Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment

February 24, 2004 8:51 AM

Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment Pres. Bush called for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage today, blaming "activist judges", the Massachusettes Supreme Court, and the mayor of San Francisco, among others, for attempting "to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."

How this call for an amendment plays out remains to be seen, but Bush is taking a strong stance on this issue, in what some see as another 'big headline' proposal during the election season. What will this mean for the civil rights of homosexuals in this country? And how will voters react in November?
posted by nyukid (377 comments total)

President Bush's comments made gay marriage sound like the coming of the apocolypse:

"On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."
posted by nyukid at 8:54 AM on February 24, 2004

A recent nationwide CNN poll found that by a margin of 64-32, those surveyed said gay marriages should not be recognized in law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.

I bet it doesn't become a big election issue because Kerry can read polls too.
posted by Durwood at 8:55 AM on February 24, 2004

The supposed freakout over same-sex marriage by Joe and Jane Sixpack is a Weapon of Mass Distraction by Republicans desperate to divert the attention of the American electorate from the economy, the mounting debt, and the disaster in Iraq.

The Bush administration's cynical endorsement of the religious right's attempt to, as the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg so aptly put it, "deface the Constitution with anti-gay graffiti," should be reason alone to send them packing.

There are a millions of other reasons.
posted by digaman at 8:56 AM on February 24, 2004

how do you spell wedge issue?
posted by matteo at 8:58 AM on February 24, 2004

I bet it doesn't become a big election issue because Kerry can read polls too.

Kerry says GOP may target him on 'wedge issue'
Gives his OK to civil unions, not marriage
posted by matteo at 8:59 AM on February 24, 2004

The plan is to move gay marriage and abortion to the center of the debate in 2004.

Free your mind.
posted by the fire you left me at 9:01 AM on February 24, 2004

Oh, in case you were keeping score, if made into law, this would be the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

By the way, Constitutional Amendments require 2/3 majorities in the House and the Senate and then support from 3/4 of state legislatures to be passed.
posted by nyukid at 9:02 AM on February 24, 2004

in always thought i was missing something in all this gay marriage debate, and maybe someone can clarify this for me:

isn't marriage an institution defined by the church? aren't the rights of a married couple (taxes, insurance, etc.) bestowed upon them by the state after they get married in a church?

shouldn't it be up to the church to say who can be married and not the other way around???
posted by h00dini at 9:04 AM on February 24, 2004

If you feel strongly about this issue don't forget to send an email to your congressional representatives letting them know just what you think.

Personally, I'm worried for America.
posted by sdinan at 9:05 AM on February 24, 2004

I mentioned this in the fpp below too. :)
posted by dejah420 at 9:09 AM on February 24, 2004

How many times can our nation be on the wrong side of history?
posted by machaus at 9:10 AM on February 24, 2004

h00dini, I got married in October of last year, and it certainly wasn't in a church. Got a marriage license from my friendly local state court.
posted by crawl at 9:11 AM on February 24, 2004

If the American public was polled on the harmful effects of religion, and it was found that a majority of the people favored a ban on religion in any form, would that become a constitutional amendment?

And don't some human rights outweigh voting rights?

BTW, I like how he tried to pin the blame on the "activist judges" who managed to interpret the constitution properly.
posted by jon_kill at 9:12 AM on February 24, 2004

Do the people castigating Ralph Nader for possibly syphoning votes off Kerry grok that the gay marriage issue is much more likely to do that exact thing? Are the people who say: "We like you Ralph, but your timing sucks" saying the same thing about this in-your-face approach to change the marriage laws? Please note, I'm not commenting on the issue itself; just recognizing that it will be used (fairly or not) as a club to against the Democrats ... and a potentially devastating club from where I sit.
posted by RavinDave at 9:13 AM on February 24, 2004

I have to laugh that when Massachusetts courts declare the descrimination to be unconstitutional, it's the result of "activist judges" and "judges don't make the law, the people do". But when "the people" take to city hall in SF, it's all about how they're breaking the law.
posted by jpoulos at 9:20 AM on February 24, 2004

shouldn't it be up to the church to say who can be married and not the other way around???

Not as long as I can be married by a judge in a courthouse or a Carnival cruise ship captain without ever using the word "god."
posted by archimago at 9:21 AM on February 24, 2004

It is official. This administration is pure evil.
Voting for this appalling retched creature is synonymous with classifying yourself as a despicable asshole...
No ifs ands or buts about it
posted by EmoChild at 9:22 AM on February 24, 2004

If he has an issue with activist judges he should have let them select him president 3 years ago.
posted by terrapin at 9:23 AM on February 24, 2004

h00dini: what is being talked about here is civil marriage. In every state in the US, so far it's been upto each state to decide how to do it. In general, to get married in the US you have to get a marriage license (many states having a waiting period), and then you have some sort of officiant do the wedding itself. The state decides who can perform a marriage. Every state that I know of allows ordained ministers and the similar in other religions to perform a civil marrige; in addition to judges, mayors, and etc. But they are acting as an agent of the state to have you married.
posted by skynxnex at 9:25 AM on February 24, 2004

Very interesting matter, from a political point of view, because the very same kind of "political" statement concering judges are being made by one of Bush alleged "best pals" in the world, Prime Minister of Italy Mr. Silvio Berlusconi.

He too is using the pseudo-argument of "activist judges" to defent his own interestest and to incite his supporters and public opinion against the judges.

It looks like to me the same trick is now being used by his pal.

An useful link on the subject :
text of MSJC Court ruling on same-sex marriage

I guess SJC 08860 is the code for further searching, it's a very interesting read even for non-lawyers.

What's is very troubling for me is that the current President (it wouldn't matter if he was Rep or Dem, it really doesn't matter) said our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

I guess sanctity is something that pertains exclusively to religions and I see no good coming from someone who wants to impose by Law whatever he believes is Saint on other people.
posted by elpapacito at 9:26 AM on February 24, 2004

this is the gayest bullshit.
posted by Peter H at 9:26 AM on February 24, 2004

This will never happen, thank God, and i pity the stupid conservatives who are happy with this, even though it's meaningless...the standards for getting a constitutional amendment passed are really really high for a reason (so that shit like this doesn't get through). Even with a second term, Bush will be back in Crawford while it goes from state-to-state being ratified (or not). And I second what other people have said about Bush having nothing else to run on. (I smell a repeat of 92's culture war)
posted by amberglow at 9:26 AM on February 24, 2004

jpoulos: "Laws are made by the people through their elected representatives in the legislature, not by standing in line at City Hall" is kind of a mouthful, you have to admit.
posted by kindall at 9:28 AM on February 24, 2004

Bush said our nation must DEFEND the sanctity of marriage.

so now it's official, homosexuals are terrorists!
seriously, could even Mad Magazine make a better parody of an administration?
posted by Peter H at 9:30 AM on February 24, 2004

skynxnex: But the concept is born in religion, and it's the effort of W to assert his beliefs in that regard on the concept of civil marriages as you have described. It is essentially state-mandated religion.

Can anyone provide a link/quote of W explaining why same-sex marriages are bad?
posted by ringmaster at 9:33 AM on February 24, 2004

George Bush:- If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America.

