Full Version: Gay Marriage debate heats up in D.C.
And to think, I was in the same grade as Sen. Specter's great-nephew for nine years.... 
Sen. Specter is opposed to the amendment--he'll vote against it on the floor. However, he makes a good point by saying it needs to be debated, and I think he's correct. Reporting it out of committee is not a bad thing to do.
As a famous founding father from Rhode Island once said, no issue has ever been to dangerous to talk about.
BTW, there's no way this amendment gets passed, considering it would take 2/3 of the Senators present to pass it.
Even if someone is adamantly opposed to gay marriage, they should realize the Constitution is NOT the place to implement social amendments. Doesn't anyone remember the debacle known as Prohibition?
As a famous founding father from Rhode Island once said, no issue has ever been to dangerous to talk about.
BTW, there's no way this amendment gets passed, considering it would take 2/3 of the Senators present to pass it.
Even if someone is adamantly opposed to gay marriage, they should realize the Constitution is NOT the place to implement social amendments. Doesn't anyone remember the debacle known as Prohibition?
MIB:
Wouldn't it be a stronger statement for him to have said "I am opposed to this amendment and I am voting it down because it is not the right thing to do."
Isn't that the purpose of the panels- to prevent full votes and time and money on issues that do not deserve that time?
I know that you are pretty much a straight shooter and you love to let us know that... but can't you ever reflect what is in your heart?
Doesn't it hurt you to sometimes logically support a decision made that gives a shouting match/shooting gallery for people to mention that we are deserving of less because of simply being?
I guess I'm just to emotional and too tired for all of this lately... I'm just burned out on being who I am and tired of the fight to be a human being in this country who deserves to be equal.... then when I should know that my brotheren and sisterhood should have my back- we have to deal with people who say it isn't logical ... I'm just tired frown
Wouldn't it be a stronger statement for him to have said "I am opposed to this amendment and I am voting it down because it is not the right thing to do."
Isn't that the purpose of the panels- to prevent full votes and time and money on issues that do not deserve that time?
I know that you are pretty much a straight shooter and you love to let us know that... but can't you ever reflect what is in your heart?
Doesn't it hurt you to sometimes logically support a decision made that gives a shouting match/shooting gallery for people to mention that we are deserving of less because of simply being?
I guess I'm just to emotional and too tired for all of this lately... I'm just burned out on being who I am and tired of the fight to be a human being in this country who deserves to be equal.... then when I should know that my brotheren and sisterhood should have my back- we have to deal with people who say it isn't logical ... I'm just tired frown
QUOTE
MIB:
Even if someone is adamantly opposed to gay marriage, they should realize the Constitution is NOT the place to implement social amendments. Doesn't anyone remember the debacle known as Prohibition?
Yes, but Prohibition became an amendment and even though everyone likes to drink it still took more than a dozen years to undo that mistake. *If* a marriage amendment makes it into the Constitution, it will NOT be repealed within any of our lives, particularly since social conservatives drive the political debate in this country.
Even if someone is adamantly opposed to gay marriage, they should realize the Constitution is NOT the place to implement social amendments. Doesn't anyone remember the debacle known as Prohibition?
The vote was 10-8. All rethuglicans voting for, all Democrats voting against.
Inclusion wins.
Here is Senator Russ Feingold's amazing statement, which lays out how the Rethugs couldn't give a damn about the Constitution, Senate processes or our individual freedoms. This process--and our lives and freedoms--are a game for them (that includes you, Mary Cheney, and your lesbian lover!):
QUOTE
Objecting to the Judiciary Committee's Handling of the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage
Today's markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment.
Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate. In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done. Open and deliberate debate on such an important matter cannot take place in a setting such as the one chosen by the Chairman of the Committee today.
The Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference in their most basic human decisions. I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor.
Today's markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment.
Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate. In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done. Open and deliberate debate on such an important matter cannot take place in a setting such as the one chosen by the Chairman of the Committee today.
The Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference in their most basic human decisions. I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor.
Right on and well said Senator Feingold. 
This was nothing more than politics by the party on the right, looking to grasp anything they can before the fall mid terms.
[ May 19, 2006, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]
This was nothing more than politics by the party on the right, looking to grasp anything they can before the fall mid terms.[ May 19, 2006, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]
Guess an event like this wouldn't be allowed south of the border, in fact it would probably send a few republicans over the deep end. 2 RCMP officers of the same sex plan to wed in June with both in their red dress uniforms. The RCMP in their dress uniforms are pretty close to being a national symbol in Canada.
RCMP Same Sex Wedding
RCMP Same Sex Wedding
QUOTE
swiminbuff:
2 RCMP officers of the same sex plan to wed in June with both in their red dress uniforms. The RCMP in their dress uniforms are pretty close to being a national symbol in Canada.
RCMP Same Sex Wedding
Bring on the mounty jokes! 2 RCMP officers of the same sex plan to wed in June with both in their red dress uniforms. The RCMP in their dress uniforms are pretty close to being a national symbol in Canada.
RCMP Same Sex Wedding
Gotta love La Canada. Making my next trip to Ottawa!
This is a copy of a letter that I am sending to Senator Specter. I am leaving out last names for the obvious confidentiality issues:
May 20, 2006
The Honorable Arlen Specter
711 Hart Building
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman,
Hello. My name is Kurt____, and I attended Hillel Academy in Pittsburgh, PA with your great- nephew, Aaron _____. My brother, Judah, was in the same class as his brother, Avi. I have fond memories of visiting you in Washington during our eighth-grade graduation trip in 1995. Even as a teenager, I was highly impressed with the impressive power that you wielded. Since that trip, I have gained a broader knowledge of myself and of the world around me.
It says in the Old Testament, “Ve Ahavta Laraycha Camocha (And you should love your neighbor as you do yourself)”. You may ask yourself why I’m quoting the Bible. An extremely controversial and polarizing bill sat before your Judiciary Committee, and will now go before the Senate. This piece of legislation has the ability to change the lives of millions of honest, hard-working, tax-paying citizens, including myself. The legislation to which I’m referring is The Anti-Gay Marriage Bill. In my opinion, this bill is not only unconstitutional, but it also violates the basic tenets of this country and of the Bible. I am aware that the Bible specifically outlaws homosexuality, and while this isn’t the time to have a religious debate, I also believe that God didn’t make a mistake when he made me gay. Like the aforementioned quote states, you should love your neighbor as yourself. This means providing him or her with the same inalienable rights that everyone else enjoys.
While I may not be able to fully understand the pressures that are associated with a man of your stature, I know what it’s like to have to make an exceedingly difficult decision. I know that you are a mensch, and will therefore do what you think is the best for your constituents and other citizens when you cast your vote. Thank you very much for your time and consideration, and I wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Kurt _____
May 20, 2006
The Honorable Arlen Specter
711 Hart Building
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman,
Hello. My name is Kurt____, and I attended Hillel Academy in Pittsburgh, PA with your great- nephew, Aaron _____. My brother, Judah, was in the same class as his brother, Avi. I have fond memories of visiting you in Washington during our eighth-grade graduation trip in 1995. Even as a teenager, I was highly impressed with the impressive power that you wielded. Since that trip, I have gained a broader knowledge of myself and of the world around me.
It says in the Old Testament, “Ve Ahavta Laraycha Camocha (And you should love your neighbor as you do yourself)”. You may ask yourself why I’m quoting the Bible. An extremely controversial and polarizing bill sat before your Judiciary Committee, and will now go before the Senate. This piece of legislation has the ability to change the lives of millions of honest, hard-working, tax-paying citizens, including myself. The legislation to which I’m referring is The Anti-Gay Marriage Bill. In my opinion, this bill is not only unconstitutional, but it also violates the basic tenets of this country and of the Bible. I am aware that the Bible specifically outlaws homosexuality, and while this isn’t the time to have a religious debate, I also believe that God didn’t make a mistake when he made me gay. Like the aforementioned quote states, you should love your neighbor as yourself. This means providing him or her with the same inalienable rights that everyone else enjoys.
While I may not be able to fully understand the pressures that are associated with a man of your stature, I know what it’s like to have to make an exceedingly difficult decision. I know that you are a mensch, and will therefore do what you think is the best for your constituents and other citizens when you cast your vote. Thank you very much for your time and consideration, and I wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Kurt _____
The problem, Falcon, is that the marriage bill that was reported out of committee is a constitutional amendment. It's not unconstitutional at all. Given that there is no chance that it will receive the necessary 2/3 majority in the Senate, this was purely a political ploy by the Republican majority to energize their base among the conservative religious right. This bill is a moot point, and Specter knows it. I always thought Specter walked to his own tune, but it sounds like Frist and his henchmen may be pushing him into this.
Great letter Falconpride. It is interesting to note that there was considerable debate about the constitutionality of slavery when the document was first being written: both pro and con. We have always had difficulty agreeing on the universality of right.
QUOTE
zinsation:
The problem, Falcon, is that the marriage bill that was reported out of committee is a constitutional amendment. It's not unconstitutional at all. Given that there is no chance that it will receive the necessary 2/3 majority in the Senate, this was purely a political ploy by the Republican majority to energize their base among the conservative religious right. This bill is a moot point, and Specter knows it. I always thought Specter walked to his own tune, but it sounds like Frist and his henchmen may be pushing him into this.
Yes, but the bill's proposals are unconstitutional. It's denying the right to get married, solely based on the sexual orientation of both parties. What's next? Saying that black people can't get married? If we give the power to the government to decide who gets to be married, it will set an awful precedent.The problem, Falcon, is that the marriage bill that was reported out of committee is a constitutional amendment. It's not unconstitutional at all. Given that there is no chance that it will receive the necessary 2/3 majority in the Senate, this was purely a political ploy by the Republican majority to energize their base among the conservative religious right. This bill is a moot point, and Specter knows it. I always thought Specter walked to his own tune, but it sounds like Frist and his henchmen may be pushing him into this.
I understand that this is a "Red Herring Issue", and even though it's highly unlikely that this amendment will pass, if Senator Specter doesn't stand up for himself, he will be pushed around by Frist and his cronies for an extremely long time. It's akin to a bully in elementary school. If you allow the bully to take advantage and browbeat you into doing his bidding, he'll perpetuate that behavior.
Senator Specter needs to take a stand on this, because this issue will come up again and again, until it does eventually pass. He's a high-ranking senator, so he needs to go on record against this amendment. To paraphrase Jiminy Cricket, it all depends on whether he lets his conscience be his guide, or whether he wants to be Senator Frist's bitch for the rest of his political career.
And Sportinlife, thanks....that was just a first draft.
Falconpride, it is a great letter. I especially love the Old Testament quote!
What most angers me about Specter's allowing this to go forward is that he knows it'll fail in the Senate; there is no way most of the Democrats (except Ben Nelson) would vote for it, and at least 5-7 Republicans (Snowe, Collins, Chafee, DeWine, possibly Voinovich, Smith) would vote against it as well, so there is NO WAY it would get 2/3rds passage. IT is a purely hateful, cynical Republican pantomime meant to appease the radical right-wing Christianists.
Since the wave of anti-gay marriage votes in 2004, polls have show the number of people opposed to gay marriage FALLING; give it a few more years and a majority of people will support gay marriage. Their arguments have proved wrong--straight marriages continue to fall apart, but gay marriages aren't the cause. That's why this is a last-gasp, desperate marriage that the Republicans are trying to ram into the public consciousness. Fortunately, it doesn't appear to be working.
What most angers me about Specter's allowing this to go forward is that he knows it'll fail in the Senate; there is no way most of the Democrats (except Ben Nelson) would vote for it, and at least 5-7 Republicans (Snowe, Collins, Chafee, DeWine, possibly Voinovich, Smith) would vote against it as well, so there is NO WAY it would get 2/3rds passage. IT is a purely hateful, cynical Republican pantomime meant to appease the radical right-wing Christianists.
Since the wave of anti-gay marriage votes in 2004, polls have show the number of people opposed to gay marriage FALLING; give it a few more years and a majority of people will support gay marriage. Their arguments have proved wrong--straight marriages continue to fall apart, but gay marriages aren't the cause. That's why this is a last-gasp, desperate marriage that the Republicans are trying to ram into the public consciousness. Fortunately, it doesn't appear to be working.
With all the problems going on in this country - dealing with war, immigration, deficit, etc. - how these elected officials have so much time to spend on gay marriage bans I'll never know.
Why don't they try and put up a vote that says "Should gay people have equal rights?" Something that is a positive instead of always trying to ban something, like marriage.
Why don't they try and put up a vote that says "Should gay people have equal rights?" Something that is a positive instead of always trying to ban something, like marriage.
The power in control is looking for anything in which to motivate their base to the polls this fall. Its that simple, and in this case, as predicted, they chose gay marriage. frown
QUOTE
hockeyTom:
The power in control is looking for anything in which to motivate their base to the polls this fall. Its that simple, and in this case, as predicted, they chose gay marriage.
I'm going to claim ignorance here, so maybe one of you can help me understand. If they're simply looking to motivate their base, then how will that help? The group to which they're pandering is already likely to vote for them. To use a cliche, they're just preaching to the choir. Wouldn't it be more logical to appeal to voters who wouldn't ordinarily vote for them? They wouldn't necessarily have to shift their ideals, but if they did, it wouldn't be such a terrible thing. The power in control is looking for anything in which to motivate their base to the polls this fall. Its that simple, and in this case, as predicted, they chose gay marriage.
People have been saying that they need to abolish the two-party system. And with increasing frequency, I'm inclined to agree. What would be a pragmatic approach to solving this dilemma? Anyone? Serious responses only, please. Thanks.
QUOTE
Falconpride:
If they're simply looking to motivate their base, then how will that help? The group to which they're pandering is already likely to vote for them.
True, but the plan is to make sure these people DO vote and having a way of keeping the gays down gives them a reason to get out and cast a ballot; overcoming any thoughts to just stay home and not vote due to disenchantment with the candidates running for office. If they're simply looking to motivate their base, then how will that help? The group to which they're pandering is already likely to vote for them.
And I agree about the two party system, but only because neither one currently speaks to me in what I believe in.
As despicable and deplorable as it is- it is smart.
They bring this up as an issue knowing that:1) they already don't have a massive majority of the GLBT vote, 2) only a severe minority of voters will be offended enough to be mad at them to vote against them solely based on this issue alone, 3) this issue will get people that are homophobic to the polls in large numbers and they WILL vote for them based on this ussue alone.
Unfortunately, it really is WIN-WIN for them on this issue.
The issue that is more dangerous for them to keep bringing forward is immigration.
