Not Over Yet- Bush, senators renew fight against gay marriage

[findfirefox]

Taken from CNN.com- " http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/05/same.sex.marriage.ap/index.html "

"
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and Senate conservatives renewed their battle Monday to ban same-sex marriage through a constitutional amendment that has a slim chance of passage.
"I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification, so we can take this issue out of the hands of overreaching judges and put it back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people," Bush said at the White House on Monday.
"When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution: the only law a court cannot overturn," he said.
Many Republicans support the measure because they say traditional marriage strengthens society; others don't, but concede the reality of election-year politics.
"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined."

It just goes on, and on, and on....

This is just stupid, Bush should just shove the shit right back up his ass.

 

[Dr Rock]

"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee.

and he'd know because of all those OTHER "insitutions" we've tried out in the past ... oh, wait

 

[DC_DEEP]

I sent my second volley of emails to my senators just this morning. The last time I looked, the US Constitution was not designed to be a legal lexicon. Any legislation that requires definitions should have those definitions at the heading of the bill. Has anyone else passed their thoughts on to their respective senators? Has anyone actually read the text of any of the three amendment proposals?

Putting things like this "back in the hands of the american people" is not always a good idea. If alcohol prohibition, or women's suffrage, or slavery/segregation had gone to a public vote instead of being handled by the Congress, what would the outcomes have been?

The most likely version of the amendment would define marriage as between one man and one woman, and would nullify the "full faith and credit" clause by declaring that no state nor the federal government would be required to acknowledge the laws of any other state which does legalize same-gender marriage. For those of you who don't know or who have forgotten, Article IV of the Constitution, section 1 reads: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of evvery other State." and in section 2: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The net effect of this was to recognize that, among other legal contracts, the legal requirements for marriage varied from state to state (such as age of consent, etc.) and that if citizens were legally married in one state, every other state was constitutionally required to honor that legal contract.

We have to let our representatives know that this is unacceptable, and should not pass out of session.

 

[dreamer20]

...so we can take this issue out of the hands of overreaching judges and put it back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people," Bush said at the White House on Monday.
"When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution: the only law a court cannot overturn," he said."

According to the President's statement it is preferable that a judge's descisions be put in the hands of the people . But doesn't that make judges obsolete? It's like the Schiavo case all over again and this time I hope that he will fail once more in this effort. Dubya has shown his contempt for the judges and the U.S. system of justice that would dare to rule in favor of civil unions which he feels are contrary to his personal religious beliefs.

lol dreamer20

 

[rawbone8]

isn't it all just a cynical position taken by Bush to look like he's a hero to his base?

doubtful it will muster even close to the number of votes needed to carry, but it will distract attention away from the war and the economy, as the fall campaigns develop momentum.

divisiveness really works!

 

[B_Stronzo]

doubtful it will muster even close to the number of votes needed to carry, but it will distract attention away from the war and the economy, as the fall campaigns develop momentum.

divisiveness really works!

To the first (if I were a praying man) I'd pray you're right.

To your second and third points; absofuckinglutely.

 

[findfirefox]

I think this all has to do with trying to get people to look away from one thing or another (As Rawbone and Stronzo said) I think it will fail (As does the FOX News article)

 

[rawbone8]

To the first (if I were a praying man) I'd pray you're right.

I'm with you Stronzo.

His old man's sleazy strategists used the "Willie Horton tactic" so masterfully to play on the fears and racism of the dumb white middle class.

Fear and loathing are like embers awaiting the demagogue's bilious lungs.

Bush is a dangerous blowhard. This gives comfort to the lumpin who engage in hateful actions. Tolerance is a societal attitude that develops from leaders who profess it and live it. That starts with parents, teachers and clergy – but clearly even politicians can have an affect on accepted values. Look at Hitler, a consummate politician early on.

Let your politicians know where you stand on equality rights.

 

[DC_DEEP]

According to the President's statement it is preferable that a judge's descisions be put in the hands of the people . But doesn't that make judges obsolete? It's like the Schiavo case all over again and this time I hope that he will fail once more in this effort. Dubya has shown his contempt for the judges and the U.S. system of justice that would dare to rule in favor of civil unions which he feels are contrary to his personal religious beliefs.

lol dreamer20

Isn't it interesting that when a judge makes a (correct) decision that does not go along Scalia/Thomas-type thinking, he is labelled "activist." When a judge blatantly strips a citizen of his constitutional rights, those same Scalia/Thomas types hail him as a hero and a model of democracy. Same with states' rights and federal interference: if it conforms to Family Council values, it's good. If it conforms to ACLU values, it's bad. <sigh> I just fucking wish our current administration would actually read the constitution, instead of wiping their nasty shitty asses with it.

