Bush backs Gay Marraige Ban Amendment

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
I saw it on the news today that he supports exactly what I said -- for the Mass. constitutional amendment.

That's not what you said at all, you liar. You were pretty clearly talking about the national ammendment, which is all Bush has been talking about, as well as Rosie.

Bush made it clear that he does not oppose civil unions and the author of the US constitutional amendment offered to change the language to make that abundantly clear.

And this does not remotely equate to Bush supporting an ammendment to the constitution that favors civil unions, now does it?

See how the blatant smear attempt crumbles under basic analysis!

The only candidate that is in favor of gay marriage is Nader.

Wrong, Kucinich and Sharpton do as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And this time it was easier to refute.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That's not what you said at all, you liar. You were pretty clearly talking about the national ammendment, which is all Bush has been talking about, as well as Rosie.

The amendment Kerry supports is the kind of state amendment that Bush supports as well. It opposes gay marriage while authorizing civil unions. There is very little difference between the two on this issue.

Anyway Boris, I never specified which constitution to illustrate my point. Their positions are almost identical.

[Ramo]

Shrub wants a national amendement.

Seeing as how the states that are getting gay marriage, or likely will in the near furture, are precisely those that won't easily pass state amendments, the positions are very different.

[MrBaggins]

I don't recall Bush ever mentioning a state Constitutional Amendment... and why would he? He's the President of US. He makes decisions on Federal issues.

Which state would he be referring to? All of them?

[Boris Godunov]

Ned's just trying to weasel his way out of making a blatantly false statement based on his half-hearing something and going off the deep end about it. Par for the course.

[Boris Godunov]

Rosie pointed out something I hadn't thought about wrt gay marriage benefits, and one that isn't addressed by contractual means is spousal priviledge. Despite her considering her partner her wife, Rosie was denied spousal priviledge at the trial. Is it fair that a heterosexual married coupld can claim such priviledge, but a homosexual couple may be forced to testify against one another in the same circumstances?

[blackice]

Is it fair that a heterosexual married coupld can claim such priviledge,

Wait till you have a custody battle, discrimination is ripe it's called population control...

A form of social engineering we pee on's better wise up too...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ned's just trying to weasel his way out of making a blatantly false statement based on his half-hearing something and going off the deep end about it. Par for the course.

Indeed. Bush wants a federal constitutional amendment taking the decision away from the states. Kerry's amendment (repulsive as it is) is consistent with statements that the states should be able to decide for themselves.

[Sava]

wow, yavoon vs thorn... that was funny

Imran, what's your take on my suggestion that the proposed amendment violates the 14th and 1st amendments?

[Ramo]

That's impossible. An amendment by definition cannot violate the Constitution.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's impossible. An amendment by definition cannot violate the Constitution.

uhmmm... well then they would be contradictory...

[Sava]

btw, I didn't say the "constitution"... but rather two specific amendments... for instance, what if they passed an amendment creating the Church of America or something... that would violate the 1st amendment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, what's your take on my suggestion that the proposed amendment violates the 14th and 1st amendments?

Didn't I already said that was a dumb argument? Since it is a Constitutional Amendment which comes later, it superceeds the 1st and 14th Amendment and cannot be ruled unconstitution under any grounds. Even if you follow Templar's argument, this amendment, once passed is unassailable, except by another amendment.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Didn't I already said that was a dumb argument?

probably, but after my last post way back on like page 2, I haven't read anything since this last page (50 posts per page).

Since it is a Constitutional Amendment which comes later, it superceeds the 1st and 14th Amendment and cannot be ruled unconstitution under any grounds. Even if you follow Templar's argument, this amendment, once passed is unassailable, except by another amendment.

that doesn't make sense... so amendments can contradict each other as long as they are in succession?