The ridiculousness of Bush's civil unions stance.

[Rex_Goodheart]

Bush now says he supports the right of states to create "civil unions" and all that that entails: equal rights for gays!

Bush declared today that individual states should have the right to make binding social contracts that confer partnership rights to gays.

So, what does that mean in a practical sense?

It means that Bush supports a long, tedious, expensive, divisive process to institute a Constitutional amendment that would protect a WORD, the word "marriage". Even though two gay people can have all the same partnership rights as anybody else, under a new Constitutional amendment they wouldn't be allowed to legally call themselves "married."

Bush wants to protect our vocabulary, only, but he's too stupid to realize it.

What's funny is that two gay people in a civil union would certainly be allowed to call themselves "married" socially, under a First Amendment free speech protection. (For example, I have every right to call myself "King of America", even if not not true in a legal sense.) That gay couple just wouldn't be able to declare themselves married for filling out government forms; there would have to be a separate box provided where they can check off "civilly united."

Sigh... I remember a time when our Constitution protected rights of people, instead of meanings of words. I thought we had dictionaries for that.

[Streetdoc270]

1. Amen, and Welcome!

I have been saying that exact same thing for a year to any and all who are vocally against 'Gay Marriage' yet support rights for GLBT couples.

[Rex_Goodheart]

7. Actually, I just realized my argument was incoherent.

An amendment wouldn't even protect our vocabulary. People would still have a free speech right to call themselves married.

All it would do would be to protect the word "married" in a legal glossary. All it would mean is that government forms would now require two checkboxes where one used to work just fine.

[phantom power]

2. In his world view, what he's protecting is the

religeous sense of marriage. I'm pretty sure that his intent is: he wants an amendment that would forbid gays from engaging in any religeous sacrement of marriage.

Of course, that's just as stupid as trying to protect the definition of a word, since the government has absolutely no business telling *any* religeon who they can or can't marry.

In fact, that's even more stupid, and unconstitutional. No way around it, Bush is a danger to himself and others. Mostly others.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Govt does not have domain over the religious sacrament of marriage

That is in the domain of the church and should remain seperate.

Government is not trying to dictate to the churches that they must perform religous ceremonies. Only religious wackos and repugs want the govt to dictate.

[RichardRay]

3. As much as I hate to agree with W on anything

I think that a lot of the resistance to gay unions is based on religous convictions. Whether or not I share those convictions (and I don't) it's certainly the right of those faithholders to believe as they please. Likewise it is NOT their right not impose their values on the populace of the country via our legal system.

The term 'marriage' is loaded with religious content. Far more religious content, I would hold, than civil content. For what it's worth, it never made sense to me that the state could ever be involved in marrying people! The state protects the legal and civil rights of citizens; religion is involved with people's relationship to the divine. If the religious folks want to say that their version of the divine doesn't hold with gay folks being joined in holy matrimony that's their business. Their view on that, however, gives them no rights whatsoever to limit or shape the protections and right provided by the state.

So, it makes sense to me to use one word for a religiously based joining and another one for civil-based joining. It even makes sense to me that folks could choose to get 'married' under the religious umbrella, but not be protected by the civil codes unless they chose to be joined under those codes, too. By the same token others can choose to be joined under the civil codes with no need to get a church involved.

So, please forgive me, but if that's what W is saying than for once I've got to agree with him.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

(edited for spelling)

[sonicx]

6. that's why the government should only give civil unions

leave marriage to churches.

[Catfight]

4. Hey King of America, excellent post! n/t

[Virginian]

5. Did he waffle on abortion today, too?

I heard some religious right person calling in to a conservative talk show today saying he was going to support the candidate of the Constitution Party because of the new Bush stand on the wedge issues.

[displacedtexan]

8. And straight couples NOT married in a church should be called...?

... civilly united, right?

"Marriage" is a church thing.

In many countries, after a church wedding, the couple has to go to the local govt office to legalize their "marriage."

On Edit: Is Bush* setting up issues to blame for his big loss on Nov. 2nd?

[LiberalFighter]

10. Religious marriage and Civil marriages

Churches don't own marriage

[DinahMoeHum]

11. Well, it's Bush who has to answer to his fundie base here.

Not us.

:kick: