• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

President Bush, Gay Marriages and Mob Politics

man_slut

TRIBE Member
February 24, 2004

Rally the Mob!

The One Thing Bush Does Best

By GREG MOSES



Stirring a crowd is one thing. Mob politics is another. Today with his announcement that he intends to pass a Constitutional Amendment against gay and lesbian marriage, President Bush reminds us what a mob monger he is.

"I'm a uniter, not a divider," promised candidate George W. during the election of 2000, but his most effective political initiatives reveal that his most sinister political talent is to rally us against them, whoever they are.

That is why so few politicians voted against the Patriot Acts or the wars. When Bush brought these issues to the table, he did so with his singular genius for relegating the opposition into an intolerable world apart.

Now he attempts to do the same thing with gay and lesbian marriage. "If you dare to vote against this prohibition you will be counted among the forces of darkness, and we will bury your political future." That is the tone that Bush is able to strike, even if he never quite puts it that way. He has a talent for raising a mob with code words that mask naked power with righteousness.

The unforgiving tone of Bush leadership is an eerie echo of the religious fundamentalism that he purports to oppose in global politics. Even his most conservative allies, such as James K. Glassman, of the American Enterprise Institute, recognize that today's "defense of marriage" initiative is a political invitation to energize the fundamentalists at home.

Faith-based agitation in Massachusetts, for instance, has helped to shift public opinion ten points in the direction of intolerance, reports Frank Philips of the Boston Globe. And this is Catholic, northern fundamentalism, not Protestant southern. So you ain't seen nothin' yet.

The Boston Globe story gives us another disturbing detail by reporting that the popular mood in this case demands majority rule rather than court consideration when it comes to these crucial issues of civil rights. But appeals to majority rule have usually been bad news in the history of civil rights.

Beginning with the Bill of Rights, and going all the way up to the "Defense of Congressional Pay" (Amendment Number 27), Constitutional Amendments have been put in place to protect the relatively powerless against the state and majority rule. In the case of the Congressional Pay amendment, two consecutive votes of Congress are demanded, and why? Because when you get leaders like George Bush in office, mob fervor is liable to sweep reason away.

We might demand for the American people the same protection the Congress has arranged for itself. Two consecutive votes of Congress, with an election intervening.

Only once has a Constitutional amendment been passed by a majority in order to put a minority "in its place." That was the mis-guided Prohibition amendment, the only one to be repealed.

With the call for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay and lesbian marriage, President Bush summons a new American mob, panders to fundamentalism, and reverses the tradition of constitutional amendments, initiated by the Bill of Rights. George Bush is a political animal with his back against the wall. And he has made us in his image, into a nation of claws and teeth.

Greg Moses writes for the Texas Civil Rights Review. He can be reached at: gmosesx@prodigy.net

SOURCE
 
Alex D. from TRIBE on Utility Room

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
i dont get it,
for all these years gay marrige has not been recognized outside of certian churches,
suddenly because george bush wants to further push this point home, it is the work of religious fundamentalism.

most nations do not allow gay marrige,
among them very liberal nations, save holland where everything is legal anyway.

so how is it a vote against gay marrige is a vote for intolerance. a bit foolish.
the majority of people in the US are against gay marrige anyway, i dont think most of them are all religious zealots,
mabey just a bit old fashioned.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by judge wopner
i dont get it,
for all these years gay marrige has not been recognized outside of certian churches,
suddenly because george bush wants to further push this point home, it is the work of religious fundamentalism.

most nations do not allow gay marrige,
among them very liberal nations, save holland where everything is legal anyway.

so how is it a vote against gay marrige is a vote for intolerance. a bit foolish.
the majority of people in the US are against gay marrige anyway, i dont think most of them are all religious zealots,
mabey just a bit old fashioned.


By all rights even the Democrats aren't to far more advanced in policy. They are suggesting a seperate form of legal civil union, but not marriage as such.

So by dutch or canadian standards even a vote for the democrats is a vote for discrimination :p
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

oddmyth

TRIBE Member
I've discussed this topic at length on a more americo-centric politics board. The truth is some people like their coffee, and some people like their coffee crisp.

Apparently though anal sex is OK as long you're having it with girls, though the americans I chatted with thought anal sex was perverse. When I reminded them that over 70% of the porn they view on the internet involves anal sex they told me they didn't look at internet porn .... yeah right.

They did make a tonne of salient points regarding the definition of marriage and the sanctity of the church. Which is fine by me, if gay/lesbians want to get hitched, and the neo-cons want them to call it something else but to achieve the same legal rights, then call it cornflakes for all I care. Although to be honest I've watched the church change positions on a number of issues over the years, I'll wait another 30 to see them come around on this one though.

odbx
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Only once has a Constitutional amendment been passed by a majority in order to put a minority "in its place."
Interestingly enough ... traditional families are a minority in America.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
for me this makes most sense:

no need for the government to recognize any unions,
only churches and city hall can do that,
but no need for the fed/provinces to as there should be no tax breaks or any goodies for any union gay or straight unless the 2 people have children, which you get some tax breaks for.

otherwise, a union by right only says its two people living together, there does not have to be intimacy to be considered a union, so whats the textbook difference between a union and a guy lviing w/ a girl.

those laws were only there to encourage families, but now these laws dont serve us as the benefits and tax exemptions should only stem from having kids.

otherwise 2 straight or gays lving togetrher get a tax break for what, anal sex?
 

