Bush: Discrimination 'Serves Interests of All'

President Bush has framed his support for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as a necessary defense of cherished institutions and practices.

"Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith," the president said Monday. "Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all." So, you see, denying citizens who love one another and want their relationships to be sanctioned, respected and protected by the state is in everyone's interest – even, Bush assures us, the interest of those who because of their sexual orientation do not meet with this particular president's approval.

Gee, where have we heard this logic before?

Oh, yes, back in 1914, after President Woodrow Wilson dramatically expanded segregation in the federal civil service, a group of African-American leaders led by newspaper editor Monroe Trotter came to the White House to challenge the decision.

Trotter said, "Mr. President, we are here to renew our protest against the segregation of colored employees in the departments of our National Government. We [had] appealed to you to undo this race segregation in accord with your duty as President and with your pre-election pledges to colored American voters. We stated that such segregation was a public humiliation and degradation, and entirely unmerited and far-reaching in its injurious effects…"

Wilson replied, "Segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen. If your organization goes out and tells the colored people of the country that it is a humiliation, they will so regard it, but if you do not tell them so, and regard it rather as a benefit, they will regard it the same. The only harm that will come will be if you cause them to think it is a humiliation."

Surely, President Bush would prefer that supporters of equal rights for gays and lesbians accept that the marriage ban "serves the interests of all."

But a more appropriate response is an echo of Monroe Trotter's reply to Woodrow Wilson: "Mr. President, you are entirely mistaken."

George Bush is entirely mistaken if he thinks that his amendment "serves the interests of all," just he is entirely mistaken if he thinks that bigotry – be it motivated by racial hatred, ethnic rivalry, religious intolerance or homophobia – ought to be sanctioned by the Constitution.

Every freedom struggle is different. The specifics of racial segregation are fundamentally different from the specifics of anti-gay discrimination.

Yet the reality of a president leading the charge against equal protection for a specific group of Americans creates a parallel that is undeniable – and that will prove indefensible in the long run.

History has not been kind to Wilson. It will not be kind to Bush.

Despite his attempt to put a friendly face on his embrace of segregation based on race, Woodrow Wilson is appropriately downgraded in any consideration of the relative merits of the nation's presidents because of his hateful acts against people of color who wanted only to do their jobs.

Despite his attempt to put a friendly face on his embrace of discrimination based on sexual orientation, George Bush will be appropriately downgraded in any consideration of the relative merits of the nation's presidents because of his hateful acts against gays and lesbians who want only to have their relationships respected and protected.

Comments (107)

1. I don't disagree, but I kind of think the failure in Iraq, et al. is probably enough to ensure he'll be "appropriately downgraded" in the history books. And that's putting it nicely.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 06/05/2006 @ 11:23pm

2. evangelic conservatives... the most "persecuted" "religion" in America take their best shot at religous freedom and the first amendment.

   You better get it done quick boys and girls, the young folks don't give a shit about gay marriage

   and you all are dying off

   bummer... isn't it

   :)

   Posted by Will C. at 06/05/2006 @ 11:42pm

3. First and foremost, I just want to say that I think the marriage amendment is a bad thing. That being said, though, the argument that this article seems to be making is absolutely atrocious.

   First, it quotes President Bush:

   Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith," the president said Monday. "Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

   Then, as an attack on what Bush said, the author makes reference to a justification that President Wilson used for segregation in the military:

   Wilson replied, "Segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen. If your organization goes out and tells the colored people of the country that it is a humiliation, they will so regard it, but if you do not tell them so, and regard it rather as a benefit, they will regard it the same. The only harm that will come will be if you cause them to think it is a humiliation."

   The thing about an argument by analogy is that the two things have to actually be analogous. If you want to make the argument that the marriage amendment is somehow analogous to racial segregation (which, by the way, would be a terrible argument), then make the argument. If you're going to ask "where have we heard this logic before?", you might want to make the analogy to a situation where you've heard the logic before. "Marriage is an important institution" and "they won't think it's bad unless you tell them it is," oddly enough, are not examples of analogous reasoning. Therefore, the article is nothing more than an assertion cloaked in a veneer of actual argument.

   Posted by Thrawn at 06/06/2006 @ 12:20am

4. LVLIBERTY1 why do you post on these blogs? Do you read The Nation? And if you do, why? I've seen your comments on other blogs and you obviously can't stand the things that The Nation and its readers hold dear. If you do read The Nation (and by that I mean you have a print subscription and read it regularly) then you must have a lot of money and a lot of time to spend reading a publication that you have little to no agreements with.

   Being on the left end of the moral compass does not make me blind to the rest of society. Maybe you can find some nice person of the same sex to fool around with. Then who knows, you might love it and realize you've been wasting your time hating leftists and gays for not meshing with your morals.

   Peace LVLIBERTY1, I wish you good things in life.

