Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

304 comments

Unfortunately... (1)

bizpile (758055) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660424)

Will such a move help or hurt him this late in the game?

Unfortunately it won't hurt him. The Democrats seem to be a bit slow on jumping on all the "flip-flopping" (I hope I never hear that word again after tis election) that the President does and the Republican are too good at redirecting the public's attention when Bush does something stupid.

Not just flip-flopping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10660468)

Waffling too, I never want to hear that term again either (except in relation to something that I can eat).

Non-story (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10660791)

Bush has always believed that civil unions were A-OK, as long as you don't call it a marriage.

Most Southern Evangelicals, whom Bush was trying to win over with this whole anti-gay-marriage Amendment idea, feel exactly the same way.

You see, a "flip-flop" is when your position changes. Bush's position has always been:

Gay Marriage: A threat to mom and apple pie. Boo! Boo! You queers are trying to ruin our religious institutions and drag us all to Hell!!!

Civil Unions: States can recognize anything they want along these lines. Live and let live. La-di-da.

Is it a game of semantics? Yes.
Is it a change of position? No.

Re:Non-story (1)

goatan (673464) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661693)

You see, a "flip-flop" is when your position changes. Bush's position has always been

So a flip flopper is an inteligent person who can react to changing situations and change themselves? Why does bush think this is a bad thing.

Re:Non-story (1)

blahlemon (638963) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662276)

A flip-flopper is someone who can't make up their mind where they stand on an issue. This week it's good one way, the next week it's good another way. Not the sort of behaviour you want from a President when the country is a war, no matter if you think the war is legal/justified or not.

Re:Non-story (2)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661967)

Bush earlier wanted to amend the constitution to not allow states to have their own choice as to what constitutes a civil union. Now he is saying quite clearly that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman but the actual legal definition should be left up to the states. It is a change of position. Is it a change in the way he personally feels about gay marraige? No. Is it a change of his political position on state's rights? Yes. So, yes it is actually quite the flip flop. Quite the meticulously planned out flip flop as the whole constitution ammendment was absolutely insane and just a means of getting press attention (which this change in policy will also get). This is his planned out way, planned out ever since he proposed the ammendment, of showing the people that he can admit to a mistake and try to correct it.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660471)

Taking a stance closer towards tolerance should not hurt anyone.

That said, too bad BOTH candidates are bigots on the whole matter.

Re:Unfortunately... (5, Insightful)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660554)

I believe in civil unions, For EVERYONE.

Marriage is a religous act, and I believe in the seperation of Church and State. Simple solution, make everyone get Civil Union, and leave marriage upto the church.

Oh wait, that makes too much sense.
-
I think gays should get married, as long as both women are HOT!

Re:Unfortunately... (4, Interesting)

rhakka (224319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660576)

Marriage as an institution has existed as a legally binding institution for thousands of years. For a very, very long time it was a transfer of ownership of a woman from father to the new husband.

Yet it's religious? Religions co-opted marriage. Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

saden1 (581102) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660696)

This isn't a flaimbate or anything but why don't gays create their own churches which respect and tolerate gay marriage? I mean really, their are so many denominations as it stands one more couldn't hurt. Why not create their own denomination which recognizes their marriage on religious grounds?

Re:Unfortunately... (2, Informative)

mintrepublic (821683) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660758)

Unitarian Universalists [uua.org]

They'll take anyone ^_^

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660841)

why does it have anything at all to do with church? A hell of a lot of people don't get married in religious ceremonies you know.

Re:Unfortunately... (4, Insightful)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660971)

That's not the problem. The problem is that if the marriage is not recognized by the government, then it does not give any of the legal and monetary privileges that go with marriage.

Effectivly the state (government) discriminates between long-term commmitted homosexual couples and long-term commmitted heterosexual couples based only on thier relative gender; last I checked sexual discrimination goes against fundamental issues of human rights.

Any body (church) can say "yep, you're married, you may now kiss the other person", but if the government won't say "yep, we see you're married, so you get x, y and z privileges" then the value of the marriage is legally naught (even though perhaps religiously significant).

The solution to the problem is simple, SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. The state can recognize a union between any two people (even regardless of wether either person is already unioned with another), giving the privileges presently associated with marriage. The church can recognize a marriage between any two people (or, unlikely, more) but without any connection to the state.

People can get neither, one, or both, depending on thier wishes; and of course grandfather existing recognized marriages into a state recognized union.

While we're at it, get rid of any inkling of monetary 'rewards' for unions (marriage), why should people who don't find "that special someone" not be rewarded.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661432)

people who don't find "that special someone"
-- runs off and cries

Re:Unfortunately... (2)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661651)

The problem is that if the marriage is not recognized by the government, then it does not give any of the legal and monetary privileges that go with marriage.

And the reason for those laws (that discriminate against homosexual couples) is that homosexual couples will not breed. The system wants growth in the form of more consumers, and babies are consumers.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

unapersson (38207) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661811)

And the reason for those laws (that discriminate against homosexual couples) is that homosexual couples will not breed.

