NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-11-07-rove-interview_x.htm

The Amendment only pulled 48 senate votes in favor last time, short 19 votes. They fell short 63 votes in the House. Republicans picked up 4 Senate and 4 House seats. And, with the recent wave of state legislatures banning gay marriage, and Daschle's defeat, many Democrats in "red" states are starting to feel uneasy about opposing the president on gay marriage any further. It's very conceivable they could get the votes they need to pass this.

And with Bush's overwhelming landslide mandate win that has given him "political capital" he intends to spend (and why shouldn't he, he doesn't have to worry about re-election!) it's very likely he is going to work very hard to get this passed.

Are the Log Cabins and Cheney strong enough to stand up to Bush and the evangelicals who re-elected him?

Bah, the US isn't THAT messed up. I hope..

Sigh. At the worst, it'll pass, and all the cute gay guys will move up here.

Hmm..

Don't forget that miss bitch herself from Colorado was re-elected to the senate and still wants to keep the civil union ban in it too.

That's why it wasn't voted for last time it seems.

I think this amendment will be like the prohibition one. Ten years, and it's gone.

I dont support gay marriage, I think it is something that you give up by being gay. However, I think its wrong to keep a "life-partner" from receiving the benefits and detriments of marriage. Civil unions should be allowed, there are too many legal and technical things that would be much easier for them to achieve if they were married (such as hospital visits and insurance). And then they can pay higher taxes if they file jointly. [How stupid is that? I hope Bush gets rid of the marriage tax. Stupidiest thing EVER.]

I dont support homosexual, and I find it disgusting. I also find broccoli disgusting. But I dont think that they should be banned from doing things just because they are gay. Just as I dont discriminate against those who eat broccoli. If I can tolerate them, they can tolerate my disgust.

In the words of Newman, "Vile Weed!"

Last time was also right before several contested races, and it isn't too unrealistic to assume that many of the Republicans that voted in favor did so to shore up part of their base. Since nobody will have to worry about reelection for at least 2 years, I doubt it would have any more chance of passing now, regardless of the widening majority.

Also, with states passing constitutional bans, the GOP may not feel that a Federal ban is as necessary as they did before. Maybe they'll focus on more important things, like breaking the Democrat's filibuster on the energy bill...

I dont support homosexual, and I find it disgusting. I also find broccoli disgusting. But I dont think that they should be banned from doing things just because they are gay. Just as I dont discriminate against those who eat broccoli. If I can tolerate them, they can tolerate my disgust.

In the words of Newman, "Vile Weed!"

Are you worried we might think you are gay? Is that why you need to declare it disgusting?

I find it amusing that most conservatives who declare themselves pro civil unions love to declare homosexuality disgusting just in case somebody might think they are gay.

Conservatives aren't gay, they're just disgusting. :p

I think, that just to be fair, marriage should have nothing to do with law or the government. Everybody joins in a civil union, whether you are a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. If you want to get married, take it up with your church. If a homosexual couple can find a church that will marry them, then more power to them.

A nation that holds pride in its equality should do something to keep it that way.

I think, that just to be fair, marriage should have nothing to do with law or the government. Everybody joins in a civil union, whether you are a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. If you want to get married, take it up with your church. If a homosexual couple can find a church that will marry them, then more power to them.

A nation that holds pride in its equality should do something to keep it that way.


Ah, the libertarian view. My view also. That's the best bet. Everyone gets what they want. :)

Ah, the libertarian view. My view also. That's the best bet. Everyone gets what they want. :)
That is the best option, but I don't think it will happen. They let interracial people legally marry, without going to everyone having civil unions. Gay people will marry eventually, whether it is a few years or 50 years from now, who knows.

Methinks this will be the greatest "non-issue" of our time. This is the one our descendants will look at us and go "What the HELL were you thinking???"