   Posted by rlh_1984 at 06/06/2006 @ 02:45am

5. I knew that even though only 5 posts had been made that LL would be one of them, spewing out a little of his special kind of love that only a member of the opposite sex might find appealing. Hate gays and lesbians all you want, LL, but do everyone a favor and bottle it up.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/06/2006 @ 07:54am

6. Here are some more things we're not talking about regarding this "civilization-saving" institution of marriage (aside from the obvious that 50% of marriages end in divorce and adultery is a national passtime): - domestic violence (nobody's talking about that anymore) -marital rape (nobody's talking about that) -deadbeat dads (nobody's talking about that) -child abuse/neglect (within families, nobody's talking about that) -social security credit for stay-at home moms (other countries have stepped up - but in the USA, nobody's talking about that)

   The shrinking middle class, working two jobs and various other symptoms of Bush's failed domestic agenda has put such a stress on families...if anyone has destroyed this "institution" HE HAS!!!

   Bush's speechwriters might also want to check some history before claiming marriage caused the survival of "civilizations".

   My Italian immigrant great aunt was betrothed to a friend of her father in an arranged marriage. I'd call that an "institution"...slavery.

   Posted by kfine at 06/06/2006 @ 08:26am

7. Let 'em get married, let 'em get divorced, let 'em fight over who gets the dog. Why shouldn't they have access to pursue happiness the same way straights do? Soon, every law firm will have a specialist in "dissolution of gay unions." Onwards and upwards. American culture must move on.

   Posted by donescobar at 06/06/2006 @ 08:29am

8. I have stated many times on this board that I do not favor this Constitutional Amendment. I strongly support the right of each state to determine this issue. I also want to say that I thought the post by Thrawn (12:20 am) was an excellent post. Eighteen states have voted to ban gay marriage. A few more have the issue facing them this November. This is how it should be dealt with.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 06/06/2006 @ 08:30am

9. My college-age daughter is a very devout Christian. A couple of years ago I asked her what she thought about gay people.

   She was torn. "I know the bible says that it's wrong to be gay. But then I ask myself, didn't God create gay people? Doesn't Jesus want us all to love and respect one another?"

   She's still conflicted. And she knows gay people, who know her as a loving and wonderful person. If and when she manages to resolve her feelings on the issue, hatred and exclusion will not be part of the process.

   Sometimes she is my role model.

   Posted by drhammer at 06/06/2006 @ 08:50am

10. Johnny Boy

    "George Bush is entirely mistaken if he thinks that his amendment "serves the interests of all," just he is entirely mistaken if he thinks that bigotry – be it motivated by racial hatred, ethnic rivalry, religious intolerance or homophobia – ought to be sanctioned by the Constitution."

    It is your fundamental misunderstanding of the pro-marriage side of the argument, that is a big reason why you wont win over the other side. If you are against gay marriage you are a homophobe? Please continue in this line of logic when you argue your points; you will never get anywhere nor should you.

    Posted by CPT at 06/06/2006 @ 08:54am

11. If you are against gay marriage you are a homophobe? Please continue in this line of logic when you argue your points; you will never get anywhere nor should you.

    Posted by CPT 06/06/2006 @ 08:54am

    I thought guys like you liked simple, clear statements. If you are against gay marriage, then you are homophobic. Clear, simple, awful.

    Just like the arguments I heard this morning from an active major general when discussing Haditha. He said the problem wasn't troop fatigue, but that our values were being tested against those who have none. That's simple, clear, awful. It's also ridiculous. We might not like their values, but they have them. But it's much easier to say that they are beneath us by ascribing them no values than it is to get into a discussion about the comparative merits of their values and our values, a discussion which might lead into an acknowledgment that we could be wrong on a score or two and they might be right once in a blue moon.

    Such is the arguing against gay marriage. Easier to keep them out of the club than let them in, an action that could lead to a more thorough discussion of what makes us similar rather than what makes us different. Those who like to stereotype differences because it allows them to feel superior without an honest debate are destined to be knocked off their handmade pedestals.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/06/2006 @ 09:18am

12. What's next on your agenda Nichols? Man-boy?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/06/2006 @ 01:19am

    great...liberty is into man-boy

    Posted by Will C. at 06/06/2006 @ 09:35am

13. As I noted earlier, 1/2 the panic over this stupidity...is political.

    Since Clinton and the Defense of Marriage Act-1996, this hot potato wedge issue has WORKED for the GOP.

    All it takes is a floor vote in the House and Senate, and "Red State/vunerable" Dems voting for it, but with enough "pure progressives" voting against it to allow the GOP to portray the Dems as "the party of gay marriage"...and any chance of a Dem majority in November is shot.

    Of course this pandering, and I think homophobia at its worst (since it's screwing with the Constitution)....but sadly, it works.

    Posted by Mask at 06/06/2006 @ 09:43am

14. Prejudice should be a matter for the states. George Bush, the idiot, is losing the respect of his core values base - prejudiced people. George Bush is in a desperate attempt to tell the prejudiced people, hey I'm prejudiced. Keep enlisting to go and die in Iraq, keep giving me your 18 year old sons so I can kill em, because my daughters arent going to enlist.

    Remember when George Bush tried to pretend he wanted to stop illegal immigration, he said that employers who hire illegal aliens - for under the minimum wage - were being tricked by phony papers. He is willing to lie to his core moral values base - he is willing to lie to his own core moral values base.

    Marriage promotes monogamy, gay marriage promotes gay monogamy. 2 out of 3 marriages end in divorce. Straight parents stay out all night drinking, straight parents fight in front of the kids, straight parents listen to loud music in front of kids, straight parents get drunk in front of kids. When the Federal Government starts regulating peoples private lives to protect children, there will be laws against all these things.

