Bush to Seek Gay-Marriage Ban in New Term -Aide

[bluedog]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a "hopeful and decent" society, his top political aide said on Sunday.




Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriages failed last year in Congress, but his position was seen as a key factor motivating Christian conservatives concerned about "moral values" to turn out in large numbers and help supply Bush with a winning margin in last week's election.

"If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman," Bush political aide Karl Rove told "Fox News Sunday."

Rove said Bush would "absolutely" push the Republican-controlled Congress for a constitutional amendment, which he said was needed to avert the aims of "activist judges" who would permit gay marriages.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20041107/pl_nm/bush_agenda_dc

[AlCzervik]

1. It's looks like a play to appease the christian right

a little payback. He wont get the votes for it until they rid themselves of the rinos.

[TaleWgnDg]

83. indeed . . .

George Walker Bush and Karl Rove have "a plan" to seek power, ultimate power of 3 branches of our government -- via any means. They do not care who they take down via the means. They will demonize the innocent, corrupt the soul of the nation, and use religion on their crusade for ultimate power.

[struggle4progress]

98. Be ready to fight back. I say, if we need an Amendment to protect ...

... marriage then it should prohibit divorce and should make adultery a federal offense, and since Jesus said that leering is the same as adultery, we really need federal penalties for leering. While we're at it, let's try to protect marriage further by making masturbation illegal. If the Republicans oppose these moves, we should all write LTTE decrying their approval of divorce, adultery, and masturbation.

[htuttle]

2. Didn't he say just a week before the election he wasn't in favor of this?

Liar.

[w13rd0]

3. flip-flopper

[bluedog]

6. no shit he lies and the right say hes a "moral man"

he said it was up to the states!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[liberalmuse]

4. LIAR

Didn't he disagree with such an amendment just before the election? We can't let this bigotry stand! There will be NO Constitutional amendment inhibiting rights of ANY American. I wish the hounds of hell would come for this man, I really do.

[RevCheesehead]

5. AROOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooo!

Here's one hound who will volunteer! Who's with me?

[tokenlib]

7. Rove will use it for the midterms..

Like I really had to think to figure that out. :)

[Philostopher]

15. I'd imagine you're right.

It's how they're going to purge the GOP of some otherwise popular with their constituencies, moderate Republicans, who are already scared of Bush's radicalism, criticizing his Iraq strategy and the enormous deficits. Make them obsolete by forcing them to fail to approve this, then run fundie-pleasing neocons against them in the upcoming primaries.

[democracy eh]

80. give the man a prize!!

and wouldn't be surprised if it actually is allowed not to succeed to save it to build the case for Bush's 3rd term (you know, two constitutional ammendments for the price of 1) awww hell, just trash the constitution all together.

[Wright Patman]

8. Chimperor

may not be for it as he doesn't have to run again, but Rove is thinking of future Republican clients who need to keep that fundy base active.

You've got to at least try to push it through, then when it inevitably fails, you say you tried and then whip up the enraged base again in two or four years.

The last thing Rove wants, though, is for something to pass or be ratified and then he loses the hut-button issue, although I'm sure he'll think of some new "wedge" with which to divide.

[AndyTiedye]

34. It Will Pass

The Reconstructionists own the voting machinez.

They'll be pushing their theocracy-establishing "constitution
restoration act" by then, if they haven't passed it already.
It is, of course, unconstitutional, but includes a provision
preventing any court from ruling it so.

[VegasWolf]

49. Exactly! With bushco controlling the "voting machines" I imagine

chimp for supreme leader would pass, eliminating the two term
limit due to never-ending war, mandatory bible class for all, etc.

[jdj]

69. I thought that 2/3 of states have to ratify this and I have heard

people say that that will never happen.

[VegasWolf]

70. How hard is it to get 2/3 if you rig the elections?

[Mike Daniels]

79. Eleven states banned gay marriage by significant margins last week

And no-one is claiming those were fixed.

It's sad that this is a major issue for the moralists when 50% of straight marriages end in divorce but I think based on last week's results that an amendment could easily pass the 2/3 of states requirement if it clears Congress.

Outside of California, New England and New York, what other states would definitely be counted to vote against it. You need 16-17 states to deny 2/3's and California, NY and New England don't meet that threshold.

