GOP looks for 2004 gay marriage replay

[sabra]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13901339/

GOP looks for 2004 gay marriage replay
Effort is to force lawmakers to take a stand just months before election

WASHINGTON - Undeterred by a decisive defeat in the Senate, House Republicans are moving ahead with a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, forcing lawmakers to take a stand just months before the election.

The vote, scheduled for Tuesday, will occur in a week devoted to several priorities of social conservatives _ what House GOP leaders call their "American values agenda." Also on tap are a pledge protection bill and several Republican-backed stem cell bills.

President Bush, under some pressure from conservatives to take a more active role in promoting their issues, spoke out for the gay marriage amendment several times before it was rejected in the Senate last month.

Changing the Constitution is necessary, he said in one of his weekly radio addresses, because "activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years."

[wakeme2008]

1. I could be wrong,,, but with gas at that point 3 - 3.50 a gallon

I do not think this will play out the same.

[Skittles]

40. I would agree that is true for some people

but for bush's true ignorant base, the Gods Gays and Guns distraction theme works WONDERS

[Heidi]

2. And our position should be: Marriage for ALL

adults who want to be married. Bigotry is _not_ a real American value.

[radfringe]

34. I'm no lawyer...but

doesn't these kinds of laws violate "equal protection" clauses?

gay/lesbian/straight, if two people are in a domestic relationship (not recognized officially as marriage) they are denied the special privileges/rights given to officially recognized married couples...

Specific to gay/lesbian couples - there's the denial of the special status of marriage which would automatically give these rights/privileges

just a thought....

[Heidi]

36. That's always been what I thought, too,

but apparently our hawkish judiciary disagrees. x(

[wordpix2]

3. more distractions from the ADD geniuses in the GOP

[theHandpuppet]

4. It's so nice to know...

That with the world literally blowing up in our faces, it's folks like my partner and me who pose the greatest threat to the world as we know it.

[Arkansas Granny]

6. I'll bet you would have never believed that you and your partner

were so dangerous or such a threat to society as we know it. It is just disgusting to me that the Republicans wave the flag and talk about democracy as if they own it, but they are willing to amend our Constitution to include bigotry and discrimination towards American citizens.

[mtnester]

9. Yeah, you troublemakers....

Oh BTW, keep on sending us your taxes, and spending your dough in the stores...just because they want to discriminate against you DOES NOT mean they won't take your money. :sarcasm:

My son is gay, and I am TIRED of this plot to make him out to be a monster. Tired I tell you. Which is what the GOP's get out the anti-gay vote is starting to sound like to the rest of the semi-conscious voters.

[1932]

5. So many problems in the world and their solution is to pick a group of

people and make their lives even harder.

People who pursue stuff like this who believe they're motivated by religion are in for a real surprise when they reach the pearly gates.

[catmandu57]

7. They're going to try illegal immigration also

A couple of weeks ago I was talking to a staunch dyed in the blood jesus lover, he was asking me if we had any "beaners" up here yet, his words. He got a real hard edge in his voice when talking about "beaners".
This guy attends one of the megachurches and takes the right wing marching orders too seriously, I've been going to cut him lose but I've known him for most of my life and it's hard to do.

Then yesterday my wifes braindead brother was harping about illegals not speaking english, so I know that's going to be their rally cry,
it's all their fault.

[WCGreen]

8. The Democrats should just boycott the session....

If all they are doing is voting on their issues, just don't show up....

[ScreamingMeemie]

10. Good luck with that...

...I think it's a *good* idea...because it won't work this time. :hi:

[Blue Meany]

11. Keep Government out of the Marriage Business

We ought to frame this as an issue of government interfering in private lives, which is obviously the case. But a good way to approach this would be to say that marriage is a religiously sanctioned relationship, subject to the rules of individual religious communities, and that the government has no business interfering in the matter. The government can register civil unions, much in the same way that they register property sales and business contracts. Civil unions may or may not be "marriages": perhaps they are just a contract between two friends who want to take care of each other in their old age. But it is no business of the government, which should be kept out of the marriage business altogether.

[CottonBear]

12. Marriages are civil unions licensed by the government.

One can get married at the courthouse, in a backyard or in a church but the marriage is licensed by the state not by any church. So, the government is in the "marriage business" already. Now, a church could refuse to allow a particular couple to be married in a religous ceremony for whatever reason, but that couple can still get married at the courthouse or in a private ceremony. (I am referrring to heterosexual couples here but this would apply to gay couples as well if religous marriage and civil marriage were separated fully in our culture.)

I am in favor of the Europewan model: civil marriage licensed by the state and religous marriage (only if one wishes to do so) in the church of one's choosing. One must be civilly married before being married in a religous ceremony.

