Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 01:09:59 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Bush bans gay marriage

Started by 23 Daves, February 24, 2004, 04:27:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

megatwat

It seems to me that someone truly right wing believes fundamentally in personal freedom, unlike the social engineering supporting left. So to be honest it surprises me that in both our country and America it's not the right that most vigorously supports gay marriage. Of course, this presupposes that the right in Amerca is the same as the right here. It isn't. It often seems that the most right wing tory would, in America, be a left wing democrat.

Bring to mind a whole new idea of a draft for the American constitution though doesn't it. "All men are created equal, except puffs,  towel heads and anyone else the president doesn't like".

hoverdonkey

Having read that Horizon transcript about global warming/cooling - the future is gay.

In 1962 there were 3 billion people in the world. 40 years later there are 6 billion. Which seems incredible to me. Gay people should get tax breaks.

chand

I'm intrigued by the idea that gay marriage somehow destroys hetero marriage, and the oft-floated piece of right-wing conjecture that all people who support gay marriage HATE the family and HATE heterosexual marriage.

When I marry my girlfriend, I'm not gonna be thinking 'Oh, this day would be so much better if it hadn't been ruined by The Gays'.

It's not about protecting the family, it's about fundamentalist dogma and homophobia.

Nearly Annually

Quote from: "Ambient Sheep"Yeah, those bummers are terrible, aren't they?  You only have to turn your back for a second and they've got you up against the wall, pumping away greedily.
Aww mate, I feel your pain.

Well, I'd like to.

Go on, gi's a feel.

Lord Spong

Quote"He has always strongly believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," McClellan said. "This is a principled decision."

I think it's ridiculous when people come out with stuff like this.  Surely nobody is fooled, it's obvious that what they really mean is that they hate homosexuals and want to make life as difficult for them as possible.  

For God's sake, be big enough to admit your prejudices.  Don't hide behind a bullshit 'moral' stance.

chand

It'd be interesting if Kerry had the balls to be pro-gay marriage, instead he favours one of those civil partnership deals. Which I agree are better than nothing, but since the religious right considers them to be 'gay marriage' in all but name, it's time to sod going halfway on it and say, 'It's 2004, we've all met gay people and they're not evil, let's treat them like equals'.

I like the fact that nowadays you can turn on one of these property shows during the day and they're trying to find a house for two gay men. And it's not like 'The Big Gay House Show', it's just a couple who happen to be gay.

The thing that gives me the most joy about all this is that, since Bush has made a big fucking issue about this,  the prime-time news shows have been filled with footage of gay people kissing. I can just imagine them sitting there and being repulsed, and it pleases me no end.

Pinball

Clearly the US is full of intolerant fucks. "Freedom and justice for all". Yeah right. Not for poofters & towelheads I guess.

falafel

There's always the old argument that 'it's a big country; there's bound to be pockets of nastiness'. But that doesn't quite cover organisations so expansive and so unwarrantedly influential as those goddamned Fundamentalist Christians in the US. Whether it's Bush hiding behind false principles or pandering to the elective, it's clear someone just doesn't get it. The 'destruction of the marriage institution thing' is just a thoughtless replacement for the argument from scripture, which isn't really allowed in a secular society (I presume). It's all just a mask for pure hate and misunderstanding.

Was it 64% of polled Americans who thought gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? The fact that Bush is pandering strategically to that group shows one thing at least about his attitude to gays: hate or no hate, he just doesn't give a fuck. This sort of thoughtless disregard is in a sense worse than outright hatred; at least the haters put the effort in. This just goes to show how worthless the gay vote is to Bush. It's hard not to take personally.


Vermschneid Mehearties


big dogs cock

Quote from: "falafel"There's always the old argument that 'it's a big country; there's bound to be pockets of nastiness'. But that doesn't quite cover organisations so expansive and so unwarrantedly influential as those goddamned Fundamentalist Christians in the US. Whether it's Bush hiding behind false principles or pandering to the elective, it's clear someone just doesn't get it. The 'destruction of the marriage institution thing' is just a thoughtless replacement for the argument from scripture, which isn't really allowed in a secular society (I presume). It's all just a mask for pure hate and misunderstanding.

Was it 64% of polled Americans who thought gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? The fact that Bush is pandering strategically to that group shows one thing at least about his attitude to gays: hate or no hate, he just doesn't give a fuck. This sort of thoughtless disregard is in a sense worse than outright hatred; at least the haters put the effort in. This just goes to show how worthless the gay vote is to Bush. It's hard not to take personally.

Very good points there. I think this in particuar is a case of pandering to the public vote, having principles won't get you anywhere in a presidential election. I mean, i'm not denying he probably thinks 'it's unnatural', but i'm agreeing that really he doesn't care what he himself believes anyway. It's all very depressing, when was the last time you felt you could really learn something from a politician with power rather than just occasionally agreeing or disagreeing with their recieved opinions?