I dont support gay marriage, I think it is something that you give up by being gay. However, I think its wrong to keep a "life-partner" from receiving the benefits and detriments of marriage. Civil unions should be allowed, there are too many legal and technical things that would be much easier for them to achieve if they were married (such as hospital visits and insurance). And then they can pay higher taxes if they file jointly. [How stupid is that? I hope Bush gets rid of the marriage tax. Stupidiest thing EVER.]

I think the entire opposite. While I don't oppose gay couples having the same private and public sector benefits that straight couples do, I don't think that there is a constitutional argument against depriving them of them. There are no constitutional rights to name anyone at all as your spousal beneficiary, so in that such things exist in, say, insurence or in any other situation, it is not in any way guaranteed. Further in the private sector I don't think that the government has any authority to make insurers and the like recognize any kind of relationship that they do not wish to, other than those of people currently having protected status as compared to those they otherwise recognize such relationships for; for ex: if they provide hetero spousal benefits in general, they cannot deny them to mixed-race couples. In terms of government programs I think it would not be unreasonable to recognize only hetero unions, as the only type which can, albeit not always, result in the creation of new citizens. So providing homosexual couples with equivalent rights/privalages, although something I do support, is not something that I see as currently guaranteed under our existing laws and prescidents.

OTOH denying homosexual couples the right to be married, and to call it that, is not an authority that our government legally has; that would take a modification of the First Amendment. Marriage is a religious ritual, and certainly marriage as we know it is primarily informed by the religious traditions of the faiths of our majority. Churches, etc., have the right to deny marriage to any couple that they wish to, but the government has no right to deny any consenting adult couple from engaging in a religious ritual that any other couple is premitted to participate in, and having inserted itself into religious practice by providing civil ceremonies, it must make that service available to homosexual couples as well. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that laws against homosexual practices are unconstitutional, they cannot descriminate in providing civil marriages to adult non-blood-related homosexual couples. Now that gayness is legal, there is simply no compelling state interest in a governmental double standard.

And yes, I am in favour of legalizing polygamy and polyandry too. And no, no pedophilic marriages and no zoophilic marriages, as consent is not possible and therefor they are abusive.

So the solution so often offered is quite the opposite of what constitutional law requires: we can legally deny homosexual couples the same marital benefits as hetero couples, because such benefits were never constitutionally guaranteed, but we cannot deny them the right to be married and to call it that. It's a simple matter of religious liberty.

I dont support homosexual, and I find it disgusting. I also find broccoli disgusting. But I dont think that they should be banned from doing things just because they are gay. Just as I dont discriminate against those who eat broccoli. If I can tolerate them, they can tolerate my disgust.

In the words of Newman, "Vile Weed!"

I do support the rights and dignity of homosexuals, and although I do find man-man sex disgusting, I find woman-woman sex hot! ;) I appreciate your tolerance. I hope that in as much as the openly gay to not flaunt their sexuality to provoke response, you can be tolerant enough to not flaunt your disgust.

...you hot sexy man-beast you! ;)

Ah, the libertarian view. My view also. That's the best bet. Everyone gets what they want. :)

On this plank, yes. But if you give a damn about the environment, workers' rights, corporate oversight, having a future, etc., the Libertarians are worse than the Neocons.

I mean, maybe decriminalizing drugs is a good idea, but combined with no public schools, no public health programs, no minimum wage laws, and corporate deregulation, it is a recipe for disaster on a truly profound scale.

God: "DAMMIT AMERICA, WHAT'RE YOU DOING? FUCK IT. THAT'S ANOTHER SLEW OF HURRICANES FOR YOU. BAD BOY."



Out of curiosity, anyone wh'os against gay marrige-would you be for it if both chicks were really hot? If so, how hot? Just wondering :p


You know, I've never noticed any girls speak out against same sex marriges...

Bah, just standardise civil unions for any 2 consenting adults as being the union recognised by the state, and if a church wants to turn it into a 'Marriage' they can.

I don't see how people could be against that, but I guess enough people must be. Really, why?

Bah, just standardise civil unions for any 2 consenting adults as being the union recognised by the state, and if a church wants to turn it into a 'Marriage' they can.

