Full Version: Its official: Bush Plans to Endorse Marriage Amendment
Andrew Sullivan is on CNN right now (Aaron Brown). His badly-tied tie is completely distracting.
"We should conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger," says POTUS.
That part's for us, for when we call them on their bigotry. They still get to accuse us of destroying western civilization, as long as they don't say "fag".
---
"Seriously, when they have to hit you with the speech equivalent of a two by four to get your attention as to how they feel about you, you might want to rethink your party affiliation." - Reader email to andrewsullivan.com
[ February 25, 2004, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
That part's for us, for when we call them on their bigotry. They still get to accuse us of destroying western civilization, as long as they don't say "fag".
---
"Seriously, when they have to hit you with the speech equivalent of a two by four to get your attention as to how they feel about you, you might want to rethink your party affiliation." - Reader email to andrewsullivan.com
[ February 25, 2004, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
QUOTE
Its a sure bet that even if this does pass, and thats a big if, it will be years down the road. And, and its a big and, it takes a 2/3 majority in Congress to have this pass. This will not be that easy.
I have to differ on this point. The Republican congressional leadership can bring this to a vote whenever they want, & it's sure to be timed for maximum political impact during the heat of the presidential campaign. It will happen this year; that is a near certainty. And if this gets out of the Congress, it's going to spread through the state legislatures like a wildfire. In the House well could pass. In the Senate it's going to be close. A few Democrats we KNOW will support FMA--Zell Miller has signed on as a co-sponsor & the homophobic rantings of Robert Byrd are on record. So far I'm encouraged by the response of the Democratic Party leadership & by the responses of John Kerry & John Edwards. But that doesn't reveal anything about how individual Democrats will vote. Remember that DOMA passed 85-14, even as it was obviously pushed by the Republicans as an election-year wedge. Included in that 85 were many famously liberal Democrats (Harkin, Wellstone, Leahy, Mikulski), though certainly the debate on marriage has evolved since then & voting for DOMA isn't nearly as grave as voting to amend the constitution. But how many Democrats running for re-election would dare vote against this? (This isn't a rhetorical question; I really have no idea.) Would Tom Daschle, who has generally been with us on most issues but voted for DOMA, cast a vote that would become instant fodder for negative tv ads? I doubt it.We can't just assume just because the threshold for amending is so high that it can't happen. It would be incredibly foolish for any of us to underestimate the toxicity of this issue. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, because it is still possible to stop this thing. But we've got to fight, organize and, above all, SPEAK OUT.
By the way, if this does pass, I think it's time to seriously consider leaving this country.
[ February 25, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: BillyBones ]
You're right BillyBones, the pro-amendment camp has been talking all day on TV about how urgent this is. And this from a Faux News story tonight...
They will be continually canvassing the Senate to see if an amendment can get the 2/3 majority needed. Every year, Congress takes a break in August that comes to end after Labor Day. If it hasn't already been voted on by then, there will be enormous pressure to get the amendment through congress in September, just after the GOP convention has ended and the big final push for votes is underway.
All the more reason to plan for a massive protest at the convention in NYC. The big attempt to get this through before the election will be a few days away.
QUOTE
Sen. John Cornyn (search), R-Texas, and chairman of the Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, said Tuesday that he plans on holding his first hearing on the gay marriage issue next Wednesday.
The hearing will deal with the national implications of the Massachusetts decision. Another hearing scheduled for late March will deal with the specific language of a constitutional amendment.
This is all starting NEXT WEEK folks.The hearing will deal with the national implications of the Massachusetts decision. Another hearing scheduled for late March will deal with the specific language of a constitutional amendment.
They will be continually canvassing the Senate to see if an amendment can get the 2/3 majority needed. Every year, Congress takes a break in August that comes to end after Labor Day. If it hasn't already been voted on by then, there will be enormous pressure to get the amendment through congress in September, just after the GOP convention has ended and the big final push for votes is underway.
All the more reason to plan for a massive protest at the convention in NYC. The big attempt to get this through before the election will be a few days away.
Kudos to Aaron Brown tonight on CNN who really put James Dobson to the test, repeatedly asking Dobson how gay marriage affects straight marriage, how harmful it is to society, etc. This is the kind of discussion that media needs to have with opponents of the gay marriage initiative. Dobson could never fully answered the questions, instead bringing in subjects like polygamy, group marriages - things totally unrelated to the issue at hand.
The key here is the middle of the road American. We're never going to impact the opinions of the religious wrong, but the average American can be influenced by interviews like this, where extremists like Dobson squirm like cockroaches in daylight.
[ February 24, 2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: coyoteugly ]
The key here is the middle of the road American. We're never going to impact the opinions of the religious wrong, but the average American can be influenced by interviews like this, where extremists like Dobson squirm like cockroaches in daylight.
[ February 24, 2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: coyoteugly ]
Chad Allen was AMAZING on Larry King last night. He was respectful of others (can't say the same thing for the other guests) and became very emotional at times. I almost cried watching him discuss how he IS normal, contrary to what the preacher sitting right next to him had to say. Chad makes me very proud every time I read one of his interviews or hear him speak. While lots of people think celebrities should sit down and shut up, we should be very grateful to have someone like him out there in the front speaking for us.
An online petition to oppose the amendment can be found at THIS SITE
[ February 25, 2004, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
An online petition to oppose the amendment can be found at THIS SITE
[ February 25, 2004, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
QUOTE
Denver Fan:
No. I'm just pointing out that the amount of time it took for Prohibition to be repealed was less than "decades." The only thing I was pointing out had to do with semantics.QUOTE
DestinyRules:
Are you willing to take that chance? Hoping it will be simillar. I'm not! QUOTE
Denver Fan:
DOMA can still be struck down by the courts....An ammendment is essentially FINAL! And would take decades to overturn if ever, it's certainly not the same thing as DOMA!!!