That way, gay and heterosexual marriage become simply "civil marriage." Problem solved.

[zbdent]

13. Agendas for the future, courtesy of the GOP:

2006 - Gay Marriage
2008 - Gay Marriage
2010 - Gay Marriage
2012 - Gay Marriage
2014 - Gay Marriage
2016 - Gay Marriage

[KingFlorez]

14. How looking to deal with real issues?

[rodeodance]

15. puky little minded people!

[Ian David]

16. Ooh! Ooh! I have a solution!

Institute a Gay Marriage Tax that requires married gay couples to pay into a fund that subsides cheaper gasoline for everyone else.

All the straight people get cheaper gas, gay people get to be married... but they'll have to come-up with a boatload of money to do it, which means that the anti-gay people still get to do what they like best... punish gay people.

Hey, we all WIN!

[RCinBrooklyn]

17. Dems policy should be that they fully support monogamous realtionships.

[noonwitch]

18. Didn't they pretty much win this one?

In 2004, all the states like mine passed a "gay marriage ban". The USSC has just ruled in support of those bans. I don't agree with the "gay marriage ban" and voted against it, but I recognize that I am in the minority on this issue. So, if they got their way, why is this still an issue?

I do think that continuing to push this as an election issue now will backfire on them, when gas is $3 a gallon and heating bills will likely be going up even more this winter.

[moose65]

19. I hope it doesn't work this time

Call me naive, but I think this issue is "Getting Old" for a lot of people. Those folks in states that already passed the bans won't be motivated by them this year, and somehow, campaigning against so-and-so because of the way they voted on this ONE issue doesn't have the same sense of urgency as them saying "Your marriage is under attack: vote for the ban!!!" Am I wrong in thinking that the more people hear about this issue, the less they care about it? After all, it's been a scant 6 years since Vermont first started civil unions; these groups were crowing about the destruction of Western Civilization then; now, civil unions are hardly ever talked about and are, in fact, supported by more people than are opposed. As a gay man, I would love to be able to get married tomorrow, but I'm also realistic. Our day will come, sooner rather than later.

[superconnected]

20. Unite in bigotry - same old thing.

Notice bigotry always seems to work with them though. Must be their base...

[The_Casual_Observer]

21. Why isn't abortion on this list?

It's the only thing missing.

[erikvegas]

22. Gay Marriage is not a human right.

Gay "marriage" is not a human right. "Marriage" is an institution created by a society for the sole purpose of the stabilization of that society. The society sets the rules under which the "marriage" can exist. Now if you chose to engage in a lifestyle that is outside the conventions set by that society you should not be allowed to participate in the institutions of that society. While I do not believe in gay marriage, or gay adoption for that matter, I do believe that there should be some sort of civil partnership available that provides all the same legal protections that married couples are afforded under marriage. You will find that most people are very much for this. It's specifically calling gay "marriage" Marriage that most people find offensive or improper. Its all well and good to cry equal protection under the law but no matter how you slice it homosexuality is a "fringe" lifestyle. Once you change an institution to allow for a specific fringe group you must then, by precedent, allow that same institution to all fringe groups. If you can come up with a cogent argument for why gay marriage should be allowed but plural marriage (polygamy) should not I would like to hear it.

Erik

[JackORoses]

23. utter bs

There are two definitions of Marriage.
Marriage in the Church and Marriage under the Law.

Marriage in the Church deals with Religious belief.

Marriage under the Law deals with Legal Rights.

In a country where Church and State are declared to be separate,
these two definitions of Marriage should be viewed separately.

Churches serving their limited congregations can therefore have a limited definition of what they recognize as Marriage.

But the US Government cannot act like this.
It is responsible for providing Legal Rights to all American citizens equally.
Therefore, it's definition of Marriage must include all Americans.

What this means is that your Church doesn't have to recognize Gay couples or let them get married there,
but our Country does.

Equal Rights Under the Law

[IndianaGreen]

24. Why don't you join the Nazis and start killing gays and abortionists

because that's where you rightfully belong, wearing an SS uniform!

[Strathos]

26. I don't care what people find offensive

Many people found blacks offensive, many people found mixed marriages offensive, many people still feel the same way about both, but guess what, they can kiss my gay ass.

It's time we fight for our rights instead of ask for them. If you're not with us you are against us.

No one needs or cares about your "approval".

[EFerrari]

28. Gay people are not a "fringe group". Homosexuality is

not a "fringe lifestyle". Get an education.

By the same logic, we'd still have slavery and women would be chattel.

[Dr Fate]

30. Why not compare it screwing turtles while you are at it?

We are trying to have a discussion about equal rights for human beings here.

If a man is allowed to marry a woman for one reason or another, then gay folks should get the same treatment.

