WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday that he supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html


Well I'm afraid that that pretty much says it all. Bush is trying to win political points by playing games with our nation's constitution, and with the lives of many of the citizens under his governance. All I can say is that if Kerry doesn't stop Mr. Bush this November, then we can only hope that a bullet will.

But, he said, "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."

Call me crazy, but I thought that this provision was already written into our constitution over 200 years ago. I guess full faith and credit just doesn't go as far as it used to.

Good ol' Big-Head-Ted throws in his two cents:
U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts said Bush will "go down in history as the first president to try to write discrimination back into the Constitution."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.dems.marriage/index.html


I think that Ted's got it right, there. Judging by the rest of Bush's legacy, however, I suppose that this new distinction will fit right in.

Constitutional amendment? Is he for real? Where is the constitutional amendment for adultery, or premarital sex? Why aren’t there pushes for those? Because they don’t belong in the constitution, and no matter which way the gay marriage issue goes, it doesn’t belong in the constitution. Bush is showboating for the religious right, and as always he is all style no sense.

as always he is all style no sense.

I didn't actually see Bush give the press conference, but I'll wager he was either wearing a pair of cowboy boots, or maybe a flight suit at the time. If it passes I'm willing to bet that he'll have a pair of six-shooters strapped to his belt, and he'll start firing them in the air and shouting "YEEEHAW!" and then go to a NASCAR race or something, in order to celebrate. Maybe he'll be so happy that he'll lead us into another war.

The amendment is a critically flawed idea in the first place. The constitution is not a document designed to define the powers of the citizenry, it is a document that describes the powers of the government. Limiting the rights of citizens is outside of its scope, this sort of thing is supposed to be handled by national or state legislature. The only other instance of an amendment like this (forced through on similar rabid religious fanatic grounds) was the prohibition of alcohol, and of course it didn’t belong there, the constitution says what the government is allowed to do, not what the citizens are not allowed to do. It didn’t stand, if this anti-gay amendment is pushed through I don’t think it will stand after the nation has a chance to sober up.

ah all i gotta say is the "land of the free"
glad i live in canada.

he brought up the case
we have a standard outlook on marriage or some jazz liek that
and we'll uphold it.

But i wonder if statistics ever show that gay marriages last longer
then hetero.
That man is a quacker

Don't you dare pollute my beloved Constitution with this transitory, partisan bullshit, Bushie!

I just wish Walter would go on the air with his reasoned, tolerant approach to this issue. I also wonder how Mr. Cronkite will look in an orange jumpsuit. ;) The forthcoming presidential election will be decided on several issues of profound importance to the nation's future. It is unfortunate that the debates about them will be confounded by a religious issue that does not belong on the political agenda. The issue is same-sex marriage.

A majority of our people identify themselves as Christian, and many of the faithful believe that they have a mission to pass on the word of God to those who do not believe with the same fervor as themselves. Their faith is admirable: Indeed, this might be a better world if we all obeyed our religious lessons with similar devotion.

But that, of course, is not the case. And the zealots who follow the leadership of the so-called religious right are threatening us with religious war, fought on the battleground of the presidential election. Cronkite's voice matters on this. The only group, age-wise, that supports a Constitutional Amendment (in my very limited and informal poll of friends my age and their parents) to define marriage is those over 65, a group that listens to Walter with some reverence. People my age, those 40ish and under, are just livid at this, conservative and liberal alike. Even the College Republican crowd, when the aren't enjoying their "I'm the next Karl Rove" fantasies of dirty trickstering, are bemused at the idea of amending the sacred Constitution to prohibit gay unions, of all tawdry and trivial things.

We've all grown up with a popular culture that exposes people to homosexuality and few of us don't know personally someone who is gay. These aren't "sodomites" they are human beings. Sure, a lot of them would like gays to stay "in the closet" and believe they are going to hell, but that goes for more than a few others and we don't use the Constitution to deal with their "issues." Besides wishing to criminalize individual behavior, the more radical members of the Christian right would like their proposed federal law to dictate what individual churches could do in regard to recognizing or performing same-sex marriages. This is another abomination. Shouldn't that decision be made by the individual church or denomination? What possible excuse is there for government intervention in this decision except an unreasonable, unchristian intolerance for freedom of worship?

Where is the Christian tolerance in those right-wing Christian leaders who would impose their religious beliefs on the entire diverse population of the United States, even to the extent of a Constitutional amendment curtailing our rights of religious freedom? (Full text here (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/8017170.htm))There he goes; pandering to reason again.

This is just a desperate ploy - another distraction employed by the "make war, not love" administration. And his support for this bogus constitutional amendment once again underscores the great divide between his "compassionate conservative" rhetoric, and his real world antics.

:m: Peace.

Bush is doing this because he has actually ostracized his base after the budget mess. Conservatives were not happy with Bush, and they were showing it. I think it was very politically prudent for Bush to do this, but this shows the very sad state that the United States is in today. Canada (thankfully we are civilized) has accepted the fact that in order to maintain our constitution, and live to our secular, enlightment values we have to understand that equality is the epitome of civilization. I am really sick and tired in the US (like Larry King last night), when the anti-gay marriage cabal starts screaming the logical fallacy of the slippery slope, "will incest, bestiality, etc. be allowed as well" obviously not, the ppl/things involved cannot give their consent, thus no relevance. In Canada there isn't this fictitious "slippery slope" nonsense. I think Americans today are being strangled by this movement of the Christian right, and political expediency. It is sad when one of the stalwarts of western civilization (constitution) is being used as a tool to invite bigotry.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/equal.jpg


http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bangay.jpg


http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/arnoldgay1.jpg

Honestly, it'd be an honor to get gunned down by a bling adorned Arnold with MP5K's Akimbo. He wouldn't go down without a fight, though; Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce the beginings of Pink-Delta Force (http://mystech.furchives.org/vest/redvest.jpg)? Militant gay-rights activism has just gone that extra step into domestic terror. (I smell big summer blockbuster here!)

