PDA

View Full Version : Senate Blocks Bush Move to Ban Same-Sex Marriage



Lina Inverse
15-07-04, 04:42
Senate Blocks Bush Move to Ban Same-Sex Marriage (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;?type=topNews&storyID=5672582)
Was about time they stopped this madman :bravo:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday failed in his attempt to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage when a divided U.S. Senate blocked the measure, virtually killing it for at least this election year.

On a 48-to-50 vote, six Republicans broke ranks as proponents of a proposed amendment fell 12 votes short of the needed 60 to end a Democratic procedural hurdle.

White House hopeful John Kerry and fellow Senate Democrats accused Republicans of pushing the proposal merely to rally their conservative base for the November presidential and congressional elections.

Democrats also charged that four days of Senate debate on it could have been better spent on such issues as health care and national security.

"The floor of the United States Senate should only be used for the common good, not issues designed to divide us for political purposes," Kerry said in a statement.

Bush expressed regret that the Republican-led Senate blocked the proposal, which would define marriage as a union strictly between a man and a woman, and urged the Republican-led House of Representatives to pass it. "It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue," he said.

But the House is also expected to fall far short of the needed votes when it takes up the measure, likely in September."
[...]

Ewok85
15-07-04, 11:15
So much for the land of the free, censorship and banning of things like that is just plain stupid. They'll be trying to make it illegal to be gay next :rolls eys:

nikki_the_insane
15-07-04, 21:21
This is such a tough issue to get involved in. I'm not sure if I'm for or against it. I believe people should be able to do what they want and if loving someone who's the same sex as you is what you want to do then that's fine with me, but legalizing gay marriage stricks up some other issues. If gay marriage is legalized you'll have all the polygimist(sp) ask why they can't marry more then one wife. Polygamy is still a problem in Utah and starts problems with family members being disowned if they don't want to marry inside the family. With legalization of gay marriage you'd also have to legalize polygamy and who knows what this'll bring.

Lina Inverse
17-07-04, 03:42
This is such a tough issue to get involved in. I'm not sure if I'm for or against it. I believe people should be able to do what they want and if loving someone who's the same sex as you is what you want to do then that's fine with me, but legalizing gay marriage stricks up some other issues. If gay marriage is legalized you'll have all the polygimist(sp) ask why they can't marry more then one wife. Polygamy is still a problem in Utah and starts problems with family members being disowned if they don't want to marry inside the family. With legalization of gay marriage you'd also have to legalize polygamy and who knows what this'll bring.
I'm all for it! :haihai: I can't see what should be wrong about polygamy? The more, the merrier! :D

Flashjeff
17-07-04, 13:01
I think I mentioned this in another thread, but given all the REAL threats to the so-called "institution" of marriage from heterosexuals: abuse, infidelty, kids being born out of wedlock or couples not even bothering with marriage, for Bush and his Republican cronies to get their collective panties in a bunch over same-sex unions to the point of wanting to change the Constitution to stop it is ridiculous. Plain and simple.

cross-platform
22-07-04, 03:48
I can't believe Bush wants to go so far as a Constitutional Amendment. That is really extreme! It would just end up being overturned like prohibition though.

Arc Light
22-07-04, 04:46
Look...if you don't live in the US, then you don't know what's going on. Not banning same-sex marriage not only leaves the door open for polygamists abusing their spouses, but it also leaves the door wide open for Inbreeding as well. Most Americans support legislation that bans same-sex marriage for many reasons. The only reason the current bill was stopped was because it's an election year. I'm just as disappointed in President Bush about many things...but his stance on this is widely supported by many Americans, Christian and Catholic.

And for the record...how many times has an American come here and flamed Europeans for the problems they have, and how they deal with them?

playaa
22-07-04, 06:57
Men and Women were made to need each other for reproduction. That is how it should be kept. Men + Men and Women + Women would be able to produce together if it were meant to be that way, so I agree with bush.

