Now that the US presidential elections are over, Mr. Bush has stated
that he will not press for a constitutional amendment banning same-
marriage.

Why?

Is it because his his lost his Christian ways?
Is it because he no longer needs the votes of poorly educated rural
bigots?

Sorry for being cynical, but can anyone explain Bush's new tact in
contrast to his deep, pre-election convictions?

NB

From:	Bourbaki
Subject:	Re: Constitutionl Ban
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:13:19 -0600

How many times did Bush promote a constitutional ban against same
marriage before the elections to crowds of rural bigots? If he truly
had such a strong, god fearing conviction, than changing tactics is
wrong of him. Anything less than his pushing for a constitutional ban
is a weakening of his pre-election conviction, or am I wrong? Or, god
forbid, is Bush going for a stronger tactic than a constitutional ban,
as in, say, the murder of all homouals? The elimination of that
part of the human gene pool that produces homouality. Please
explain to me this new Bush tactic.

NB

From:	Lisa Cech
Subject:	Re: Constitutionl Ban
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:52:31 -0600

In article <1105927980.602547.93510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Bourbaki" wrote:

> How many times did Bush promote a constitutional ban against same
> marriage before the elections to crowds of rural bigots? If he truly
> had such a strong, god fearing conviction, than changing tactics is
> wrong of him. Anything less than his pushing for a constitutional ban
> is a weakening of his pre-election conviction, or am I wrong? Or, god
> forbid, is Bush going for a stronger tactic than a constitutional ban,
> as in, say, the murder of all homouals? The elimination of that
> part of the human gene pool that produces homouality. Please
> explain to me this new Bush tactic.

The official story being used is that it is premature to push the
Federal Marriage Amendment until the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act has
gone through the legal system and been found unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court. The thinking is that if the Supreme Court doesn't find
DOMA unconstitutional (which they have to, if they've read the
Constitution, and I do believe they have), there's no need for the FMA.

I realize you probably only asked to be a provocateur, but I figured
since there *was* an answer, I'd give it to you.

On the real-world front, though, I believe the Administration is just
floating this rationalization in order to avoid the massive protests
that would almost definitely result from a Constitutional Amendment
against s.

--Lisa

From:	Josh Rosenbluth
Subject:	Re: Constitutionl Ban
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:16:32 -0600

Lisa Cech wrote:
> In article <1105927980.602547.93510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>
> The thinking is that if the Supreme Court doesn't find
> DOMA unconstitutional (which they have to, if they've read the
> Constitution, and I do believe they have)

You might have concluded likewise concerning prohibitions against s
adopting. Yet, SCOTUS took a pass and allowed Florida to do just that.

Josh Rosenbluth

From:	Josh Rosenbluth
Subject:	Re: Constitutionl Ban
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:07:35 -0600

Lisa Cech wrote:
> In article <1105927980.602547.93510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bourbaki" wrote:
>
>>How many times did Bush promote a constitutional ban against same
>>marriage before the elections to crowds of rural bigots? If he truly
>>had such a strong, god fearing conviction, than changing tactics is
>>wrong of him. Anything less than his pushing for a constitutional ban
>>is a weakening of his pre-election conviction, or am I wrong? Or, god
>>forbid, is Bush going for a stronger tactic than a constitutional ban,
>>as in, say, the murder of all homouals? The elimination of that
>>part of the human gene pool that produces homouality. Please
>>explain to me this new Bush tactic.
>
> The official story being used is that it is premature to push the
> Federal Marriage Amendment until the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act has
> gone through the legal system and been found unconstitutional by the
> Supreme Court. The thinking is that if the Supreme Court doesn't find
> DOMA unconstitutional (which they have to, if they've read the
> Constitution, and I do believe they have), there's no need for the FMA.

That same story held before the election, so that must not be it.

> On the real-world front, though, I believe the Administration is just
> floating this rationalization in order to avoid the massive protests
> that would almost definitely result from a Constitutional Amendment
> against s.

Or, maybe they don't need it as a wedge issue for the time being, and
can save it for later?

Josh Rosenbluth

From:	The Zoellers
Subject:	Re: Constitutionl Ban
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:30:39 -0600

To George Bush a constitutional ban on marriage is like this... "Yeh, I
think we should because marriage is a sacred union between a man and a
women." Then his political advisors get to him and say "well, if you take
that stance then your rating will go down to here, but if you take this
stance then you'll get the majority on your side which is what we are
looking for here, especially if the majority is providing us with money to
take that particular stance." And they say "well, we also have an election
coming so it is most important to take this stance because it will bring up
your votes in this area which is very crucial." It goes on and on until Bush
takes a stance that no one could possibly understand though at the same time
it appears to be agreeable to the parties of value to the George Bush
agenda, which is appears to be please the people who furnish your life with
luxury.

I truly believe that George Bush as an individual, like anyone, has
unarguable beliefs. However, as a president he does not stand for anything.
Politics and Big Business speak for president George Bush. It is entirely
obvious when the man speaks. He either has written statements produced by
his assistants which are influenced by political nutbags (Rove) or he speaks
mumbo jumbo rhetoric that gets pounded into his head just as it does into
the heads of millions of other ignorant americans. Basically, he is just
another average joe in need of a serious ass whipping to set his mind
straight because he has gotten away with too much for too long.

How else does a complete failure of a person become president? Well, if you
ask me then I would say by being the son of a former president and residing
with the overwhelming population on the grounds of passiveness towards
serious issues and ignorance toward the future of a people. Eventually, the
people will have to be aware of this phenomenon. It just takes courage to
face up before self destruction. Apparently, self destruction is eminent.

From:	RosardoZBT
Subject:	Re: Constitutionl Ban
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:21:09 -0600

1. stop insinuating that all people against Gay Marriage are rural
biogts. I could label the majority the leftist liberals like you but I
slightly nicer than that.

2. Christians can make mistakes, moron. Look at Peter in the Gospels.

3. You suck at arguing. The only thing you're good at is pissing people
off.

Lisa, the Defense Marriage Act is constitutionally sound, else it would
have been thrown out less than 8 years after it was signed by Clinton.
It prohibits Gay Marriage from being recognized by other states, which
is against teh Full Faith and Credit CLAUSE. And as we all should known
from our high school social studies class, clauses do not equal laws.

From:	Lisa Cech
Subject:	Re: Constitutionl Ban
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:02:30 -0600

In article <1105989646.731968.108120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"RosardoZBT" wrote:

> Lisa, the Defense Marriage Act is constitutionally sound, else it would
> have been thrown out less than 8 years after it was signed by Clinton.
> It prohibits Gay Marriage from being recognized by other states, which
> is against teh Full Faith and Credit CLAUSE. And as we all should known
> from our high school social studies class, clauses do not equal laws.

It's already been severely weakened by Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v.
Texas. Those two US Supreme Court decisions were the basis of the
Massachusetts Supreme Court reasoning to allow couples to get
marriage licenses. No one really knows what will happen when a real
challenge to DOMA comes before the US Supreme Court. It honestly could
go either way, with constitutional scholars making cogent arguments for
both sides.

I honestly don't understand why there is such a clamor to prevent s
from marrying, though. I'm married myself, and I just don't see how a
couple of guys marrying each other would in any way threaten my marriage.

I'm not looking to be attacked here; I'm wondering if anyone has any
non-religious, logical reason for marriage to be banned.

--Lisa

From:	The Zoellers
Subject:	Re: Constitutionl Ban
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:03:01 -0600

hi there lisa,

for me it is very simple to be against marriage in essence. however, it
is most difficult to argue against the legalities of marriage. i base
most of my beliefs on functional aspects of nature and according to these
beliefs marriage becomes acceptable on some grounds, but entirely
unacceptable on others.

first, homouality is a purely disfunctional aspect of society. i don't
care how anyone "feels" about homouals. all i care about is the
functional nature of uality. only men can fertilize a woman's egg with
his sperm. this is the most basic function of . whenever, it involves
emotional or such satisfaction between homo- or even hetero-ual couples,
then it is a counterproductive act no matter how you look at it. an orgasm
may feel more than wonderful, but the fluid has only one basic function.

second, social education is struck down by the idea of marriage. if it
is legally acceptable for couples to form a union, then it instantly
becomes an acceptable aspect of society. however, functionally, it can not
be acceptable. it would disenfranchise our youth who come into this world
and find that there is some confusion about their ual intentions. if
little john sees two married men kissing in a legal bond, then he may be
easily influenced by such a thing at his age.