Adam

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by judge wopner
no need for the government to recognize any unions,
only churches and city hall can do that,
but no need for the fed/provinces to as there should be no tax breaks or any goodies for any union gay or straight unless the 2 people have children, which you get some tax breaks for.

There's alot more to the civil side of marriage than just tax breaks and kids. To cite a few easy examples: insurance benefits, hospital visitations, pensions, etc. These apply (and rightfully so) to married straight couples, kids or not. Hence, why gay couples want these as well.

As far as the government is concerned, marriage is a civil contract between two people, and should be treated as such. (as you've said) Leave the other shit to religion.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by judge wopner
for me this makes most sense:

no need for the government to recognize any unions,
only churches and city hall can do that,
but no need for the fed/provinces to as there should be no tax breaks or any goodies for any union gay or straight unless the 2 people have children, which you get some tax breaks for.

otherwise, a union by right only says its two people living together, there does not have to be intimacy to be considered a union, so whats the textbook difference between a union and a guy lviing w/ a girl.

those laws were only there to encourage families, but now these laws dont serve us as the benefits and tax exemptions should only stem from having kids.

otherwise 2 straight or gays lving togetrher get a tax break for what, anal sex?



I agree completely!! Remove the state from marriage entirely. Allow for greater tax credits for child raising, but remove the marriage from the federal concept entirely.

Why should a married man with no children pay less taxes than an un-married man with no children. Re write the entire law rather than extending an imperfect set of laws that are going to only have furthur fauilts as time passes.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Adam
There's alot more to the civil side of marriage than just tax breaks and kids. To cite a few easy examples: insurance benefits, hospital visitations, pensions, etc. These apply (and rightfully so) to married straight couples, kids or not. Hence, why gay couples want these as well.

As far as the government is concerned, marriage is a civil contract between two people, and should be treated as such. (as you've said) Leave the other shit to religion.

but whats a civil contract, why would it be any different between 2 guys who decide to share an apartment?

seriously, has anyone seen it this way, what exactly is a civil contract?
a gaurantee of intimacy?
or just of shared residence?
of shared finances?
lots of coulples have separate bank accounts, its not a condition of marrige!

what possibly could the difference be from a legal standpoint?

if im a signle guy and i have health insurence, i cant name a partner ,
but a gay guy can.

why.
why should the gay guy get a benefit just becuase he is getting busy with another gay guy and they live together?

as i said before, unless you ahve kids why do we need the distinction

hospitals that dont allow gay couples the same visitation rights need to change their policy and come into the 21'st century, we dont need the feds to legislate every rule for them.

under what need is it that the fed's should define and enact union definitions for us?

its the stupidest thing ever.
 

SlipperyPete

TRIBE Member
there's only one solution:

public displays of bumdarts or cooch-chewing to prove how intimate the couple is.
where's Mark Burnett?
 

Neo-Marxist

TRIBE Member
Funny how neo-cons want to get the state out of people's lives and then they go and do something like this. This is just stupid. If people want to get married, then let them. Personally, I think marriage is an atrocious concept given its patriarchal origins. And even if one doesn't take that seriously, consider this: How can you plan the rest of your life around one person when you don't even know what's going to happen next month?
 

Static EQ

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by judge wopner
but whats a civil contract, why would it be any different between 2 guys who decide to share an apartment?

seriously, has anyone seen it this way, what exactly is a civil contract?
a gaurantee of intimacy?
or just of shared residence?
of shared finances?
lots of coulples have separate bank accounts, its not a condition of marrige!

what possibly could the difference be from a legal standpoint?

if im a signle guy and i have health insurence, i cant name a partner ,
but a gay guy can.

why.
why should the gay guy get a benefit just becuase he is getting busy with another gay guy and they live together?

as i said before, unless you ahve kids why do we need the distinction

hospitals that dont allow gay couples the same visitation rights need to change their policy and come into the 21'st century, we dont need the feds to legislate every rule for them.

under what need is it that the fed's should define and enact union definitions for us?

its the stupidest thing ever.

that makes no sense at all...

Whatever! Marriage has a shit load of inconvenient strings attached if your not serious about it...

(right now I'm picturing paying alimony to some of my ex-roomates)

:eek:
 

Aeryanna

TRIBE Member
I fail to see what the big deal is about letting same-sex marriages occur. It doesn't hinder, disrupt or otherwise infringe upon the rights of others. It doesn't affect anyones standard of living and in reality if two consenting adults of legal age want to get married its no one else's business.