Two words:- divorce industry.

Start with the family courts if you're interested in protecting marriage George. At the moment, they allow marriage to be a drive-thru experience, reward one person while punishing the other (hardly makes marriage attractive Mr Bush). There's little sanctity in an institution that has parasite industries leeched onto it such as the family courts, whom employ thousands, to the vast army of lawyers dedicated to fighting the family courts.

Both symbiotically depend on each other, but ultimately depend on marriages going bust. They reward the initiator of divorce (to make the divorce rate as high as it is) and punish the non-initiator (who will pay thousands for court orders to try and balance the injustice). If the family courts were fair in their judgements, and saw to it that they were enforced, thousands would be out of work overnight.
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:35 AM on February 24, 2004

I have no wrods for how heinous this is. Topix.net has great coverage from all the state/federal gay marriage cases.
posted by cpfeifer at 9:37 AM on February 24, 2004

Anything to keep people from noticing the body bags CIF Baghdad will do for this administration, apparently. The GOP has further refined itself from the party of the Elephant to the party of the White Elephant.
posted by clevershark at 9:40 AM on February 24, 2004

It's just so damn brilliant. Disgusting but brilliant. Of course Bush gets the base excited by this. But it has the dual effect of putting Kerry in a corner. If he throws his support behind gay marriage, he alienates the social conservatives in the middle who might otherwise consider him. If he supports only civil unions, many on the far left will drop support. Of course this amendment probably never happens, but it's a hell of a wedge. The Great Divider.
posted by blefr at 9:47 AM on February 24, 2004

Shouldn't this be a local issue?

The Republican party seems to love the ideal of local control over issues like abortion, gun rights, etc. Why not this issue as well?

If San Francisco wants to recognize life-long commitments between two people of the same sex then fine. If backward southern states want to prohibit it, then fine.
posted by bshort at 9:49 AM on February 24, 2004

Also, Kerry is playing the whole thing right by saying he has the exact same position as Cheney.
posted by bshort at 9:54 AM on February 24, 2004

Bush: "If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed......."

Wait........ That's the agenda? Protecting the *meaning* of a word? We need a constitutional amendment to protect a word's meaning? This is the issue Bush wants to fight for? Can anyone say "smoke screen"?

Great. We've protected the dictionary, Iraqis can vote, we've decided to go to Mars (someday). Wonderful. Now can we deal with the jobs/education/debt trainwreck?
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:57 AM on February 24, 2004

Activist presidents are worse than activist judges. Activist judges at least went to law school and have some kind of legal foundation, however slight, for their opinions.

Bush, on the other hand, relies on fear and mythology.

And it stings even more to see somebody like Kerry, who we know in his heart thinks this is all bullshit, twist in the wind to appear more "moderate."

This is all total crap. Wake me up on election day.
posted by PrinceValium at 9:58 AM on February 24, 2004

I like how Bush came out and made this announcement just as the director of the CIA was testifying before Congress about intelligence.

Hey, everybody! Look over here! Them hommasekshuls are gonna eat your babies if you let 'em marry! Forget about intelligence problems compromising our national security and integrity! Gay people want to get married! AIIIEEE!!!

Christ. Why can't the Rapture happen and make all these assholes disappear? I think I'd rather take the Lake of Fire and the Tribulation and the rest of that Apocalypse Porn than have to listen to any more of this non-issue bullshit.
posted by RakDaddy at 10:00 AM on February 24, 2004

bshort ...

The trap is more subtle than that. It allows the Right to galvanize its base against gays, but it also takes aim at so-called "activist judges" at allow it. Two bugaboos for the price of one.
posted by RavinDave at 10:00 AM on February 24, 2004

ringmaster: I know what Bush is saying, but I was just addressing h00dini question about how things are in America right now. It is counterfactual to say that marriage, in America, does not have a civil event: the marrige license from the government. More pointedly, h00dini simply asked if states just accept who's married based on what the church says, and I said that's not how it works. The state has to say it's ok for a couple to be married (they issue the license). (Of course, different religions have requirements to be married by them.)
posted by skynxnex at 10:00 AM on February 24, 2004

The Republican party seems to love the ideal of local control over issues like abortion, gun rights, etc. Why not this issue as well?

The "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution could be construed to require recognition of any single state's licensed marriages by all states. The federal Defense of Marriage Act contradicts this interpretation, of course, and it seems likely that if push were to come to shove on this issue, the U.S. Supreme Court would need to clarify the contradiction. An amendment would force the Court's hand.

The strange thing about the President's announcement today is that it comes before any Supreme Court decision on the DOMA. That really makes it seems more like simple political grandstanding than a realistic response to judicial action.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:01 AM on February 24, 2004

President Bush is right -- marriage is under attack. Would anyone like to join me in drafting a constitutional amendment that forbids divorce?
posted by rcade at 10:03 AM on February 24, 2004

i wonder if bush and co. have similar problems with the "activist judges" who put an end to racial inequalities such as segregation in the 60's? if we had waited for congress, or worse yet, local jurisdictions to address these issues, interracial marriage would still be illegal in alabama.
posted by Shike at 10:06 AM on February 24, 2004

if not for guns, abortion, and now gay marriage, would there be a republican party?
posted by mcsweetie at 10:06 AM on February 24, 2004

What's is very troubling for me is that the current President (it wouldn't matter if he was Rep or Dem, it really doesn't matter) said our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

Exactly. "Sanctity" is an empty word. I'm a Reconstructionist Jew, and same-sex marriage is permitted in Reconstructionist Judaism. I think it's permitted in MCC churches, too. Basically, Bush is saying, "My religion is better than your religion." This sucks.

Also, here's what Andrew Sullivan has to say.
posted by Tin Man at 10:07 AM on February 24, 2004

to rip off Jon Stewart, if Section 1 of the 28th Amendment "defends" marriage by defining the sexes of its parties, Section 2 should further defend it, by making adultery a federal crime. Let's see how many Congresscritters vote for that one.

And bshort: the problem with localizing this is found in Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." The much-ballyhooed (Clinton-signed) Defense of Marriage Act, which was (I think) a reaction designed to keep homosexual couples from marrying in Hawaii, is pretty clearly in violation of that section, hence the need for an amendment.
posted by Vetinari at 10:10 AM on February 24, 2004

Or, had I actually read on preview, what mr_roboto said. :)
posted by Vetinari at 10:12 AM on February 24, 2004

As mentioned, this would be the 28th amendment, if something else doesn't come along and get adopted first.

Only 6 times in 215 years has an amendment been proposed and not adopted. Those 6 are listed here.

The most recent failed amendments are (1) authorization for Congress to regulate child labor (1926); (2) the equal rights (based on gender) amendment (1972); (3) voting rights (representation in Congress) for residents of the District of Columbia (1978).

The latter two failed because they were not passed in 3/4 of the legislatures within 7 years, a requirement tacked on by Congress in most cases since the 18th Amendment.

It is interesting that all three of these failed amendments would extend rights to, or protect, individual citizens; what is now proposed is an amendment that would deny individual rights to certain peope. On the other hand, nearly all of the 27 ratified amendments are expansions of individual rights. (The exception being Prohibition.)