As somebody who has a relation in gay marriage I can confirm that she is much more of a picture of domestic bliss and well functioning family unit than most hetro marriages are these days!

Ambient Sheep

Quote from: "Nearly Annually"
Quote from: "Ambient Sheep"Yeah, those bummers are terrible, aren't they?  You only have to turn your back for a second and they've got you up against the wall, pumping away greedily.
Go on, gi's a feel.
I once kissed your hand.  What more do you want?

joe_totale

Am I right in thinking that the Bush camp isn't opposed to civil partnerships as such, but just to the specific use of the word marriage? I'm not sure, the whole reporting of the issue has been confusing... most reports have snapped 'Bush bans gay marriage!' which isn't really helpful...

I think it might be a question of definition rather than principle. To the Christian Right, 'marriage' has religious implications (whatever religion it is recorded in the name of), and it follows that it would be unacceptable to 'marry' a couple who flaunt what are regarded as fundamental tenets of Christianity. Of course, there are non-religious marriages, so what I am saying could well be bollocks.

Vermont allows civil unions, Massachusetts looks set to follow suit, and other states will be watching carefully to see how this all works out. I really can't see the Bush Administration, in this day and age, repealing these state laws and annulling all gay unions.

MojoJojo

I think the stuff about the word marriage is political flim-flam. They are not suggesting that they want to introduce another form of civil union which isn't a marriage, so they are defacto banning any civil union within no-hetero couples.

About the religion issue, it's a shame there isn't a major world religion (as far as I know) which condones homosexual marriages. That would put the entire argument on a christian morality basis, which would make the entire thing a bigger can of worms.

chand

I don't think Bush endorses civil unions either, most of these people believe that creating such unions is also an affront to marriage, and in any case, the right over here talk about civil unions as 'gay marriage' but just put quotation marks around the word 'marriage', impling that it's essentially the same anyway.

Purple Tentacle


Auntie Ovipositor

Just to outline how this has been developing over here (with some personal observations/opinions sprinkled in):

A few years ago California passed a referendum called the Protection of Marriage Act or something assinine like that, which did a lot to address our weird tax system and make some slight changes to inheritence issues and, way down in the tiny type, said that gays couldn't get married. We do a lot of stupid things in my home state, but at least the weather's nice.

In January of this year, the Massachusetts state court said that there was absolutely no legal reason homos couldn't get married in their state and said that come June the state is obliged to start issuing licenses. This caused much self-crapping amongst conservative groups, who said that if this was allowed that it'd be a slippery slope and soon we'd be legally obliged to let people marry their dogs.

In his state of the union speech, Bush indicated that if he really had to he'd support a constitutional amendment to keep marriage pure (he also spent a few minutes in the same supposedly important speech lecturing professional athletes about how steroids are bad - ironic, considering that as a former baseball team owner he had a vested interest in them taking steroids). Although he was clearly unwilling to push the point (it's not a constitutional issue by any measure and everybody knows it wouldn't stand up) his wildly conservative base demanded that he take more of a stand - which he's done somewhat tepidly, saying he'd be in favor of an amendment and that the congress should get to work on it. It seems quite likely that this bill won't make it through the congress for a lot of reasons, so he feels safe about this. Of course it chucks the hot potato to the congressmen, some of whom have the same conservative base. They will likely be screwed if this doesn't make it through congress, so they'll do their best to stall bringing any legislation regarding this to the floor - it's in their best interest to have the issue either disappear or get put off indefinitely. They are somewhat pissed that Bush has made some hesitant moves towards making this a campaign issue (he doesn't really have anything else to run on, particularly, and knows it) since it will most likely end up hurting them.

A few weeks ago, San Francisco's new mayor (not a liberal by local standards, but an anarchist by Texas standards), Gavin Newsom, decided that it was time someone in this country took a stand, and, over a long holiday weekend, threw open the doors to the county courthouse and started issuing marriage licences to gay couples. Courts were obviously out of session, but on the following Tuesday when they reopened there was a conservative group there demanding that the State's high court put an injunction on the marriages. The court agreed that Newsom had violated the law, but refused to issue an injunction because the group couldn't show that there was any actual harm resulting from allowing the weddings to continue. There's a court date set for mid-April, at which the state's Attorney General (not the city's, who supported the act but defered to his boss - the state AG agreed to take up the case because he agrees with what Newsom did and thinks it's a vitally important issue for our times) will defend the actions taken by the city. It's likely that the state supreme court will come to the same conclusion that the court in Massachusettz came to, so conservatives are trying to find ways to work the system against this.

