Same Sex Marriage vs. Bush

Whatever happened to Church and State?

from JoeUser Forums
Ok, regardless of whether or not you are conservative Christian, or if you are in the gay community, or even if your best friend or relative is gay, this issue skirts the, well, issue. It doesn't matter what I think, either, and I'll spare you the majority of my own opinion. What I'm talking about is the Separation of Church and State.

A wonderful rule, it is. It keeps religious ethics from interfering with logical progression. We all know that some religions progress slowly. The Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Judaism, and Islamic tradition come to mind. Whether or not that progression is beneficial to humankind is another matter entirely. When we created the doctrine of this country, we made the distinction that religious beliefs are to remain apart from the affairs of the government. As a religious person myself, that is a wonderful decision.

Which brings me to my point: The Bush administration publicly decries same-sex marriage, as if we were all a southern Baptist community; as if the nation had to swallow the ethics of its President just the same as a third world country must cater to the the likings of its despotic dictator. I can't believe that we, as a nation, are so tolerant to the whims of our ELECTED government. Marriage is a foundation of religion, as well as the union of same-sex couples. Far be it for me to decry the motives...what is right for one man or woman, should be right for another. It doesn't mean that I have to agree, that is not the point of our legislature. The point is 'humanitarian rights'. I mean, our nation has been subject to things such as polygamy, same-sex unions, and fights over female clergy. That is not the battle of our government. It is the battle of the synods, elders, pastors, and congregations.

I know this is a touchy subject, but how can we deny the foundation of our country? It has maintained through the years, because essentially it is timeless (to an extent). We regulate our country, and we are allowed to criticize, support, and defend. It is truly wrong for Bush, as the President of the United States, to make his will known. His job is to uphold the Constitution, and not let personal might take hold. A good President can live life the way he or she wants to, but when it comes to the reflection of the populace, the President is a conglomerate image. He or she represents you and me. I believe we should make the note of the division of Church and State known once again, because it is a wonderful devotion to live our lives by. It is great that we can celebrate our own beliefs, and greater still that we can progress while maintaining those beliefs. George W. Bush needs to re-evaluate his line of thinking, and realize he is now an institution, and not a congregational member.
4,416 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are absolutely correct. Gay people are having their civil rights violated and it needs to be stopped. Either their is liberty and justice for all or there isn't. GCJ
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't have a problem with civil unions. I do have a problem with gay marriage.

Granting gays the same legal and social status as married couples would have, over time, a profound change on our society. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with preserving our society. And I say that as an agnostic.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of a tiny tiny percentage of the population trying to hijack institutions that have existed for thousands of years.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow, we sure were on the same wave--yours more eloquently. Love by any other name would sound as sweet--whether it be union, contract, social contract of inclusion. Who cares? As long as lovers want to be together, stay together be at one, I think it's great and would not shake the foundations of our society--we are above that paranoia and should accept it gracefully.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad Wardell - Just what is that profound change on society? You are so quick to defend your own institution without lending afterthought to those that want to live just as you. I applaud your devotion, but you cannot deny that our legislature needs to grant rights to gay citizens, just as they do to every other human being holding an I.D. and a claim to the bounties of this country. There is a reason why a religious instituition can impose their will, and you can be a part of that action. But when it comes to this country, your institution (or even mine, for that matter), cannot be so alienating. I don't agree with MANY things that take place around me day to day, but its better than only being held to one ideal. That's what makes us human, and that's what makes our country work, right?

Also, if you are referring to the "tiny tiny percentage" as the gay community and its supporters, you might very well be surprised how many people there are. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such a debate this very day.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, I don't see why gays should be given special rights.

And no, I don't think I'd be surprised at the # of gays in society. It's around 5% according to exit polls. Marriage is for a man and a woman. It has to do with tradition.

