Donate Now
We've Moved! Check out our new boards.
  New Poll  
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Scarleteen Boards: 2000 - 2014 (Archive) » SCARLETEEN CENTRAL » Sexual Ethics and Politics » Bush: Marriage for heteros only (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Bush: Marriage for heteros only
BlackRoseFaery
Activist
Member # 7365

Icon 13 posted      Profile for BlackRoseFaery     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I just read an artcile about Bush wanting to propose a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It's not surprising, but disgusts me nonetheless. Here's the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html

Anyways, my response was to immediately email my House Rep. and Senators (which quite unfortunately includes Bill Frist).
Does anyone else have any ideas or just have an opinion?

------------------
Art is why I get up in the morning, but my definition ends there. You know it doesn't seem fair, that I'm living for something I can't even define" - Ani D.


Posts: 88 | From: Hixson, TN, US | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Confused boy
Activist
Member # 1964

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Confused boy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
In my opinion, the whole institution of marriage ought to be deconstructed and removed from law (religions have every right to hold on to the idea but only as a ceremony). Even if you allowed marriage to be for two people of any gender combination, the institution would still be monogamist as opposed to heterosexist. Allow financial breaks for any kind of people coming together as a family by all means, but ignore this odd mixture of law and religion called marriage.

This is, of course, a fantasy in this society which is dominated by the ideal of marriage. It is still what should be aimed for rather than including homosexuals in what is an already deeply flawed ideal.

------------------
'An Anarchist is a Liberal with a bomb' Trotsky


Posts: 711 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MarvellousPurple
Activist
Member # 8776

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MarvellousPurple     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, I'd agree that marriage is flawed in a couple ways, as is the way people use it (call me old-fashioned, but the divorce rate is a little high for my tastes), but that's a whole another post.

Predictably, I think that the "marriage is between a man and a woman" law is a terrible thing and really don't think it should be passed. (I say predictably because there probably won't be anyone on Scarleteen who thinks it's a good idea, though I could be wrong.) What annoys me almost equally, though, is Bush's constant use of Christian rhetoric. He uses it here, with the, "Yes, I am mindful that we are all sinners." He uses it when talking about abortion, which I can't really give any examples of off the top of my head, though it was in the State of the Union. I mean, come ON, separation of Church and State? I could list bunches of examples (especially where public schools are concerned) but that's my little rant. If he's going to be bigoted, I feel he could at least stop hiding behind religion as an excuse.

------------------
"...and so, son, that's how babies are made!"
"But Dad, what about the machinery?"
"We'll get to that when you're older."
(The Fairly Oddparents)


Posts: 475 | From: Back in Providence, RI | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
herecomestheson
Activist
Member # 8200

Icon 1 posted      Profile for herecomestheson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just some analysis from the CNN ariticle:

"The president has taken a courageous stand in favor of traditional marriage at a moment in American history when the courts are conspiring with anti-family extremists to undermine our nation's most vital institution," said the Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition"

It's sad that "non-traditional" marriages are viewed as anti-family. I'm pretty sure that Sheldon was referring to gay partners raising children. It's hard getting into the rhetoric and aesthetics of right-winged America, but in my eyes each supporter of Bush's views in this situation are clinging onto misplaced values. What angers me most is that most conservative spokespersons try to disguise their blatant hatred through a veil of "Presidential-America Support" to try and get people to think that this is an issue that will affect the good of their country; never mind the fact that the President is incorporating his own Christian ideals to an issue that he, unfortunately, has great power over.

The saddest thing I think is that if I were an American I would have to face the fact that my country is being run by someone who wishes to cling onto outmoded values. When will it get to the point where same-sex relationships (and I'm certain it isn't JUST marriage between same sexes that Bush doesn't support) aren't viewed as something that's more risky and unorthodox as heterosexuality? When will it get to the point where it's just seen as a human relationship? Evidently not when this President is in power.

[This message has been edited by herecomestheson (edited 07-31-2003).]

[This message has been edited by herecomestheson (edited 07-31-2003).]


Posts: 72 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Purple and herecomestheson, those were both excellent posts to read, and very well spoken, IMO.

Course, I don't know if I'd call Bush's "values" that outmoded or archaic -- it's only in recent history (1950's onward), really, that we've attached ourselves forcibly to the idea of the nuclear family at all.

Abd bigotry, unfortunately, still remains in numerous forms all across the globe, and is all too often encouraged or supported by governments.