Prohibition only took 14 years. That's less than a decade and a half. DOMA can still be struck down by the courts....An ammendment is essentially FINAL! And would take decades to overturn if ever, it's certainly not the same thing as DOMA!!!
I have every intention of making my voice heard. In fact, I already have.
Go to this page and do a keyword search for FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT. This is where you can read the entire amendment. Who would have ever thought three or four lines of text could tear away all the progress we have made?
THE LINK
The links you will choose are S.J.Res.26 and H.J.Res.56
[ February 25, 2004, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
THE LINK
The links you will choose are S.J.Res.26 and H.J.Res.56
[ February 25, 2004, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
PhillyFan???
gmgsfo????
William1865????
Still AWOL.
gmgsfo????
William1865????
Still AWOL.
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
PhillyFan???
gmgsfo????
William1865????
Still AWOL.
Them there crickets are still chirpin'.
PhillyFan???
gmgsfo????
William1865????
Still AWOL.
QUOTE
twin58:
Twin, I sure hope you're right. Please tell us more.
QUOTE
GatorJamie
The VA Senators aren't worth the time....
Warner could surprise you. The VA Senators aren't worth the time....
QUOTE
timber07:
OK, I'm officially eating crow here. I can't believe Bush made such a BAD decision.
Dude, thank you for being man enough to make that admission, but don't worry about eating crow. I hope everyone here resists any temptation to say "I told you so" and instead bands together to do the hard work that's ahead. OK, I'm officially eating crow here. I can't believe Bush made such a BAD decision.
It's time for us to work together on this one.
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
PhillyFan???
gmgsfo????
William1865????
Still AWOL.
Once again, I'll speak on defense of PhillyFan in his absence from the forum, not his political position.PhillyFan???
gmgsfo????
William1865????
Still AWOL.
Umm, how do I say this nicely? We met for an adult beverage (or two) last night, and to play some NTN Trivia, ummm but... Let's just say our typing skills may have been slightly impaired by the time we concluded the evening.
Raze, when I speak to him today, I will mention how much you miss both him, and his insight on this issue. How's that?
QUOTE
BillyBones
... the homophobic rantings of Robert Byrd are on record.
Extra credit for anyone who can produce a picture of him wearing a Klan uniform while standing in front of a flaming cross.
... the homophobic rantings of Robert Byrd are on record.
QUOTE
GatorJamie
Warner did not endorse Ollie North, whose conviction was overturned with help from that damn ACLU on a legal technicality (and don't you just hate it when that happens?), when North ran against Chuck Robb in 1994. As a result, many Republicans think of Warner quite bitterly. QUOTE
twin58
Warner could surprise you.
Please tell us more.Warner could surprise you.
Warner is on about his third marriage by now. He most recently got hitched in the National Cathedral a few months ago. The groom wore a kilt.
Edited to correct the year of the election and to add a link to the video made about it.
A Perfect Candidate
QUOTE
*** (No Rating)
A documentary produced and directed by R.J. Cutler and David Van Taylor. Featuring Don Baker, Mark Goodin, Charles Robb and Oliver North. Running time: 105 minutes. No MPAA rating (no objectionable content).
By Roger Ebert
``A Perfect Candidate'' is a documentary about the ugly, messy 1994 Virginia senatorial campaign between Charles Robb and Oliver North--who offered a choice one voter compares to ``mumps--or the flu?'' The TV ads paint one candidate as a liar who cheats on his wife, and the other as a liar and closeted racist, but the candidates themselves seem unable to articulate any issues at all. It is, says a reporter covering the campaign, ``The triumph of anger over politics.''
It was widely observed that the 1996 political conventions were not conventions at all in the traditional sense of the world, but carefully scripted infomercials; speeches were edited down to sound bites, prime time was devoted to audience-pleasers, and there was no debate on the issues. The 1994 Virginia race was an illustration in miniature of how our politics got this way. Personalities are being sold, not parties or philosophies, and ``A Perfect Candidate'' makes that process even more interesting because one candidate, Robb, apparently has no personality at all, while the other, North, has two.
....
Because this film was obviously not going to be released until long after the campaign was over, some of the campaign strategists are frank with the filmmakers. One of them is North's master planner, Mark Goodin, who does a brilliant job of overcoming North's negatives and bringing him almost to victory. On the day after the election, when Robb has somehow won, Goodin observes, ``In the end, the negative stuff sticks and it works. I should never ever have forgotten that.'' He blames himself for being too much of a good guy.
....
A documentary produced and directed by R.J. Cutler and David Van Taylor. Featuring Don Baker, Mark Goodin, Charles Robb and Oliver North. Running time: 105 minutes. No MPAA rating (no objectionable content).
By Roger Ebert
``A Perfect Candidate'' is a documentary about the ugly, messy 1994 Virginia senatorial campaign between Charles Robb and Oliver North--who offered a choice one voter compares to ``mumps--or the flu?'' The TV ads paint one candidate as a liar who cheats on his wife, and the other as a liar and closeted racist, but the candidates themselves seem unable to articulate any issues at all. It is, says a reporter covering the campaign, ``The triumph of anger over politics.''
It was widely observed that the 1996 political conventions were not conventions at all in the traditional sense of the world, but carefully scripted infomercials; speeches were edited down to sound bites, prime time was devoted to audience-pleasers, and there was no debate on the issues. The 1994 Virginia race was an illustration in miniature of how our politics got this way. Personalities are being sold, not parties or philosophies, and ``A Perfect Candidate'' makes that process even more interesting because one candidate, Robb, apparently has no personality at all, while the other, North, has two.
....