Mystech,

"All I can say is that if Kerry doesn't stop Mr. Bush this November, then we can only hope that a bullet will."

Next you will be complaining that the Secret Service is investigating you. Our "free speech" has it's limits ya know.

"Well I'm afraid that that pretty much says it all. Bush is trying to win political points by playing games with our nation's constitution, and with the lives of many of the citizens under his governance."

Funny that you become the rather large hypocrite, AGAIN. I have not read ALL of your posts, but I doubt you ever wrote about judges legislating from the bench. Of course the vast majority of this happens with activist, liberal judges. Whether you agree or disagree with the issue, at least a Constitutional Amendment is the legal and proper way to go about it.

Moosey baby,

“The constitution is not a document designed to define the powers of the citizenry, it is a document that describes the powers of the government.”

Apparently you have never heard of The Bill of Rights

Mystech,...

Funny that you become the rather large hypocrite, AGAIN....

Moosey baby,...

Apparently you have never heard of The Bill of Rights

Do you know what the word hypocrite means or are you just using it because your conservative talk radio or fox news heroes use it when they are upset? The hype about "Judicial activists legislating from the bench" is silliness. You may have heard of separation of powers, if judges always did exactly what legislatures wanted regardless of constitutionality then we would have a breakdown of the system, judicial review is one of the prime functions of the courts, without it the courts would be nothing but a rubber stamp for the legislature and hence we would not have proper checks and balances.

Also, read the bill of rights again, it defines how the federal government may interact with citizans and states, it is once again not telling citizens what they cant do, this is beyond its scope, it is telling the federal government what it cant do. An amendment designed to limit the rights of the citizenry is completely out of place.

*bangs head into wall repeatedly*

Moosey, people like you frighten me more than armed intruders and terrorists.

Yes, I know, the uneducated masses should fear people who know how the system is actually supposed to work. We are a threat to all your catchy buzz phrases and sound bites. Would you feel more self satisfied if I just said "Don’t write discrimination into the constitution" like all the hip cats holding the signs are chanting? I'm sure bouncing rhetoric off of rhetoric would be a productive exercise.

Yeah, "activist judge" is another beauty from Republican marketing dept. The first time someone repeated that one to me, I asked him how he can tell the difference between an activist judge and a judge making judgments. Of course he couldn’t. An activist is simply one who disagrees with Bush.

it is digusting to me how the right uses the term "activist" judges. if you paid attention in your 6th grade civics class you would know the legislative makes the laws, the executive executes/enforces the laws and the judicial is main funcions is to interpret the law. that is one of the very foundations of our government. the attempt by the right to prvent judges from doing their function is just another manipulating power grab. when the rules dont work for bush and his hooligans, they just change them to make thme work.

well, not to be too hard on the Republicans, I'm sure when some of Bushes judicial appointees start conservative it up big-time in a few years then the Democrats will remember how well the "Judicial Activists" rhetoric worked for stirring up the republicans, and start using a similar tactic themselves.

Next you will be complaining that the Secret Service is investigating you. Our "free speech" has it's limits ya know.

I doubt that the secret service has the resources or manpower to investigate everyone on the internet who flippantly expresses that they'd like to see Bush shot.

"Well I'm afraid that that pretty much says it all. Bush is trying to win political points by playing games with our nation's constitution, and with the lives of many of the citizens under his governance."

Funny that you become the rather large hypocrite, AGAIN. I have not read ALL of your posts, but I doubt you ever wrote about judges legislating from the bench. Of course the vast majority of this happens with activist, liberal judges. Whether you agree or disagree with the issue, at least a Constitutional Amendment is the legal and proper way to go about it.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. When did I become a hypocrite? I don't see anything in that quote that runs contrary to anything else I've said, and I stand by it. Bush is trying to play games with American lives by amending the constitution to limit our rights. As for "activist judges" and the implication that their rulings (Only one ruling, really, that in Massachusetts, so I don't know if it's fair to say activist judges, it makes it sound like this is more common) is somehow illegal. That's what judges are there for, it's the way our government is set up. It's so that if the Legislative branch goes crazy and says that you can't have a relationship with another person there is another governmental recourse to have the law repealed. The exact same thing happened last year in the Supreme Court, Texas' sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional, now Massachusetts says that in Massachusetts we can't have that sort of institutional discrimination against homosexuals. Judging by those rulings I'd say that the ideal of American freedom is taking some great steps forward.

“The constitution is not a document designed to define the powers of the citizenry, it is a document that describes the powers of the government.”

Apparently you have never heard of The Bill of Rights

As the moose put it, you should go and read the constitution yourself. It outlines how the federal government is to operate and what it can not do, it does not, however say what the citizenry can or can not do. Or if you need a catchy little phrase to help you remember, It says what the government can't do and what the citizenry must be allowed to do, not what the government can do and citizenry can't. It doesn't contain any "Thou shalt not. . ." clauses.

One quick question, are you sure you spelled your name right? Isn't it supposed to be Inane? It really fits you well.

well, not to be too hard on the Republicans, I'm sure when some of Bushes judicial appointees start conservative it up big-time in a few years then the Democrats will remember how well the "Judicial Activists" rhetoric worked for stirring up the republicans, and start using a similar tactic themselves.

Doubtful. Recall how Clinton was plagued by baseless scandals? I don’t see the Democrats doing that to Bush. They just aren’t in the same league. Republicans lie & cheat to get what they want; that’s their whole game plan. The Democrats aren’t faultless but for the most part they play it straight.

I doubt that the secret service has the resources or manpower to investigate everyone on the internet who flippantly expresses that they'd like to see Bush shot.

Then you, my friend, do not understand Echelon. How do you think the CIA was listening to the 9/11 hijackers’ phone conversations on 9/12? Almost every communication that can be recorded is recorded and electronically searched for keywords, including this forum. The statistic I read recently is that enough info to fill the Library of Congress is recorded every second.

Then you, my friend, do not understand Echelon.

