Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
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?!

To me, it's not even that - let's assume there's a socially desireable goal in banning the evil sodomites* from desecration and mockery of marriage.

First, the Federal government has no business (and no role granted by the Constitution) to even make such social policies, other than the overriding limits on state power via the 14th Amendment.

Second, even if that was a Federal government role, the means is to enact legislation through the mechanism set up by the Constitution, not turn the Constitution into an appendix of the United States Code. It's just fundamentally ass-backward, the same way as the 18th amendment was.


* They're not human, they're all demons in human form trying to lure our youth to depart from the path of righteousness and to lose their everlasting souls to Satan, after all - no need for this PC pretense that they're human.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, Mr. 30% Approval Rate think that he's going to be able to rally the troops this go around.

Fundies with probably have seen that Bush has done jack for them so far and this is just talk and all rhetoric.

[Kontiki]

Even if the proposed amendment passed through both houses with a 2/3 majority, would 38 states go for it?

[MichaeltheGreat]

It only takes a simple majority of each legislative branch in each of the states. Given that frothing-at-the-mouth fundies are a more coherent voting block, it would be a lot more plausible for 38 states to ratify than for the 2/3 majorities in Congress. I don't think 38 states would go for it, but most likely more than 30 would.

[mrmitchell]

they[the Democrats] are willing to support the things that the people support.

Thank you BK. I had thought conservatives around here were losing touch with reality lately.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by BlackCat




That's pure BS unless, of course, you are claiming that gays are nonhumans.

Well, if gays were human, we wouldn't be discriminating against them now, would we?

[loinburger]

In all fairness, we're not talking about discriminating against gays as individuals, rather we're talking about discriminating against gays as couples. We don't hate gays so long as they're abstinent, we only hate gays when they act gay.

[Elok]

The Washington Post mentioned a real doozy of a radio ad in their article on this today. Apparently in NC there's a Democratic senator who favors civil unions and limited amnesty for immigrants (which includes allowing gay Mexicans to live with their longtime 'murican pardners). So, the GOP challenger apparently ran an ad with mariachi music playing in the background while a voiceover said something to the effect of, "Sen. Blahblah wants an America full of foreigners and homosexuals. Mr. Rightwing doesn't. Vote Rightwing."

A full day's supply of xenophobia in one tasty lump!

EDIT: I got some facts wrong, as it turns out. It was actually a U.S. Representative seat, not Senate, in contest. Also, he actually said something like, "If [X] had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for foreigners and homosexuals." Which is actually funnier.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by loinburger
In all fairness, we're not talking about discriminating against gays as individuals, rather we're talking about discriminating against gays as couples. We don't hate gays so long as they're abstinent, we only hate gays when they act gay.

Oh, like the Catholic church? Where they understand gay people exist, but so long as they don't sin and put it up the rectum, it's all good?

[Dinner]

Transparent pandering to shore up the conservative vote since his ratings are in the toilet (and because the President's ratings tend to rub off on his party mates in Congress). The question is will conservatives be stupid enough to fall for meaningless pandering yet again? Let's face it an intelligent person wouldn't have falling for the same stupid dog tricks this many years in a row but maybe the conservatives have finally stopped drinking the cool-aid and have gotten smart. Better 6 years late then never.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
Hmm, so after two years of saying tnohing much about since since the 2004 elections, this again becomes an issue, just in time to try to save the Republicans in the 2006 races...

Yeah, election year stunt.

Yep, do nothing then each election year the gays suddenly become satan's boogie man which must be used to scare the brain dead and red neck class. Big yawn.

[Dinner]

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

Yes, the constitution can be modified via the amendment process though it is very difficult to do so. It's only happened something like 26 times in the last 230 years and ten of those were right after the constitution was signed in order to add in a bill of rights.

Two of the biggest examples of changes to the constitution were the repeal of slavery and the repeal of prohibition.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by 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.

Nice post!

But it's worth remembering that gays don't have any kind of monopoly on mixed motives for marrying, which is why we have the state of Nevada.

Some gays, like some straights, will view marriage as a legal arrangement.

Somegays, like some straights, will view marriage as a religious sacrament.

Some gays, like some straights, will view marriage as a spiritual (but not religious) state.

In other words, gay marriage will be exactly like straight marriage -- a complex, diverse institution.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


In other words, gay marriage will be exactly like straight marriage -- a complex, diverse institution.

exactly

[asleepathewheel]

:shakeshead:

what a waste of time and money.

Tell me, why does the US need to regulate marriage between 2 consenting adults?

sigh.