Because this film was obviously not going to be released until long after the campaign was over, some of the campaign strategists are frank with the filmmakers. One of them is North's master planner, Mark Goodin, who does a brilliant job of overcoming North's negatives and bringing him almost to victory. On the day after the election, when Robb has somehow won, Goodin observes, ``In the end, the negative stuff sticks and it works. I should never ever have forgotten that.'' He blames himself for being too much of a good guy.
....
[ February 25, 2004, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
My buddy Mike cracks me up. Check this out:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion...vich/index.html
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion...vich/index.html
QUOTE
bobby78751
Chad Allen was AMAZING on Larry King last night. He was respectful of others (can't say the same thing for the other guests) and became very emotional at times. I almost cried watching him discuss how he IS normal, contrary to what the preacher sitting right next to him had to say. Chad makes me very proud every time I read one of his interviews or hear him speak.
You're absolutely right, Bobby -- both Chad and Gavin Newsom were INCREDIBLE on Larry King last night!....as was Larry himself, for that matter with his fair line of questioning (unlike that idiot, Bill O'Reilly, who had a right-wing "lovefest" with Newt Gingrich before I switched off FauxNews in disgust)....I, too, was getting emotional listening to both Chad and Gavin speak so eloquently and respectfully while not backing down to the hollow arguments that the preacher and Rep. Musgrave were throwing at them....the Mayor, in particular, demonstrated enormous calm and poise while Musgrave was throwing the absurd "polygamy" and "group marriage" back at him.Chad Allen was AMAZING on Larry King last night. He was respectful of others (can't say the same thing for the other guests) and became very emotional at times. I almost cried watching him discuss how he IS normal, contrary to what the preacher sitting right next to him had to say. Chad makes me very proud every time I read one of his interviews or hear him speak.
As difficult a day as yesterday was for many of us, listening to Gavin compare the joy and benefits that he has as a married man to our cause and, even moreso, hearing Chad speak so emotionally about falling in love for the first time one year ago and the values that his family instilled in him as a boy only served to reinforce my strength in our fight that began in earnest on Tuesday....when men like these are willing to put their careers and reputation on the line and bear their souls before a nationwide audience how can anyone NOT be moved to act?
As for the ludicrous conduct of Rep. Musgrave, she deserves pity and I have every confidence that any intelligent, fair-minded American who watched that full hour and listened to what all four guests had to say came away realizing that she did herself much more harm than good -- which will ultimately benefit us in the long run along with all those who believe in equality.
[ February 25, 2004, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: gamecock ]
QUOTE
Zman:
My buddy Mike cracks me up. Check this out:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion...vich/index.html
My friend Nicole sent me that link. It was a stroke of genius!
My buddy Mike cracks me up. Check this out:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion...vich/index.html
James Dobson squirming on CNN is nothing compared to White House Press Secretary Scott McClennan squirming yesterday:
Q...how does gay marriage weaken society, in the President's view?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this goes to the issue of an institution that is enduring and lasting. The President said in his remarks that this is the most fundamental institution in our civilization. And he talked about, in his State of the Union, about the importance of defending these kinds of enduring institutions, that some things -- that some things never change. He actually addressed that in his State of the Union address. And he talked about the importance of making sure that the people's voice is heard, as well.
Q But specifically, how does allow -- how does allowing gay marriage, allowing two people of the same sex to marry, how does that weaken our society?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's a strong value of our society. It's a strong value of our civilization. And we should protect and defend those kinds of enduring institutions in our society.
...
Q What does he think the penalty should be, they should go to jail if they break this law that eventually he hopes to have?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes that we should protect and defend the sanctity of marriage, Helen. That's what this is about. And there are people --
Q They should go to jail?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, that's not the way the President is looking at it. The President is looking at this from making sure that activist judges and local officials don't redefine this enduring institution in our society.
Q You say, \"and the President believes it's important to protect institutions in our society.\" But I wonder if the American people deserve a little bit more of an explanation about what the downside of all of this is. Can you explain how the President arrived at this view? He talks frequently about his faith; is that a major component in arriving at his decision about gay marriage? What specifically would happen to our society, as Elisabeth alluded to --
MR. McCLELLAN: His beliefs and his principles.
Q Hold on -- what specifically would happen to society if same-sex couples were allowed to marry?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I talked about the values that we should stand up and defend. The President made it very clear in his remarks that this is an enduring institution of our civilization. It goes to the very fabric of our society when he talks about this issue.
Q So the fabric of society would break down if men were allowed to marry other men and women other women?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why the President believes that this is an important value and enduring institution to defend. And that's what -- so he's looking at this --
Q What would happen to marriage if same-sex couples were allowed to marry? I just don't -- I'm trying to understand the President's thinking. Is this purely based on his religious faith? How does he arrive at this?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is based on principle, it's based on his long-held belief. And I would remind you that this is something that enjoys -- that protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage enjoys widespread support in this country.
...
Q Scott, following up on that. On the faith issue, the President has talked about -- this is intertwined with faith, but the Bible has been hotly contested on this issue. Some are saying that it's not in the Bible; some are saying it is. Where in the Bible has the President found this specific --
MR. McCLELLAN: April, I think the President described it from his views about where his beliefs are, and the principle of this decision.
Q He talks about faith a great deal. And he talks about he -- his foundation, his new foundation after 40 is based on faith. Where in the Bible --
MR. McCLELLAN: The President talked about how he came to the decision and why he came to this decision. He spelled out the very reasons for acting on this issue now.
Q Okay, well, maybe I could rephrase the question. You say that the President has talked to theologians. What part of the Bible did they particularly focus in on to help the President to come up with --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think they're actually religious leaders from across the spectrum, with a wide variety of views.
Q But where did they focus in on in the Bible? I mean, because this is a hotly contested issue. Some people say it's in; some people say it's not in the Bible.
