Bush calls for gay marriage ban

[curtins]

I hate the whole let gay marriage happen cause its a civil marriage and doesn't concern the church.

logical steps in what would happen:

gay marriage legalized--> polygamy --> marriage of old men to young boys and the like--> marriage to animals --> mariage to inatimate objects--> people pressing the church to allow gay marriage.

Marriage is a man and a woman. Anything more than that and its no longer marriage because of so many distortions. You may think that that stuff would never happen but I tell you it would. There are enough people out there that would want that. So either its we stop them now or the flood gates are opened.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='curtins' post='1000631' date='Jun 8 2006, 02:26 PM']
mariage to inatimate objects[/quote]
hmmm ... I [i]have [/i] been having warm feelings towards my new phone ...

[cappie]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1000684' date='Jun 9 2006, 06:02 AM']
hmmm ... I [i]have [/i] been having warm feelings towards my new phone ...
[/quote]




with me it's the computer

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1000483' date='Jun 8 2006, 11:10 AM']
I am all about affirming the importance of marriage and family. I want to BE married and have a family someday. And I don't support gay marriage.

However, I think government is overstepping its bounds by pre-empting the rights to define marriage -- even if government defines it as it should be. Once government starts thinking the ability to define marriage is within its bounds, we're saying that marriage can be defined by a majority vote. I don't believe that's true.

I think bringing up the issue of gay marriage now is nothing more than a political ploy to motivate conservative voters to vote this fall. In case you hadn't noticed, Bush's approval rating is pretty low -- meaning Republicans don't have much political capital coming into the election. This move is nothing more than leveraging a sacrament to get votes, and I find that disgusting.
[/quote]
While I can't presume to know the inner mind and soul of George W. Bush, supporting the Marriage Amendment is objectively the right thing to do. While it can be argued that this should have been done sooner, or whatever, I say it is better to take right side on this issue, than the wrong side.

Opposing the bill on the grounds that "it is just to win votes" is essentially an ad-hominem which distracts from issue of the rightness or wrongness of the position itself. I support such an amendment because it is the right thing, not because of some mindless loyalty to Bush or the Republican Party. I would support such a measure whether it was endorsed by Bush, Clinton, Peroutka, Al Gore, or whomever. You are the one here letting your partisan politics (hatred of Republicans) trump right reason.

While you claim that government is "overstepping its bounds" by legally defining marriage as (*gasp, horrors!*) only between a man and a woman (which, coincidentally, happens to be exactly as the Church defines it), you are ignoring the fact that it was the overstepping of bounds by liberal activist judges which have brought up the need for such an amendment! These judges have challenged state laws barring "gay marriage" as "unconstitutional," and would demand that all states recognize "gay marriage" whether the people wish to do so or not. The amendment would make such godless judicial tyranny legally impossible.
As for "government defining marriage," isn't that exactly what has been going on in those states which have supported "gay marriage"? You express little outrage at liberal attempts to redefine marriage on their own perverted terms, yet go into conniptions over efforts to legally restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
Sorry, but it is the liberals who made the initial attack on the family here. This bill is a defensive measure.

Despite your repeated claims to being "nonpartisan," it seems that in nearly all social/political matters, you and other liberals here simply take the side of the liberal Democrats.

Your thinking on this issue may be in accord with the Democrats', but it is not in accord with that of the Church.
[b]The Pope himself, earlier this year, called on Catholics to politically support "recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family, as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage, and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role."[/b]

Full article here: [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6368"]Catholics must be engaged in political debate, says Pope[/url]

Edited June 8, 2006 by Socrates

[Jaime]

[quote]While you claim that government is "overstepping its bounds" by legally defining marriage as (*gasp, horrors!*) only between a man and a woman (which, coincidentally, happens to be exactly as the Church defines it), you are ignoring the fact that it was the overstepping of bounds by liberal activist judges which have brought up the need for such an amendment! These judges have challenged state laws barring "gay marriage" as "unconstitutional," and would demand that all states recognize "gay marriage" whether the people wish to do so or not. The amendment would make such godless judicial tyranny legally impossible. [/quote]

Wrong wrong wrong


How the amendment defines it

[quote]SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."[/quote]

How THE CHURCH defines it

[quote]The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their entire life, which is ordered by its own nature to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of offspring, has been raised, between the baptized, to the dignity of sacrament by Christ the Lord.[/quote]

Saying its exactly the same is a travesty and a sham.

