Go Barney!

[Queersetti]

Gay Lawmaker Challenges Bush's Marriage Amendment


By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A gay congressman on Tuesday challenged President Bush (news - web sites)'s drive for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage by asking how such unions hurt anyone.


"How does the fact that I or someone else wants to express love for another human being in the same way as the overwhelming majority of my heterosexual friends and relatives ... hurt you?" Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, asked at a hushed and packed Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) hearing.



Bush, to the delight of his conservative base, favors an amendment to ban gay marriage. But there seems to be little, if any, chance one will pass.



Democrats as well as some Republicans on Capitol Hill have voiced reservations about tinkering with the Constitution. Members on both sides of the aisle have predicted supporters will fail to muster the two-thirds vote needed in both the Senate and House of Representatives to pass an amendment.



Frank testified as he sat at the witness table with two of the proposed amendment's chief sponsors, Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, both Colorado Republicans.



"The only way to preserve traditional marriage is a constitutional amendment," Musgrave argued, saying children were best raised by a married mother and father.



Musgrave and Allard said the problem was "activist" judges and local officials who recently bucked public opinion by permitting same-sex marriages.



Opponents rejected such arguments as they denounced the proposed amendment as an election-year ploy.



"This debate isn't about activist judges," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat. "It's about politics -- an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage."



"We're not even close to having votes sufficient to pass a constitutional amendment," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat opposed to the measure, told reporters outside the hearing. He compared the bid to proposed constitutional amendments after the Civil War to ban interracial marriage.



Bush called on Congress to approve a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage last month after Massachusetts' highest court ruled gay couples had a right to wed and San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.



Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, the presumptive 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, opposes a constitutional amendment. He supports civil unions that can provide couples some of the same legal protections married spouses enjoy.



Polls show most Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but are split on civil unions. Many believe the states should handle the matter.



Legal scholars offered differing opinions before the Judiciary Committee.



"The Constitution has been amended only 27 times in 215 years. That is a testament to its vitality and to congressional restraint," said Phyllis Bossin of the American Bar Association. "We hope you will exercise that same restraint."



Teresa Stanton Collett, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minnesota, argued Congress should approve the amendment and then send it to the states for ratification. Three-fourths of the states would be needed.



"It is the people who should determine the meaning and structure of marriage," Collett said.

 

[John Doe]

On the one hand, he has a point that gay marriage is not going to cause the immeidate collapse of society as we know it. But on the other hand, the argument that they're trying "show love" (for another man or another woman or whatever) is flawed because the idea that you get married to show people you love them is an extremely common misnomer. Or that getting married is automatically the thing to do at a certain point in a relationship.

Marriage was created as a legal institution to provide a more stable environment for raising children. If you love each other when you get married, then good. I imagine that helps. But marriage (legally speaking) is not about love, it's about commitment and responsibility.

But IMO, marriage as we know it is an outdated concept. Considering that we evaluate someone's fitness to be a gaurdian before we let them adopt, it seems a rather moot point, other than the fact that married couples still have certain legal rights, privileges, benfits, etc. that a single couple would not have. And by definition, if there is no legal form of gay marriage, then gay couples are essentially denied these rights.

 

[Netzach]

Not really that either. It's about property and the pursuit of happiness via goods, forming allegiences and making legacies.

IE mo' money.

Very American. I thought I'd try it, too, and I hope everyone gets to. There's some document somewhere that says something about pursuit of happiness and another that says something about equal protection, but no one seems to care during an election.

 

[John Doe]

Not really that either. It's about property and the pursuit of happiness via goods, forming allegiences and making legacies.

IE mo' money.

Very American. I thought I'd try it, too, and I hope everyone gets to. There's some document somewhere that says something about pursuit of happiness and another that says something about equal protection, but no one seems to care during an election.

I just fucking said that, troll.

 

[Netzach]

No, you fucking said something about stable environments for children commitment and responsibility.

 

[John Doe]

No, you fucking said something about stable environments for children commitment and responsibility.

I also said rights, privileges and benefits that are only available to married couples. And we are all aware that those benefits are largely economic in nature.

 

[Cigan]

On the one hand, he has a point that gay marriage is not going to cause the immeidate collapse of society as we know it. But on the other hand, the argument that they're trying "show love" (for another man or another woman or whatever) is flawed because the idea that you get married to show people you love them is an extremely common misnomer. Or that getting married is automatically the thing to do at a certain point in a relationship.

Marriage was created as a legal institution to provide a more stable environment for raising children. If you love each other when you get married, then good. I imagine that helps. But marriage (legally speaking) is not about love, it's about commitment and responsibility.