    Posted by conshame at 06/06/2006 @ 10:17am

15. so liberty is here trying to promote his sick little nambla group, huh? liberty take that garbage to some other website. nobody here wants to hear about your pedophile group.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/06/2006 @ 10:57am

16. What I do not understand in the "let the states decide" part of this discussion is: what are the limits of state decision making? As an example relevant to this topic, when states had laws of racial discrimination, it was decided that we needed federal laws to counter them. How is this different than states having laws that discriminate against gays?

    Posted by Woody Fan at 06/06/2006 @ 10:58am

17. great...liberty is into man-boy

    Posted by WILL C. 06/06/2006 @ 09:35am | ignore this person

    i know will. wow. you'd think he'd keep that kinda stuff to himself! did ya catch that, nsa? liberty's a pedophile.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/06/2006 @ 11:01am

18. Actually, liberty has the jungle fever; he forgets that his happy little family was outlawed in the past.

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/06/2006 @ 11:11am

19. I'm wiht CONSHAME - almost 70% of matrimonies in the US end in divorce. Sacred union? Could it be that the straight people are afraid their lack of fidelity being even more highlighted by the more faithful gay couples?

    Posted by chimichenga at 06/06/2006 @ 11:15am

20. Woody---the difference is that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence guarantees people not be discriminated against because of race. There is no such guarantee in the Constitution concerning marriage laws except for laws that would prohibit a man and a woman from marrying because they were of two different races. Marriage laws have always been an area where states have jursidiction (except for the noted exception).

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/06/2006 @ 11:15am

21. I don't think this kind of an issue is going to have the impact it might have had a few years ago.

    I took yesterday off and spent part of it relaxing around a group of people who were clearly not members of the radical left. But two political topics surfaced through no effort on my part: Iraq and the economy. These people recognized a number of things. First that Iraq is a continuing bad story, whether it's the fact that we're still there, still getting killed, killing the wrong people, etc. was not specified. They were upset about the whole thing because there no longer seemed to be a point. As to the economy, they were able to add up a few things and get very angrey. Gas is expensive, houses are getting expensive, other things are getting expensive, and yet wages are not increasing; meanwhile the President is telling them that the economy is good, that we just don't realize that it is good.

    He can try to feed their insecurities about gay marriage. But even if they support such an effort, they don't like being lied to or talked down to when they can see plainly that the economy ain't what the President says it is. Bush has lost it.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/06/2006 @ 11:19am

22. Before they talk about forbidding same-sex unions they should improve the state of heterosexual unions. How about making a marriage licence valid for 12 months at a time, kind of like a licence for your dog?

    Posted by chimichenga at 06/06/2006 @ 11:20am

23. Len:

    The problem with "letting states decide" is that anti-gay-marriage states would have to honor the contracts made in pro-gay marriage states. At least, that's how I understand that part of the issue.

    Posted by usc1 at 06/06/2006 @ 11:23am

24. Len-- I thought the Constitution (via Ammendment 15), gave the right to vote regardless of race. I did not know that either it or the Declaration of Independence guarentees nondiscrimination because of race. I always thought that came from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What am I missing? Thanks.

    Posted by Woody Fan at 06/06/2006 @ 11:27am

25. "society smores"

    figures, they get the best smores too

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 11:28am

26. "Core constituency" = Who can we scam into voting for us this week?

    Gay marriage, immigration, flag burning, even abortion, are not genuine concerns of this president and his henchman. They are wholly transparent attempts to pander to the right wing; wedge issues designed solely to divide our attention in the hope that more serious transgressions either go unnoticed or get forgotten.

    Regardless of what any one of us might believe in, this man believes in nothing more than expanding the power of the executive and lining the pockets of corporate America.

    And whether clothed in Christianity or "conservatism", no tactic is too hateful or discriminatory for their purposes.

    Posted by drhammer at 06/06/2006 @ 11:48am

27. we were out of sync with that civil rights thing in the 60s too

    the fact is ALL those state amendments are unconstitutional. hence the rush to change the constitution.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 12:06pm

28. well doctor,

    priorities are priorities. and the whole instability of the middle east and our influence upon that instability is a trifling matter compared to the gay issue. also trifling, is our "oil addiction." we gotta deal with these gays right away.

    they say the whole gay marriage thing is threatening to the kids. it's all about the kids. and these people really care about the kids a lot. obviously they're so terribly concerned about the kids. look at all they're doing for their future. what kind of fucking legacy are they leaving for the kids?

    and what the hell are they doing to the kids right now?! leave those kids alone, liberty!

    Posted by loveloki at 06/06/2006 @ 12:12pm

29. the fact is ALL those state amendments are unconstitutional. hence the rush to change the constitution.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/06/2006 @ 12:06am | ignore this person

    hamsters hate that damn thing.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/06/2006 @ 12:12pm

30. USC said:

    "The problem with "letting states decide" is that anti-gay-marriage states would have to honor the contracts made in pro-gay marriage states. At least, that's how I understand that part of the issue."

    Not true. Ever hear of the Defense of Marriage Act? States are NOT required to honor the marriage laws of others states when it comes to gay/lesbian marriages.

    See http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm.

    This is all pandering and bigotry (pandering to bigots, really) - nothing more.

