A break in the Bush ranks

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Q: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
>A: I don't know. I just don't know

So he's like a man who says "I'm not prejudiced; I have black friends" - but still doesn't want them marrying white women.

Sounds to me like he's saying he doesn't know whether homosexuality is a choice or if it's something genetic.

[billvon 3,110]

>Sounds to me like he's saying he doesn't know whether homosexuality is a choice or
>if it's something genetic.

Yes. And he's also saying he doesn't want them to have the right to marry.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Sounds to me like he's saying he doesn't know whether homosexuality is a choice or
>if it's something genetic.

Yes. And he's also saying he doesn't want them to have the right to marry.

I'm quoting Bush directly, you are quoting some left-wing reporters interpetation of what he said.

Quote

It's important that we do that. I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored.

Even if he doesn't support gay marriage, it does not follow he is anti-gay. Many people don't support gay marriage for a variety of reasons. I don't support Muslims stoning women to death but that doesn't make me a bigot.

[billvon 3,110]

>I'm quoting Bush directly, you are quoting some left-wing reporters interpetation
>of what he said.

If you prefer here's exactly what he said. I have reproduced it in its entirety so as not be accused of "taking it out of context":

==============
Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.

A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender.

And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.

Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. 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.

The Constitution says that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.

Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.

Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.

An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.
========================

>Even if he doesn't support gay marriage, it does not follow he is anti-gay.

Riiiight. And just because someone wants to keep black men from marrying white women doesn't make them a racist? Just because some doesn't want blacks using the same bathroom as they do - doesn't make them a racist?

Bigots are as bigots do. If someone works to keep rights from blacks, or gays, or women - they are bigots.

>I don't support Muslims stoning women to death but that doesn't make me a bigot.

Are you seriously comparing gay marriage to murder?

[Gravitymaster 0]

You are really way off base on this one. Where in the Constitution does it give someone the "RIGHT" to get married? I'm not getting into a long protracted debate with you about gay marriage. I will only say that someone can believe that marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman without being a bigot. I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage to begin with. Gays can legally sign a piece of paper that forms a civil union

Sorry you didn't get my analogy, I thought it was pretty good

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Gays can legally sign a piece of paper that forms a civil union

They can't in my state or in most states. Even in states where they can the federal government does not recognize those unions or give them the benefits of marriage.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Quote

"Marriage is between a man and a woman"...you know you're one of them!

It just breaks my heart to know that some who live within our borders and enjoy our way of life desire to destroy everything that America stands for because they think they are smarter than our founders, pioneers and patriots.

When I became a sport parachutist the group was dominated by proud, spirited Americans. Now it seems that many are simply self-centered wussies. They are rebellious and think the government owes them everything they desire.

How dare you suggest that someones position on gay rights make them less of an American than you? Or that fighting for equality and freedom is an attempt to destroy our way of life.

You make me sick. You hide behind your supposed spiritual enlightenment, while it's nothing more than another way for you to make yourself feel superior to others.

Shame on you.

btw, that's not a personal attack, his opinions really do twist my gut up and make me ill.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

Even if he doesn't support gay marriage, it does not follow he is anti-gay. .

I agree... I'd be willing to bet that if you sat down with W in a social/private setting he would tell you he personally couldn't care less about banning gay marriage. But in his past political statements he had a constituency to please. Unless any of us sit down with him 'off the record' we may never know.

AND I'd also be willing to bet that Barbara Bush consulted with her father before making this add and he didn't say 'no'.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[billvon 3,110]

>Where in the Constitution does it give someone the "RIGHT" to get married?

Bill of Rights, Amendment 10.

>I will only say that someone can believe that marriage is a religious
>ceremony between a man and a woman without being a bigot.

So you think that someone who believes that blacks should not marry whites is not a bigot?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Where in the Constitution does it give someone the "RIGHT" to get married?

Bill of Rights, Amendment 10.

Quite a stretch there. Commerce clause??? You really believe that?

Quote

>I will only say that someone can believe that marriage is a religious
>ceremony between a man and a woman without being a bigot.

So you think that someone who believes that blacks should not marry whites is not a bigot?

Not the same thing. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

>Where in the Constitution does it give someone the "RIGHT" to get married?