Arnie, our beloved gov, was extremely pissed about this because as far as he's concerned law comes from the top down. He doesn't seem particularly homophobic, but he is a Republican, and in that he's screwed. If not for that, he would probably be talking about how Newsom's wrong for choosing to ignore state law, when he should have been going through state legal channels if he wanted to challenge it. But over the long holiday weekend when SF started going marriage crazy, he was in Washington meeting with Bush. California's been thoroughly screwed by the federal government and it's only getting worse because of the way the Bushies are handling this recession. The feds could, potentially, help deal with all this BS in CA, if given a reason... And, coincidentally, Bush would like to have a chance at winning California this election, and thinks that having a republican governator is a big key to doing that. Suddenly, Arnie's on the podium with his chemical tan, furious with Gavin Newsom. (Also on that trip to the East Coast, Arnie held a $50,000 - $200,000 a plate fundraiser in New York City to pay for a massive ad campaign to get CA to vote in a huge bond that'll cover our current deficit so that he doesn't have to raise taxes - a move that would make several New York banks quite wealthy and screw people who live in California for the next 20 years)

Meanwhile, in a few months Massachusets will be legally obliged to grant gay couples wedding licences. Their state government is trying to get an amendment to their state constitution, but that process will take a year. They already know they can't get an injunction for the same reason that the nutters in CA couldn't, so even if they do get their amendment passed there will be a year's worth of gay weddings that are 100% legal in the state and those rights can't be taken back. Period.

It's interesting times. There is a chance that this could play out in favor of the conservatives, but I think it's doubtful. But I also thought that Arnie'd never get elected.

Quote from: "european son"for me people are missing the most disappointing part of the story, after all, we all know bush is a reactionary type on such social issues.

what really upsets me is this

QuoteThe BBC's Justin Webb says that by coming down firmly on one side the gay marriage debate, President Bush is defining it as a political issue.

Mr Bush's main Democratic opponents for the presidency do not back gay marriage, but do not support a ban either - making the president seem firm and principled and the Democrats weak and vacillating, says our correspondent.

a Democratic party should wholeheartedly support gay marriage. the Democrats are fearful of voters and fence-sitting, which i don't like.

I might be a tad naive here, but I think it's generally accepted over here that the democrats will be divided on nearly every issue. While the conservatives often act in a unified manner, taking an issue and hammering away at it singlemindedly, the Democrats rarely agree on anything. It's bad and it's good - faced with a highly organized and cohesive right they almost always lose on issues that the republicans get behind, but when there is an issue that has a majority of support amongst democrats it's almost always massively popular across all demographics and therefore successful. The Democrats are the more populist party (and Republicans will debate this but the numbers just ain't on their side), but their base is rarely motivated enough to get off their asses and vote (or else feels too jaded to get involved).

But Democrat or Republican, these are first and foremost politicians - they won't take a political stand unless they absolutely have to and have clear numbers to back them up. I don't think not taking a decisive, party-wide stand on the issue is going to be their downfall, but like you I really do wish that the party would take a stand.


In another humorous development, there's a group who's asked every congressman in favor of this amendment to sign something that says they've never cheated on their wife - something much more damaging to marriages than gays going at each other with legal sanction. This has already caused several conservative congressmen to get amusingly red-faced and vein-poppy. Apparently, "That's not the issue."

23 Daves

Well, I wouldn't want to let this thread slide down the board without saying thanks for that extra information - it definitely puts a new spin on things, I too thought the Democrats wouldn't be such fence-sitting cowards on this issue.

Has the guts gone out of politics completely? It really does seem as if (on a global level) politicians just specialise in pandering to the press and the lower levels of the general public at the moment.

Vermschneid Mehearties

QuoteHas the guts gone out of politics completely? It really does seem as if (on a global level) politicians just specialise in pandering to the press and the lower levels of the general public at the moment.

It certainly seems like that at the moment which is sad.

It's imperative that we get Arnold The Schwarznegger as world leader. Then something will happen.

king mob

Quote from: "Ambient Sheep"
Quote from: "Nearly Annually"
Quote from: "Ambient Sheep"Yeah, those bummers are terrible, aren't they?  You only have to turn your back for a second and they've got you up against the wall, pumping away greedily.
Go on, gi's a feel.
I once kissed your hand.  What more do you want?

Get a room you two.



Use liberally.

hencole

I'd just like to point out that Vaseline can damage the inner lining of the Anus when used for anal sex. Use a reccomended lubricant instead.

Vermschneid Mehearties



This might be more useful. It's use surgically and smells of sex.

butnut

Quote from: "Vermschneid Mehearties"
This might be more useful. It's use surgically and smells of sex.

How do you know?

Vermschneid Mehearties

I know for a fact it's used surgically.

As for the 'smelling of sex' comment. That was a lie. Maybe it does...

butnut

Quote from: "Vermschneid Mehearties"
As for the 'smelling of sex' comment. That was a lie. Maybe it does...

I suppose it depends on how often you use it for sex - maybe it then becomes the smell of sex.