Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Its official: Bush Plans to Endorse Marriage Amendment
Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
DestinyRules
QUOTE
GatorJamie:
I agree with you on that, but I disagree about whether the Democrats are taking a principled stand.
I don't trust any politician to put principles over electability. My skepticism even extends to the reasons Gavin Newsome chose to thrust himself into this particular battleground. But I have to go by voting records with regard to our issues. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate Newsome for doing so, but unless I suddenly develop the ability to read minds, I will remain ever the skeptic.

QUOTE
Most of all, I apologize for calling you a \"dingleberry.\" I was frustrated after a long day of reading right-wing bile, but that no excuse for my poor manners.
I know I wasn't the one the comment was directed toward, but I appreciate your apology.

Shave Bush in '04!
bobby78751
Hey, Denver Fan, I hope you don't mind that I used your letter as a basis for my e-letters to my Senators ( the horrible Cornyn and even more horrible Hutchison) and my State Rep (a tolerable Doggett). I altered it to fit my life situation, though. Thanks for the inspiration. smile.gif You rock!
Denver Fan
QUOTE
bobby78751:
Hey, Denver Fan, I hope you don't mind that I used your letter as a basis for my e-letters to my Senators ( the horrible Cornyn and even more horrible Hutchison) and my State Rep (a tolerable Doggett). I altered it to fit my life situation, though. Thanks for the inspiration. smile.gif You rock!
I am flattered, and that is why I posted this anyone here can feel free to use my letter. I think a voice of reason rather than accusations and name calling is the answer to this debate.
NoLongerHere
Great stuff from gamecock and Denver... Thanks, Gents!

I'm *still* not sure if I can attend the Outsports conference, but if I can, is anyone up for some sort of "organizing" event??? I have no clue what I have in mind, but if there are a bunch of us together in one space at the same time, shouldn't we do something? This is probably being discussed on antoher thread, but the idea just came to me...
Ms. de Blazer
"traditional marriage" used to mean that women stayed in the home and raised the children, so by that standard, assuming she's married, she's not even in a traditional marriage herself. Before that, a "traditional marriage" was one where the woman wasn't allowed to choose a husband but was forced to accept an arranged marriage

Not even that. Marriage arose so that property-owning men could be sure they were the fathers of Traditional marriage in biblical times was polygamous. In Greece and Rome, where all women had low status, wives were lowest of all. Men carried out romances with men and women, but married their wives to produce an heir. Up until the 12th century, the Christian Church had no involvement in marriage; there was a celebration, the couple moved in together and the marriage was considered official when it was consummated. In Europe, really to this day, marriages were arranged among nobility and royalty to cement alliances. In the working classes, marriage was arranged by parents so that their children and grandchildren could care for them in their old age. Romance existed outside marriage. The idea of romantic marriage only took root in Western countries with the democratic revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, including the American. In most of the world today, the majority of women are married before 18 and often with no choice in the matter. Some countries with Muslim majorities still allow men to have up to 4 wives.

In other words, there is no such thing as "traditional marriage". Marriage has changed repeatedly throughout history.
Joe in Philly
QUOTE
ironjohn8:
\"I know most of you will be upset about my Civil Unions remark, but I beleive that it may be an apropriate comprimise.\" (Denver Fan)

With all due respect, I realise that you live in one of those 'square shaped' backwards States in Mid America...

But we here, in civilization, have learned that separate is NOT EQUAL!
But here's his exact quote: "I do feel that Civil Unions might be a 'Seprarate but Equal' alternative, but that would only be true if they carried the same Federal rights not just the state level rights. For example, I cannot claim my partners Social Security or his 401k upon his death." If civil unions are legal and recognized in all states, and equal rights are protected at the Federal, state AND local levels, I don't care if the term "marriage" is used or not.
MIB
[quote]Jim Allen:
Brad DeLong's blog has a good bit about the Republican--wait for it--hypocrisy on this issue.  OK, well one of the things they're hypocritical about, states rights:  [quote]For forty years the Republican Party has preached the gospel of federalism and states' rights. Democrats and cynics have said that Republicans did this primarily because federalism and states' rights are useful tools for keeping African-Americans' noses in the mud. Republicans have protested that that is not the case, that their commitment to federalism and states' rights is a deep attachment to constitutional principle. [/quote]MIB has commented on this very issue here, explaining how these guys have been hypocritical in their states' rights beliefs with respect to this marriage amendment.
Denver Fan
Welcome back MIB, I am not one of those who will try and rub this whole thing in your face, I am curious about your take on it though.

