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

Matthew

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Posts
7,291
Media
0
Likes
1,503
Points
583
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Absolutely! I never miss a John Waters flick.

If only we could force Congress to watch them all, perhaps we wouldn't be faced with this type of legislation.

(Just trying to swing us back on topic there. :wink:)
 

Lex

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
8,253
Media
0
Likes
118
Points
268
Location
In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I actually got a response from one of my Senators. Better this than no response at all, I suppose:

Senator Paul Sarbanes said:
Dear Mr. XXX:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the proposed
constitutional amendment defining marriage. I appreciate having the
benefit of your views on this issue.

As you may know, S. J. Res. 1 was introduced in the United
States Senate on January 24, 2005. A cloture vote regarding the
Motion to Proceed to the consideration of this amendment occurred in
the Senate on June 7, 2006. Because I had serious concerns about this
proposed constitutional amendment, I voted against the motion to
prematurely conclude debate. The motion required 60 votes to cut off
debate and failed by receiving only 49. I will be sure to keep your
views in mind in the event that this or related legislation comes before
the full Senate for consideration.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views on
this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me about other matters of
importance to you in the future.


In the future please visit my web site at http://sarbanes.senate.gov rather than
clicking reply.

With best regards,
Paul Sarbanes
United States Senator
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
I suppose too. Something is better than nothing. But it looks like the same response could be sent to writers on either side of the issue.

Kinda reminds me of the wonderful bit in 'The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas' where Charles Durning does 'The Sidestep'.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Lex said:
I actually got a response from one of my Senators. Better this than no response at all, I suppose:
Ha ha, I wrote to my guys days before you did... and have heard from none of them. Senator Warner, Senator Allen, and Representative Wolf, none of them thought it important enough to respond. I guess they are all just worn out from that frenzied debate (and worn out from answering each and every letter I send them... yeah, right. Warner is the only one who has ever sent me even a non-answer response, but not even this time.)
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Surprise! After I posted the above, guess what I found in my inbox? If you continue and read this (non)response, keep in mind that I specifically 1) Asked Mr. Allen to explain how this amendment would be in compliance with Full Faith and Credit, First Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment, and 2) instructed him, as a constituent, that he would vote against the amendment. You will notice that he completely ignored #1, and willfully disobeyed #2. Supposedly these guys are to do as told by their constituents, but first and foremost supposed to adhere to and support the US Constitution. Here is a copy & paste (with only my name edited, and my emphasis added):

Dear xxxx:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of marriage and a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. I appreciate your concerns and want my position to be very clear.
On January 24, 2005 Senator Wayne Allard re-introduced a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. This amendment declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Further, it prohibits the U.S. Constitution or any State constitution, or State or Federal law, from being construed to require that marital status be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
I support a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution because I believe that recent events and future court decisions indicate that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

While I respect your position on this controversial issue, I’d like to point out that this Amendment does not seek to define or deny any power held by state legislatures to create civil union statutes and any benefits that may apply. It is specific only to the definition of traditional marriage and therefore State legislators would remain free to define civil unions without the courts forcing definitions upon them.

On a personal note, I have always believed that individuals should be treated with dignity, and it is my heartfelt hope that everyone associated with the discussion of this issue will show each other that respect.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like to receive an e-mail newsletter about my initiatives to improve America, please sign up on my website (http://allen.senate.gov). It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate, and I look forward to working with you to make Virginia and America a better place to live, learn, work and raise a family.

With warm regards, I remain


Sincerely,


Senator George Allen


Interesting to note that Senator Allen makes it clear to note that he bases his legislative decisions solely upon his personal beliefs. While some of may be quick to say "how else can he make decisions?" let me remind you... his personal beliefs aside, he is SWORN to UPHOLD the US CONSTITUTION, whether he personally agrees with it in its entirety or not. For those of you who cannot understand this concept, please actually read the Constitution, find commentary on Full Faith and Credit, and think for a moment about the First Amendment. While he may hold certain religious beliefs, the First Amendment forbids him voting for religion-based legislation. Also, his phrase "and future court decisions" indicate to me that he thinks he is clairvoyant. Am I the only one who see a bit of conflict between his two phrases that I emphasized with bold text? It's time for some major change in the House and the Senate.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
Am I the only one who see a bit of conflict between his two phrases that I emphasized with bold text? It's time for some major change in the House and the Senate.
No, you are quite right. Their first obligation (as well as the President's) is to uphold and defend the Constitution.

But now I am scared. I just read a disturbing book called American Theocracy. Read this if you want to be completely insecure about the future.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
JustAsking said:
No, you are quite right. Their first obligation (as well as the President's) is to uphold and defend the Constitution.

But now I am scared. I just read a disturbing book called American Theocracy. Read this if you want to be completely insecure about the future.
Oh, man, JA... what fun you and I could have talking politics non-stop for a couple of days! I'll be sure to look that one up.
 

