Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Amendment to Ban Gay Marriages

Page: (1)2

16:32 / 24.02.04

Bush, in an effort to defend "the most fundamental institution of civilization" is backing an amendmant which will ban all same-sex marriages in the US. "If," says Bush, "we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from changing forever we must pass a constitutional amendment."

A politically bold (stupid?) move by Bush, but will it pay off and win him the election?

The BBC reports...

Cheap. Easy. Cruel.

16:40 / 24.02.04

It is definitely a bold move, it remains to be seen if it is a politically wise one. I would like to think it would lose him the election, but it seems as though there are very few constitutional literalists out there. The constitution says that marriage is a state issue. Leave it alone, let the states decide.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

16:41 / 24.02.04

Well, maybe it'll please the people who think Bush has been too left-wing thus far.

Scary, scary people that need to be hit with spoons. Spoons bigger than the sun. Presumerably Bush will make this bill retrospective so that all the men and women married in San Francisco suddenly become unmarried? Either way this will surely cause chaos and, if anyone has the time and patience, now that San Fran has shown the way, if Bush tries to prevent it this can be challenged in court.

16:53 / 24.02.04

Good grief. What a horrible, horrible link, Lady, especially the statement: ""They can't possibly guarantee a large turnout of evangelical Christian voters if he does not do what is morally right [my italics] and take leadership on this issue as he did on the war" in Iraq, said CWA (Concerned Women for America) President Sandy Rios.

On a more reflective note, are we talking serious figures here? How large is the fundamentalist/evangelical Christian vote?

Cheap. Easy. Cruel.

17:07 / 24.02.04

According to the Christian Coalition, they have more than 2 million members nationwide. Those people are hardcore fundies; there are probably twice that number who are not members, but who largely agree with their stance.

17:09 / 24.02.04

...and that soft plinking sound that you hear is the scales falling from Andrew Sullivan's eyes...

He's beautiful when he's angry. Doubly so on those occasions when he happens to be, y'know, right.

17:23 / 24.02.04

This, in one of the emails to Sullivan, makes me nervous:

"I will still vote for Bush in November, but not with the same pride with which I would have done so just one day ago. I will vote for him out of fear - not any fear instilled by the GOP or campaign rhetoric, but fear of a very real threat to liberty in this world. The stakes are too high, and, unfortunately, I am now stuck with no choice but to eat crow at home for the sake of my own protection from the fanatical acts of a few foreigners."

- All I can think is - Nooooo!

17:26 / 24.02.04

When people are not free to love whom they choose, then The Terrorists Have Already Won (TM).

17:44 / 24.02.04

Procedural note, by the way, for those unsure of how this works: a constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 majority in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate -- and then must be ratified by 3/4 of the states -- i.e., 38 of the 50 --either by a simple majority vote in the state legislature or by a special popular vote: the rules vary from state to state.

Thirty-eight, by the way, is the number of states that already have their own laws banning same-sex marriage in place. This "magic number" may have emboldened social conservatives to push for the federal amendement, but this strategy could backfire: even if the amendment passes on the federal level, some states will doubtless fail to ratify on the grounds that the amendment is redundant.

Remember, the Equal Rights Amendment failed ratification, even though there was enormous moral force and outrage behind it, because between in conception and its eventual passage by Congress the legal landscape had changed to a huge degree.

I think it'll be hard for the haters to scrape up a 2/3 majority in Washington, frankly: but even if they do, our great hope is the states. State legislatures are a lot pickier about changing the federal constitution than the federal government is, and they often feel themselves to be at odds with the Feds over how to run their own territories.

In any case, I think Bush has just done himself tremendous damage with libertarians and small-government types--who've traditionally been Republican-allied swing voters.

18:02 / 24.02.04

Thanks for that summary, Jack.

Is Bush doing this out of fear of losing his Chritian right support at the ballot box? I've certainly read that kind of analysis before and I suppose that it might be a bold move that wins the presidential election. How significant is Bush's libertarian support? You are suggesting it is small but significant, right Jack? TBH, I have little idea how the US public are reacting to this.

18:26 / 24.02.04

Libertarians traditionally swing towards the Republican side of things because Republicans traditionally espouse a free-market, small-government, states-rights ideology.