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
badly_behaved_badger
Activist
Member # 7728

Icon 1 posted      Profile for badly_behaved_badger     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well I am sad to hear about Bush's decision. Although I don't live in the U.S. I think this bit of news comes as a slap in the face to anyone who wants an equal society. I have no doubt that Bush is homophobic even though he would probably rename it as 'pro-family' or some other euphemism for what it really is. If a person in a position of authority - the leader of a country - still uses the excuse of 'Christian' values (well, obviously not, because the most important Christian value is 'love your neighbour' regardless of sexual orientation etc.!) to deny a group of people of their rights, then we've got a long way to go, baby.

not a happy *badger*

------------------
~Men of quality are not threatened by women's equality~


Posts: 388 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RumpusParable
Activist
Member # 2295

Icon 1 posted      Profile for RumpusParable     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
personally, i don't feel marriage should be done away with... but i agree that it needs to be handled very differently.

only some choose to be married by their "church" -whatever religion they may be.

legally it's a cohabition/joint-ownership contract... as a side note, i found it very neat back when i lived in Alaska that you could still obtain contract marriages with divorce-clauses (after a period of time or event, that sort of thing). i don't know if that's still true, it's been a while, though.

on a legal basis, i think it needs to be reworked & pulled farther from the more traditional view of 1 male & 1 female. as a legal contract it needs to be available in whatever way that the persons enterring the contract can agree upon. -whether it is homosexual, more than 2 persons, whatever. it needs to be treated simply as the basic legal agreement to co-own & share legal responsibility for group actions (buying a house, credit card bills, raising children, whatever) and the ability to place legal restrictions on these matters & the timeframe of the agreement should be available.

if/when the individuals feel the personal need to formalize it in other ways -religiously or simply in a private family affirmation ceremony- then that should be their option for the emotional/spiritual value of it.

i don't really see how the divorce rate is something to feel good or bad about.... i think this itself is very tied into the traditional male-female forever view based in many religions. if it's an ugly parting of ways, yes, that's sad... but divorce need not be that way & often isn't. we seem to be seeing a lot more over time of persons in a marriage agreeing that it's time to move in different directions. there's no failure or "it's a shame" in that that i can see except for those based in certain religious views.. without that, it's simply a new stage in life & not something to be viewed as necessarily negative.

definitely, though, marriage as a legal concept needs to be adjusted. -and i do think we're heading that way & really in quicker time than we really appreciate sometimes


Posts: 160 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MarvellousPurple
Activist
Member # 8776

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MarvellousPurple     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
On bigotry: I think that in the future heterosexism (is that a word? if not, I mean being opposed to homosexuality/homosexuals) will be looked upon much like racism today. Sure, there are racists out there (unfortunately), but racism isn't an accepted view by any means.

On what I said about the divorce rate: again, call me old fashioned if you like. IMHO, marriage is meant to be a lifelong committment, "til death do us part" and all that. And--please nobody take any offense, I'm speaking in general terms here--many people don't seem to be taking that seriously. However, I can respect that often people grow in different directions and relationships change, etc. To that end i think there should be "starter marriages", which would only last for a certain amount of time and weren't understood to be the same lifelong committment that the one single form of marriage serves today. Anyway, that's just my take on things.\

(PS- *blush* thanks, Miz S.)

------------------
"...and so, son, that's how babies are made!"
"But Dad, what about the machinery?"
"We'll get to that when you're older."
(The Fairly Oddparents)


Posts: 475 | From: Back in Providence, RI | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
logic_grrl
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 8067

Icon 1 posted      Profile for logic_grrl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We have an interesting situation here in the UK at the moment which is rather relevant to all this.

In June, the government released proposals to allow same-sex couples to register "civil partnerships", which would establish their inheritance rights, right to be considered next-of-kin, right to joint state benefits, etc.

While a lot of people think this is a big step in the right direction, many are also concerned that having this option only available for same-sex couples could cause problems - both by setting up civil partnership as "second-class", and by preventing unmarried heterosexual couples who choose not to marry from having these rights.

The government's response so far has been that unmarried heterosexual couples can have these rights if they want - by getting married.

The gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell says:

"It is divisive, heterophobic and discriminatory to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples ... Cohabiting heterosexuals also lack legal recognition and protection. This is a grave injustice ... It is a pity the government has opted for an unimaginative, watered down version of marriage, instead of having the foresight to devise an entirely new, modern legal framework for partnership recognition."