The ratio of ratified to failed amendments (and the nature of the last three) is an indication that Congress is careful about what amendments it launches on the path to adoption. Especially in the Senate, the Constitution is not viewed as a venue for political action (with the exception of Prohibition and a failed 1861 states-rights-on-slavery amendment, no politically-charged and motivated amendment has gotten by the upper house). I would expect that getting this out of the Senate with 67 votes will not be a simple matter.
posted by beagle at 10:18 AM on February 24, 2004

Shouldn't this be a local issue?

I don't think it should be. If you are gay, live in a State that bans gay marriage and want to wed you are not as "equal" as someone who is able to in San Francisco. How is that fair?
posted by btwillig at 10:19 AM on February 24, 2004

You have to admire the right for having their shit so together when it comes to propaganda. The "activist judges" thing is rhetorical genius. They'll get nearly as much mileage out of it as they did out of "political correctness" in the 90s.
posted by boredomjockey at 10:21 AM on February 24, 2004

Actually, Vetinari, DOMA doesn't necessarily violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It's generally acknowledged that there's a public-policy exception to that clause. A state doesn't have to acknowledge another state's law if to do so would be so odious to that state's public policy. I'm looking for a link to explain where this exception comes from, but I can't seem to find it.
posted by Tin Man at 10:21 AM on February 24, 2004

OK -- here's an article about the public-policy exception as it relates to gay marriage.
posted by Tin Man at 10:32 AM on February 24, 2004

Also, instead of keeping gay people from marrying, shouldn't Bush do something about his brother Neil's nasty divorce? I mean, if you want to keep marriage sacred, you'd be doing something to make this kind of travesty never happens again, right?

Also, rcade said. Wanna protect marriage? Outlaw divorce. Or, better yet, why not take a written exam and a living test? We gotta do that before we can drive.

(Though, jebus, can you imagine having someone from the DMV come and take your marriage for a road test?)
posted by RakDaddy at 10:36 AM on February 24, 2004

Andrew Sullivan has an excellent write up on this from the POV of a gay conservative.

The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign.
posted by phatboy at 10:39 AM on February 24, 2004

When (if) Americans wake up and realize that this proposed Amendment will fundamentally change the interaction between the Federal and State governments on a host of issues, I think all hell will break loose. As said above, this is only the second Amendment to the Constitution that expressly limits rights - the only other one was quickly repealed. I think this is good that Bush came out for this. It casts a direct light now, and forever, that the Republican Party has been completely taken over by Southern Evangelists who are bent on turning America into a theocracy. Take this bill add the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 and you see what is in play. If I were Kerry/Edwards/Democrats, I would start to frame this debate as a basic civil rights case. The Right has long trumpeted "states rights" [which was just another term for allowing bigots to exist] and Federalism as the basic cornerstone of Conservatism. We can finally - without prejudice - call bullshit and finally show the Right's hypocrisy. Will the Press do this? Will the Democrats do this? I don't know. I want to know when the Freedom Rides are going to begin again, and where I can sign up.
posted by plemeljr at 10:43 AM on February 24, 2004

i wonder if bush and co. have similar problems with the "activist judges" who put an end to racial inequalities such as segregation in the 60's?

Yes. Read up on the Republican "southern strategy" for the long answer.

if not for guns, abortion, and now gay marriage, would there be a republican party?

Well, there would still be racism, creationism, public schools to hate, any non-defense evil government agencies, crony corporatism, destroying the environment, etc.

Feel the love.
posted by nofundy at 10:44 AM on February 24, 2004

Also, Kerry is playing the whole thing right by saying he has the exact same position as Cheney.

Just out of curiosity then, what is Cheney's position?
posted by JollyWanker at 10:47 AM on February 24, 2004

I've thought for a while that the larger question here is Why does the State have the right to "license" marriages? - I can certainly where it would be just and fair for the State to take upon itself the duty of 'registering' marriages (just as it registers births and deaths), but it seems to me that the current State role in licensing marriages -- and thus regulating them -- puts the State in an odd and awkward position of essentially regulating a quasi-religous rite

I would love to see some State attempt to get out of the Marriage 'license' business all together. Instead, replace it with a system whereby the State would license those permitted to perform marriage (as most already do), abolish most laws regulating who can and cannot get married (leaving, perhaps, some general material related to contract law whereby parties entering into the contract must do so of their own free will and 'competent' to enter into a binding contract) and get out of the business of regulating who can and cannot get married entirely. Instead, leave the choice to the person who is performing the marriage (some might choose to only marry those in a certain faith, others only those who have gone through certain classes, yet others will choose to marry anyone who asks), and have the State simply act as the registrant for the contract.

This system would get all the religous overtones out of what has become, essentially, contract law and would, I think, more closely mirror the role of the State in other life-altering transactions (birth, buying a house, buying a car, divorce, death, etc.)
posted by anastasiav at 10:49 AM on February 24, 2004

TinMan/phatboy, Sullivan's sense of betrayal is palpable. I'm a social liberal/fiscal conservative free market type, and as much as I dislike the moralizing and ignorance of the right wing, I'm traditionally a republican supporter because I find the socialism and class-warfare shtick from the democrats even more disturbing. Until today I had been planning to vote for Bush, despite many, many reservations, because I like the fundamentals of his foreign policy and I think tax cuts are important wherever we can get them. But you just don't do shit like this.

I never thought I'd say it, but if the dem nominee has the balls to stand up and at least oppose this amendment, hell, probably even if he doesn't, he's got my vote. No matter what a democrat administration might do, it can't be as bad as this. I'm livid.
posted by tirade at 10:51 AM on February 24, 2004

Bush's support for the "Marriage Amendment" was inevitable, but purely defensive, to hold onto the support of the pro-theocracy Republican base (while, in California, hard-core traditional Cons are revolting over Bush's immigration plans). He's not leading the charge, he's just jumping on the bandwagon (although the timing of the announcement was another stroke of Rovian Evil Genius).

As a "wedge" issue, it might just bring out more liberals who otherwise wouldn't have voted than conservatives (I think the right-wing churches already have most of their Christian soldiers recruited and ready for battle). And judging from the issue's ability to knock Andrew Sullivan out of lockstep with the other warbloggers, it might push a lot of Log Cabin Republicans to vote Democrat. And it's going to take a lot of work to keep it front and center to distract from Bush's "problems" (I prefer to call 'em high crimes) for the next nine months...


Of course, Britney's 55-hour marriage did more to undermine the institution than a million gay couples would, and while, from my point of view, anything that could destroy the institution of marriage is a GOOD thing, (I've been married, I've been institutionalized... Marriage is worse) allowing same-sex couples to marry won't do it, and I think it's an awfully cruel thing to inflict on gay people...
posted by wendell at 10:57 AM on February 24, 2004

President Bush is right -- marriage is under attack. Would anyone like to join me in drafting a constitutional amendment that forbids divorce?