Marrying multiple partners?

How does that compare to a gay couple vs a straight copule w/ more rights?

[insleeforprez]

33. It's simple

Polygamy is a choice (right??) and homosexuality is not. That is the difference.

[erikvegas]

37. Ill try and address all of your "arguments".

Indianagreen......Interesting, but from what I have read of your other posts a baseless ad homonym attack is what I would expect from you. Nazis revolt me I hate everything they stand for.

Strathos..... You obviously didn't read my posting. I absolutely, without question and with no reservation approve of a civil partnership for homosexual couples that would offer all of the legal protections that "married" heterosexual couples have. I think that its only right that any two people who have committed to each other should have the right to survivorship (ie you inherit your partners belongings if they die without a will)the right to make medical decisions for your partner if they become incapacitated or are unable to make decisions for themselves. You should have the right to file as a couple on your income taxes and get spousal insurance benefits the same as any other heterosexual couple. You would get far more support for your cause if you were asking the state government for a Domestic Partnership/Civil Union/Civil Partnership or whatever you wanted to call it rather than asking the government to redefine marriage.

sfexpat2000....Sorry, no matter how much you don't want it to be true until there are more gay people than straight the gay lifestyle will be, by definition, a "fringe" lifestyle. And as far as education goes...I have a Doctorate in History how about you?

Dr. Fate.... Nobody is talking about screwing turtles or anything else non human here. I am talking about a group of individuals who have just as valid a claim to have their unions recognized as homosexuals. Truthfully if you look throughout history Polygamy has a much stronger historical foundation than monogamy either heterosexual or homosexual. Homosexual monogamy has never been officially recognized by any civilization. The ancient greeks, even though homosexuality was common and in some cases encouraged as in the case of some elite military organizations, every man above the age of 18 was "married" to a woman. Heck, in Sparta you had to be married and have children before you could go to war! Ancient Rome, once again homosexuality was common and there were many prominent members of the Roman Senate who were open homosexuals but were officially married and had numerous children with these women. I can go on but you see my point there is a difference between what a society will accept and what they will recognize or officially sanction.

insleeforprez.... No its not that simple. For many polygamists they believe that polygamy is the only path to spiritual salvation and is a path to heaven. So yes, I guess you can say that its a choice for them either be a polygamist or be confined to purgatory for all eternity. Saying all homosexuals were born that way is also patently false. I know several women who chose to be lesbian due to bad relationships early on in their life or sexual trauma. In addition I also know several men who chose to be gay just because they got tired of all the bullshit they had to put up with when dealing with women. Yes, these guys had some attraction to men prior to their "conversion" but when I asked them if they could have been happy being in a relationship with a woman all of them said yes, if they had found the right woman.

JackOroses....
I agree with your statement about their needing to be two different rules regarding marriage, a religious and a secular. Unfortunately we disagree on how it should be done. You wish to redefine an institution that has been in place in more or less its current form for almost 2000 years and has more emotional ties to it than any one single issue on the political landscape today. I seek to create a completely new institution that allows for a modern interpretation of "marriage" without all the historical baggage that goes with it. Oh and be the way as far as my church goes....Im a Unitarian and they do recognize gay marriage.

Erik

[GOTV]

38. There's something "fringe" in everyone's lifestyle :(

[erikvegas]

39. very true

But not everyone feels the need to have whatever "fringe" element they have in their life recognized by the federal government.

[meow2u3]

25. A winning strategy for the Democrats

All Democrats should simply vote present, no yea vote, no nay vote.

This should send a message that Democrats will refuse to play the GOP's childish games of "gotcha" on gays and other "bedroom issues."

[onehandle]

27. They'll sweep Georgia.

76% hate-mongering racists.

Pray that Ralph Reed loses in Tuesday's Republican Primary here or say hello to President Reed in 2012.

[EFerrari]

29. Window dressing. Yes, there are haters who hate gay people

and brown people. But there aren't enough of these to win a national election.

This is window dressing for their fake elections.

[nevergiveup]

31. Every day that passes a few more

folks become less hung-up about gays. It is slow going but a change in direction is not likely. The Republicans have milked this issue for all they are going to get.

[Marthe48]

32. I think the replay repukes are hoping for

is using an issue like this to say people voted republican. Then when they steal the vote by manipulating the electronic voting machines, all the Repukes and MSM have to do is point at the gay marriage issue (for example) and say, "this decided the vote". But no, I saw that 2 out of 3 people polled recently are planning to vote Dem, so if anything keeps the repukes in power, it'll be sleight of hand BS just...like...this.

[aaronbees]

35. Right on cue...

to "get out the vote" this year. Disgusting and so obvious ... except to the corporatist media and mindless sheep that make up the pro-hate BushCo base.