I don't see how people could be against that, but I guess enough people must be. Really, why?

Because it makes them feel better about their small penises?

...Penisi? Really, I have no clue :p

God: "DAMMIT AMERICA, WHAT'RE YOU DOING? FUCK IT. THAT'S ANOTHER SLEW OF HURRICANES FOR YOU. BAD BOY."



Out of curiosity, anyone wh'os against gay marrige-would you be for it if both chicks were really hot? If so, how hot? Just wondering :p


You know, I've never noticed any girls speak out against same sex marriges...

Human females are naturally less homophobic. It has to do with the psychological ramifications of basic male sexual instinct. On the animal level virtually all males are naturally sexual aggressors. Therefor, they naturally fear men who are sexually attracted to other men. In addition males tend to lack a natural talent for intimacy, which leads to a disrespect for men who express "feminine" interests, which are associated with intimacy, females having a greater talent for it, and which is threatening to most human males.

Post Script:

In another addition, the biological facts that make polygamy an evolutionary and population-size advantage also lead to human females tending to feel less sexually threatened by eachother. The urge to propagate their own genetics leads to some competitiveness over the male breeding stock, but the reality of ancient sociopolitics has supressed this urge. In males the supression of sexual competition has served no survival agenda, and so polyandry is rare, and most males see other males as sexual competitors, while women, at least from our pre-monogamous cultural past, retain a lesser competitive urge in sexuality, and thus they are less threatened by eachother.

Now, such threats are felt instinctively, so even as the conscious mind understands that the homosexual is not a competitor for one's own heterosexual agenda, the animal urge to distrust the fellow male human is still there, and greater than that in the female to the other female. Add that to a man's tendency to view a homosexual man as a sexual aggressor who might just want him, and a man has a naturally greater tendency to be homophobic ... particularly against male homosexuals.

And again, biological facts dictate that a man can contribute to as many pregnancies at a given time as he can inseminate women, while each woman can participate in only one every ~9 months. This increases the man's competitive urge, as a fecund woman can pretty much always get a baby underway, while a man can only do so if he is the first one to "plant his seed".

Any proposed constitutional amendment needs 3/4s of the state legislatures to approve it for it to pass. That's 38 states. That will be extremely difficult to do, even if it passes in the House and Senate.

Any proposed constitutional amendment needs 3/4s of the state legislatures to approve it for it to pass. That's 38 states. That will be extremely difficult to do, even if it passes in the House and Senate.

You assume that there will be at least 13 states "left" to oppose it. :(

You assume that there will be at least 13 states "left" to oppose it. :(

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, California, Hawaii, Washington. Just a theory.

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, California, Hawaii, Washington. Just a theory.

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont... that's about all I would count on.

Because it makes them feel better about their small penises?

...Penisi? Really, I have no clue :p

Or penes ...

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont... that's about all I would count on.

That's pretty sad.

I think, that just to be fair, marriage should have nothing to do with law or the government. Everybody joins in a civil union, whether you are a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. If you want to get married, take it up with your church. If a homosexual couple can find a church that will marry them, then more power to them.

A nation that holds pride in its equality should do something to keep it that way.

Exceptionally well stated. I agree completely that marriage is NOT a political issue. We are much better served as citizens by having the government stay out of our bedrooms and our churches.

Or penes ...

Penii.

What's really sad is that we've had family discussions over the dinner table about this before (the plural of 'penis', I mean. Not gay marriage. Which isn't to say we haven't discussed that because we most certainly have.)

Ok, not a lawyer here so correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't civil unions and marriages different? I mean, not just different names - aren't there two-hundred-odd extra rights that come with marriage?
Added to this the fact that marriage is a legal, not a religious, term. There are plenty of completely unreligious heterosexual couples out there getting married, and it's no big deal - obviously marriage isn't purely religious.