    RB - RECENT polls show that the country is evenly split on this amendment - left vs. right. The tide is turning (as more people become educated about LGBT issues and familiar with their LGBT neighbors) and it appears as though that scares the bejesus out of the sancitmonious religious right. Hate legislation (as opposed to constitutional amendments) can be easily challenged and taken off the books. Especially, when it is CLEARLY unconstitutional. Nothing left to do but change the constitution.

    Posted by jmjustice at 06/06/2006 @ 12:19pm

31. Unconstitutional hits the nail on the head. Here in Michigan, the amendment to the state constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Guess what, folks? That means one of two things: either divorced people cannot legally remarry, or our constitution has a piece of junk in it.

    That junk, by the way, was not written by elected legislators. It was written by a small group of activist Catholic lawyers.

    America, don't let this happen to you.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/06/2006 @ 12:24pm

32. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/06/2006 @ 12:06am | ignore this person

    Actually, JOHANN, not sure they HAVE been found to be un-Constitutional.

    Nor likely to with a John Roberts/Sam Alito USSC.

    (And again, this is a criticism, not endorsement!)

    Posted by Mask at 06/06/2006 @ 12:24pm

33. Woody---Sorry that I might have been unclear. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were all passed soon after the Civil War. They were instituted to make sure that the newly freed slaves were given equal rights by the states. I have always contended that the guarantee of equal rights were with us from the very beginning with the Declaration of Independence (all men are created equal). However, after the Civil War radical republicans wanted to make sure everyone understood this point--thus the Civil War Amendments (13,14,15). The Supreme Court messed with this concept in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896?)--by instituting a separate but equal doctrine they delayed the development of true equality. Brown v. Bd, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 all went a long way to meet the original intent of the Constitution and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. However, the race issue is not analagous to the gay marriage issue.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/06/2006 @ 12:34pm

34. Mask, why else would they chase after this change in the constitution, if not for the fact that the states' efforts are under the threat of being declared unconstitutional.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 12:36pm

35. JMJustice----Especially, when it is CLEARLY unconstitutional

    I am not for the national amendment, but what part of the U.S. Constitution does a state law or state constitution violate if they outlaw gay marriage?

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/06/2006 @ 12:37pm

36. However, the race issue is not analagous to the gay marriage issue

    why not, Lennie? just saying it does not make it so.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 12:37pm

37. but what part of the U.S. Constitution does a state law or state constitution violate if they outlaw gay marriage?

    er, equal treatment before the law. I imagine you've heard of that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 12:38pm

38. USC1---States at this time do not have to honor the gay marriages or civil unions of other states. However, I am sure that this will be tested further in the courts.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/06/2006 @ 12:41pm

39. Johannesrolf---Are you referring to the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment? That clause has never been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that gay couples have a right to be married. It has been used, and rightfully so, to prohibit state discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, and handicapp--but not sexual orientation.

    Please understand my position. I believe that states should be allowed to decide this issue. If California wants gay marriage great, if New York wants to allow civil unions great, but if North Carolina wants to keep it illegal that's fine also.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/06/2006 @ 12:52pm

40. Len-- Thanks for your attempts to educate me. However, I think I must be a slow learner. If, as you said, "I have always contended that the guarantee of equal rights were with us from the very beginning with the Declaration of Independence (all men are created equal)." Why would this not mean that prohibiting gay marriage was a denial of equal rights? Thanks.

    Posted by Woody Fan at 06/06/2006 @ 12:55pm

41. Woody---Did not mean to be condescending in any way--sometimes this forum does not express the intent in which a message is given. To answer your question please check 12:52 post.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/06/2006 @ 1:04pm

42. north carolina wanted to keep slavery, as well as discrimination. this is discrimination. they wouldn't go through this charade with the constitution if they were not afraid of the judiciary. we are one country. to allow states to discriminate is un-american.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 1:06pm

43. Mask, why else would they chase after this change in the constitution, if not for the fact that the states' efforts are under the threat of being declared unconstitutional.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/06/2006 @ 12:36am | ignore this person

    Uh, JOHANN...."to use as a political wedge issue", maybe?

    Sort of the point. The GOP pols don't expect this to PASS, it's to drive Religious Righties to the polls, and force moderate and conservative Dems to piss off the liberal base. EVERYBODY (on both sides) know that it wouldn't get passed by the 2/3rds majority needed, even with a few Dems helping.

    The truth is, the issue IS resolved already. If there's a challenge to the state amendments (based on the "full faith" clause), then now it's likely that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and maybe one more (Souter?) will deny the challenge.

    Posted by Mask at 06/06/2006 @ 1:15pm

44. It is unfortunate that the Bush administration feels the need once again to bash gay and lesbian people in order to help the Republican Party retain power and to distract the public from the real problems facing our nation. This administration has consistently used hate, fear and homophobia to advance its agenda. The result has been a failed administration, a war we should never have gotten ourselves into, record deficits which are leading us in to financial ruin and endemic corruption. I hope that the American people have wised up to this approach and will vote to end this madness in November and again in 2008. If not, I will have to seriously consider emigration to a country that will respect my civil rights and work for peace and justice not profit and world domination.

    Posted by bfbear54 at 06/06/2006 @ 1:22pm

45. shame on you bushie! you're a dying breed I'm afraid. How dare you try to legislate your christan madness in our secular constitution. Piss of you wako! 2008 can not get here fast enough!!!!!, if there is still a world by then.........