Posts: 6944 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ecofem
Activist
Member # 13388

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ecofem     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
An interesting book on the subject of same-sex marriage is Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con: A Reader, edited and introduced by Andrew Sullivan, the former editor of the very conservative magazine, The New Republic, who definitely shocked a lot of people when he came out of the closet.

A collection of opinions "from Plato to Camille Paglia, a collection of opinions, pro and con," the book is definitely worth a read (I personally am very supportive of same-sex marriage.) I heard Andrew Sullivan when he spoke at my college two years ago–ironically, more liberals than conservatives came to his talk.

------------------
**Whoa! Huge signature! Try to keep it down to four lines or less, please!**

[This message has been edited by Milke (edited 07-31-2003).]


Posts: 3318 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
(Just FYI, whle some religious ceremonies include "until death do you part," et al, legal marriages in the strictest sense of the word neither offer nor hold a lifelong commitment to the best of my knowledge.)
Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
summergoddess
Activist
Member # 11352

Icon 13 posted      Profile for summergoddess     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I do not agree with Bush's decision although i do not live in the us.. If you look at the charter of rights, everyone shouldn't be discriminated, and by declining the law to allow same sex marriages, to me it is discrimination. It's like bush is saying well i hate the GLBT community. And well we're all supposed to have respect regardless of our sexuality. Yes, people are bound not to like you, but should respect, and move on instead of bringing you down in the public light or even in private. It doesn't matter. We all deserved to be treated equally and that includes marriage rights.. I do want the right to be passed in the US. I know Canada, my country is doing that, and i am proud.. So.. yeah. that's my 2 cents

------------------
~Jules

[This message has been edited by summergoddess (edited 07-31-2003).]


Posts: 369 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BruinDan
Activist
Member # 3072

Icon 3 posted      Profile for BruinDan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by logic_grrl:
The government's response so far has been that unmarried heterosexual couples can have these rights if they want - by getting married.

Frankly, I think that's the way it should be. If we're going to have marriage, we oughta have it for all. If we're not going to have marriage, we oughta not have it for anyone. But this "domestic partner" and "unmarried cohabitant" stuff rubs me the wrong way for the very reasons you've pointed out. It's either all the way or none of the way, since making different levels of who gets what rights seems to tread awfully close to the "separate but equal" nonsense we had more than enough of in my country's recent past.

Sure, it would be lovely to have legal protection afforded to all couples, married or not, whenever they wanted it. But I have no idea how practical this would be. We've all known people who have been madly in love with one another for a month and a half before ending it all in an epic breakup, how would that work? Would they spend the entire month and a half filling out the legal paperwork only to have to undo it all rather acrimoniously at the end of their relationship? Would every breakup have to end in something akin to a divorce, which is often referred to as one of the most emotionally traumatic experiences people can go through? Breaking up is hard enough to do without the whole legal framework above you, I can't imagine how much of a pain it would be to have all that legal mumbojumbo to deal with on top of it all.

As anyone who has ever been married, or is in the process of doing so can tell you...it can be a major leage pain in the arse. You know all the melding together you do when you move in with someone? Try doing all that and then explaining it all to the government too, in piles of paper and tax forms that take a small army to sift through. The government certainly doesn't make things any easier, and I can respect all those who are against the concept of marriage purely because they don't think they should be hassled in that manner.

But in a way, I can see why it is like this. The entire family law/probate law structure is based on the desire to prevent fraud. Filling out all those forms means that my wife will get whatever pocket change I have in the event something happens to me, and my ex-girlfriend won't. Telling the government that I'm legally married gives my wife the instant power to act on my behalf if I become incapacitated or if I (gulp) disappear. I wouldn't really want anyone else to have those powers, because I wouldn't really trust anyone else with them. Likewise, any woman I loved and trusted enough to wield those powers would be someone I'd consider marrying anyway. So it all comes around full circle.

Lots of people feel differently, and that's perfectly alright too. I had a discussion last month with a dear friend of mine (who just happens to be lesbian) about the possibility of legalizing gay marriage in California, and her reaction shocked me. "What the hell?", she said. "Now I'll have the same damned pressure to marry that you straight folks have!" Not what I'd expected at all, but it takes all kinds!

------------------
BruinDan, "Number Three," FHOM

Beware the naked man who offereth you his pants.