(I have noticed some girls speak out against it, in an offensive manner.. I suppose it shows that I am sexist because I somehow find that more offensive than when guys do - I'm not quite sure why. I think it's because it reminds me so much of holier-than-thou housewives. I'm female myself and I certainly don't think females inferior, so either it's that, or it's just a stupid "thing" that has no logical reasoning behind it.)

"Methinks this will be the greatest "non-issue" of our time. This is the one our descendants will look at us and go "What the HELL were you thinking???" "
To be honest, I think that goes for a lot of today's issues that everyone goes on about.

Penii.

Penii would be the plural of penius. A correct latinate plural of penis would be penes.

Other than that, what is it with american fundi-christos that they care about civil marriage? I thought that for christians marriage is only marriage if it takes place in a church before god and his angels and so on, so any civil marriage is just a piece of paper from the government, not a proper marriage at all, so why do they care if the government lets two women get this piece of paper?

is Vermont liberal? and Arizona?

Penii would be the plural of penius. A correct latinate plural of penis would be penes.

Other than that, what is it with american fundi-christos that they care about civil marriage? I thought that for christians marriage is only marriage if it takes place in a church before god and his angels and so on, so any civil marriage is just a piece of paper from the government, not a proper marriage at all, so why do they care if the government lets two women get this piece of paper?

is Vermont liberal? and Arizona?

Vermont liberal, Arizona libertarian, I believe.

In my opinion, if the government allows the civil union ("marriage") of two gay people then it is legal for the government to recognise the union. The church's role would be reduced as their version of this union would be male-female only to exclude male-male and female-female. A Gay marriage would not be Christian marriage, but it would still be legal regardless of what Church thought it to be so sinful.

and for that word ...

penis => penes not penii
eg denarius (or denier in English) => denarii

Instead of a Federal Ban on Gay Marriage....

The option should be left to the individual state...Then again, ALOT of things should be left up to the states instead of the federal government

Voters from 11 states CRUSHED the option of GM by a very large margin...

And this is the feeling in the VAST majority of states.

America has spoken

Methinks this will be the greatest "non-issue" of our time. This is the one our descendants will look at us and go "What the HELL were you thinking???"I wouldn't call it a non-issue, but I think your description of the attitudes of our descendants is correct. Of course, I believe they'll have greater reason than that to wonder what the hell we were thinking, but this will be one of the issues.

America is a big melting pot. People come here because of our tolerance of things. America is so into giving freedoms to people, yet it wants to take away gay marriage? This is just hypocritical. We can't be seen as a country who is accepting of everyone and then ban gay marriages. There are gay couples out there who love each other more than many straight marriages but we are trying to tell them they can't get married? This isn't right. The only halfway decent reason I've heard for banning gay marriage is because of the bible. and yet, isn't there the whole "seperation of church and state"??? I mean we can't even call it "Christmas Break" in the school system because of it and now we want to ban something because of the bible? Where is the sense in that?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-11-07-rove-interview_x.htm

The Amendment only pulled 48 senate votes in favor last time, short 19 votes. They fell short 63 votes in the House. Republicans picked up 4 Senate and 4 House seats. And, with the recent wave of state legislatures banning gay marriage, and Daschle's defeat, many Democrats in "red" states are starting to feel uneasy about opposing the president on gay marriage any further. It's very conceivable they could get the votes they need to pass this.

And with Bush's overwhelming landslide mandate win that has given him "political capital" he intends to spend (and why shouldn't he, he doesn't have to worry about re-election!) it's very likely he is going to work very hard to get this passed.

Are the Log Cabins and Cheney strong enough to stand up to Bush and the evangelicals who re-elected him?

dude, when did the Republican party start standing for BIGGER government?! i would really love to have the option of voting for a party that isn't trying to expand the federal government, and i am quite sick of this neo-con movement undermining the core values of what was once Republican ideology (small government and fiscal responsibility). Bush is a freaking LIBERAL, people!!!!! he is expanding the government and spending like a 1980s Democrat! when will conservatives wise up?!