They bring this up as an issue knowing that:1) they already don't have a massive majority of the GLBT vote, 2) only a severe minority of voters will be offended enough to be mad at them to vote against them solely based on this issue alone, 3) this issue will get people that are homophobic to the polls in large numbers and they WILL vote for them based on this ussue alone.
Unfortunately, it really is WIN-WIN for them on this issue.
The issue that is more dangerous for them to keep bringing forward is immigration.
QUOTE
kick:
As despicable and deplorable as it is- it is smart.
They bring this up as an issue knowing that:1) they already don't have a massive majority of the GLBT vote, 2) only a severe minority of voters will be offended enough to be mad at them to vote against them solely based on this issue alone, 3) this issue will get people that are homophobic to the polls in large numbers and they WILL vote for them based on this ussue alone.
Unfortunately, it really is WIN-WIN for them on this issue.
The issue that is more dangerous for them to keep bringing forward is immigration.
So, in theory, a way for the Democrats to win is to bring up the immigration issue? That would drive their respective base, and would have a larger impact than Gay Marriage, simply because of its global effect. And it would show Mr. or Mrs. Ignorant Voter how shallow the Republican Party really is. Am I half-right?
As despicable and deplorable as it is- it is smart.
They bring this up as an issue knowing that:1) they already don't have a massive majority of the GLBT vote, 2) only a severe minority of voters will be offended enough to be mad at them to vote against them solely based on this issue alone, 3) this issue will get people that are homophobic to the polls in large numbers and they WILL vote for them based on this ussue alone.
Unfortunately, it really is WIN-WIN for them on this issue.
The issue that is more dangerous for them to keep bringing forward is immigration.
QUOTE
Falconpride:
So, in theory, a way for the Democrats to win is to bring up the immigration issue?
But the immigration issue is not as black and white as the issue of gay marriage, you have opinions ranging from jailing and deporting all illegal immigrants to starting a guest worker program to total amnesty. And the opinions on all of these do not seem to fall as much along party lines as the gay marriage issue, which is more perceived as Rep vs. Democrat, whether that is true or not.
So, in theory, a way for the Democrats to win is to bring up the immigration issue?
Its no coincidence that the Shrub administration and Congress are going to start making lots of noise next week just in time for gay pride in the country to try to push a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. They are desparate for any reason to get their base excited and motivated regarding the upcoming elections in November. Fortunately as I understand it there is little chance of actually getting the amendment added from news reports I am hearing....but I also understand the Log Cabiners are not at all happy about this push by Shrub and Congress either....
I also heard of some kind of poll results yesterday off of msnbc whereas a majority of Americans now say that Bush is the worst US President ever, even worse than Richard Nixon eek!
[ June 03, 2006, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]
I also heard of some kind of poll results yesterday off of msnbc whereas a majority of Americans now say that Bush is the worst US President ever, even worse than Richard Nixon eek!
[ June 03, 2006, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]
Here's the story for the poll
That doesn't surprise me that Bush would beat out all competition, even Tricky Dicky! The surprising part of that poll were the top two who were considered most popular. It's almost unreal.
That doesn't surprise me that Bush would beat out all competition, even Tricky Dicky! The surprising part of that poll were the top two who were considered most popular. It's almost unreal.
Bush is giving that speech this Monday, the day before the bill goes to Capitol Hill. I want to boo his ass from afar, but of course Monday is my first day on the job. :mad:
Well Illini_fan, I'll boo him for you. This is just pandering this issue to its hilt. Forgive me, but it would seem that straights who are divorcing and breaking up families in record number are a far greater threat to "family values" than allowing a few of us innocuous gays and lesbians to share in the fun of marriage. As a former Log Cabin Republican who saw the light because of El Presidente, I will certainly be booing up close and peronal to the TV when he's on!
My boyfriend is planning to take his lunch break to coincide with Bush's speech on Monday so he can walk over to the White House and boo him. I just hope the Secret Service doesn't take him down...
QUOTE
Illini_fan:
My boyfriend is planning to take his lunch break to coincide with Bush's speech on Monday so he can walk over to the White House and boo him. I just hope the Secret Service doesn't take him down...
Probably better to just laugh at him than boo. Politicians are used to being heckled and booed and know how to deal with that but there is nothing worse for a politician than becoming a public joke.
My boyfriend is planning to take his lunch break to coincide with Bush's speech on Monday so he can walk over to the White House and boo him. I just hope the Secret Service doesn't take him down...
Caught most of the interview with Joe Biden on "Meet the Press" yesterday morning. When asked about an amendment and if we need one he replied, " you know we have got a war going in Iraq, we have serious issues with Iran, the defectis are completely out of control, and we are worrying about this? We don't need an amendment to the Constitution.!" The big push from the right begins today. I saw some new poll numbers out from ABC this morning which said that a majority of Americans now believe that issues like gay marriage should be left more up to the States, rather than the federal government dealing with them.
[ June 05, 2006, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]
[ June 05, 2006, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]
The president is busy trying to write discrimination into our constitution....
strangely silent are gmg and the usual GOP apologists....
