Cantr II Discussion Forum

I just wanted to see what other people think about this.

I think it is wrong and yes for once I am totally disagreeing with Bush on this and might in fact make me not vote for him though I dont know who to vote then. Certainly not Kerry.......or Nader.

Anyways, most people I have talked to agree that it is wrong. Personally, I think homosexuals should be able to get married and I don't see what is so wrong about. If marriage by the state is about finacial agreement between two people or a couple and since two gay or lesbian people are a couple if they live together then why can't they have the same finacial assistance and status as every other couple? And the arguement about marriage being a sacred thing is mute as the institutions of religion are not to be in the government. I agree that religion can deny marriage status to such groups on moral grounds and that is a right for them to reserve but since marriage by the state is legal contract between two people for finacial reasons then I believe the government does not have the right to deny marriage to them.

Agreed. The argument that that Mayor and San Francisco is breaking the law is like the argument the racists used to justify telling people not to disobey the Jim Crow and other racist laws...

I think it is wrong but it is his only choice. He must say that he is against it because of the base of his party. Also saying that there needs to be an amendment gets him off the hook. States approve amendments not congress or presidents. Do you really think that he is worried that California might ratify the admendment forcing his hand? No.

The reason why the goverment is involed at all is that the state is responsible for land ownership tracking. Marriage is part of land ownership. It was not some "enforcing the man woman insitution" like some people say. It is a type land contract. Even if you are not landed the fact that you are married effects how you are allowed to become landed if you ever choose to do so. (You cannot buy a house wihtout your spouses knowledge legally anywhere ever). So the whether the people are of different or the same sex makes no difference. As a side note the number of people in the marriage is just as irrevlant. Other clauses that were added later by religous groups such as adultery and absenace being a valid reason to terminate the contract are also irrevelant from the orginal purpose.

I disagree entirely with Bush on this as on most things. He's a bigoted bastard afraid of change and afraid of people who are different than him and the prospect of them being happy. I see news footage of ecstatic couples finally being able to wed in San Fransisco and I try to imagine who this could harm. It's just a hateful and close-minded amendment.

and as for the election:

Captain Malcolm Reynolds wrote:Certainly not Kerry.......or Nader.

This is why Edwards needs to win the nomination: so that swing voters like you will get Bush out of office. I have nothing against Kerry, but as you demonstrated, he probably won't be able to win in the presidential election. (but I waited too long to register and so I can't vote in the primary )

Vote Edwards--he's got a cool last name.

/Edwardses Repazent!

I also disagree with Bush. (Thats not anything new...) I personally don't feel it is any of his business what couples do or don't do. And I agree that it is up to a particular religion to decide if they wish to condone same sex marriages. I don't feel that a law should dictate what is morally or imorrally right in this country when it is clearly based upon religious opinion and harms NO-one!

Whatever happened to the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness anyways?

I don't see what the big deal is except for politics and people standing behind him who are sickened at the thought of two people finding happiness- using a word (marriage) that is "sacred" for non-same sex couples would just be disgraceful
What do they care? Im sick of hearing about his god in his speeches, and quite frankly don't care what the down home country bumpkin feels is sacred in this country. Its not his right or anyone elses right to force their beliefs upon me. And more frankly, it is not up to him to judge people. If he was so damn religious he'd let what he feels to be immoral (not sacred) to be handled by his almighty.

And no, if I voted, I wouldn't vote for John Kerry. The one person who I thought most represented our country's views dropped out of the race. Gotta love a quitter.
John Kerry is too much of a suck up for my comfort. And his views are ever changing. He can't be seen as someone to trust in my opinion. Says one thing, and history shows he supports another. The fact his statements are as as unclear as president Bush's marks him off the list of the lesser of the two evils too. Besides, excuse me for mocking Bush for a moment, but John Kerry just LOOKS dishonest. He doesnt' have a face I could trust even if I wanted to.