Last time was also right before several contested races, and it isn't too unrealistic to assume that many of the Republicans that voted in favor did so to shore up part of their base. Since nobody will have to worry about reelection for at least 2 years, I doubt it would have any more chance of passing now, regardless of the widening majority.

Also, with states passing constitutional bans, the GOP may not feel that a Federal ban is as necessary as they did before. Maybe they'll focus on more important things, like breaking the Democrat's filibuster on the energy bill...
Actually the fedral ban is more necessary with the current crop of state resolutions. Personally I think the amendment should pass and then the Federal Government should recognize civil unions, but hey, that's just my opinion. The first part is pretty good though.

Instead of a Federal Ban on Gay Marriage....

The option should be left to the individual state...Then again, ALOT of things should be left up to the states instead of the federal government

Voters from 11 states CRUSHED the option of GM by a very large margin...

And this is the feeling in the VAST majority of states.

America has spoken
I'm sure similar sentiment was expressed back when the Southern states outlawed interracial marriage.

"States' rights"

"Majority has spoken"

Hah.

Voters from 11 states CRUSHED the option of GM by a very large margin...

And this is the feeling in the VAST majority of states.

America has spoken

What I don't understand is how heterosexual America feels it has any right to dictate what rights should and should not be given to homosexual America.

A majority (especially an arrogant, self-righteous majority, as in this case) has no business meddling in minority rights. They simply cannot be trusted.

'Tyranny of the majority' anyone?

Why on earth do people feel a need to legislate a constantly shifting issue like morality? It's so stupid. Suppose fifty years ago, a constitutional amendment was enacted banning the eating of meat on fridays. That would have been just as stupid then as this is now. *sigh*

Why on earth do people feel a need to legislate a constantly shifting issue like morality? It's so stupid. Suppose fifty years ago, a constitutional amendment was enacted banning the eating of meat on fridays. That would have been just as stupid then as this is now. *sigh*
But...we need to defend the sanctity of Fridays!!! :D

Activist judges! Activist judges! They're banning the Bible!

So the solution so often offered is quite the opposite of what constitutional law requires: we can legally deny homosexual couples the same marital benefits as hetero couples, because such benefits were never constitutionally guaranteed, but we cannot deny them the right to be married and to call it that. It's a simple matter of religious liberty.

Actually, we cannot. There may not be a constitutional "right to marriage," but the protections of marriage are something that the government provides. Because it provides them, it cannot do so in a discriminatory manner without a damn good reason to do so. It has demonstrated no such reason.

There is also no constitutional "right to drive" or "right to have a mortgage" or "right to rent property." However, because there are laws that regulate these things, those laws must be applied eqally.

If there were no marriage laws at all, we could argue the "no right to marriage" idea. However, there *are* marriage laws that provide specific protections to couples who have chosen to live as a single entity. The government has no reason to provide one type of couple living as a single entity protections while not providing those same protections for another couple living in the same manner except "We hate teh gays!"


And:

http://mediar1.gpb.org/ramgen/leg/2....rm?usehostname

Skip to 2:12:24

Senator Fort from Fulton County, GA is my hero.

The lady after him rocks too - I think I'll make her my hero as well.

Instead of a Federal Ban on Gay Marriage....

The option should be left to the individual state...Then again, ALOT of things should be left up to the states instead of the federal government

Voters from 11 states CRUSHED the option of GM by a very large margin...

And this is the feeling in the VAST majority of states.

America has spoken

Of course, in Georgia, many voters were tricked into also banning civil unions - as these were not even mentioned on the ballot but were on the amendment. This is also why the amendment will fall in the court (unless the judges go stupid and forget that the populace should not be tricked into voting for something).

But...we need to defend the sanctity of Fridays!!! :D

Activist judges! Activist judges! They're banning the Bible!

Personally, I think we should protect the sanctity of driver's licenses. How dare we give driver's licenses to non-Christians!!!!

