| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Allen" |
| Date: |
24 Feb 2004 11:01:59 AM |
| Object: |
Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
'Prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever'
WASHINGTON (CNN) --President Bush said Tuesday that he supports a
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to "prevent the
meaning of marriage from being changed forever."
Criticizing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, judges of the
Massachusetts Supreme Court, and county officials in New Mexico who
moved to let same-sex couples receive marriage licenses, Bush said
that in recent months "some activist judges and local officials have
made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.
"And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court
decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local
officials, all of which adds to uncertainty. (Transcript of Bush
comments)
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia
of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming
to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their
actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
Bush said states might be forced to recognize same-sex marriages
performed in states that allow them.
"On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be
heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If
we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever,
our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage
in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts
to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious
consequences throughout the country."
He called on Congress to "promptly pass and send to the states for
ratification" an amendment that would specifically define marriage as
the union of a "husband and wife."
But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal
arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment
would do nothing to stop states from allowing civil unions for
same-sex couples.
"Our government should respect every person and protect the
institution of marriage," he said. "There is not a contradiction
between these responsibilities."
A call for civil debate
Bush called for a civil debate on the controversial issue.
"We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of
our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let
us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency."
As recently as last week, Bush repeated his belief that marriage
should be restricted to heterosexual couples. (Full story)
He added that he was "troubled" by legal decisions in Massachusetts
that could clear the way for same-sex marriage -- and the decision by
San Francisco's Newsom this month to defy state law and order the
county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Thousands of couples have taken advantage. (California high court may
get same-sex marriage)
Last week, Bush said he was paying close attention to what was taking
place in San Francisco and Massachusetts.
"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where
licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise,"
Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to
protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are
influencing my decision."
"I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen,"
Bush said.
In his State of the Union speech last month, Bush has addressed
same-sex marriage, saying, "our nation must defend the sanctity of
marriage." (Full story)
He stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment that would
ban marriages for gay and lesbian couples, as social conservative
groups had hoped.
Instead, Bush said, "if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will
upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the
constitutional process."
.
|
|
| User: "Lina Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
03 Apr 2004 11:07:03 AM |
|
|
(Craig Chilton) wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:28:50 +0000,
Lina Morgan <yajairasmom979@netscape.net> wrote:
Craig chilton < > wrote:
Lina Morgan <yajairasmom979@netscape.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
I don't EVER want to see anything like this ever again,
and I don't my children to ever see it again either, especially
when they're older.
ROTFL!!!!!! Then you'd better all find a nice, dark cave
to live in, pathetic little hate-filled sociopath. (But I feel VERY
sorry for your poor KIDS!!)
My kids are decent, loving, God-fearing human beings who know
the difference between right and wrong and know that homosexuality
is EVIL. That alone shows they are light years ahead of you.
Naw. That only shows that you have immersed them in mindless
BIGOTRY. That's the mechanism by which loathesome and uncon-
scionable hate is *perpetuated* from generation to generation. You
should have had your tubes tied before getting pregnant the first
time. You's have done those kids a FAVOR!
(BTW -- homosexuality is NO more *evil* than heterosexuality is.
Both are variations of NORMALCY, just as right- and left-handed-
ness is.)
*Here* is the REALITY ---
The GOOD news is:
(1) Once the California court takes up the issue, ITSELF,
in a couple of months, it will probably act in accordance
with the state's constitution. And the marriages then will
RESUME, fully VALID. At that point, formally-valid
replacement marriage certificates probably will be mailed
to all couples who got married during the period of
liberation.
(2) Better STILL!! As of May 17th, same-sex marriage will
become fully legal is Massachusetts, and no matter WHAT
you hateful bigots do, and no matter HOW much you ignor-
antly WHINE, those will continue UNABATED for **at
least* 31 months!! By which time probably around 100,000
same-sex married couples will be living in all 50 states.
And since Bush's hateful Bigotry Amendment will never
get through, that will be THAT for your loathsome and
worthless agenda -- forevermore.
In just a few years, Americans will look back at today's
homophobes and Anti-Choicers as we do NOW at the segrega-
tionists of 40 years earlier. And wonder how ANYONE could
**ever** have been so hateful and downright STUPID. And
I, and all my fellow egalitarians, will be LAUGHING at you
moronic bigots for the rest of our lives!