finally, there may be one functionally acceptable reason for marriage
and it would be to provide a nuturing family structure to provide for
children. though, at the same time it would be entirely illegitimate if the
married couple were to partake in homoual activity. this would negate the
functionality of the relationship.

my ideas of functionality may not coincide with another persons. however, i
am willing to argue them intelligently and open-mindedly.

i must say, however, emotions do not factor into my idea of functional
reasoning. i believe emotions only hinder truly positive actions that serve
a function which in the end or long term actually boost emotional
well-being.

if you feel bad for people who love each other and can't get married,
then you'll have to feel bad for all the people who love their families
health and can't seem to obtain that either.

if you don't feel bad for anyone, then you can use that time of not feeling
bad to do something productive for you or anyone.

From:	Lisa Cech
Subject:	Re: Constitutionl Ban
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:25:59 -0600

In article ,
"The Zoellers" wrote:

> first, homouality is a purely disfunctional aspect of society. i don't
> care how anyone "feels" about homouals. all i care about is the
> functional nature of uality. only men can fertilize a woman's egg with
> his sperm. this is the most basic function of . whenever, it involves
> emotional or such satisfaction between homo- or even hetero-ual couples,
> then it is a counterproductive act no matter how you look at it. an orgasm
> may feel more than wonderful, but the fluid has only one basic function.

Homouality, according to reputable studies, is a natural phenomenon.
It has existed as long as humanity. It has been entirely accepted by
some cultures, and entirely rejected by others. But to say that it is a
counter-productive act is to condemn masturbation and oral , too. So
would having beyond menopause. People have counterproductive all
the time.

Anyway, it seems you're arguing more against the right of homouals to
exist, rather than marry.

> second, social education is struck down by the idea of marriage. if it
> is legally acceptable for couples to form a union, then it instantly
> becomes an acceptable aspect of society. however, functionally, it can not
> be acceptable. it would disenfranchise our youth who come into this world
> and find that there is some confusion about their ual intentions. if
> little john sees two married men kissing in a legal bond, then he may be
> easily influenced by such a thing at his age.

Why can it not be acceptable? See, THAT's what I don't get. Just because
homoual unions are found acceptable, doesn't mean that the rate of
homouality will rise, any more than persecuting homouals is making
men straight. Gays are , whether it's accepted or not. They may try
to cover it for a while, but they're miserable when they do. Believe me,
I've seen it in action.

Also, study after study[1] has shown that children exposed to homoual
parents are just as likely to be straight or as the population in
general, with the same rate of social adjustment issues.

> finally, there may be one functionally acceptable reason for marriage
> and it would be to provide a nuturing family structure to provide for
> children. though, at the same time it would be entirely illegitimate if the
> married couple were to partake in homoual activity. this would negate the
> functionality of the relationship.

So straight parents couldn't engage in oral or masturbation, because
that would negate the functionality of the relationship? Preserving that
precious fluid is the only function of marriage? I simply don't see how
two people kissing in a loving relationship is a bad thing.

Making out in front of the kids is a bad thing, I agree. But that's in
bad form whether the couple is or straight. It's just wrong.

> my ideas of functionality may not coincide with another persons. however, i
> am willing to argue them intelligently and open-mindedly.

Please, let's do. I am pretty sure I'm right, and I wanna prove it! Heh.
No, really, I truly want to understand the other side of this issue, if
there is a logical reason behind it.

> i must say, however, emotions do not factor into my idea of functional
> reasoning. i believe emotions only hinder truly positive actions that serve
> a function which in the end or long term actually boost emotional
> well-being.

I suspect that you're putting a semi-logical face on your soul-deep
"ick" factor. But I'd love to see you prove me wrong.

> if you feel bad for people who love each other and can't get married,
> then you'll have to feel bad for all the people who love their families
> health and can't seem to obtain that either.
>
> if you don't feel bad for anyone, then you can use that time of not feeling
> bad to do something productive for you or anyone.

Um, you lost me there. I don't get what you're trying to say.

--Lisa

[1]J.L. Wainright, S.T. Russell, and C.J. Patterson (2004). Summary of
Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Attractions of
Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents. Child Development, Vol. 75, Issue 6.

Bailey, J.M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., & Mikach, S. (1995). Sexual
orientation of adult sons of fathers. Developmental Psychology, 31,
124-129.

Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and
single-parent households: Psychoual and psychiatric appraisal.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572.

Green, R. (1978). Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homoual
or transual parents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692-697.

Hoeffer, B. (1981). Children's acquisition of -role behavior in
lesbian-mother families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51,
536-544.

From:	Bourbaki
Subject:	Re: Constitutionl Ban
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:21:26 -0600

Thank you for your information Lisa. I can think of one non-religious
reason to ban same marriage: politics--the politics of suading the
ignorant and the biggoted.

NB

From:	RosardoZBT
Subject:	Re: Constitutionl Ban
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:03:20 -0600

Honest to God, shutup.

No, he hasn't lost his Christian ways and Im not going to bother to
comment on your other bigoted comment.

You ever get the idea that Bush is going a different route to tackle
this issue? Or is the hatred of him clouding your judgement?

From:	deadissue.com
Subject:	Re: Constitutionl Ban
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:21:06 -0600

In terms of the argument that homouality is ineffective in nature
and therefore wrong, it is based in reliion (fruitful/multipy). It
applied to a time when an extra human life meant one more set of hands
for the harvest, or one more sword and sheild for war with a nation's
eneimes. This is not as crucial now as there are plenty of people for
the facilities we have available now. We have quite enough people here
already, with concrete and the rising housing costs to prove it.

The theory assumes that it is wrong to waste time, yet we do that in
hundreds of other ways without widespread protest...whether it's
smoking, eaitng cookies, fliping through the chanels. Not everything
in our society is taboo once you start becoming unprodcive. You have to
break a law to warrant punnishment. Why does not fall into this
category?

The thousands of children stuck in the system, without loving homes to
live in, can be taken care of by these people who cannot have their own
children. Remember that with science breakthroughs in fertility, the
prospective adoption pool grows smaller.

You or someone else can say that the child doesn't deserve to have to
be raised in such an environment, but we're already grown. What would
Oliver Twist rather do? Live in the orphanage or get adoptd into a
family? Who am I to keep that child from having a chance in life?

For the amount of time we spend on the scattered references to
homouality in the Bible, there're hundreds more passages that tell
us that how we treat those who have the least among is how we treat the
Allmigty.

We humans are rationalizing a belief system and twisting the Bible to
fit our personal agendas, and this is wrong. It's not up to us to
decide whether a child hitting the streets with noone and nothing at 18
is better or worse than homoxexuality. We are required by God to put
ourselves in the shoes of these people, and when I do so, it seems like
a blessing.

I've got twins on the way andit's a blessing - - - and I also
acknowlede that moreso than to make society a better place, I long to
have children for the experience of a lifetime that it is. It's more a
personal thing for me. I'm having children for humanity second, and
for me and my wife first...our family. It's a personal thing. I of
course hope to do a goodjob and create positive members of society, but
the notion of needing to be fruitfull is a concept up well past it's
bedtime if you ask me.

Millions of born again christins (I once was one myself) are being used
as political tools to facilitate the creation of 'wedge issues'. This
issue of marriage is miniscule in terms of the scope of world
history, and it's being used by American religion to blind it's
followers and teach them that the bulk of the Bible need not be applied
to life and one's views on politic, but instead only the parts that
create a distinction between believers and non-believers.

If a 'man of God' tells you that the war in Iraq is a fight versus
Islam, a holy war, while also going on about how homouality is
signaing the death of humanity - - - they're preaching for the dollar
bills and the flag first and God second.

Homouality repulses adults who are unfamiliar with it, and it
creates fear within...in the same way that preachers used the threat of
hell and the diffrences of their faith from someone else's to motivte
it's followers to fight and die in the hundred years war, so is this
generation's version of it when it comes to marriage. It's always
been about the state and the church helping each other out at the
expense of God and his children, and it always will be...not jsut with
Christianity, but all relgion.

It's the natural turn of events for man to create a religion to explain
their existance, and then for man to exploit that belief for the sake
of one of the deadly sins. The state and the head of the church walk
hand in hand.

That American Chistians can condone the treatment of Iraqi detainees,
yet consider two women who have adoped an unanted child to be evil
is a sad and unfortunate reality of our walk with God as a human race.
We pick and chose what we want to adhere to in terms of what other
people should be doing rather than apply the Word to ouselves and
simply leading by example