    Posted by jeyepa at 06/06/2006 @ 1:23pm

46. sorry Mask, this issue is working its way through the courts. it is by no means assured what the supremes, if anything, will decide.

    which state was it that just struck down their amendment? Georgia, I believe

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 1:25pm

47. Johannes--We discriminate all the time. Kids apply to colleges and don't get in. People apply for a job and don't get it. They wealthier you are the more taxes you pay. These and many more are forms of discrimintation. You may not by statutory law and the Constitution discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, handicapp---a guarantee of marriage rights for same sex couples isn't and shouldn't be on the list. If you would like to add it to the list--start the Amendment process now.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/06/2006 @ 1:37pm

48. BFBEARS54---No problem--and just to make sure there are no hard feelings--we on the right will all chip in for the plane ticket.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/06/2006 @ 1:38pm

49. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/06/2006 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person

    Frankly, I wish I could be as OPTIMISTIC as you are, JR.

    All it takes is Breyer or Souter to cross over, and given the large number of states with anti-gay marriage amendments or statutes, versus those who haven't touched it....it could make good precedent for them to work from.

    Posted by Mask at 06/06/2006 @ 1:40pm

50. Len-- I never meant to suggest you were condensending, sorry if I did.

    Are you suggesting that non-discrimination by race, color, national origin, gender and handicap are provided by the Constitution? I thought the equal rights ammendment failed? So maybe at least some of this non-discrimination is provided by law? So why would we need an ammendment process to protect gays from discrimination?

    Posted by Woody Fan at 06/06/2006 @ 1:45pm

51. Mr. Mosse, your post is really not much of reply to my post and adds nothing to civil debate. Just another example of how you folks on the right are so intolerant of the opinions of others.

    Posted by bfbear54 at 06/06/2006 @ 1:46pm

52. a guarantee of marriage rights for same sex couples isn't and shouldn't be on the list. If you would like to add it to the list--start the Amendment process now.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/06/2006 @ 1:37pm

    Not the point.

    The point is why should the amendment or legal process be heading toward discrimination--not that someone needs to get it heading toward protection against discrimination. I understand your view on this, that it is a constitutional issue rather than just a matter of what seems to be right. I think, though, that most of us over here on this side see that there is no place within any law for legalized discrimination.

    The thing that drive me nuts about this is that the push for discrimination is the work of religion. They go to their pretty church weddings and get all queasy when they think of a groom and a groom sharing their love for each other in such a pristine setting. Problem is that religion has no place in the legal definition of marriage. Those who wish it to have a place ought, themselves, to reacquaint themselves with the constitution. This movement is nothing short of the legal sanction of religious intolerance.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/06/2006 @ 1:46pm

53. Lennie, this is just plain nonsense, I mean we discriminate all the time. puleeze.

    we don't need an amendment. not to discriminate is already in the constitution. deal with the facts and the issues. what about that Geordia court ruling? what about New York getting ready to sanction gay marriages? you have neither a moral or legal right to stand on. that is the reason for these constitutional shenannnigans. shame on you and the rest of the bigots. I know you well, you were standing in the school house door, yelling discrimination forever. but it did not work out that way. this discrimination will go the way of the colored waterfountain. and that's why you are so scared, you are an anachronism.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 1:49pm

54. Lennie, this is just plain nonsense, I mean we discriminate all the time. puleeze.

    we don't need an amendment. not to discriminate is already in the constitution. deal with the facts and the issues. what about that Geordia court ruling? what about New York getting ready to sanction gay marriages? you have neither a moral or legal right to stand on. that is the reason for these constitutional shenannnigans. shame on you and the rest of the bigots. I know you well, you were standing in the school house door, yelling discrimination forever. but it did not work out that way. this discrimination will go the way of the colored waterfountain. and that's why you are so scared, you are an anachronism.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 1:50pm

55. mask, perhaps my optimism is misplaced, but perhaps your pessimism is premature.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 1:53pm

56. Is marriage in the eyes of the law nothing more than a legal contract binding two people and their property? If so, what is the legal basis from prohibiting two consentual adults from entering into the contract? If they approve some people 7 or 8 times for the same blasted contract, even after those people have essentially ripped up the same contract 6 or 7 times, apparently the standards are not THAT high.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/06/2006 @ 1:59pm

57. We've got a religious artifact from in canon law embedded in our culture. While it offered women some measure of economic protection, in return for their subordination, we are now stuck with it since the state(s) went into the marriage business. The state license window should be open to all. The church can do what the church wants to do.

    Posted by donescobar at 06/06/2006 @ 2:22pm

58. typo above: from canon law

    Posted by donescobar at 06/06/2006 @ 2:23pm

59. Len Mosse -

    I'm curious. You said about the 14th Amendment that it was"used, and rightfully so, to prohibit state discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, and handicapp--but not sexual orientation."

    On what basis is it "right" to apply the 14th to gender and handicap, but not for sexual orientation? Just as the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence do not mention specifically gays or marriage, they do not mention equal rights for women or handicapped people either. So, on what basis do you willingly extend the 14th to those categories yet not to homosexuals who want to marry? The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th says, "any person."