Posts: 2727 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Melancholy_Mango_Mania
Neophyte
Member # 14163

Icon 11 posted      Profile for Melancholy_Mango_Mania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
In my opinion, same sex marriages should be legal. Gays, lesbians, heterosexuals, bisexuals, they're all people. And don't laws apply to all people? So if Bush wants to do away with same sex marriages, he may as well do away with marriage in general in my opinion. Why are some people so concerned about what other people do? They're not you and what they do likely will not affect you. And for those people against same sex marriages-people do things you don't agree with all the time. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean everyone does.

------------------
People are lyke oreos--the best part is on the inside.-Lora

Live life to the fullest, don't let anyone tell you you're not beautiful, and don't take shiitake mushrooms from anybody.

[This message has been edited by Melancholy_Mango_Mania (edited 08-01-2003).]


Posts: 34 | From: Virginia, USA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dude_who_writes
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 5640

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dude_who_writes     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Because Mango, the big issue here, IMHO, is that our "dear" President Bush seems to lead more with his religious-based morals as opposed to the logical weighting of options. I cannot see the abolishment of marriage in the United States anytime in the near-future, so, ultimately, a compromise can be reached. I guess, though, the chances that the current administration will take a progressive, pro-active stand on this issue is about as likely as myself being chosen Miss America.

------------------
Tim, as in "Donate"
Scarleteen Advocate

"Oh, I am a lonley painter. I live in a box of paints. I'm frightened by the Devil and I'm drawn to those one's that ain't afraid."-- Joni Mitchel, "Case of You"


Posts: 712 | From: Michigan, US | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BruinDan
Activist
Member # 3072

Icon 3 posted      Profile for BruinDan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dude_who_writes:
Because Mango, the big issue here, IMHO, is that our "dear" President Bush seems to lead more with his religious-based morals as opposed to the logical weighting of options.

And he does this because he is a human being, and because human beings base their lines of thinking on different things. Some people base their ideals on their faith, some don't, and we have a choice in who we elect to govern us. You want someone who bases everything on a logical weighing of options? Vote for a philosopher. But I don't think it's righy to vilify someone for how they base their beliefs, even if it may differ from how we base ours.

And let's be honest here, we're living in a country where half the population doesn't support gay marriage. All Bush is doing is falling into the large category of people who don't like it. And with such a high percentage of Americans either against or indifferent towards the concept of legalizing homosexual marriage, the President probably just figures he'll ride their train towards re-election.

But you know, the poll cited above should really tell us something. It should tell us all that we need to be working harder to promote the radical notion that there really isn't any difference between those who are gay and those who are not. Somehow we seem to be locked in a society where roughly half the population feels that being gay is somehow "different," and therefore not entitled to the same benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual folk have. It is going to be up to our generation to change that, and the sooner we're able to display the fact that we're all in the same boat together, the sooner we'll have Presidents and lawmakers grasping that concept as well. We'll just have to do it all from the ground up.

------------------
BruinDan, "Number Three," FHOM

Beware the naked man who offereth you his pants.


Posts: 2727 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You're also voting, Dan, in a country where people seem to support the radical notion of the separation of church and state. And that, combined with the poll that you linked to, makes me wonder if people in your country really understand what they want.

------------------
"Like a bat out of hell, time has come for you!"
-Ballad of a Comeback Kid, The New Pornographers


Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BruinDan
Activist
Member # 3072

Icon 3 posted      Profile for BruinDan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dzuunmod:
And that, combined with the poll that you linked to, makes me wonder if people in your country really understand what they want.

Well, contrary to popular belief, we aren't all morons.

Separation of church and state means there can be no force-feeding of religion upon people. We cannot have a State religion, we cannot have compulsory church service, we cannot be mandated to wear a cross around our necks and carry a bible in our back pockets.

We can, however, have laws that are based on the morals of the people we elect, be they religious in nature or not. Our Constitution gives us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And even though you and I may not be religious, other people (including our leaders) may feel free to be so. It's pretty simple, really.

------------------
BruinDan, "Number Three," FHOM

Beware the naked man who offereth you his pants.


Posts: 2727 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Maharet
Activist
Member # 3806

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Maharet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 

I'm in Australia, so the debate about gay marriage is coming to me via the newspapers, and for a while was placed next to another 'gay debate' going on in the Uniting Church about ordaining gay bishops.

I look at it this way "Change: first ridiculed, then opposed, then accepted as self-evident." Basically, even if the law passes there will be gay marriage in America at some point, it'll just take a bit (a lot?) longer. Or maybe I'm just one of those irritatingly optimistic types?

When I hear people describing "threats to The Family," it always makes me think of something terribly fragile, weak and delicate. It can't be a very strong institution if it's threatened by someone like little ol' me!