Lex

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
8,253
Media
0
Likes
118
Points
268
Location
In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
DC DEEP said:
Interesting to note that Senator Allen makes it clear to note that he bases his legislative decisions solely upon his personal beliefs. While some of may be quick to say "how else can he make decisions?" let me remind you... his personal beliefs aside, he is SWORN to UPHOLD the US CONSTITUTION, whether he personally agrees with it in its entirety or not.

You mean you DARE hold them to the fact that they place their hands on the BIBLE and swear to do as much. For SHAME!!

Seriously, we gotta get out and vote over the next 2 years, you all. Our government works best when there is a strong system for checks and balances so that no one party can push through all their nonsense. UGH.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Dr Rock said:
um, pretty sure there's no practical difference in those instances. defense of human rights requires no further justification.

Mmmmm, maybe , maybe not. But those that seem to tie everything to constitutional law and the framework of Federal government should understand the difference.

But "human rights". Let's please draw the line on that definition somewhere... do not lob human rights with this. This is a societal debate not a humanity debate.
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure

Lex

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
8,253
Media
0
Likes
118
Points
268
Location
In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
But they allow people to marry their cousins. Go Figure.


No need to halt the spread of birth defects (many of which are known to happen when relatives marry) when we can spend our time treating different people differently.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Lex said:
But they allow people to marry their cousins. Go Figure.


No need to halt the spread of birth defects (many of which are known to happen when relatives marry) when we can spend our time treating different people differently.

Well, only if they're different from ME.
 

healthycircumcision

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
40
Media
112
Likes
9
Points
153
Location
I`m Canadian<I live outside Canada>.
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
AMERICANS HAD ALREADY PAID 4 BILLION DOLLARS FOR THE COST OF THE INFERTILE WAR WAGED UPON IRAQ.PRESIDENT BUSH ESCAPED MILITARY SERVICE IN VIETNAM,MEN AND WOMEN OFFICERS WHO ABUSED IRAQI MEN AND WOMEN IN ABU GHRIB PRISON WERE NOT SEVERLY PUNISHED.STRAIGHT MEN AND WOMEN COULD BE REALLY ATROCIOUS,EVEN WILD ANIMALS WON~T ATTACK,UNLESS THEY ARE ATTACKED.BE FEARLESS,EVERYONE WANTS A GOOD REPUTATION FOR THE USA,NOW A LOT OF COUNTRIES THINK THAT US POLICIES ARE UNJUST AND BIAS.GAYS<LET~S UNITE,ALL NATIONS,ALL RELIGIONS,etc...
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Here's an update for those of you who like to stay current on social issues:

"Congressman Under Fire For 'Outlaw Divorce' Remarks
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
July 20, 2006 - 7:00 pm ET

(Washington) A Tennessee Democrat is under fire from Republicans over comments made earlier this week during the House debate on banning same-sex marriage.

Rep Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.) lambasted House Republicans accusing the party of wasting time voting on amending the Constitution to block gay marriage - a vote GOP leadership knew was unwinnable - when it should be dealing with issues like Iraq and the economy.

"If we truly want to protect marriage, we should look and do all the things we must to go after the evils that threaten each and every one of our marriages," Rep Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.) said. "These are the evils of divorce, adultery and abuse."

Davis also said that divorced people, adulterers and child abusers should be prevented from running for office.

"The amount of divorce that has occurred in this country has become a threat to marriage," he said.

"What do our children learn when they see their parents getting divorced left and right, only to remarry and get divorced again? What kind of example does that set?

"Mr. Speaker, this House must lead by example," he said.
Some House Republicans are calling the remarks irresponsible while others are demanding a public apology.

Davis's spokesperson said the comments did not mean the Congressman was going to introduce legislation but to point out the marriage issue was being brought up by Republicans as an election year ploy.

"The intent of the Congressional speech was not to say that he intends to introduce legislation making divorce and adultery a felony," Tom Hayden told The Tennessean newspaper. "Rather the intent was to point out the purely partisan nature and timing of the amendment."

The proposed amendment was rejected in House of Representatives on Tuesday. It fell 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority they needed.
A similar proposed amendment failed to get enough votes last month in the Senate."

The I underlined one portion to point out a blindingly, glaringly, inconsistent attitude on the hill. This is what we are dealing with. I am just nearly speechless <?> that any legislator would have the audacity to think it's ok to have a constitutional amendment against homosexuals, to "protect" marriage, but bans on divorce irresponsible??????
 

B_nocock2big4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Posts
94
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
153
Location
Heart of the Great Lakes
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
"W" and his band of croans know that this has no chance of passing, rather it's a way of getting thier right wing constituents to the polls which DOES help them win local races. Face it... Democrats just don't get off thier asses and vote unlike the Rebublicans who do turn out to vote. (a sad truth).
I love how they call judges "activist" if they don't vote the way this administration wants them to but are true Americans if they do vote along the lines of "W's" personal religious beliefs. Dubya should have his ass impeached.
 
3

38432

Guest
Ok, what happened to all men are created equal, and separation of church and state. You may not agree with the lifestyle, but people have the right to love and marry whomever they want. The straight people here messed up the "sanctity" of marriage. The divorce rate is over 50%. Most gay couples who are in long term relationships, stay together "till death do them part"