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/06/2006 @ 2:29pm

60. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/06/2006 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person

    No, don't think so. Ever since Mr Nichols' best buddy Russ Feingold decided to "keep his powder dry" and vote for John Roberts (so as to provide him "bipartisan cover" for his "brave attempt" to stop Sam Alito)....I've pretty much given up on the USSC.

    Posted by Mask at 06/06/2006 @ 2:31pm

61. Again typical Liberal thinking here to combine desparate issues and draw illogical parallels. i.e. trying to equate civil rights accomplishments with the "right" to marry anyone. Continuing on that logic, I should be able to marry my cousin, a woman of any age, etc. Civilized society has accepted some restrictions or "norms" in order to survive. Marriage is one of them - Marriage between a woman and a man. We as a modern society understand that families based upon a woman and man (and their offspring) are central to a society surviving. Having said that, I have no problem with Civil unions. If gays want the same benefits (taxes, health insurance, etc) that's fine with me. But don't hold up gay marriage as being a "right". It's just doesn't make sense.

    Posted by Shaba at 06/06/2006 @ 4:15pm

62. how about we call civil unions civil marriages, just to make our gay friends and family happy? would you be for that Shaba?

    or is this about the ownership of a word? I have suggested before we just call civil marriages "Arthur" then no one would be offended.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 4:18pm

63. .

    Hitler: 1942, Unlimited Health Care for All

    What does that mean? What has that to do with President Wilson, opposing integration, and Bush opposing gay marriage?

    This: that Wilson's opposition to segregation was racist does not make Bush's opposition to gay marriage bigoted. In the same way, that a damnable Adolf's supported of social welfare programs does not make Edward Kennedy support of social welfare programs damnable.

    Anyone laying that on Kennedy would mark himself as a cheap shot Charley, a demagogue a jerk. - There you have John Nichols.

    I am not sure that stopping gay marriage requires an amendment to the Constitution. But I am sure that gay marriage is perverse and socially unhealthy.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 06/06/2006 @ 4:34pm

64. "Civilized society has accepted some restrictions or "norms" in order to survive."

    this society has also changed its mind when circumstances and ideas change. just how is survival threatened by NOT discriminating against a segment of society in the issuance of a civil contract?

    if "marriage" is a right for straights, then it's a right for gays.

    can we look at the countries who have equal marriage rights for gays. how are they doing? straight marriage under siege there? it's just misanthropic nonsense. Let 'em marry, it'll do them good, and us too.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 5:03pm

65. But I am sure that gay marriage is perverse and socially unhealthy.

    Posted by NACL 06/06/2006 @ 4:34pm

    Thank you for voicing once again the oh so certain utterings of an illiterate 19th-century citizen. Perverse? Nobody's asking you to join in a menage, unless, that is, you're upset that nobody's asking.

    Poor, poor frumpy old NACL, all a-twitchin' and a-twitterin' about the boys spending quality time with the boys and the girls doing the same with the girls. Go back to your century, dude. Oscar Wilde is looking for a plaything.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/06/2006 @ 5:57pm

66. But I am sure that NACL is perverse and socially unhealthy.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2006 @ 7:05pm

67. Johannes----I am all for states making the decision to have gay marriage---If New York wants it great. I would support civil unions in my state, but not gay marriage. But let the states decide. Same sex marriage is not a guaranteed Constitutional right, therefore the states should be allowed to experiment with what works and reflect the will of their electorate.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 07:43am

68. Johannes---ONE MORE POINT---you don't know me--don't pretend that you do.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 07:44am

69. Lennie, when have I pretended to know you? it's actually the opposite, if I knew you, I would pretend not to, because of your nasty antedeluvian views, I would be ashamed of knowing you.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 07:47am

70. Same sex marriage is not a guaranteed Constitutional right,

    but equal treatment before the law is.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 07:49am

71. All so one more point---This issue may revolve around Science more than politics. Just as you can not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or gender because this is something you are born with, if Science proves that being gay is something that you are born with then it should be added to the list. It was predicted that the gay gene would be found soon after the mapping of the human gene structure was completed, this has not happened. It still might, and if it does, argument over--gays should be guaranteed every right including marriage. But if it is not found, then states should be allowed to decide for themselves what the laws on gay marriage should be.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 07:49am

72. because of your nasty antedeluvian views, I would be ashamed of knowing you.

    Your quote "---I know you well"----gosh Johannes I am mortified right down to my very atedeluvian soul. I will now change my viewpoint so that it fits your--if you will let me. I mean you have been so overwhelmingly convincing in your argument I just can't stand it anymore--and now that you have called my views antedluvian and proclaim that you would be ashamed of knowing me--I am changed man. ---Get over your bad self Johannes.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 07:59am

73. I'm sorry I don't recall the quote" I know you well" please advise

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 08:02am

74. this has very little to do with science, and actually little to do with gay people per se. it used to be that retarded people were not allowed to get married, or people with handicaps. or interracial couples. we have moved beyond this kind of discrimination, as we will move on in this case too.

    the states do not have the right to discriminate. remember it is state supreme courts that have struck down discrimination. that it is a state's rights issue is phony, as calling segregation a state's rights issuer was phony then.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 08:06am

75. THRAWN....While the eloquence with which you make your argument cannot be denied, your inability to see the similarities between the two scenarios is somewhat disheartening. First, the comparison between racial segregation and gay marriage are quite analogous in that both were concerted efforts to create a second class of citizen. To that point, both seek to hold a group in higher regard than another denying opportunities to a minority. In Wilson's case it was blacks working for the government, in Bush's case it is gay's seeking the rights and protections granted to heterosexuals. The analogy between the two scenarios is derived not only by the use of similar logic but also in the use of said logic to create a second class of citizens.

