Bush Seeking to Ban Gay Marriage

[truthaddict11]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/politics...print&position= (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/politics/30CND-BUSH.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=)
July 30, 2003
Bush Looking for Means to Prevent Gay Marriage in U.S.
By DAVID STOUT


ASHINGTON, July 30 — President Bush said today that federal government lawyers are working on legislation that would define marriage as a union between a man and woman.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other, and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that," Mr. Bush said at a news conference in the Rose Garden.

The president's comments, coming only a few weeks after the Supreme Court overturned a Texas law banning sodomy and holding, in effect, that whatever consenting adults do in private is their own business, seemed likely to reignite issues that have deep social and political implications.

Mr. Bush was responding to a question premised on the assumption that many of his political supporters believe "that homosexuality is immoral" and has been given too much cultural acceptance.

"As someone who's spoken out in strongly moral terms, what's your view on homosexuality?" a reporter asked the president.

"Yeah, I am mindful that we're all sinners," Mr. Bush replied. "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country.

"On the other hand," Mr. Bush continued, "that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on issues such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is headed here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

The president touched upon several other domestic issues, including Medicare and tax cuts, in his impromptu news session today. He urged the House and Senate to resolve their differences on prescription drug coverage under Medicare and get him a bill soon. And he reiterated his position that tax cuts will speed the turnaround of the economy.

Mr. Bush did not go into detail on what kind of marriage-defining measures are being considered, which agencies the lawyers are from and what timetable they are working under, if any.

Nor was it clear if new measures would conflict with or be meant to supersede the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act banning federal recognition of same-sex partnerships. That law was sponsored by Republicans and signed by President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Bush's declaration that marriage is properly defined as a union between a man and a woman was not new in itself. His former spokesman, Ari Fleischer, reiterated that very point on July 1, when the White House declined to endorse the idea of a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban gay marriage.

But Mr. Fleischer declined at that time to say whether the president supported a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as proposed by Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader.

Senator Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican who angered many gays earlier this year with his remarks linking homosexuality to polygamy and incest, wrote to constituents last year to express support for what has been dubbed the Federal Marriage Amendment by its backers. Mr. Santorum is the third-ranking Republican in the Senate leadership.

The Supreme Court decision in the Texas case, coupled with a recent decision in Canada to permit gay marriage, suggests that the debate will not go away. Courts in several states, including Massachusetts and New Jersey, are expected to rule on cases involving same-sex unions. Three years ago, Vermont became the first state to enact a law allowing same-sex civil unions.

Issues involving gay rights have been troublesome for the Republican Party. Many conservative Republicans, whose support President Bush counts on, reject any suggestion that same-sex unions should be treated like marriages between men and women.

On the other hand, some Republican strategists have tried in recent years to portray their party as "a big tent," eager and willing to embrace people of different philosophies.

And the Log Cabin Republicans, a political advocacy group of gay men and lesbians, has attracted enough support to have been invited to policy briefings at the White House, despite the considerable consternation of more conservative Republicans.

Democrats have also been divided, ideologically and semantically, on the issue of "gay marriage," and even whether same-sex unions should be called that, as illustrated at a recent candidates' forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, a group advocating gay rights.

Only two Democratic presidential candidates, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, supported gay marriage unambiguously at the forum in Washington.

Senators John Edwards of North Carolina and Bob Graham of Florida said through spokesmen that they opposed gay marriage but supported extending health and other benefits to the domestic partners of gays.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1966, declared himself against gay marriage but in favor of "civil unions" that would allow gays and their partners tax benefits, health benefits, hospital visitation and other rights accorded married people.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, took a similar view, as did Howard Dean, who as governor of Vermont three years ago signed the nation's first law allowing same-sex civil unions in a state. Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri also declared himself in the "civil unions" camp.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Sabocat]

GW Bush....furthering the causes of intolerance and oppression, one stumbling step after another......

[/bangs head on table]

[Marxist in Nebraska]

The social reactionaries are clearly upset about the Supreme Court overturning Texas's ban on homosexual intercourse. I read an article a couple of weeks ago where some on the hard right are so angry at the Supreme Court (with a right-wing advantage, mind you) over that ruling, they want the whole Supreme Court impeached! Unbelievable!

For the evangelical Mr. Bush and the bulk of the Republican Party to oppose the human rights of homosexuals is not at all surprising. Their religious-motivated repression is old news. Sadly, it is not terribly surprising that many of the leading Democrats are wishy-washy on the issue themselves. My favorite Democratic candidates for president in 2004, Sharpton and Kucinich, are pleasantly very clear and adamant in their support of gay marriage. I hope more liberals come to recognize Dr. Dean's shifting stance on the subject. Dean really likes to brag in liberal circles about embracing Vermont's civil unions bill when he was governor, but objective sources talk about him opposing the legislation only to quietly sign it when it became inevitable. Typical populist Dem, eh?