speaking as a non US citizen and a semi interested outsider i don't see this getting through anyway.sure you'll get a few of the states may ratify it but most politician's won't want to cut there own throat's by voting for it.politician's the world over are the same they'll weigh up if it's worth losig the gay vote which they could gain by not voting for it and publicly denouncing it against the votes of a few hard cases. recently here in australia a law was being voted on weather it was legal for gay couples to even exist in Tasmania. before this law got passed it was illegal for gay couple's to even be seen in public or to do aything in the privacy of there own home or run the risk of being imprisoned. when this got voted on i beleive it went at about 98% wanting the law changed to allow same sex relationship's to not be a criminal offence anymore. the world is changing and the old fuddy duddies who object to such thing's are slowly being replaced by a more tollerant society.i beleive it's in the US where the first openly gay Bishop was put into place but i may have the location wrong. the worlds changing and some thing used to be classified as taboo are changing.it won't get passed not in a million year's i think bush is just hoping to get the votes of a few intolerant hick's from what ever state he's from

Bush lost my vote and many others I'm sure with that one statement. It's so disgraceful that in the year 2004 he's still promoting separatism.

Chrissy

I'm not sure you all are seeing the real story here. What year is it? An election year. Whether or not Bush really believes in this amendment is not the point. There is little or no chance that it can be adopted.

The whole purpose of even bringing the issue up, is to force his prospective opponents to take a position on a sensitive topic. When it comes to same sex marriage, there is a definite split in the voting populus as to pro and con. Very few are of the opinion that it doesn't matter, much like the abortion issue. This is nothing more than politics as usual.

The Republicans or the Democrats will not gain or lose any votes from their core constituancies as a result of this issue. Most of them vote their party line, whatever the candidates support. It is the independent or swing voters that this is aimed at.

Financially, it is in the government's best interest to allow as many marriages as possible....of any type. Married coupled pay a higher rate of income tax. This is a recent development over the last 10 years or so. It used to be the other way around.

Constitutionally, banning same sex marriges is not allowed. The separartion of Church and State makes this illegal. What reason, other than a moral one, could there be for such a ban? Morality, in this sense is religion based.

Bush is gambling on 2 things. 1, that more voters will side for such an idea, and 2, his opponents will side against the amendment. It's plain and simple politics.

Most things that go on in Washington are driven by politics, without regard for what the American people want. They have us buffaloed into thinking that we have a say in what goes on, because we vote and elect politicians. HA! I say. Republican .... Democrat .... Independent .... Green .... Bush .... Kerry .... Edwards .... Nader .... Elkink .... it's all the same. The political machine rolls on, right over the American people.

My apologies to Jos. I didn't mean to lump you in, but it was to emphasise a point.

For the record, I am not homosexual, and have no intention of getting married (again, learned my lesson), especially to a member of my sex. I am not a homophobe, either. I know many gay and lesbian people. Most of them do not wear their sexual preference on their sleeve for everybody to see. If they didn't tell me, I wouldn't know. If they can keep it private, so should the anti-homosexuals.

I understand his motives for doing it. I know it's due to the fact that it's election year. I just believe that it back fired in his face.

Chrissy

Bush = fucking idiot.

Marraige has nothing to do with the state other than land ownership and financial things. So what the hell does a person's sex have to do with it?!

So I am completely against the Amendment. Plain and simple Bush needs to rot in hell.

So I'm one of those ignoring-everybodies-opinion politicians?

Hmm, I'm afraid you're not *that* far off ... Except that I'm not a politician ...

And I don't wish hell to anybody ... And the gay marriage thing ... Well, I'm not American, so I guess I shouldn't interfere. My standpoint would simply be that gay couples should be treated equally to straight couples and that marriage should be abolished ...

Jos Elkink wrote:And the gay marriage thing ... Well, I'm not American, so I guess I shouldn't interfere. My standpoint would simply be that gay couples should be treated equally to straight couples and that marriage should be abolished ...

Not a bad idea at all--I like your thinking.

But then again I also think that men should be sent to Mars and the women criminals be sent there to keep the population alive. That would solve the world's problems. o.o;;

Did I mention I am a feminazi? ;;

I'm against a ban, but then, I never knew it ever was allowed in the US.

This is the 21 Century, time to review our traditional way's. My opinion is: If it doesn't harm anyone, why prohibit it?

But, unlike others here I'm not in favour of abolishing marriage, it has been a "tradition" for 1000's of years and today still has a lot of symbolical value, and hey, it doesn't hurt anybody, does it?

So go ahead, get married, be happy. (And probably get divorced too).

So you go out on a boat for a month and this is the first English thing you say?

How about hello...

Welcome back...