Yes I do know of Echelon and I also know that it's largely useless. The chance of an actual human being involved in the protection of the president reading my comment is extremely slim. In the unlikely event that someone actually stumbles across that particular comment it will be amidst hundreds of thousands or more likely millions of other logged negative comments toward Bush. And that's just assuming that Echelon could monitor every electronic communication, which it can not, and you'd be nuts to try and figure out a way to log and store. In other words the NSA isn’t currently reading our little discussion, and they wouldn't care if they were so don’t worry.

Moose, Mystech, zanket, pegasus,

I would be more than happy to discuss the Constitution with you at a later date, but this thread is more about the gay marriage issue. Maybe I'll start another thread soon, but I really don't wish to get into a lengthy, Tiassa style response now(really boring), and I'm just too lazy and don't really have the time.

As for hoping that Bush ends up on the wrong side of a bullet, Mystech, Cheyney would then become president. Would this make you happy?

If you ban gay marriage in a constitutional amendment, then why stop there? Why not ban all marriages that aren't of the same race? 40 years ago those who screaming the same despotic bigotry then about blacks and whites getting married are now complaining about this. Judges is Mass. have said to ban Gay marriage is unconstitutional (at least in there state), and now we have the legislature in the state passing a amendment to their constitution as well. Which would sadly make it constitutional to ban basic rights for millions of American citizens. Thankfully here in Canada no legislation can pass if it is deemed to be in contradiction to the constitution, our judges can stop it. In Canada there hasn't been the "slippery slope" nonsense that you hear from conservatives in the US. I don't know what it is, but Americans are reverting back into a era of stifling rights not expanding them. But I think this is another fruitless attack against history; this only prevents the eventuality that will be gay marriage. Personally I think marriage itself is idiotic and unnatural, but if homosexuals want that "privilege" go ahead, what conceivable threat do homosexuals constitute, divorce is a MUCH greater threat to marriage then anything else. Also I am not seeing how Christian ethos should have a place within gov't, isn't the US secular? The ethics of the US Declaration of Independence states that “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". The Declaration is not a binding document but this is why the US exists. Are all men created equal or is it a lie? Is the US' premise a lie? I don't think so, and I think that this ridiculousness will not go through.

But thankfully I live in a country where human rights are actually respected. You know this breaks the social contract with the population, and it's a sad reversal of enlightenment ideals.

This is a state issue. Bush has no business mucking around with the constitution "in defense of marriage", as if hetero marriage is a guaranteed protector of christian values. I've never been able to understand the concept of the sanctity of one marriage having any positive or negative impacts on another. From my experience, same-sex couples mostly want to be left alone, but also want to enjoy the same advantages as straight couples with regards to health insurance, life insurance, estate planning, etc.

The right wingers that I have quizzed about this issue claim that if nothing is done, that will be akin to giving license to polygamy, incest, bestiality, and that the definition of marriage will be in jeopardy. You know what, no matter what the dictionary definition of marriage says, I have no interest in marrying a sibling, or asking a goat out to dinner. I mean, I don't even think you could bring a goat into most decent restaurants, even if you wanted to. And then there is the whole question of who pays? But anyway...

I really hope this non-issue just fades away. Let it remain a state issue. It's just none of my damn business what gay couples do with their lives.

"I have no interest in marrying a sibling, or asking a goat out to dinner"

Me neither, but apparently you can bang a pony in Holland if you wish.

I agree it's none of my bizness about gay marriage, etc.

I believe however, that there is a valid concern regarding the issue that I had not previously considered.

Society is a complicated, integrated system. Marriage, for its faults or benefits is a fundamental part of society and has been established as a particular arrangement for a long time. If you go changing this fundamental aspect of society to allow configurations that have not before been allowed, you're purposefully modifying the base of a significantly integrated system and it's impossible to predict the outcome from it. It is a potentially dangerous endeavor from that perspective.

I would say that it seems to me that gay people should be able to get married - but if I concern myself with the 'big picture' of society, I'm not sure. I'd say it might be smart to try a "test case" like the deal in Mass. or whatever, see how it goes and make decisions based on those results.

Regardless though, right or wrong the majority doesn't like the idea.

Fucking with the majority over issues they hold dear is asking for civil war. You don't have to agree with them but I'd say it's wise to respect their opinion.

Mystech – at the moment I’d say you’re right. I think your comment got put on a priority list to check, but absent a few other keywords it won’t get reviewed by a human due to not enough humans to check. In the future, within a couple years, I’d say your comment would earn you a “yellow” designation (by computer only), after which you’d be hand-searched at every US airport. I wouldn’t risk it myself.

I think Echelon has done every email, fax, and phone call within the US and some allies for a decade. They’ve been working on including forums & other databases like this one in the past few years. Unfortunately there’s no way to check their schedule.

I think a compromise would be in order in the US because you have a large portion of the population who is very socially conservative. I think Gay Americans have two options really, fight for marriage or get civil unions. The difference is merely semantical, and you would get the same rights that a married couple does. This lends credence to the idea that gay marriage dosen’t change anything. It hasn't changed anything here, and the social experiment has worked. There are no mass rallies against Gay marriage, there are members of society who don't fancy gay marriage but no one is actually wiling to take that right away from homosexuals. I think it is stupid for ppl to automatically assume that once homosexual marriage would lead to bestiality and other such erroneous sexual deviations. Obviously not, because there is no rational being to consent to the marriage. Society has survived much bigger hits before, like getting rid of feudalism, or fascism, communism, etc. This is really a ping in the barrel; this is not an issue for Bush, nor a issue for politicians but a issue for the courts who are the best ones to interpret the rights of the American citizen.

Just put it up for a vote I'd say. See if the MAJORITY of the people really want them in their states. I'm against them for they are illegal in every state that I know of. Just because certain counties make laws, WITHOUT VOTING ON THEM, that doesn't mean they are legal for the states laws supercede those of the counties. Why do gays need to be married? Why not just WILL their estates to whomever they want, I really don't understand this big push for this now so close to the national elections. Why didn't they bring this up 2 years ago? Perhaps 9/11 was still making headline news so they wait until it is time to "STIR THE POT" once again.