Gentlemen?
strangely silent are gmg and the usual GOP apologists....
Gentlemen?
And what apologists would those be? Some of us have made our opinions clear on this issue.
BTW, two competing arguments on this, both from the right:
A Federalist's view in favor of an amendment
And John Yoo's Feb. 27th article entitled "Let the States Decide" is in the Wall Street Journal.
There is debate on this even from the right.
BTW, two competing arguments on this, both from the right:
A Federalist's view in favor of an amendment
And John Yoo's Feb. 27th article entitled "Let the States Decide" is in the Wall Street Journal.
There is debate on this even from the right.
Have I gone deaf? Am I not hearing gays in the GOP, and, oh, what is that chick's name again, the one who says it's her turn to speak out when she gets a million dollar book contract? What about that openly gay GOP congressman, Jim Kolbe? Is he now on Mars or some other plant that prevents him from speaking out? Hello ex congressman Steve Gunderson? How come your voice is silent now?
I believe much can be done to undermine Bush's hatred and awful manipulation of the political process if gay Republicans would get better organized, deplore Bush's diversionary b.s. and just told the GOP to stop bashing gays.
I believe much can be done to undermine Bush's hatred and awful manipulation of the political process if gay Republicans would get better organized, deplore Bush's diversionary b.s. and just told the GOP to stop bashing gays.
UGH! I sometimes wonder how it is that our society has made it this far into the 21st century.
Of course this is more pandering and politics than an actual substantive issues by the Bush Regime. We gays and lesbians must pose such a huge threat to America that we must have our rights quashed in a constitutional amendment. HA!
Forgive me if I see all of this as a "rainbow" herring. Since the GOP quite obviously has nothing of substance to offer to the votership at large, this is the best that Bush can come up with. I agree with everyone who thinks this is a states rights issue, not a federal issue. Let the individual states decide this matter on their own.
[ June 05, 2006, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: UCLAfan ]
Of course this is more pandering and politics than an actual substantive issues by the Bush Regime. We gays and lesbians must pose such a huge threat to America that we must have our rights quashed in a constitutional amendment. HA!
Forgive me if I see all of this as a "rainbow" herring. Since the GOP quite obviously has nothing of substance to offer to the votership at large, this is the best that Bush can come up with. I agree with everyone who thinks this is a states rights issue, not a federal issue. Let the individual states decide this matter on their own.
[ June 05, 2006, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: UCLAfan ]
But the fact is...
Are we talking about the massacre of 19 Shiites in Iraq? Or the massacre at Haditha?
Are we talking about the Pentagon memo disavowing Geneva Convention?
Are we talking about Ohio introducing a bill that would not only outlaw all abortions but would make it a crime for a woman to go to another state for an abortion, or for anyone to take her there?
Are we talking about the fact that Bush has issued an order to require proof of citizenship to obtain Medicare, which not only excludes legal immigrants, no matter how many years they have lived here, but would also exclude many elderly, poor and rural folks who are citizens but don't have the documents?
No, we are all talking about the greatest threat to the world, gay marriage.
Are we talking about the massacre of 19 Shiites in Iraq? Or the massacre at Haditha?
Are we talking about the Pentagon memo disavowing Geneva Convention?
Are we talking about Ohio introducing a bill that would not only outlaw all abortions but would make it a crime for a woman to go to another state for an abortion, or for anyone to take her there?
Are we talking about the fact that Bush has issued an order to require proof of citizenship to obtain Medicare, which not only excludes legal immigrants, no matter how many years they have lived here, but would also exclude many elderly, poor and rural folks who are citizens but don't have the documents?
No, we are all talking about the greatest threat to the world, gay marriage.
And that's exactly what Frist & his repugnant colleagues had in mind.
QUOTE
Larry@LA:
And that's exactly what Frist & his repugnant colleagues had in mind.
Right!! Because if people talk about what the real issues are, the GOP doesn't stand a chance. But from what I've read, even a lot of the Evangelicals are chalking it up to pandering.And that's exactly what Frist & his repugnant colleagues had in mind.
Whats been heartening today is that most all of the news I have seen and heard everbody is calling this as it is and should be, nothing more than a political ploy, and a desperate one at that.
[ June 05, 2006, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]
[ June 05, 2006, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]
Lou Dobbs took the President to task for supporting a wedge issue and not dealing with illegal immigration, the deficit out of control, Iraq,high gas prices, Healthcare and a number of more important issues. He also pointed out that states that recognize gay marriage/civil unions or have no amendments against such unions have the lowest divorce rates in the US, while the states that passed constitutional bans against gay marriage have the highest divorce rates. Basically all commentators are calling it what it is, a plea for support from the GOP evangelical base by a President who has no political capital to spend and no ide ahow to deal with the big issues.
I hope some Senator or Congressman attaches an amendment to the bill asking for a ban on divorce. Lets see how the Conservatives like that as a support for marriage.
I hope some Senator or Congressman attaches an amendment to the bill asking for a ban on divorce. Lets see how the Conservatives like that as a support for marriage.