Not with each other maybe, but homosexual couples do have children through other means: artificial insemination, surrogacy, adoption etc.

Re:Unfortunately... (5, Insightful)

neurojab (15737) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660729)

>Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.

I'm sure that's true. It's also true that most people that are opposed to "gay marriage" are so opposed for religious reasons. Those that are in favor of the concept of gay marriage (call it a civil union or whatever) are not interested in barging into your local parish and demanding that God recognize their vows, nor are they interested in destroying "family values". The gay community just wants the same legal status as a heterosexual couple when it comes to patient's rights, wills, etc. The fact is that gay couples already have weddings and adopt children, and have done so long before any city or state started giving them marriage licenses. This "gay marriage" debate has nothing to do with that. This is all about the special secular legal status that a married couple gets if they're one male and one female, but no other combination thereof.

The only way to give them this legal status and still satisfy the religious folks (who are convinced that a homosexual couple getting married somehow affects them in a negative way, but won't share the mechanism) is to seperate the notion of religious marriage from that of secular marriage.

For once in his life, I agree with president Bush about something. Civil Unions are a good idea. I can't imagine why he was trying to ammend the constitution if that's really what he wants.

That said, I don't think the notions of two "seperate but equal" legal statuses for the same thing is a good thing either. Let's define "marriage" in the churches and define "civil unions" in the legislature. I'm aware that means scrapping the word "marriage" from the law books, and I think that's a good thing. Perhaps we can clean up the alimony laws while we're at it to get rid of this pre-nup bullshit.

BTW. I don't speak for the gay community... I'm a heterosexual that believes in equal rights for all.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660854)

I don't have a problem of getting the state of of marriage, and simply conferring "civil union" status on religious marriages in addition to their own secular process (for convenience).

However, I don't think that will ever happen, and you're just playing semantics at that point anyway, so I see no real value in it. Either the unions are equal or they are not, and if they are, there is no need to change the name. What religions do is up to religions, and if you're a gay catholic, you still can't make the catholic church perform a wedding for you, no matter what the state does, so it's a non-issue there.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

rlwhite (219604) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662273)

Marriage can still be a legally binding institution. Let the religious institutions write up contracts that abide by their beliefs. The couple can choose their church and their marriage contract. That way, if the Catholics don't want to allow divorce or whatever, they simply write it into the contracts. You can even specify the church as arbiter in the contract and let them handle things like divorce hearings. The law becomes more flexible to serve the diverse religious needs of the people.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660733)

I need to include a piece of background to make my point.

All Christian churches use the Bible. When Jesus was alive, the Old Testament was already intact, however the New Testament was put together by what is now the Catholic church. Until Martin Luther, ALL Christian doctrine came ONLY from the Catholic church, and even later, after the Reformation, many Protestant churches still depended on teachings that were derived from teachings from the Catholic church.

What most people don't know is that not only did the Church originally have no problem with things like prostitution, but that a number of other changes were made throughout the years (like banning marriage for priests because they would leave their estates to their kids -- so by banning marriage, they left their estates to the church). One of the was that, for a good while, not only was there no problem, in Christianity with same-sex marriages, but there were actually Christian ceremonies for same-sex marriages.

And, if you go back to Jesus, his point was that our focus was to love God first, and others second -- to treat all with love. With that in mind, it seems pretty narrow minded for Christians to treat homosexuals with the same hatred and ignorance they once reserved (at least in America) for non-whites.

Sorry, wrong universe (1, Interesting)

leonbrooks (8043) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660847)

The Catholic church of the time was focussed around various forms of Mithraism and Zoroastrian-like groups, although it later absorbed the cult of Vesta (ever heard of Vestal Virgins?) and half a dozen others before conquering much of the Christian movement by a kind of internal takeover. The canon existed pretty much as the Protestants use it long before the Catholic Church officially endorsed it - and IRL their endorsement varied from accepted practice and was varied a couple of times.

The New Testament states flat-out that homosexuals (very carefully differentiates between butch and limp-wristed blokes too, and also lesbians, then groups them all together with thieves and liars and such) will not be found in heaven, so if you're a Christian and your "love" leads someone to miss their chance, were you really loving them, or were you just being weak at a different level? The Old Testament is even blunter, prescribing stoning to death for homosexuals.

Of course, if you hate homosexuals, you're also going to miss out. If you can put together a coherent world-view which incorporates both facts, then you're pretty much on the right track.

Re:Sorry, wrong universe (2, Insightful)

bonniot (633930) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661408)

What the Bible says about any subject always depends on the way you read and interpret it. Just think about how differently Jesus lived and interpreted the scriptures compared to the Pharisees.

What the Bible says about homosexuality [religioustolerance.org] on religioustolerance.org [religioustolerance.org] analyses the various texts and tries to show the different points of views.