------------------
"If you don't like gays, then they're everywhere, coming out of the woodwork to corrupt little children... but if you are gay, especially if you're in high school, you're the only one in the universe..."


Posts: 66 | From: Perth, Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blue Roses
Activist
Member # 9928

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Blue Roses     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
As to the whole separation of church and state thing, the way I interpret it (feel free to debate this) is that basically, Bush is free to be whatever religion he likes, and is free to make judgements based on the morals/opinions he holds which come from that religion. However, my problem is that in his speeches, he uses obviously Christial metaphors and phrasings, using his religion as justification for his decisions/opinions. I feel that the spirit of the church/state divide is that he can be Christian, but his moral decisions have to come from the fact that he holds these morals and believes them to be right, not that these morals are Christian. Does that make sense?
Posts: 105 | From: Bryn Mawr, PA, USA | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree. So much that Bush says and does (and so much of what many former presidents have said and done) flies in the face of the separation of church and state.

I just don't see anyone down there (or up here for that matter) making an intelligent, secular argument against gay marriage.

------------------
"Like a bat out of hell, time has come for you!"
-Ballad of a Comeback Kid, The New Pornographers


Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dude_who_writes
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 5640

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dude_who_writes     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BruinDan:
You want someone who bases everything on a logical weighing of options? Vote for a philosopher. But I don't think it's righy to vilify someone for how they base their beliefs, even if it may differ from how we base ours.


Honestly, it was never my intention to vilify the man in any way. In the same respect that he's free to have his religous beliefs, I'm free to dislike him. I didn't vote for him (and, incidentially, neither did the majority of the population, but thanks to the electoral college, here we are) and I don't agree with his policy choices, and I especially don't agree with his flagrant ignorance to the seperation of church and state in the same way that many in his camp disagreed with President Clinton's personal life.

I'm not anti-Christian. It's a beautiful religion, and I think that it definetly has it's place. But that place, for any religous practice, is not within the confines of government. I truly believe that's what our forefather's intent was when they crafted the constitution. Beliefs, for anyone, are often very well formed and not easily changed. Religous practices are the same. Little change over a lot of time. Government, however, is meant to evolve quickly, with the change of many things, including public opinion and the logical weighing of options. That's why I'm a firm believer in the speration of church and state.

George W. Bush doesn't seem to hold the same ideals as I, with my interpertation and understanding of the constitution, do. That's why I dislike him and his policy. And, I'll admit, I go against the grain. I'm just one of those out-spoken, far-left, queer radicals. Quite the opposition to the President, and according to the above poll, a fairly sizeable chunk of the population.

I'll definetly give you that it is going to take some work from those who don't feel the same way as that sizeable chunk. But, where do we start? There are 270 million people in this country, that's a a lot of ground work. Seems to me, the best way to make change happen, though, would be for someone to start near the top. How about one of our numerous elected government officals taking a stand? How about a handful of 'em? An offical stand from someone near the top could change a lot of minds, IMHO. Letting this pass with the premise that we need to work from the ground up just seems like failing for me.

quote:
Originally posted by Maharet:
When I hear people describing "threats to The Family," it always makes me think of something terribly fragile, weak and delicate. It can't be a very strong institution if it's threatened by someone like little ol' me!


<smirk> I've never thought of that, but I absolutely love that!

------------------
Tim, as in "Donate"
Scarleteen Advocate

"Oh, I am a lonley painter. I live in a box of paints. I'm frightened by the Devil and I'm drawn to those one's that ain't afraid."-- Joni Mitchel, "Case of You"


Posts: 712 | From: Michigan, US | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BruinDan
Activist
Member # 3072

Icon 3 posted      Profile for BruinDan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dzuunmod:
I agree. So much that Bush says and does (and so much of what many former presidents have said and done) flies in the face of the separation of church and state.

Again, we can think what we want, but our entire system of government is based on the Constitution. So it's all well and good if we point fingers and holler "separation of church and state!", but without a Constitutional delineation of the same, it means absolutely nothing.

And nowhere in the Constitution is there even a mention of the term "separation of church and state." The First Amendment tells us that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This guideline serves the purpose of barring the nation from having a state-mandated religion, while still allowing for the free expression of religious views, ideals, and morals.