I'm against them for they are illegal in every state that I know of.

Well there is no law against gay marriage on the books anywhere that I know, so really it's just a custom not a law. The amendments would make that custom into a law. In terms of rights it has decided at least by Mass. judges that it is illegal to not allow Gay marriage.

Just because certain counties make laws, WITHOUT VOTING ON THEM, that doesn't mean they are legal for the states laws supercede those of the counties.

Counties don't matter, what matters is the courts and the legislatures of states. Who holds more power, the Judges or the legislatures of states? I think in the US legislatures hold more power because they can amend constitutions. But if the Supreme Court rules that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional or something of that nature, then what? This is the classic checks and balances that the US has instituted to avoid total control of one level of gov't.

Why do gays need to be married? Why not just WILL their estates to whomever they want, I really don't understand this big push for this now so close to the national elections.

Well these ppl don't have the same rights that married ppl do, hospital visits, property rights, etc. They are second class citizens in the US, now I agree why marriage and why now? But it's not really relevant the issue is before you and you have to start tackling this very divisive issue.

I'm against them for they are illegal in every state that I know of.

Well there is no law against gay marriage on the books anywhere that I know, so really it's just a custom not a law. The amendments would make that custom into a law. In terms of rights it has decided at least by Mass. judges that it is illegal to not allow Gay marriage.

Open up your eyes and get educated on this issue, then. Well over half the nation has laws spacificaly banning homosexual marriage, including one on a federal level (The Defence of Marriage Act of 1996). And those states without laws spacificaly prohibiting it refused to issue them up until just a month or two ago, of course.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0206/p01s01-ussc.html

Take a look at the map at the bottom, It'll set you straight. Oh, and remember that the states that allow some domestic privilages still don't allow outright marriage or equal rights, either. You might also check the ACLU's website for some more statistics.

Fucking with the majority over issues they hold dear is asking for civil war. You don't have to agree with them but I'd say it's wise to respect their opinion.

Then I guess I have no choice, but to kill you all. </Antonio Benderas> (sorry I just got done watching Once Upon A Time In Mexico, and needed desperately to use that line. . . guess it doesn't carry the same weight unless it's delivered in person by a dark sexy Mexican).

Seriously, though, do you believe what you're saying? Civil war? I hate to admit it but if it came to that It's something I really think would be worth fighting over. I think I've been talking about shooting conservatives for a while now, and it'd only be fitting for me to put my money where my mouth is.

Looking back at history, and heeding the words of a popular gay internet radio personality, I think that before this particular civil rights battle is over we'll have to see people getting sprayed with fire hoses, and police beating people down in the street. No rights without Dobermans biting people, they say.

Just put it up for a vote I'd say. See if the MAJORITY of the people really want them in their states.

What the majority wants is utterly irrelevant in this situation, because the majority of people would be utterly unaffected by legalization of same sex marriages. The only people that same sex marriage effects are same sex couples, so why not let them decide on it? It's the right of the people to govern themselves that we supposedly value in this nation, not the ability of the mob to deny the minority it's basic rights.

Why do gays need to be married? Why not just WILL their estates to whomever they want,

The issue is much more far reaching than you make it out to be. The idea that a person can will their estate to another person means next to nothing in this debate, as the whole next of kin thing is only one of over 1000 benefits provided by the legal institution of marriage! Seriously, look this stuff up, check out the ACLU, try starting here http://www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/index.html or go off and find your own information, or both, just please educate yourself on this issue!

I really don't understand this big push for this now so close to the national elections. Why didn't they bring this up 2 years ago? Perhaps 9/11 was still making headline news so they wait until it is time to "STIR THE POT" once again.

The single biggest reason that this fight is going on right now is because last year the supreme court ruled that Texas' sodomy laws which criminalized homosexual behavior were unconstitutional. The effect of that was that it could now no longer be made illegal to engage in homosexual activity in the United States, essentially de-criminalizing the sexual orientation nation wide. It was only once this step was out of the was that we could begin the push for Gay Marriage, that and the election is now coming up fast, so we want to make it as much of an issue as possible, to force candidates onto one side or another so that it's finally an issue people will take seriously and something can be done about it. Once we have Gay marriage nation wide (oh and we will) I predict that the fight will then begin to do away with the whole "don't ask don’t tell" policy in the military, and allow openly homosexual people to join (Hell half the girls in the marines for instance are lesbians anyway! [this I have on good word from a girlfriend who spent nine months on Paris island]) and at that time I believe we will have eradicated all government institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals, and you people will stop hearing so much shouting and screaming from me. Social acceptance will come gradually after that, and is something we can't legislate, but it's already been cool to be gay for years (look at guys going clubbing for instance, even straight guys will dress like fags to pick up chicks, haha!) so I think we can just start to lay low again, and the country can get back to issues that are actually worth spending so damned much time fussing over.

Seriously, though, do you believe what you're saying? Civil war?

You know what man I have no idea. I think I might be getting politically paranoid. It seems that the vitriol has thickened over the last decade or two. It seems like there are a lot of people stirring the pot. I can't tell though if it just seems that way to me because I have kids and I'm more uh.. sensitive to dangers in the world and the world they'll inherent and blah blah. In this case I certainly hope that was a stupid comment on my part.

I hate to admit it but if it came to that It's something I really think would be worth fighting over. I think I've been talking about shooting conservatives for a while now, and it'd only be fitting for me to put my money where my mouth is.

Ack. Should people's lives be sacrificed for gay marriage? That's harsh.

Please, step away from the weapon.

Looking back at history, and heeding the words of a popular gay internet radio personality, I think that before this particular civil rights battle is over we'll have to see people getting sprayed with fire hoses, and police beating people down in the street. No rights without Dobermans biting people, they say.