MR. McCLELLAN: Right, and you're welcome to religious leaders about that.
Q We understand there's the issue of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, but did he use that? We want to know.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he talked about, in the Roosevelt Room, about the reasons how he came to this -- how he came to this decision --
Q I understand what you're saying, but we want to know where the foundation of faith is on this issue. Is it Sodom and Gomorrah? Is it some other part of the Bible?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can consult religious scholars if you want to know those issues.
Q I have, and I'm asking you.
[No response--he answers another question.]
[ February 25, 2004, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
QUOTE
Q...how does gay marriage weaken society, in the President's view?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this goes to the issue of an institution that is enduring and lasting. The President said in his remarks that this is the most fundamental institution in our civilization. And he talked about, in his State of the Union, about the importance of defending these kinds of enduring institutions, that some things -- that some things never change. He actually addressed that in his State of the Union address. And he talked about the importance of making sure that the people's voice is heard, as well.
Q But specifically, how does allow -- how does allowing gay marriage, allowing two people of the same sex to marry, how does that weaken our society?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's a strong value of our society. It's a strong value of our civilization. And we should protect and defend those kinds of enduring institutions in our society.
...
Q What does he think the penalty should be, they should go to jail if they break this law that eventually he hopes to have?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes that we should protect and defend the sanctity of marriage, Helen. That's what this is about. And there are people --
Q They should go to jail?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, that's not the way the President is looking at it. The President is looking at this from making sure that activist judges and local officials don't redefine this enduring institution in our society.
Q You say, \"and the President believes it's important to protect institutions in our society.\" But I wonder if the American people deserve a little bit more of an explanation about what the downside of all of this is. Can you explain how the President arrived at this view? He talks frequently about his faith; is that a major component in arriving at his decision about gay marriage? What specifically would happen to our society, as Elisabeth alluded to --
MR. McCLELLAN: His beliefs and his principles.
Q Hold on -- what specifically would happen to society if same-sex couples were allowed to marry?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I talked about the values that we should stand up and defend. The President made it very clear in his remarks that this is an enduring institution of our civilization. It goes to the very fabric of our society when he talks about this issue.
Q So the fabric of society would break down if men were allowed to marry other men and women other women?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why the President believes that this is an important value and enduring institution to defend. And that's what -- so he's looking at this --
Q What would happen to marriage if same-sex couples were allowed to marry? I just don't -- I'm trying to understand the President's thinking. Is this purely based on his religious faith? How does he arrive at this?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is based on principle, it's based on his long-held belief. And I would remind you that this is something that enjoys -- that protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage enjoys widespread support in this country.
...
Q Scott, following up on that. On the faith issue, the President has talked about -- this is intertwined with faith, but the Bible has been hotly contested on this issue. Some are saying that it's not in the Bible; some are saying it is. Where in the Bible has the President found this specific --
MR. McCLELLAN: April, I think the President described it from his views about where his beliefs are, and the principle of this decision.
Q He talks about faith a great deal. And he talks about he -- his foundation, his new foundation after 40 is based on faith. Where in the Bible --
MR. McCLELLAN: The President talked about how he came to the decision and why he came to this decision. He spelled out the very reasons for acting on this issue now.
Q Okay, well, maybe I could rephrase the question. You say that the President has talked to theologians. What part of the Bible did they particularly focus in on to help the President to come up with --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think they're actually religious leaders from across the spectrum, with a wide variety of views.
Q But where did they focus in on in the Bible? I mean, because this is a hotly contested issue. Some people say it's in; some people say it's not in the Bible.
MR. McCLELLAN: Right, and you're welcome to religious leaders about that.
Q We understand there's the issue of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, but did he use that? We want to know.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he talked about, in the Roosevelt Room, about the reasons how he came to this -- how he came to this decision --
Q I understand what you're saying, but we want to know where the foundation of faith is on this issue. Is it Sodom and Gomorrah? Is it some other part of the Bible?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can consult religious scholars if you want to know those issues.
Q I have, and I'm asking you.
[No response--he answers another question.]
[ February 25, 2004, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
Scott McClennan is another Lone Star shining example of why I think Mexico should invade and take back Texas. Any other Texans considering a move to San Francisco or am I the only one?
QUOTE
JASooner
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas,...
His previous job was Texas attorney general.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas,...
QUOTE
bobby78751:
Any other Texans considering a move to San Francisco or am I the only one?
Count me in. I'll split the cost of the U-HAUL with you.
Any other Texans considering a move to San Francisco or am I the only one?
Jim: I too caught Newsome on "Larry King Live" last night. He is extremely bright, articulate, and has a great future with the Democratic Party as far as I am concerned!! PLus he is very easy on the eyes, too. The argument from the right is so pathetically tired, "well what's next, group marriages"???? Please, get a grip people!
QUOTE
puckman1:
Jim: I too caught Newsome on \"Larry King Live\" last night. He is extremely bright, articulate, and has a great future with the Democratic Party as far as I am concerned!! PLus he is very easy on the eyes, too. The argument from the right is so pathetically tired, \"well what's next, group marriages\"???? Please, get a grip people!
I know...why don't they understand, we want what they want. They have one many and one woman, we just want one man and one man...or...for GatorJamie, one woman and one woman. BTW, is GJ the only female one here?
Jim: I too caught Newsome on \"Larry King Live\" last night. He is extremely bright, articulate, and has a great future with the Democratic Party as far as I am concerned!! PLus he is very easy on the eyes, too. The argument from the right is so pathetically tired, \"well what's next, group marriages\"???? Please, get a grip people!
