It is now being reported that Bush has caved in on the far right and will now use the State of the Union make his case in support of the amendment banning same sex marriage.

CNN.com

Wow, lets use the speech to continue state sponsored discrimination.

The Log Cabin is aflame! eek!

oh, for anyone who wants to drag DOMA into this. Atleast it can still be challenged in court and eventually overturned.

Amendments are ,as we all ought to know, final!

It occurs to me that I can use this reply again, as in the "A-Rod to Red Sox" thread:

This just in: Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Well, not exactly. Remember Prohibition? Instituted by the 18th Amendment, repealed by the 21st when all realized what a terrible idea it was.

That doesn't mean I support FMA -- far from it. But even if it passes, it will be the last gasp of a dying bigotry. We're in the right on this issue, and in good time our ideas will prevail.

The CNN report doesn't say the President is going to support a constitutional amendment. All it says he he would do so "if necessary," which is a very significant qualification:

"White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said Bush will say that 'if necessary, he'd be glad to support a constitutional change' to support that idea" [that marriage should be between a man and a woman].

So this really doesn't seem like that big a deal. Yes, he's throwing a bone to the radical right wing of the Republican Party, but this phrasing leaves him the wiggle room to do nothing of substance, because he can reach the conclusion it "isn't necessary" to go the constitutional amendment route.

And even if he did support the amendment, it's doubtful it would ever get the 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures needed to pass -- unless, that is, an awful lot of Democrats decide to go along.

This cant be right, I mean Log Cabin has been working so hard "from within" I dont understand how this could be happening. We all know what a mighty force they are "within" the gop.

LOL
Razor, everytime I look at one of these political threads, you always seem so dumbfounded about the actions of the Republican party and stupified about what happened to the mighty force working within. I'm curious of the Democrats, is there any difference on gay issues? A friend of mine is a strong Kerry supporter, I thought he was out of the race, but I guess he isnt now. The thing that concerns me is that in states like Washington, I'm sure it's going to be a landslide victory for who ever is running against Bush, but with the system we have now, the Democrat could still get a lot more votes and lose, makes me feel like my vote is kind of meaningless.

Good point, but if the Democrat gets more votes AND wins a few of those states Bill Clinton won--like New Hampshire, Arkansas, West Virginia, Arizona, etc.--then it will be moot.

I doubt W will go on record so categorically tonight, but he may toss the Far Right more of a toothpick than nothing at all.

This is an issue that I take very close to heart. Even if I weren't gay, I would have a problem with the way that gay people are treated now. The fact that there is even TALK of a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage is insane to me. It doesn't make sense, it's not like it's going to destroy all the straight married people's lives...I can't stand it. It makes me so angry that people can still pull this kind of crap in the US. If this was an amendment to ban interracial marriages, then it would never have even been discussed, but because it focuses on gay people, who still don't receive the same benefits as straight people do, it is OK.

It's things like this that motivated me to become president of our school's diversity club, the first sophomore to do so.

I just think that a speech like the State of the Union should not be used to push social discrimination.

Talk about the economy, the war, healthcare, but not gay issues. I wouldn't even like it if he declared himself against the amendment. The state of the Union is an inapropriate forum for civil rights issues in my opinion.

If I were watching this speech, the only thing I'd like to see is a walkout by members of Congress who disagree with so many of the administration's actions. Sadly, I don't think any of them have the guts to do such a thing.

WOOF< Tom Brady in the audience. Okay, now he's pissing me off when he's talking about social issues. Maybe we need to "defend the sanctity of marriage" by taking up arms.

[ January 20, 2004, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: shore ]

Bush's "we must defend the sanctity of marriage" statement will be the one that gets the headlines, and over half of Congress roared approval. He followed it up by saying every individual should be treated with dignity...and was answered with a delayed smattering of polite applause. That is MUCH more telling to me.

"Dignity and value..." curious to say that after speaking on our gay issue and to move on to discuss faith-based initiatives. Pandering in all directions without really satisfying anyone.

And I thought his listing contries who support us in the WAR, he sounded a lot like Dean listing the states he plans on winning. And the audience seemed to applaud him for being able to name so many countries. Can't wait to see what Jon Stewart does with this.

...and the silence on the issue in the Democratic response also speaks volumes.

"...and the silence on the issue in the Democratic response also speaks volumes." (JASooner)

Don't worry Stonewall Democrats are trying to make changes from within!

Most (not all) straight people it seems... be they Reps or Dems just don't understand or care about discrimination against gays/lesbians! frown

JAsooner, you are so right! I was ticked off that the shrub once again referred to the "sanctity od Marriage". Sanctity my ass! Several things he said ticked me off and some things I actually agreed with, but all in all I felt the speach was nothing more than political rhetoric (sp) aimed primarily at Dean. I was also upset at the non-response to the gay marriage issue by the democratic leaders. All in all I felt the two of them were poor speakers, lacking in dynamics and completely sounding like Democratic hand puppets with no origional thought in their heads. It makes me ask what will it take to get equal rights for all tax paying Americans, or 'mercans. I want all my taxes back!!! I don't count for anything anyway right! give me my damn money, no taxation without representation!!!