Bah - I'm with the attackers. Abolish marriage; get the government out of the whole business. Civil unions for everyone. If you want a contract with your partner, go visit the courthouse; if you want a religious description for your relationship and a religious ritual to celebrate it, go bother some friendly local religious services franchise.
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:57 AM on February 24, 2004

After hearing about Bush wanting to add a same-sex marriage-ban amendment, I was poking around, looking for more info on what has prompted amendments before. I looked through these sites:

http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html

Amazing that this would potentially be only the 28th amendment since the constitution was ratified. One of those 27 amendments (number 21) was to repeal another (number 18 - prohibition). Scanning through the amendments, it seems that each one gives more rights to the people, protects minorities and advances the liberties of the people. I find it very telling that Bush wants to enact an amendment specifically to limit the rights of a minority group.

It's pretty inspiring, to me, to see some of the past amendments:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
Seventh Amendment - Civil Trials
Eighth Amendment - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
Eleventh Amendment - Suits Against States
Twelfth Amendment - Election of President
Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed, Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Fifteenth Amendment - Rights of Citizens to Vote
Nineteenth Amendment - Woman's Suffrage Rights
Twentieth Amendment - Commencement of the Terms of the President, Vice President and Members of Congress.
Twenty-First Amendment - Repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment
Twenty-Third Amendment - Presidential Electors for the District of Columbia
Twenty-Fourth Amendment - Abolition of the Poll Tax Qualification in Federal Elections
Twenty-Sixth Amendment - Reduction of Voting Age Qualification

So 20 out of 27 deal directly with giving people more rights and only one (18) took away rights. If passed, 28 would be the only standing amendment to limit rights of citizens.

I remember hearing during the 2000 election that there was questionable law about Bush/Cheney running together since they were both Texans. The 12th specifically says "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves". Cheney got around this by filing taxes in Wyoming, which is certainly legal, but somewhat fuzzy on ethics.

The first ten amendments (Bill of Rights to you and me) were all ratified at once, with most states ratifying it 1790-1791 (except Mass, Georgia and Conn who didn't step up until 1939). Minorities weren't gauranteed a vote until the 15th amendment came along in 1869 (except in Kentucky who didn't ratify until 1976, and our own state didn't sign on until 1962). Women had to wait until 1920 for the 19th amendment before they had they right to vote. It took until 1964 for the poor to be granted unencumbered access to vote with the 24th amendment banning the poll tax. The voting age wasn't set to 18 until 1971 with the 26th amendment.

It's not suprising to me that Bush wants to turn the trend of amendments from granting rights towards limiting rights. I know it is not easy to amend the constitution with a requirement of 2/3 vote in the house and senate, and then a 3/4 ratification by states. this is spelled out in Article 5 of the Constitution:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5

So maybe Bush gets to use this to excite the religious zealots, knowing that it would be a tough road to go down.
posted by jonah at 10:58 AM on February 24, 2004

A recent nationwide CNN poll found that by a margin of 64-32, those surveyed said gay marriages should not be recognized in law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.

Yes, but 58% of the people think each state should decide for itself, while only 38% favor an amendment. I think this could backfire on Bush. Naked bigotry is unattractive.
posted by callmejay at 11:03 AM on February 24, 2004

Tin Man: thanks for the link. I personally tend to agree with the interpretation that the clause "permits Congress to increase the amount of credit due sister state judgments, but not to decrease it. Under that interpretation, DOMA may be unconstitutional." (from the FindLaw article) -- but it's interesting to know that Full Faith and Credit isn't a cut and dried as it seemed.
posted by Vetinari at 11:08 AM on February 24, 2004

You have no soul if you can read this and still be opposed. Encouraging more people to love more people is never a bad thing.
posted by archimago at 11:11 AM on February 24, 2004

Only 6 times in 215 years has an amendment been proposed and not adopted. Those 6 are listed here.

For the sake of clarification, these six amendments are those which won in the Congress but which the states failed to ratify. This isn't the same as an amendment that has "been proposed"; various people are proposing amendments to the constitution all the time. Bush's proposed amendment won't belong to this category until it's supported by a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, which seems unlikely.

It's also interesting to note that the President has no constitutionally defined role in the amendment process: he's merely the occupant of the bully pulpit.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:14 AM on February 24, 2004

Naked bigotry is unattractive.

Not as attractive as those oiled-up muscle men having it on with each other and prancing around in the imaginations of every male politician these days, though. You're forcing them to deny the tingly feeling. It's making them mad. It's your fault this is happening. And Seinfeld's.
posted by WolfDaddy at 11:18 AM on February 24, 2004

You know, the idea of "State's Rights" being more significant than "activist judges" makes me laugh every time I hear it.

Four years ago, Alabama held a symbolic vote to strike their ban on interracial marriage from the state law (the law was, of course, invalid via the SCOTUS for decades, but the issue was acceptance of the ruling)

Over 30% of voters voted against the repeal.

I'll repeat that: in the year 2000, over 30% of Alabama publicly declared their opposition to interracial marriage, a construct that has been legal for over three decades.

God bless our activist judges, lest our nation lie in the hands of complete fucking morons.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:22 AM on February 24, 2004

I have a gut feeling that most Americans do not approve of gays marrying but do not want the constitution changed.
As for the "law," free and equal access? Why ought the majority impose its ideas upon a significant minority by amending the constituion? Poor Arnie doesn't want his constitutional amendment lost sight of, but since he is against gay marriage...screw him.
posted by Postroad at 11:26 AM on February 24, 2004

given the current events, a most unfortunate front page headline for today's FINANCIAL TIMES: "Bush urges overhaul of Fannie and Freddie"
posted by Peter H at 11:27 AM on February 24, 2004

I'm against gay marriage.
posted by Witty at 11:31 AM on February 24, 2004

Don't marry a person of your own gender, then.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:34 AM on February 24, 2004

It's also interesting to note that the President has no constitutionally defined role in the amendment process: he's merely the occupant of the bully pulpit.

The more I think about this it also seems to be a ploy to get Democrats and Kerry to overreact so that Bush can start calling him an extremist. Just an additional $.02. And in 1958, nine years before the Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, Gallup polled people about interracial marriages. Guess what percentage of Whites opposed them.

That's right 94%
posted by plemeljr at 11:35 AM on February 24, 2004

gay marriages, clearly, Bush is against (as is witty, on preview - me, i'm for them, for the record) But what about Bush's stance on gay bars?
posted by Peter H at 11:35 AM on February 24, 2004

So, does this mean my wife and I, along with many other married atheists, are pretty much living on borrowed time? I mean if it's up to a church to decide whether our union is official or not, fuck it, we're marital outlaws.
posted by lumpenprole at 11:39 AM on February 24, 2004

anastasiav: guess you noticed an interesting point , how and why is the State supposed to -licence- (give permission
to sign a contract).

I guess that any State shouldn't impose any particular form of marriage contract, rather State should provide the framework of "marriage" contract (with room for amendments) made in such a way that the position of the two parties entering the contract is perfectly balanced in rights and obligations, imposing that amendments to the contract should not generate a significant unbalance (leaving the decision to the judge) or any unbalance at all (both parties enjoy exactly the same rights and mutual obligations).

One could see that as redundant given that private parties could prepare such a contract without any help from State ; indeed they can, but I'm thinking about people that have no legal system experience or don't have access to a lawyer (for instace because they don't have enough money).

