If the law says that the legal incidents of marriage cannot be conferred upon unmarried couples, then how can this "leave the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage?" These two statements, presented right next to eachother by the NYT, seem mutually exclusive. Either Scott McClellan is out of line in his statement to the press, or Bush is lieing.

[ Actually, the wording is subtle, i think. It doesn't seem to forbid states from passing laws which confer the "status or legal incidents thereof" on gay couples, simply that they can't *requre* that such rights be conferred. In other words it says "No one can categorically define gay couples as equal to straight couples, even if they happen to recieve the same benefits."

To me, it's an equal rights under the law issue, and possibly a church and state issue (since so many people define marriage based on a religious interpretation).

More than both of those things, it's a political issue. Bush wants to guarantee that the polls are filled with riled up ultra religious conservatives this november -- he wants to force the democratic rival into taking the opposing stand so that swing voters turn to Bush over this one, divisive, critical issue (for them). It's so controversial that the economy, Iraq, Bush's service record, the environment, etc. will be page 2 news as much as possible. The only hope is that it gets the left fired up enough to shake off their collective laziness and bring their young asses to the polls instead of sleeping through class. So much wrong in washington right now... -k]

] The amendment that Ms. Musgrave and other lawmakers are
] backing in the House says: "Neither this Constitution or
] the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law,
] shall be construed to require that marital status or the
] legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried
] couples or groups." The White House spokesman, Scott
] McClellan, said just before the president's announcement
] that Mr. Bush believed the Musgrave measure "meets his
] principles."
]
] Mr. Bush said the amendment he envisioned "should fully
] protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures
] free to make their own choices in defining legal
] arrangements other than marriage."

If the law says that the legal incidents of marriage cannot be conferred upon unmarried couples, then how can this "leave the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage?" These two statements, presented right next to eachother by the NYT, seem mutually exclusive. Either Scott McClellan is out of line in his statement to the press, or Bush is lieing.

] "An amendment to the Constitution is never to be
] undertaken lightly," Mr. Bush said. "The amendment
] process has addressed many serious matters of national
] concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this
] level of national importance."

I've been at a loss for what to say about this gay marriage issue. I don't feel its an issue that effects me. Is that selfish? I'm starting to think so. It definitely is if we are now talking about making amendments to The Constitution.

San Francisco, before and after allowing same-sex marriages, seems the same to me. There have been no riots. There has been no break down of order. No screaming in the streets. No masses of heathens roaming the streets raping small children. No breakdown of family values. No burning churches. Nothing that the fundamentalist right would have you believe is right around the corner following such a drastic change in policy.

I can tell you what I have seen. I live about 5 blocks away from City Hall, so I've had a pretty good view. I've seen nothing. Just a rise in activity in and out of the building, and slightly more news vans present then usual. Have I seen happy gay couples? Sure, I see those every single day. I'm also about 8 or 10 blocks away from the Castro. I've seen a few "we all deserve the right to marry" banners on cars, but parking has not been any harder to find. In general, its business as usual in San Francisco. If I wasn't paying attention to the news, I might not even know anything was going on or think strangely of it. No one around me seems to.

The rest of the country however, seems up in arms. Its almost hard for me to believe that there is serious talk about making an amendment to the Constitution over this. I'm not sure where to even begin trying to analyze or comment on such a bone headed maneuver.

I'm one of those people who was raised in an environment where "faggot" was general purpose playground insult. As years wore on, I was exposed to real gay people, had friends come out of the closet, etc. I came to detest the type of discrimination that gays endure. I have my own form of "white guilt" over the issue. In that respect, I am America. In the same way that America hated blacks, or women, or any other group that we have oppressed in our history. America changes its mind given evidence of wrong doing. America rises to right wrongs. America is about equality.

I think my views are pretty common. I'm "average" in many respects. I'm moderate in my politics. In general, whatever situation I'm in, I try to find "the opposition" and play it, if only for the thought exercise. That leads people to believe I'm a "radical", but any given group has a very different opinion about what I'm so "radical" about. Here though, I have a really strong opinion. I believe in freedom. I believe in liberty. I believe that people should be able to live the way they want to l... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]