I have made a commitment to comprimise and mature debate not divisiveness!
danimal
The Economist also disagrees with Bush on this:
The Case for Gay Marriage

QUOTE
When The Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay marriage eight years ago (“Let them wed”, January 6th 1996) it shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would have shocked eight years earlier and more than it will shock today. That is why we argued that such a radical change should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it be blocked precipitously.


[ February 26, 2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: danimal ]
DestinyRules
The following will be my e-mail to Gavin Newsome:

Thoughts? Better way to address him than Mr. Mayor? wink

Dear Mr. Mayor:

Even though I am not a present constituent and I am a lifelong resident of the state of Maryland, I am writing to you to applaud your decision to direct your city's authorities to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, and I admire your persistence in staying with your stance in the face of pressure from your Governor and the President.

One thing that politicians seem to do less and less these days is take a stand based on what they feel is the right thing regardless of the court of public opinion or regardless of what other leaders might say to them. Taking the step you have and continuing to fight for marriage rights for same sex couples is a strong testament to the kind of courage that makes for a great leader.

In addition, even though I myself did not see the Nightline segment in which you appeared, I read a transcript and I wholeheartedly commend you for making well-reasoned arguments to advance the cause. As an openly gay man, I thank you for doing your part to help make the lives of many people a little bit easier.

Respectfully yours,

Michael A. Sarzo

[ February 26, 2004, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: DestinyRules ]
NoLongerHere
I love The Economist. Well, most of the time.

Hey, did anyone post this here yet?:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0407/fiore.php

I think the political analysis up front is funny, but the end does kinda rub me wrong.
Joe in Philly
QUOTE
DestinyRules:
The following will be my e-mail to Gavin Newsome:

Thoughts? Better way to address him than Mr. Mayor?    wink  
Dear Mayor Newsom (note the spelling) works just fine.
bobby78751
I love Ben Sargent...
IPB Image
FeverDog
I was just on the Cubs board at MLB.com. The longest topic there happens to be about the "Gay Agenda." The usual arguments are all there, but most of the presumably-hetero members seem to be anti-anti-gay. Funny thing is the the guy who started the thread is the biggest opponent of our "agenda." Why would he create such a thread on a baseball message board?
wade n atlanta
Feverdog, does anti-anti-gay mean that they are really against gays or that they oppose the anti-gay push?
RazorbackTX
QUOTE
DestinyRules:
 
QUOTE
HulaBoy:
I know I'd better duck for cover before saying this, but Bush didn't say what he said yesterday because he hates gay people.
If it looks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, IT'S A DUCK for Pete's sake!

Let's call the scumbag for what he really is: A bigot to the nth degree and the enemy of true equality for LGBT people everywhere.
(Filling in for an AWOL William1865)

But the tax cuts dont forget the tax cuts!
DestinyRules
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
 
QUOTE
DestinyRules:
 
QUOTE
HulaBoy:
I know I'd better duck for cover before saying this, but Bush didn't say what he said yesterday because he hates gay people.
If it looks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, IT'S A DUCK for Pete's sake!

Let's call the scumbag for what he really is: A bigot to the nth degree and the enemy of true equality for LGBT people everywhere.
(Filling in for an AWOL William1865)

But the tax cuts dont forget the tax cuts!
Give Wm a little credit. He might be about five percent more reasonable than that. tongue.gif
Jim Allen
Don't buy the "but it might pass!" bullshit. Look here to see the numbers in the Senate; at the time it was posted on that blog it was breaking down like this:

Running Tally
Democrats against: 33
Republicans against: 5
Independent against: 1
Total against: 39

Republicans for: 27
Democrats for: 1
Total for: 28

Cop-outs: 5

Undecideds: 4


So, that's 76 accounted for. It's pretty clear that this would never pass the Senate and I've seen (but can't track down) pretty similar numbers for Congress. It's purely a political ploy by Rove to drive a wedge in the Democrats. Lame ass responses such as this from Edwards don't help: [from the Atrios blog]
QUOTE
The Question

The members of our sacred press corps are a wee bit slow, but eventually they start figuring things out. And, they've finally figured out the question which will be asked of just about every Democrat between now and November - \"What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?\"

Edwards got a version of it yesterday.