 

[Rikter8]

The bigger problem is, If he gets the Go-Ahead to modify the US Constitution, its FREE reign for him to put in whatever he wants.

What the fuck is he planning on doing - putting a Sticky note on the original constitution saying "Gay Marriage not allowed"??

He needs to be impeached. Him and all of his croonies.

 

[Lex]

This is a ploy that may backfire as the Conservatives attempt to galvanize their base. The fact is that they do not have the power to ram this through AND the pollster research clearly shows that Americans under 40 do not have a problem with gay rights/gay marriage.

As DC Deep has said--read the proposals, email your congressmen and women.

Every voice counts. If you use it.

 

[Freddie53]

Read about this in the newspaper today. There is not a snow ball's chance in hell of this amendment being ratified. It takes two/thirds of both houses of Congress, not a simple majority, and three/fourths of the states to ratify it. It is a time consuming at best.

So why bring it up? It certainly is not to gain votes from the liberal Americans. It is not about influencing anyone to be for it. It has one purpose and that is to keep the conservative base from thinking about the fact that Bush has failed to carry cout the conservative agenda which is a balanced budget and less government in our lives. Bush gets an F in both categories. So this is to shore up the radical conservative supporters and keep them pacified and their minds off the disaster that is a result of the Bush Presidency.

And I read that a strong proponant of marriage being one man and one woman is against the federal amendment on the principle that marriage is something that is by the federal constitution a matter for the states to handle and is not a federal government concern.

An earlier post pointed out the exact words of our present US Constitution. We would be foolish to tamper with that part of the Consitution period.

As far as rights for people in a committed relationship, what is the big deal? Why is it necessary for the federal government to ban such covenents? Our government is not a church; it is a civil government protecting the rights of ALL Americans. ALL.

 

[Hockeytiger]

This is a case of “be careful of what you wish for”. As long as the President was high in the approval ratings he largely ignored most of the demands of the Religious Right. But with his ratings so low, he can’t afford to ignore their anti-gay agenda anymore.

 

[Dr Rock]

So why bring it up?

cos american soldiers are on the news for slaughtering iraqi civilians again

 

[fortiesfun]

Even the conservative base does not expect this amendment to get the necessary two-thirds vote in the senate to move it forward. This political move is not about really fighting this battle this time. What "hot button" issues do, however, is mobilize the far right voters to turn out for elections where they are needed to help struggling candidates, are there are going to be a lot of those on the right in November if current poll numbers hold. Unfortunately this strategy worked very well in Ohio, the state that put Bush over the top in the last election, which also had a gay marriage ban initiative on the ballot. Fearful far righters turned out it droves to bolster the vote total.

I don't fear for passage, but I do think it is important to be broadly interested in getting out the gay vote even when there is not a gay issue on the ballot. It is what wins elections.

With the markets tumbling and Iraq crumbling, I'm so glad this is what my president is most worried about...

 

[SpeedoGuy]

isn't it all just a cynical position taken by Bush to look like he's a hero to his base?

Yup. It smells like election year posturing.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Individual rights are not to be decided by majority rule. That's why judges and constitutions exist.

But everyone who's part of a majority brings out the 'democracy' and 'will of the people' card.

 

[DC_DEEP]

...Fearful far righters turned out it droves to bolster the vote total.

I don't fear for passage, but I do think it is important to be broadly interested in getting out the gay vote even when there is not a gay issue on the ballot. It is what wins elections...

Argh! This is the part that makes me so crazy, fortiesfun! The fundies, as stupid as they are, realize that showing up in herds DOES make a difference... and more moderate thinkers stupidly drone their little mantra "my one little vote won't make a difference. my one little letter to my senator/congressman won't make a difference, so why should I even bother?" The one advantage that the fundies have is that they do as they are told by their preacher... period. If he says "go out & vote for Bubya" they will do so. If he says "go out & vote against human rights," they will do so. Have any LPSG members, besides me, written to their congressmen and senators to let them know that this is not acceptable? I would be shocked and amazed if even two who have posted on this thread (truthfully) answer yes to that question.

 

[Shelby]

Dub should up the ante. He should oppose gay marriage among illegal aliens who went to see The Da Vinci Code and voted for Katharine McPhee.
​

 

[HotBulge]

Argh! This is the part that makes me so crazy, fortiesfun! Have any LPSG members, besides me, written to their congressmen and senators to let them know that this is not acceptable? I would be shocked and amazed if even two who have posted on this thread (truthfully) answer yes to that question.

I sent emails to both senators from my state.