Wade....nicely put! :mad:

DenverFan, maybe I'm missing your sarcasm up at the top of this thread, but Amendments are not final. I'm able to enjoy a tasty Holland 1620 beer because Prohibition was repealed.

[Like smarmy DJ during a "Love Requests and Dedications" segment] This one goes out to Bobby (read the text in the crawl under the picture):

Jim, constitutional amendments are final only as far as they remain the law of the land unless they're repealed, as was the ridiculous social amendment of Prohibition.

I don't see why you guys are getting all worked up over this. I don't see any way such an amendment even makes it out of Congress. Remember that amending the Constitution is very difficult. Barring an amendment being sent to the states via a Con-con, which has never before occurred in our history, it would take 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate to send it to the states, where 38 of them would have to ratify it. BTW, a president has no role whatsoever in the amendment process.

As I've said before, I'm loathe to amend the Constitution for social reasons unless said social reason is some fundamental right, which this is not.

Jim, I realize that amendments can be reversed. But only by going through the entire process over again and creating a new one to repeal the old.

The states have 7 years to ratify it, by the time they get around to repealing it (essentially another 7 to ratify a repeal) it could be decades from now.

So when I say final, I am refering to the fact that the turn around to repeal would take so long, not many of us today would ever benefit. I am not content to wait decades. I may not live another 30 years while we wait for a repeal.

Besides, prohibition took away booze from everyone, thus making it a more popular and easy item to repeal. Gay marriage only affects a small population. Not a big enough voice to start any repeals.

[ January 20, 2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

DenverFan (and MIB), gotcha. I *thought* that's what you were getting at, but wanted to make sure.

But the rabid right ISN'T.

Very funny pic Jim Allen - "Chimp Gone Wild" indeed.

This really doesn't seem like that big a deal? You don't see why we're are getting all worked up over this? Some of you may be used to being treated as second-class citizens, but some of us are not.

The injustice here is that tax-paying, law abiding, same-sex American couples can't have legal protections that are available to straight couples.

An honorable leader would address that long before he addresses the would-be gay danger to the sanctity of marriage. An honorable leader would embrace gay marriage as it encourages an arguably promiscuous part of the population to settle down, restrain their irresponsible urges, and commit to cultivating stable families. An honorable leader wouldn't throw a bone to the religious right, whose attitude to gays doesn't extend to civil unions or even civil treatment, but is limited to a flat-out God-ordained mission to rid the earth of homosexual vermin because their book says so.

Exactly what alternative did Bush give if the message is no to gay marriage? What are people who don't know any gays to make of it? Teens? Is this a positive message or not? If not, what does it say about gays?

To quibble over the difficulty of constitutional amendments or to try read into what he thinks of civil unions is to ignore the import of his message: an acknowledgment that the public doesn't approve of gays; that we the public can barely tolerate them, but tolerate them we must; that this administration knows you the public are disgusted with the thought of giving homosexuals legal standing and social approval to put them on equal footing with normal citizens; that this administration will do WHAT IS NECESSARY (which some spin as 'if necessary') to make sure those crazy liberal courts and their frivolous-lawsuit loving activist judges don't give into the Homosexual Agenda by giving them rights that any normal straight couple would have, because, frankly, same sex unions are disgusting and immoral and wrong.

But, he adds at the end, because we're so civilized, we can tolerate them cause that's just what gents we are. No mention of civil unions.

No one buys into attempts to be an apologist for his message. To me, a gay guy who pooh-poohs it as though it were no big deal strikes me as the type of gentleman who, having lived through an age when things were so much worse for gays, is simply grateful not to have his head cracked open for being gay. The sort of gentleman who thinks gays banging the marriage drum should stop being such a loud mouths, get to the back of the bus, and realize we never had it so good.

It is a big deal. Every news report on the address makes sure to high-light how 'President Bush would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.' There's nothing that follows about civil unions.

What he did was wrong, it was craven, and he should not have done it. The message America gets about gays from that state of the union address is not a good one.

You would be a better man if, rather than coming here to pat us on the head to tell us it's no big deal, you would, instead, tell him and his representatives that you don't approve of his message. That it's not, in campaign-speech, a "positive" message for your segment of the population. That's it's not a positive message for your loved ones, your families, the people you work with, and your community. And that many will vote against him based on it.

[ January 21, 2004, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

A few thoughts....

Not mentioned:
"Hundreds of tons" of WOMD
enriched uranium
aluminum tubes
(Hmmmmmmmmmmm wonder why these things didnt come up?)