Swimin, actually the question should be how will the Protestant Evangelicals (read, Southern Baptists) like such an amendment. Data consistently confirm that they have the highest number of D-I-V-O-R-C-Es among any religious group. Most true Conservatives are as restrained in their spousing as they are in their spending. wink
For those who were wondering in good faith where we are on this issue, but might not have gone to our site to see, here's a link to LCR's press releases and Patrick Guerrero's open letter to the President concerning his resurrection of this asinine amendment. :mad:
Hurry the Giuliani Administration! :cool:
PS - Glad you guys caught those 17 terrorists before they had a chance to do any damage to "Tronno!"
[ June 05, 2006, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
For those who were wondering in good faith where we are on this issue, but might not have gone to our site to see, here's a link to LCR's press releases and Patrick Guerrero's open letter to the President concerning his resurrection of this asinine amendment. :mad:
Hurry the Giuliani Administration! :cool:
PS - Glad you guys caught those 17 terrorists before they had a chance to do any damage to "Tronno!"
[ June 05, 2006, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
This amendment won't pass, which I think is precisely what both the Democrats AND the Republicans want.
If the amendment fails, the Republicans can toss up their hands and say to their voters, "Look, we tried, but with all the crazy liberals in office, it would appear that even marriage isn't safe anymore. There's really nothing we can do now. Of course, in 2006, should you wish to kick some liberals out and vote some conservatives in, we can try again."
If it passes, they'll either have to try shoring up support for a passed bill - "If you vote the Republicans out, they may overturn this amendment!" - or come up with a new platform to drum up support. Illegal immigration is a possibility, but as it has shown to divide both Democrats and Republicans, it's a rocky platform at best.
LXN
If the amendment fails, the Republicans can toss up their hands and say to their voters, "Look, we tried, but with all the crazy liberals in office, it would appear that even marriage isn't safe anymore. There's really nothing we can do now. Of course, in 2006, should you wish to kick some liberals out and vote some conservatives in, we can try again."
If it passes, they'll either have to try shoring up support for a passed bill - "If you vote the Republicans out, they may overturn this amendment!" - or come up with a new platform to drum up support. Illegal immigration is a possibility, but as it has shown to divide both Democrats and Republicans, it's a rocky platform at best.
LXN
ABC News reporter Z. Byron Wolf writes like he's "on the bus":
QUOTE
Daniels and Allard and the clergy all made statements, most of them saying that they believe there is a decline in the American family, and that an alarming number of children being raised without a father figure are reasons to pass the amendment banning gay marriage. The press corps -- which could accurately be described as hostile -- asked in many ways, to no avail, how banning gay marriage would solve the problem of deadbeat dads and single parents.
Daniels said Americans want to be guided by their laws. The press didn't buy that, and the questions got more and more heated. Daniels eventually had to, as he put it, "call this press conference."
- No Rose Garden for Bush's Anti-Gay Marriage Speech, ABC News, 6/5/06
When even the press treats the matter like the crock of shit it is, there's another reason to "think we just watched the death of the opposition to gay marriage," (an Andrew Sullivan reader on Shrub's "desultory" anti-gay speech today).
Daniels said Americans want to be guided by their laws. The press didn't buy that, and the questions got more and more heated. Daniels eventually had to, as he put it, "call this press conference."
- No Rose Garden for Bush's Anti-Gay Marriage Speech, ABC News, 6/5/06
QUOTE
fenwayguy:
When even the press treats the matter like the crock of shit it is, there's another reason to "think we just watched the death of the opposition to gay marriage," (an Andrew Sullivan reader on Shrub's "desultory" anti-gay speech today).
Oh dear Lord, can we pray that this truly is the beginning of the end of such crass bigotry in America? It sure looks as though the Bush Regime is slowly withering away on the vine, particularly with proposing a "dead on arrival" amendment such as this one.When even the press treats the matter like the crock of shit it is, there's another reason to "think we just watched the death of the opposition to gay marriage," (an Andrew Sullivan reader on Shrub's "desultory" anti-gay speech today).
<small>[ June 06, 2006, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: UCLAfan ]</small>
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
Swimin, actually the question should be how will the Protestant Evangelicals (read, Southern Baptists) like such an amendment. Data consistently confirm that they have the highest number of D-I-V-O-R-C-Es among any religious group. Most true Conservatives are as restrained in their spousing as they are in their spending. wink
For those who were wondering in good faith where we are on this issue, but might not have gone to our site to see, here's a link to LCR's press releases and Patrick Guerrero's open letter to the President concerning his resurrection of this asinine amendment. :mad:
Hurry the Giuliani Administration! :cool:
PS - Glad you guys caught those 17 terrorists before they had a chance to do any damage to "Tronno!"
