Republicans Alter Gay-Marriage Amendment to Allow Civil Unions

[rodbarnett]

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Republican lawmakers trying to win votes for a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution changed the wording to allow state benefits for same-sex couples while reserving marriage for the union of one man and one woman.

Senator Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican and sponsor of the amendment, said he made ``technical changes'' to make it clear that state legislatures can determine whether to enact civil unions or domestic arrangements for homosexual couples. Representative Marilyn Musgrave, also a Colorado Republican, will offer similar language in the House of Representatives.

``There were those who said we were hiding some sort of stealth agenda to deny benefits, and we wanted to clear the air,'' said Matt Daniels, president of Alliance for Marriage, a group working with lawmakers to pass the amendment.

<snip>

``The new proposal would still write discrimination into the Constitution,'' said Christopher Anders, an ACLU legislative counsel. Anders said the amendment also would deny states the right to have gay marriage and would prohibit court decisions forcing states to extend marriage-like rights.


http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aCCVpmjMdjjE&refer=us

[KensPen]

1. soooooooooooooooooooooo

if the ammendment is there ONLY to define a word,
and not allow certain couples to use the word in describing the nature of their domestic union....

why go to all the trouble and expense to pass the damn thing?

Seems VERY wasteful of time and resources.

[SemperEadem]

7. That's the republican party for you... they will waste a boat-load of $$$

shadowboxing with their fear.

The party of no government intrusion, less government spending seems to spend and intrude like they've lost their minds.

[Bertha Venation]

8. because they are chicken shit!

They fear what they don't understand! They hate it! They despise it!

And what is it they don't understand? LOVE!

God damn! Hurry up! Legislate against love and committment before it's too late!

[soleft]

2. I think this shows they're scared about Bush's re-election chances

They don't want to alienate Log Cabins and Independents

[yardwork]

18. Fortunately for us, they already did!

[Dulcinea]

38. We have a winner! *ding*ding*

eom

[MsUnderstood]

3. worse than writing in discrimination

This amendment has a definite "seperate but equal" flavor to it. The states can (if they choose) give seperate but equal rights to gays, but don't ask the federal government to be a part of that.

I wish more politicians would study history and the inherent flaws of "Seperate but eqaul" legislation.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bertha Venation]

9. They won't admit that their objection boils down to religious bias

but you're absolutely right.

BTW I'd advise against using the term "homo marriage" -- try "same-sex" instead. You'll get fewer flames that way.

If I can help you in your understanding of same-sex marriage, I'm here to help. Ask me anything about mine -- yes, I'm married before God & man. I'm just waiting for my government to catch up.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lexingtonian]

17. Please explain

I believe the verse that says "Man shall not lie with mankind and woman shall not lie with womankind. It is an abomination."

Well, more accurately

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm

NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

First of all, it has been widely noted that nowhere in the Bible is lesbianism condemned. Given that lesbians constitute 60% of the people who have been applying for marriage (and a high proportion of them now have children) the Bible is only good for holding up the 40% of gay marriages that are between men.

The belief that things that are "unnatural" should be forbidden and (probably) destroyed go back to pagan Nature worship.

[Captain_Spud]

22. Not saying it should be forbidden

I just think it's a sin. I believe that premarital sex is a sin, but I certainly don't want it outlawed. After all, I'm a big believer in free will.

I'm definitely not going to tell anybody how to live, I'm simply saying what I believe. And I'm not trying to disrespect anybody.

[Lexingtonian]

31. Don't you think you're being inconsistent?

I grew up in pretty much the same circumstances and when I was a teen I found there was only one way to make the Christian perspective liveable- to accept that most of it is intended to lead you to selfcorrection and God would be meticulous but generous about all the small stuff if you did. And over time, that unless people get harmed it usually is small stuff. The great tragedies in the world can't be understood through the lens of Sin and the great comedies are full of small sins that are all redeemed in great experiences of spiritual lovingkindness.

So why not see the teachings of the Bible with a generous adult eye? There is a Jewish view of the Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament) that it is a call to creativity, not a claustrophobic house to get locked up in for life, and that wrongdoings (averot) are wastes of time relative to the True Work of redeeming all that can be redeemed of people and the World.