Re:Unfortunately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10660985)

Not what is now the Catholic Church. What is now the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Orthodox Church is exactly as old as the Catholic Church, since they were the same Church before they split (long before Luther), so not all Christian doctrine came from the Catholic church. The Orthodox Church has nothing against married priests, it doesn't discourage it at all. And prostitution has always been wrong in the eyes of the Church.

The Christian same-sex "marriages" were not sexual ("making of brothers/sisters").

Christians are not supposed to hate gays - that's not the stance of any major denomination (I'm assuming you'll find fringe groups that preach that). Christians are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. There's nothing wrong with, for example, a gay attending church, or the people in the church accepting and embracing said person. It's what they're supposed to do. The choices people make with their lives are between them and God.

Christians are supposed to show their love for Christ in their treatment of others - treat everyone with the same love and respect they would Jesus.

As for Christians hating and being ignorant about non-whites (slavery)... that was not a Christian vs non-Christian thing. That was a cultural and political split. The hatred was far from exclusive to Christians exclusive (and it didn't originate from Christianity either). There were many Christian abolitionists.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

mintrepublic (821683) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661912)

As for Christians hating and being ignorant about non-whites (slavery)... that was not a Christian vs non-Christian thing. That was a cultural and political split.

Yes, that is true. The more I learn about history between reading and going to random lectures around Ann Arbor, the more I realize just about every event is somehow based on money, or economic success, and things like that. i.e. Slavery in the South, England wanting to keep American colonies, Japan expanding in the Pacific, and even the Crusades were economically motivated for some people.

Re:Unfortunately... (2, Insightful)

wibs (696528) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660508)

The thing with civil unions is that a lot of people don't see a big difference between them and "separate but equal." The only gay people that this really appeases are those who see it as but a step along the way to true equal rights.

As a straight guy this doesn't affect me much, but I hope this shows his hardcore religious following just how strong his beliefs are. Like any other politician he's just doing what he thinks will get him elected, and that's what he always has been doing. Flip-flop is not a term exclusive to Kerry, it applies to anyone trying to get the most amount of votes they can.

Re:Unfortunately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10661907)

Who does the terrorist want to win? Who will you vote for? Proof here: http://www.drudgereport.com/abct2.htm

Pandering to moderates (-1, Troll)

Perdo (151843) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660430)

We all knew his spine was as squishy as jell-o.

Cheney prolly Bent the him over the matter...

Let me get this right (3, Funny)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660433)

They can't be married but they're allowed to join a union? I didn't think Dubya supported unions at all! What next? Will he allow gay communists??

Re:Let me get this right (1)

slughead (592713) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660521)

Civil unions != marriage A Civil union does not entail child separation or child support, settlements for infidelity, marriage tax credit, or any other marriage goodies. I don't remember Bush ever saying he was against civil unions. If anyone wants to be a moron and voluntarily raise their income tax rate, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

Re:Let me get this right (1)

JVert (578547) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660657)

Maybe the "gay tax" will save social security?

Re:Let me get this right (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10661019)

Civil unions != marriage

Bzzzzzt! Wrong.

A Civil union does not entail child separation or child support, settlements for infidelity, marriage tax credit, or any other

Child separation? Ouch. Other than that, Bzzzzzzt! Wrong again.

The whole point of him endorsing gay unions is to give the faggots a tax break, putting more burden onto normal (typically parental) couples.

You may like to spin it as not being a flip flop, but it is. Masked by semantics, perhaps, but a major flip flop nevertheless.

Re:Let me get this right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10661051)

Hey everyone... Duck! Wait, nevermind: It went over your head anyway.

Re:Let me get this right (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661823)

If anyone wants to be a moron and voluntarily raise their income tax rate, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

Bush would. He only supports recognition of civil unions at a state level. The federal government would continue to tax the couple as single.

And your knowledge of federal tax law is incomplete. If a couple has a similar income, yes, they pay more in taxes by filing as married. But in a one-income household you pay less by filing married than you do by filing single.

Any editors in the house? (1)

billybob (18401) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660454)

gay ane lesbian

Hmm.

tech news (0, Offtopic)

name773 (696972) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660458)

go technology news!
w00t

Re:tech news (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660575)

You are in the politics section. You are free to remove it from your front page.

Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (4, Insightful)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660470)

At least that's what this pundit thinks [volokh.com] .

Partial quote:
President Bush's position is actually consistent with the FMA (whether or not either is right). President Bush said that "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so" -- that, in the Times' words, "the matter should be left up to the states."


The Federal Marriage Amendment would not block a state from recognizing civil unions. It provides (I quote the Mar. 22, 2004 version, S.J. Res. 30) that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

This is kinda like that "Bush banned stem-cell research" myth, when in fact he just stopped anti-abortionists from being forced to fund abortions (via taxpayer money).

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (1, Informative)

DietFluffy (150048) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660608)

That last clause is widely considered to be a ban on civil unions:

"Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Bush is being inconsistent by supporting the amendment while claiming that he is for civil unions.