I saw the Larry King program as well. The argument from the right was just another sad case of same song, different singer. They always seem to group pedophilia, group marriages and beastiality with gay issues. It's very offensive and desperate on their part. It just goes to show how out of touch they choose to be. Newsome was great and handled himself very well. The right's point of view is so freaky, becasue it sounds like the discrimination of minorities around 20 years ago. You'd think they'd learn from past mistakes but I guess not.
Another argument gay marriage advocates should play up is a comparison to ending laws against interracial marriage. This amendment push by the President gets written about as something that may win him Black and Latino votes--from church going types who see him saving them from the gay plague.
Gay marriage advocates should counter this with: these are extreme, white, religious conservatives who want separate rights for some and discrimination for others written into the Constitution. Just as they once had laws against interracial marriage.
It should get thrown out there over and over again to move it away from gay marriage as a radical, non-traditional movement. Admittedly, it's a comparison that has holes in it, but it's no more hollow than the notion that the fabric of society will crumble if same sex marriages are made legal.
Gay marriage advocates should counter this with: these are extreme, white, religious conservatives who want separate rights for some and discrimination for others written into the Constitution. Just as they once had laws against interracial marriage.
It should get thrown out there over and over again to move it away from gay marriage as a radical, non-traditional movement. Admittedly, it's a comparison that has holes in it, but it's no more hollow than the notion that the fabric of society will crumble if same sex marriages are made legal.
my take on all of this is that we shouldn't try selling this as marriage issue at all. we (read, our public leaders and talking heads) need to frame this debate as a constitutional one.
we knew president bush wasn't the brightest bulb in the marquee, and we certainly suspected he might not have been the most socially inclusive fellow. and now he has played his hand and confirmed as much. but i think he overplayed his hand.
current polls show that a majority of americans are against gay marriage (and doma passed with barely a whimper). but these same polls show that an even larger majority are against amending the constitution.
it is reassuring that so many americans hold the constitution to such high esteem, and think it shouldn't be trifled with. and that is why this issue should be framed as a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, not a marriage issue, not a fairness issue, not a social issue, although it is, most certainly, all of those things.
there seems to be a good chance of winning the fight if the argument put forth is one of, "the constitution is far too important to clutter it up with trifling matters like the definition of marriage."
as i stated, i think we could win this fight, and it's an appeal many conservatives would consider without an offhanded rejection.
and if we win this fight, thusly framed, two things happen:
first, we win, so when the social conservatives revisit the gay marriage issue, we can quote one of their favorites, "there you go again!" and put out there that this issue has been resolved; the amendment failed (using the totologically weak inference that a lack of rejection implies acceptance -- but do you think our opponents have the logical wherewithall to catch that nuance? methinks not!).
second, it minimizes the stature of gay marriage, by making it one of those more trifling things that should not be cluttering up the constitution. gay marriage then becomes an issue, not THE issue, not a national issue, and we're fighting a much smaller battle, at the local and state levels.
defend the constitution, lads and lasses, not gay marriage! the secret to winning a battle is picking the right one to fight! to the ramparts!
we knew president bush wasn't the brightest bulb in the marquee, and we certainly suspected he might not have been the most socially inclusive fellow. and now he has played his hand and confirmed as much. but i think he overplayed his hand.
current polls show that a majority of americans are against gay marriage (and doma passed with barely a whimper). but these same polls show that an even larger majority are against amending the constitution.
it is reassuring that so many americans hold the constitution to such high esteem, and think it shouldn't be trifled with. and that is why this issue should be framed as a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, not a marriage issue, not a fairness issue, not a social issue, although it is, most certainly, all of those things.
there seems to be a good chance of winning the fight if the argument put forth is one of, "the constitution is far too important to clutter it up with trifling matters like the definition of marriage."
as i stated, i think we could win this fight, and it's an appeal many conservatives would consider without an offhanded rejection.
and if we win this fight, thusly framed, two things happen:
first, we win, so when the social conservatives revisit the gay marriage issue, we can quote one of their favorites, "there you go again!" and put out there that this issue has been resolved; the amendment failed (using the totologically weak inference that a lack of rejection implies acceptance -- but do you think our opponents have the logical wherewithall to catch that nuance? methinks not!).
second, it minimizes the stature of gay marriage, by making it one of those more trifling things that should not be cluttering up the constitution. gay marriage then becomes an issue, not THE issue, not a national issue, and we're fighting a much smaller battle, at the local and state levels.
defend the constitution, lads and lasses, not gay marriage! the secret to winning a battle is picking the right one to fight! to the ramparts!
It's a sad day when the President endorses using the consititution to legalize discrimination against an a group of people.
Chimpy is an ass**** who would do anything to remain in office.
Wake up my friends. We are not going to get anything or go anywhere without fighting back. Show some RAGE.
Chimpy is an ass**** who would do anything to remain in office.
Wake up my friends. We are not going to get anything or go anywhere without fighting back. Show some RAGE.
QUOTE
MichiganJock:
Wake up my friends. We are not going to get anything or go anywhere without fighting back. Show some RAGE.
Thank you, MichiganJock! I agree! I haven't been this angry in a very long time. This ass**** needs to be stopped in November!!!!
Wake up my friends. We are not going to get anything or go anywhere without fighting back. Show some RAGE.
Thersis, well said!!!!
I am on ground Zero here in Loveland. I live in Rep. Muskrats district. I am taking it to her, I want to slap her in the face with a lost re-election campaign. I am going down to the Dem headquaters today to see what I can do. That BITCH has to go!!!! :mad:
I am on ground Zero here in Loveland. I live in Rep. Muskrats district. I am taking it to her, I want to slap her in the face with a lost re-election campaign. I am going down to the Dem headquaters today to see what I can do. That BITCH has to go!!!! :mad:
But there's more than one battle:
There's the amendment battle, and that's the constitutional argument.