It seems like it would make sense to provide a standardized marriage framework like the one I described, if not only for the purpose of letting less fortunate people enjoy a well formed contract, for the purpose of having a reference point of what marriage is from Law point of view.
posted by elpapacito at 11:44 AM on February 24, 2004

I'm against gay marriage.

And golly, Witty, you also don't have anything intelligent to contribute on the subject! Will wonders never cease!
posted by Epenthesis at 11:45 AM on February 24, 2004

I support the President on this; and if those who disagree were smart, they would wait for after November to make their stink. Bottom line: the more you protest this, the bigger Bush's margin of victory will be. Most people in the country oppose gay marriage: GET OVER IT.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:49 AM on February 24, 2004

Bah - I'm with the attackers. Abolish marriage; get the government out of the whole business. Civil unions for everyone. If you want a contract with your partner, go visit the courthouse; if you want a religious description for your relationship and a religious ritual to celebrate it, go bother some friendly local religious services franchise.

I completely agree with you regarding this unpopular position. :)
posted by thirteen at 11:51 AM on February 24, 2004

Paris: I consider your pretense of being a Democrat or offensive than your argument once again. Can anyone love a fifth columnist?
posted by thirteen at 11:54 AM on February 24, 2004

Most people in the country oppose gay marriage.

It is exactly for this type of situation that we have the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution. It's called the tyranny of the majority, and I'm sure you've heard of it.
posted by callmejay at 11:55 AM on February 24, 2004

"more offensive" not "or offensive"

foo="pendantry"
posted by thirteen at 11:55 AM on February 24, 2004

posted by Peter H at 11:55 AM on February 24, 2004

Grrr.

Who needs "activist judges" when you've got an Activist President?
posted by me3dia at 11:57 AM on February 24, 2004

nsfw
posted by Peter H at 12:00 PM on February 24, 2004

So let's argue semantics for a moment. Looking up "marriage" in the Webster's Dictionary we find the following: (n) 1 a: the state of being married b: the mutual relation of husband and wife: WEDLOCK c: the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; esp: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3: an intimate or close union.

Now, based on this, if you want to argue semantics, then marriage IS between a man and a woman. However, the English language tends to be the 'language of least resistence' in that it adapts and changes as circumstances dictate over time. So, are we having a national debate over the definition of the term "marriage" (if so - and we don't care if homosexuals are 'united', then let's just provide a different term for homosexual marriages and call them 'unions', therefore providing the same rights and privileges). Or, is what the administration really is saying is: "we don't like homosexuals, we don't believe they should be afforded the same rights and we don't believe they are fit to raise families."

Interesting - I must say that if you are homosexual and want to uphold the sanctity of marriage, you're probably going to do a better job of it that the majority of people out there.

Okay, i think I just answered my own question, then - the Bush Administration is just being extremist on the issue, not semantic. Sad.
posted by tgrundke at 12:00 PM on February 24, 2004

newsfilter
posted by a3matrix at 12:01 PM on February 24, 2004

Best sign seen here in Boston: "My pedophile priest supports a gay marriage ban"

And I'm curious Paris. Give me one valid reason gays shoudn't be able to get married. And just to help; "That's the way it's always been", "It will lead to polygamy/bestiality/locusts" and "I don't like gays" are hardly valid.
posted by jalexei at 12:03 PM on February 24, 2004

I agree with Mars Saxman.

This whole thing is silly. Does the President really think that gay marriage is more important than Social Security, Education, Healthcare or any other improvements this country needs? Lets talk about those issues and not worry about other peoples personal lives.
posted by Akuinnen at 12:07 PM on February 24, 2004

Well, the House of Reps impeached a President because they said he lied when he claimed not to have had sex with a woman. Our government almost faced an unparalleled change over the definition of the word "sex" (or "is" if you enjoy the somantic gaming here).

So, since the only seeming difference between same sex couples and hetero couples appears to be how they have sex, why don't we amend the Constitution to defend the agreed upon definition of "sex". We can define it as the act of a couple, under the religious bonds of matrimony, wherein the male inserts his god-given penis into his wife's naturally bestowed vagina with the possibility that it will result in their having a child by such act. That way, there is no ambiguity, it clearly defines the role of sex, and solves several of the problems that the Christian right are having with society today. Also, instead of defining what a marriage can't be, it clearly defines what a marriage is for, the act of sex with the hope of procreation. It will give us the clear means to impeach future Presidents, should they have anti-constitutional oral sex, and succeeds in competantly acheiving the ultimate goal, which is getting rid of "gayness". Furthermore, marraige is completely defended without bringing up the sticky wickets of other belief systems about marraige, and we don't have to deal with the true threat to the sanctity of marraige, which is divorce. It's win-win folks.

Everybody could get married, they just can't have sex unless defined by the Constitution, so why would they bother getting married if those icky things they do are illegal? Marrige is preserved. I'm loving this plan!
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:08 PM on February 24, 2004

Most people in the country oppose gay marriage: GET OVER IT.

If individual rights become subject to majority whims, we're all in trouble.
posted by timeistight at 12:08 PM on February 24, 2004

I strongly believe Bush is right in this regard. I feel that the institution of marriage should be upheld and not degraded in this manner.
posted by Addiction at 12:10 PM on February 24, 2004

Is anyone worried that this might be a test of how easy it is to change the constitution?
posted by jon_kill at 12:12 PM on February 24, 2004

I'm a Republican. Bush just lost my vote.

I personally pledge to do whatever I can to see that this amendment fails.
posted by Asparagirl at 12:12 PM on February 24, 2004

I strongly believe Bush is right in this regard. I feel that the institution of marriage should be upheld and not degraded in this manner.

Okay, Addiction. Tell me why.
posted by stevis at 12:13 PM on February 24, 2004

I think gay marriage is grotesque, viscerally so, and no one is going to convince me, or most Americans otherwise. On the other hand, I'm not sure you can legitimately enshrine such a feeling in the Constitution--unless Congress and the President succeed in doing so; afterall, Prohibitiion made it in...

But my point was, the best method of minimizing this issue, of having it gain as few votes as possible for Bush, is to lay low.
You want to protest at the Republican Convention in New York? Congradulations, the protest will gain Bush another state or two. Or three.

Get real.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:14 PM on February 24, 2004

I have read several responses in this thread talking about how Bush will be "limiting rights."

Could someone please direct me to the clause in the Constitution that states there is a "right" to marriage? Could someone show me anywhere where a "right" to marriage enmanates from?

Because from my humble legal background, I never came across this "marriage right."



Also, to those of you snarkers who suggest that we go after divorce too, would this be MORE acceptable to you if it outlawed divorce as well? (Or is someone going to pipe up that there is a constitutional right to divorce, as well?)
posted by Seth at 12:15 PM on February 24, 2004

I support the President on this; and if those who disagree were smart, they would wait for after November to make their stink.

Who's making the stink? Seems to me it's the President who just got on national TV and ranted about protecting marriage by banning more of it. Do you expect us to just ignore him?

Bottom line: the more you protest this, the bigger Bush's margin of victory will be. Most people in the country oppose gay marriage: GET OVER IT.

No, thanks, I won't. This is a matter of human rights, and the opinion of the majority is irrelevant.