Speaking to reporters yesterday afternoon, Edwards explained that he personally opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, and believes each state should set its own marriage policy.

When asked why civil unions could not simply be called marriages, Edwards said, \"My answer is the same.\"

Asked why states, not the federal government, should decide policy, he replied, \"Because it's something I think should be decided by the states.\"

And when asked to explain his personal opposition to gay marriage, he snapped, \"I'm done with that question.\"


I knew this would happen. This distinction was always a sham, because it's a distinction without a difference. Unless the candidates can articulate what the difference is, it's a losing strategy. Until they can articulate the difference, the press will keep asking.
At the risk of actually *shudder* agreeing with HulaBoy *shudder* smile.gif , his crudely made point stands. While the Republicans/theocrats should be roundly mocked, the Democrats/lefties shouldn't be let off the hook either on the bullshit idea (I've seen this on some liberal blog boards) "It'll never pass, so give the Dems a break" or "They're not as bad as the Rethugs". As PhillyFan never tires of reminding us, DOMA! DOMA! DOMA!
FeverDog
Saw this on another message board:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

QUOTE
wade n atlanta:
Does anti-anti-gay mean that they are really against gays or that they oppose the anti-gay push?
That'd be the latter.

Been checking out other MLB boards and noticed that this is the hot topic all over. The Giants' thread is longer than this one.

[ February 26, 2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: FeverDog ]
DestinyRules
QUOTE
Jim Allen:
Running Tally
Total against: 39
Total for: 28
Cop-outs: 5
Undecideds: 4
So, that's 76 accounted for.
A lot can change beteween this "running tally" and the official vote. We can ill afford to let our guard down.
Denver Fan
Thanks for the great post Feverdog, I have emailed it to my family and friends.
JASooner
So, the amendment looks unlikely to pass any time soon. Great news! But I don't think that's the major point here. When they are losing their popularity and grip on power, the party and its leadership currently in control of the White House, both houses of congress, most state houses, and most state legislatures, has chosen to turn our lives, our loves, our homes, and our families into a cultural wedge issue to polarize America, energize their base, and try to retain power.

Well we can shrug, say "oh, it won't pass", and let the GOP get away with it. Just know that it means we will all be subject to it again the next time around. Or, we can draw a line in the sand, stand up for ourselves and refuse to let them do it.

[ February 26, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: JASooner ]
JASooner
LOL...I thought this was surreal. From the Faux News home page tonight:

IPB Image

From the interview, good 'ole Jeb Bush said: "to defy the law and something as sacred a covenant as marriage is wrong". Neil Bush, ya listening? These guys make it soooo easy. smile.gif

[ February 26, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: JASooner ]
Jim Allen
I'm baffled why MLB boards would give a shit, unless they're really ALL just a bunch of wack-job homophobes.

DestinyRules and JA Sooner are right, this isn't the time to let our guard down. I only posted those numbers to counter any feelings of hopelessness anyone might have that this would pass. It won't unless something drastic happens so it's time to educate and put the fundies on the defensive. It's easy to sidestep the religious aspect and point out the Constitutional aspect of it.

Just as a reminder, as if one were really needed, there's people out there that want ALL OF US dead. I'm used to it by now; usually it's Cleetus and Brandine talking shit on Faux or something. It's sort of unusual as an editorial in a paper though:
QUOTE
That also seems crystal clear. Those who do such things, and those who think they are amusing - or innocent - are worthy of death.  

Doesn't seem as if the Lord is accepting of the sin of homosexuality at all.

And Christians had better put on the breastplate of righteousness and the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

The battle for souls has begun.
Religion, gotta love it, eh? Well, no, I don't.

[ February 26, 2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
Denver Fan
looks like there is an east coast Newsom. A green party mayor in NY is going to start allowing gay marriages.