    Posted by dsest7 at 06/07/2006 @ 08:33am

76. Johannes--"I know you well"--Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/06/2006 @ 1:50pm

    Do states have the right to make laws concerning marriage (Excluding any law that might discriminate on the basis of race)?----Yes

    Is there a expressed right in the Constitution or a court decision that says that it is implied that gay couples have a right to get married? ---No

    Therefore until such time that a court decides that there is an implied right or until an Amendment is added to the Constitution creating said right, it is a state issue.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 09:03am

77. "Johannes--We discriminate all the time."

    No shit...

    Posted by drhammer at 06/07/2006 @ 09:06am

78. context is everything. this was a rhetorical "I know you well" it meant I know you discriminators well. you were discriminating then as you are discriminating now. i'm sorry for any confusion.

    states do not have the right to discriminate against any particular group. this has been part of our national jurisprudence for some time.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 09:20am

79. The reason that segregation laws are not analagous to the gay marriage debate is that if you asked the same questions you would have gotten different answers:

    Do states have the right to make laws discriminating on the basis of race?----No, because of the 14th Amendment forbids the states from drawing unreasonable distinctions between person--race is considered unreasonable----In fact the Declaration of Independence, our founding document, states that "all men are created equal".

    Is there a expressed right/protection in the Constitution or a court decision that says that it is implied that segregation is wrong and/or illegal?----Yes--14th Amendment---Brown v. Bd.

    Therefore, states may not discriminate on the basis of race. These are rights/protections guaranteed in the Constitution, the subsequent amendments, and Supreme Court decisions. Outlawing Gay Marriage has never been judged as an unreasonable distinction in federal court. Gay Marriage is not a right expressed in the Constitution. No court has ever said that an implied right exist to Gay Marriage. Therefore, it is an issue for the states to decide.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 09:23am

80. DRHAMMER---What's outlawed is unreasonable discrimination---race, gender, color, national origin

    When you apply to a college and you don't get in because of poor grades and low SAT scores you are being discriminated against--reasonably.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 09:27am

81. "When you apply to a college and you don't get in because of poor grades and low SAT scores you are being discriminated against--reasonably."

    this is not analogous, it's plain dopey. these things have nothing to do with each other.

    isn't this amendment an end run around possible supreme court decisions? doesn't this amendment trump the states rights issue? isn't this amendment being sold as the antidote to "activist" judges?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 09:39am

82. Johannes---I do not support the Amendment--I stated so earlier. I am for the states deciding this issue.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 09:41am

83. The example given concerning SAT scores and college admission was there to explain to Hammer the difference between reasonable and unreasonable discrimination.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 09:43am

84. As for your expectation of a possible Supreme Court decision creating an implied right to gay marriage---don't hold your breath. This court will probably protect the right of the states to determine what marriage is or should be. The chance of them creating an implied right to gay marriage out of the 14th Amendment is slim at best.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 09:46am

85. Point taken. now what about states recognizing marriages from other states?

    so you see discriminating against a group as a states right issue? it was not legit to discriminate against blacks, or many other groups. but it's ok against gays? this is un american, in my opinion. how about we don't didcriminate, period?

    no one has yet demonstrated any harm that would come from gay marriages. the advantages of marriage are not confined to straight couples.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 09:46am

86. The example given concerning SAT scores and college admission was there to explain to Hammer the difference between reasonable and unreasonable discrimination.

    by comparing two things that have nothing to do with each other, you explain nothing.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 09:48am

87. you do not know what the supremes will decide, and I don't either. however the court in the long view has struck down many discriminatory practices, leading one to expect it to do so again. and the fear of that is what's driving this amendment. a fear that is shamelessly fanned by this failed administration.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 09:50am

88. No--I don't know--But until they do--it's a state issue.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 10:44am

89. it's also a personal issue. do you favor discriminating against gays?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 11:08am

90. "states do not have the right to discriminate against any particular group"

    Wrong-- states and the federal government discriminate all the time based on a standard of reasonableness---16 years old to drive,18 years old to vote, felons lose right to vote, convicted child molesters must register, men when they turn 18 must register for the draft, if you drop out of high school you lose your license, you can not marry close relatives, you can only marry one person-------All of these laws and more are forms of discrimination---but we consider them reasonable.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 11:11am

91. I would favor civil unions in my state---but I have no problem with other states not allowing gay marriage or civil unions. Nor do I have a problem with states allowing gay marriage. It is a state issue.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 11:13am

92. the votes are in. tolerance gained two votes in the do over.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 11:26am

93. All state marriages are civil unions.do you object to gay marriages being called marriages?

    the stuff you mentioned is not discrimination, stop fudging the issue in that way.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 11:43am

94. "the stuff you mentioned is not discrimination, stop fudging the issue in that way"