Thankfully for those of us on the side of truth, justice, and the American way of equality and fairness, Bush can only hurt himself with this move. It's an empty gesture, and can't buy him any votes he doesn't already have in his pocket. He had to do something to reassure his supporters that he was out there on their side putting those dangerous gay people out in San Francisco back in their place, and this was it. I'm sure he would rather have continued avoiding the issue, as he can only further antagonize and energize his opposition by pursuing this further.
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:15 PM on February 24, 2004

If anyone can tell me how marriage is "degraded" by people who love one another, and have been together for decades, getting married, I'll listen.
posted by digaman at 12:18 PM on February 24, 2004

Mars,
I ask you the question.

According to you, now it is an issue of "human rights" to get married.
Please direct me to where you located this pronouncement.
posted by Seth at 12:18 PM on February 24, 2004

digaman,

If you being from the proposition that the family, consisting of a man and a woman and off-spring is the most fundamental building block of civilization, then anything that destroys that understanding is degrading to civilization.

Whether that is correct or not, do you at least understand the progression of thought?
posted by Seth at 12:20 PM on February 24, 2004

Addiction also adds a healthy bit of independent thinking and dialogue to the religious discussion on this complicated issue
posted by Peter H at 12:22 PM on February 24, 2004

Could someone please direct me to the clause in the Constitution that states there is a "right" to marriage?

Seems we have a few such mentions of equal treatment under the law, Seth.
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:23 PM on February 24, 2004

Could someone please direct me to the clause in the Constitution that states there is a "right" to marriage?

Seth: 14th Amendment. The equal protection part.

IANAL.
posted by callmejay at 12:24 PM on February 24, 2004

Because from my humble legal background, I never came across this "marriage right."

Let me introduce you to the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
posted by plemeljr at 12:25 PM on February 24, 2004

See also: this page.
posted by callmejay at 12:26 PM on February 24, 2004

Could someone please direct me to the clause in the Constitution that states there is a "right" to marriage? Could someone show me anywhere where a "right" to marriage emanates from?

Seth, the explanation you're looking for is detailed in the Loving v. Virginia decision. A choice excerpt:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

So there you go.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:27 PM on February 24, 2004

I'm still waiting to hear how gays being allowed to marry will hurt the country. I've been waiting for years.
posted by mcsweetie at 12:29 PM on February 24, 2004

If you being from the proposition that the family, consisting of a man and a woman and off-spring is the most fundamental building block of civilization, then anything that destroys that understanding is degrading to civilization.

Please direct me to where you located this pronouncement (and watch it be destroyed by the facts of history). You're slipping too much into the definition there Seth. Try this:

If you being from the proposition that the family, consisting of the extended tribe and clan, is the most fundamental building block of civilization, then anything that destroys that understanding is degrading to civilization.

Does your definition of what a family is make the statement any more true than mine? If so, please prove exactly how.
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:29 PM on February 24, 2004

For Seth, because he asked:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

-- Loving v. Virginia, 1967

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

-- The Declaration of Independence, 1776
posted by Asparagirl at 12:34 PM on February 24, 2004

Seth -- sure, I understand the progression of thought, but I wouldn't employ that understanding to, say, create a Constitutional amendment to deny equal-protection rights to single mothers, or to anyone else who doesn't fit some cookie-cutter notion of what makes a family.

And ParisParamus, most white Southerners were once "viscerally" disgusted by the notion of black people drinking from the same water fountains, or swimming in the same pools, or riding in the same seats on the bus, as whites. Feel free to join them in the annals of history.
posted by digaman at 12:35 PM on February 24, 2004

So I've seen and heard this debate a long time. I'm failing to understand why the Republican Party is so opposed to Gay Marriage.

First I disagree the assertion that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage and the reason for this is that I believe this whole issue is a debate about semantics. The questions that this debate boils down to are "What is a marriage?" and "Why can't Gay couples also have the same rights as heterosexual ones?"

In the second question I think that most people would think that Gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Certainly just as there is the KKK or other discriminatory organizations and people some do not want there to be equal status for different people but I imagine the majority do.

If we look at the first question most people will say that marriage is a religious ceremony that joins couple in the eyes of God and their community. Aside from the religious aspect, marriage also is a legal definition where a whole slew of laws (contract, tax, criminal and more) suddenly change the definition of a couple in the eyes of the law and government. I think that most religious people oppose gay marriage because they assume it to mean that their church would be forced to either recognize gay marriage or even worse be required to perform it.

I think if you posed the question of "Would you support gay marriage if churches were allowed to maintain their own definitions and practices of marriage however they saw fit?", then a majority of Americans would be inclined to agree.

Ultimately I'm shocked and saddened at the biggest lie Bush has fed us. He was supposed to be "A Uniter not a Divider" and a "Compassionate Conservative". In his support for this constitutional amendment he has purposefully chosen to be a divider where compassion and understanding could and should have helped us come to a reasonable understanding.
posted by aaronscool at 12:35 PM on February 24, 2004

I feel that the institution of marriage should be upheld and not degraded in this manner.

Yes, this is soooo much less degrading than this.

Homosexuals would make a mockery of this sacred institution. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:36 PM on February 24, 2004

Andrew Sullivan's commentary is worth a read: War is Declared. Clear, concise, and to the point.
posted by alms at 12:36 PM on February 24, 2004

Seriously, could somebody please tell me how exactly a gay marriage threatens in any way a marriage between a man and a woman?

This appears to be Bush's core argument, and like most of his other arguments ("we'll invade Iraq because Saddam is dangerous. Saddam is dangerous because I say he's dangerous." or: "We'll fix the economy by depleting the federal treasury with tax cuts for the rich and spending billions on misguided foreign adventures.") it just makes no sense.

Is there something I'm missing?
posted by TBoneMcCool at 12:39 PM on February 24, 2004

Wow. We're up to four posters in support of the amendment, and still no argument worth a damn.

Seth, I don't care whether marriage is a human right or not; we'd probably get by all right if the state didn't recognize marriage at all. The point is that marriage is now recognized as a right only for some, unless you want to make the evilly pedantic point that everyone can just go ahead and marry someone -- anyone -- of the opposite sex.

And Paris -- counting on a socially conservative backlash to change the course of an election is an iffy idea when the economy sucks and we're at war. Ask Dubya's dad, who's probably had a few regrets about giving Pat Buchanan the best convention time slot in '92.
posted by Epenthesis at 12:41 PM on February 24, 2004

WolfDaddy beat me to the punch.

Is a wedding at 4:00 in the morning at a drive-through in Vegas by an Elvis impersonator sacred? No? Then we better outlaw it pronto!
posted by Hugh2d2 at 12:42 PM on February 24, 2004

If you being from the proposition that the family, consisting of a man and a woman and off-spring is the most fundamental building block of civilization, then anything that destroys that understanding is degrading to civilization.

I wish an anthropologist type would swing by here and blow away this myth with a little more authority than I can muster. Suffice to say, that in the majority of native American cultures, males would spend most of the year away from home on long hunting trips. Women would collectively raise the children and manage the business and politics of the tribe/village. Men would visit perioidically to drop of food, have sex, etc...