Link to story
fenwayguy
QUOTE
Jim Allen:
I'm baffled why MLB boards would give a shit
It's a subject for discussion everywhere, and it's (generally) not cool to be a flaming homophobe anymore*, both of which are good things. Feverdog said, \"most of the presumably-hetero members seem to be anti-anti-gay,\" also the case with the Red Sox board.

Anyway, in the spirit of not shrugging it off:
QUOTE
Dear Senator Kerry,

I'm disappointed in your response to Mr Bush's endorsement of an anti-gay-marriage amendment. He is exploiting homophobia (i.e. bigotry) for percieved political advantage. The same is true, unfortunately, of those who promote civil union as an intentionally inferior substitute for including same-sex couples in civil marriage.

In order to progress on this issue, America needs to acknowledge and deal with our deeply-ingrained and reluctantly-questioned homophobia. It's an exact extension of the process that all gay folks and our loved ones struggle through, the process called \"coming out\". I would expect you to lead us in the discussion, not hide from it as you have so far.

Respectfully, etc...
On this, I agree with HulaBoy and Bill Maher.

(Bobby, love the editorial cartoon!)

* ok, outside of places like Jasper, Alabama, JA.

[ February 26, 2004, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
DestinyRules
QUOTE
redsoxbreath:
It's a subject for discussion everywhere, and it's (generally) not cool to be a flaming homophobe anymore*, both of which are good things.
From the "baby steps" category, when I was watching the Super Bowl in 2003, one guy said something was "gay" and I whirled around. As soon as he saw me, look in his direction, he IMMEDIATELY said "I'm sorry. I didn't mean it like that!"

Strike one blow for the good guys.
Joe in Philly
QUOTE
Jim Allen:
I'm baffled why MLB boards would give a shit, unless they're really ALL just a bunch of wack-job homophobes.  
Didn't I read somewhere that last year when there were threads on those boards about things like Phillies Gay Day that the MLB moderators were removing every post that mentioned "gay"? Why are they now allowing these debates?
PhillyFan
QUOTE
coyoteugly:
 
QUOTE
gamecock:
Is it coincidental that HulaBoy, TomFord, PhillyFan, MIB and all the other right-wing supporters of Bush on this board have been conspicuously quiet this morning?....
PhillyFan started a new job yesterday and clearly is in no position to devote time to this forum during business hours.

Not sticking up for his politics, which I mostly disagree with, just him (in his absence). I'm sure he'll log on tonight when he gets home.
Uh sorry there folks... but i made i quite clear that if W supported this, i would not vote for him.

I mean anyone who thinks that my home girl GJ should not be able to put a hitch on the post doesnt get my vote.

I am clearly a Republican however, i am quite sad when the stand down to the arch conservative side of the party and do things like this. W has no real say in a consitutional ammendment, so he should stay out of it and let the court have their say. This is the right thing to do.

However, Kerry is a jackoff and doesnt support the gay rights i want to have.... so i wont vote for his sorry ass either.

I'm going to throw a bit of a wrench in the system here... let's say these folks get their way and this little thingy gets high enough... How many gays will stand up and fight? Or how many will just say, well my friend is voting and then not do anything about it? That is my only concern. How your fellow gay community will stand up to these guys... i know i will. I know some others will. I'm not certain about 60% of my friends will actually do anything but bitch about it. So really, bitching that PF isnt bitching about this isnt the problem... the problem is getting other out and about to do something about it.

For once, we all have something to agree on.
FeverDog
QUOTE
Joe in Philly:
 
QUOTE
Jim Allen:
I'm baffled why MLB boards would give a shit, unless they're really ALL just a bunch of wack-job homophobes.  
Didn't I read somewhere that last year when there were threads on those boards about things like Phillies Gay Day that the MLB moderators were removing every post that mentioned \"gay\"? Why are they now allowing these debates?
I don't recall the mods deleting entire posts. "Gay" and "homosexual" (and "Jew") are bleeped out, so they just type "g.ay" and "hom0sexual."
bobby78751
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Uh sorry there folks... but i made i quite clear that if W supported this, i would not vote for him.  
Oh my gosh....stillness has fallen over the earth, the skies have darkened, birds are crashing to the ground, there is a rumbling sound under our feet, bugs are nipping at our faces, and lightening bolts are now flashing all around...this is surely the start of Armageddon. smile.gif
Denver Fan
QUOTE
I'm going to throw a bit of a wrench in the system here... let's say these folks get their way and this little thingy gets high enough... How many gays will stand up and fight? Or how many will just say, well my friend is voting and then not do anything about it? That is my only concern. How your fellow gay community will stand up to these guys... i know i will. I know some others will. I'm not certain about 60% of my friends will actually do anything but bitch about it. So really, bitching that PF isnt bitching about this isnt the problem... the problem is getting other out and about to do something about it.