Why on earth do people feel a need to legislate a constantly shifting issue like morality? It's so stupid. Suppose fifty years ago, a constitutional amendment was enacted banning the eating of meat on fridays. That would have been just as stupid then as this is now. *sigh*What does doing something like banning eating meat on Fridays have to do with the Federal Amendment on homosexul marriages? It isn't like the amendment actually banned homosexual marriages. Cripes, the way people are talking it almost seems like they never even bothered to find out what the amendment is about.

What does doing something like banning eating meat on Fridays have to do with the Federal Amendment on homosexul marriages? It isn't like the amendment actually banned homosexual marriages. Cripes, the way people are talking it almost seems like they never even bothered to find out what the amendment is about.
Do tell us what the amendment is really about, if not banning homosexual marriages.

Methinks this will be the greatest "non-issue" of our time. This is the one our descendants will look at us and go "What the HELL were you thinking???"

Agreed. Gay marriage will probably wind up going down the same path as Civil Rights' Movement did- garner stiff opposition at first from people who don't like change, fight through that opposition and win societal acceptance, at which point we'll look to the past and wonder what the fuss was about. George W. Bush's amendment won't be the final chapter in this story- just one in a story that will no doubt be a long one.

Do tell us what the amendment is really about, if not banning homosexual marriages.
Well if you'd bother to read it, it bans federal courts from considering cases involving the legitimacy of homosexual marriages. Thus if the amendment passes, a federal court could neither invalidate Vermonts Civil Union law, not Georgia's anti-civil union amendment (although state courts could, and the Georgia case could go before the US Supreme Court as original jurisdiction). It doesn't ban homosexual marriages, it bans federal courts from interfering in the decision making process.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-11-07-rove-interview_x.htm

The Amendment only pulled 48 senate votes in favor last time, short 19 votes. They fell short 63 votes in the House. Republicans picked up 4 Senate and 4 House seats. And, with the recent wave of state legislatures banning gay marriage, and Daschle's defeat, many Democrats in "red" states are starting to feel uneasy about opposing the president on gay marriage any further. It's very conceivable they could get the votes they need to pass this.

Prohibition all over again, except worse...

And with Bush's overwhelming landslide mandate win that has given him "political capital" he intends to spend (and why shouldn't he, he doesn't have to worry about re-election!) it's very likely he is going to work very hard to get this passed.

1.) 51% is not a mandate, just a slight majority.

2.) One of my concerns going into this election was that if Bush got a second term he wouldn't be running for reelection which means he's not accountable to the voters anymore.

Are the Log Cabins and Cheney strong enough to stand up to Bush and the evangelicals who re-elected him?

We will see, won't we? Dammit. *mutters about twisting the Constitution*

Well if you'd bother to read it, it bans federal courts from considering cases involving the legitimacy of homosexual marriages. Thus if the amendment passes, a federal court could neither invalidate Vermonts Civil Union law, not Georgia's anti-civil union amendment (although state courts could, and the Georgia case could go before the US Supreme Court as original jurisdiction). It doesn't ban homosexual marriages, it bans federal courts from interfering in the decision making process.
Really? Than why was it hyped as "defending traditional marriage"? Why does everyone refer to it as banning gay marriage? Why are the liberals uniformly against it and conservatives uniformly for it? Seems strange, if it goes both ways as you say.

Really? Than why was it hyped as "defending traditional marriage"?

It keeps those "liberal activist judges" from doing their job and ruling the unconstitutionality of the laws banning gay marriage.

Now if they were to ban government issued marriages altogether, I would be all for that. :)

Why does everyone refer to it as banning gay marriage?

Because that will be it's practical effect. Without those activist judges, bans on gay marriage will no longer be subjected to federal judicial review and the majority will easily achieve tyranny over the minority. Yay! Just how our Founding Fathers intended it...a real democracy! :rolleyes:

Why are the liberals uniformly against it and conservatives uniformly for it? Seems strange, if it goes both ways as you say.

See above.

I dont support gay marriage, I think it is something that you give up by being gay.
Come on, that's not fair. It's not like they choose to be gay.