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10660685)

No, civil unions != marriage. It's to make sure the laws in states right now that recognize marriage can't be used to allow civil unions for all. Instead, states would have to explicitly choose to allow civil unions. It basically sets the default for gay unions of any sort to off until a state chooses to turn it to on.

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (0, Troll)

minkwe (222331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660968)

The constitution already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Why then is this amendment necessary? And if Bush is FOR civil unions for gays, what difference exists between his position and Kerry's? And if his position is not essentially different from Kerry's, why are the religious groups supporting Bush's position on homosexuality but not Kerry's?

Kerry said in the last debate that he believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that the constitutional amendment was not necessary.

This sounds to me as if Bush is lying. Just like with the draft situation.

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (2, Informative)

Minna Kirai (624281) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661547)

The constitution already defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

That is completely untrue. Go ahead and search the Constitution [usconstitution.net] for "marriage", "marry", or even just "marr". It's not in there.

Maybe you meant "dictionary" instead of "constitution"? But that doesn't have much legal weight, because laws often use definitions of words different from what they really mean.

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662131)

[...] laws often use definitions of words different from what they really mean.

Exactly, like declaring things vegetables when they really are fruits, just so they can collect [k12.oh.us] more taxes. [greennature.com]

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (1)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661797)

By "Constitution", you must mean the Defense of Marriage Act, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage. The DoMA, on the other hand, does explicitly define the rights of states; states don't have to accept the legal marriage of gays from one state to another.

The problem with this is that Article 4, Section 1 [findlaw.com] of the Constitution (Full Faith and Credit) states, basically, that all public "Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" in one state convey to all others. When Bush mentions activist judges, he's referring to judges that could overturn the DoMA or rule it unconstitutional. Making what DoMA says part of the Constitution is the only way that couldn't happen.

--trb

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (2, Informative)

ifwm (687373) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661869)

You're lying, because the Constitution doesn't address marriage at all. Try not to call other people liars when you've just done it yourself.

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10662099)

It would only be "widely considered" so by people who can't read. It says marriage and it's legal accompaniment can't be conferred on a certain type of union. Civil unions are not marriages and don't get the benefits already, so this just limits them from being made into the legal equivalent of marriage in the future. It has no affect on their current state.

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (2, Informative)

CTachyon (412849) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662211)

Actually, if the FMA were passed, it would outlaw the recognition of civil unions as well. The phrase "legal incidents thereof" is referring to the benefits that come as part of the marriage package (e.g. joint tax filing, power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, etc.). This means that, while a state could legalize civil unions (or even marriage), neither other states nor the federal government would have to recognize the rights that the state bestowed on the couple. (Which means you'll get crap like the recent Vermont/Virginia custody battle fiasco [queerday.com] , except that then it'll be enshrined into the constitution and thus that much harder to mop up the mess.)

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (1)

ezeri (513659) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660713)

He didn't even stop anything, his was the first administration to ever fund stem cell research with government money.

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (1)

Xyrus (755017) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662084)

The first administration to fund it? Stem-cell research has only been around for a few years. Oh yeah, funded it real good. There were so many rules and regulations on stem cell research that it made it practically worthless. That's just Kerry propaganda right? Go look up a few of the scientists who actually TRY to do the research under current conditions. ~X~

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660768)

So can a single person enter into a marriage between a man and a woman, as well as a "civil union"? Isn't one of the main benefits of states recognizing each other's liscences that it helps prevent serial bigamists?

My own stance (4, Insightful)

melquiades (314628) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660808)

The government should deal only in civil unions, and stop recognizing "marriage" altogether. It's too politically charged, too religiously entangled, and, frankly, too personal for the government to be messing with. Let people define their own marriages as they see fit, and if they want the legal benefits of a civil union, they can apply for one -- but they're separate things. Signing civil union documents would be a standard part of most marriage ceremonies, but neither would necessitate the other.

Yeah, it's just a linguistic trick, but it's really only the language that's hanging up the fundies in the first place.

(OT: If the doc your sig links to is supposed to justify the Iraq war, it's a lousy justification. I'm sure it would take you about 20 minutes to find some loon in northern Idaho who blows off the UN, cheats the government, and would really like to build a biological weapon, and he has about as much ability to follow through on that as Saddam did.)

Re:My own stance (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10661507)

Government stayed the hell out of marriage altogether until this past century. For instance, back in the days of Benjamin Franklin, all you had to do to get married was... tell people you were married. Honestly, what business is it of the government's whether you're married or not?

Ask William Hurt... it happened to him. (1)

Big Sean O (317186) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661840)

It's the governments business about marriage if things like divorce and child custody become civil issues.

For example, I tell everyone me and my lady are married. Then, after I trash her credit, I 'divorce' her. She would be mightily pissed. Oh, and I take her kid.

The government regulates all contracts for the public good.

Civil unions sidestep the whole marriage deal. If Bush _really_ wanted to pass an amendment, he should've passed one that guaranteed civil unions all, including gays.