But there's the election battle as well. There, you have to defend gay marriage as a good thing, not skirt the issue by going, 'well, whether it's good is debatable, but it's certainly not something to write into the constitution.'
The same people who want the amendment want a ban on civil unions as well. According to the Washington Post, the same conservatives who got Bush on the amendment bandwagon will freak out if he sanctions an amendment allowing civil unions. And they will. This is that extreme.
You have to appeal to the public's sense of fairness by pointing out that this is more than a defense of marriage: it's an attempt to limit civil rights for gay citizens and their families. And that's bad in a way that all similar discrimination was and is bad. You need to get the discrimination argument out there over and over again.
You can't let it lie at: well, he's just defending traditional values. The values he's defending involve limiting the rights of certain citizens. Those values are wrong, they're wrong just the way that laws against [insert whatever would appeal to your particular audience] were wrong. And they're being pushed by an extreme element.
There's the amendment battle, and that's the constitutional argument.
But there's the election battle as well. There, you have to defend gay marriage as a good thing, not skirt the issue by going, 'well, whether it's good is debatable, but it's certainly not something to write into the constitution.'
The same people who want the amendment want a ban on civil unions as well. According to the Washington Post, the same conservatives who got Bush on the amendment bandwagon will freak out if he sanctions an amendment allowing civil unions. And they will. This is that extreme.
You have to appeal to the public's sense of fairness by pointing out that this is more than a defense of marriage: it's an attempt to limit civil rights for gay citizens and their families. And that's bad in a way that all similar discrimination was and is bad. You need to get the discrimination argument out there over and over again.
You can't let it lie at: well, he's just defending traditional values. The values he's defending involve limiting the rights of certain citizens. Those values are wrong, they're wrong just the way that laws against [insert whatever would appeal to your particular audience] were wrong. And they're being pushed by an extreme element.
QUOTE
TomFord:
The same people who want the amendment want a ban on civil unions as well. According to the Washington Post, the same conservatives who got Bush on the amendment bandwagon will freak out if he sanctions an amendment allowing civil unions. And they will. This is that extreme.
This was proven TRUE last night by Rep. Musgrave on Larry King. She said she does not support civil unions and will fight the issue if it ever comes up in the amendment issue as well as in the state of Colorado if the legislature has to face the possibility. Is it now okay to label the Republikkkan Party as the Nazis of the 21st Century?The same people who want the amendment want a ban on civil unions as well. According to the Washington Post, the same conservatives who got Bush on the amendment bandwagon will freak out if he sanctions an amendment allowing civil unions. And they will. This is that extreme.
[ February 25, 2004, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
Tom is onto something. The problem with the Ohio legislation that was recently passed was that it was soooooo broad - the legislators were SO EAGER to crush the spirits of gay people (or try to), they intentionally prohibited benefits for heterosexual couples and unintentionally created hurdles and problems for adoptive families, too. f**king idiot move, but it goes to show that discrimination against one group DOES impact others.
Taking it even further, I'll raise the issue of the Religious Right I raised a few weeks ago. If gay marriage is given the smack down because of how people care about it religiously, the issues of school curriculum, women's reproductive rights, and the debate around whether public funds should be given to religious organizations are all legitimatly up for grabs.
This is a stroke of genius for Cheney and Scalia. They think no one cares because it's a gay issue. Maybe they're right.
We'll sho nuff be caring, though, when our tax $$$ is being siphoned to "faith based" social service programs given the "right" - due to their religiosity! - to decline service to whomever they please, or make religious requirements of those they "serve".
EVERYONE needs to take a stand now.
Taking it even further, I'll raise the issue of the Religious Right I raised a few weeks ago. If gay marriage is given the smack down because of how people care about it religiously, the issues of school curriculum, women's reproductive rights, and the debate around whether public funds should be given to religious organizations are all legitimatly up for grabs.
This is a stroke of genius for Cheney and Scalia. They think no one cares because it's a gay issue. Maybe they're right.
We'll sho nuff be caring, though, when our tax $$$ is being siphoned to "faith based" social service programs given the "right" - due to their religiosity! - to decline service to whomever they please, or make religious requirements of those they "serve".
EVERYONE needs to take a stand now.
Okay...not to toot my own horn here wink , but who else called The White House today or yesterday?
An argument I've been succesfully making in the last 48 hours is this:
If the FMA is truly to protect the institutions of family and marriage and to protect children, would you also support an amendment to ban people from getting a second marriage license after divorce? How about one to strip the marriage licenses of anyone who commits adultery?
This argument is working for me on several fronts: If the FMA supporters say they don't support such amendments, the question is why not? Would those things not also protect the institutions of marriage and family, and protect the children? Why go after gays for those things when there are literally 10x as many people who are doing those things legally now?
If an amendment proponent say they would support such amendments (and so far I haven't found anyone who has!), you can reduce the argument down to absurdity -- what about an amendment taking away a kid and putting him in the custody of the state if he is caught using drugs? After all the kid isn't being protected properly. And so on...
I'd love to hear someone ask the cowardly chimp the same question. It exposes the motives behind the amendment as being purely political and anti-gay, rather than pro-family and pro-children.
If the FMA is truly to protect the institutions of family and marriage and to protect children, would you also support an amendment to ban people from getting a second marriage license after divorce? How about one to strip the marriage licenses of anyone who commits adultery?
This argument is working for me on several fronts: If the FMA supporters say they don't support such amendments, the question is why not? Would those things not also protect the institutions of marriage and family, and protect the children? Why go after gays for those things when there are literally 10x as many people who are doing those things legally now?
If an amendment proponent say they would support such amendments (and so far I haven't found anyone who has!), you can reduce the argument down to absurdity -- what about an amendment taking away a kid and putting him in the custody of the state if he is caught using drugs? After all the kid isn't being protected properly. And so on...