Glenn
22-07-04, 07:17
I think I mentioned this in another thread, but given all the REAL threats to the so-called "institution" of marriage from heterosexuals: abuse, infidelty, kids being born out of wedlock or couples not even bothering with marriage, for Bush and his Republican cronies to get their collective panties in a bunch over same-sex unions to the point of wanting to change the Constitution to stop it is ridiculous. Plain and simple.

I agree.


Not banning same-sex marriage not only leaves the door open for polygamists abusing their spouses, but it also leaves the door wide open for Inbreeding as well.

How is that? There is still a big difference between same-sex marriage and each of these.

Same-sex marriage versus polygamy -- Same-sex marriage is between two people, just like marriage as it is now. This isn't that big of a leap. I fail to see how two people of the same sex getting married would be destructive, or how it would be all that different than them being together outside of marriage.

Same-sex marriage versus inbreeding -- Same-sex marriage takes place between two people who aren't related. Making this connection would be the same as saying that if same-sex marriage were made legal, then we would have to get rid of age restrictions and statutory rape, etc. Do you think that that is the case as well?


Men and Women were made to need each other for reproduction. That is how it should be kept. Men + Men and Women + Women would be able to produce together if it were meant to be that way, so I agree with bush.

So they can't reproduce. So what? If you have a problem with it being unnatural, then you shouldn't fly, or drive, or use condoms, or take medicine, etc. etc. (This argument is courtesy of Maciamo).

Arc Light
23-07-04, 23:00
You misinterpreted what I said...if the homos and lesbians are given special rights...whatever those rights are, then the lawyers for polygamists and the (gag) lawyers for (gag) inbreeding are gonna raise hell about wanting the same rights. And that is just ONE of the reasons behind the opposition to same-sex marriage. There's other things like health care costs and medical insurance, which everyone, including heterosexual couples and the Federal Government, also share the bills. there's alot more to it than what you read in the media...which, by the way, is quite liberal. You should read from neutral or even right-wing news media outlets before you make your judgements.

Glenn
23-07-04, 23:45
You misinterpreted what I said...if the homos and lesbians are given special rights...

I wouldn't call marriage a "special right." By the way, lesbians are "homos." "Homo" is an abbreviation for "homosexual," which is defined thusly by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:


1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Also note that "homo" comes from Greek and is a combining form meaning "same."


Main Entry: hom-
Variant(s): or homo-
Function: combining form
Etymology: Latin, from Greek, from homos -- more at SAME
1 : one and the same : similar : alike <homograph> <homosporous>
2 : homosexual <homophobia>

And please refrain from using derogatory words here.


then the lawyers for polygamists and the (gag) lawyers for (gag) inbreeding are gonna raise hell about wanting the same rights.

There are lawyers for inbreeding? I've never heard of that one. As for the polygamy thing, that's a seperate issue, and I don't think that it should be thrown into a discussion about same-sex marriage. Polygamy could apply to same-sex marriages as well, after all.


And that is just ONE of the reasons behind the opposition to same-sex marriage.

Not a very good one, though, as far as I can see.


There's other things like health care costs and medical insurance, which everyone, including heterosexual couples and the Federal Government, also share the bills.

I'm not understanding your point here. Homosexuals share the costs for heterosexual couples, who get tax credits because they're married, as well as do single heterosexuals. Why shouldn't heterosexual couples share the costs for homosexuals who are married? Everyone who pays taxes shares the bills in this country, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, age, etc. Why should anyone be discriminated against based on any of these?


there's alot more to it than what you read in the media...which, by the way, is quite liberal. You should read from neutral or even right-wing news media outlets before you make your judgements.

If you want to say that someone doesn't know what he is talking about and be taken seriously, then please provide some sort of proof to back up your claims. Tell me about what I'm missing if you want me to know about it.

Flashjeff
24-07-04, 12:30
Look, this is all about Bush pandering to the intolerant bible thumpers and right wing lunatics in the Republican party whose support he needs for his re-election bid. We have a Senator here in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum (a Republican of course) who equates same-sex marriage as a threat on par with terrorism. If that isn't insane, then I don't know what is, boys and girls!