[Comrade Gorley]

George Bush is a sitcom character. Seriously, is he for real? :blink:

[truthaddict11]

I read an article a couple of weeks ago where some on the hard right are so angry at the Supreme Court (with a right-wing advantage, mind you) over that ruling, they want the whole Supreme Court impeached! Unbelievable

Yes Pat Robertson was actually "praying" for a new court. I guess he doesnt consider Thomas and Riehnquest friends anyone

[Organic Revolution]

this law is just another measure to turn the us into a christian state

[KillAllSexisthomophobicPigs]

Bush is a homophobic monkey who doesnt deserve to be president. why cant homosexuals get married? I beleve they should and bush shouldnt be able to ban that!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Dubya has yet to completely fill the bench with his hand-picked group of extremely right-wing judges. I believe the last one is set for retirement this year if I am correct. That will give Dubya's chimpanzee organisation a hard-right majority vote on the bench.


If he wins 2004, expect many prgressive civilian civil rights laws to be overturned by the US supreme court.

[Charlie]

Haha, Bush is calling gays "sinners"? Remind we again who it is that's lied repeatedly to the entire world, desicrated democracy and civil rights, and continues to slaughter people in the middle east.
What a hypocritical fundementalist tyranical little turd. The only "sinner" here is George Bush and he has no right to preach to us what kind of person constitutes as "evil". What a load of bullshit. See you in hell, dubya.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What a facsit dick! :angry:
George Bush is an arrogand ass for expecting everyone to follow his sexual orientation
George Bush is conceited for disregarding the rights of gays in America
George Bush is a fascist for having sheer intolerance towards homosexuality
George Bush is a hypocrit for criticizing the lack of rights given to middle easterners, while we are equaly oppressed
George Bush is an idiot for not learning how to speak English after living here for over 50 years
George Bush deserves to die for killing innocent people
I will kill George Bush
When I go to Washington for the protest, I will take a dump in his house, see how he likes that.
They have tours in the White House, don't they? I'll just squat in the corner and take a shit. I'll say I couldn't hold it in any longer. How bad can the punishment be for taking a crap?

[truthaddict11]

When I go to Washington for the protest, I will take a dump in his house, see how he likes that.

That would be amazing a "Million Queer March" that would drive the homophobes crazy :D


They have tours in the White House, don't they? I'll just squat in the corner and take a shit. I'll say I couldn't hold it in any longer. How bad can the punishment be for taking a crap?

no tours allowed after 9-11. anyways the dog probally already shits all over the house

[blackemma]

I find it interesting everyone makes such a fuss about George W.'s homophobia when Fidel does the same and is allowed to get away with it because his nation calls itself "socialist". Numerous gay rights groups have been campaigning Castro to grant gays rights in Cuba. Why does no one make an issue of this as well?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'll shit on one of the damn monuments they have all over the place over there.

[Moskitto]

Has anyone else seen that video of that love song and clips of Bush and Blair which make them look like they're singing it? classic.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I saw that, there's a link to it here at che-lives somewhere. :lol:

[FabFabian]

Someone made the comment that the US is turning into a Christian state. It isn't turning into one, it is one. That was the whole purpose in this creation of the USA. Let's remember who settled in the 13 colonies, a bunch of freaky, radical Protestants, who want to turn everyone in Britain into black hat, buckle shoe wearing fundies. The powers that be weren't having it, so the fundies scarpered to the colonies to create their own land. Early to present US history is littered with the elites inflicted their views on all and demonizing those who don't fit into their so-called "Christian values". If Iran is considered a repressive, Islamic fundie state, the the US is its Christian mirror image. There is no separation of church and state in the US, if you have everyone from pop stars to politicians invoking the name of God at every opportunity.

As for the lack of criticism of Cuba's stance on homosexuality, you can't equate that with the sheer ignorance and stupid of George Bush and his ilk. Everyone knows that Cuba is ruled by a dictator and absolute views are par for the course, but to call one's country a free state that grants more freedom than any other country yet practises it only for a few, they are held to a higher standard and their hypocracy must be challenged.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

fab post, fabian

[blackemma]

Bush and Castro both ought to be criticized. Because someone is a dictator and violates human rights is no excuse. Going by that logic, we shouldn't have criticized Hitler's treatment of Jews because he was a dictator and, as such, wasn't holding up the pretense of a civilized democracy, etc. While Bush's stance on homosexuality is frightening, fascist at worst, Castro's persecution has been more severe and why anyone concerned with gay rights should focus on Castro as much as Bush.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 05:43 AM
I find it interesting everyone makes such a fuss about George W.'s homophobia when Fidel does the same and is allowed to get away with it because his nation calls itself "socialist". Numerous gay rights groups have been campaigning Castro to grant gays rights in Cuba. Why does no one make an issue of this as well?
Fidel has legalised homosexuality and they are very tolerant of it in Cuba now actually. Also, being libertarian is not about being left-wing. There are those on both the right and left who oppose sexuality and those on the right and left who accept it.