Seems to me that people need to excercise some patience regarding this stuff. The time is coming for sure. If you rush it too much violence will ensue. It doesn't seem worth it to me. LOL. I spent my whole life not wanting to get married and take the ability to get married for granted I suppose, but if it hadn't been for my children I'd have never got married I'd guess.... so marriage seems uhm... utilitarian to me (from the state-sanction part). I mostly think that the state shouldn't involve itself with marriage at all. Maybe you should be able to form a "civil union" with whomever you want, giving them hospital visitation, etc. Crap I dunno.

If this were a life and death issue I might feel differently, but I don't think it is, so I think it's imperative for the communities to be patient and let society soak in their sexuality a little before throwing them into the deep end (as many see it). I see no reason for people to get physically hurt over this shit, so hopefully I'm just being paranoid and I'm terribly wrong about all that.

Ack. Should people's lives be sacrificed for gay marriage? That's harsh.

Please, step away from the weapon.

Oh come on now, as an American it's practicaly my duity to imply that I want to go to war with and kill anyone who I might in any sort of round-about way be able to accuse of taking away my freedom, it's only right and proper.

Seems to me that people need to excercise some patience regarding this stuff...
...so I think it's imperative for the communities to be patient

Wes, I appreciate your stance there, its totally understandable, because you, like most all Americans, have absolutely no stake in the gay marriage issue, whatever way it goes nothing at all happens to you.

But look, the right is playing the "Since the beginning of civilization..." card, so I would say by that logic, if marriage has been around in its present sacrosanct form since the beginning of civilization, then gays have been waiting for round about eight thousand years. That’s some patience if you ask me, we want this done in our lifetimes.

I agree it's none of my bizness about gay marriage, etc.

I believe however, that there is a valid concern regarding the issue that I had not previously considered.

Society is a complicated, integrated system. Marriage, for its faults or benefits is a fundamental part of society and has been established as a particular arrangement for a long time. If you go changing this fundamental aspect of society to allow configurations that have not before been allowed, you're purposefully modifying the base of a significantly integrated system and it's impossible to predict the outcome from it. It is a potentially dangerous endeavor from that perspective.

I would say that it seems to me that gay people should be able to get married - but if I concern myself with the 'big picture' of society, I'm not sure. I'd say it might be smart to try a "test case" like the deal in Mass. or whatever, see how it goes and make decisions based on those results.

Regardless though, right or wrong the majority doesn't like the idea.

Fucking with the majority over issues they hold dear is asking for civil war. You don't have to agree with them but I'd say it's wise to respect their opinion.

wes

you make good points, but when the matters of justice and equality are at hand, i think it is a risk worth taking. the same argument as aboove could have been made against abolishing slavery, allowing women and minorities to vote, intergrating schools, etc. all of those turned out pretty fine in the end i think.

wes

you make good points, but when the matters of justice and equality are at hand, i think it is a risk worth taking. the same argument as aboove could have been made against abolishing slavery, allowing women and minorities to vote, intergrating schools, etc. all of those turned out pretty fine in the end i think.

I agree, but to me those are significantly more "life and death". Slavery? That was worth a war, and I had no stake in it. Women and minority votes? That's closer, but more important than marriage IMO.

To me, gay marriage is not worth a war or even one death. Not because of my lack of stake in it per se, but because I don't really respect the institution much to begin with. To me it is wholly utilitarian and geared towards raising children more than anything. Besides the traditionalism aspect and how it effects my kids and the related tax stuff, I probably wouldn't be married... no, not because I don't love my wife, but because I don't give a fuck about the government's sanctioning of my relationship. It's really none of their business as far as I'm concerned. I've never been in a situation that I'm aware of where I needed to visit my wife in the hospital or whatever except when she was giving birth to the kids, and then they let me in even before we were married (with the first one) so I don't see the problem.

It is important in maybe three contexts?

- traditionalism: families have married parents and that makes kids feel secure (really just a matter of societal "this is the way it is supposed to be" with no real justification besides that).
- government: policy and stuff where you get to visit your family in the hospital and such - this is the only point that makes the issue valid IMO.
- personal: whatever it stands for between you and your partner or you and your religion or whatever.

Gay people have been traditionally ostracized, so the 'acceptance' into society over the recent years is a real positive deal, ultimatey indicative that gay marriage will be accepted. I'd say another 20 years or so is probably enough time for the old people who are really really against it to die off.

Governmental stuff, yeah, there should be something for that. There might be now actually, but it's likely highly unconventional like a binding contract of some sort or power of attorney or I dunno. Then you'd have to remember to take your paperwork with you to the hospital and blah it probably would be a real pain in the ass because people don't deal with it on a regular basis. I dunno. Regardless there probably should be some standard means to apppoint the important people in your life to the government so when something comes up they're authorized for whatever.

And as far as the personal goes, gay people get married all the time like that. The government has shit to do with it.

I think that marriage "between two people" should be cool, but this puritan assed nation still has a lot of issues with sexuality, homosexuality, etc. Forcing your "enlightened" agenda down their throats won't happen. Let them ease into it, let the old people die off a bit... etc. It seems obvious to me that gay marriage will be acceptably addressed by government sometime in the relatively near future (30 years tops it seems to me based on the pace of change I'm perceiving).

I really think though, that rather than expanding "gay rights", "people's rights" shouldn't have anything to do with the government endorsing their sexual relationships, but should address only how their relationship(s)(sans sex) affect their needs from the government.

So really since I don't care much for government involvement in the issue to begin with, it seems that maybe gay people are being a little overly dramatic about this issue. Say it isn't so. Hehe.

Bush quits beating around the bush on gay marriage
Isn't Bush's problem that he doesn't want to condone gay couples to beat around the 'bush'.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2004/trall040226.gif

Open up your eyes and get educated on this issue, then.

Sorry I live in Canada where at least here in Ontario gay marriage is not legal or illegal. Like Abortion...

Well over half the nation has laws spacificaly banning homosexual marriage, including one on a federal level (The Defence of Marriage Act of 1996).

