Bush rejects gay marriages

He sez:

"On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage," he said. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that."


Hey, I think they should be allowed to marry, if they so desire. I mean, some people may disapprove but isn't it only hardcore homophobes that really get their panties in a bunch over the issue?

Anyway, if he wants it "codified", is this rocket science? Lawyers "looking at the best way to do that"?? Such as:

"Section 1: A lawful marriage is between a man and a woman and any marriage licensed, solemnized and registered in any state is valid in all states.

Section 2: Same-sex marriages; public policy. A marriage between two individuals of the same sex is contrary to the public policy of the United States and invalid in all states."

Next.......

 

Bush to news media when asked about gay marriages...


Bring 'em on !!!!

 

Or those who conflate a commitment to God with legal contract. Big mistake, IMO, as bring religion into government will bring government into religion. And I speak as much to gays who insist upon "marriage" as those who oppose gay marriage when saying that the two issues of religious marriage and secular (contract) union should be kept separate.

Government should get out of the marriage business to serve as enforcer of last resort of contract commitments regardless of the nature of the contract.

 

You are united under the eyes of God, but separated/ divorced under the eyes of the law. Church and state at both ends.

 

Why do you feel the federal government has any authority over marriage; historically this has been a state power, not a federal power?

 

United under both church and state. Or just state. The state part involves legal prerogatives for the couple and any children produced or adopted in the union. Religions needn't recognize divorce as you can't divorce God.

The children, I'd think, are where things become complicated. Here's an interesting complication: in some jurisdictions a husband is obligated to care for any child produced by his wife regardless of the biological father.

 

From decimon: "And I speak as much to gays who insist upon "marriage" as those who oppose gay marriage when saying that the two issues of religious marriage and secular (contract) union should be kept separate."

Whose religion? If you are referencing the common Protestant/
Catholic stance in the U.S., you have to include the belief that they are to obey the laws of the land. Obey them, or change them. This will be the ultimate task of our Supreme Court, the same court so dedicated to separation of church/state that they banned prayer in schools, but allowed our monetary slogan "In God We Trust" to remain. Same court that decided the Christmas tree is not a religious symbol, nor is a cross when worn as jewelry. And if common law marriage is recognized, how far is that from gay marriage?

 

Re: Re: Bush rejects gay marriages

I don't but Bush apparently thinks otherwise. Since he professes to believe that it does, I posted a simple (albeit half-assed) solution in an attempt to save (probably countless) scores of lawyers some time and effort (at the taxpayers' expense, of course).

 

With or without religion homosexuality ain't right. Humans are the the only species that can take a great thing (sex) and screw it up. The plug was meant for the receptacle. Every time I get a physical I am reminded that the backdoor is an exit door (Outlet not an inlet). I really do not care what people do in their bedroom but it makes no sense to me.

 

I see the issue as one of the right to contract. In this case it's the right to contract to mutual benefit. I don't know but would think that I could contract with other people to pool certain resources or pledge certain resources for the purpose of supporting who in the group (pair, multitude, whatever) should fall into hard times. Insurance minus the insurance company. Tontines probably fall into that category.

The term "marriage" is the emotional trigger in this issue. Some gays seem to want it because other people have it while some others would deny it to gays for its imagined sacred status. But secular marriage is a legal contract. Sanctioning from the state? That and a buck is worth a cup of coffee.

I don't see why the government should be in the marriage business at all. Leave it to religious denominations to decide what they will accept as marriage and leave it to individuals to decide what contracts they will make with whom.

 

If the government should not be involved in marriage at all then what about polygamy? Should a man or women be able to have several spouses

 

"a man or women" --AHA!

 

Arrangements like that exist with or without government approval. Men, for instance, make babies with several women and provide support to none. I take children seriously and find that to be despicable but my feelings change nothing.

A legal contract formalizing such arrangements would be worse than what we have? The old Mormon style polygamy did at least place obligations on the husband.

 

I concur with you on this one. It's not natural. Even setting religion aside, it is biologically destructive behavior. If all were to embrace same sex commitments there would be no population after a generation. If people want to do it behind their doors then so be it, but to make it law and legal? Since when is sexual preference given minority rights status? It's nothing to do with being a certain race. Why not allow men to marry animals and call it a "mixed species" marriage? You'll have the same amount of offspring as the gay couple(unless they adopt......from a hetro couple or such). Surely my "rights" should not be violated if I want to marry fido or bambi???? Where do we draw the line?

Secondly, Just because someone doesn't approve doesn't make them "homophobic." I will treat with love and respect any person no matter their "preference." That does not mean I approve of their actions. Nor does it mean that I won't cast my vote against it. That's my right as an American. This is my country too!!! It's amazing that if someone disagrees with you on an issue it's okay, but if you disagree with them then you're "intolerant" and are a __________ fill in the blank.

I'm tired of the victimhood mentality that is so overt in today's society. Everyone's a victim and needs their own set of personal laws for their particular slant or fetish, nonsense! We get so huffy over catering to every whim that is brought forth by any given person and their "group" that we trample on the will of the majority.

Everyone is supposed to say anything goes or else they're too critical and biased. If we incorporate everyone's whims, I believe our nation will crumble. Nations are made up of families. If you destroy the family it will have great consequences. I read a report where they did reseach on the effect of the dysfunctional home. 70+% of men in prison or who were homosexual came from broken or dysfunctional families!!! There seems to be a pattern there. I am so tired of seeing the hurt and pain suffered by people living in these circumstances. My family was very dysfunctional and it almost ruined me. My heart really goes out to them. Also, there is a larger pattern of domestic violence in the gay "community." Much more so then you'd think.


