Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[Ben Kenobi]

Ever hear the term "of the people, for the people, and by the people"?

Politicians are "supposed" to pander to the will of the people, not ofrce their beliefs on the people.

By pander what I mean is that they say they are willing to support the things that the people support. But they don't intend to actually follow through and do anything about them. I'd rather have someone who was honest about his own desires and what he wanted to do then someone who just panders.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There's a big difference.

Bush has to try to sell his vision to the people.

The judges just overrule the popular vote.

Yeah... those dirty judges. If not for them and their crazy judicial activism we could still have our White-only restaurants!

The judiciary exists partially for that reason: to check the power of the democratically elected bits of the government so they can't use the will of the majority to oppress minorities.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
... Except, see... gays don't tend to do illegal wiretapping. They also don't tend to blow up federal buildings. Also, they don't tend to promote torture in places like Abu Ghraib.

They're too busy buggering each other and corrupting our children.

But they are a threat. More so than those A-rabs, because unlike A-rabs, gays look just like you and me. Like white people.

Damn straight. They're attacking the institution of marriage, which our founding fathers long ago decided was vital to be protected by the Federal government, they just forgot to write that part down when they were busy with all that taxation, free speech, reasonable searches and stuff.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As opposed to those who have been overturning multitudes of bills passed democratically through state legislatures everywhere?

If the framers meant for unrestricted government by the legislature, they could have said so, rather than going to the trouble constructing a government of limited powers and making the Constitution itself the supreme law, and creating the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government.

The most obscene act of public buggery to ever take place in this nation would be to amend the Constution for some assinine tripe like a quasi-definition of marriage. The 18th amendment is ridiculous enough, this would top it entirely.

[Ecthy]

Can amendments ever be removed from the constitution?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There's a big difference.

Bush has to try to sell his vision to the people.

The judges just overrule the popular vote.

cite

[SlowwHand]

One thing is now known. Gay tendencies are genetic.
Since I acknowledge that, then I must also acknowledge love that can exist between 2 Gays.
If I acknowledge that, then I feel it only logical to recognize a legal union.

Having acknowledged these things, I'll ask Gays; is it really the religious aspect of marriage that you seek?
Or just a legal union? I mean, either is a fine answer I guess.

I ask because I don't know.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Can amendments ever be removed from the constitution?

You can pass another amendment to repeal a previous amendment. The 18th amendment banned alcohol, and the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment.

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
I don't understand what's wrong in stating that a child needs a father and a mother in order to have a normal life

I for one fully support an amendment that would allow the department of children and family services to remove children from households with only one parent.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I think you greatly underestimate just how much contempt that the so-called fundies have of the Constitution.

Fixed

[Ecthy]

Can you make an amendment to repeal all amendments?

Can you make an amendment negating the entire constitution up to that one?

[Jon Miller]

I would guess that someone like MrFun might like a religious union.

Note that currently a purely religious union is allowed.

Now I don't tihnk that marriage is something we should make an ammendment about, and I don't think that gay marriage (or straight marriage) is currently inshrined in our constitution.

I am just in favor of it, as something voted in in our legislatures because I think it will assist gay people in leading a happy life.

JM

[Ecthy]

Oh Jon, you're such a nice boy

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Can you make an amendment to repeal all amendments?

Can you make an amendment negating the entire constitution up to that one?

Sure. At least, you can do that with our current set of amendments. It would be tricky if we ever passed an amendment that included a clause like "you're not allowed to pass another amendment that repeals this amendment."

[SlowwHand]

So then the question is the ability to claim the other for benefits. I agree it should be perfectly fine. I'm for Gay rights in that regard.

As far as religion, I take the stance that God doesn't make mistakes. There is a reason and a plan for all things. Therefore, it should go without saying that no one is turned away.

[Ecthy]

Loin, if that's the only clause of said amendment, that would be fine. The "rump" constitution after "my" amendment would just be the same as well as the one you described.

"$125 - you can't have an amendment repealing this one.

$728 - Andy be da ruler. Nothing else counts any more."

[Gatekeeper]

I'm in no mood today for Bush and his social right-wing buddies. They can *all* go to hell as far as I'm concerned, and that's exactly where they're going to take this nation if its citizens — the so-called silent majority — don't get up off their damn asses and do something to keep the extremes (left or right) in check!

Furthermore, I will *never* support an effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. My God. I cannot believe the social right-wingers are trying this stunt. To actually amend the constitution so an identifiable group of human beings (gays and lesbians) is banned from partaking in something (marriage) the rest of us take for granted?!

The Republicans are the Party of Abraham Lincoln? Yeah, whatever. Not for the last 40 years or so.

Gatekeeper