If George Bush really wants to protect marriage, why not outlaw divorce?
916879
This has NOTHING to do with protecting marriage. It is all about denying a class of folks basic human rights. No one in the cries about the "sanctity of marriage" ever offers the solution of outlawing divorce. And most folks who are shouting the most have divorced once or twice.\n\nMarriage is an institution created by government so that partners have legal rights and responsibilities.\n\nFolks who are married less than 2 minutes (think Las Vegas weddings) have more legal rights than a gay/lesbian couple who've been together for more than 15 years.\n\nThe fact that we cannot be married denies us, and our families, to over 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted upon marriage. A few of these are:\n\n- The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship. \n\n- The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.\n\n- The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate. \n\n- The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup. \n\n- The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships. \n\n- Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits. \n\n- The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will. \n\n- The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.\n\nAnd there are many more! A dear friend of mine lost his partner after 15 years. My friend was the primary breadwinner and paid for his partner's life insurance and some income property. When his partner died, and he inherited it, he had to pay taxes, whereas a married couple would not. Why?\n\nThe argument that marriage is for procreation is hogwash. One does not need to be married to have children. If that argument is held up, then why allow folks past child-bearing age to marry? Or those who are impotent or sterile?\n\nThe majority of hippocrites claim that gay marriage would erode the "institution of marriage." Unlike those marriages that last about a week and are dissolved.\n\nIf that was their true belief, then why not outlaw divorce? Because they want, and need, an out.\n\nWhether or not you want to be married is your choice. But do not deny me a choice -- with rights, responsibilities and benefits -- because my family does not resemble yours.\n\nIf you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one.
1138062
Honestly i think there is nothing wrong wiht it, Who you love cannot be controlled no matter what you do. And i beleive you shouldn't be held from the one you love beacuse of gender. So i beleive bush is wrong for holding a group of people back from marriage. and thats my honest opinon
1165163
I don't approve of his way of handling immigration. He is giving away America. We should be helping our own American citizens before anyone else. I approve the way he is handling the war in Iraq. If he had just sat there after the attack on the twin towers, someone would be saying, Why didn't you do something. It's a no win situation. Don't approve of the way the gas prices can't are won't be controlled.  I think he is doing the right thing when it comes to homosexuality. I believe only a man and a woman should be able to marry. That is the only thing that should be considered a marriage. He has good and bad points. But who doesn't.
783487
Bush likes to emulate John Wayne.  Just walk into the bar and challenge anyone to a fight.  Though the Duke never followed the Bush doctrine of "shoot first and ask questions later."  It would be nice if Bush were forced into having more chairs at the table, but his agenda does not call for the kind of help you describe.  Mayor Daly once said in Chicago, "our police are not here to prevent disorder but to preserve it."  I think Bush's plan for the middle east has all along been to destabilize the region,not to make it right.  The other countries you mention could all prove helpful, but that might disturb the no bid Halliburton contracts Cheney obtained for his company.  We can only hope.
530675
not me. if he wanted to divorce his wife, he would. he shouldn't have affairs, and nobody should encourage him. (my personal opinion)
134841
There need to be more legalities behind marriage and less behind divorce. I did not have to take a blood test to get married. All I had to do was go down and apply for a marriage license and wait a couple days. And people do not have to change their name if they don't want to. \n\nYou have all these people that jump right into marriage and after a few years have to go through hell and high water to divorce. \n\nI think if we make it harder to get married only those that truly want to be married will get married and there will be less divorce.
981706
It's really the only chance to do so...\n\nWithout a Congress that will actually force Bush to follow the law, and impeach him for the criminal violations of federal law he's admitted to, there's nothing to stop him.\n\nAnd it'll be too late in 2 years to stop the downhill spiral into madness.