[blackemma]

Fidel has legalised homosexuality and they are very tolerant of it in Cuba now actually. Also, being libertarian is not about being left-wing. There are those on both the right and left who oppose sexuality and those on the right and left who accept it.

Quoting Peter Tatchell's article on gay rights in Cuba:

"Although Cuban queers are no longer savagely repressed, it is nonsense for the Cuban government and its apologists in the West to claim there is no anti-gay discrimination in Cuba today.

It is true that Havana has none of the death squads that murder queers in Bogotá, but this is hardly proof of Castro's liberalism.

Moreover, socialist Cuba may have the highest standards of health, education and housing of any Latin American country, and a literacy rate exceeding that of the United States. Great! But what is the point of excellent social welfare policies if people are not free and human rights are not respected?

Like many other lesbian and gay Cubans, Reinaldo Arenas was initially an ardent supporter of the revolution, running away from home at the age of fourteen to join the rebels who were fighting to overthrow the American-backed Batista dictatorship.

After Castro's victory in 1959, Arenas benefited from the new government's mass education programme, eventually gaining a place at the University of Havana and winning official acclaim for his first novel, Singing from the Well. But his follow-up book, Hallucinations, was refused publication and had to be smuggled to a publisher overseas. This act of defiance resulted in repeated police raids and the confiscation of his manuscripts.

The campaign of harassment culminated in his arrest in 1973 on a false charge of sexual assault. Fearful of his fate, Arenas escaped from prison and made an unsuccessful attempt to float to Florida on an inner tube. Recaptured, he spent the next two years brutalised inside El Morro prison, until he agreed to secure his freedom by renouncing his "deviant" writings.

Arenas eventually got out of Cuba in the 1980 Mariel Harbour exodus, when Castro decided to get rid of "antisocial" dissidents, criminals and homosexuals by allowing these "scum" to emigrate to the US.

Settling in New York proved a mixed blessing. While free to write, he was stateless, impoverished and later contracted HIV. With no health insurance, he could not afford proper treatment. Dying and plagued by depression, Arenas committed suicide in 1990, aged 47.

If his life was an indictment of communism's lack of political, artistic and sexual freedom, then the circumstances of his death were an equally damning reproach concerning the fate of the poor and sick under capitalism.

Arenas himself made this point shortly before his death, bemoaning that by going into exile he had exchanged political repression for economic injustice.

Peter Marshall's generally favourable book about the revolution, Cuba Libre, recalls that, like Arenas, many gay artists and intellectuals supported Castro's insurrection. They saw his rebellion against the US-backed dictatorship as paving the way for cultural and sexual freedom, as well as economic emancipation and social justice.

The popular left-wing journal Lunes de Revolución was run largely by gay writers. Its radical ideas seemed to enjoy the tacit support of the rebels in the Sierra Maestra. A couple of years after Castro came to power, however, Lunes de Revolución was closed down, as were other freethinking magazines. Many gay authors and journalists were publicly disgraced, refused publication and dismissed from their jobs. Some were reassigned to work as janitors and labourers.

While Castro challenged many backward ideas as remnants of the old society, he embraced with enthusiasm the homophobia of Latin machismo and Catholic dogma, elevating it into a fundamental tenet of Cuba's new socialist morality. Idealising rural life, he once claimed approvingly that "in the country, there are no homosexuals".

When Cuba adopted Soviet-style communism it also adopted Soviet-style prejudice and puritanism. Ever since Stalin promoted the ideology of "the socialist family" and recriminalised gay sex in 1934, communist orthodoxy dictated that homosexuality was a "bourgeois decadence" and "capitalist degeneration". This became the Cuban view. "Maricones" (faggots) were routinely denounced as "sexual deviants" and "agents of imperialism". Laughable allegations of homosexuality were used in an attempt to discredit "corrupting" Western influences, such as pop music, with the communists circulating the rumour that the Beatles were gay.

In the name of the new socialist morality, homosexuality was declared illegal in Cuba and typically punishable by four years' imprisonment. Parents were required to prevent their children from engaging in homosexual activities and to report those who did to the authorities. Failure to inform on a gay child was a crime against the revolution.