[VegasWolf]

82. Exactly, all rational arguments are moot when you own the "voting

machines!"

[Julien Sorel]

9. So this is how they will keep the fundies fired up.

This amendment has no chance of passing anytime soon, but it gives the fundamentalists something to focus their fear on. And it distracts from the abortion debate, which is a purebred political loser for Republicans everywhere except in red state America.

[still_one]

10. I am sure Mary Cheney has now made a lot of new friends

[Betty]

48. I guess accoerding to Rove and Bush

Mary Cheney is not "decent".

[GOPNotForMe]

11. Moron.

He still doesn't have the 2/3 majority in the House OR the Senate. I don't doubt that 3/4 of the state would ratify it, but it won't make it out of Congress.

This is, of course, all contingent on the remaining congressional dems keeping the spine they had on the issue months ago. No capitulating to religious fundamentalism!

[jmowreader]

72. The PATRIOT Act provides the model for this amendment's passage

The administration told Congress, "vote to approve this without reading it or we'll tag you as unpatriotic and kill your career."

That's what will happen on this one: "vote to approve this or we'll say you are against families and kill your career."

Too bad we don't have enough RINOs to turn this shit back on him: "Let this remain a state's rights issue or we'll bring the Ohio ballots to DC and count them in front of you--and we'll throw your ass in prison for election fraud if it doesn't go your way and we can make damn good and sure it doesn't."

[Plaid Adder]

12. We'll have a "hopeful and decent" society the day Karl Rove is imprisoned.

Till then, we're going to be running short on both hope and decency.

The Plaid Adder

[acmavm]

13. No surprises here. When he said he was for 'civil unions' how many

here predicted that would be one of the first things he back-tracked on? Anyone who thought otherwise is an idiot.

[dave123williams]

14. I'm sure this will work out just as well as Prohibition did...

[VivaKerry]

16. Yeah, and I can't WAIT till they take their little amendment

to the states for ratification. Can. not. wait. Bring it on.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

17. I don't think they will touch the gays or abortion.

If they successfully made gay marriage and abortion legal, what wedge issue would they have left to hold over our heads?

[Dr Fate]

29. Exactly- Bush is lying to his base-just like he lies to everyone else.

Bush must keep the biggot vote in his pocket until '06-and they are dumb enough and blinded by their hatred enough to keep on taking the bait.

[KC21304]

35. They would say you can't vote for those demon Dems

because they will bring back abortion and gay marriage. See ? They can't lose.

[AndyTiedye]

36. When They Roll Over Us On Those, They'll Go After Birth Control & "Sodomy"

That will really get their base energized.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Reaching out

So much for trying to "reach out" to Democrats. Although, from some posts here, it will be a relief to have the FMA pass because it will mean "gay marriage" won't be an issue and they can win an election! :eyes:

[One_Life_To_Give]

19. Pandering to Evangelicals

The numbers are not there for a constitutional amendment. just keep pressure on the moderates and this will go nowhere.

[freetobegay]

20. REVOLUTION!

[AndyTiedye]

39. No Popular Revolution Has Ever Overthrown a Theocracy

Anywhere in the world, ever.

Can anyone cite a counterexample?

The Dark Ages only ended after a series of increasingly disasterous
Crusades eventually killed off the worst of the theocrats
(leaders were actually expected to lead their troops into battle in
those days -- we won't get rid of them that way now).

[Dr Fate]

21. Rove is lying. This is just to get the holy rollers voting again in '06

He uses these ignorant people just to get their votes- he could care less whether it will actually happens or not.

I'd almost feel sorry these people- if they were not so biggoted.

[blm]

22. This is the bone he'll throw to the right so he can ignore abortion.

Count on it. Bush's campaign people said Bush won't make abortion illegal. It's because he really doesn't believe it should be illegal. He won't come out and say it, because he wants the religious right to keep him propped up. He doesn't care that he lies to them and dangles abortion in front of their noses like a carrot. He knows they're just his sheep.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. I hope Laura and Mary Cheney are caught getting it on

[Cats Against Frist]

24. Look for this, all over the place

Federal control over EVERYTHING.

[Straight Shooter]

25. I want a constitutional ban on fornication.

So george bush will stop f*cking us.