For once, we all have something to agree on.
I hear ya 100% PF, although I RARELY, IF EVER, AGREE WITH YOU, this is what needs to be done. In fact, I was hanging out with a friend of mine yesterday and he told me he wasn't registered. I didn't say anything, I drove directly to the DL office and told him to get in there and register, and he DID!

I plan on doing the same thing to him in November at the precinct. I figure I'll ask him to lunch but take him there instead and have sanwiches while we wait in line...lol

[ February 27, 2004, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]
NoLongerHere
Question for Philly Fan and other Republicans: if Bush continues to ass out and be a prick, and if you're not going to vote for Kerry (or Edwards, presumably), who are you going to vote for?

I'm NOT being a smart ass, I'm genuinely curious.

This raises a larger question for me: how will political scientists and sociologists and election experts and the media be able to interpreted how we, gay folk, voted? Let's say a million gay people vote this year: how will they figure out which of us voted for Nader, to demonstrate out disgust with Bush, or which of us voted for Kerry, etc.?

I want history to reflect that this issue got my people to the polls.
bballrob
Interesting because we had discussed it earlier, both Virginia's Republican senators are not coming out and wholeheartedly supporting Bush on this. In the Washington Post article this morning both Warner and Allen issued statements saying that there needs to be a "go slow" approach, amending the constitution should be the last resort, etc. While that is not surprising for Warner, he has acted independently before, it is a surprise for Allen, who has been in lock-step with the administration on most issues and has been in bed with Falwell and Robertson since he was governor. The Washington Post analysis is that Virginia (read "Northern Virginia") is becoming a fault line between the moderate north and the conservative south and the Repubs want to pick up more moderate seats in the House, probably in the NoVa area. This is a good sign, I have emailed Warner and will now email Allen, although I don't think it will do much good.

I agree eek! with PF, we have to get gays and lesbians to the polls, if this doesn't do it nothing will.
tiev
Warner has always struck me as reasonable republican. I still don't trust Allen.

Aside from voting is there anyone here, planning to flood their representatives with mail? I am going to letter party this weekend in D.C., but I'm concerned that D.C.-addressed letters won't mean much.
twin58
QUOTE
bobby78751
QUOTE
PhillyFan
Uh sorry there folks... but i made i quite clear that if W supported this, i would not vote for him.
Oh my gosh....stillness has fallen over the earth....
IPB Image

Klaatu Barada Nikto

You ain't seen nothin' yet:

Key Va. Republicans Balk At Gay Union Amendment

QUOTE
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 27, 2004; Page A08

Three prominent Republican members of Congress distanced themselves from President Bush's call this week for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The expressions of hesitation, caution or outright opposition came in statements from Virginia Sens. John W. Warner and George Allen and Northern Virginia Rep. Thomas M. Davis III. Their positions underscore an uphill fight in Congress for Bush's election-year call to repudiate a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

Each is a member of the congressional leadership. And while Davis and Warner have taken socially moderate stands in the past, Allen -- while governor of Virginia from 1994 to 1998 -- cut off state housing loans to unmarried and gay couples.
....

\"Here's an example of how the Republican Party's interests diverge,\" between the White House and Congress, said Larry J. Sabato, political analyst at the University of Virginia. Congressional Republicans \"want to win more of those marginal seats, where they need moderate voters, especially in the Senate.\"

Sabato added: \"George Allen is going to be judged on how many Senate seats Republicans pick up. If that requires a flip-flop on gay rights, then it's a small price to pay.\"
....

In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as \"only a legal union between one man and one woman\" and permits states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages granted by other states. Except for Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), all of the region's current congressional representatives voted for the act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law.
....

