist?

    Uh … because that’s not judicial activism?

    The three most-oft cited cases of activism (Roe, Mass Gay Mar., the Pledge) involved courts striking down existing laws based upon personal opinion and penumbras, not actual Constitutional Text.

  57. drpedro says:
    June 6, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    Ok Roni, how about this…

    Lets put it up for a nationwide referendum. Then we can see what the MAJORITY of the population thinks is a “good reason”.

    You down with that? Ready to accept the “will of the people”?

    (standing by ready to hear “separate but equal” recording again…)

  58. drpedro says:
    June 6, 2006 at 1:06 pm

    They
    Are
    Not
    The
    Same
    Thing

    Interracial marriage bans are not “separate but equal”. Skin color does not affect behavior, it is not a difference any more than eye color is. What sex you are is a physiologic difference that has tremendous impact on society. Skin color is an artificial construct as a “difference”. Sodomy laws DO seek to get into the bedroom

  59. TomY says:
    June 6, 2006 at 1:06 pm

    Is Loving v Virginia judicial activism? Pedro, good thing we didn’t put interracial marriage or sodomy laws to state referendums, isn’t it?

  60. TomY says:
    June 6, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    They are the same thing: a union that society banned on the theory that it was harmful and unnatural. Race laws most certainly sought to get in the bedroom on that basis.

  61. BD says:
    June 6, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    For once, I agree with Pedro. Let’s push for civil unions. And I’ll tell you why.

    Because once you have the legal benefits equalized, you can call your union whatever the hell you want. If two gay people want to go around telling people they got married, only the tools of the world will say “Nuh-uh, you got civil union…ed…”

    And they can say, “Nope. We’re married.” Because what, legally, can be done to them if they colloquially refer to their civil union as a marriage? If I choose to call my marriage a mackerel, I have that right under that pesky First Amendment.

    (Because that’s the thing, isn’t it? The attempt here is to try and outlaw word usage.)

    And the best part, of course, is that persistent lingusitic proliferation gradually becomes common lingo. Inside a decade after civil unions are passed, nobody will think twice about calling it marriage…except, of course, the tools of the world. And again, there’s nothing that said tools can do about it.

    Bring civil unions on and let the English language–our official one, in case you’ve forgotten–work it out.

    On a sidenote, drpedro continues to whine instead of problem solve about his issues. There’s a very simple way to keep people from marrying dogs, children, and multiple partners.

    “Marriage is hereby defined as a union between two consenting adults.”

  62. Nimrod Gently says:
    June 6, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    “Gays have precisely the same right to get married as heteros& .as long as they are marrying one person of the opposite sex.”

    Wait, did you just say that seriously?

  63. BD says:
    June 6, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Nimrod, you’ve never encountered this loony argument before? It’s about as serious as a heart attack. Such marriage “defenders” seem to think that it’s equitable for gays to be married to people they aren’t attracted to; which often makes me wonder what their own, legal, heterosexual marriages are like.

    I’ll take the idea of a defense of marriage seriously when the amendment also outlaws crappy reality shows based on the idea that marriage should be a televised contest between twenty-odd bachelors or bachelorettes.

  64. Zython says:
    June 6, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    Also, drpedro. I think the whole “civil union” thing is a problem of vernacular. Technically, ALL secualr “marriages” are “civil unions”, but they became synonymous with marriage. The government has now power to force religious marriages. The problem, though, is that the religious fundies don’t want either. They want to force gays back into the closet and let them rot there. “Civil unions” ARE what we’re pushing for, but gays should be able to call it marriage like a heterosexual couple can.

  65. Zython says:
    June 6, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    Can anyone SERIOUSLY tell me what possible real damage can be posed by gay marriage (no, the destruction of “the senctity of marriage” is an artificial threat). When I say damage, I mean actual harm, whether physical, emotional, or economical*.