I've heard rumblings that White House sources have told reporters that they don't expect this to pass, but they need to "fire up their base." Apparently Bush has given up on being a "uniter, not a divider": this is a political sop to people like those fuckheads in Flowers' link, who think he's not socially-conservative enough. But if he thinks those people will be enough to carry himin a general election, he needs to break his long-standing habit and pick up a newspaper now and then. Because from this day forth, he's fucked.

Itg's a fatal miscalculation, I think: he's worried about losing their support? To whom would he lose it? To the Democrats? Absurd. The Christian Right sees the Democratic Party as the party of prayer-banning baby-killers. No, the Christrian Right would foam and howl for a while, but in the end they would hold their noses and vote for Bush.

As would a lot of other people, who don't like his deficits or some of his God-bothering social views, but who are ill-inclined to vote out a wartime president while the war is still going on (assuming, of course, that you buy into the ideology that terrorism should be handled on a war footing, rather than as a law-enforcement task). But now, instead of being locked (albeit reluctantly) to Bush, those people suddenly become a swing bloc.

Will they all defect to the Democratic nominee? They don't all have to: all the Dems nbeed to win is for a lot of people who otherwise would've voted for Bush, to stay home and not vote at all. And I think that's going to be the result here--I predict a low turnout in November, generated by disgust over a White House that plays politics with such vital (and personal) issues.

As for overall US reaction: mixed, naturally, with many loud voices both pro and con. CNN is probably your best source for reaction across the spectrum.

19:19 / 24.02.04

This is beyond stupid. Not only does it intentionally write discrimination into the Constitution but DOMA already tackles this, leaving this issue up to the individual states to decide. Under DOMA, If California authorizes marriage licenses to gay couples, Nevada or Utah or Texas do not have to recognize them under the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause (something I would like to see challenged by the 14th Amendment).

Pat Robertson needs to settle the fuck down.

The law is already in place for states to slowly settle into this issue if the public thinks gay marriages are moving too fast (which if you look at the polls seems to be the case). But why is there a need to taint the Constitution with something which already exists in law? Is one publically supported gay marriage one gay marriage too many?

23:23 / 24.02.04

Don't mean to sound too disparaging here, but all this just seems like smoke and mirrors, like a diversionary tactic by G. Bush Junior, not a lot more than that. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but the debate on this subject is a total dead end in terms of the election, because it's not going to alter how anyone votes - On this kind of issue, as with fox-hunting in the UK, everyone's already either pro or against it, and no amount of discussion's going to change that either way. Wheras as a proper debate on say Iraq, the environment, the economy etc, on Bush's, let's face it, actual record in office, might have that effect.
On the plus side though, this looks like the act of a desperate man.

03:33 / 25.02.04

[comic relief]

Massachusetts Supreme Orders All Citizens to Gay Marry

[/comic relief]

13:55 / 25.02.04

Comic in its way, but also horrible: another e-mail to Sully that really frames the debate as the Christian Right sees it (emphases mine):

... In an ideal world, I don't think the Constitution was really meant to prescribe the definition of marriage. However, those of us who oppose so-called "gay marriage" feel we have no options left.

.... Your hunger for anal intercourse and official state affirmation of it -- even to the point of deeming your sexual behavior a reason to "marry"! -- trumps your respect for fundamental American values. Your perverse sexual ethics have led inevitably to perverse and destructive political ethics.

All of this has led me to conclude that you and your sodomy-loving cohorts are totalitarians, plain and simple.

And you must be stopped.

If that takes a Constitutional amendment, so be it. It's regrettable, but that's the way it goes.

So there's the equation. Marriage = Sexual Intercourse. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these are the same people who demand abstinence-only sex education...

13:57 / 25.02.04

(Oh, and apparently, in this worldview, lesbians aren't interested in gay marriage at all: the charge is being led entirely by depraved cravers of anal pleasures.)