Most laughable line:
cutting the deficit in half in 5 years
(The only thing Bush knows about deficits is how to dramaticaly increase them.)

No follow up on:
The $15billion we were going to spend in Africa to fight AIDS....wha happened?
Hows that hydrogen powered car coming along?

Suggestions:
Spokesman for the anti-steriod campaign:
Gov. Arnold of CA
Spokesman for the anti sexually trasmitted disease campaign:
Brother Neil "I got herpes" Bush

And last nights "What the F*ck??" award goes to this line:
"...dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities"

Woops, forgot another of my favorite lines:
"Jobs are on the rise"

Yeah, in India.

The mighty Rove/Cheney/bush economy created a whopping 1,000 jobs in Dec, must be time for another tax cut....bring it on!

Hear, hear TomFord! But the message was actually even worse than that - he talked about those infamous "activist judges" who are "imposing their will on the people." So apparently Bush thinks its fine to:

1. Trash an arm of the government when it doesn't agree with your political position

2. Imply there is no rational or moral basis for those judges actions and ideals

3. Remove those who are gay and those who support gay rights from "the people." Apparently "the people" now equals "the majority," and the rest of us don't count.

Not one person on the anti-gay marriage side can articulate one concrete way in which gay marriages will harm "the sanctity" of the institution. And blocking legal recognition of gay marriages actually tramples on the religious freedom of those congregations who perform these marriages.

I realize the chances for the amendment to go through are slim to none, and that makes Bush's statements all the worse. He is willing to sacrifice us and our humanity, not to mention provide rationale for those who would do us violence, all for political expediency.

When was the last time a President basically decided an entire group of citizens were not worthy of the same respect and dignity of all humans? Not since the Civil War, I would bet.

And don't give me this sh*t line about treating everyone with dignity - stating that the relationships of 5% of the population are a threat to our society is not treating people with dignity.

He wants to amend the Constitution only if the court system makes a decision that exercizes the constitutional checks and balances that are part of our countries founding. This is such a mess and so depressing to me.

I didn't waste my time watching it. I watched the Dems. response. I can tell you the state of the union in Wash. State and Spokane County is not good. The State is still above the national average at 6.3%, and in Spokane County the unemployment rate is 6.4%. :mad:

Tom Ford, I hear you loud and clear Brother!!! If we do not stand for ourselves, then who will stand in our place? Who will join by our side in battle if we do go against those who would oppress us? We will never know if we first do not stand and make our voice heard. If we cower then we will never be heard and we will never get any where. If we accept what was said last night as the "way it is", then we deserve what we get. I do not accept what was said and plan on raising my voice loudly to all of those who will listen. Will I go to the back of the bus? Hell no! Too many of the strong and brave homosexual men and women that have gone on before me deserve better than that!
Oh, BTW, Puckman1, you should go back and read the transcript of the speach. Even though it was not strong or even good, it is important to be aware of what the political tone of this upcoming election is being set up to be. You don't like Bush? Know thy enemy.

As a Non American, I had a couple of opinions on last nights SOTU address. I'd be interested in hearing opinions.

What struck me is that not so much as he voiced support for the FMA, but that he didn't go to limit his support.

The FMA that I have seen not only makes marriage between a man and a woman, but also bans civil unions, and any "benefits thereof", meaning employee benefits, legal documents etc.

What is even scarier, is that the Democrats didn't mention it. One expects the Republicans to kowtow to the Religious Reich, but if the full scope of the FMA were known, I beleive that even the average American would see it as going too far.

Maybe that's why he didn't go into details, but it is exactly those details that need to be made known to the American people. ANd I don't think you can oount on any politicians to do it.

But then, Canada is looking for an additional 150,000 skilled people, and you can be openly gay, and bring your spouse as well.
Not an option that anyone should have to consider, unfortunately, but you never know.

One of my neighbours is a jewish woman in her 80's, who survived Bergen-Belsen. I've been talking to her about it, and it scares her. She told me that one ofo the first things that happened in 1933 Germany was the forbidding of Jews to marry non-Jews, and tha taking away of any constitutional rights.

While she doesn't think that will happen in the US, she sees a parallel. And she is the ONE person I beleive is qualified to talk about exactly that.

What the crux will be is how far the Republicans will be willing to go to mollify the Right wing.

LK- My partner and I have already decided that we will give up everything and move to the north if this thing actually gets through. I would literally be ashamed of being an American.

Also, a couple of you mentioned the "activist judges" comment. So appointing pro life judges that may eventually overturn Roe v Wade isn't judicial activism?

You guys are right, a judge is only a radical "Activist" when his ruling isn't popular with your position.

Shame!