    Let me say this in a nice way--You are incorrect. All are forms of discrimination. You are tied into a picture of discrimination as always being illegal. It is only illegal if it is based on gender, race, color, national origin or handicap. Government makes reasonable distinctions all the time (distinctions is just another word for discrimination). If you are a man who has to register for the draft and you know that a woman is not registering you might think that you are being discriminated against--you are--but reasonably.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 12:13pm

95. As a prime Democratic or liberal issue, homosexual marriage is a loser. It is a huge drag on liberals gaining political office, since the VAST majority of Americans are against it, and for good reason. It's simply bad public policy to give special rights to a group on the basis of their perverted sexuality. If you can't "discriminate" against homosexuals by refusing to change the institution of marriage to accomodate them, then how can you "discriminate" against priests who want to marry their underage altar boys, or a Wyoming rancher who wants to marry his favorite heifer? You have to draw a line somewhere as to what's acceptable in our culture, and most people want to draw that line at one man one woman. Homosexuals will still have the same rights as others, that is, to marry and have children with someone of the opposite sex.

    Posted by mrpoizun at 06/07/2006 @ 12:18pm

96. MR - Your "argument" is absurd. If you really are unable to make a distiction between priests marrying alterboys and two consenting adults loving one another and joining in a committed relationship (your preverted sexuality comment is just ignorant - what exactly is it that makes sex between two consenting gay/lesbian adults more perverse than sex between two consenting straight adults (especially when procreation is not at issue)? Why do you get to draw the line?), then I truly feel sorry for you. Further, what is "acceptable" in OUR culture is fluid. Just as inter-racial marriage was once an "abomination" and now is perfectly acceptable. One day your ignorant stance will be a true embarrassment for you and all those like you.

    Posted by jmjustice at 06/07/2006 @ 12:48pm

97. Lennie words do not mean just what you want them to mean, you are irrelevant here, give it up

    according to a dictionary:

    the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people. esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

    I would add to that sexual orientation.

    you did not answer my question above. where do you stand?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 12:56pm

98. Mr, you are just a bigot, a hateful, fake religious bigot, go spew your bile elsewhere, like the Vatican website, for instance.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 12:58pm

99. Let me say this in a nice way

    thank heaven. actually that is what is expected here. have I been not nice in my correspondence with you?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 1:02pm

100. I support civil unions only.

     As to your definition of discrimination here is what Webster says discriminate means: "to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of---distinguish or differentiate---to distinguish by dscerning or exposing differences--to discriminate from another like object or exposing differences---to make a distinction---to use good judgement---to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit".

     What strange dictionary are you using? By the way---all federal courts use the same language that I have been using not your strange definition.

     Legislation frequently involves making classifications that either advantage or disadvantage one group of persons, but not another. States allow 20-year-olds to drive, but don't let 12-year-olds drive. Indigent single parents receive government financial aid that is denied to millionaires. Obviously, the Equal Protection Clause cannot mean that government is obligated to treat all persons exactly the same.

     For your info:

     Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis 1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.): A. Suspect Classifications: 1. Race 2. National Origin 3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis) 4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied). B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights 1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote 2. Interstate Migration 3. Access to the Courts 4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental 2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.): Quasi-Suspect Classifications: 1. Gender 2. Illegitimacy 3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.) Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal aliens.

     By the way --classifications is just another way to say discriminate.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 1:31pm

101. Mr. Mosse, your post is really not much of reply to my post and adds nothing to civil debate. Just another example of how you folks on the right are so intolerant of the opinions of others.

     Posted by BFBEAR54 06/06/2006 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person

     You're right I am intolerant of the "if I don't get my way I'm leaving attitude" ---Just hurry up and leave--who needs ya!

     Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 1:32pm

102. yes english is a very complex language, words mean many things. but all this obfuscates the discussion. I used the dictionary in my computer, servicable.

     you did not answer my question, look again and answer.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 1:35pm

103. All state marriages are civil unions.do you object to gay marriages being called marriages?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 1:36pm

104. he has a discriminating palate. the landlord discriminated against blacks.

     same word, different meaning, No?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 1:41pm

105. I don't object to anyone calling them anything that they want to call them. There is only one state that recognizes gay marriage. I support civil unions in my state. If that would be passed I could care less if gay couples want to call that gay marriage. Legally it would be a civil union --nothing more and nothing less. If a gay couple finds someone to marry them in a state that does not recognize gay marriage--who cares---Legally it means nothing --but if the couple likes it I have no objections. I object to the notion that one size fits all--states need to decide for themselves if gay marriage and civil unions is something that the electorate of that state supports.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 06/07/2006 @ 2:02pm

106. I may have been a bit broad with my accusation of your antedeluvian views. my apologies.

     any answer to my two uses of the word discriminate? I still think it was phony, you and I both knew which discriminate we were talking about. broadening the meaning did nothing but obfuscate your points.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 2:49pm

107. Just revisited this blog and felt compelled to respond to Len's non-analogy between a discriminatory constitutional amendment and college entrance requirements.

     Discrimination 1. The act of discriminating. 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. 3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

     If one's grades are not high enough to get into college, that is a question of individual merit. It is clearly not a form of discrimination, particularly in the context of this blog.

     Your "analogy" is at best misguided, at worst completely disingenuous.

     Posted by drhammer at 06/09/2006 @ 09:02am