    Frankly, it’s going to boil down do “ze childrenzo!1!!!1!!oneone”, and about how children are going to be “tramatized” by the idea of homosexuality. This is yet another example of how conservatives think minors are inately stupid and closed-minded (well, except middle-schoolers, then it’s apt). It’s just another new concept for them to learn about, they aren’t going to become serial killers just because they see a gay couple (unless conservatives are teaching them to kill gay couples).

    I’ve heard another “concern” that if homosexual marriage is legalized, then adult-child marriages** and human-animal marriage must also be legalized, since there is no line between those. Except for the idea of consent.

    *Don’t bring up the “tax-scam” BS again, a heterosexual “couple” would be just as likely to do that, and the other reason I already addressed.

    **There ARE those creepy Morman towns, but that’s another issue for another time.

  66. duros62 says:
    June 6, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    Hey, why not outlaw smart people?

    ‘cuz that worked so well for Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin, didn’t it?
    Asshat.
    The definition of marriage is two people united. I don’t think it is the job of the government to make these definitions of how people can live their lives in a “free” society.
    How ’bout this? More gay marriage=fewer abortions! Win-win, right, Frank?

  67. Frank_D says:
    June 6, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    I never said I was opposed to gay marriage. How I feel about gay marriage is rather irrelevant. As a soon – to – be marital therapist, I can say that gay relationships have no more, or no less, problems than heterosexual relationships.

    However, insofar as the nature of relationships is determined in several ways by one’s personality, homosexual relationships are more likely to be struggling with the problems of sexual identity. (More homosexuals struggle with sexual identity than do heterosexuals*).

    Whether or not people commit sins is God’s business, and theirs, not mine. (Abortion is different, because, in that case, a child that would have been born, is not.)

    Gay marriage is a civil issue — beneficiaries, adoptions, hospital visitations, “family coverage” for medical plans at work, and, of course, the big enchilada, legitimacy.

    This is why there must be a nation – wide debate, not a nine – person “skull session.”

    * This may be social in origin, or pathological, but that’s another issue.

  68. Dugger says:
    June 6, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    Zython
    I don’t know if categorically there is any real damage done by same sex or gay marriage as you imprecisely define it. But you acknowledge whats being called for is same sex marriage right? – A by-product of which would be same sex gay marriages. I assume you would permit same sex heteros to get married, right? And why, if thats the case, wouldn’t millions of casual friends whatever “get married” – for tax benefits for one? You don’t seea little social upheaval in all of that? Marriage would sort of become menaingless, wouldn’ it. Two college students get married. Mother and daughter living together (save on taxes). What you do is withdraw a moral element from marriage. Not sure thats OK.

    Dugger

  69. Sundown says:
    June 6, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    And why, if thats the case, wouldn t millions of casual friends whatever  get married – for tax benefits for one? You don t seea little social upheaval in all of that?

    That could already happen with opposite-sex partners. So no, I personally don’t see any social upheaval.

  70. Zython says:
    June 6, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    Sundown just made my point for me. Coupled with the fact that there aren’t that many heterosexuals that want to have the social stigma of “being gay”.

    Let me put it another way, would you want to pay only 50% of your mortgage/rent if it meant that everyone you know or will know will think you’re a furry*? Probably not.

    Then again, I’m not suprised by this rhetoric, coming from the same people who argue that the mythical “welfare queens” are a good enough reason to leave every poor person in the country to starve to death.

  71. Roni says:
    June 6, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    Frank_D Says:
    June 6th, 2006 at 7:58 pm

    “As a soon – to – be marital therapist [and soon-to-be divorcee]”

    Dear God in Heaven. The man who threatened to kick someone’s ass so hard “his kids would be born dizzy” is going to dispense marital advice.

  72. Zython says:
    June 6, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    However, insofar as the nature of relationships is determined in several ways by one s personality, homosexual relationships are more likely to be struggling with the problems of sexual identity. (More homosexuals struggle with sexual identity than do heterosexuals*).

    You don’t need to beat around the bush. We all know you mean that one of them must be the “submissive” one and the other must be the “dominate” one. This may suprise you, but a couple can see eachother as equals. *Gasp*

    As for the act itself, just take turns!