I'd love to hear someone ask the cowardly chimp the same question. It exposes the motives behind the amendment as being purely political and anti-gay, rather than pro-family and pro-children.
Michigan Jock -- well said. I don't know how any gay person could support this administration. What a disgrace.
Hi, I've been a lurker here but have not posted. I'd like to make 2 comments.
First, on the "majority rule" issue. We hear a majority oppose same sex marriage, voted for Prop 22 and similar "hetero only" initiatives, etc. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional. At that time 75% of the population, across all racial lines, opposed interracial marriage. In states that had barred such marriages, the figures was 95%. It was immoral, against god's plan (the 1967 version of the nauseating "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" was "God created black and white, not gray"), would destroy marriage, destroy society, harm children, lead to all sorts of evils. Activist judges imposing their will on society. It took 20 years after the Loving (yes, this was the couple's name, is that great or what?0 decision before a majority of the population to come to regard interracial marriage as simply a personal choice. Ask these people if they think the Supreme Court should have upheld the prison sentence given by Virginia to Ms. and Mr. Loving? Waited 20 years? Would opinion have changed, even in 20 years, had the Court not decided Loving as they did?
Also, I watched CNN last night. I was furious at, among other things, the minister saying that adoption is "artificial families". My heterosexual brother and sister-in-law adopted a child after years of trying to beome pregnant. She is THEIR child. They are HER parents. They are NOT an artificial family.
First, on the "majority rule" issue. We hear a majority oppose same sex marriage, voted for Prop 22 and similar "hetero only" initiatives, etc. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional. At that time 75% of the population, across all racial lines, opposed interracial marriage. In states that had barred such marriages, the figures was 95%. It was immoral, against god's plan (the 1967 version of the nauseating "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" was "God created black and white, not gray"), would destroy marriage, destroy society, harm children, lead to all sorts of evils. Activist judges imposing their will on society. It took 20 years after the Loving (yes, this was the couple's name, is that great or what?0 decision before a majority of the population to come to regard interracial marriage as simply a personal choice. Ask these people if they think the Supreme Court should have upheld the prison sentence given by Virginia to Ms. and Mr. Loving? Waited 20 years? Would opinion have changed, even in 20 years, had the Court not decided Loving as they did?
Also, I watched CNN last night. I was furious at, among other things, the minister saying that adoption is "artificial families". My heterosexual brother and sister-in-law adopted a child after years of trying to beome pregnant. She is THEIR child. They are HER parents. They are NOT an artificial family.
Welcome, Ms. de B. Lurk all you want, but we're glad to have your point of view.
gj
gj
Agreed Ms. de Blazer. As I said above, everyone goes on about what a stroke of genius this is for Bush to get the church-going Black and Latino vote, but the more comparisons there are to Loving and the ban on interracial marriages, the better to make sure that doesn't happen.
Ms. de Blazer, if I'm not mistaken, did you recently write an outstanding article which compared the plight of gay marriage to the plight of interracial couples in the USA Today in late January?
If so, my compliments... awesome work.
If so, my compliments... awesome work.
[Huge round of applause for Thersis and his post above]
Welcom, Ms. de B.
I found some Bush haikus on another site. I'm no good at doing the 5-7-5 scheme but if any others are, please contribute! The last one is my favorite.
A winter evening
Raining on George Bush tonight
Only hope - hate speech
base eroding, guy?
no jobs, big war, no money
come, let us be gay
My deity loves
our criminal records and
pussy, but not gays
Nine one one. Shut up.
Evildo'rs are all around
so do what I say
Gays and lesbians
Joyous love on courthouse steps
As George preaches hate
In the midst of love,
Dividing not uniting
George exposed again
Oh no, could there be
Oil beneath West Hollywood!!?
Man the torpedoes!!!!
Welcom, Ms. de B.
I found some Bush haikus on another site. I'm no good at doing the 5-7-5 scheme but if any others are, please contribute! The last one is my favorite.
QUOTE
A winter evening
Raining on George Bush tonight
Only hope - hate speech
base eroding, guy?
no jobs, big war, no money
come, let us be gay
My deity loves
our criminal records and
pussy, but not gays
Nine one one. Shut up.
Evildo'rs are all around
so do what I say
Gays and lesbians
Joyous love on courthouse steps
As George preaches hate
In the midst of love,
Dividing not uniting
George exposed again
Oh no, could there be
Oil beneath West Hollywood!!?
Man the torpedoes!!!!
Welcome Ms B
This is getting out of hand, the Republicans and conservatives figured out that if they can't win elections they will attemt to steal them as in CA.
The conservatives are going nuts with this, it has to stop, Mr McCarthy
And shouldn't those who are for this Ammendment remain mute also then, the hypocacy is astounding!
[ February 25, 2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]
This is getting out of hand, the Republicans and conservatives figured out that if they can't win elections they will attemt to steal them as in CA.
QUOTE
The Denver Post is reporting that a city resident has notified leads that he plans to try to recall Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.
Joel Levitt, a veterans' representative in the Denver Mayor's Office of Workforce Development, says he plans to collect signatures for a recall. He says he wants to punish Hickenlooper for taking a stand against the constitutional amendment idea to prohibit same-sex marriage.
While Hickenlooper is against a possible amendment, he has said he will not violate state law by allowing same-sex marriages in Denver.
Levitt, told City Councilman Charlie Brown that Hickenlooper \"could have remained mute to his personal beliefs.\"
Isn't this country founded on the "Voice of Dissent"?Joel Levitt, a veterans' representative in the Denver Mayor's Office of Workforce Development, says he plans to collect signatures for a recall. He says he wants to punish Hickenlooper for taking a stand against the constitutional amendment idea to prohibit same-sex marriage.