1106590
We are no danger to marraige.  We simply want equal treatment.  Civil marriage is completely different than religious marriage.  We also decided a while ago in this country that separate but equal is inherently unequal, thus calling it something other than marriage doesn't work.  And the funny thing...I can still get a religious marriage, and will when the time is right.  I've got a very respected minister (locally) lined up already.  So...that already rules out the religious part anyway.  Civil marriage shouldn't even consider religion.\n\nAnd while God created men and women to procreate, that isn't our sole purpose.  Also, that passage only mentions that they should be joined to make one flesh.  It doesn't really mention formal marriage.  Second note: if you want to argue that we shouldn't be able to get married because we can't procreate, then fertility should also be a requisite for marriage and those who cannot reproduce should not be able to be wed.  Do you see how absurd that statement is?  Third, we only ask that the right to marry be extended to any two consenting adults.  This still prevents polygamy and the other absurd "slippery slope" arguments such as a man marrying his dog.\n\nWe'll be making a step in the right direction when we can separate church and state and pay more attention to science.
1136288
There are really only two logical reasons why I can think anyone would fear gay marriage. Either, they fear if gay marriage is legalized, that they will become gay and run off with someone of the same sex, or more likely they fear their spouse will do so. \n\nLikely George W is afraid Laura Bush will run off with a lesbian. This is despite the fact that the Bush-Cheney 2004 website explicity states that Laura is not a lesbian. \n\nhttp://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/laurabush.asp specificallly states "She is not a lesbian" \nIf George had read this site he would know he didn't have anything to fear.
1148080
Our government is doing it because there are a few people out there that don't want something to happen because its in their point of view that something is a "SIN" . So they are going to try to stop them from committing a sin, just because they don't like it. In my personal opinion I think that you should be able to be married if you are straight, gay, lesbian or what ever. I mean it's not like it is really any of anyone eles's business what you do with your life.
149141
Totally against it. Where does one stop in the changing of the meaning of marriage. If gays can have the right to marry, why not brothers and sisters? Why not be able to have two wives? Four wives? Why not be able to marry a 7 year old? Why not be able to marry a dead person? Why not an animal? Where does it stop once you begin the trek down that slippery slope?\n\nMarriage is a sacred rite derived from religion. I know you liberal secularists hate to hear that, but it is true. Most religions define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.\n\nJust one man's opinion.
1174446
I'm perfectly fine with the idea of gay marriage. Perhaps those against gay marriage just done want to be outdone by spectacularily fab weddings that are sure to be the result of gay weddings. On the downside, if gay weddings would be lavish, tastefull affairs can you imagine how nasty a gay divorce would be! Yes, I am being silly, but in all seriousness I think that whoever wants to get married should be able to.
1032651
The conservative standpoint on the protection of marriage:\n\nWe do not want the government to give gay couples all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples, because this involves all the rights to adoption. Marriage is primarily about raising children together, because anybody can already live with whomever they want, and sleep with whatever they want.\n\nWe cannot allow children to be raised in same-sex households. Before you start labeling me a hatemonger, perhaps you should think of the child instead of yourself. Growing up in a divorced household is bad for obvious reasons, the child's interaction with thier mother or thier father is limited. It is always a tragedy when a child loses a mother or a father. Gay marriage effectively takes away a child's right to a mother and a father.\n\nLike it or not, children need both male and female parents, to have as positive role models, and to be so selfish as to deny a child a mother and a father is to be too immature to be a parent to begin with.\n\nBecause gay couples in most states already get all the same legal protections and tax benefits of marriage, and because they can "get married" whenever they want by a private ceremony with friends and family, they have all the same rights as married couples do.\n\nThe only issue is child adoption.\n\nYou can argue, well, having two fathers is better than no one.\n\nThat is true, but even heterosexual couples cannot adopt children unless they are married and have a stable household, and single people cannot adopt. There is no double standard here. The fact is, children grow up healthier and more well adjusted in a household with a mother and a father.\n\nFinally, homosexuality is a choice adults are free to make. But it is psychologically harmful for a child to be raised by gay couples. If you do not believe me, research it yourself. Too many children raised by same sex couples end up in therapy and way too many of them turn out sexually confused.\n\nWho cares? Any loving parent would care. Allowing a child to develop naturally in a family with a mother or a father allows them to choose for themselves which gender role they want to have later on in life. Growing up in a same sex household denies them the experience of having either a mom or a dad.\n\nMost conservatives do not care what people do with other consenting adults, nor to they "fear" or "hate" gay people. We simply do not want to introduce impressionable children to alternative lifestyles until they are really old enough to make choices for themselves, thats all. This position is based upon unselfish caring and love, not hatred or bigotry.\n\nBy the way, if I am such a hateful person, why does the majority of the gay community support me on this? Less than half of all gays support the redefinition of traditional marriage.\n\nIf you cannot reason without attacking me personally, then don't bother commenting on my response, because it shows your intolerance and prejudice towards people you disagree with, and reveals your hatred. We should be able to have a civilized discussion on these issues without labeling each other bigots.\nDon't treat me with contempt.