But, it wouldn't have given the right-wing nut-jobs a hard-on.

Re:My own stance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10662287)


FYI - Iraq did build biological weapons [fas.org] . The inspectors were still recovering supposedly destroyed biological bombs and components in 2002/3.

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (3, Funny)

rhakka (224319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660870)

awesome. can we stop making me pay for wars I don't believe in too, with my taxpayer dollars?

How about the ban on new strains of stem cells being developed for research?

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10661024)

"war is justified" ... what a moron you must be !

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661283)

This is kinda like that "Bush banned stem-cell research" myth, when in fact he just stopped anti-abortionists from being forced to fund abortions (via taxpayer money).

Even from a rebublican viewpoint this makes very little sense. I hate to say it, but from a financial standpoint, ending life prematurely saves the government a far greater sum than the cost of the average abortion. (What ~$5000???)

From a fiscally conservative point of view (what the republicans claim to be) it makes little to no sense to illegalize abortion or create artificial barriers.

Call me a goddamned troll or what have you, but think about how many new children are added to medicare each year, yet alone the millions of people that actually try to live on government assistance? I think it is really sad that a lot of people live on government assistance not just because they decided it to be. I mean it really isn't a career path. Just like the many homeless people you never see (I was one) a lot of them never really chose to be there either.

The only reason the Rebublicans wish to end abortion is because of religious reasons. I think it gives the government a lot of power to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body. A lot of women would agree. One of the main reasons that people generally seek abortion is because of economic reasons. I went to a relatively rough inner city school and had on average 75 pregnancies a year, a student dead sometimes once a month or so, open drug dealing/usage, teachers getting stabbed in the throat, oh, and someone slashing my wrist. I'm not making this up.

Personally I think the poor are getting desperately poor these days. The disparity is wider than it has been in over 70 years. Call me a bleeding heart, liberal, wtf ever, but unless you grew up or lived in that sort of culture you probably don't understand the plight of the working (or lately nonworking) man.

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (1)

Xyrus (755017) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662167)

Just remeber that terrorism is the biggest threat to our nation. ~X~ This message is composed of 100% recycled sarcasm.

Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (2, Informative)

dash2 (155223) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661585)

I think the key phrase is "or the legal incidents thereof".

*BEHEADING is dying (0, Troll)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660477)

It is now official. Headcraft confirms: *BEHEADING is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BEHEADING community when Headcraft confirmed that the total number of executions by *BEHEADING dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all executions worldwide. Coming on the heels of a recent Headcraft survey which plainly states that *BEHEADING has dropped dramatically after the US invasion of Iraq, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BEHEADING is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Ruthless Dictators comprehensive execution test.

You don't need to be a Jailed Dictator [floogie.org] to predict *BEHEADING's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BEHEADING faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BEHEADING because *BEHEADING is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BEHEADING. As many of us are already aware, *BEHEADING continues to lose market share. Rivers of blood no longer flow from headless corpses..

Ruthless dictator *BEHEADING is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core dictators. The sudden and unpleasant deaths of long time *BEHEADING evangelists Uday and Qusay Hussein only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: *BEHEADING is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

*BEHEADING leader Qusay stated that 500,000 Iraqis 'dissappeard' during Saddam's regime. How many of them died by *BEHEADING? Let's see. Executions were generally carried out by hanging, bullet to the head, or *BEHEADING. With *BEHEADING being to most difficult to clean up after, let's conservatively estimate that only 5% of the Iraqis that 'disappeared' were *BEHEADED, so 500,000 / 20 = 25,000 deaths by *BEHEADING during Saddam's regime. Saddam took power in 1979, meaning his regime lasted 24 years. Therefore there were (25,000 / 24) ~ 1041 *BEHEADINGS PER YEAR during Saddam's regime. This is consistent with human rights reports. Since the US invasion, there have been approximately 50 *BEHEADINGS. Therefore there have been (50 / 1.5) ~ 33 *BEHEADINGS PER YEAR after the US invasion. Clearly, the terrorists are not as efficient at *BEHEADING. *BEHEADINGS have dropped 97% in the past 18 months. Clearly *BEHEADING is dying.

Due to the troubles of Saddam's Regime, what with it being gone and everything, massive amounts of *BEHEADING stopped and was taken over by a dismal few but high profile *BEHEADINGs that were carried out by nothing but cowardly terrorists Now *BEHEADING is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BEHEADING has rapidly declined in market share. *BEHEADING is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BEHEADING is to survive at all it will be among terrorist networks. *BEHEADING continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BEHEADING is dying.

Fact: *BEHEADING is dead.

© 2004 CmdrTaco (troll)

Desperate? (1, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660479)

Wow - That's the sign of a really desperate man. Only minutes ago pollster Zogby [zogby.com] , on the Daily Show [comedycentral.com] , stated flatly that he saw Kerry winning the election. I think GWB is seeing the writing on the wall.