Davis, chairman of the 2000 and 2002 House Republican campaign efforts, predicted in an interview that the effort would fail.
....
Farewell to the Master
bobby78751
QUOTE
tiev:
Warner has always struck me as reasonable republican.  I still don't trust Allen.  

Aside from voting is there anyone here, planning to flood their representatives with mail? I am going to letter party this weekend in D.C., but  I'm concerned that D.C.-addressed letters won't mean much.
I've e-mailed and snail-mailed both of my stupid state Senators and my Congressman as well as called The White House. 1-202-456-1111
coyoteugly
QUOTE
The B Man:
Question for Philly Fan and other Republicans: if Bush continues to ass out and be a prick, and if you're not going to vote for Kerry (or Edwards, presumably), who are you going to vote for?

I'm NOT being a smart ass, I'm genuinely curious.

This raises a larger question for me: how will political scientists and sociologists and election experts and the media be able to interpreted how we, gay folk, voted?  Let's say a million gay people vote this year: how will they figure out which of us voted for Nader, to demonstrate out disgust with Bush, or which of us voted for Kerry, etc.?

I want history to reflect that this issue got my people to the polls.
PhillyFan is going to vote for Nader, which is his passive aggressive way for voting against any Democrat.
Jerzoid
FeverDog, this was my absolute favorite. Not entirely true, but brilliant nonetheless. If I could give you a prize, I would. Won't quote the whole thing to save space but no doubt you remember it well.

QUOTE
How. f**king. Selfish. etc, etc
I'm grovelling in mortification.
Lksimcoe
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
Hulaboy - you are correct, to a point. I am disgusted by Kerry's attitude on gay marriage - it's nonsensical at best to separate civil and religious marriage only for gays, but he is not fanning the flames of hate to the same extent Bush is. Were Kerry to ever ask me for money for his campaign, I will refuse because of his stance on gay marriage, and let him know that, but I will still vote for him as the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, having finally caught up with the news (I have been on a business trip and have missed most newcasts), I have sent the following email to Mr. Bush:

 
QUOTE
Mr. Bush,

I want to thank you for finally speaking out on the subject of gay marriage, and for supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment. The country can now clearly see the depth of your moral character and ethical nature - namely, that you have neither. Finally, the myth of your \"compassionate conservatism\" has been shattered and you have been revealed for the cynical politico that you are - a bigot who is willing to sacrifice millions of his fellow Americans for mere political expediency. History will now have even more evidence to brand you one of the worst, if not the very worst, leader this country has ever known.

But you have not gone far enough - after all, Mr. Bush, if myself and people like me represent a threat to the very foundations of society - if we faggots and dykes will damage marriage were the government to recognize our value, our worth and the importance of our relationships - then you must do more. After all, this Amendment, although it would enshrine some of the most vicious and violent prejudice in the very founding documents of MY country, only blocks legal recognition of our relationships - it merely makes our lives a little harder.

But Mr. Bush we are still out there - every day going to work, paying our takes (personally, I've paid more than 26,000 dollars in federal tax in the last 2 years alone), buying homes, raising children, and being married in the eyes of our friends, churches and God himself (someone you clearly need to be introduced to). If our lives are damaging, if our very existence is a threat to the nation, then the absence of mere legal recognition of our relationships cannot do much to stop the damage. Even without gay marriage, our friends, family members, co-workers and neighbors are learning every day that we are human beings, that we can have positive lives, that we are in reality no different than any other person. Every day gay teens are learning they don't have to accept your bigotry and harassment, that they can have wonderful, fulfilled lives as openly gay people, that they don't have to hide in the shadows in deference to hatemongers like you. These are the \"subversive\" actions that we carry - that you believe must be stopped by writing discrimination into the Constitution.

Those actions will continue, Mr. Bush - if anything you have made them more likely. And if those actions are really \"subversive,\" if gay people coming together in loving relationships is a threat to the nation, then you have not stopped us. You may block legal marriage, but you cannot stop marriage of the heart, of the soul. Those marriages will continue.

So, I fully expect you to respond to our overall threat -first you must dump that dyke daughter of Cheney from your re-election campaign - and never allow her disgusting form to darken the White House doorstep again (I mean, what if she got to those drunks you bore with Laura - they might turn gay just from being in the same room with her, right?). Then you must fire every single gay employee of the federal government, including the at least 20% of the military that comprises fags and dykes. Sure the government and the military would stop functioning, but if we are that big a threat to the nation, what other choice do you have?

