Well, this is hardly surprising. A ban on gay marriages is exactly what i'd expect from an ignorant pig like Bush.

If he was opposed to them in a religious sense, i.e. Gay people can't get married in a church in god's name, fair enough, it's intolerant, but it's in keeping with his religious beliefs. However, he seems to be opposed to it plainly because he thinks being gay somehow demeans the sentiment of Marriage, which is, in his own words:

"a sacred institution between a man and a woman"

So basically, he just thinks men and women should marry and gay people shouldn't, because they are gay and it's wrong.

I think when i called him an ignorant pig i was understating it...

Well, we shouldn't be surprised by the fact that he's a bigoted little son-of-a-bush (see what I did there?) and I severely doubt anyone can change his viewpoints but you'd think he'd have the sense to keep his big stupid trap shut? Isn't that what he has advisors for? I knew Bush was dumb, but this is un-bloody-believeable! *shakes head, contemplates World, Hell and metaphorical handbasket*

This is nothing new. Bush has been saying that he'd like a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages for some time. He just said it again in the wake of the court decision in Massachusetts--which is why it's getting publicity now.

Yes, I agree he's stupid in terms of his position on this. It'd ridiculous. But he and his handlers know that supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage won't hurt him with his core constituency--ultra conservative, right wing, Bible-thumping, fundamentalist Christians. They are a minority in the US as a whole, but they are Bush's political base, and the political base of the Republican Party at the moment. They love this stuff, and he's playing to them when he supports something like this.

I actually don't think it has any chance of becoming law. Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass because you need something like 3/4 of the states to vote in their state legislatures to approve it--and I don't think that's gonna happen. But that doesn't matter. Bush doesn't need it to actually happen. He only has to say he wants it to happen to please the Christian right folks who he wants to turn out and vote for him in the fall.

Another advantage in pushing it now is that it hurts the Democrats. It forces Democratic candidates to take a stand on this issue, which can only hurt them. The "gay vote" goes overwhelmingly to the Democrats. If they come out for this amendment, they lose votes from gays. If they come out against it, Bush gets to paint them as not having "moral values" or "Christian values" and not supporting "the family." I know it's a bunch of rubbish, but that kind of stuff works with some swing voters.

If some religious denominations wish to prevent homosexual couples marrying in their church, much as I detest their doctrinal queer-bashing, that's their right. But imposing their values on a secular society is as tyrannical as the persecution they're always claiming.

I actually have more respect for out and out homophobes like Bush than the hypocritical, mealy-mouthed cod-liberals like Kerry who try to have their cake and eat it by opposing homosexual marriage while supporting homosexual "civil unions", a purely semantic distinction for what amounts to the same thing. Its a cowardly attempt to court both the gay-vote and the religious-right vote, without doing anything to tackle the injustice of religious values being imposed on a supposedly secular state. "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion" to quote the First Amendment. Why should Christian values bind non-Christians and Atheists who marry?

It also plays into Bush's hands, as he can rightly paint them as two-faced. What they should be doing is shreading his paper-thin bigotry, by instead they jump instinctively onto the defensive. I'm reminded of the scene from The West Wing when the president's electoral adviser launches into a tirade about how he's sick of having to pretend to be ashamed of believing what he believes. So long as Bush isn't and they are, he's got the upper hand: no one likes a coward.

It's sad but hardly surprising from a political group that promotes arms, bans abortion and hates gay's.

*sigh*

And kerry would be an improvement. Hell, Kermit would be an improvement on Bush.

(PS, before anyone says i contradicted myself on the morning after pill row, i think everyone should be free to take the pill and have abortions. i also think people have the right to refuse to serve/abort themselves as long as alternative information is made available)

---

by Byron
I actually have more respect for out and out homophobes like Bush than the hypocritical, mealy-mouthed cod-liberals like Kerry who try to have their cake and eat it by opposing homosexual marriage while supporting homosexual "civil unions", a purely semantic distinction for what amounts to the same thing. Its a cowardly attempt to court both the gay-vote and the religious-right vote, without doing anything to tackle the injustice of religious values being imposed on a supposedly secular state. "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion" to quote the First Amendment. Why should Christian values bind non-Christians and Atheists who marry?

It also plays into Bush's hands, as he can rightly paint them as two-faced. What they should be doing is shreading his paper-thin bigotry, by instead they jump instinctively onto the defensive.

---

I agree totally, Byron. And the last sentence analyzes the situation perfectly. The Democrats don't have the courage of their convictions. And many Democratic voters are so disgusted by it that they stay home and don't even bother to vote anymore.

---

by Cat
(PS, before anyone says i contradicted myself on the morning after pill row, i think everyone should be free to take the pill and have abortions. i also think people have the right to refuse to serve/abort themselves as long as alternative information is made available)

---

OMG! Has President Bush refused to sell someone the morning after pill?!?

Surely that's the only way this paragraph has any kind of relevancy in this thread...

I agree. Cat, the other thread has caused quite enough trouble, please don't drag the arguments over to this one.

Bush's position was aleady quite clear.

What I found more surprising was Kerry's statement.


news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3461685.stm

Good on old Massachusetts, though. I like the response of the 4 justices quoted in the BBC piece:

The Massachusetts court clarified its initial ruling in response to a request from the state senate about how new legal obligations to same sex couples wanting to get married must be fulfilled.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices, who ruled in favour of gay marriage, wrote in the response.

Wise words, so surely to go unheeded.

I like Peter Tatchell's suggestion myself: a civil contract that confers next-of-kin rights on whoever you choose, which one or more people can be signatory to, and isn't the least bit interested whether you're sleeping with them or not. Some people can call it marriage if they want, and the rest of us can get on with our lives.

Wise words also sure to go unheeded while the righteous spend their time making life miserable for the rest of us.