[sandnsea]

27. lol

Actually, we need to start putting crazy shit like that on the ballot. We need some covert group that will go around in all the states and get the signatures to outlaw abortion 100%, mandate prayer in school, all that crazy shit. Make these voters take a long hard look at their hypocrisy.

[bluedog]

31. actually we need

to start writing and complaining about the ads on TV that advertise Viagra and all sexual stimulants.. the pepto bismol ads.the kotex.bra.condoms....anything sexual or sexually orientated..
I'm serious about this......some are pure trash ads and showing the Democratic party has morals.call for a end to this kind of advertising.

[sandnsea]

44. oh man

Don't get me started on what I think is pure trash on the teevee. I actually saw a rock, paper, scissors world championship on CNN yesterday. These guys were taking it way seriously too, psyching out their opponents, comparing it to personal power struggles in families and the work place. Rock, paper, scissors. I guess it didn't occur to these macho manly men that women weren't stupid enough to even play.

[Carolab]

75. Pepto Bismol

and Kotex? Wow you're kinky!

[Cyrix]

26. Sounds like a LOT of people are in denial

What? Do you think these people are just going to sit around for 4 years doing nothing?

In case you haven't freaking noticed they've already amended multiple state constitutions. You think they wouldn't do it at a federal level?

This reminds me of the people who said bush would NEVER invade Iraq. Look how right they were.

[robbedvoter]

28. Cue in Star Wars music - the Emperor theme

And for those of you ready to throw gays overboard, I can assure you, the reservoir of things/people to hate is endless. It'll even include YOU some day.

[union_maid]

32. Oh, yes

A good thing to keep in mind is that if they didn't have gay marriage, they'd have to invent it.

[VegasWolf]

30. Just spending a little free capital!

[robbedvoter]

33. Just to add "historical background" to that one:

http://russbaker.com/Guerrilla%20News%20Network%20-%20B...
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

It was lost wars that doomed dictators - so, our hopes lie there.

[VegasWolf]

38. Yes, that or people see what a religious state will do for them. I

particularly liked;

"I’m going to have ME a successful presidency" <paraphrased>

[sakabatou]

37. Decent?

What if more hate slatings went on to gays because of the amendment. More rights taken away from them?

You know, I'd rather live in a happy and kind society than a "decent" one.

[WindRavenX]

40. "Hopefull and decent"

FUCK YOU BUSH!!! :mad: :mad:

[progressivebydesign]

41. I was just going to post that!

"hopeful and decent" Karl Rove is a sick fuck, and so is Bush.

[WindRavenX]

42. seriously...

HOW THE FUCK COULD PEOPLE VOTE FOR THIS SHIT????? :cry:
Next we'll hear that for a "hopeful and decent society" we need to gas the gays and lesbians :puke:

[Whoa_Nelly]

43. Local H said it best

Local H
» High-fiving Mf

You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You're just a walking billboard
For all the latest brands
You've got no taste in music
And you really love our band
You're haircut is atrocious
It's been the same since '83
Your glory days are over
And so's your stonewashed jeans
You crass fat-ass
You stupid steroid fuck
I'll bet you even named your
Grand prize monster truck
You want me - you can't pay
You want me - you can't pay
You want me - you want me
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You're just a walking billboard
For all the latest brands
You've got no taste in music
And you really love our band
You're haircut is atrocious
It's been the same since '83
Your glory days are over
And so's your stonewashed jeans
You crass fat-ass
You stupid steroid fuck
Hi-jack the pit your shit
Male bonding as moose rut
You want me - You can't pay
You want me - You can't pay
You want me - you can't pay
3 and you want
You crass fat-ass
You crass fat-ass
You crass fat-ass
You crass fat-ass
You crass fat-ass
You crass fat-ass
You crass fat-ass
You crass fat-ass
You crass fat-ass
You crass fat-ass
You crass fat-ass
You crass fat-ass
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You High-Fivin
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You High-Fiving Motherfucker
You High-Fivin
You, you, you, you
You, you, you, you
You

[sundog]

45. son of a bitch-It wasn't enough that he got fucking 11 states?? I hate him

[greymattermom]

46. chromosome test

I hope they will introduce a law requiring a chromosome test before issuing a marriage lisence. Seems logical to me.

