posted on June 6, 2006 08:40:18 AM new
Bush has again proven himself an anti-american bigot working to once again politicize his homophobic agenda and the best part... it largely supported by divorced, if not several times divorced neocon nutjobs.
Ironic that a group of people living (in their christian eyes) in sin for their divorces would support such actions. If you support such an amendment, you should also support an anti-divorce amendment, and you should also support an anti-premarital sex amendment. You should also support an adultry amendment. Also, an anti-coveting your neighbor's wife amendment (but not an anti-coveting your neighbor's husband amendment since that isn't in the bible).
It is shameful that a President would support an amendment that segregates a group of Americans. Bush isn't a Uniter, instead he is the Decider to be a Divider.
posted on June 6, 2006 09:30:10 AM new
Just politics, he knows the Republicans need something for thier constituents to rally around because of his inept handling of the immigration issue. So this will help smooth things over for a bit.
Say what you want but he knows how to play politics.
posted on June 6, 2006 09:59:28 AM new
That's right Rustydumbo. Let's let the gay have special rights that the rest of us don't have. Kudos to the pres on this one.
.
.
.
Many misleading tricks in 2006. The new Demomoron slogan.
posted on June 6, 2006 10:47:02 AM new
Marriage "protection" and flag burning...that's the best this man can do to conjure up a diversion for all the serious issues facing this country and the world that aren't being dealt with. What a pathetic, miserable failure.
____________________________________________
Now We Know... Uninformed People Elect Uninformed Presidents
posted on June 6, 2006 11:07:50 AM new
Good question Mags - especially when it does not look like this is even going to pass.
But then it seems to me that you are attempting to apply logic to our government.... you should knwo by new that dog don't hunt.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on June 6, 2006 11:31:22 AM new
All Smoke and Mirrors as usual. But what a disgusting way to USE a segment of our population. And you wonder why I don't like politics...
posted on June 6, 2006 12:01:02 PM new
Exactly Ron. I was hoping someone would point that out from the conservative side. Bush has his hands tied, so he decides to use politics against a group of Americans to further divide this country. Absolutely shameful.
posted on June 6, 2006 12:37:18 PM new
The "moral" issues again...could it possibly work a second time? Holy Crap.
____________________________________________
Now We Know... Uninformed People Elect Uninformed Presidents
posted on June 6, 2006 02:38:29 PM new
By 58-36%, Most Want Ban on Same-Sex Marriage, Yet Gibson Says Public 'Evenly Split'
Posted by Brent Baker on June 6, 2006 - 00:04.
A new ABC News poll found that by a 22-point margin -- 58 to 36 percent -- a solid majority of Americans believe “same-sex marriage should be illegal,” yet, on Monday’s World News Tonight, ABC anchor Charles Gibson declared that “the polls show Americans are fairly evenly split on this issue.” ABCNews.com headlined its story, “Most Oppose Gay Marriage; Fewer Back an Amendment,” and reporter Jake Tapper pointed out how “forty-five of fifty states have passed either constitutional amendments or laws banning same-sex marriage, including in Democratic-leaning states Oregon and California.” Nonetheless, a seemingly befuddled Gibson asked George Stephanopoulos: “Why does the White House think this is a political winner for the President if indeed we're split?" Stephanopoulos explained that “the number of Americans who are strongly opposed to gay marriage is more than twice the size of the number who are strongly for it, and that group of voters who want to block gay marriage is three times as likely to vote on the issue.”
Gibson next relayed what Stephanopoulos characterized as the Democratic spin. Gibson inquired, “why, if the votes are not there for this constitutional amendment, does the Senate spend three days on this issue when there are a lot of issues that perhaps they could do something about it?" Stephanopoulos answered, “The Democrats think their best issue is misplaced priorities, and they say exactly what you say: The Senate shouldn't be spending their time on this when you have high gas prices and a war raging in Iraq." (Transcript follows)
The ABC News survey determined the public is a bit closer on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, with 42 percent in support compared to 51 percent who prefer the issue be left to the states. But Gibson didn’t appear to be referring to that when he contended that “the polls show Americans are fairly evenly split on this issue," especially since Stephanopoulos responded with poll findings about the level of public opposition to same-sex marriage, not the specific amendment. Filling in the ratio alluded to by Stephanopoulos in outlining the intensity of views on whether same-sex marriage should be illegal or legal, the PDF of the poll results recounted how “people who ‘strongly’ oppose gay marriage -- 51 percent of the public -- outnumber strong supporters by 2-1.”
posted on June 6, 2006 03:28:44 PM new
Jeezus, aren't there enough problems in this country without making this an issue again? With everything needs to be done in this country like lowering energy costs, taking care of the homeless, feeding the poor, rebuilding New Orleans, getting out of Iraq, working on the health care issue, securing our borders, stabilizing Social Security, providing a decent education for every American child, the biggest issue the jack azz can get behind is a ban on gay marriage?