But IMO, marriage as we know it is an outdated concept. Considering that we evaluate someone's fitness to be a gaurdian before we let them adopt, it seems a rather moot point, other than the fact that married couples still have certain legal rights, privileges, benfits, etc. that a single couple would not have. And by definition, if there is no legal form of gay marriage, then gay couples are essentially denied these rights.

I'm going to have to disagree with your comments about marriage not being about love. Love is about commitment and responsibility. Therefore marriage is about love. Infatuations, flings, tricks, these things are about lust. If you are truly within the realm of love then you should be committed to working to make a relationship last, and also having the dignity to end it if there truly isn't the making for a happy relationship. Now marriage isn't for everyone, and I think you can live an extremely happy life with someone choosing never to enter into the contract of marriage. For some people though tradition and marriage are the right way to go, and I am honestly tired of people saying marriage is an out of date institution. The sex revolution is over and some people moved past marriage and good for them, but marraige has worked for thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't worked for everyone, and that's why allowing for people who don't want to use it is important, but saying that just because you have discovered that marriage isn't right for you that it's time to trash it is just as bad as telling everyone they need to get married. Everyone is different with different needs, and everyone should be accomodated, and for homosexual couples who want to adopt and get families and take part in the dry dusty, boring married life, I say good for them, and good for you for not needing to be like them.

 

[John Doe]

I'm going to have to disagree with your comments about marriage not being about love. Love is about commitment and responsibility. Therefore marriage is about love. Infatuations, flings, tricks, these things are about lust. If you are truly within the realm of love then you should be committed to working to make a relationship last, and also having the dignity to end it if there truly isn't the making for a happy relationship. Now marriage isn't for everyone, and I think you can live an extremely happy life with someone choosing never to enter into the contract of marriage. For some people though tradition and marriage are the right way to go, and I am honestly tired of people saying marriage is an out of date institution. The sex revolution is over and some people moved past marriage and good for them, but marraige has worked for thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't worked for everyone, and that's why allowing for people who don't want to use it is important, but saying that just because you have discovered that marriage isn't right for you that it's time to trash it is just as bad as telling everyone they need to get married. Everyone is different with different needs, and everyone should be accomodated, and for homosexual couples who want to adopt and get families and take part in the dry dusty, boring married life, I say good for them, and good for you for not needing to be like them.

That's nice...

Now do you want to actually read my post now instead of jumping down my throat based on a quick scan?

1. I never said marriage is obsolete

2. I never said it wasn't for mean

3. I never said it should be trashed

4. I never said I don't want kids. In fact, my girlfriend has two of them and I plan to marry her

5. The sex revolution isn't over if gays are still beaten and/or killed simply because they're gay or if men don't have the same reproductive rights under the Consitution that women do

6. I never said marriage wasn't about love. I said that legally speaking love is not required for marriage, and that it is merely an insitution that provides a stable environment for children

 

[Cigan]

That's nice...
Now do you want to actually read my post now instead of jumping down my throat based on a quick scan?

1. I never said marriage is obsolete

No you said it was an outdated institution. Sorry for not quoting you exactly, but I'd say anyone who has taken basic english lit knows paraphrasing when they see it.

2. I never said it wasn't for mean

What does wasn't for mean mean anyway?

3. I never said it should be trashed

Then what does the statement It's an outdated institution signify. That it should be put on a pedestal. Sounds like trashing to me.

4. I never said I don't want kids. In fact, my girlfriend has two of them and I plan to marry her

I never implied you didn't want kids. My comments only dealt with marriage as a concept and my feelings on people saying it's outdated and obsolete(and you are not the only person who has commented on marriage in this way)

5. The sex revolution isn't over if gays are still beaten and/or killed simply because they're gay or if men don't have the same reproductive rights under the Consitution that women do

I'm sorry but the sex revolution and gay rights are not the same thing. The differences between them on a basic idealogical and social/political level are pretty impressive actually.

6. I never said marriage wasn't about love. I said that legally speaking love is not required for marriage, and that it is merely an insitution that provides a stable environment for children

Originally posted by Stuponfucious "But on the other hand, the argument that they're trying "show love" (for another man or another woman or whatever) is flawed because the idea that you get married to show people you love them is an extremely common misnomer."

Then how do you go about explaing your comment about the idea of marriage as a way to "show love" being a misnomer. I argue that for many people who get married it is very much about that. If it were as dry and monetary as you make it out to be a lot less women would cry when they get their ring, and a lot less guys would try to make giving the ring into a big romantic ordeal.