14:42 / 25.02.04

THE object of a Constitution like that of the United States is to establish certain fundamentals of government in such a way that they cannot be altered or destroyed by the mere will of a majority of the people, or by the ordinary processes of legislation. The framers of the Constitution saw the necessity of making a distinction between these fundamentals and the ordinary subjects of law-making, and accordingly they, and the people who gave their approval to the Constitution, deliberately arrogated to themselves the power to shackle future majorities in regard to the essentials of the system of government which they brought into being. They did this with a clear consciousness of the object which they had in view--the stability of the new government and the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties. But they did not for a moment entertain the idea of imposing upon future generations, through the extraordinary sanctions of the Constitution, their views upon any special subject of ordinary legislation. Such a proceeding would have seemed to them far more monstrous, and far less excusable, than that tyranny of George III and his Parliament which had given rise to the American Revolution.

Written in 1922, denouncing Prohibition.

Phex: Dorset Doom

17:02 / 25.02.04

(Jack, I've just got to get "you and your sodomy-loving cohorts are totalitarians, plain and simple" printed on a t-shirt.)

Doesn't this whole debate fall down because the word 'Marriage' is used as opposed to something like 'civil union'?
Marriage is, mostly, a religious ceremony performed in churches/mosques/synagogues based on ancient religious laws. It's up to a church whether they allow a same-sex couple to 'marry' on their consecrated ground. This is why the Christian-Right is so up in arms: they're imagining the black-armored troops of the New World Order forcing them at gun-point to bless two leather-queens before they help themselves to a few altar boys as a wedding present. Remember, they live in a world where TheOnion's article is to be taken seriously, just as in the Harry Potter/Witchcraft thing a year back.
If the whole debate was re-framed as 'should same-sex couples be allowed to have a purely legal procedure (in a registry office, courthouse etc.) to the effect of legally recognising that they are together' then we wouldn't have this problem. I mean, the gay couples in San Francisco weren't married in a Church, so it's not a religious matter. If you use the M word then you're on their turf.

17:03 / 25.02.04

Hmmmm...Well, from my own perspective I'd say that this is just election year pandering designed to make up for the recent public relations blunder Bush caused of allowing illegal immigrants to stay and work in the US. THAT caused a lot of damage to his ratings among the far right, but helped him to garner more in the way of the Hispanic vote. Cynical spin-doctering at its finest.

Also, even if there was a move to ammend the Constitution, it would take years before it would be final. And I seriously doubt it would make it out of the House...the liberal Democrats could easily filibuster it to death.

Bard: One-Man Humaton Hoedown

17:52 / 25.02.04

< I mean, the gay couples in San Francisco weren't married in a Church, so it's not a religious matter. If you use the M word then you're on their turf.>

Not entirley sure that's true. The religious fundamentalists are against any sort of equal rights for gays and lesbians, based on the fact that "the Bible says it's wrong". Ergo, I think they would raise this hue and cry over any legislation that even came close to allowing marriage-like benefits.

Incidentally, what was this stuff about Harry Potter/Witchcraft? Was this when they were saying that Harry Potter was turning children away from God or something like that?

18:41 / 25.02.04

Oh man if you guys were on tribe.net(based out of SF i might add)you could see some very heated agruments going on.Of course i don't belive in marrige as a good option for anyone,but who cares who wants to do it.If they want to make that mistake so be it.

23:28 / 25.02.04

My first hit was that this move would actually help Bush despite the obviousness of the gambit, and as such I was initially critical of Mayor Newsom's strategy in forcing the issue (though I'm entirely in sympathy with his goals). However, the reaction across the web appears to be proving me wrong (perhaps I've grown timid with age). Bush may have made a colossal tactical error here...

03:02 / 26.02.04

Not entirley sure that's true. The religious fundamentalists are against any sort of equal rights for gays and lesbians, based on the fact that "the Bible says it's wrong". Ergo, I think they would raise this hue and cry over any legislation that even came close to allowing marriage-like benefits.

I'm being dense but... what about seperation of church and state? How can you make something illegal just because the bible says so? And I understand this sort of shit is against the bible so prohibit them from getting hitched in church but in a court house? I honestly don't get it.