How's that "working within" going?Swimin, actually the question should be how will the Protestant Evangelicals (read, Southern Baptists) like such an amendment. Data consistently confirm that they have the highest number of D-I-V-O-R-C-Es among any religious group. Most true Conservatives are as restrained in their spousing as they are in their spending. wink
For those who were wondering in good faith where we are on this issue, but might not have gone to our site to see, here's a link to LCR's press releases and Patrick Guerrero's open letter to the President concerning his resurrection of this asinine amendment. :mad:
Hurry the Giuliani Administration! :cool:
PS - Glad you guys caught those 17 terrorists before they had a chance to do any damage to "Tronno!"
The president you supported wants to write you out of the constitution and you guys are busy
with press releases no one reads.
Way to go!
QUOTE
Most true Conservatives are as restrained in their spousing as they are in their spending.
This is interesting, gmginsfo. Can you point us to these statistics?
No statistics, Memphis; just an opinion - they are allowed without "backup," aren't they? - based on my experiences with folks from all ends of the spectrum. Here's another: most true Conservatives form their political philosophy based on more than what their "preachers" - both in and out of churches - tell them. In that respect, I've found that their approach is more studied and long-term than others,' although I can certainly see where the same would be true, for the same reasons, at the other end of the spectrum. It follows that their forming and maintaining relationships - or choosing not to and remaining celibate, for that matter - would be similarly long-term and lasting.
Fen & UCLA, I agree with ASullivan and your take on this. This is a perfect example of protesting too strongly and making much ado about nothing of real import to people who think before they vote. The truth is this Admin IS going fallow and nearly every GOPer I know - and I know more than a few - is focusing on "moving on." That said, I can't imagine that things would be any better under a Kerry regime. There might not be the push for the Constitutional amendment we're seeing, cf. "outlawing" gays, but there'd be no push for gay marriage either - and I'd seriously fear for where we'd be in terms of national security with those Chamberlains in charge.
[ June 06, 2006, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
Fen & UCLA, I agree with ASullivan and your take on this. This is a perfect example of protesting too strongly and making much ado about nothing of real import to people who think before they vote. The truth is this Admin IS going fallow and nearly every GOPer I know - and I know more than a few - is focusing on "moving on." That said, I can't imagine that things would be any better under a Kerry regime. There might not be the push for the Constitutional amendment we're seeing, cf. "outlawing" gays, but there'd be no push for gay marriage either - and I'd seriously fear for where we'd be in terms of national security with those Chamberlains in charge.
[ June 06, 2006, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
You must mean the Chamberlains who seized office in 2000, allowed 9/11 to occur on their watch, spirited the bin Laden family out of the country after the worst terrorist attack on this country's soil, then allowed Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to go free and continue to launch attacks across the globe, while also allowing Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi to create a terrorist training ground in Iraq, North Korea and Iran to develop nukes at will, etc.
Those "Chamberlains" as you label them are called the Bush administration. "Withering" on the vine? They've got two more years to screw up things royally. Let's see where the federal budget is when they're done. Let's see how many nukes North Korea has when they're done. Let's see how many US troops are dead or injured and innocent civilians have been slaughtered in Iraq when they're done. (Heads by the side of the road, students pulled off buses, Shiite torture cells, assassinations of elected officials....) Maybe you can issue a press release to let them know that the "mission" isn't "accomplished," that the insurgency isn't in its "last throes," that there are no "WMDs" in Iraq or Syria or any of the other places these nutcases claimed, and that instead of fixating on the Mexican border with a wall, perhaps they might consider doing a better job FIVE YEARS AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 in patrolling and fortifying the 5,000 mile border with Canada. Chamberlains indeed.
But no, this administration and its GOP allies in Congress have decided to attack homos again, and the Uncle Tom Log Cabineers are in high dudgeon...with press releases! "We're upset, George Bush, please give us some crumbs, girlfriend, please! We want our napkin at the table too, please!" Maybe you and the other UTLCs could have gotten invited to the White House along with the Exodus fanatics, the Christianists, and Ricky Santorum, and expressed some of that indignation to Bush's face. Oops, I forgot, you'll keep shuffling right along until the next Republican (Giuliani, McCain, etc.) needs to please the Christianists and quickly puts a boot right up your thankful...
[ June 06, 2006, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Those "Chamberlains" as you label them are called the Bush administration. "Withering" on the vine? They've got two more years to screw up things royally. Let's see where the federal budget is when they're done. Let's see how many nukes North Korea has when they're done. Let's see how many US troops are dead or injured and innocent civilians have been slaughtered in Iraq when they're done. (Heads by the side of the road, students pulled off buses, Shiite torture cells, assassinations of elected officials....) Maybe you can issue a press release to let them know that the "mission" isn't "accomplished," that the insurgency isn't in its "last throes," that there are no "WMDs" in Iraq or Syria or any of the other places these nutcases claimed, and that instead of fixating on the Mexican border with a wall, perhaps they might consider doing a better job FIVE YEARS AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 in patrolling and fortifying the 5,000 mile border with Canada. Chamberlains indeed.