If native Americans don't count as civilized to you, and I'm going to make a wild stab and assume not, then this article briefly dissects the myth of the Puritan nuclear family. I know there are more and better examples out there, but this just isn't my field. This article is a brief outline of the history of gay marriage, which goes back pretty much to the dawn of Western Civilization in ancient Greece.
posted by badstone at 12:44 PM on February 24, 2004

I'm against people who are against gay marriage. Wow, I contributed!
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 12:48 PM on February 24, 2004

Oh crap, those articles were written by a woman and a gay man respectively, so I guess they probably don't count in the eyes of the Right. So, again, I'll appeal to someone who knows their anthropology to drop some references authored by people that Seth, Paris, and SpaceCadet are willing to acknowledge as human beings.
posted by badstone at 12:49 PM on February 24, 2004

If you being from the proposition that the family, consisting of a man and a woman and off-spring is the most fundamental building block of civilization, then anything that destroys that understanding is degrading to civilization.

Sorry Seth, still no point discernable in your reasoning, even if I agreed. How does gay marriage "destroy" that understanding? I'm married, I'm heterosexual, and I'm expecting a daughter any day now. If gay marriage were recognized by the state, I'd still be married, heterosexual, and expecting a daughter any day now. It's like you people think there are legions of straight men thinking to themselves: "We'll, I've been banging chicks all my life, but now that we can get married, I'm goin' gay!"

I respect people who say, "I believe it's wrong because of scripture" - beyond that (and given the fact that scripture isn't civil law) I'm still waiting for one sound reason that gay marraige is harmful to anything.
posted by jalexei at 12:53 PM on February 24, 2004

In the meantime, I'd like to invite all marriage-minded gay Metafilterians to come tie the knot in Vancouver. Let me know when, and I'll contribute a bottle of bubbly to the party.
posted by timeistight at 12:54 PM on February 24, 2004

And now, before your very eyes, the awful, terrifying Gay Agenda will be revealed!!! [Flash.]
posted by homunculus at 12:56 PM on February 24, 2004

Ok, so you located the Loving v. Virginia case.

The classic instance in which the US Supreme Court addressed marriage, or as they called it, the "freedom of marriage"---note, not a right.

But as noted in that case, marriage has always been thought of, legally, as a franchise.

Voting is a franchise.
Marriage is a franchise.

These differ from rights in that there they do not exist independent of the state. They are state granted institutions.

The explanation is this: if there was no government what would voting mean? Nothing. If there was no government, what would a marriage certificate mean? Nothing.

They are artifical institutions afforded by the state. The law has always recognized the right of the state to define when they think such franchises shouldn't be permitted to be extended.

Thus, we have laws which do not extend the franchise of voting to certain classes of people. We have many laws which do not extend the franchise of marriage to certain groups of people.

The test is whether society has a compelling interest in refusing the extension of the franchise.

Society might deem that 16 year olds or non-naturalized citizens shouldn't vote.

Society might also refuse to allow cousins to marry out of concerns about the harmful effects of in-breeding.

Or society might decide that decide that the concept of a strong nuclear family is worthy of protecting, and society might refuse to give the franchise to a group threatening the that concept of a nuclear family.


Fact: civilization's continued existence can be achieved between an inter-racial union. It cannot through a same-sex union. That is why Loving is what we callin the law "a distinguishable case." I.e, the same analysis does not apply. Loving was merely an issue of racial distinction; here, the function of a marriage (reproduction) is destroyed.



I have no stake in this battle. My personal view on this issue is remarkably ambivalent. From my perspective, I don't see what the big deal is. Everything that a man and woman has in marriage can be achieved through private contracts with the exception of the marriage penalty on taxes. And I can't imagine that is what a same-sex couple would be fighting for. Inheritance, legal possession... it all can be achieved through simple contract law.

But I caution that it is incorrect to suggest that there is a cognizable legal right to marriage.
posted by Seth at 12:57 PM on February 24, 2004

the family, consisting of a man and a woman and off-spring is the most fundamental building block of civilization

So any culture that does not follow that model is uncivilized, i.e., barbaric. I'm not so sure Bush should be using that word.
posted by archimago at 12:58 PM on February 24, 2004

Fact: civilization's continued existence can be achieved between an inter-racial union. It cannot through a same-sex union.

How in the world is that a fact?
posted by callmejay at 1:05 PM on February 24, 2004

callmejay: By "union", he means "hot sex".
posted by mr_roboto at 1:07 PM on February 24, 2004

To archimago and Badstone:

I recall reading a couple of books back in college in Sociology about the tribal cultures where every woman in the tribe is a mother and male figure is a father. In their civilization, the family is not he building block.


But, I didn't think I need to clarify myself when I spoke of civilization. Obviously, I spoke of our western civilization. A person more learned than I on the issue of family arrangements might be able to offer something about how we are more advanced because we have stronger and smaller family units or place a much higher value on the relationship between the mother and father.

To be honest, I don't know if the family structure is what makes us different, but I do know this:
The building block of THIS civilization is the union of a man and a woman and off-spring.

And you can NOT dispute this. The reason? Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else on MeFi would be here without that union.
posted by Seth at 1:07 PM on February 24, 2004

Fact: civilization's continued existence can be achieved between an inter-racial union. It cannot through a same-sex union.

So you're saying that gay marriage will somehow limit civilization's continued existence? I suppose that's correct if gay people, denied the right to marriage, will turn "straight" and start procreating. And if that's what your saying, it's nuts.

Should heterosexual couples who choose not to have children be outlawed?
posted by jalexei at 1:07 PM on February 24, 2004

callmejay: if you want to explain how a same-sex couple can procreate, please do.

And include pictures, please.
posted by Seth at 1:09 PM on February 24, 2004

Or society might decide that decide that the concept of a strong nuclear family is worthy of protecting, and society might refuse to give the franchise to a group threatening the that concept of a nuclear family.

But you've yet to explain how gay's marrying threatens the concept of a nuclear family. Simply because you say so, I suppose. Well, I say turkey sandwiches threaten the concept of a nuclear family. And like you I don't care how stupid saying so makes me look.
posted by dobbs at 1:09 PM on February 24, 2004

the function of a marriage (reproduction) is destroyed.

So you would also deny the "franchise" to infertile couples or those who choose to remain childless?

Or society might decide that decide that the concept of a strong nuclear family is worthy of protecting, and society might refuse to give the franchise to a group threatening the that concept of a nuclear family.

Last time I checked, I was a part of that same society. There are way more things threatening the nuclear family. Yet no one is going after those things.

the marriage penalty on taxes. And I can't imagine that is what a same-sex couple would be fighting for.

You're right. We are fighting for equality.
posted by archimago at 1:11 PM on February 24, 2004

For Seth.

(and on preview, for dobbs. More turkey basted sandwiches!!)
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:12 PM on February 24, 2004

callmejay: if you want to explain how a same-sex couple can procreate, please do.

And include pictures, please.