I may be accused of being too hopeful about the American electorate for the following statements. When I saw Bush make his "sanctity of marriage" comments last night, i had a flashback to the GOP convention in Houston in '92. At the time, I didn't believe the American public would repudiate the hate that spewed from the GOP towards gays/lesbians; but the backlash definitely played a role in the election.

If Bush wants to make this a major issue, while lots of other problems are hitting much closer to home in Middle America, i think he may be taking a gamble that won't pay off for him.

But nevertheless, he will make sure the massive steroid issue is addressed!

Shrub is nothing more than a serious idealogue whose (puppet) strings are controlled by the radical right. Thanks for the advice Wade, but I think I know Shrub and his cronies, all to well, unfortunately. Wonder what LCR's think of his speech and his statement now.

CNN reported yesterday that Bush was going to talk about Mars and a trip to the moon, but the right thinks those ideas are a frivolous waste of money, so, with a hole in his speech, he decided to make his case for the sanctity of marriage. Hey, since Democrat Tom Brady was the prop for athletes, Britney should have been the prop for sanctity of marriage. :-) I hope Cheney's daughter is very proud of her father's cronies.

I agree! I busted out laughing when he said that. Where is he going to get the money without raising taxes? Oh, yeah, he can print more money because he is the president and president's can do that sort of thing...daddy told him so.

Neil Bush wasnt able to be the prop for marriage, he had an appointment at the clinic.

Thank you, thank you, the Punk-Ass-Chimp!

Great posts, TomFord and Cpt-Doom!....your articulate points are right on the money....after listening to the speech last night, for one of the few times in my life, I was truly ashamed to be an American ....how any decent, moral person can listen to the "leader" of our country spew 55 minutes of political rhetoric consisting of untruths, blatant lies and advocating outright discrimination against millions of law abiding citizens is reprehensible beyond words....if I didn't know any better I would have thought that we had turned back the clock 60-70 years to a time when it was commonplace to hear such bigotry and hatred come from the mouths of infamous worldwide leaders....for W to claim that he is representing the beliefs of all of "the people" (when even the most conservative national polls show that AT LEAST 38-40% of Americans have opposing views) and patronize us with his condescending statements about "dignity and fairness" should rightfully be met with the wrath of anger from millions of furious, fair-minded Americans (irrespective of party line or political affiliation). :mad:

The only portion of the entire speech that was met with a proper response was when W was interrupted by unexpected applause (and you could see the surprise and immediate anger on his face) mid-sentence after he stated "important provisions of the Patriot Act will be expiring within one year"....we can only hope that this will be the LAST State of the Union address that George W will be able to deliver and that he will be sent packing and humbly return in shame to Crawford, Texas by this time next year.

Anyone else notice the silence of the usual Log Cabin apologists?

Where are you boys??

Come out come out wherever you are.....

Like I've been saying for a while now: Texas out of D.C.! Oh, and I've been doing this, too...
287 days until OUR regime change!

I don't think they can come out of their closets.

Every time I saw Cheney's face on screen I was thinking the exact same thing....for an administration and President that is constantly beating its own chest about the vitally important "family values" that they advocate (on behalf of all their right-wing supporters) what type of example is the second in command setting for HIS OWN FAMILY!? ....such an abhorrent display of hypocrisy makes me absolutely sick and our national media (which so many of our Republican "friends" are continually attacking for being "too liberal") doesn't have the courage or cajones to question Shrub or his spineless VP on this issue and bring it to the forefront of the American people....perhaps one of the Democratic candidates will actually bring this up during the campaign, which to my knowledge has yet to take place.

Your count is off. Try 365 (if we're lucky). Bush leaves office not a moment before noon on 1/20/2005, and don't forget to count Feb. 29th. and don't doubt that in between the election and leaving office, he could still do damage.

Well said TomFord and CPT_Doom. Hopefully this will get everyone in our community motivated to vote instead of just watching the results on tv.

You know, that is another thing that drives me crazy, the apathy of the majority of gays and lesbians when it comes to voting.

Last election I was driving myself crazy trying to get people to vote. I offered to drive them, explain issues, remind them, I offered everything except to pull the lever for them. And to my dissmay, hardly any of the folks I pushed voted.

It's not that difficult, I have a good friend of mine right now who is already acting like he isn't interested in voting, yet he will sit and tell me how much he needs health care for his boyfriend. If florida taught us anything is that a handfull of votes can make a difference. If everyone in south beach left thier gym for 10 minutes and voted, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. :mad:

Hey I bet we could get these guys out to vote if we installed glory holes in the voting booths. eek!

I have to say, that's really funny.

[ January 21, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

I'm sure your friend is a lovely boy, but he and others like him belong over on MIB's \"People Who Should Be Shot\" thread.

QUOTE

Hey I bet we could get these guys out to vote if we installed glory holes in the voting booths.    

LMAO. But imagine how long the lines would get.

[ January 21, 2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]