Then, of course, the next step is to create the concentration camps to lock us up and ensure our \"subversive\" nature is not exposed to \"normal\" Americans - the straight ones you think are so important. After that, of course, there is only one option - the one explicitly required by the perversion of a \"bible\" you believe in - we must be executed Mr. Bush. If you really want your bigotry and prejudice to last for all eternity, you must kill us all - remember, it was only 8 years between the first Nuremburg laws in Nazi Germany and the Final Solution - how long will you and your \"Christian\" supporters wait until you start demanding the same thing for us?

You cannot prevent the tide of history, Mr. Bush, with any actions short of this. We will continue to come out, we will continue to demonstrate that your attitudes, your hatred, your disgusting attacks on us, are all based on lies, myths and stereotypes. You cannot prevent us from undermining your sick and twisted vision for this country unless you eliminate us totally.

This is the path you have chosen - and may God have mercy on your soul. The sins you are committing against gay people are so atrocious, so completely counter to any concept of Christianity, that you risk allowing hate to be the basis of your life. You disgust me, Mr. Bush, and certainly know that I will be working against your election in the fall.
I don't for one minute believe he will read this, or if he ever sees it, will be affected by it - but perhaps his staff will. If only one person quit their job with this administration over this issue, I would be happy.
Incredible!!!!! I wish I had the talent to write that you do.

What I think you should do is send it to your local paper, along with the note that you sent this to the white house.

And KEEP WRITING THEM!!
HornFan
QUOTE
That is my only concern. How your fellow gay community will stand up to these guys... i know i will. I know some others will. I'm not certain about 60% of my friends will actually do anything but bitch about it. So really, bitching that PF isnt bitching about this isnt the problem... the problem is getting other out and about to do something about it.

For once, we all have something to agree on.
Best PF post in a long, long time! I was starting to really miss you! That post made me think: "I Heart PF"! ohmy.gif biggrin.gif

Now about that Nader thing....take a REAL stand and actually put some hurt on dubya and the GOP for their misdeeds and forget about the Nader copout. Voting for Nader is like staying home or voting for a dead man walking.

In the end, it's the number of votes, not the letters and phone calls that steer this country. He's nominating "activist" judges that will declare "hunting season" on Gays for generations to come and I've only got two or three left. I'm only asking this for one November! wink
maxallen
QUOTE
The B Man:
How will political scientists and sociologists and election experts and the media be able to interpreted how we, gay folk, voted?  Let's say a million gay people vote this year: how will they figure out which of us voted for Nader, to demonstrate out disgust with Bush, or which of us voted for Kerry, etc.?
The same way they will interpret how and why other groups vote, like women who self-identify as non-white/are pro-choice/undecided on gun control/voted for Clinton in 96/voted for Nader in 2000/would have voted for Dean if he were running/have two grown children/been married more than once/ate at Taco Bell before voting today (for the record, I predict that group will vote for Kerry): EXIT POLLS!
bballrob
This is an interesting editorial in the Washington Post (which almost always rocks! it is my second favorite website). If I were a straight person, who is not overly affected by the issue, I would probably have the same, maybe unarticulated, feelings about the gay marriage amendment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Feb26.html

I disagree with some of the analysis but thought it was interesting from a straight person's perspective.
Denver Fan
Well I got my response from Sen Allard. Typical form letter response. I guess I never expected him to actually read it, I am sure one of his aides just copy and pastes these premade responses all the time. So much for listenning to his constituants.

Here's what I got, what I sent was posted here the other day.
QUOTE
Thank you for contacting me regarding same-sex marriages.  I appreciate
your taking the time to write me on this important issue.

I do not support same-sex marriage.  I believe marriage is a legal union
between a man and a woman.  On May 21, 2003, Representative Musgrave
(CO-4) introduced H.J. Res 56, known as the Federal Marriage Amendment,
which proposes a constitutional amendment to further define marriage as to
ensure that the constitution of any state not be “construed to require the
marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried
couples or groups.”  This resolution has been referred to the U.S. House
Subcommittee on the Constitution and awaits further action.