Come on, that's not fair. It's not like they choose to be gay.

Of course they did!!! Just like I choose to menstruate once a month and grow armpit and leg hair and be attracted to men!

I "choose" to be attracted to large breasts. :p

Really? Than why was it hyped as "defending traditional marriage"? Why does everyone refer to it as banning gay marriage? Why are the liberals uniformly against it and conservatives uniformly for it? Seems strange, if it goes both ways as you say.
TH has some good points on the practical effects and tyany of th majority, but I tend to be more cynical and say it would be hard to stir people up by saying "Bush proposes leaving the issue of Homosexual marriage up to the people". I expect also that there may be some confusion with the earlier marriage amendment proposals, particularily those from the 1990's, which defined marriage and all that, but here we are talking about the amendment that Bush is pushing, not the 101 oddball amendments about marriage that have been proposed over the years.

I "choose" to be attracted to large breasts. :p

That's good. Because if you had chosen to be attracted to small breasts, you would be in the minority and we would have to ban you from marriage.

Come on, that's not fair. It's not like they choose to be gay.
True. As one myself, I can attest to it not being a mere choice. If it were, then tell me, why would people choose to be so, then just to receive ridicule from the people and be denied marriage. There are no actual benefits to choose to be gay. The US government has stated that we may not discriminate in several places, from work to getting housing, based on sexual orientation. Yet, here they are, doing said discrimination. We need someone to wake up and seperate the church from the state. But that's not going to happen, because the president kisses the Christian ass to garner their vote. It makes me want to ask all those homophobic males if they like another guy kissing their ass, because Bush's doing a mighty fine job of it...

Sigh. At the worst, it'll pass, and all the cute gay guys will move up here.
Well, I've already told my BF that should it get banned, we are moving to Canada. ^_^ I won't tolerate oppression of who I am from my government.

Welcome to hell.

After 150 years it's time we just let the South go, and let the North progress with the rest of the world.

I hope Canadians will eventually help Americans by letting the refugees enter Canada easier.

After 150 years it's time we just let the South go, and let the North progress with the rest of the world.
*cuts off the south* Hey... we just got rid of a lot of Republican states... RECOUNT!! :P

Anyway, I'm reminded of this image (http://threepeas.net/snow/images/new_map.jpg), which seems to sum things up quite nicely...

Actually, we cannot. There may not be a constitutional "right to marriage," but the protections of marriage are something that the government provides. Because it provides them, it cannot do so in a discriminatory manner without a damn good reason to do so. It has demonstrated no such reason.

There is also no constitutional "right to drive" or "right to have a mortgage" or "right to rent property." However, because there are laws that regulate these things, those laws must be applied eqally.

If there were no marriage laws at all, we could argue the "no right to marriage" idea. However, there *are* marriage laws that provide specific protections to couples who have chosen to live as a single entity. The government has no reason to provide one type of couple living as a single entity protections while not providing those same protections for another couple living in the same manner except "We hate teh gays!"

Sorry, but while you cannot legally descriminate in housing, renting, insurence, etc. based on gender, race, religion, handicap, etc., the laws and the courts do not regard homosexuals as a protected class. States can add extra requirements for elderly people to renew their driving privilages and can deny young adults the right to drink. Insurers can deny coverage to people based on preexisting medical conditions or even on family histories of congenital conditions. Renters can deny rentals to families with or without children, or to couples, or to singles, or based on age. Employers can deny employment to just about anyone they haven't hired yet, and can fire people for a variety of non-criminal reasons.

States and the federal government do deny marital privilages to non-married hetero couples, as well as to all non-couples. If Social Security, Medicare, etc. provide special rules for certain people this does not require them to provide them to all people. The providence of such privilages are theirs to define, barring antidescrimination laws, which to date do not catagorize homosexuals as a protected class.

Would that they did, but they do not. :(

And:

http://mediar1.gpb.org/ramgen/leg/2....rm?usehostname

Skip to 2:12:24

Senator Fort from Fulton County, GA is my hero.