I had to let go of the notion of Sin I was taught as a boy, which was that the Divine was somewhat arbitrary in making The Rules yet would get angry at every infraction. It's a covert pagan accretion, this belief that Gods are essentially arbitrary and emotional and without keen sense of measure or generosity that is really wise; and their essential vengefulness and pride. It's a denigration of God, really, to impute Him with the kind of meanness that the Rules we are taught contain. Either the Law of Love is true and the parable of the Prodigal Son holds up or the Vengeance is the truth.

I'm inclined to see gay marriage as covered by the Law of Love, and I don't see reason in the Bible to prohibit lesbians it in the first place. And for there to be justice, it can't not be the same for gay men.

[yardwork]

20. I'm not gay - I've been married to the same person for 20 years

and I absolutely support allowing gays and lesbians to marry. With divorce rates among heterosexual people running at 50% or higher, why in the world would we want to pass a Constitutional amendment against marrige? Seems to me that we heterosexuals might learn something from gays and lesbians who have been in committed relationships for years even in the face of discrimination!

If you take every word the Bible says as truth, does that mean that you keep Kosher in your family? As you say, the Bible says a lot of things that most people don't agree with - why pick on just the homosexual passages (all of which are in the Old Testament, none in the New Testament) to follow?

I'm not being disrespectful of your beliefs. I just don't quite understand the logic.

[Bertha Venation]

28. DAMMIT!

Sometimes I really dislike DU's policy of nuking disruptors out-of-hand. I wish I could have an exchange with these guys!

Does anyone know what spudley said in reply to me?

[yardwork]

32. Spudley used some bad words in his post.

But he didn't attack anybody, as far as I could tell. I think he is sincere in his beliefs. He said that he had never met anybody who was gay or lesbian. (This is probably wrong. I'm sure he knows lots of gay and lesbian people. They're just careful not to let him know it.)

[Bertha Venation]

33. thanks, yardwork

You're absolutely right -- the guy probably knows scores of gay people. We know whom it's safe to reveal ourselves to.

It would be fun if one day all gay people woke up with polka-dotted skin. It would be especially fun to see the right side of the aisle in Congress. :evilgrin:

[rawtribe]

10. Biblical priciples for marriage

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the
President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of
marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any
forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word
and His standards will be honored by our government."

 So, here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed
Constitutional Amendment to codify marriage, as they enjoin, on strict
biblical principals:

 
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

 

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man
and one or more women.
(Genesis 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

 

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition
to his wife or wives.
(II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

 

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If
the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.
(Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

 

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.
(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

 

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed
to permit divorce.
(Deuteronomy 22:19; Mark 10:9)

 

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the
widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not
give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe.
(Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10)


?

[slinkerwink]

11. If I were you, I wouldn't call gay marriage or same-sex marriage that

and yes, the main argument against this is a religious one.

[Occulus]

15. Believing homosexuality is a sin

is the first rung on a ladder, the top of which is to hate us.

It's also interesting to note that if there is ever a solid biological connection made which indicates homosexuality is determined by the body and not the mind, your 'sinful' argument completely falls apart.

Your beliefs on this topic hinge upon homosexuality being a choice; this is the only possible way it is an acceptable position for you to hold and it is the only reason you can get away with holding to those beliefs now.

Beware. Making homosexuality a choice also makes heterosexuality a choice; you are, by your logic, potentially as gay as I am. I also invite you to explain how homosexuality is a choice for me, given the fact that I'm a 28 year old man who has never even been physically aroused by the sight or close proximity to a woman- beautiful or not.

Explain, in light of that truth, how being gay is a choice, since that's the only possible way your position has any credibility.

If being gay is not a choice, the Biblical argument against it is patently false. This would call much of the rest of the Bible into question for a lot of people who are currently living in denial, but it's still true: if it's not a choice it's not a sin, period.