My brother and I had a huge fight about this this morning. He's a Mormon. He supports a change in the Constitution. Gay marriage goes against everything he believes in. This from a man who's: been divorced not once but TWICE, had an affair on his second wife and got his third wife pregnant before they were married. But, gay marriage goes against the bible. Not like anything he's done has.
posted on June 6, 2006 04:29:40 PM new
The queers are threatening his marriage[s] cheryl.
____________________________________________
Now We Know... Uninformed People Elect Uninformed Presidents
posted on June 6, 2006 05:14:16 PM new
LOL, prof! We fight all the time. He's a conservative (and very far right) and I'm a liberal. Usually we don't discuss politics. However, this morning he was dumb enough to send me a link to a petition to change the Constitution. He should have known better.
posted on June 7, 2006 07:47:00 AM new
I could never understand why a "civil union" was not good enough. It's the same damn thing. Same rights as a "spouse". I realize they're trying to make a point, however, it's right there with trying to push their agenda, (which, right or wrong, most people believe is nothing more than sexual preference), down the throats of everyone else.
IMHO, homosexuals should have "settled" for civil unions, which gave them the same rights. Give the average American a few years to get used to that and then go with the "marriage" agenda. Baby steps, people, baby steps.
posted on June 7, 2006 12:29:16 PM new
"Also in Alabama, voters passed a ban on gay marriage by a 4-to-1 margin."
Compare that to the numbers in Utah and Alabama would look very liberal... my point being that every state is different.
"I could never understand why a 'civil union' was not good enough. It's the same damn thing. Same rights as a 'spouse'."
A civil union and marriage is obviously NOT the same. What I have proposed all along is that the state government issue a "Civil Union" license to any couple who wants to be legally bound together and a Church can issue a Marriage Certificate. This is a win win win situation for everybody, but the neochristiancons who could care less about equal rights and civil liberties for all Americans. The government creates a system that is equal for all Americans, it maintains seperation of church and state, and lastly, it gives power to churches to decide who they want to marry. If a church wants to be bigoted and not marry a couple b/c they are gay, then so be it. That is their choice. I don't see any African Americans running to join the KKK, I would hope that gays would feel the same way about churches who restrict it.
Of course, the neochristiancons who are so protective of their "sanctity of marriage" agenda would scream bloody murder. Hell, these very same people are the ones who have been divorced, are adultresses, and have sinned in their gods eyes many times over. Odd that they would also want to be first in line to cast that first stone.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Jun 7, 2006 12:35 PM ]
posted on June 7, 2006 01:47:10 PM new
Good news!!!!
Constitutional ban on gay marriage fails in Senate
WASHINGTON — The Senate dealt a blow Wednesday to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, falling short of a majority and gaining just one more supporter than the last time a vote was held.
The 49-48 procedural vote was 11 short of the 60 needed to move the matter ahead for an up-or-down vote on the issue. It was also well below the two-thirds required in the Senate and House for constitutional amendments to be sent to the states for ratification.
The amendment mustered 48 votes in 2004. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., the measure's chief sponsor, had predicted several freshmen Republicans would boost the vote to 52.
"We did make progress," Allard said, adding his side would have reached 50 votes if Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who voted with him in 2004, hadn't been absent. Hagel was traveling with President Bush.
House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said his members would get a chance to go on record sometime next month. The House also fell short of the required votes two years ago.
"We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
The Senate acted a day after voters in Alabama made their state the 20th to amend its constitution to ban gay marriage.
"The American people do care about this," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., He noted that the ballot initiative was approved by 81% of voters.
Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois and other Democrats, however, berated GOP leaders for taking up Senate time on this issue.