Bill of Rights, Amendment 10.

Quite a stretch there. Commerce clause??? You really believe that?

>I will only say that someone can believe that marriage is a religious
>ceremony between a man and a woman without being a bigot.

So you think that someone who believes that blacks should not marry whites is not a bigot?

Not the same thing. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Agreed.
But when someone offers millions in contributions to a great college, it's considered polite to say thank you.
Requiring that 'thank you' to succeed should be expected though.

"Thank you" does not require admitting a mediocre student.

Hey, remember when you posted this link?

I remember it like it was yesterday.

Did I say that I agreed with him? Do you agree with him?

When someone posts a link with no additional commentary it can be difficult to tell what they really think of it, especially if it's at all humorous. Scott Adams generally tries to make insightful points in a humorous way, so I figured your post was, at a minimum, an endorsement of the thought exercise posed.

The portion of the article relevant to me bringing it up here I do agree with, which is that not enough people get offered appeasements in exchange for their huge sums of money to get hot and bothered about it. The money does the school and the students who attend the school more good than admitting the mediocre student does it harm. If you feel this open secret of an arrangement irreparably degrades the reputation of the institution, fine, don't give them any money and don't encourage your children to go there.

You could even reserve the right to not be impressed by someone who earned a degree there if you so desire.

[billvon 3,110]

>Quite a stretch there. Commerce clause?

Nope. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is the commerce clause. The Tenth Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. It states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

>Not the same thing. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.

Not any more. There are hundreds of thousands of legally married same-sex couples here in the US; your statement is easy to prove false. You're fighting a losing battle on this one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Where in the Constitution does it give someone the "RIGHT" to get married?

Bill of Rights, Amendment 10.[

>I will only say that someone can believe that marriage is a religious
>ceremony between a man and a woman without being a bigot.

So you think that someone who believes that blacks should not marry whites is not a bigot?

Seeing as how the original DOMA was signed into law by Clinton, why are we talking about Bush in relation to it again?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Even if he doesn't support gay marriage, it does not follow he is anti-gay. .

I agree... I'd be willing to bet that if you sat down with W in a social/private setting he would tell you he personally couldn't care less about banning gay marriage. But in his past political statements he had a constituency to please.

I'd be willing to bet that in doing so he would really be placating you just as he claimed to be doing to his constituency.

I'm sure plenty of people who voted for prop 8 in California would tell you in a social/private setting that they had nothing against gay people. Doesn't change the fact that they demonstrated their bigotry at the polls.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

I'm sure plenty of people who voted for prop 8 in California would tell you in a social/private setting that they had nothing against gay people. Doesn't change the fact that they demonstrated their bigotry at the polls.

touché

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Not the same thing. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.

Defined by whom? There are religious institutions and governments that define marriage as you suggest. There are other religious institutions and governments that define marriage to include same sex couples as well.

Personally, I think government should get entirely out of the business of regulating personal relationships and treating people differently based on relationship status. Let religious institutions define it however they like.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Personally, I think government should get entirely out of the business of regulating personal relationships and treating people differently based on relationship status. Let religious institutions define it however they like.

absolutely - it's a nation of 'individuals'

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davjohns 1]

I have long thought that gay people should have the same right to screw themselves over by getting married as everyone else.

That being said...I'm not entirely sure why government is involved in marriage at all. At one time, it's regulation was necessary to protect women (and children to a lesser extent). With today's view of equality, it seems to me that everyone is able to enter into whatever marriage contract they wish and the government should treat it like any other civil contract. They did that at one time in England. I have no knowledge of how well it worked.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 3,110]

>Seeing as how the original DOMA was signed into law by Clinton

Wow, it's been a long time since you pulled out the CDIF card.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Seeing as how the original DOMA was signed into law by Clinton

Wow, it's been a long time since you pulled out the CDIF card.

I know it's frustrating for you, when those pesky facts blow your 'blame Bush' posts out of the water.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,110]

>when those pesky facts blow your 'blame Bush' posts out of the water.

"Blame Bush?" No blame needed. He failed to get that anti-gay amendment passed, so he didn't do anything worthy of blame.

But your knee has a mind of its own, eh?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

But your knee has a mind of its own, eh?

You're so cute when you talk to the mirror.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706