From my limited knowledge on the subject The Defense of Marriage Act is really not binding. It's really quite irrelevant because only states can decide the fate of marriage. (This is why Bush shouldn't even touch the subject, doesn’t he have $550 billion in the red to deal with?). I think this issue is so stupid to bring up now, when this is arguably the most important presidential election since Roosevelt.

Take a look at the map at the bottom, It'll set you straight. Oh, and remember that the states that allow some domestic privilages still don't allow outright marriage or equal rights, either.

Can I ask you something, if you were a homosexual. Would you fight for a word? Kerry supports civil unions which means you get all the perks of a married couple but without the word married. Can homosexual Americans live with that, isn't that what they are fighting for? Rights, not semantics?

[B] Can I ask you something, if you were a homosexual. Would you fight for a word? Kerry supports civil unions which means you get all the perks of a married couple but without the word married. Can homosexual Americans live with that, isn't that what they are fighting for? Rights, not semantics?

I am a homosexual, and there's a lot more being fought over than a word here. First off there's really no definition or standard for Civil Union, there's no guarantee that it will grant all the same benefits as a legal marriage, and there's no way to enforce that equality. For example, many employers provide health-coverage to the spouse of an employee entirely of their own volition, but will employers grant this same courtesy to someone who is in a "civil union"? The choice is entirely up to them.

We've tried "separate but equal" before, and it doesn't work. Making a new sort of union to throw homosexuals into is marginalizing, and is essentially just the idea of equality and civil rights being thrown a bone to shut us up while they continue to relegate us to the position of second class citizens. This battle is about more than just marriage, it's about making this nation accept that homosexuals are part of the makeup of this nation, and that that's perfectly fine, that the government is in place party to protect the rights of all of it's citizens, regardless of what completely arbitrary ridiculous divisions some may like to dwell on.

Fine. I'll ask. Is the topic title just a euphemism for "Bush quits jacking off on the issue of gay marriage?"

Of course, all that means is that he's looking around for someone to screw; nail their ass to the wall.

Personally, I think Bush is opposed to homosexuality because gay sex is one way to find out just how full of ....

Never mind. I'll stop there.

A more substantial post

A note on DoMA: The Defense of Marriage Act only stands at all because it has not faced a serious constitutional test.

You'll notice that nobody's invoking DoMA directly in the fight against gay marriage; that is, the powers that seek to quash gay marriage are not yet willing to rely on a law they know will be yanked out from under them, so they're exhausting every possible delaying option they can find in a vain effort to stave off the inevitable and just.

Perhaps, when marriage is an option available to all human beings in America and around the world, we can start taking it seriously inasmuch as I think the gay marriage fight can only be about equal rights; I can't imagine why people would get married these days, but I'm also a particular curmudgeon on the issue of marriage.

Fine. I'll ask. Is the topic title just a euphemism for "Bush quits jacking off on the issue of gay marriage?"

I think that's just reading a bit too much into the title. All I meant to convey is that he's finally taken a solid stance on the issue without trying to leave himself some wiggle room to back out of it (like in his most recent state of the union address in which he only made vague threats of supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage).

A more substantial post
You'll notice that nobody's invoking DoMA directly in the fight against gay marriage; that is, the powers that seek to quash gay marriage are not yet willing to rely on a law they know will be yanked out from under them, so they're exhausting every possible delaying option they can find in a vain effort to stave off the inevitable and just.


I found this to be a little silly as well. It brings to mind images of right-wingers sitting around and patting themselves on the back for the fact that they got their little token frown at gays written into law for all the nation to see.

I suppose we might see someone try to give it a try once some same-sex couples who married in San Francisco try to assert that they are married in other states which prohibit gay marriage. We'll have to see which is more powerful, the DoMA and fanatic’s ability to ignore the constitution, or reason and the spirit of equality.

I think that's just reading a bit too much into the title. All I meant to convey . . . .To be honest, I was just trying to be cute. It's not something I'm particularly adept at.I suppose we might see someone try to give it a try once some same-sex couples who married in San Francisco try to assert that they are married in other states which prohibit gay marriage.Some random thoughts:

- San Fran or Mass? I could easily be wrong, but I thought the San Fran issue was one of civil disobedience intended to run California smack into the Texas decision; furthermore, and again I'm very possibly wrong, I thought we were at a pause where the San Fran licenses were ruled in violation of the law. This would leave a Massachusetts marriage or, perhaps, a Canadian marriage (congrats, Kev & Mike!) being respected in Masschusetts. (The Supreme Court frequently looks beyond our borders for advice. Just ask the majority in Bowers v. Hardwick. And wasn't there some discussion of gay marriage abroad in the Lawrence v. Texas decision?)

- There is something to be said for due process, but I think Lawrence makes the lower processes moot to a certain degree. Dragging out the process at taxpayer and private expense when you know you're going to lose in the end is just ... wrong.

Reason and the spirit of equality will win out. Remember that the alternative is to knock marriage of its pedestal completely. In my life, marriage has been reduced to a tax shelter. That's one of the great ironies of Slick Willie; the damage he did to marriage came not from Monica's lips but rather with a stroke of his shiny pen when he signed DoMA.

And watching that damage exposed and agitated is almost ... almost ... worth watching the clowns pile into and out of the courtrooms in a desperate attempt to put out a fire that isn't really there, but will consume them if they continue to feed it.

It's a great testament to human luxury that we can waste this much time and effort on something so essentially small yet vitally important and perfectly clear.

In a way, I think we should be proud of the homophobes because they remind us how freaking great this society really is. And yes, it will be greater when it's truly equal, but the human drama can provide moments of humor if you let it. In a symbolic way, it's ironic that Ashcroft is on the "injured reserve" list right now. Who hasn't wondered if his God didn't send a divine email to tell him to take a load off and shut up for a while. (Oh, and stop hiding nipples! Why do you think God made them, John? They're beautiful!)

Sorry ... digression.