Civil marriage requires no permanence
no children
nothing sacred

There is nothing in a civil marriage that promotes anything besides temporary pleasure. That's it. Saying that is the same as how the Church defines it is like saying that a horse and a giraffe are the same thing.

[Era Might]

[quote]Bush has called for a $8 billion plan to get religious and other volunteer organizations to assume more responsibilities for the needy. He supports welfare time limits, work and education requirements. He has proposed a requirement that unwed teen mothers live at home or in group home. In Texas, Bush proposed increased child-care aid and other transition benefits.[/quote]

That's what we need more of. Moralizing about gay marriage doesn't accomplish much unless we back it up. Let the Pope do the moralizing. Politicians are supposed to take the principles of moral law and make them real. Words aren't enough; we need action.

I'm glad that George Bush has stood for this constitutional amendment, and I think he is sincere at heart. I just hope it'll be about more than words. Whether the amendment passes or not, what can we do to SUPPORT actual families, to support actual marriage? Let's not just write for the constitutional amendment. Let's write to get George Bush to do something concrete anyway, something HE can do, rather than something he can encourage others to do.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1000890' date='Jun 8 2006, 06:06 PM']
Wrong wrong wrong
How the amendment defines it
How THE CHURCH defines it
Saying its exactly the same is a travesty and a sham.

Civil marriage requires no permanence
no children
nothing sacred

There is nothing in a civil marriage that promotes anything besides temporary pleasure. That's it. Saying that is the same as how the Church defines it is like saying that a horse and a giraffe are the same thing.
[/quote]
Oh give me a break, please!
[quote]"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."[/quote]
All this says is that nothing other than a union between one man and one woman would be recognized by the state as a marriage.
(In other words, no same-sex, polygamous, etc. "unions" shall be legally recognized as marriages).
It states absolutely nothing that would outlaw or undermine true marriage.

To state or imply so is a travesty and a sham.
It is telling that you and your ilk on here raise hardly a peep concerning the travesty of state-endorsed "gay marriages," yet you are outraged by the proposing of a law to ban "gay marriage." (or anything else which might be endorsed by the "Christian right.")

On these boards you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a sham, and little more than a "Catholic" apologist for a liberal social agenda.
(While you claim to support the Church's teachings, you consistantly and vehemently attack any and all attempts to restrict the homosexualist agenda, or promote Christian values in public.)

Edited June 9, 2006 by Socrates

[MichaelF]

Federal funding of HESC (Human Embryonic Stem Cell) research has been halted, save for already established cell-lines.

States, OTOH, can do as they like. California and New Jersey have their own research programs going, using the "extras" from fertility centers (IVF requires several zygotes to be initialized, and one or two get picked. The rest go into cold storage or are disposed of.).

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1000947' date='Jun 8 2006, 08:14 PM']
Oh give me a break, please!

All this says is that nothing other than a union between one man and one woman would be recognized by the state as a marriage.
(In other words, no same-sex, polygamous, etc. "unions" shall be legally recognized as marriages).
It states absolutely nothing that would outlaw or undermine true marriage.

To state or imply so is a travesty and a sham.
It is telling that you and your ilk on here raise hardly a peep concerning the travesty of state-endorsed "gay marriages," yet you are outraged by the proposing of a law to ban "gay marriage." (or anything else which might be endorsed by the "Christian right.")

On these boards you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a sham, and little more than a "Catholic" apologist for a liberal social agenda.
(While you claim to support the Church's teachings, you consistantly and vehemently attack any and all attempts to restrict the homosexualist agenda, or promote Christian values in public.)
[/quote]


Your ability to read and connect points is truly a travesty. It honestly doesn't matter what I post sport because you end up reading whatever you want, no matter how far off the mark it is.

I'm not implying that the state would outlaw Church marriage. I'm stating that they have the definition completely wrong.

You're missing the obvious point and you are being distracted by the other so called conservatives. If you were truly conservative, you'd see the point. Civil marriage is a temporary contract that promises nothing. It is not marriage. Yet you and [i]your ilk[/i] listen to drivel being fed to you. "Oooh its the homosexuals!!"

No its not. Its civil marriages that are weakening our country and our families.

True Christian values would be stating that any govt endorsed union that has no basis on permanence, procreation or (God forbid) sacrality is not in any way shape or form a marriage.

You've been fooled by the Republicans, yet again, to miss the cancer and focus on the symptoms.