Official homophobia led, in the mid-1960s, to the mass round-up of gay people, without charge or trial. Many were seized in night-time swoops and incarcerated in forced-labour camps for "re-education" and "rehabilitation". A few disappeared and never returned.

One gay man recalls: "We were taken to Camagüey, at the other end of the island. It was a camp surrounded with barbed wire, with watchtowers manned by guards with machine guns."

The camp inmates included not just homosexuals, but also criminals, students, Catholics and political dissidents. They were set to work at 3 a.m., cutting sugar cane with machetes. It was backbreaking labour on meagre food rations. The gay prisoners were often beaten, and occasionally raped, by criminal gangs in the camps. Some gays were killed; others committed suicide.

At the First National Congress on Education and Culture in 1971, the cultural repression of homosexuality intensified. It was decreed that homosexuals were "pathological", "antisocial" and "not to be tolerated" in any job where they might "influence youth". Widespread anti-gay purges followed in schools, universities, theatres and the media. Gay professors, dancers, actors and editors ended up sweeping roads and digging graves.

The repression did not begin to ease until the mid-1970s and even then it was not because the Cuban leadership recognised their error. They halted mass detentions and reduced prison sentences largely because they were shamed by international protests - some organised by the newly-formed gay liberation movements in the US and Europe, and others by left-wing intellectuals such as Jean-Paul Sartre, in defence of persecuted gay writers and academics.

A more significant softening of official attitudes took place in the early 1990s. With the advent of AIDS, the Cuban authorities initially cracked down hard, quarantining everyone with HIV in special sanatoria. But, by the early 1990s, the authorities felt compelled to adopt a more liberal approach, abandoning their detention policy - partly because it was costing too much! More significantly, Cuban health officials realised that they had to show greater tolerance towards the homosexual community in order to win their trust, confidence and support for safer sex.

Another factor that influenced changes in government attitudes was the secondment to Cuba of East German doctors and psychologists during the 1980s. They viewed homosexuality as a natural minority condition, and this eventually prompted more enlightened thinking among Cuban medical staff and health educators.

It was not until 1992 that President Fidel Castro finally declared that homosexuality was a "natural human tendency that must simply be respected". He has, however, never apologised or expressed remorse for his past homophobia and persecution.

Today, the legal status of lesbian and gay people in Cuba is still ambiguous. Amnesty International regards the lack of clear, categorical civil rights for homosexuals as being tantamount to illegalisation.

While the 1979 penal code formally decriminalised homosexuality, gay behaviour causing a "public scandal" can be punished by up to twelve months' jail. This vague law, which is open to wide interpretation, has often been used to arrest gay men merely because they happen to be effeminate and flamboyant.

Discreet open-air cruising in public squares and parks is nowadays mostly tolerated, although often kept under police surveillance. Most gay bars are semi-legal private house parties and are subject to periodic police raids. In 1997, Havana's biggest gay bar, El Periquiton, was closed down by the police. One organiser of an unofficial gay bar, Lorenzo, confides: "The police can knock the door down at any moment and arrest everyone here ... instead of sending you to jail, these days they just fine you." A typical fine for those who run gay bars from their homes or courtyards is about 1,500 pesos, which is nearly seven months' wages. The police also usually confiscate the lights, sound systems and record collections.

Homosexuals are still deemed unfit to join the ruling Communist Party, because being gay is supposedly contrary to communist ethics. This can have an adverse impact on a person's professional career in a society where all senior appointments depend on party membership.

Lesbian and gay newspapers and organisations are not permitted. The Cuban Association of Gays and Lesbians, formed in 1994, was suppressed in 1997 and its members arrested. Gay Cuba? Not yet!"

Doesn't sound like equality to me.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Does not sound like fact either.


Nice editorial.

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 12:38 AM

When I go to Washington for the protest, I will take a dump in his house, see how he likes that.

That would be amazing a "Million Queer March" that would drive the homophobes crazy :D


They have tours in the White House, don't they? I'll just squat in the corner and take a shit. I'll say I couldn't hold it in any longer. How bad can the punishment be for taking a crap?

no tours allowed after 9-11. anyways the dog probally already shits all over the house
well, the DOJ gays was having a march I think, but aren't allowed to do so anymore. Of course, its their American right not to be represented, isn't it?

[Hampton]

Ask some disenfranchised ex prisoners. ;)

[Rastafari]

and just about every other man and woman who aren't patriotic arab-punchin' rednecks, I'm afraid

[tebvie]

I really don't think Bush no matter how hard he tries will be able to ban gay marriage. It's a rediculous idea. I understand that for some people there are religious issues involved but who cares you can't tell some one who they are allowed to fall in love with. It's dumb and his idea will never pull through.

[Lefty]

I'm not a real big fan of this Bush guy. There, I said it.