1111690
I think that it is an unprecedented attempt of the Federal Government to interject itself to an area which it has never been authorized to previously involve itself.  As a Southerner, I am against it.  I do not want marriage administered with all the efficiency of the Social Security Administration.\n\nI am for the preservation of marriage.  Please keep the Feds out of it.  The Federal government's powers have been limited since its inception to regulating interstate commerce, international relations, civil rights, and similar areas where "Balkanization" of the 50 states would impede our country's effectiveness.\n\nIf you are so inclined to "defend marriage" please do so with your local and state government.  People who disagree with you could at least go to another state in accordance with the dictate of their own conscience.\n\nEDIT: To Grandma Susie down there... if any "marriage" or family has failed it is the fault of the members of that family.  To randomly place blame on others for one's own faults is rather silly.\n\nThe Democrats never broke up any of my relationships... despite my most sincere requests to them.
205080
if you divorce, you are killing your two kids. remember that marriage was first instituted by God the Almighty and you are trying to break that institution? remeber also that only marital infidelity is the only reason allowed for divorce ( not man made law). you are only multiplying social problems
1029282
I see no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.  Some people say it detracts from the marriage of straight people.  How?  If  a man and a woman have a good marriage, how does the fact that two guys across the street or two girls across town are married make their marriage any less valid?  How does preventing gays from marrying make an abusive marriage better?\n\nFrom what I see, the opponents of gay marriage mostly oppose it because it's against their religion.  If that is so, then they should come out and say that.  But they won't, because then gays could cite "Freedom of religion" arguments, and thus claim a constitutional right to marry.  Remember, "Freedom of religion" also includes "Freedom from religion".  And every conservative with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that they will lose this issue once they start fighting on that front.  \n\nIn my opinion, if the US ever does manage to pass a so-called "defense of marriage" amendment, it will soon become the 2nd time an amendment was repealed.  To me this issue looks like the civil rights debates of the 50's and 60's.  That has pretty much resolved itself - this will, too, with the same result.
576515
I don't know if I'm Republican, but I do lean conservative.  Frankly, I couldn't care less whether gays get married or not, and I'm honestly baffled at why Bush seems to make such a big deal of it.\n\nI would consider myself a religious person, and I couldn't have a gay marriage in my religion, but the U.S. isn't a religion, and what difference does it make *who* gets married?  I don't have to like something for it still to be legal.  I don't like alcohol either, but Prohibition didn't really work.\n\nThe idea that marriage is "sacred" is a valid one, I suppose.  Except for the fact that we Americans don't really treat it as sacred.  We have a 50% divorce rate, adultery is rampant, people have open marriages, and that's all allowed.  How would gay marriage make anything worse?\n\nFrankly, when Elizabeth Taylor can get married for the umpteenth time, marriage as a sacred institution has lost some of its luster.