An argument against same-sex marriages is that they abuse the sanctity of marriage, ruin the moral fabric of society..yadda, yadda, yadda. First of all there's nothing sanctimonious about an institution with a divorce rate of 65% and seconldly, some people just need to wake up. There is no "moral fabric" of society. We live in dysfunctional times. Maybe this is me being overtly pessimistic but look at the world we're living in. Morals imply that our actions arise from conscience or allow us to garner some sense of right from wrong. Just take a look around. Most people don't know right from wrong and if they do, they simply don't care. Ruining the moral fabric of society-I think not. You can't ruin something that you don't have.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
What disturbs me most about the whole Gay Marriage debate is that Bush wants to write another amendment prohibiting it from happening.

Think about this.

He's writing discrimination into the constitution. He's undoing a few hundred years of progress.
 

zoo

TRIBE Member
he's also buying votes, and making sure that no one else will dare to oppose him on this issue

goo politics *:rolleyes:*
 

starr

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by judge wopner
i dont get it,
for all these years gay marrige has not been recognized outside of certian churches,
suddenly because george bush wants to further push this point home, it is the work of religious fundamentalism.

most nations do not allow gay marrige,
among them very liberal nations, save holland where everything is legal anyway.

so how is it a vote against gay marrige is a vote for intolerance. a bit foolish.
the majority of people in the US are against gay marrige anyway, i dont think most of them are all religious zealots,
mabey just a bit old fashioned.

i disagree with you here.
i think you could insert the word divorce instead of "gay marriage" and it would make more sense in your head about why it's discriminatory.

that being said i agree with you on the idea that the government shouldn't recognize any unions.
i was very disappointed in the gay community when they took the fight this way, i really thought we could take it the other way and disband "marriage"

meh, too late now.
go "gay marriage" or whatever.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Neo-Marxist
Funny how neo-cons want to get the state out of people's lives and then they go and do something like this. This is just stupid. If people want to get married, then let them. Personally, I think marriage is an atrocious concept given its patriarchal origins. And even if one doesn't take that seriously, consider this: How can you plan the rest of your life around one person when you don't even know what's going to happen next month?


neo.jpg
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by el presidente Highsteppa
What disturbs me most about the whole Gay Marriage debate is that Bush wants to write another amendment prohibiting it from happening.

Think about this.

He's writing discrimination into the constitution. He's undoing a few hundred years of progress.

He doesn't stand much of a chance without major support. He needs a 2/3 vote in both houses. and then he nedds 38 states to ratify the law.

This is pandering with votes knowing full well the law won't pass. You'd have a better chance banning all handguns.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Static EQ
that makes no sense at all...

Whatever! Marriage has a shit load of inconvenient strings attached if your not serious about it...

(right now I'm picturing paying alimony to some of my ex-roomates)

:eek:

i dont get what you mean.

yes marrige has a lot of duties and strings as such, thats not what the debate is,

the core question is what is a union?

does anyone have acces to the formal legal ruling on what constitutes a union.

i jsut figure if we look at it closely enough we realize we dont need the govt defining shit for us. if your church or city hall will marry you and who ever, go for it, its your right for sure.

but why should a man and a woman who are lviing together get tax breaks, or specfiic benefits vs. me and buddy just sharing a house? or even yet, 2 gay guys doing the same thing.

what is the defining feature that makes a union specifically different than 2 guys living in the same house?
 

exheres

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by oddmyth
I've discussed this topic at length on a more americo-centric politics board. The truth is some people like their coffee, and some people like their coffee crisp.

Apparently though anal sex is OK as long you're having it with girls, though the americans I chatted with thought anal sex was perverse. When I reminded them that over 70% of the porn they view on the internet involves anal sex they told me they didn't look at internet porn .... yeah right.

They did make a tonne of salient points regarding the definition of marriage and the sanctity of the church. Which is fine by me, if gay/lesbians want to get hitched, and the neo-cons want them to call it something else but to achieve the same legal rights, then call it cornflakes for all I care. Although to be honest I've watched the church change positions on a number of issues over the years, I'll wait another 30 to see them come around on this one though.

odbx

very well put.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
I wish people would stop using the term, "gay marriage", when debating this issue because it implictly suggests that sexuality is a basis for the marriage union (in a civil sense). When obtaining a marriage licence in America, a couple is not required to reveal what they do in the bedroom and who they are attracted to, they are simply required to be members of the opposite sex.

The real question is whether or not members of the same sex should have access to the union of marriage, so the proper term should be, "same-sex marriage."
 

Adam

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
a couple is not required to reveal what they do in the bedroom and who they are attracted to, they are simply required to be members of the opposite sex.

Well, to be a dickhead, married couples are required by law to have sex at least once, so i'd be comfortable saying they are revealing what they do in the bedroom and who they're attracted to.

Other than that, I don't understand your point..i think 'gay' and 'same-sex' are being used interchangably here..so I think it's just semantics we're talking about.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top