Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bush's Shameful Assault Against Gay Marriage

Rate this topic


AutoJC
 Share

Recommended Posts

George W. Bush has succeeded in taking Ronald Reagan's place as the faith-based demagogue of the Right.

As you are all aware, his latest assault on individual rights is this constitutional amendment to ban gays from entering upon the legal entity of marriage.

I Agree with Michale Hurd on criticizing this latest anti-individualist move

And if that's not enough, Bush now wants to give our tax dollars in the form of government subsidies to "faith-based" (i.e. religious) programs; government subsidizing of private (including religious) schools in the form of "vouchers;" and opposition to the legality of abortion.

What ever happened to the concept of separation of church and state?

Or every man's right to his happiness and prosperity, regardless of one's sexual preference?

Rather than abstain from voting this November I am going to make every effort to vote this clown out.

For all his misgivings and his flip-flop, I can't see how Kerry can be any worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For all his misgivings and his flip-flop, I can't see how Kerry can be any worse.

I can. Easily. In fact, I cannot think of a single politician less dedicated to, and more contemptuous of, the fundamental principle that "A is A" than John Kerry. The guy is not only a walking contradiction, he's proud of it.

The best analysis I've seen on the gay marriage issue is Robert Tracinski's recent article The Metaphsyics of Marriage in The Intellectual Activist. He nails both sides equally well, showing that this issue is merely one aspect of the false alternative between the intrincisists (represented by the religious conservatives) and the subjectivists (represented by the gay activists). It is a brilliant article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Robert Tracinski DOESN'T believe gays have the right to get married?

I haven't read this article, but I fail to see how marriage IS anything but a subjective, human-created category of relationship. It's a contract between two individuals and there's no reason it extends merely to heterosexuals. Perhaps if you are interested in defending this position, you could explain the article, as I do not receive The Intellectual Activist.

The main difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry is a smart but unprincipled politician who'll knowingly contradict himself to appeal to multiple factions, whereas Bush is a fool who can't understand how talking about promoting freedom, then trying to outlaw abortion and gay marriage while establishing "faith based initiatives", is a huge contradiction. They are both unacceptable, and I honestly don't think their behavior would be that different on the whole. Kerry might not have invaded Iraq, but then, it's debateable whether or not not that promoted US security anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Robert Tracinski DOESN'T believe gays have the right to get married?
He has no problem with recognizing the underlying legal rights involved, i.e. with the concept of civil unions.

The main difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry is a smart but unprincipled politician...

I agree with unprincipled, but Kerry isn't exactly the sharpest pencil in the box, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, I have to say I'm baffled by the idea of amending the constitution to LIMIT the rights of individuals. The purpose of the Bill of Rights and the amendments has typically been to ESTABLISH individual rights or DELINEATE / LIMIT the powers of the government, not the other way around.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Robert Tracinski DOESN'T believe gays have the right to get married?
Why would you even say this, as you have not read the article.

Neither have I read the article. Here is my view.

I don't think gays have the right to get married, such would involve one of two things:

1. The state performing marriages

or

2. Forcing churches to perform marriages which it believes to be wrong.

The state has no business doing either.

I do believe that gays have the right to legal recognition as a couple in the same way that hetrosexuals have legal recognition as a couple. Whatever legal benefits SHOULD apply to hetrosexual couples SHOULD also apply to homosexual couples, but marriage is naught but a religious establishment and NO ONE has a "right" to it.

For all his misgivings and his flip-flop, I can't see how Kerry can be any worse.

The reasons why Kerry is worse are explained in this thread. I am somewhat disturbed by the spread of the argument which should be contained there to so many different threads. The problem with that spreading, however, will shortly be solved, as I will be posting this statement and link in all of the threads which this discussion has spread to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AutoJC, I do not object to your posting about your voting preference (although I disagree with it) but keep it to one thread please. I wouldn't like this forum to become a part of the Kerry campaign, and I suppose GC wouldn't like that either.

So,

Discussing the relative merits of the candidates in a dedicated thread: OK

Campaign-like posting of several threads advertising a candidate: NO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think gays have the right to get married, such would involve one of two things:

1.  The state performing marriages

or

2.  Forcing churches to perform marriages which it believes to be wrong.

The state has no business doing either.

<snip>

marriage is naught but a religious establishment and NO ONE has a "right" to it.

I couldn't have said it better myself, RH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think gays have the right to get married, such would involve one of two things:

1. The state performing marriages

or

2. Forcing churches to perform marriages which it believes to be wrong.

The state has no business doing either.

<snip>

marriage is naught but a religious establishment and NO ONE has a "right" to it.

I disagree. Marriage is a contract involving complex property relationships, promises exchanged for actions to be performed in the future, and other matters properly involving government acknowledgement and enforcement, if necessary.

It also has a rational moral meaning: the public declaration of one's highest romantic value.

That's why most Objectivists either are married or want to be.