[Cyrix]

47. They have sufficient states to do it

If you look at the states that have passed amendments (or related laws) and assume they would vote to amend the US constitution just as they did there own (which would be likely) - then there are enough states to do it.

Let's also not forget amendments can be up to a state wide popular vote - and the masses would almost guranteed go for it.

The only thing stopping it - like last time - SHOULD be the senate. I'm not entirely sure what the new senate will look like, but I can't imagine we would have that many democratic defectors in the senate.

But then again if the party leadership decides it would be better to sell out GLBT people... I would hope not, but with some politicians you never know.

It is possible to amend the constitution with out the national congress if enough states call for a constitutional convention, but I don't think the religious right is that organized and numerous enough to do it in sufficient states.

[VegasWolf]

50. H who controls the "voting machines" can do ANY damn thing they want!

[bluedog]

51. More bigotry, more forced christianity.

An excellent post from yahoo


More bigotry, more forced christianity.


In practical terms, a "New Conservative Era" means more bigotry, more forced christianity, and less fiscal responsibility. That last one is because the current Republican party has forsaken the idea of small, less-intrusive government. They like to drop taxes like the old Republicans, but they spend like there's no tomorrow, pushing the deficit to unbelieveable levels. But they don't care...they won't be around when the bills come due.

Bush's push for an anti-gay constitutional amendment is proof they've abandoned less-intrusive federal government. Not only is it a major federal intrusion into family law, which up until now has been almost exclusively the province of the states, but it's the first amendment in our history that takes rights away from a group of people.

Not to mention the ultimate in hypocrisy: If the neocons were honest about protecting marriage, they'd be trying to ban divorce, not banning gay marriage. It's an out-and-out lie that gay marriage in any way threatens hetero marriage.

But it gives the neocons an outlet to advance religion and bigotry, and so it goes.

And Bush has proven one thing for sure:

To be elected by the Republicans, it's okay if:

1) You're a proven liar.
2) You have a history of drug abuse.
3) You've been arrested for drunk driving.
4) You send our troops to die in an unnecessary war, and even encourage the enemy to kill them.
5) You know less about science than any other president.
6) You can't speak in complete sentences.
7) You barely managed a "C-" average in college.
8) You roll back two decades of environmental protection to favor big business.
9) You rack up the biggest deficit in history.
10) You trample states' rights by proposing the first constitutional amendment in our history that would take rights away from a group of people.
11) You went AWOL while we were at war.
12) Your response to the biggest terrorist attack in our history is to sit catatonic for 8 minutes, and then let the perpetrator run free while you carry out a predetermined unprovoked attack against a different country.
13) You destroy relationships with most of our allies.
14) You sink us lower in world opinion than any president in history.

....as long as you claim you've become a fundie christian, and announce that Jesus wants you in office.

[Nicholas_J]

52. There are going to be many problems involved with passing this

The equal treatment under the law being just one.

I have always felt that this is not the strongest argument against such an amendment.

A stronger argment is base on taxation. The fact that gays pay the taxes that pay for all of the supporting governmental agencies, facilities, and staff who do the work that allows marriage licenses and marriages to be performed is a better argument. The constitution and in fact the very arguments for this nation to break away from England speak very strongly to the fact that everyone who pays taxes has the right to equal access to all services provided by the government ensrined in the constution as well as the law. removal of the"marriage penalty" makes this even worse, because if you are going to deny some the right to marriage, they should not get the tax breaks that those who cannot access this means of tax fairness should not have to pay taxes at the same rtate as those who are allowed to do so. The same appplies to the ability to deduct dependents who become deductions based on the status of marriage.

THe argument that marriage between men and women has been a social tradition enshrined in religion does millenia holds less water than the tax argument does. Firtst of all until recently marriage has been a totally religious status, and not a civil one, so the actual awarding of marraige licenses by the stte blurs the lines between church and state enshrined in the constitution. By creating marriage licenses and marriage laws, the sttes have crossed the line by making totally religious sanctions civil ones. In order to state -that religious nhas nothing to do with civil marriage, the arguments about marriage as defined historically can not be held up as a reason to deny it. In order to hold it up totally as a civil and social injunction thjey must be able to prove that no other civil society has endorsed marraige between same sex couples. This of course cannot be done.