  73. frameone says:
    June 6, 2006 at 10:06 pm

    “And why, if thats the case, wouldn t millions of casual friends whatever  get married – for tax benefits for one? You don t seea little social upheaval in all of that?”

    What a load of crap. Dugger, “casual friends” can get married for tax benefites, or citizenship benefits for that matter right now, today if they wanted to. Do they do so in the millions? I don’t know. Do you? Is marriage presently meaningless?

    Idiot.

  74. drpedro says:
    June 6, 2006 at 10:06 pm

    Frank you didn’t really say “skull session” in the same context as gay marriage did you ?

  75. Frank_D says:
    June 6, 2006 at 10:06 pm

    You don t need to beat around the bush
    Unlike liberals, I don’t believe in “code words” or euphemisms. I say exactly what I mean. Now that we’ve cleared that up, did you have a question for me, or a comment to make?

  76. Frank_D says:
    June 6, 2006 at 11:06 pm

    Zython: You’re entitled to at least one clue, since your problem is at least in part, reading comprehension.
    insofar as the nature of relationships is determined in several ways by one s personality

    Get it?

    Nothing about “submissive” or “dominant”. I’ll leave you to decipher the rest for yourself.

    I find it amazing that all you left wing “mind readers” have been nearly 100% wrong in your attempts to tell me “what I mean,” and yet you continue.

    Even if I were sure I knew what “you actually meant,” but I turned out to be wrong 999 out of 1000 times, I would stop with the predictions, already.

  77. Zython says:
    June 6, 2006 at 11:06 pm

    And by “sexual identity”, you mean…

    I find it amazing that all you left wing  mind readers have been nearly 100% wrong in your attempts to tell me  what I mean, and yet you continue.

    You say that like conservatives don’t do the same. “Liberals want to outlaw Christianity” my ass. Or more aptly, “The Homosexual Agenda”.

  78. Roni says:
    June 7, 2006 at 1:06 am

    Frank_D Says:
    June 6th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
    Zython: You re entitled to at least one clue, since your problem is at least in part, reading comprehension. I find it amazing that all you left wing  mind readers have been nearly 100% wrong in your attempts to tell me  what I mean, and yet you continue.

    The man is a soon-to-be marital therapist …? His clients HAVE to listen to his advice or (a) be insulted; or (b) beaten to a pulp.

  79. Dugger says:
    June 7, 2006 at 7:06 am

    Sundown, You really see no social upheaval if we open the door to same sex marriages. None?

    Zython

    (And frame, the point has whooshed by your emotional head. ) The difference is we would have open season for marriage. Everybody could get married – not just gays, not just heteros, not just the opposite sex. How are tax laws to be enforced. Why wouldn’t people across the country just “partner” up. After all, marriage has become meaningless. Unless you plan to become a rigid authoritarian right after same sex marriage is approved and deny all other competing ‘marriage’ activists their justice.

    We can argue the morality of the issue but don’t pretend social upheaval won’t follow and that there will be a shrill accusatory campaign for additional “marriage freedoms” right after this one concludes.

    Dugger

  80. Frank_D says:
    June 7, 2006 at 8:06 am

    You say that like conservatives don t do the same.
    You’ve just done it again.

    In the first place, generalizations about liberals, or conservatives, are not what I call “mind reading.” I am referring to those benighted commenters who, for some reason, can’t (or won’t) deal with the statement I’ve actually made, so they tell me “what I really mean” so they can comment about that, instead of what I’ve actually said.
    From Gender Identity Disorder by George A. Rekers, Ph.D.

    One of the clinician’s tasks is to differentiate normal adjustment phases in psychosexual development from gender disturbances that require specific treatment intervention (Rekers & Kilgus, 1995; Rekers, 1995a)

    Still think I was beating around the bush?

  81. Frank_D says:
    June 7, 2006 at 8:06 am

    I don’t wear knickers.
    Thank you, Tom…
    Your time is up; please pay the receptionist on the way out.