(I don't see why either the legal or the moral significance of marriage is inapplicable to gays, although there may be grounds for arguing that a new term, such as "domestic parnership" rather than "marriage," should be used to denote such a union.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I don't see why either the legal or the moral significance of marriage is inapplicable to gays, although there may be grounds for arguing that a new term, such as "domestic parnership" rather than "marriage," should be used to denote such a union.)

I was just coming back here to edit that in, Betsy.

The concept "marriage" I think has a certain connection to the church, and is the exclusive domain of the church.

I do feel that gays (along with other adults, like myself, who wish to avoid any connection with the church whatsoever) should be offered an alternate partnership that includes all non-religious aspects of marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither have I read the article.  Here is my view.

I don't think gays have the right to get married, such would involve one of two things:

1.  The state performing marriages

or

2.  Forcing churches to perform marriages which it believes to be wrong.

The church doesn't always perform marriages, and they don't have to. It can always be done by a judge and I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.

... and I may be wrong but I don't know that homosexuals would want to be married in the church of a religion that condemns their way of life anyway.

Marriage is not a religious establishment simply because a lot of people choose to be married in a church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Marriage" was created by the church. You are right that there is an option of getting married by a judge, but that does not change the widespread mental connection between marriage and religion.

I feel that the connection is so strong, that to divorce the non-religious aspects of marriage from religion entirely would require a completely new concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and I may be wrong but I don't know that homosexuals would want to be married in the church of a religion that condemns their way of life anyway.
Really? I know of at least a few couples who attend curch every sunday at the local catholic church, and one which spends most of his time there...

I imagine they would love to be married there.

The church doesn't always perform marriages, and they don't have to. It can always be done by a judge and I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.

As I said, gays have every right to legal recognition as a couple... if this is what you call marriage, than yes, judges may perform it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and I may be wrong but I don't know that homosexuals would want to be married in the church of a religion that condemns their way of life anyway.

There are some people who would like to see churches forced to perform marriages that they condemn. This is one of the main motivations behind this whole "gay marriage" business, IMO. Homosexual couples are perfectly capable of being a homosexual couple without being married, and I reckon most of them wouldn't bother getting married if they were straight. It's all about being "in your face."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Whatever legal benefits SHOULD apply to hetrosexual couples SHOULD also apply to homosexual couples, but marriage is naught but a religious establishment and NO ONE has a "right" to it.

Strange, then, that when I was married by a judge in the Muncipal Court of Manhattan, there was not a priest or rabbi in sight. I always thought that the marriage certificate which we received from that civil ceremony was a public statement of our union which declared that we enjoy both the responsibilities and rights accorded to us jointly by our state and federal laws. This public declaration of our union was a statement which affected out legal status regarding property, taxes, and how we were to be regarded in our dealings with others. Further, since I have the right to my own life I always assumed I had the right to get married and to have the government thereby establish the legal status for my bride and myself.

Consequently, I never thought that the "religious establishment" had anything at all to do with my marriage, and I thought that my marriage was the way I accrued the "legal benefits" of my union. Have I been mistaken all these years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on how you define marriage, Stephen.

Marriage can be considered a religious establishment, in which case NO ONE has a right to it. The churches in question may distribute or refuse to distribute lisences as they please.

Or marriage can be considered legal, public recognition of a union. In which case any pair (and, perhaps, any trio, and so forth) of individuals has a right to it.

In so much as your "marriage" is not a religious establishment, you do have a right to it. But such a marriage is no different than a "civil union" as offered to homosexuals in many states (I am assuming that the same legal benefits apply to both, if not they should).

Further, since I have the right to my own life I always assumed I had the right to get married and to have the government thereby establish the legal status for my bride and myself.

So long as you are only talking about a legal status here, you are absolutly correct.

I thought this had been perfectly clear in my previous posts... :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AutoJC, I do not object to your posting about your voting preference (although I disagree with it) but keep it to one thread please. I wouldn't like this forum to become a part of the Kerry campaign, and I suppose GC wouldn't like that either.

So,

Discussing the relative merits of the candidates in a dedicated thread: OK

Campaign-like posting of several threads advertising a candidate: NO

I have to admit I don't understand your point at all.

My point is perfectly clear- that Bush is shameful for hia assault on gay marriage.

Inevitably, this may evolve into yet another Bush vs. Kerry thread, and I do see it starting to happen.

But to hold me responsible for that is really not allowing this discussion to proceed with any semblance of an open mind.

And I resent your comment accusing me of such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush and the religious right (and how it affects his presidency/stance on issues)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

It's all to obvious from these links that the Religious Right is still influencing, sponsoring, and supporting Bush's faith-based initiative.

So it stands to "reason" that Bush would oppose gay marriages.

There is a distinct conflict between individual rights and the agenda of the faith-based.

Someone ought to shove a copy of the Bill of Rights in front of this clown and tell him to shape up. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This nonsense about marriage being essentially religious has got to stop. It reminds me of Communist propaganda

"Marriage" was created by the church.

Can you provide some evidence, please? I'm inclined to believe that "the church" took over the idea of marriage from the Greeks, like so much else.