The lady after him rocks too - I think I'll make her my hero as well.

That's not a link. Try this: Right Click ---> "Copy Shortcut"

dude, when did the Republican party start standing for BIGGER government?! i would really love to have the option of voting for a party that isn't trying to expand the federal government, and i am quite sick of this neo-con movement undermining the core values of what was once Republican ideology (small government and fiscal responsibility). Bush is a freaking LIBERAL, people!!!!! he is expanding the government and spending like a 1980s Democrat! when will conservatives wise up?!
Hey hey hey! Bush is no liberal. He may not be a conservative, but he's certainly no liberal. Don't try to pass him off on us--we've got enough people to be embarassed of and by without having the chimp locked onto us as well.

I really hope that the senate passes this new law. It would make America a slightly better place for everyone except the gays! lol. Well everyone else who disagrees with the law can piss off. No harm intended. I'm out.

I'm out.
Good.

I really hope that the senate passes this new law. It would make America a slightly better place for everyone except the gays! lol. Well everyone else who disagrees with the law can piss off. No harm intended. I'm out.

And if they made a law making it legal to hunt you, individually, for food it would make America a slightly better place for everyone except you! lol. Piss off. You're out.

This Ammendment will never get passed because the senate wants to give the power to decide to the states because they dont want the national goverment to have more power. So i guess we are all going to have to deal with gay marriage in massachusetes and no gay marriage anywhere else (thank god)

I really hope that the senate passes this new law. It would make America a slightly better place for everyone except the gays! lol. Well everyone else who disagrees with the law can piss off. No harm intended. I'm out.

You a fucktard. No harm intended!

(more of a joke then a flame, but if the mods want I'll change it ;))

Well, I can tell you that some republicans in the House will vote against this. In particular Ron Paul from Texas, who should just leave the Republican party as well as all Rockefeller Republicans and form a new party for moderates along with conservative democrats.

....and I suppose if we passed a law that said Christian extremists can be legally tortured with electrodes while being slowly run over by a Mack truck, then America would be a good place for EVERYONE BUT THE CHRISTIAN EXTREMIST NUTS! HA HA LOL GUYS!!!!1

Come to think of it, I think I'll put that into the Necros-Vacuian Constitution.

Greneda? How have you not been banned yet?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-11-07-rove-interview_x.htm

The Amendment only pulled 48 senate votes in favor last time, short 19 votes. They fell short 63 votes in the House. Republicans picked up 4 Senate and 4 House seats. And, with the recent wave of state legislatures banning gay marriage, and Daschle's defeat, many Democrats in "red" states are starting to feel uneasy about opposing the president on gay marriage any further. It's very conceivable they could get the votes they need to pass this.

And with Bush's overwhelming landslide mandate win that has given him "political capital" he intends to spend (and why shouldn't he, he doesn't have to worry about re-election!) it's very likely he is going to work very hard to get this passed.

Are the Log Cabins and Cheney strong enough to stand up to Bush and the evangelicals who re-elected him?

What is this landslide? It was NO landslide. In fact it was a record breaking close race. Not since 1916 has a sitting President won by such a narrow margin. Now he's putting an attack on gays ahead of any other issue, maybe excepty raping social security. Yeah gotta stop those homos, we don't think about Bin Laden very much, it's those queers gotta go.

People seem to be under the impression that gay marriage in one state will lead to gay marriage being forced upon all states. Thus, they argue, we need an amendment to prevent this result. However, it is unlikely that gay marriage will be forced upon other states. The "full faith and credit" clause does not necessarily require a state to recognize a marriage performed in another. When a marriage goes against the public policy of a state (e.g. allowing 13-year-olds to marry), that state is not required to recognize it. The same principle would probably apply to gay marriage, and the Supreme Court will probably speak on this soon. This is why, in my opinion, a gay marriage amendment is premature. This sort of thing should remain a state issue, and it's likely that this will happen without an amendment.