For me, it was never a choice. I was attracted to the other boys in my fifth grade class. I went to such extent to hide it that I had a faux girlfriend (for a few weeks) and even refused to shower after gym class because I knew I'd get sexually aroused. When we went to a weeklong orientation camp in middle school I took my showers at night, when everyone else took them in the morning; this was for the same reason.

My point is that I can't control what sexually arouses me and I wouldn't expect others to do the same; this is something which is inherently uncontrollable as it is dictated by biochemical reactions within the brain and the rest of the body. Furthermore, it is only when we act upon those sexual urges to the detriment of others that it becomes destructive.

I had to try to hide what I was because of people who believe exactly as you do. I've ended up hating my family as a result; they completely shunned and abandoned me when they found out. It emotionally destroyed me, but that wasn't enough for them; they also forced me out of college and totally denied further funding ("because my grades were too low," but it's funny; I asked to retake the two classes that lowered my grades to the 'too low' 2.35 and doing so would have pulled my GPA up a full point, but the told me that would be a "waste of money"); this quite handily ended my career in music education before it started. Oh, and to add insult to injury, after literally kicking me out into the rain, putting constant pressure on me while I was in school because they controlled half my funding and thus my will, ending my education even after I demonstrated my commitment to it by sleeping under trees on campus at night because my lease ran out and I didn't want to increase the total cost by getting a dorm room of my own, and in sum completely destroying me, all after they found out I was gay.... I ended up having to move back in with them because I had nowhere else to turn.

At that point, they demanded I get a good-paying job, ending any chance of going back to school as a musician while I lived with them. I found a job with the postal service, moved a mere twenty miles away from home, and have simply existed ever since. And that's exactly it- I exist; I don't "live."

Now tell me, after you've explained how homosexuality is a choice- since it, for you, must be so- which was the more damaging to me: my being gay, or my family's response to it.

Which would God condemn the more? Which, according to the teachings of Jesus, acts more against what God stands for?

I curiously await your answers.

edit: your beliefs are telling you not to support this because you (apparently) take the Bible literally. However, to take one part of Leviticus literally while condoning, say, Red Lobster and the Superbowl, is Biblically selective- the very thing you claim to believe the opposite of. My mom- the one who initially found out I was gay and who gave me the boot- plays that game a lot: she claims to support a position while doing the exact opposite. I guess the adage is true: pay heed to a man's actions as well as his words, for the lips will say one thing, but the deeds will betray the lie.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yardwork]

23. You sound like a thoughtful person who hasn't had a chance

to get to know any gays or lesbians. As a straight (heterosexual) person who has many friends who are gay/lesbian, I encourage you to get to know some people in your community.

I think that gays and lesbians are born this way because they have told me, over and over again, that they realized that they were attracted to people of the same sex at a very early age. It was NOT their choice.

As you say, nothing could make you reject your girlfriend in favor of having sex with a man. This is exactly how gay and lesbian people feel! Despite society's outrage and rejection of their feelings, they simply can't feel attracted to members of the opposite sex.

Imagine if you grew up in a society that made you marry a man. Meanwhile, in your heart you were totally attracted to women. Wouldn't it be a terrible existence if you weren't allowed to express your true feelings for your girlfriend?

Please think about this. Thank you for sharing your thoughts here so honestly.

[minkyboodle]

25. some reading you may find interesting

Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031225377X/qid=1080066184/sr=8-7/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl14/103-7034585-2831069?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I think you may find if you look into it that nature is not nearly as straight as you may think it is.
Scott

[yardwork]

26. I'm so sorry about the way that your family has treated you.

Please know that there are many heterosexual people in the world who do not agree with your family at all. I hope that you move to a community that has a more supportive environment. Please don't let your family's prejudices ruin your life.

[northzax]

35. I don't understand why anyone would want homosexuality

to be defined asa physical chraracteristic. One we find the switch, there will be a 'cure' and it will be classified as a disability that can be treated. Why is that better? Given the pain and ostracisation that many homosexuals and lesbians go through, would you choose to have your child born gay? If there was a treatment avaliable in the womb, which would cut his/her risk of suicide by half, would you take it? Given the slow pace of societal change, and the fact that most (in my experience, gays have experienced some social, familial or cultural trauma associated with coming to terms with their sexuality, why would you ever wish that on someone?