  82. (: Tom :) says:
    June 7, 2006 at 8:06 am

    Frank_D Says:

    [snip]

    I find it amazing that all you left wing  mind readers have been nearly 100% wrong in your attempts to tell me  what I mean, and yet you continue.

    Even if I were sure I knew what  you actually meant, but I turned out to be wrong 999 out of 1000 times, I would stop with the predictions, already.

    Try and remeber this next time you start telling liberals what they mean, why they think what they think, and why they’re doing what they’re doing. I can’t believe you are so lacking in ethics that you would get your knickers in a twist when somebody does to you what you’ve been doing ever since I saw you start commenting here. This has to be one of the most perfect examples of hypocrisy ever seen.

    And this is the type of individual who will be helping married couples with their problems? I sure hope some of the people who make the decision on whether to certify you have seen your comments on this blog.

  83. Frank_D says:
    June 7, 2006 at 9:06 am

    Speaking of hypocricy, who are the commenters that tell Doctor P he must be a lousy Doctor, presumably because he’s a conservative?
    Who makes comments like “I sure hope some of the people who make the decision on whether to certify you have seen your comments on this blog”?
    “Tolerant” and “compassionate” liberals.
    As I am still trying to say, but my comments are in limbo, generalizations are not mind reading.

  84. Sundown says:
    June 7, 2006 at 9:06 am

    What?

    In order to be compassionate I have to be ok with a poster who thinks every liberal* hates the troops? No. I think people like drpedro need to be exposed.

    * Would that include Joe Lieberman, who’s still quite liberal on a lot of stuff, even though he’s usually ashamed to admit it?

  85. Frank_D says:
    June 7, 2006 at 11:06 am

    Right, Sundown. You can agree with me or Dr P or not. You can even call us names. After all, that’s what threads are for, right?
    But what does that have to do with what kind of a Doctor Pedro is, or what kind of a therapist I’ll be?
    Suppose I found out that you were say, a chemist. What point would there be to my calling you a lousy chemist, because you believe in an ideology whose time has come and gone?
    Are you and your compadres following me?

  86. BD says:
    June 7, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    I’m just going to take a moment to wonder out loud (as it were) if conservative marital therapists tell their clients that the best way to save their marriages is by making sure gays aren’t allowed to get married.

    I additionally wonder how many Massachusetts couples have come into marital therapist offices weeping about the breakup of their marriage due to the gays who just got married.

  87. Frank_D says:
    June 7, 2006 at 1:06 pm

    You’re in the wrong ballpark, BD. Those questions are for social psychologists. We’re taught that a relationship is a dyad — two people, and their gender is, very often, irrelevant to their relationship problems.

    However, since homosexuals are more likely to have gender identity problems, and these can contribute greatly to relationship problems, you will usually find that gender identity confusion can affect homosexual relationships more often than heterosexual relationships.

    I can only speculate that no one, except perhaps you, BD, believes that the mere existence of homosexual marriage effects existing heterosexual marriages.

    Here’s a good story on the issue from the Christian Science Monitor.

  88. Dugger says:
    June 8, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    duros

    So the country has 50M males and 50M plus one female and we have 50M marriages. Marriage has become meaningless. What part of marriage do progressives regard as sacrosanct? Any thing? Any protection for the institution of marriage? Who do you tell to buzz off, marriage is for whoever?
    The minute you estasblisha boundary you can be portrayed as bigoted na unfair. What children can’t married? You hate kids? Discrimate against young Americans?

    Dugger

  89. duros62 says:
    June 8, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    The difference is we would have open season for marriage. Everybody could get married – not just gays, not just heteros, not just the opposite sex.
    Who else is there, Dugg? I think you covered everybody, human at the very least.
    Animals? NAMBLA? Mormons?

Oliver Willis

Contact
Email: owillis@gmail.com
Twitter
Facebook
Flickr
AIM: oliverwill
Huffington Post Columns
Media Matters Blog Entries