On top of this the argument that something has been culturally allowed or not allowed means nothing. For millenia, and the greater part of known human history, slavery has also been civilly and religiously sanctioned. This does not men that we sanction slavery.
To this day, slavery still exists world wide, openly, and even in western societie in secret. The fact that something has been sanctioned or not been sanctioned holds no weight. And must not. In order to make such a case against gay marriage, we cannot legally refer to the past, as all of the past injunctions against gay marriage are based totally on religious prosciption and not legal ones. In fact, while homosexuality has been criticized in a few small areas of the scriptures held as true in western society, in no place in the bible is a direct proscription against gay marriage issued. There is absolutely no scriptural injunction against gay marriage. While homosexuality is called an abomination, there is no mention against gay marriage. Since many marraiges can end up being considered abominable, gay marriages could be considered as valid as any other.

The arguments that gay marraige will some how spoil it for the non gay married makes no real sense, as gays consititute such a small percentage of the overal population. It would be much like stating that marriage among the Ainu could have a major effect on society. They are different, but there arent enoigh of them to have a considerable effect on the overall practice.

To me the entireargument makes no sense, and in fact, the only thing that I can see that is driving the whole thing is some kind of religious hatred, similar to the religious hatred of Muslims being put forth by fundamentalist Christians who attack Islam by misinterpretintg the Koran to suit their owm purposes, forgetting the times in which the statemnts were made in the Quran. The Bible approved of wholsesale slaughter of other cultures , including men, women, children and infants, because those who wanted the land they were on insisted that god had given it to them adn told thme that they had to slaughter those different folks because they were on land that didnt belong to them. Even the New Tesement, with a far more gentle theology, speaks of slavery as a cultural norm, and this institutionsid not opposed or criticized. All that is suggested is that y9ou do not abuse your slaves. In fact, polygamy was also approved of in all of the scriptures and cultures that have held homosexuality as wrong. And this did not die out in old testement times. Well into the commmon era. polygamy was practiced and it was not until relatively late in the post pagan world that polygamy dies out and became something that society did not approve of. In the millenia long history of manking, and even Christian society, polytheism did not die out totally until about 500 years ago.

So the fact isthat many of the institutions that we pretend have existed or not existed for millenia, have actually been far different that our modern interpretations would indicate.

the only sure fact is that all of these institutions have undergone contiunal changes over the millenia.

[Nicholas_J]

53. There are going to be many problems involved with passing this

The equal treatment under the law being just one.

I have always felt that this is not the strongest argument against such an amendment.

A stronger argment is base on taxation. The fact that gays pay the taxes that pay for all of the supporting governmental agencies, facilities, and staff who do the work that allows marriage licenses and marriages to be performed is a better argument. The constitution and in fact the very arguments for this nation to break away from England speak very strongly to the fact that everyone who pays taxes has the right to equal access to all services provided by the government ensrined in the constution as well as the law. removal of the"marriage penalty" makes this even worse, because if you are going to deny some the right to marriage, they should not get the tax breaks that those who cannot access this means of tax fairness should not have to pay taxes at the same rtate as those who are allowed to do so. The same appplies to the ability to deduct dependents who become deductions based on the status of marriage.

THe argument that marriage between men and women has been a social tradition enshrined in religion does millenia holds less water than the tax argument does. Firtst of all until recently marriage has been a totally religious status, and not a civil one, so the actual awarding of marraige licenses by the stte blurs the lines between church and state enshrined in the constitution. By creating marriage licenses and marriage laws, the sttes have crossed the line by making totally religious sanctions civil ones. In order to state -that religious nhas nothing to do with civil marriage, the arguments about marriage as defined historically can not be held up as a reason to deny it. In order to hold it up totally as a civil and social injunction thjey must be able to prove that no other civil society has endorsed marraige between same sex couples. This of course cannot be done.

On top of this the argument that something has been culturally allowed or not allowed means nothing. For millenia, and the greater part of known human history, slavery has also been civilly and religiously sanctioned. This does not men that we sanction slavery.
To this day, slavery still exists world wide, openly, and even in western societie in secret. The fact that something has been sanctioned or not been sanctioned holds no weight. And must not. In order to make such a case against gay marriage, we cannot legally refer to the past, as all of the past injunctions against gay marriage are based totally on religious prosciption and not legal ones. In fact, while homosexuality has been criticized in a few small areas of the scriptures held as true in western society, in no place in the bible is a direct proscription against gay marriage issued. There is absolutely no scriptural injunction against gay marriage. While homosexuality is called an abomination, there is no mention against gay marriage. Since many marraiges can end up being considered abominable, gay marriages could be considered as valid as any other.