HIs point is that those people would not be procreating anyway. Joe fucking Frank doesn't hinder Sally and Tommy's ability to procreate. Neither does Joe marrying Frank. Is this really so difficult to grasp?
posted by dobbs at 1:12 PM on February 24, 2004

the function of a marriage (reproduction) is destroyed.
Is this the only function of marriage? Taken to its conclusion, all married couples without kids threaten the institution of marriage. Also, on preview, what Dobbs said.
posted by btwillig at 1:12 PM on February 24, 2004

fags are no differnt from arabs - they are all terrrists who want nothing more than to subvert our clean pure form of life. you all just need to realize that there can be no middle ground - there can be no compromise because "a compromise would compromise our strong and right position" and that would devalue all that is right -
so don't be a leftist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by fuq at 1:13 PM on February 24, 2004

Seth - So you're claiming homosexuals threaten civilization? Why? Are heteros going to suddenly go gay now that they can get married?

Get a grip.
posted by bshort at 1:14 PM on February 24, 2004

Fact: civilization's continued existence can be achieved between an inter-racial union. It cannot through a same-sex union. That is why Loving is what we callin the law "a distinguishable case." I.e, the same analysis does not apply. Loving was merely an issue of racial distinction; here, the function of a marriage (reproduction) is destroyed.

I dispute this fact.

First on the basis of your argument: Marriage is a creation of government therefore no government no marriage. If this is the case then allowing for gay marriage by government would have no impact whatsoever to the continuation of civilization as you put it. More importantly there is no legal or governmental rule that I know of that dictates that all married persons must reproduce or that you must be married in order to be allowed to reproduce.

Second on the basis that it is a pure falsehood that the sole function of Marriage is reproduction. It has long been socially acceptable to marry and produce no offspring. Also many people reproduce outside of marriage. It may certainly be a religious point of view that marriage means making babies but it certainly is not a legal, or even current social one. Furthermore gay couples have existed long before we've had government and yet we continue to reproduce and continue to thrive.

Ultimately I agree that there is no "right" to marriage for anyone. I do submit that if some people are able to be married then some definition of marriage exists and if gay couples fit into that definition there should be no legal obstacle to have the same privileges as others do.
posted by aaronscool at 1:15 PM on February 24, 2004

why is same-sex marriage so gay?
posted by gnutron at 1:18 PM on February 24, 2004

Seth: you are forgetting that the gay couples already exist. They're just asking to be recognized by the state with regard to marriage. The choice is not gay marriage vs. everybody is straight, it's gay marriage vs. gay couples who aren't officially married.

It's weird how gay marriage opponents pretend that gay couples don't exist.
posted by callmejay at 1:19 PM on February 24, 2004

I didn't think I need to clarify myself when I spoke of civilization.

Actually, those were Bush's words from the FPP. And if we are going to argue semantics about the word marriage, let's argue that Bush didn't say Western civilization.

Instead of wasting so much energy typing, Seth, just cut and paste this line: Things should never change because they've always been this way.

Because basically that is the root of your argument.

Same sex couple procreate by adopting (semantics!!!) or finding a fertile person of the opposite gender to help them. As mentioned earlier, what makes anyone think that allowing gay marriage is going to turn the whole world gay and stop having babies?
posted by archimago at 1:20 PM on February 24, 2004

Only 6 times in 215 years has an amendment been proposed and not adopted.

Nuh-unh. Constitutional Amendments proposed:
108th Congress, 107th Congress, 106th Congress
posted by MrMoonPie at 1:21 PM on February 24, 2004

The building block of THIS civilization is the union of a man and a woman and off-spring. And you can NOT dispute this. The reason? Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else on MeFi would be here without that union.

Actually, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else on MeFi would be here without a sperm and an egg. It's quite common now for the two to meet without any union of a man and a woman. And even more common without marriage being involved.

On preview: I'm slow. But not silent.
posted by ewagoner at 1:25 PM on February 24, 2004

The "QuickPoll" on CNN is currently 56% against an amendment.
posted by digaman at 1:25 PM on February 24, 2004

"We'll, I've been banging chicks all my life, but now that we can get married, I'm goin' gay!"

I think this may kind of get to the heart of things. Many conservatives really do believe that: 1) gay men spend all their free time thinking of ways to lure young boys into dark alleys to "turn" them gay. This meshes well with their belief that gay people have chosen their lifestyle.

I'm still trying to figure out when Conservatives changed the playing field by suddenly being for a bigger government that tells people how to live their lives. It used to be that was what they accused us liberal godless commies of after all. Did I miss a memo?
posted by terrapin at 1:28 PM on February 24, 2004

"Most people in the country oppose gay marriage: GET OVER IT."

That was before the nation wide public debate. In the past it's been easy to go with knee-jerk reactions to this question.

But the fact is that "That's the way it's always been", "It will lead to polygamy/bestiality/locusts" and "I don't like gays", are *in fact* the main reasons people oppose gay marriage. Toss in "Gays can't have kids" (which isn't even a reason they shouldn't get amrried) and you have pretty much the totality of the anti-marriage camp.

However, I've noticed that the more people argue about the issue in an open forum, the more moderate and libertarian their view becomes. The more this issue gets debated, the more people will realize gay marriage has zero effect on their lives and they just don't care that much.

Bush wants this issue to rally outrage and solidify support. When in fact most people just don't care. Once you make them think about it they'll realize it's none of their business.

So, much like apartheid it's not best to just GET OVER IT. It's best to set things right and give people equal protection under the law.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:28 PM on February 24, 2004

Everything that a man and woman has in marriage can be achieved through private contracts with the exception of the marriage penalty on taxes.

If I have a private contract with a foreigner, can I bring him in as a permanent legal resident?

Heck, if I even promise to have a contract with a foreign man, can I bring him in on a fiancee visa and, after we have a contract, have him become a permanent legal resident?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:31 PM on February 24, 2004

There is nothing in the Constitution about Marriage.

Keep it that way.
posted by ALongDecember at 1:35 PM on February 24, 2004

I am amazed at the amount of equivocation in this thread.


Ok, so to make everyone happy, if the Amendment says that only straight couples, who enter into marriage for life for the purpose of pro-creating and raising a family and agree to never be divorced, will be considered a marriage, would that be acceptable?

I suspect not.

So don't argue these straw men about frigid women losing the franchise too.

Society has to make some distinctions, at times. And if society deems it essential that marriage exist in order to foster the continuance of the species, and that such behavior is something we value and advocate, then that is the will of the people.

There is no cognizable RIGHT preventing them from doing so.
posted by Seth at 1:35 PM on February 24, 2004

It's likely that a big reason Bush made his speech today was because of politics. It's often been repeated that 4 million Evangelical Christians stayed home on Election Day in 2000 instead of voting for Bush. He's playing to his base so they'll come out and vote for him. That doesn't mean his speech didn't reflect his personal views, too, but I suspect that my fellow gay Americans and I are being used in a giant game of political football. We're being dehumanized, and it makes me sick.
posted by Tin Man at 1:35 PM on February 24, 2004

I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who are against gay marriage almost always (in my estimation) approach the question backwards: They start with the idea that gay marriage is BAD. They then work backwards from there, looking for reasons why this should be so. It's called rationalization, and arguing against it is trying to scoop up water with a sieve.

Actually, I don't know what exactly that analogy means, it just sounded good.
posted by deadcowdan at 1:37 PM on February 24, 2004