Get the govt out of the marriage business. You won't have to worry about gay marriage at all.

[Sojourner]

Socrates, please show me where I've supported the "liberal Democrat agenda" in this thread. I know plenty of liberal Democrats, and all of them are gung ho in support of gay marriage.

[quote]I am all about affirming the importance of marriage and family. I want to BE married and have a family someday. [b]And I don't support gay marriage.[/b] [/quote]

What I DO support is protecting the true definition of marriage as promulgated by the church. What we have in the Defense of Marriage Act is a partial definition of marriage. Yeah, it gets the "one man + one woman" part right, but misses all the other aspects of the relationship that make it a [i]marriage[/i].

This is a scare tactic -- nothing more, nothing less. "If you don't vote for us, gays will marry in droves! Polygamists will proliferate! O, the slippery slope which will be created!" There's a false sense of urgency created which lures people to the polls. Politicians take a [b]sacrament[/b] and make it a political football -- and we let them do it because we're scared. And because, faced with the choice between gay marriage and a half-arse definition of marriage that is NOT in accordance with church teaching, we feel as though we must choose the lesser of two evils.

I for one don't like being manipulated like that, and I find it disgusting, disgraceful, and disturbing that politicians are using that which is holy for political gain -- even if they do acknowledge the holiness of marriage themselves.

hot stuff is right -- government needs to get out of the business of marriage.

[Pontifite 7 of 10]

YEAH! No same-sex marrige! I love this because I'm Homophobic! I hope it passes!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Daniel9' post='1000458' date='Jun 8 2006, 12:49 PM']
I am loyal to the Magisterium because those are my priorities. And that's why the illegal, immoral war in Iraq needs to end...NOW!
[/quote]

The war is over. It was not illegal.

Do a search for Iraq and ironmonk as the user, this thread isn't about the US protecting and helping the defenseless Iraqi people... Who happen to want us there.

You might be loyal, but you obviously do not have all facts.

[Era Might]

Although the American legal definition of marriage would not be perfect, I think it would be a step in the right direction. Then maybe we can work on getting concepts like permanence enshrined in law (although there is more flexibility there, because civil divorce is not always wrong).

John Paul talked about voting for imperfect laws if they will advance the common good. I think a constitutional amendment which would limit marriage to a man and a woman would obviously ensure the common good. I would support it and encourage all Christians to do so as well. From the Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae":

[quote]A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.[/quote]

Edited June 9, 2006 by Era Might

[Guest phatdaddy]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1001094' date='Jun 9 2006, 09:15 AM']
Although the American legal definition of marriage would not be perfect, I think it would be a step in the right direction. Then maybe we can work on getting concepts like permanence enshrined in law (although there is more flexibility there, because civil divorce is not always wrong).

John Paul talked about voting for imperfect laws if they will advance the common good. I think a constitutional amendment which would limit marriage to a man and a woman would obviously ensure the common good. I would support it and encourage all Christians to do so as well. From the Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae":
[/quote]

Thanks EM for bringing a little balance to this discussion. I think all would agree that in today's american society, civil law will never totally match Roman Catholic Moral law. However, I do think this amendment will offer some benefit effecting all of us such as our economic and social health in indirect ways. If the courts can establish same sex marriage as "valid" then what's to stop them from saying poligamy is valid, or marriage to your pets is valid, or who knows what could be afforded legal status. There could be economic advantage like welfare or SS payments for all of the "spouses" or adoptions, or IVF services, etc. The government, you and me, would be funding this activity if it can be established as a legal institution and I think this could take funding away from legitimate social services funded by the government.

I really think the problem is in the judicial system and this amendmet, I think, restricts the free hand of some judges.

For instance, who would have thought 20 years ago, with abortion being civily legal, that it would reach the point of infanticide based on a rediculas technicality. My thought is, anything is possible. Even an inadequate law, a law not completely Catholic, like saying at 24 months gestation the child is legally a person protected by law, then partial birth abortion would be illegal.