Again, thank you for contacting me.  I look forward to hearing from you in
the future.


     Sincerely,


     Wayne Allard
     United States Senator


Purdue Fan
This is from the Opinion page of the Wall Street Journal. The author is Mary Ann Glendon, who is the Learned Hand (?) Professor of Law at Harvard. I can't link the article since you have to subscribe to have access. I have not seen such weak arguments in print yet:

QUOTE
Indeed, the American people should have the opportunity to deliberate the economic and social costs of this radical social experiment. Astonishingly, in the media coverage of this issue, next to nothing has been said about what this new special preference would cost the rest of society in terms of taxes and insurance premiums.  
Okayyy, so giving equal opportunity to everyone is going to cost money, therefore we shouldn't do it. Of course, she actually says to \"deliberate\" it but that is just code.

QUOTE
If these social experiments go forward, moreover, the rights of children will be impaired. Same-sex marriage will constitute a public, official endorsement of the following extraordinary claims made by the Massachusetts judges in the Goodridge case: that marriage is mainly an arrangement for the benefit of adults; that children do not need both a mother and a father; and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together.  
Um, welcome to the 20th century. Now try to catch up to the 21st. The days of the mommy-daddy-2.3 children family unit are LONG GONE. Yet somehow society has carried on.

QUOTE
Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against  
Oh please! rolleyes.gif When will these stupid people get it through their heads that this has nothing to do with religion. Only the religious types make it that way. When San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses, did everyone rush out to the nearest Catholic church to get married? No, we are talking about civil marriage here, you can keep your religious marriage. And as far as bigotry and discrimination, please tell me what is the situation we have now? Who are the bigots are who is discriminated against?

QUOTE
and that four judges in one state took it upon themselves to make the kind of decision that our Constitution says belongs to us, the people, and to our elected representatives  
If I remember my civics lessons correctly, the judiciary is responsible for intrepreting the law as it is written now. The judges looked at the state constitution, heard argument from both sides and ruled on what was there. If they were truly "activist" they would have just randomly ruled one day that same-sex marriages were legal.

Again, sorry for the long post, as I mentioned I can't link the whole article. The fact that WSJ prints crap like this is why I am not renewing this year. I know they are conservative but this article is just homophobic crap, and pretty poorly written too.
HulaBoy
It's actually going to be good for the economy. At least for the economy in those places where same-sex marriage is recognized.

Localities cashing in on same-sex marriages
MIB
QUOTE
bobby78751:
Oh my gosh....stillness has fallen over the earth, the skies have darkened, birds are crashing to the ground, there is a rumbling sound under our feet, bugs are nipping at our faces, and lightening bolts are now flashing all around...this is surely the start of Armageddon.    :)  
No, this will only happen if the Cubs win the World Series. biggrin.gif
ung
as others on this board have already noted, Kerry's position on gay marriage leaves much to be desired also.

It was announced today that Kerry is supporting the Massachusetts amendment to ban gay marriage. While at the same time denouncing Bush's endorsement as "hate mongering"

Ummmm... can we say "talking out of both sides of our mouth"?

It's very similiar to Kerry voting to start war with Iraq and then saying "It was wrong for Bush to send us to war with Iraq"

Geez! Where's Howard Dean and his scream? I would love to have him as an alternative again.


something that is being ignored by the talking heads on this topic.

By saying that a constitutional amendment is required to outlaw gay marriage, those opposed to it are unwittingly implying that the constitution in fact, does allow gay marriage.

We would not need to have an amendment if the constitution excluded gay marriage.

[ February 27, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
Joe in Philly
The question for Kerry and those with his view: if the U.S. Constitution is so sacred and shouldn't be changed, why aren't state constitutions equally sacred in their states?

Meanwhile, the Calif. Supreme Court refused to stop the SF gay marriages now, instructing both the city and the anti-gay group to file new legal briefs by March 5.
JR in TX
QUOTE
Purdue Fan
This is from the Opinion page of the Wall Street Journal.  The author is Mary Ann Glendon, who is the Learned Hand (?) Professor of Law at Harvard. I can't link the article since you have to subscribe to have access.   I have not seen such weak arguments in print yet
She doesn't sound that "learned" to me.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.