(By the way ... that's about the only reason I'm theistic at all in practice. So I can ask John Ashcroft how he feels about God from time to time. Or some similar effect. It really is useful now and then. Another digression, I know, but why not clear up one of the mysteries of the Sciforums Universe while the opportunity presents itself. Nor is it news, I know. But I need to repeat myself from time to time, and it's not worth starting a topic over. Okay, back to the program ....)

If you look through tables in history textbooks or notes in the World Book Almanac (at least, they were there twenty years ago) you'll find that some states ratified original and nineteenth-century amendments around the 1930s. Probably just a symbolic affinity; I've never looked into it.

Additionally, somewhere at Sciforums I recall mention of the "missing Thirteenth Amendment (http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html)," which tale, in my opinion, promises a spectacular ratification war if Bush and the GOP manage to cram an amendment through.

To save you the long read, in case you don't want to put up with it:However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc.' file, p. 299 for micro-film): "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..." This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day -- the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the 13th Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819. The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would forfeit his bond.)

In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification. Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three- fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the ratification of amendments.

Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation's ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did.

Word of Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the States and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20. Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in 1831 and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860.

So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate publications over forty-one years. And more editions including this 13th Amendment are sure to be discovered. In other words, if an Amendment somehow passed, thirty-four states would have to ratify it. Fifty fights, how many lost documents, do you think? How many clerical mistakes? There's a strong case that we are entitled to another Amendment to the Constitution (the "missing" Thirteenth), but the issue seems to be the lack of a single piece of paper out of thirteen.

And hey, this is the 21st century. I can't wait to see the fight in Congress. And if an Amendment somehow passes Congress, the show is going to be one of the greatest in human history.

And all, apparently, because some people worry about what you do in your bedroom with another consenting adult.

Cracks and shards ... what luxury we humans enjoy.

Nothing excuses the superstitious phobias, the sick denials and wild overreactions. And I, too, would like to see this issue settled properly as soon as possible.

But in the meantime ... what a show. Seriously, this is one you can enjoy. Because you know that in the end, justice will prevail.

Conservatives never want to actually take it this far. They'd rather hold the issue at arm's reach and pretend to ignore it. Because they know they can't go this far and screw it up. No matter what they do, the homophobes will lose. Either their Amendment will fail, or every homosexual in the country will turn out in the streets; every bisexual will join them; and when you add up the number of their friends who still think it's hip to know gay people, that's going to be one big freaking party in the streets. Pasties and g-strings for all. Sequins and boas and those silly feather helmets that the showgirls ... er ... yeah ... wear. Nude bicycle corps riding everywhere. Rhythm. Lots of rhythm. The drums alone will be enough to drive blue blood insane.

What a show, indeed.

If I invoke a "Bush standard," I could say the war is already over, with the Lawrence decision. But then I wouldn't know what to call the Amendment fight. Not guerillas. Not an insurgency. Not resistance. Well, maybe. What the hell are we calling the Iraqis? Oh, yeah, "terrorists." The war is over. All that's left is mopping up the terrorists.

It's a matter of economics. If the federal government of the United States recognizes gay marraiges and confers all the economic benefits to gay couples that hetero couples currently enjoy, the economy could tank.

A large increase in the number of spouses could eventually mean a drastic increase in the amount of Social Security benefits paid to surviving spouses. The nation's Social Security system is already in need of revamping. Such a change could bankrupt it completely.

The tax base would dwindle to a certain extent. You know the elected officials of the United States will take the easy route and increase the tax base rather than cut spending.

The health insurance industry will be severely affected, premiums will rise substantially, and health care coverage will become even less affordable for the average citizen.

- San Fran or Mass? I could easily be wrong, but I thought the San Fran issue was one of civil disobedience intended to run California smack into the Texas decision; furthermore, and again I'm very possibly wrong, I thought we were at a pause where the San Fran licenses were ruled in violation of the law. This would leave a Massachusetts marriage or, perhaps, a Canadian marriage (congrats, Kev & Mike!) being respected in Masschusetts. (The Supreme Court frequently looks beyond our borders for advice. Just ask the majority in Bowers v. Hardwick. And wasn't there some discussion of gay marriage abroad in the Lawrence v. Texas decision?)

As I understand it the situation in San Francisco is that Mayor Newsom is insisting that the marriage licenses issued are legal and binding. No court has countered him on this just yet, all that has happened is that SF has been ordered to stop issuing the licenses while a decision on their legality and validity is still forthcoming. Massachusetts hasn't started issuing same sex marriage licenses yet, and won't start until this May. So yes, in all likelihood it will probably be a Massachusetts marriage license that's to put the DoMA to the test, but at this moment one from SF could also start down that road.

It's a matter of economics. If the federal government of the United States recognizes gay marraiges and confers all the economic benefits to gay couples that hetero couples currently enjoy, the economy could tank.

A large increase in the number of spouses could eventually mean a drastic increase in the amount of Social Security benefits paid to surviving spouses. The nation's Social Security system is already in need of revamping. Such a change could bankrupt it completely.

If it were really a matter of economics then more moderate republicans (those not necessarily of the religious right) would be jumping all over that argument and beating it to death. There's nothing that Republicans like more than flogging economic issues to death with their own bizarre interpretations of how things work.

Our economy seems to be able to handle mass outsourcing of labor, and deficits well into the trillions without immediately imploding and self distracting, somehow I think that a few more married couples isn't going to make any noticeable mark. Take a look at the 1950s, that wonderful age of conservative values when marriage was far more common than it is today. Did high rates of marriage strain the economy back then? Not at all, the idea is absurd because there's very little financial difference to take into account.

If you're going to make an argument against same sex marriage, do try to make sure that there's something there; this angle is completely without substance.

"A note on DoMA: The Defense of Marriage Act only stands at all because it has not faced a serious constitutional test."

Very true. The Defense of Marriage Act is an attempt to act as a mini-amendment, or an amendment-lite, if you will. Same - sex unions are legal in Vermont; if a couple from Massachusetts was married in Vermont, Massachusetts would be constitutionally bound to recognize the union as legal and valid pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Defense of Marriage Act explicity say that in this limited circumstance, the Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't apply.