I hope the amendment passes. I think it might set the stage for another amendment that defines personhood, as far as civil law is concerned, from the monent of conception to natural death. I know I'm dreaming.
Mr. Ray

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1000502' date='Jun 8 2006, 12:27 PM']
Gay marriage brought conservative voters out in droves to help Bush win the last election. It is no coincidence that this issue is coming up again a few months before a national election. It's just common sense that this is happening for political reasons. "Oh, let's protect the family" will be on the table as long as its politically expedient. Then it will die down until the next time it's needed to rustle up votes.
[/quote]

So what. Democrats have their games for getting out their types of voters as well. Do you find motor voter and driving people to the polls to be offensive as well? If an issue is important to the people why are you against getting those interested in it out to vote? Gay marriage is a significant issue and we are one liberal judge away from it being the law of the land as happened in Canada. You don't think your free speach rights against homosexuality will be taken? You haven't been paying attention to what has gone on in Canada and what has also show signs of happening here in California and other places. If gay marriage is legalized it will in FACT be pushed that people cannot speak against homosexuality. And yes, a pandora's box will be opened. Polygamy is the next step. No doudt about it. If you don't like politics and the political system we have find yourself an island. There are likely a few out in the pacific that are available.

Edited June 9, 2006 by thessalonian

[Jaime]

BTW for those of you who are being distracted by the current shell game, the next one's a doozy


Scheduled for senate and house debate: Flag burning

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1000966' date='Jun 8 2006, 08:01 PM']
Your ability to read and connect points is truly a travesty. It honestly doesn't matter what I post sport because you end up reading whatever you want, no matter how far off the mark it is.

I'm not implying that the state would outlaw Church marriage. I'm stating that they have the definition completely wrong.

You're missing the obvious point and you are being distracted by the other so called conservatives. If you were truly conservative, you'd see the point. Civil marriage is a temporary contract that promises nothing. It is not marriage. Yet you and [i]your ilk[/i] listen to drivel being fed to you. "Oooh its the homosexuals!!"

No its not. Its civil marriages that are weakening our country and our families.

True Christian values would be stating that any govt endorsed union that has no basis on permanence, procreation or (God forbid) sacrality is not in any way shape or form a marriage.

You've been fooled by the Republicans, yet again, to miss the cancer and focus on the symptoms.

Get the govt out of the marriage business. You won't have to worry about gay marriage at all.
[/quote]
This amendment would do nothing at all to further weaken the natural institution of marriage, nor does it contradict the Church's definition.
All it does is to restrict recognition of marriage to that between in a man and a woman.
It does not attempt to "redefine" marriage - it is simply a measure to prevent activist judges from insisting that homosexual unions must be given legal equality with marriage.
It would be a preventive measure against such travesties of the law - nothing less, nothing more.

This bill would do exactly what the Pope said the government should do: give "recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family, as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage, and [b]its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization[/b], obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role."

This bill would be a defense against making it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union, such as "gay marriage" or "civil unions."

You blame "civil marriage" for the problems with the family, but I say this is nonsense - these problems did not need "civil marriage" for them to occur. The natural law institution of marriage is recognized by the state because the family is a natural good. Yes, there is a problem with the cheapening of marriage, and easy no-fault divorce, etc.
But the state giving certain legal and financial benefits to married couples is a good thing. I'm single, but if I get married, I would wish to have these benefits, as raising a family can be financially difficult as it is.

Let's look at this in practical terms; do you honestly, seriously think that if the state "got out of the marriage business altogether" - that is to say, stopped rewarding married couples in any way - that suddenly the institution of marriage in this country would be strengthened, and people would suddenly flock to be married in the Catholic Church and begin taking their vows more seriously, or else live chaste lives of celibacy? I think not. People would probably have, if anything, even less inclination to get or stay married, and would continue their patterns of promiscuous commitment-free sex.
Marriage is in decline now, and making marriage and raising families more difficult than it already is will not help the problem.
Civil recognition of marriage can certainly be abused, but it is better if those who do live committed married lives and raise families are helped and rewarded in their vocation, rather than punished for it.

No, the marriage amendment is not some magic bullet which will solve all our moral and social ills, but it would be, as Era Might pointed out, a step in the right direction.

If you would rather have activist liberal judges demand "gay marriages" than have the state "define" marriage by limiting it to one man and one woman, you have strange (and not very Catholic) priorites.

If you want to fight for a Catholic theocracy in which only Catholic Sacramental marriages would receive any recognition, go ahead. But until then, wouldn't you rather be on the side of those trying to put restrictions on state-sanctioned immorality, than those who would consider same-sex sodomy equivilent to marriage?

I know which side His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI stands on this issue. It's too bad many here don't share his moral clarity.