---

And AutoJC, don't get all offended and act like you had nothing to do with this thread "evolving" into a Bush/Kerry debate. The last line of your original post suggests otherwise, that that is in fact precisely what you intended. Your indignant denial of it therefore strikes me as dishonest. I agree with those who said you should try to keep that debate in one thread, because, while as it stands now I won't be voting for Bush either, your posts really are starting to seem like part of the Kerry campaign. Go right ahead and express your opinion, some of us here may even agree with you, but this is borderline spamming. It has nothing to do with not having an open mind, I would say the same thing if someone were proselytizing for Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay. I just noticed this.

Marriage can be considered a religious establishment, in which case NO ONE has a right to it.  The churches in question may distribute or refuse to distribute lisences as they please.

But why are we concerned at all about religious practices? A church can "marry" a man and a goat for all I care. I only care about marriage as defined in the legal documents acknowledged by the government.

In so much as your "marriage" is not a religious establishment, you do have a right to it.
Why do you put my marriage in scare quotes?

But such a marriage is no different than a "civil union" as offered to homosexuals in many states (I am assuming that the same legal benefits apply to both, if not they should).

There certainly is a significant difference. By common practice a legally married couple is accorded a special status with special privileges by many organizations, both public and private. Until the time that a civil union is accepted as is a legal marriage by, for instance, insurance companies and government tax laws alike, there will remain a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

Great Discussion.

It would seem to me that marriage (from the point of view of the state), is a contractual agreement between two conscenting adults. Dealing primary with the property rights issues. There are agreeing to share their resources. How exactly they share is based upon the contract. Prenuptual agreements and the like.

Now what some mystic has to say is something else entirely. He might say that it had to be a contract between a man and a woman. Perhaps women depending on which "word of god" he quotes. For that matter it might require some sort of formalization of the contract in a church by the mystic for a donation of course.

The problem lies in that many of our laws, pertaining to this specific contract, are biased by the religous influence on them. If we can modify the law, or pass new law that will remove the mystical influences, it would seem to be a good thing.

Than again. The fact that we have government intrusion into one of the most basic of our human rights, i.e. The Right to Trade, is what is really at the core here. Since the right to trade is the key to any contract.

I listen to a lot of talk radio, and the conservatives crack me up about this issue. The seem to always focus in on the supposed benefits to homosexual couples. What kills me is that no one seems to think of the downside to entering into a contract such as a marriage. It can be very difficult, and or, costly if that contract is breached. Having witnessed my parents divorce, and my roomate's dealings with her ex-husband, I would say that marriage is definetly not to be entered into lightly. Just strikes me as odd that so little is said of that. If I were a lawyer, I would brush up on my divorce law.

Thanks for the rant. As for me, I am not to worried. I am just going to wait for the lights to go out. Kerry for President! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This nonsense about marriage being essentially religious has got to stop.  It reminds me of Communist propaganda

Can you provide some evidence, please?  I'm inclined to believe that "the church" took over the idea of marriage from the Greeks, like so much else.

---

And AutoJC, don't get all offended and act like you had nothing to do with this thread "evolving" into a Bush/Kerry debate.  The last line of your original post suggests otherwise, that that is in fact precisely what you intended.  Your indignant denial of it therefore strikes me as dishonest.  I agree with those who said you should try to keep that debate in one thread, because, while as it stands now I won't be voting for Bush either, your posts really are starting to seem like part of the Kerry campaign.  Go right ahead and express your opinion, some of us here may even agree with you, but this is borderline spamming.  It has nothing to do with not having an open mind, I would say the same thing if someone were proselytizing for Bush.

Say what you want about my so-called "spamming."

I still disagree with you and GC regarding this.

This is an important issue against Bush and one which I'd further like to point out is contrary to objectivist philosophy- regarding the faith-based right's assault on Gay marriage.

Bush is anti-American. Someone ought to shove the Bill of Rights in front of him. He took an oath which states that he is under obligation to defend the Constitution- not limit our rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JC...

You are correct in saying that this is an important point about bush's anti-americanism.

In fact, this is precisely why you should have placed it in the pre-existing topic covering that matter.

Placing it in a new topic is confusing and accomplishes nothing except to remove all counter-arguments from the discussion, thus forcing all others to repeat themselves.

Basically:

There is nothing wrong with pointing out Bush's flaws.

There is something wrong with making 4 different threads in which to do so. Especially when one already exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JC...

You are correct in saying that this is an important point about bush's anti-americanism.

In fact, this is precisely why you should have placed it in the pre-existing topic covering that matter. 

Placing it in a new topic is confusing and accomplishes nothing except to remove all counter-arguments from the discussion, thus forcing all others to repeat themselves.

Basically:

There is nothing wrong with pointing out Bush's flaws.

There is something wrong with making 4 different threads in which to do so.  Especially when one already exists.

Unfortunately I lack the tools by which to combine this thread into another.

I'll just let the admins and the mods here make that final decision, and will abide by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...