Re:Desperate? (1)

slughead (592713) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660544)

Jon Stewart is the most reliable source of information EVAR.

Also, I went to your zogby link and saw this:

Election 2004 Zogby Battleground State Polls: Bush Rebounds, Now Ahead in 5 States (FL, MI, MN, NM, NV); Kerry Leads in 4 States (CO, IA, OH, WI); Tie in Pennsylvania at 47% Each; Red and Blue Battle Continues, New Reuters/Zogby Ten States Battleground Poll Reveals... [ read on [zogby.com] ] (10/28/04)

Re:Desperate? (1)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660566)

Only minutes ago pollster Zogby, on the Daily Show, stated flatly that he saw Kerry winning the election.

Oh, yeah? Well, only a few hours ago, on the O'Reilly Factor, several pollsters said they saw GWB winning.

  • MOD PARENT UP [http] by Anonymous Coward Thursday October 28, @10:04PM
    • NO YUO [http] by Anonymous Coward Thursday October 28, @10:05PM

Re:Desperate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10660568)

Only minutes ago pollster Zogby, on the Daily Show, stated flatly that he saw Kerry winning the election.

The Daily Show, huh? I guess that is where all of the really important political news breaks... there, in Leno's routine, and Letterman's Top 10 list.

Meanwhile, in the real news [reuters.com]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush leads Democratic rival John Kerry by two points heading into the final five days of a tight race for the White House, according to a
Reuters/Zogby poll released on Thursday.

Bush led Kerry 48-46 percent in the latest three-day national tracking poll, gaining one point on the Massachusetts senator in a day. Bush led Kerry 48-47 percent on Wednesday.


If Bush is reading the handwriting on the wall, it probably says, "Go ahead and mail the invitations".

Re:Desperate? (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661066)

Zogby said Kerry would win for two reasons: the candidates are essentially tied to within the margin of error, and undecideds usually vote against the incumbent. If you notice, 48+46 doesn't add up to 100.

And I Believe Him! (1)

Trikenstein (571493) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660489)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment in Atlantis with bigfoot.

as bad as racism (4, Insightful)

alatesystems (51331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660491)

Separate but equal? "If you ask Vice President Cheney's daughter, ... who is a lesbian ..., I'm sure she'd tell you she's just being herself." Sorry, couldn't resist quoting Kerry. "Want some wood? Heh, heh" There's a Bush one.

But, this is utter shit. I'm not gay, I only know a couple of gay people, and this whole state I live in seems to be populated by a majority of redneck homophobics. You don't have to be part of a cultural group to stand up for their rights.

If I recall correctly, about 78% of people in this state approved a bill "defining" marriage and forbidding civil unions. A judge overturned it as "too broad" but I'm sure it will be right back. I proudly voted against it. Haven't any of you ever heard of "and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me"?

Vote Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org] in 2004. He is the only one who will bring about real change and bring civil liberties back to us. He supports rights for all minorities (I'm a white, straight Male) and majorities. So don't think I'm pandering or whatever to any specific group.

Read why [badnarik.org] you should vote for him. There are reasons for about every socioeconomic/cultural group.

What's a Libertarian you ask? No, you didn't ask? Read this [badnarik.org] anyway.

Chris

Re:as bad as racism (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660906)


If I recall correctly, about 78% of people in this state approved a bill "defining" marriage and forbidding civil unions

Approval of "Gay marriage" implies government responsabilities regarding spousal benefits, n'est ce pas? Government tends to reward the typical male + female = future taxpayers.

Disclosure: I'm not gay.

That's a poor argument. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10661665)

Yeah, but my wife and I don't ever plan on having kids. So should any spousal benefits we receive be negated?

Not to mention all the folks out there who are infertile. Do we start discriminating against them, too?

How is this flip flopping? (0, Troll)

edbarbar (234498) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660496)


He says he doesn't support gay marriage, just unions. Personally, I think there are some parts of marriage law designed for the children presumed to come from that union.

I don't think it is a reasonable assumption in the case of gay relationships that the union will yield children.

So this seems reasonable to me, and doesn't strike me as flip flopping.

What about adopted children? (1)

b00m3rang (682108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660655)

Wouldn't the same type of provisions be pertinent?

Re:How is this flip flopping? (4, Insightful)

EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660672)

I don't think it is a reasonable assumption in the case of gay relationships that the union will yield children.

Ever hear of adoption? Artificial insemination? Kids from previous relationships? These situations are pretty common in both straight and gay families.

Should straight couples who don't want kids be excluded from the same marriage laws, since their union will not yield children?

Re:How is this flip flopping? (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660710)

That's quite a nuanced position you're interpreting it as there. Are you sure you've got the right candidate?