It is absurd that we still have to say this, but life in 21st century america is easier if you are heterosexual, why would you force a child into the world with even more challenges than others? Remeber, all we are doing is changing your son from having homosexual tendencies hard wired into his brain to having heterosexual ones. Why wouldn't you do that? honestly?

[Occulus]

37. That one of the things I'm afraid of.

Of course, this would also mean that a great many straight people's children would be targeted for being "fixed." I don't know what that would lead to.

[Virginian]

19. Is it a gender thing?

Many men who think two young men together is repulsive seem to think seeing two young women together is a turn on.

Biblically it is the same. Does this further conflict your views?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occulus]

29. I think, honestly, it's the 'ick' factor.

Most men find any kind of attraction to another man as 'icky.' This goes to friendly hugs just the same as it does to a blowjob from (or to) another man, only on different levels. My father, for example, never mentioned the fact I was gay to me, ever, until the day he died. It was simply something that wasn't discussed. Even while living under their roof knowing I was gay, they forbade me from having "any of my... friends over." Yes, with the pregnant little pause attatched.

Most men just don't discuss it. It's treated as Unmentionable, unless there's derision and insults involved.

[skypilot]

5. Screw the "wording".

They're still dicking around with the Constitution.

[tedzbear]

6. Does that mean queer survivors will get Social Security?

Or be able to file with the IRS as couples with children?

I think not.

[slackmaster]

13. It appears there would be no federal benefits whatsoever

For same-sex couples.

This, and the war, will be the two biggest albatrosses around the GOP's neck in November.

[Virginian]

16. Morphing the message.

This will be completely reversed by the time they get through with it.

They start out with a very BAD message so the Dems (and most other rational people) are completely opposed to it.

Next they start working on it and morphing it.

By the time they get through with it, it will be a bill guaranteeing the same rights to gays as to hetero couples, but it will have some rider on it to deprive some other group of something (raise the age of collecting social security to 90 then amend that to apply to only those under 40; deny health benefits to federal employees and cut their paychecks in half or something equally ridiculous but invisable to most voters).

The Dems will not be able to make people wait to retire until they are 90 or they will think federal employees need health insurance and paychecks. They will have to vote against the bill. The bill fails.

The fundies only heard the original message so they stick with Bush because Bush is "against gay marriage".

The gays hear the Dems voted against their bill. They go over to the republican side and become Log Cabin Republicans.

The retired are already getting Social security and would not have lost it. Those under 40 think retirement is a long way off and would not have paid attention. These two groups do not support the Dems in greater strength for protecting them.

The federal employees are not a large enough voting block to counteract the loss of other voters. Because of the Hatch act, they are forbidden from campaigning to show support for the party that protected them. (Outside the beltway, who cares about federal workers, "the government is too big" anyway.)

This is just a scenerio on how it could happen if the Republicans morph the message as they always do.

[CO Liberal]

14. Wayne Dullare Is a Sorry Excuse For a Human Being

And the worst Senator I've ever seen.

[theHandpuppet]

27. Civil Unions vs Marriage: More than semantics

The Human Rights Campaign at http://www.hrc.org/ provides some of the best information regarding gay marriage issues and why civil unions fall far short of the legal protections provided by marriage. Go to the Issues: Marriage & Family link on the right side of the page. There are even downloadable pamphlets available.

I'd encourage everyone to pay a visit, especially anyone with questions about this issue.

[markus]

30. B.S. -- Read the story and the redraft

It still says this: "marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

This is such a lot of hooey.

It's good their noticing that most Americans want this to go forward about as much as they wanted to see pictures of the Clenic on teh evening news.

But they're going to keep pounding away at it to keep the Christian Fascists happy.

[w4rma]

34. Still trying to mess with the U.S. Constitution. (nt)

[HuckleB]

36. We've tried the "separate but equal" doctrine before...

it doesn't work.

It's time for religious liberty to reign rather than to constrain. There is no logical reason to ban gay marriage. End of story.

Now, go do the work we pay you do to, Senators.