While Hickenlooper is against a possible amendment, he has said he will not violate state law by allowing same-sex marriages in Denver.
Levitt, told City Councilman Charlie Brown that Hickenlooper \"could have remained mute to his personal beliefs.\"
The conservatives are going nuts with this, it has to stop, Mr McCarthy
And shouldn't those who are for this Ammendment remain mute also then, the hypocacy is astounding!
[ February 25, 2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]
QUOTE
Denver Fan:
Isn't this country founded on the \"Voice of Dissent\"?
The conservatives are going nuts with this, it has to stop, Mr McCarthy
It's okay to dissent as long as you are on the side of the Republikkkans. Otherwise, you are an evildoer.
Isn't this country founded on the \"Voice of Dissent\"?
The conservatives are going nuts with this, it has to stop, Mr McCarthy
Or a "judicial Activist"
QUOTE
Denver Fan:
Or a \"judicial Activist\"
Speaking of Judicial activists...I wish these ass**** Republikkkans would do their homework before they go on TV and say "advocate judges" or "activist judges" or whatever $3-term Karl Rove digs out of his belly-button lent because three of the four judges who issued the Massachusetts ruling were appointed by GOP governors. So much for their argument of liberal bias.
Or a \"judicial Activist\"
Hey guys & gals, keep up the good fight. I'm completely drained after attending the Memorial Service yesterday and pretty much crawled under the covers after watching Larry King and some of Nightline last night and just came out of my cocoon this afternoon. I couldn't even bring myself to go to work today. BTW, that Musgrave woman was just pure evil with her smirky look everytime she "threw up" polygamy and group marriage to the Mayor. :mad:
I was succesful at getting letters to the editor printed in the Dallas paper as well as the local gay paper awhile back. I've already written my "representatives" months ago when this all started brewing. That would be President George W. Bush ®, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutshison ®, Sen. John Cornyn ® and Rep. Pete Sessions ®...ain't it grand living in Texas? I actually quit posting on OutSports back then for a few weeks to concentrate my efforts elsewhere.
I believe I've pretty much heard back from all of them in one form or another that they are FOR amending the constitution to take away the rights of myself and my partner of 18 years. (I even received an 8 x 10 color glossy picture of W. and Laura standing in front of their Crawford Ranch home that read: "Mr. 'HornFan', thank you for your early commitment and dedication as a Charter Member of the campaign in Texas. Grassroots leaders like you are the key to building a winning team. Best Wishes," signed by both...then asked me for money and to let them know if the picture did not arrive suitable for framing.)
Thanks to the usual suspects on this thread, but even more to the "unusual" and new folks posting and "coming around" like TomFord etc. I am slowly getting recharged to re-join the fight of our lives. I hope there are a lot of lurkers getting the guts to stand up for themselves. And I WILL be calling the White House phone line directly @ (202) 456-1111 I can stay on hold til the cows come home as I have one of those flat long distance rates!)
Just wanted to say thanks and remind people you are not talking in a vacuum here. It's helping and we're learning from each other. People who normally don't send letters to their representatives can read this thread and come up with some "doozies" and I hope they take that next step. Get your straight friends and family involved. Everybody has a gay relative or friend, they just might not know it or want to know it.
P.S. HulaBoy needs some serious help. frown
[ February 25, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]
I was succesful at getting letters to the editor printed in the Dallas paper as well as the local gay paper awhile back. I've already written my "representatives" months ago when this all started brewing. That would be President George W. Bush ®, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutshison ®, Sen. John Cornyn ® and Rep. Pete Sessions ®...ain't it grand living in Texas? I actually quit posting on OutSports back then for a few weeks to concentrate my efforts elsewhere.
I believe I've pretty much heard back from all of them in one form or another that they are FOR amending the constitution to take away the rights of myself and my partner of 18 years. (I even received an 8 x 10 color glossy picture of W. and Laura standing in front of their Crawford Ranch home that read: "Mr. 'HornFan', thank you for your early commitment and dedication as a Charter Member of the campaign in Texas. Grassroots leaders like you are the key to building a winning team. Best Wishes," signed by both...then asked me for money and to let them know if the picture did not arrive suitable for framing.)
Thanks to the usual suspects on this thread, but even more to the "unusual" and new folks posting and "coming around" like TomFord etc. I am slowly getting recharged to re-join the fight of our lives. I hope there are a lot of lurkers getting the guts to stand up for themselves. And I WILL be calling the White House phone line directly @ (202) 456-1111 I can stay on hold til the cows come home as I have one of those flat long distance rates!)
Just wanted to say thanks and remind people you are not talking in a vacuum here. It's helping and we're learning from each other. People who normally don't send letters to their representatives can read this thread and come up with some "doozies" and I hope they take that next step. Get your straight friends and family involved. Everybody has a gay relative or friend, they just might not know it or want to know it.
P.S. HulaBoy needs some serious help. frown
[ February 25, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]
Hi, Hornfan. I'm really lucky to still have a Democrat (Lloyd Doggett) as my U.S. Representative -- but that's probably not for long due to Tom DeLay and Republikkkan redistricting. I don't blame you for staying home today...I'm sorry yesterday was an even worse day than you had expected it to be. BTW, Palladio and I are pondering a move out of Texas to San Francisco. How about you? Splitting moving costs three ways would be even cheaper for us! 
[ February 25, 2004, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
[ February 25, 2004, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
QUOTE
coyoteugly:
Arizona Republic Cartoon
How sad, but true!
Arizona Republic Cartoon
Oi! I wouldn't quite call it coming around. I've always said that this would be a breaking issue for me. Won't vote for him now, but I still think he mostly good. He just picked the losing side on this, and he will learn it. Even if he wins, it's a losing position in the long run. The courts are right on this; the people are wrong. As before.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.