Re:How is this flip flopping? (5, Interesting)

mopomi (696055) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660910)

So, according to your definition, women past the age of about 50 http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=94F4 C769-0E44-4BA5-AF20E9E264577527 [mayoclinic.com] should not be allowed to marry? A man or woman who is sterile due to age or accident or choice should not be allowed to marry? These situations preclude procreation, and thus, according to the extreme views you espouse above would preclude any reason to marry, other than for some sort of monetary benefit (I guess).
So this seems reasonable to me, and doesn't strike me as flip flopping.

Except, of course, for the fact that in previous statements, Bush has stated that in order to "protect" (from what, exactly?) marriage, it must be defined as only between a man and a woman, and that same sex couples do not deserve the same rights as others in this country. However, I agree: it's not flip-flopping, it's just that he doesn't actually know what he's said (or believed) in the past.

It's remarkable that two (at least) of the last three republican presidents can't (couldn't) remember what they say or do from day to day. It's also remarkable that those two presidents had essentially the same staff.

Re:How is this flip flopping? (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661082)

A good friend of mine is 22 year old heterosexual. She is steral and will never have children. If she wants a child she is going to have to do it the same way a homosexual couple would. Are you suggesting she should not be allowed to get married because she is not capable of giving birth?

Re:How is this flip flopping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10661229)

Sterile? I don't know about the grand-parent poster, but I think she should be convicted of fraud if she enters a marraige without disclosing that she is sterile.

A step in the right direction... (1)

mintrepublic (821683) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660501)

Well, this is a move in the right direction. A final solution (bad wording, I know) would be to declare homo- and hetero-sex unions civil unions and leave marriage up to the church. Of course, to avoid the problems in come Scandinavian countries, there would still have to be incentives to get a union. www.lp.org

"come Scandinavian countries"? (1)

b00m3rang (682108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660668)

Fraudulent slip?

Re:"come Scandinavian countries"? (1)

mintrepublic (821683) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660711)

The preview button is right there, but I just choose not to use it =). Also, I need to remember to use the br tags, unlike LJ.

*some Scandinavian countries

Libertarian Party [lp.org]

Flip-Flopping is a habit for Bush (5, Funny)

Anonymous Cowdog (154277) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660539)

Do a Google search for Bush flip flops [google.com] and you'll see there is a whole pile of issues Bush has flip-flopped on.

The really frightening thing is some doctors think he is showing signs of pre-senile dementia [archive.org] .

MOD UP! Everyone should see this video (2nd link) (1)

b00m3rang (682108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660708)

n/t

Re:Flip-Flopping is a habit for Bush (1)

macrealist (673411) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660805)

Yeah, but did you see the bulge on his back?

Stuck in the middle with you (2, Insightful)

BortQ (468164) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660565)

This was pretty surprising news to me. I guess the US election really is a race to the center as many have been saying. Kerry wants to be gun-totin and Bush wants to be gay-friendly.

If I was in the US I would seriously consider voting for that Badnarik guy. It seems as if he is by far the smartest voice out there.

Supports it?? Where does he say that? (2, Insightful)

richcoder (539438) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660585)

I haven't found one quote that says Bush supports civil unions between gay couples. He simply states that it should be up to the states to decide. Talk about spinning... sheesh

Re:Supports it?? Where does he say that? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661922)

So we have some context, here's the relevent part of the article:
"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so. ...

"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman.

"Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others," Bush told ABC's Charlie Gibson in an interview broadcast Tuesday on "Good Morning America."

"So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?" Gibson asked the president, to which Bush replied: "Right."

I read that is implying that he's in favour of civil unions between gay couples as long as such arrangements are not forced upon states. He feels he's breaking with the Republican party because, if the last question and answer makes sense, the Republicans, in general, believe that states should not and should not be allowed to recognize civil unions between groups other than married man and woman couples. So to him it is a big step to support the rights of states to recognize gay couples and provide them with many legal privileges usually reserved for married heterosexual couples.

Now, it could be that both the questioner and George W Bush, the Republican candidate for President, misunderstands general Republican policy and feeling in this area. That said, the question and Bush's apparent belief that it's valid matches what I've seen, where very few Republicans have argued that the solution to gay marriage is recognized civil unions, and many are just opposed to gay civil unions as they are marriages.

Kerry Issues A Response (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10660643)

October 28, 2004-John Kerry today said his administration would order full, equal,
and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing
heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 103 million compulsory
same-sex marriages that will take place in the US by May 15.

"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual
marriage to co-exist," John Kerry said. "This is just the first step toward creating an all-gay
United States."

Kerry added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual
unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions
altogether."

Kerry said his action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.

"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth,
we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to
allow gay marriages," Kerry said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed
anyway."

The campaign issued the surprise statement in response to a flip flop by
President Bush.

"If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is
never equal," Kerry said,. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling
conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all
residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that
this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to
our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy."

Kerry then announced his marriage to Heinz heir teacher Teresa Heinz Kerry
would be annulled and that he would marry based on a
pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census
office earlier that day.

Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass
ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and
Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal
heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for
non-support.

Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the
statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants,
which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho,
homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up" and "Adam and Eve or
Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read,
"On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."