The arguments that gay marraige will some how spoil it for the non gay married makes no real sense, as gays consititute such a small percentage of the overal population. It would be much like stating that marriage among the Ainu could have a major effect on society. They are different, but there arent enoigh of them to have a considerable effect on the overall practice.

To me the entireargument makes no sense, and in fact, the only thing that I can see that is driving the whole thing is some kind of religious hatred, similar to the religious hatred of Muslims being put forth by fundamentalist Christians who attack Islam by misinterpretintg the Koran to suit their owm purposes, forgetting the times in which the statemnts were made in the Quran. The Bible approved of wholsesale slaughter of other cultures , including men, women, children and infants, because those who wanted the land they were on insisted that god had given it to them adn told thme that they had to slaughter those different folks because they were on land that didnt belong to them. Even the New Tesement, with a far more gentle theology, speaks of slavery as a cultural norm, and this institutionsid not opposed or criticized. All that is suggested is that y9ou do not abuse your slaves. In fact, polygamy was also approved of in all of the scriptures and cultures that have held homosexuality as wrong. And this did not die out in old testement times. Well into the commmon era. polygamy was practiced and it was not until relatively late in the post pagan world that polygamy dies out and became something that society did not approve of. In the millenia long history of manking, and even Christian society, polytheism did not die out totally until about 500 years ago.

So the fact isthat many of the institutions that we pretend have existed or not existed for millenia, have actually been far different that our modern interpretations would indicate.

the only sure fact is that all of these institutions have undergone contiunal changes over the millenia.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mefoolonhill]

55. amendment

I thought that conservatives believed in leaving matters like this up to the individual states. What ever happened to "state's rights?"

[lcooksey]

56. Aren't you an asshole?

He's got a wife and kid in Texas. And don't use words like fag, asshole.

[stumblnrose]

67. Yes I am an asshole

But apparently propriety and politically correct verbiage are more important than finding a chink in their armor, especially if it comes to "dirty" words and actions on our part. How many married and w/ kid reactionaries indulge in extra-curricular activities that they condemn at the top of their lungs. I have heard that Karl is one.

[DBoon]

57. Another blow by the RW against capitalism

In the eyes of the state, marriage is a contract. By denying the right of two responsible adults to enter into this contract, Bush is destroying the very basis of the capitalist legal system.

Something to throw at a libertarian sometime...

[Bluebear]

58. So in essence gays are "not hopeful and indecent"

Thank you, Mr. Uniter.

[LiberteToujours]

59. He needs to keep the wedge issue alive

Just like abortion. They're always "trying" to get it passed but they never quite can, thanks to those evil Democrats. Just vote us in one more term and we'll get your results...

[NYC Liberal]

60. As long as we're taking AWAY rights,

let's bring back Prohibition, too. :eyes:

[Toucano]

61. Doesn't the Unitarian Church perform and approve same-sex unions?

Why don't the Unitarians claim the amendment violates their right to free exercise of religion?

[Cyrix]

62. Ummm

I think some people still don't grasp the significance of amending the constitution.

If this amendment passes it will OVERRIDE the first amendment. When in conflict, the newest amendment always takes precedence.

[Toucano]

63. Ummm.

Please cite an example of the newer amendment taking precedence.

Oh, and fuck your condescension if you don't mind.

[VegasWolf]

64. Wow, they are already talking about emasculating the 1st. Hiel, awol!

[Cyrix]

73. It's basic constitutional law

I don't know what to tell you except take a class in it.

A newer amendment always take precedence over a previous if in conflict.

Ask your self this - let's say an amendment is passed banning only newspapers. Even assuming you could challenge it, what exactly would a court do? Nullify the amendment banning newspapers? No court has power to nullify a section of the constitution.

It is assumed that the congress and legislatures would be aware of any conflict, (of course) and in such case would WANT the newer amendment to take precedence.