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1001079' date='Jun 9 2006, 05:36 AM']
Socrates, please show me where I've supported the "liberal Democrat agenda" in this thread. I know plenty of liberal Democrats, and all of them are gung ho in support of gay marriage.
What I DO support is protecting the true definition of marriage as promulgated by the church. What we have in the Defense of Marriage Act is a partial definition of marriage. Yeah, it gets the "one man + one woman" part right, but misses all the other aspects of the relationship that make it a [i]marriage[/i].

This is a scare tactic -- nothing more, nothing less. "If you don't vote for us, gays will marry in droves! Polygamists will proliferate! O, the slippery slope which will be created!" There's a false sense of urgency created which lures people to the polls. Politicians take a [b]sacrament[/b] and make it a political football -- and we let them do it because we're scared. And because, faced with the choice between gay marriage and a half-arse definition of marriage that is NOT in accordance with church teaching, we feel as though we must choose the lesser of two evils.

I for one don't like being manipulated like that, and I find it disgusting, disgraceful, and disturbing that politicians are using that which is holy for political gain -- even if they do acknowledge the holiness of marriage themselves.

hot stuff is right -- government needs to get out of the business of marriage.
[/quote]
While you may not actively promote gay marriage and other parts of the liberal social agenda, you certainly are vocal in your opposition to anyone who does anything politically to attack them.
Perhaps you're more "anti-conservative" than positively liberal, which is a shame, really. Better to at least stand for something, rather than be purely a force of negation.

The Marriage Defense Amendment would do nothing to weaken the sacrament of marriage. - It is not intended to "replace" the Sacramental definition of marriage - it merely excludes homosexual and other perverted "unions" from being legally recognized as marriage.
If you really cared so much about the sanctity of marriage, you would heed the Pope's advice and support attempts to keep marriage from being further desecrated by being made "juridically equivalent" to homosexual sodomy.

Edited June 10, 2006 by Socrates

[Jaime]

[quote]. The natural law institution of marriage is recognized by the state because the family is a natural good. Yes, there is a problem with the cheapening of marriage, and easy no-fault divorce, etc. [/quote]


I gots news for you sport. Natural law is not recognized by DOMA. In fact, civil marriage is in direct contradiction to natural law. DOMA and civil marriage goes against natural law.

[quote]But the state giving certain legal and financial benefits to married couples is a good thing. I'm single, but if I get married, I would wish to have these benefits, as raising a family can be financially difficult as it is.[/quote]

Apples and oranges.

The state can recognize marriage without creating them. I am against the civil marriages. Not tax breaks given to married couples or their having children

[quote]You blame "civil marriage" for the problems with the family, but I say this is nonsense - these problems did not need "civil marriage" for them to occur.[/quote]

As civil marriages have increased over the past 40 years, so has the divorce rate. Why? Because neither permanance nor children are necessary. You wanna get married? Ok but if you change your mind, no problemo!!

And you think that's nonsensical...

[quote]If you want to fight for a Catholic theocracy in which only Catholic Sacramental marriages would receive any recognition, go ahead. But until then, wouldn't you rather be on the side of those trying to put restrictions on state-sanctioned immorality, than those who would consider same-sex sodomy equivilent to marriage?[/quote]

I will not apologize for putting my Catholic faith on a higher priority than US citizenship. Frankly I would love it if only Catholic marriages were recognized. But I'd certainly settle for govt getting out of the marriage business.

[XIX]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1001716' date='Jun 9 2006, 06:58 PM']
As civil marriages have increased over the past 40 years, so has the divorce rate. Why? Because neither permanance nor children are necessary. You wanna get married? Ok but if you change your mind, no problemo!!
[/quote]
Just thought I'd let you know, the climb in the divorce rate started in direct correlation with the introduction of contraception. The more couples were contracepting, the more were having divorces. THe line finally leveled off when just about everyone who wanted contraception had access to it.

As Catholics, we know the reasons why contraception causes angst in marriages.

1) Men are more violent to women than they were in the past
2) Men are using women more for sex, and women feel used.
3) People are treating their bodies as machines nowadays.

Actually, you don't have to be a Catholic to figure that out. But I have noticed that it helps. And btw, I love quoting Janet Smith.


Anyways, the following should clear up the rest of this gay marriage debate. It probably won,t but Catholics are bound to the following teachings out of the Vatican:

[quote]
The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...-unions_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...-unions_en.html[/url][/quote]

Enjoy!

[franciscanheart]

Moved to debate table.