If gays can get married, then why not 3 people? 5 people? 200 people? Where do you want to draw the line?  Personally, I would allow for civil unions to take care of any number of people.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Brad but gay people are not second class citizens. they are as equal as anyone else. Blacks marring whites use to not be legal either for the same points you have given here. Oh it will have a profound effect on our society. If two people love each other and want to commit themselves to each other then they should have the right to be married. Its not special rights its equal rights.
Why not 3 or more people get married? Because marraige is for two people who want to commit themselves to each other not several people. If that were the case their would be no reason to marry at all. It takes 2 and 2 only to make a marraige. Besides people in straight marraiges do what ever they want to anyways. Just look at the one who defined marraige, Bill Clinton. Ha! What a joke! GCJ
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, and Brad no one is trying to hi-jack your plane, they just want to ride on it the same as you. GCJ
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Poi Dog, did you catch the news item on the rape victim with a contraceptive prescription which was refused by a Texan Christian pharmacist at Eckerd because of his belief? Unbelievable.

And Bravo for taking on Wardell!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

And here I thought we lived in a republic in which we had representatives who would make the laws that we live by.

But I guess some people prefer that judges rule us and decide what the laws will be.

Personally, gay marriage being legal or not doesn't really affect me. But if I had to vote on it, I'd vote against it. But if most Americans were for it, I'd be okay with that. But they're not. There are a lot of things that I wish were different about society but most Americans don't agree with me on this or that issue and I respect that since that is how democracy works.

Unfortunately, some people seem to be unwilling to accept democracy and insist on using the judicial system as a legislative branch.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Brad but gay people are not second class citizens. they are as equal as anyone else. Blacks marring whites use to not be legal either for the same points you have given here. Oh it will have a profound effect on our society. If two people love each other and want to commit themselves to each other then they should have the right to be married. Its not special rights its equal rights.
Why not 3 or more people get married? Because marraige is for two people who want to commit themselves to each other not several people. If that were the case their would be no reason to marry at all. It takes 2 and 2 only to make a marraige. Besides people in straight marraiges do what ever they want to anyways. Just look at the one who defined marraige, Bill Clinton. Ha! What a joke! GCJ


Why must those who choose to love more than one person be treated as second-class citizens and not be allowed to marry those they love? You shouldn't use the argument that it takes two and only two to make a marriage (which has no validity as it's only a personal opinion) to discriminate against those who don't believe that it's wrong to love and to commit themselves to more than one person.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree. The Polyamory movement has quite a following these days. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry if gays are?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Polygamy has no relation to the subject of marriage defined as a union of two lovers. Dissent on what is meant by marriage is one thing but to violate the meaning of love other than mutual worship of another is distasteful. Polygamy is nothing but adultery.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Marriage is defined as a union of a male and female. Not as a union of two lovers. If it can be altered for gays it can be altered for Polyamory.

Amazing how you would lock out other consenting adults given the chance.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why does it have to be marriage for gay union to be considered equal. You don't have to be the same to be equal. I have no problem teaching my children that there are different kinds of families. It is fine with me that people love people of the same sex. It is not marriage in my opinion. Marriage is between a man and a woman...period.

You can have whatever ideals you want and fool yourself into thinking that it wouldn't have profound effects on our society but you would be wrong. I am with the others in saying that it would open the flood gates. I don't see anything different in changing the definition of marriage to accomodate same sex relationships and changing it to accomodate any other combination of unions you can think of.

Homosexuality is well recieved these days but it is still an alternative life style. It is not the way the vast majority of people live. If we change our rules to fit the minorities, it will have a profound effect. I don't see that as being a good thing. Being compashionate and accepting is one thing. Considering their union the "same" as marriage is something very different. I do not feel in my heart that it is the right move for our society.