A recent Gallup Poll showed less than a half-percent of voters ranked gay marriage among the country's most important problems. He said the matter belonged to the states and accused Republicans of pandering to conservative voters.
Seven Senate Republicans voted against cutting off debate and moving the issue forward: John McCain of Arizona and six moderates from the Northeast, a key battleground in November's election.
Two Democrats crossed party lines to move the issue forward. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who supports amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, and Robert Byrd of West Virginia face competitive re-election races in states that voted for Bush in 2004.
Nelson's vote was "a no-brainer" in conservative Nebraska, says Jennifer Duffy, an analyst at the non-partisan Cook Political Report. And, at 87 and facing a challenger in November, Byrd "is really walking this tightrope now," she said.
Duffy said the Republican dissenters, including New Hampshire's Judd Gregg, who switched his vote from 2004, may indicate that some Republicans "don't think a) the Senate should be dealing with it or b) that this should be a constitutional amendment."
Gay marriage is already resonating as a campaign issue in Missouri and Ohio, where Senate Republican incumbents have contrasted their support for a ban with Democratic challengers who oppose a federal amendment.
Just minutes before the Senate voted, the campaign of Montana Republican Conrad Burns, an amendment supporter, sent an e-mail asking, "How would newly minted Democrat nominee Jon Tester vote?"
Democrats say the issue could backfire on Republicans, who they accuse of wasting time instead of focusing on the Iraq war and gas prices.
"It's obvious they're in trouble," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. "They're going with last year's pitching."
Posted 6/7/2006 10:49 AM ET
posted on June 7, 2006 02:56:54 PM new
I wonder how many millions of dollars it will cost us tax payers for President DUMBO BUSH and conservative lawmakers to go out and stump this campaigning only B.S. about Gay Marriage?
Some one asked what are Bush's advisers thinking of bringing up an issue that they all knew would go nowheres and look so obvious a campaign ploy.
The answers was the advisers are not thinking because they have all been with Cheney and Rove in the bunker too long.
COME AND JOIN THE GREAT AMERICAN PROTEST ON NOVEMBER 7th 2006. THE MAJORITY DESERVES MORE.
posted on June 7, 2006 05:47:38 PM new
Funny that the Republicans think this is some sort of victory because it shows who was for it and against this Amendment.
What it shows are the Senators who are working to uphold the rights of all Americans vs. those who wish to hold their religious faith and Christian voter base above the Constitution.
An Amendment to the Constitution should never be used to limit the rights of a group of Americans, but rather to further promote equality and inclusion for all Americans. Count how many times the Constitution and Amendments blanketed laws for all Americans vs. how many times it created segregation and/or blocked rights for a select group.
It sickens me that I have legal rights to marriage when another American doesn't solely because they are gay. I could care less what a gay couple does with their life as I am sure a gay couple could care less about what my fiance and I do with ours. If a couple, whether hetero or gay, wants to share their life, love, and liberties with each other, why should any of us interfere with them. It is simply none of our business because it affects our lives in no way whatsoever. If you are a Christian and are against gay marriage, don't have one, and don't be a hypocrite and pretend like your marriage is so sacred that someone else can't have the same relationship with someone of their choosing.
I would love to see a neocon argue their way out of denying someone that right based on the the US Constitution rather than their bible. They can't...
But what you wil get are bigoted gay bashing statements of hatred from morons like Stonecold and Colin because that is all they have. Their curiousity into the gay lifestyle is quite evident as it is always on their minds and they will look for any opportunity to bring it up. They are scared of homosexuality, not because they view it as a real threat to America... but rather a threat to their own lifestyle because they are afraid to show they are curious about homosexuality. They are afraid that if someone in their circle learns of their homosexual curiousity, they will be chastised as they have done to others. This is natural behavior for them because they quit growing up at age 15. They never sought to learn from their behaviors in order to improve their self-worth, so they continue the charade on and on and on... just as George Bush has done his entire life. Now, if they think I am saying they are gay, I am not. To the contrary, what I am saying is that these individuals have never grown out of their 15 year old mental state to figure out their place in society. They prefer to act immaturely because that is their only defense mechanism in an attempt to show their peers they are manly enough not to be gay. If you feel uncomfortable being around or even knowing that someone is gay, that is your problem, not theirs. It has nothing to do with others, but rather with yourself. Little do you realize that a real man doesn't have the need to make bigoted anti-gay comments to prove to themselves and others that they are not gay. A real man doesn't feel the need to judge others when they are comfortable with themselves and could care less what gays, lesbians, etc do with their own lives. They will judge themselves and will be judged for their own actions by whatever diety they choose to believe in, not the actions of others. That is their choice, not yours, and when you let go of it you will feel alot better about yourself.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Jun 7, 2006 05:50 PM ]
posted on June 7, 2006 08:51:18 PM new
It's over, never had a prayer, but the base has been energized! Now it's on to flag burning and other terribly critical issues.
____________________________________________
Now We Know... Uninformed People Elect Uninformed Presidents
posted on June 7, 2006 09:10:25 PM new
It was never meant to pass, but now it makes the far right think that their government representative is doing something for them, yep nothing but to stir up some votes and it will.
posted on June 7, 2006 09:16:34 PM new
Good point about your brother, Cheryl. For a long time, this minister's daughter has ranted about the selective picking and choosing of which SINS are the MOST AWFUL and will send you to hell. All sexual sins appear to be The Worst. Forget pride, gluttony, avarice, etc.--the 7 deadly sins. Take gluttony, for instance. How handy to overlook that one--given pudgy America. And look at the pudgy Southern preachers. Yikes. But somehow their God overlooks divorce, gluttony, etc., and has his telescope on the sexual side of human beings. It makes NO sense to me.
You're right. What I can figure is that these preachers play upon the fears of the ignorant. They preach hell and damnation. They preach that Jesus will deliver them from their lives of poverty, although He has yet to do so, if they just follow the his (the preacher's) rules for being a good Christian. They pick and choose portions of the Bible that they can manipulate and make their own. Nowhere do they preach that Jesus was a kind, compassionate, forgiving soul. I would think God would want people to believe voluntarily, not forcibly.
posted on June 8, 2006 05:34:09 AM new
rusty- My understanding (and this is speaking with gay friends) of this is that they wanted the same rights as a married couple....health insurance, protection upon the death of the other, tax breaks, Social Security benefits, etc....for long term couples. Wouldn't a civil union have given them that?
posted on June 8, 2006 08:41:12 AM new
twig- there are many differences between marriage and civil unions.
For one, marriage is available in all 50 states. Civil Unions are only available in 2 states, Connecticut and Vermont. Marriage is recognized from state to state, where as Civil Unions are not. So, if someone in a Civil Union moves to another state, their "union" is not recognized.
Divorce can also be done in any state because it is recognized in any state, but a Civil Union would have to be dissolved in the state where it was formed.
Also, Immigration laws allow an American citizen to sponsor an Immigrant for marriage, where a Civil Union has no rights.
Civil Unions do not give couples the ability to file a joint tax return preventing them from the same tax breaks that married couples have.
Many Federal Benefits such as Social Security survivor benefits, sick leave and maternity leave for both partners, veterans benefits and insurance breaks may not be available to those in Civil Unions.
Civil Unions can cost over $1000 because it takes an attorney to write up a "Civil Union" Contract, where a Marriage License is available at the local court house for less than $100. Imagine if every marriage needed a prenumptial agreement, requiring attorneys to get involved. Beyond that, marriage guarantees the spouse certain rights that cannot be disputed in court. However, a Civil Union is similar to a will and can be challenged easily.
Beyond that, if you are in a Civil Union, you would have to carry "Civil Union" documents everywhere you go in case of an emergency to prove your status. If you are married and in a car accident and rushed to the hospital, your spouse has instant access to you by simply saying that you are married. However, a Civil Union partner would have to show documentation to prove their status. Even then, all it takes is one person at the hospital to question the documentation. The Civil Union partner then has to hire their attorney to gain access.
This is really only the biggest differences between marriage and a civil union. There are plenty of others as well.
Now, I hope you understand that the subject regarding banning divorce was rhetorical, and that I do not support such an idea. It was used to show the hypocrisy of Christians who support such an Amendment.
I would support the idea that Civil Unions become the standard for all couples and that the rights of a Civil Union would be the same as the current rights of Marriage. I think that churches love to throw around the phrase, "sanctity of marriage", and because of that, marriage should be handled through the church, but is merely a cermonial status, not a legal one because a Civil Union would automatically provide the same legal status for everybody.