The term, "separation of church and state," meanwhile, is not found in a legal document and comes instead from an 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Association in Connecticut. In it, he writes "I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." This is a man's opinion, not an order dictated by the United States Constitution. It came about because there was a push by a religious group known as the Congregationalists to get their form of Christianity morphed into the national religion. The Baptists were concerned about oppression, knowing all too well how that sort of thing had worked in England, and President Jefferson was attempting to allay their fears by informing them that the formation of a national religion would be impossible under the guidelines set forth in the First Amendment. And in doing so, he was borrowing the term "wall of separation between church and state" from one of the Baptists' preachers, Roger Williams, who had recently published a sermon that read, in part "When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day."

The entire notion of a "wall" between Church and state seems out of place. Constitutionalists tend to think of it more as a "window," where the Church can see in but the state cannot see out. Moral values and religious opinions can filter their way into the heads of our lawmakers, but our lawmakers cannot enact legislation upon or with respect to the Church. This is because the First Amendment provides us with a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values commonly associated with religion. And with the term "separation of Church and state" being Constitutionally absent, it has no bearing on the actions of the Federal government anyway.

The bottom line is that non-religious folks like you and I can feel free to think that Bush's methodology is all wrong, but we can't go overboard with all this talk of "flying in the face of" a term that doesn't even exist Constitutionally. Because even while it may not sit well with us, he's so far managed to keep the Constitution on his side. And none of our hot air can change that.

------------------
BruinDan, "Number Three," FHOM

Beware the naked man who offereth you his pants.


Posts: 2727 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sighter Goliant
Neophyte
Member # 14983

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sighter Goliant     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dan makes a very valid point concerning church and state separation, although it is one I do not fully subscribe to. The term "speedy trial" is not in the constitution, and neither is the term "religious liberty," yet they are ideals that the vast majority of Americans subscribe to. You can't completely rule out separation of church and state as a philosophical maxim, but neither can you set it up as the only possible way of viewing religion in our pluralistic society. In addition, while morality can work their way into the heads of legislators, they cannot be allowed to bring the people to heel to their own vision of the reality of the world and the world order. They cannot legislate to the church what to do, but neither can the legislate to the people a particular church or set of beliefs that come directly out of a single faith tradition.

I laud Dan highly, however, for mentioning a subject near and dear to my heart, the Baptists. As a Baptist, I have a nearly all-consuming passion for historical Baptist distinctives, and one of the key Baptist distinctives is religious liberty. Connecting to this liberty was a civil corollary: the separation of church and state. In order to maintain religious liberty, church and state had to remain separate. This issue is the one where I delineate most differently from Baptists of a conservative/fundamentalist bent. The term conservative generally connotates a connection and embracing of the past, yet in this case the current fundamentalist powerbrokers in Baptist life have forgotten completely the roots of freedom and anti-creedalism that spurred their radical fifteenth century appearance.

With this said, however, there is something important to remember about George Bush, and it is that you cannot fault him for making decisions based on a moral system pulled from Christianity. I, personally, feel that his system of morals is no more pulled from authentic Christianity than it is pulled from Marvin the Martian's Church of the Telescope, but the man does seem to authentically guide himself from what he believes to be Christianity. This is acceptable, quite acceptable. If you don't like it, then do what I'm doing -- join the fight to get him booted out of office in 2004.

Regardless, the problem with his religion comes when he tries to force it down people's throats. Case in point: faith-based funding initiatives.

And now that I've gotten all energized on the topic of Bush, I've completely diverged from the topic of the thread: same-sex marriages.

I, personally, see nothing wrong with civil unions for gay couples. Nor do I see anything wrong with marriage for gay couples. However, I do see something wrong with the government forcing houses of worship to marry any couple, gay or straight, that shows up on their doorstep. The decision that house of worship makes about whether or not to accept a gay marriage within that community belongs to the church alone -- no one outside that church can force the church to perform an action it doesn't agree with. If a church wants to perform a same-sex marriage, the state should let them. Nothing at all, though, should bar the state from letting gays and lesbians to marry in civil ceremonies administered by a judge. Denying the economic benefits that come with marriage to gay and lesbian couples which deny them is discrimination in the highest sense, and I say that from the perspective of a gay Baptist. That, my friends, is what you call an oxey-moron.

[This message has been edited by Sighter Goliant (edited 10-04-2003).]


Posts: 5 | From: Greer, SC USA | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BruinDan
Activist
Member # 3072

Icon 3 posted      Profile for BruinDan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sighter Goliant:
The term "speedy trial" is not in the constitution, and neither is the term "religious liberty," yet they are ideals that the vast majority of Americans subscribe to.

Thank you for your kind words...but, dude? Both of the terms you've just cited are in our Constitution.

quote:
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


------------------
BruinDan, "Number Three," PHOM

Beware the naked man who offereth you his pants.


Posts: 2727 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sighter Goliant
Neophyte
Member # 14983

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sighter Goliant     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Heh, looks like I messed up my terms. What I intended to say with regard to speedy trial was "fair trial," and you still haven't shown that the term "religious liberty" exists in the constitution -- the term is not explicit, it is implicit. You merely quoted the religion clauses, neither of which mentions the term "religious liberty"; by the same token, you could spell out "separation of church and state" and assume that was covered by the religion clauses. Quite simply, I very firmly opposed to the idea that the only thing that guides constitutional interpretation is the text -- it is also largely an issue of the intent of the founders, the vast majority of whom could be described as Quaker or UU, even Ben Franklin was raised in the tolerant and religiously expansive atmosphere of William Penn's Pennsylvania.

Someone said, and I wish to God I could remember who it was, "Whenever religion is united with government, it never rises above the merest superstition; whenever government is united with religion, it never rises above the basest despotism."

[This message has been edited by Sighter Goliant (edited 10-04-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Sighter Goliant (edited 10-05-2003).]


Posts: 5 | From: Greer, SC USA | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BruinDan
Activist
Member # 3072

Icon 3 posted      Profile for BruinDan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sighter Goliant:
Someone said, and I wish to God I could remember who it was, "Whenever religion is united with government, it never rises above the merest superstition; whenever government is united with religion, it never rises above the basest despotism."

That came from the Ohio Supreme Court's 1872 majority decision in Cincinnati Board of Education v. Minor.

You summed up the crux of the matter in your post when you stated that you do not support the idea that the the text of the Constitution is the sole basis for its interpretation. While I understand that view, I also understand that it is downright impossible for any of us living today to try and second-guess what the intent of the Founders was. While we can use our knowledge of history to try and determine what they were after, in the end we just don't have Ben Franklin or Tom Jefferson to ask right now. All we have left are words on a piece of paper, which we read and interpret and perhaps understand differently as time goes by. So while I certainly respect your view, I personally have a hard time with it.

As far as the First Amendment goes, I think it's fairly clear regardless of interpretation that one's freedom of religion is an explicit guarantee. If you want to pull terms like "religious liberty" out of the air, you will definitely have a hard time finding them verbatim; but the notion that one may or may not adopt a religion and is guaranteed the right to do so seems fairly obvious. I'm not so sure the same can be said for "separation of church and state." You're trying to draw a very broad bead on an amendment that certainly doesn't spell that out, and heretofore the Supreme Court hasn't seen it that way either.

We could probably go on and on and on about this one, and I'd like to get more of your point of view in a place where we wouldn't be taking up bandwidth and putting people to sleep with our babbling. Perhaps you can track me down and we can go over this some more off-boards?

------------------
BruinDan, "Number Three," PHOM

Beware the naked man who offereth you his pants.


Posts: 2727 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sighter Goliant
Neophyte
Member # 14983

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sighter Goliant     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That we certainly could, because I disagree with just about everything you just said.

Send me an email if you want, and we'll talk some more.


Posts: 5 | From: Greer, SC USA | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reverend Zeed
Neophyte
Member # 15137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Reverend Zeed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
lol...

Man there is a lot of politics in somthing so damn simple as having fun(who knows, Anarchism might have a chance with people like you on this earth) I wonder what the world would be like if sex wasn't fun (disregarding the fact that we wouldn't be here considering that sex evolved to be fun for the purpose of procration...anyway)...do you really think there would be all these christian bigot presidents who would make wars and make laws outlawing a sexual act....

I'm sure bush never "got it on" in his air national guard days with the other boys in his bunk...he atleast never had any thoughts about that right? (sarcasim). But thats ok becuase hes a changed man today...hes married to a women and is makeing wars and laws. He's cleaned up his cocaine and drinking problems...and I'm sure he never thinks of men again when hes all alone in bed at night.

Bottom line, (un-elected)president bush is a right-wing christian guy I don't like, who wishes to control, through the state, everyones personal life, makeing sure we all have good, right, just hetrosexual love...and if we don't...then we sure as hell won't be allowed to get married (I agree marriage is a farce).

Did I mentioned I disliked Bush?...

BTW, I'm a Bisexual male anarchist teenager...and thats my rant.