It is similar to the issue I have with feminism. Women and men are not the same. They can be equal and different though. We can have equal rights but also need to be treated differently. There are very basic, very real differences just as a union between an man and a woman and a union between a man and man/woman and woman are undeniabley different. Why do they seek the same treatment? We want diversity to be embraced but want everyone to be treated the same. Sorry, that just can't work.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
JillUser - Not lashing out at you - I'm wanting to redirect the angle of my article. You quoted: "Considering their [homosexuals] union the 'same' as marriage is something very different." According to who? You? A religious institution? Marriage between two people of the same sex means something entirely different to many different people. It depends on what church you go to, or what state you are in, or maybe even what your parents taught you. The point is, it was never created by this country, it was created by religion, and the nation cannot regulate personal freedom based on religion, especially when the act of marriage is already sanctioned. To do so is to segregate another citizen, and on the basis of religion, nonetheless. Also, it is more than respectable that you do not feel in your heart that this is the right move for our society, I'm not here to argue with your beliefs. I'm merely pointing out the fundamental issue of this article was to demonstrate that our President is making religious comments and imposing his religious ethics on a nation that he is supposed to represent as an institution, and not a congregational fundamentalist.

As far as feeling compassion and accepting the gay community vs. our ethical belief of marriage? I have yet to hear a really compelling argument on why this would drastically affect our society, when the union of man and woman cannot even last 50% of the time, we broadcast shows like "Cheaters" and wedding reality shows, people can marry a man and woman with a license from the internet, and domestic abuse is exploding. I don't see many people up in arms at the degradation of 'marriage' as we think we may know it. There is no definition, hence no regulation, and certainly not by MY legislature! That is the job of community groups and sects, and even by individuals. And my respect to the person that believes truly in the foundation of marriage, monogamy, and commitment. But I don't want to get off track here. I've said too much already.

It's a tough issue, no doubt! It at least has helped me to think more deeply on my beliefs in humanity, religion, and current ethics and events. And I'm still evaluating, thanks to people like you, who help to broaden my thoughts.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally I think peopel should mind their own business, if two men or two women wish to declare their love for each other and have all the righst that the state bestows on that union, then I see no problem, I am sure if JC was here today he would be on the same side, only qualification I would have is why the is a marriage, civil union of some sought and state recoginition, but guys, get your own ideas happening, marriage itself but its defination does mean the union of man and woman for the procration of offspring, or a least that is what trdadition dictates, why not come up with some fresh ideas.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah if Wardell had his say, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus too. GCJ
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Watch yourself GCJ. You don't know Brad. I don't know where you got that kind of attitude. He never said he had anything against gay unions and supporting them having the same rights and priveleges. He said, as I also said, it shouldn't be called marriage.

Poi Dog, I get your point about the separation of church and state. It is another one of those rules of government that gets taken to extremes. Like it or not, our government was based around religion. It is still considered one nation under God. Our currency still says "In God we trust". It is still what the majority of our citizens believe. Call it tradition if you like. It is part of our culture. We respect all races, creeds, colors and religions. We don't change our way of living to embrace them neccessarily though.

You don't see how redefining marriage would change our society? You and many others see the difference between a union of two people and the union of any other number of people but I would bet good money that a lot of lawyers could argue a winning case to the contrary. If you redefine "marriage" to include people of the same sex, it will open the door to other redefinitions. There are some things that people hold sacred. Marriage is one that I am not willing to give up on.

I agree that any two people should be able to commit themselves legally to each other and get the same benefits as a married couple. I just don't agree that it is marriage.

BTW, I gave you points for an interesting article. It is very thought provoking and you present your thought very well. Well done. I wasn't even going to add anything until I saw GCJ's nasty comment about Brad.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
GCJ: That was a text book troll. So next time someone asks "What kind of comment can cost me points due to trolling?" We can point them to yours.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
The point is, it was never created by this country, it was created by religion, and the nation cannot regulate personal freedom based on religion


A question- the State (government) made a law recognizing same sex marriages. Marriage was defined by religion(church) as the union beween a man and a woman.
If the (government) makes a law changing this, isn't it forcing itself on religion and therefor going against the Constitution?

I think this is going to be a mute point anyway. As soon as a same sex couple gets "married" in say Massachusetts and moves to another state that has not passed or recognizes such. They'll be turned down for the same marriage benfits as a "man and woman" marriage. It'll go the the Supreme Court where I don't think that it will be upheld and Massachusetts will have to change the law back. Huh?

Just a thought.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, I don't see why gays should be given special rights.


Exactly. We should not confer more rights to gays. But other way also applies. We should not confer LESS rights to them either.