03:16 / 26.02.04

This is the kind of counter-argument to that... i.e. 'it's for the good of civilization'

More importantly, however, the government has an obligation to promote public policy that is best for the general welfare and to discriminate against behaviors that adversely impact society and public health. Tobacco use is heavily regulated by the state and smoking is strongly discouraged. A major study conducted by Oxford University demonstrated that homosexual conduct is three times more deadly than smoking. Homosexual behavior is fraught with adverse health affects. Again, this is not opinion, but documented medical fact. Public policy must not be ignorant of medical facts associated with this lifestyle and from a public policy perspective, the behavior should not be encouraged by affording it the status of marriage.

13:33 / 26.02.04

Without such an amendment, men will be able to marry other men in some states and in other states one man may be allowed to marry three women and yet in other states groupings of individuals will be able to marry each other.

What about people marrying goats? They forgot to mention goats.

13:57 / 26.02.04

I don't think such an amendment can actually pass. Amending the constitution is, if nothing else, a mercifully slow process and hopefully even if he gets elected this time he will be on his way out before he can get it through. Or so I used to think. The last presidential election scared the crap out of me, not because of what was attempted and what then occured, but because all anybody did about it was make coy bumper stickers: 'Let's not elect him in '04 either!'

Living in LA, it's difficult for me to know what the rest of the US thinks, because I just don't know anybody like that. I lead a very typically American life, extremely sheltered with little exposure to those who hold opposing views. My idea of a conservative is somebody who thinks taxes are too high. I don't meet any actual conservatives so I think they're all clinical sociopaths bent on the mass moronization of humanity. America is a scary place because it is entirely possible to live out 32 years in a major city and never meet anybody more than a few degrees away from your views.

How then to interpret this latest scandal? I think that it is:
A) An attempt to demoralize anybody heartened by what happened in SF and thus quell a possible sign of life in the left
B) Standard brand spin: keeping GWB in the headlines in his role as the action figure
C) Diversion of the week (HEY! Why has gas gone up 50 cents a gallon in the past few months? It's $2.10 at the cheap place near my house.)

14:37 / 26.02.04

Without such an amendment, men will be able to marry other men in some states and in other states one man may be allowed to marry three women and yet in other states groupings of individuals will be able to marry each other.

This, of course, is utter bullshit, because all 50 states already have laws banning polygamy. The slippery-slope nonsense is a smokescreen for pure & simple homophobia.

If anything, polygamy is a perfect example of a success story for letting the individual states deal with the issue, and serves as an argument against the proposed amendment.

Jack, I've just got to get "you and your sodomy-loving cohorts are totalitarians, plain and simple" printed on a t-shirt.

My favorite bit was "your hunger for anal intercourse" ...

"Hey, it's almost lunch-time. Are you hungry?"
"Hungry? Yes -- for anal intercourse!!!"

Phex: Dorset Doom

17:19 / 26.02.04

Yeah, there should totally be a T-shirt section on this site. (topic for another thread maybe) Every queer radical on the planet is gonna want a 'Hungry for Anal Intercourse' or 'Sodomy Lovin' Totalitarian' tee.

Bard: About the Harry Potter/Witchcraft thing: TheOnion ran an 'article' about the writer of Harry Potter (her name escapes me) setting up pre-teen witch covens in order to 'crush the weakling God and his pathetic Christ' (or something to that effect) It got copied and E-mailed to fundamentalist groups, without any kind of context, and was then held up as definitive proof of a Satanic conspiracy to corrupt America's youth. Think of the 'subliminal messages' in records and one American minister's 'revelation' that not only were musicians working for Satan, but that in fact some were Incarnate Demons (well, Hendrix maybe, no human could wail like he could).
It's just another example of the fundamentalist lust to meddle in every aspect of peoples' lives (hmm... sounds a little like... TOTALITARIANISM). They don't care if it's a childrens book or two men getting a largely meaningless document in a courthouse, anything to please their imaginary friend.

21:06 / 26.02.04

A major study conducted by Oxford University demonstrated that homosexual conduct is three times more deadly than smoking.

Heh. Gays and health risks? Major study from Oxford? Why... that almost sounds legitimate.

Or at least until you get to the fine print.

Ah. The counter-counter argument.

01:30 / 27.02.04

Yeah, there should totally be a T-shirt section on this site.

There is.