But no, this administration and its GOP allies in Congress have decided to attack homos again, and the Uncle Tom Log Cabineers are in high dudgeon...with press releases! "We're upset, George Bush, please give us some crumbs, girlfriend, please! We want our napkin at the table too, please!" Maybe you and the other UTLCs could have gotten invited to the White House along with the Exodus fanatics, the Christianists, and Ricky Santorum, and expressed some of that indignation to Bush's face. Oops, I forgot, you'll keep shuffling right along until the next Republican (Giuliani, McCain, etc.) needs to please the Christianists and quickly puts a boot right up your thankful...
[ June 06, 2006, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
I'll keep my Bush-bashing to myself, since the truth speaks for itself. Only writing to add that I find it fascinating that this administration focuses on a stupid protection of marriage amendment during the week marking the 25th anniversary of the AIDS pandemic. There are over a million Americans living with HIV and this is what the executive branch focuses on?
Priorities anyone? Isn't this supposed to be the party of efficiency?
It's rather painful watching the GOP party faithful here tapdance around this situation. All I've seen is specious misdirection.
Priorities anyone? Isn't this supposed to be the party of efficiency?
It's rather painful watching the GOP party faithful here tapdance around this situation. All I've seen is specious misdirection.
QUOTE
fantomas:
You must mean the Chamberlains who seized office in 2000, allowed 9/11 to occur on their watch, spirited the bin Laden family out of the country after the worst terrorist attack on this country's soil, then allowed Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to go free and continue to launch attacks across the globe, while also allowing Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi to create a terrorist training ground in Iraq, North Korea and Iran to develop nukes at will, etc.
I see you've been getting your "facts" from Michael Moore again--you know, the guy who's presently being sued for tens of millions of dollars for presenting falsehoods about a member of our military in his movie. You must mean the Chamberlains who seized office in 2000, allowed 9/11 to occur on their watch, spirited the bin Laden family out of the country after the worst terrorist attack on this country's soil, then allowed Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to go free and continue to launch attacks across the globe, while also allowing Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi to create a terrorist training ground in Iraq, North Korea and Iran to develop nukes at will, etc.
QUOTE
UCLAfan:
Oh dear Lord, can we pray that this truly is the beginning of the end of such crass bigotry in America? It sure looks as though the Bush Regime is slowly withering away on the vine, particularly with proposing a "dead on arrival" amendment such as this one.
Don't be so sure. This debate will, IMHO, explode if the following happens: a gay couple get married in a state that recognizes said marriage. They move to another state that doesn't permit it. The couple sues, claiming that the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause obligates their new home state to recognize the marriage. A federal judge agrees, striking down the DOMA.Oh dear Lord, can we pray that this truly is the beginning of the end of such crass bigotry in America? It sure looks as though the Bush Regime is slowly withering away on the vine, particularly with proposing a "dead on arrival" amendment such as this one.
Once this happens, there will probably be a tidal wave of reaction from those who presently are against this amendment because they're confident the states can set their own marriage policies. Right now a majority of Americans understandably is opposed to gay marriage, but they're also opposed to an amendment, figuring it's not needed because of the states' rights issue. However, you watch this anti-amendment majority flip in a heartbeat if Americans learn the federal courts mandate gay marriage.
On a related note, a number of prominent scholars, 44 in all, including Hadley Arkes, Jean Elshtain, Robert P. George, Mary Ann Glendon, Leon Kass, Jeremy Rabkin, Roger Scruton, and James Q. Wilson have signed a statement known as "The Princeton Principles." It’s an extensive position paper on "Marriage and the Public Good" that covers topics like divorce, cohabitation, and sex. I’ve listed some of the most famous names, but it’s worth noting that there are many signers here, a number of whom are new to this debate and/or are not religious.
Here are some excerpts from "The Princeton Principles" on the subject of same-sex marriage:
QUOTE
Yet there remain even deeper concerns about the institutional consequences of same-sex marriage for marriage itself. Same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. It would undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget. Finally, same-sex marriage would likely corrode marital norms of sexual fidelity, since gay marriage advocates and gay couples tend to downplay the importance of sexual fidelity in their definition of marriage. Surveys of men entering same-sex civil unions in Vermont indicate that 50 percent of them do not value sexual fidelity, and rates of sexual promiscuity are high among gay men. For instance, Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at New York University and a leading advocate of gay marriage, hopes that same-sex marriage will promote a "pluralist expansion of the meaning, practice, and politics of family life in the United States" where "perhaps some might dare to question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek some of the benefits of extended family life through small group marriages…"
"Our concerns are only reinforced by the legalization of same-sex marriage in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain-and its legalization in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage has taken hold in societies or regions with low rates of marriage and/or fertility. For instance, Belgium, Canada, Massachusetts, the Netherlands, and Spain all have fertility rates well below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. These are societies in which child-centered marriage has ceased to be the organizing principle of adult life. Seen in this light, same-sex marriage is both a consequence of and further stimulus to the abolition of marriage as the preferred vehicle for ordering sex, procreation, and childrearing in the West. While there are surely many unknowns, what we do know suggests that embracing same-sex marriage would further weaken marriage itself at the very moment when it needs to be most strengthened.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.