If the Supreme Court were to actually apply the actual constitution to its deliberation, the DoMA would be struck down. This one reason why the opponents *need* a constitutional amendment -- in order to fight the Full Faith and Credit Clause, you need a weapon of equal power.

Another reason: despite the fact that sex is not a "protected class" under the Fourteenth Amendment, like race, the Court has always treated it like it is, giving any law that has disparate impact on that class "strict scrutiny." A state law prohibiting same sex marriage, if that "strict scrutiny" is applied, could not withstand a constitutional challenge. Hence, another argument for an amendment.

A side effect such an amedment would have would be to make it impossible to pass an "equal rights amendment," making sex an actual "protected class" with the same protections as those already included in the Fourteenth Amendment.

If you're going to make an argument against same sex marriage, do try to make sure that there's something there; this angle is completely without substance.

I was not making an argument for or against same sex marriage. Regardless of which side you're taking, economics is a major consideration:

http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2004/opinion/20040209234013.shtml

http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2004/opinion/20040209234013.shtml

This article provides no information that would back up your previous assertion that allowing homosexuals to marry would bankrupt the government.

That in itself is a moot argument anyhow, it's quite a bit like saying if we stopped incarcerating minor drug offenders that unemployment would skyrocket because that would be all the more people out there in the labor force. It’s not a factor that we should take into consideration when weighing the issue.

This article provides no information that would back up your previous assertion that allowing homosexuals to marry would bankrupt the government.

With respect to bankrupting... The assertion was that if the Federal Government of the United States recognized same-sex marriages then it could bankrupt the Social Security System that is already in trouble. I'll run some numbers for you shortly.

That in itself is a moot argument anyhow, it's quite a bit like saying if we stopped incarcerating minor drug offenders that unemployment would skyrocket because that would be all the more people out there in the labor force. It’s not a factor that we should take into consideration when weighing the issue.

It's not a factor? Who shouldn't take it into consideration? The main difference between the Federal Government recognizing "civil unions" rather than "marriage" is the economic difference. One of the main reasons that the gay community wants same-sex unions to be recognized as "marriages" rather than "civil unions" is to reap the economic benefits of "marriage"...?

A friend of mine made a good point this morning that i can't disagree with.
I don't see anything wrong with Gay relationships, if your gay your gay, thats all their is to it, but "marriage" in the common sense is a religious thing, iand if that religion says that gay relationships are evil then thats their right and we can't force them to change their mind because its not politically correct.
Now don't get me wrong i don't see why gay couples should have any less rights than straight couples but you can't exactly call it a christian marriage when the same religion condems such relationships, give them the rights so that if they want to tie them selves into a legaly binding relationship as a straight couple would, all the power to them, but you'd have make it a different ceremony.
If you can find a church willing to hold it and give their blessings then again power to them but those fighting to make traditional marriage legal for gay couples are, as much as i hate to admit it, being a bit selfish in not relaising that they are trying to foist their own views onto a religious institution.

It's not a factor? Who shouldn't take it into consideration? The main difference between the Federal Government recognizing "civil unions" rather than "marriage" is the economic difference. One of the main reasons that the gay community wants same-sex unions to be recognized as "marriages" rather than "civil unions" is to reap the economic benefits of "marriage"...?

this doesnt really make sense. it is still two people in the population getting married. what is the difference if every man marries a woman, every woman marries a woman or every man marries man. in the end you end up with the same amount of people getting married. the system should be able to adapt as if every man married a woman which would have the same econimc impact as the other two scenarios or a mixing of all 3. your economic argument is lacking severely.

A friend of mine made a good point this morning that i can't disagree with.

Well listen well and you'll have plenty of ammunition to bury his ill-conceived argument for good. I've only heard this same argument about 50 times, and I have to essentially give the same reply every time. It's an argument that rests largely on a poor grasp of the issue, and I'm only too glad to help you get a better idea of what this fight is all about.

but "marriage" in the common sense is a religious thing, iand if that religion says that gay relationships are evil then thats their right and we can't force them to change their mind because its not politically correct.

Marriage is not just a religious thing, but a civil thing. Our government has never been in the business of providing a spiritual marriage for it's people, our separation of church and state wouldn't allow it. The government recognizes and issues the civil institution of marriage (Which pre-dates Christianity and likely in most places religious marriage in general). It has nothing to do with political correctness, but instead equal protection under the law.


Now don't get me wrong i don't see why gay couples should have any less rights than straight couples but you can't exactly call it a christian marriage when the same religion condems such relationships, give them the rights so that if they want to tie them selves into a legaly binding relationship as a straight couple would, all the power to them, but you'd have make it a different ceremony.

Now why in the world should a marriage issued by the government be called a Christian marriage? Our government isn't Christian or Islamic or Jewish or Buddhist or affiliated with any other church. It's secular, and represents members of just about every religion in the world, and issues marriage licenses to all of them regardless. Even atheists can marry in this nation. It should be clear from that that religion, and certainly Christianity (Which is worthy of note only because it is Christians who are raising the biggest stink about this issue) has absolutely no part in our government's civil marriages and the benefits that they bestow.

If you can find a church willing to hold it and give their blessings then again power to them but those fighting to make traditional marriage legal for gay couples are, as much as i hate to admit it, being a bit selfish in not relaising that they are trying to foist their own views onto a religious institution.

As it stands in the US if you can find a religious organization that will perform a marriage ceremony for you then you are free have that ceremony, regardless of who you are. This does not, however necessarily mean that the government will issue you a marriage license.

Let me set you straight here, regardless of how the gay marriage issue turns out in this country, no religious institution will be forced to perform a religious ceremony for a homosexual couple. It's simply outside our government's power to legislate. No one is pushing right now to force any church to perform ceremonies, that's why this fight isn't being taken to the churches. The only thing that we are fighting for is to make the government hold true to it's promise of equal protection under the law, and issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.