09:34 / 27.02.04

recently an older friend shed what I feel is some important light on this issue to me.
basically, I am straight, but would love to see gay relationships get the same respect that straight ones do. However, I do not personally believe in marriage. I think it is an outdated concept that humnaity should evolve out from under (if I love someone, why should I need anything but my word to prove it), and even though I love my girlfriend VERY much I will never ask her to marry me, and she doesnt expect me to. Even though I could inherit benefits up the whazoo from a marriage, I just really think the concept should have been evolved out of by humanity (like organized religion, and after all, marriage is based off religion and politics). So what this older friend made me realize is that if I could talk to every gay man and woman I could, I would argue that they should be more concerned about the benefits than the religious/political ceremony because really, at this stage, we need to get rid of religion altogether. Never mind what the rest have as far as the empty ceremony...make Your own REAL ceremony! But demand that your union be accepted and given the respect and benefits that a man and a woman's is (as an interesting point/counterpoint, at my girlfriend's work there is a lesbian co-worker who gets benefits for her unmarried mate through the company, yet I, as a man, cannot get the same 'unmarried' benefits because we're not gay. Weird huh?)

14:15 / 27.02.04

I agree with Jack Fear that this is a potentially bad, splitting move on Bush's part. I can only assume that his team is calculating that the non-Christian right isn't going to be put off so much they'd actually vote Soft-On-Terror-Liberal-Communist (and there's going to be a hell of a lot more "Democrats Hate Freedom" stuff in the next nine months, just to reinforce the "you have no other choice" message). Now, if there was another credible candidate on the right, maybe he wouldn't be so quick to do this, but I don't see one emerging in the near future, certainly not before November.

There's also the fact that he has extra tax cuts for married couples on his platform and he can't be seen giving money to homos.

But overall I'm trying not to get sucked into this because it really is just another attempt at a domestic distraction. There are potentially some interesting issues that could be discussed - the basic social purpose of legally recognised marriage, for instance - but the "debate" never gets onto that, it's perpetually stuck at the adversarial "gay people, yes or no?" level. I've no intention of wasting my time trying to argue with homophobes on the internet and helping to keep the agenda away from little things like invading other countries and giving your money to rich people. Whatever side you're on, you're doing what Bush wants.

Personally, I support Gay Penguin for President.

14:16 / 27.02.04

Neville, I partially disagree with you though I think I know where you're coming from. There are some creepy sides to marriage, and the farther back in history you go the worse it seems to get. But I think it is possible to go too far in the other direction. Couples are embedded not only in each other's lives but also in their immediate and larger social circles. They are embedded emotionally, culturally, politically, and economically. I think there is something to be said for some kind of standardized, public way to formalize the committment that is there (and the connections that remain even when emotional and sexual connections dissipate). I'm thinking of something more along the lines of getting a degree, though I'm not at all certain how this would map onto a relationship. I am not formally educated myself and am pretty antagonistic to the whole notion but I wouldn't say that degrees are meaningless or worthless.

17:56 / 27.02.04

really, at this stage, we need to get rid of religion altogether

Why's that, Neville? And how would you suggest this should be done exactly?

18:44 / 27.02.04

New Platz, NY starts performing gay marriages!

NEW PALTZ, N.Y. - Gay couples began exchanging wedding vows on the steps of village hall Friday in a spirited ceremony that opened another front on the growing national debate over gay marriage.

Officiating was Jason West, the 26-year-old Green Party mayor in this village 75 miles north of New York City, who joined Gavin Newsom of San Francisco as the country's only mayors to marry same-sex couples.

Blotcher, who with his partner has already gotten a civil union in Vermont and a domestic partnership in New York City, said Friday marked another important step. "This country was founded on a revolution," he said. "And this is a revolution, but it's a revolution of love."

One protester stood outside the hall with a sign that read, in part, "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." "It's against nature," Angelo Da'Quaro said. "It's against religion, it's against all of that."

As word of the New Paltz ceremonies spread Thursday, the number of couples seeking to marry quickly tripled to 12, and the mayor set up a waiting list on the village's web site. By noon Friday, West said more than 100 people had signed up on the Web site, and he had received "innumerable" phone calls and e-mails from others who want to marry.

Page: (1)2