Anyway, just my two cents worth.



Kevin

 

Of course I think it's wrong (big surprise). The Bible says so. This is the sort of issue where nobody ever changed anyone else's mind. Thus, if you want to hear my moral arguments from either Biblical exegesis or natural law philosophy, you'll just have to come to Sunday school at my church and listen to me rattle on there.

I just want to make one political observation. It's interesting how this has been framed as a states' rights issue, contra DOMA and comments by both Bubba and W. Where have we heard this before? Oh, right. Segregationists, doing something (actually, a whole set of somethings) morally abhorrent to the majority of Americans, claimed states' rights as a basis for their legal right to do what they were doing. Mutatis mutandis, the advocates of legal gay marriage are, at the moment, doing somewhat the same thing under somewhat the same circumstances. A couple more Supreme Court decisions and the polarities will reverse.

I must say that when Senator Santorum rants about marriage having nothing to do with two people demonstrating love for each other but that its only point is to produce and protect children, and does this in the name of his religious denomination, I gotta wonder: has he never read what his current pope has written about love, marriage, and sexuality? He reminds me of the humorless gay-liberation prigs who infested the liberal seminary I attended some 20 years ago: one-track minds on a narrow-gauge railroad. God save us from monomaniacs in politics who suffer from an irony deficiency.

Nuance? Gay libs and Sanctimoniorums agree: we don't need no f***in' nuance!

 

Preach it brotha'

 

I take people... one at a time for who they are not what they are.

 

don't look at me, I never voted for the man....
Though it might be retaliation for the fact that they legalized Sodomy in Texas....

 

Uncle Janko,

I dragged out my Rashi (Hebrew AND English, if you please. There ARE limits and I'm rusty!)

Looking at the specific prohibition, I found

-that the section is directed at both men and women. The collective noun is male but one of the prohibitions is directed specifically at women, so "b'nai-israel" means both sexes.

-that the section includes several types of sexual prohibitions against incest, adultery, and beastiality.

-that there is a prohibition against dedicating one's children to Moloch but that the anti-Moloch explanation does NOT seem to underly the remaining prohibitions

-that the other "abominations" besides homosexual acts seem to be of a repellant and serious nature, though various adultery and incest offenses are described as "lewdness". I do not know if there is any gradation in seriousness.

-that the penalty of following these "abominations" is the loss of the Land as those who came before the Israelites lost it to them.

Now, my question is, how can anyone claim to believe that Torah is the inerrant Word of God yet escape this prohibition? This is not a rhetorical question; I really want to know.

I should also say that the Hebrew prohibition is so clear that Rashi did not make extensive comments on it.

 

Hi Nosborne:
Thanks so much for the Rashi material. No, I dunno how anybody can believe in Torah min shamayim or inerrancy and get around this stuff. Of course, most American Jews and Christians don't believe anything of the kind. Similarly, the New Testament is quite clear on this issue for anybody who accepts inerrancy. I guess Paul was kind of the Mordecai Kaplan (!) of his day: nobody's neutral on him.
What escapes me is this: how folks can accept Paul's ostensible universality (NOT universalism) and then avoid what he says about natural law and homosexual activity. I know why it escapes me, and it's not just because I'm a dumb Carpathian. As a Lutheran, I have an analytical approach known as law-gospel polarity to which I am doctrinally committed. This is, please, NOT a Tanakh-NT polarity, or even a "Jewish"-"Christian" polarity. Instead, as a Lutheran, I find "law" (divine commands and prohibitions which cannot be kept perfectly) and "gospel" (divine unilateral action to bridge the resulting human-divine gap) throughout the Bible. Obviously, as a Christian, I see this "gospel" as completely dependent on what Jesus did. Now--here's my point--to me, when this proper balance is jettisoned, whether in favor of "inclusivity" OR "defending traditional values", then no theologically proper assessment of an ethical problem is possible. When "law" and "gospel" are mixed up, the ultimate result is a striking at the heart of the Christian message, above and beyond right or wrong conclusion on a particular controversial issue. Both aspects of God's declared will have their own unimpeachable integrity and ought not (by Christians) be gainsaid.
Please bear in mind that this is a sketchy description of the interpretive method of my own religious tradition, NOT a prescription for what civil law ought or ought not to be. Nor is it in this context intended to be critical of other religious traditions. That's not appropriate here. Disagreement, yes; disparagement, no; what I do assert is a kind of mutual unintelligibility once the presuppositions of biblical exegesis move too far apart. When that happens, those who discuss a theological/exegetical issue must be very clear in defining how they are using terms, so that the extent of misunderstanding can be minimized--regardless of the consequences that may entail for the possibility of agreement or harmony between various standpoints.
Since I am not a theologian, I'll leave any theological discussion of the homosexuality issue to others. Frankly, that issue is so peripheral in my parochial (!) context that I don't have much to say on it besides a simple statement that I see homosexual activity as inconsistent with my tradition's concept of Biblical authority.
Does that indicate that I dislike gays? Certainly not. Does that mean that I approve that kind of sexual activity? Clearly, no. Is complete approval of one another necessary for people to live peaceably and honorably and cordially together in a free society? I hope not, I really, really hope not. That's why public fanatics disturb me.
This ends any comments from me on this issue. Janko