According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.

"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of
romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a
woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene
are going to fry in hell."

The much-anticipated order sets the stage for United States' upcoming
congressional session, where the congress will consider an
amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same
gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally
dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas
Finneran, would be delayed.

"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said.
"Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was
never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're
setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in
due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia."

At least cite that. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661977)

http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?ar chive=43&num=5339&printer=1

sheesh

I wouldn't call this a flip-flop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10660684)

From what I read of the proposed "amendment", it DID support civil-unions. I am not stating a case for or against, but I do disagree that this is a flip-flop.

End the monopoly! (1)

JimBean (610952) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660690)

Marriage should be one of many legal status options for couples. With high rates of divorces and remarriage, it is clear that the traditional practice of marriage has eroded in our post-industrial society. Furthermore, when marriages end, there are many legal issues such as custody, property, etc that need to be resolved. I would submit that part of the problem is the lack of choice: people either remain single, live together as "boyfriend-girlfriend", or get married (the only legally recognized status for a couple). People sometimes get married even if they are not totally serious about the relationship. It might make sense to offer some lower legal status options for those couples living together but not ready to enter a full-fledge marriage (I am thinking of the system in Sweden and other Nordic countries), leaving marriage for the diehard couples. Personally, I think marriage and other legal statuses should be open to all despite sexual preference, but I am definitely an exception in the US.

States' Rights (2, Interesting)

Undefined Parameter (726857) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660764)

"States' rights" used to be something of a codeword for "slavery," way back when; as in "it's a state's right to determine whether or not it will allow slavery." Granted, it was used to allude to other things, as well, but slavery was the main issue with which it was meant to be connotated.

No, I'm not intending to draw a direct line of connection, but I am pointing out the coincidence.

There's more I could say on this, but I'm tired, my mind is fuzzy, and my belly is full of pizza.

~UP

Let's get one thing straight: (3, Insightful)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660803)

"Flip-flopping" is acceptable if "the facts" change.

I so wish that politicians were capable of (or is it that they are not allowed?) admiting a wrong decision based on wrong information or even a wrong decision outright. God forbid they be mortal...

definitely hurts him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10660833)

It definitely hurts him [theregular.org] . He needs a BIG turnout from the religious right.

Stop gay sex (3, Funny)

macrealist (673411) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660835)

Marriage is the best way to stop sex. So those that truly believe that gay sex is wrong should support gay marriage.

Re:Stop gay sex (1)

Reemi (142518) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660948)

I second that,

before marriage we called it love, after marriage it became sex.

Re:Stop gay sex (1)

luferbu (703405) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662020)

before marriage we called it love, after marriage it became sex.

Funny, I thought it was the other way around.

Re:Stop gay sex (1)

mbourgon (186257) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661964)

What's the joke? "I fully support the right of gay couple to lose half their stuff during divorce proceedings"

Civil Union should be the standard (4, Insightful)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660840)

Instead of having Marriages left and right and divorces all over the place just get a civil union and avoid all the moral and ethical baggage religion tacks on to it... unless you are religious and believe in Marriage as an act of worship, which is how Christians and several other religions teach.

If your church doesn't allow for marriage between gay individuals that is a matter for the church to decide and those gay individuals to deal with. The Hebrew Temple won't marry you if you are not jewish, the Catholic Church won't marry you unless at least one of you is baptized and confirmed Catholic...

If you want to be together and enjoy partner status in regards to taxes or other benefits go get a civil union and avoid the issue all together... marriage is simply one accepted form of civil union.. not the only one. Well, it looks like it will be this way in the future.

Re:Civil Union should be the standard (0, Flamebait)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#10660994)

*begin sarcasm*

And hell, why were at it...lets just not get married at all OR have civil Unions. In fact, lets just shack-up and allow children to suffer at the expense of people not taking marrage seriously. Oh, I forgot, that's already happening.

Ohh fuck it, lets all just be apart of the swingers club. No morrals, no ethics. Just all the mindless screwing and dumping unwanted children into the trash at the expense of the tax payers money.

YEY!!!

*end sarcasm*

Re:Civil Union should be the standard (2, Insightful)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661769)

I love how all the discussion of marriage leaves out the most important part: children. At the end of the day, the traditional family has been society's way of creating social units to ultimately raise the next generation.

Re:Civil Union should be the standard (3, Insightful)

unapersson (38207) | more than 9 years ago | (#10661859)

I love how all the discussion of marriage leaves out the most important part: children. At the end of the day, the traditional family has been society's way of creating social units to ultimately raise the next generation.

You're too late, that particular horse bolted back when they allowed divorce. The traditional family myth harks back to a time when parents regularly died in their thirties; so broken families have always been a part of the overall picture of society, whether through death, infidelity, or separation.

The Ghost of J Edgar Hoover (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10661160)

The FBI start an investigation into Haliburton and shortly afterwards Dubya changes his stance on gay rights ... where's my tinfoil hat ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...