[AlexanderBarca]

77. ::cough::

Amendment 18

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Amendment 21

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.


This is a real danger. The reason why these asshats are looking for an amendment is so they can ignore the others.

This WOULD be the first time an amendment came into direct conflict with another amendment without the first amendment being repealed, however.

[slackmaster]

96. Google "Volstead Act" or "US alcohol prohibition"

Get back to us when you calm down.

[FlyByNight]

65. "Congress shall make no law respecting...

an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Hey George, perhaps you should actually read the goddamn Constitution and not have it paraphrased for you by your imperial court?

What about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That includes everyone, you fucking bigot.

:mad:

[vinny9698]

66. Just in time for 2006 elections

It is all about putting the issue before the 2006 elections to scare the fundies again. I really think bush and friends care about gay rights, they just want to use the issue to get votes. Worked this time use it again

[arwalden]

68. What He's Saying Is That Queers Are Indecent... FUCK BUSH!!

Eat shit and die, George!

[VegasWolf]

71. Yes, he says those people are indecent and depressed! Not

fit to be among good Christan society!
</satire>

[Blue_Tires]

74. i hope the dems don't roll over on this

like the IWR

[Skittles]

76. BASTARD

how about focusing on the REAL PROBLEMS YOU F***ING ASSHOLE

[VaYallaDawg]

78. I hope African-Americans are paying close attention.

When human rights get into the election booth scary things can happen. It's a very private and dark little universe.

[ommas-aarden]

81. Gay Marriage ban

May I submit a term that popped into my head yesterday when talking about this subject ?
Is 'uni-gender couples' a term that would better fit the situation ? I'm going to use it from now on because I think it does the best at describing the whole relationship.
I am left breathless and heartbroken that this country can vote yes to killing innocent civilians and no to uni-gender couples loving and wanting to commit to each other. Just incredible.

[VegasWolf]

84. There used to be a good rational argument that suggested that

the repukes would never allow abortion to be legal or
gay amendments, because the people that really benefit
from a repuke administration are only 1% of the
population. Ergo,one needed other strategies to build
the numbers up. This is no longer true, once you
own the "voting machines" and media, you can sleep
any fucking place you want.

[slackmaster]

85. It's not going to happen

It takes only 13 state legislatures to block a Constitutional amendment, if it gets that far.

[VegasWolf]

87. Maybe, but what if those thirteen states use "voting machines" to

determine whether or not to block. Even the Mass legislature
is trying to ram it down poeple's throats.

[slackmaster]

91. I haven't heard of any state LEGISLATURES using voting machines yet

That would be bizarre.

[VegasWolf]

97. No, obviously that is not what I meant! The legistatures will

get their direction from the people in a vote,
or at least use a vote to justify their direction.

[napi21]

88. I agree. Also, it takes a LONG TIME to get an amendment passed!

[slackmaster]

93. I remember the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment

It had a 10-year expiration clause.

When was the ERA introduced into Congress?

The ERA was first introduced into Congress in 1923. Congress finally passed it and submitted it to the states for ratification on March 22, 1972. An original deadline of seven years was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982.When this deadline expired, only 35 states (of the necessary three-fourths, or 38) had ratified. It has been reintroduced into every session of Congress since that time....

See http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

[jimbo fett]

86. "ought to be, and should be"?!! Can you say, "redundant"?

[peekaloo]

89. Victor Ashe must be devastated.

[KurtNYC]

90. Bush demands gays be more promiscuous

Blocks all paths to monogamy. Morality?

[Rev_Karl]

92. Can somebody tell me why the gov't is in the marriage business at all?

What interest does it serve to have the government sanction ANY marriage?

[slackmaster]

95. FedGov makes millions from the marriage penalty on taxes

n/t

[archineas]

94. *sigh*...since all of us gay people are bush's political capital

and since we seem to have some worth for the GOP, where the hell is our kickback? do they give us all our own segment of the country? do they decide we don't have to pay taxes? what?

they're getting so much mileage from stepping all over gay people, i'm going to have to check my hair to make sure it hasn't been turned to gravel.

j

[wellstone dem]

99. This has nothing to do with Gay marriage

and everything to do with voter turnout in the next election. If there is conservative turnout on this issue, they win the senate. It's all a ploy to get turnout.