[This message has been edited by Milke (edited 10-17-2003).]


Posts: 12 | From: New York, USA | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reverend Zeed
Neophyte
Member # 15137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Reverend Zeed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
oh, and I am an actual ordained reverend.
Posts: 12 | From: New York, USA | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gumdrop Girl
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 568

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Gumdrop Girl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
lesson learned: never mess with BruinDan when it comes to the US Constitution. Danny's got it pretty much memorized.

Anyone else a fan of Andrew Sullivan? He had a great op-ed advocating gay marriage in the Wall Street Journal not too long ago. he has a link to it on his page http://www.andrewsullivan.com I think his perspective is pretty unique because he is openly gay, catholic and politically conservative. Yesterday's op-ed was a response to Sullivan's article (right-wing versus far-right-wing).

------------------
Be the doctor your parents always wanted you to marry.
Love Scarleteen? By donating just $1, you can help keep us around.


Posts: 12677 | From: Los Angeles, CA ... somewhere off the 10 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gumdrop Girl
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 568

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gumdrop Girl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Rev. Zeed, while most of the folks here probably agree with your opinions, i'd like to inform you that we encourage discourse in this forum. Ranting within the bounds of the guidelines is permissible, but it really doesn't make for a great argument or discussion.

------------------
Be the doctor your parents always wanted you to marry.
Love Scarleteen? By donating just $1, you can help keep us around.


Posts: 12677 | From: Los Angeles, CA ... somewhere off the 10 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Milke
Activist
Member # 961

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Milke     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
While it's kinda cool to know we've got a board member who's managing to channel Mr Bush, and even knows his sexual fantasies, that's got nothing to do with anything, and personal attacks aren't cool here, so I edited yours out.

If marriage is a farce why do you or anyone care who's allowed to do it? And why was the Canadian government virtually ignored when it made marriage legal between homosexual couples? Is that because the fight over gay marriage is more about politics than an actual desire for that one privilege, do you think, or simply because Americans don't tend to notice much that's going on outside of the States?

------------------
Milke, with an L, Mrs BD to you, RATS, TMNTP, MF, CWCD, WAOTA

The Earth says Hel-lo!

[This message has been edited by Milke (edited 10-17-2003).]


Posts: 5122 | From: I *came* from the land of ice and snow | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reverend Zeed
Neophyte
Member # 15137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Reverend Zeed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I was ranting because I figured the debate was pretty much overwith.

If I was wrong, then sorry.

I personally believe that gay marriage should be "legal" only for the principle of it. IE, if you stop a person from marrying because of who s/he is marrying then you could stop someone from marrying b/c of race, ethnicity, mental state, etc.

I don't believe in the intitution of marriage because its a very hierarchal, patriarchal idea. The man over the women (or in the case of homos, the same sex over the other same sex). I do support any gay person who wants to get married though.

Also, I got angry at bush b/c of EVERYTHING he's done, not just the fact that hes (tried) to make marriage herto only. And I believe its a justifyed anger since he is trying to impose his rules and values on others which is anti-liberty.


(BTW, inflamitory posts, includeing rants, flames, trolls, and other such "garbage" posts sometimes have a potential to setoff a VERY good discution, even if its just people fighting over the weather the "garbage" post is right or wrong.)


Posts: 12 | From: New York, USA | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Milke
Activist
Member # 961

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Milke     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If we were down with having the boards filled with tripe, we wouldn't have moderators. As it is, bandwidth isn't cheap, and we're not looking for rants and whines. If you want somewhere to troll or complain, however, I could refer you to several webspace hosts.

What does 'the same sex over the same sex' mean? Who are you to tell people how their relationships work, or which partner is the dominant one? Plenty of people are capable of having relationships where the woman is the one in charge, or where responsibilities and benefits are shared equally. My own relationship seems pretty darn balanced, and I'm not so smug as to assume we're the only two people capable of managing that. And truly, who are you to tell anyone what their sexual fantasies or sexual orientation is? That's just downright offensive. Discussions can be a lot more productive when they're not based around proving some unfounded assumption as truth, but if they're not going to be productive, they're not going to happen on these boards.

------------------
Milke, with an L, Mrs BD to you, RATS, TMNTP, MF, CWCD, WAOTA

The Earth says Hel-lo!


Posts: 5122 | From: I *came* from the land of ice and snow | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

  New Poll   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Get the Whole Story! Go Home to SCARLETEEN: Sex Ed for the Real World | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998

Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3