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<hate-SWILL flushed>
No heterosexual man could be as obsessed with homosexuality as you
are. You are QUEER QUEER QUEER.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
03 Apr 2004 01:51:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:07:03 +0000,
Lying Loony Lina Morgan <yajairasmom979@netscape.net> wrote:
Craig chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
Lina Morgan <yajairasmom979@netscape.net> wrote:
Craig chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
Lina Morgan <yajairasmom979@netscape.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
I don't EVER want to see anything like this ever again,
and I don't my children to ever see it again either, especially
when they're older.
ROTFL!!!!!! Then you'd better all find a nice, dark cave
to live in, pathetic little hate-filled sociopath. (But I feel VERY
sorry for your poor KIDS!!)
My kids are decent, loving, God-fearing human beings who know
the difference between right and wrong and know that homosexuality
is EVIL. That alone shows they are light years ahead of you.
Naw. That only shows that you have immersed them in mindless
BIGOTRY. That's the mechanism by which loathesome and uncon-
scionable hate is *perpetuated* from generation to generation. You
should have had your tubes tied before getting pregnant the first
time. You's have done those kids a FAVOR!
(BTW -- homosexuality is NO more *evil* than heterosexuality is.
Both are variations of NORMALCY, just as right- and left-handed-
ness is.)
*Here* is the REALITY ---
The GOOD news is:
(1) Once the California court takes up the issue, ITSELF,
in a couple of months, it will probably act in accordance
with the state's constitution. And the marriages then will
RESUME, fully VALID. At that point, formally-valid
replacement marriage certificates probably will be mailed
to all couples who got married during the period of
liberation.
(2) Better STILL!! As of May 17th, same-sex marriage will
become fully legal is Massachusetts, and no matter WHAT
you hateful bigots do, and no matter HOW much you ignor-
antly WHINE, those will continue UNABATED for **at
least* 31 months!! By which time probably around 100,000
same-sex married couples will be living in all 50 states.
And since Bush's hateful Bigotry Amendment will never
get through, that will be THAT for your loathsome and
worthless agenda -- forevermore.
In just a few years, Americans will look back at today's
homophobes and Anti-Choicers as we do NOW at the segrega-
tionists of 40 years earlier. And wonder how ANYONE could
**ever** have been so hateful and downright STUPID. And
I, and all my fellow egalitarians, will be LAUGHING at you
moronic bigots for the rest of our lives!
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<hate-SWILL flushed>
No heterosexual man could be as obsessed with homosexuality
as you are. You are QUEER QUEER QUEER.
ROTFL!!!! I have been a strong activist on behalf of abortion
rights for more than 40 years, and am the author of "the Pro-Choice
VICTORY Handbook" (available on Amazon). So by **your**
standards,
"No MAN could be as obsessed with abortion
as you are. You are a WOMAN WOMAN WOMAN."
More than 40 years ago, in the early 1960s, I was a
"n****r-loving, Northern agitator" activist and worker on behalf
of Civil Rights, helping the blacks, back then (as I am an ally of
the gays, today) achieve EQUAL rights. So by **your** standards,
"No white person could be as obsessed with equality
for blacks as you are. You are BLACK BLACK BLACK."
You have a ****LOT**** to learn about egalitarians.
(ROTFL!!!! What a mindless tool.)
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lina Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
03 Apr 2004 11:03:45 AM |
|
|
(Craig Chilton) wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:28:50 +0000,
Lina Morgan <yajairasmom979@netscape.net> wrote:
Craig chilton < > wrote:
Lina Morgan <yajairasmom979@netscape.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
I don't EVER want to see anything like this ever again,
and I don't my children to ever see it again either, especially
when they're older.
ROTFL!!!!!! Then you'd better all find a nice, dark cave
to live in, pathetic little hate-filled sociopath. (But I feel VERY
sorry for your poor KIDS!!)
My kids are decent, loving, God-fearing human beings who know
the difference between right and wrong and know that homosexuality
is EVIL. That alone shows they are light years ahead of you.
Naw. That only shows that you have immersed them in mindless
BIGOTRY. That's the mechanism by which loathesome and uncon-
scionable hate is *perpetuated* from generation to generation. You
should have had your tubes tied before getting pregnant the first
time. You's have done those kids a FAVOR!
(BTW -- homosexuality is NO more *evil* than heterosexuality is.
Both are variations of NORMALCY, just as right- and left-handed-
ness is.)
*Here* is the REALITY ---
The GOOD news is:
(1) Once the California court takes up the issue, ITSELF,
in a couple of months, it will probably act in accordance
with the state's constitution. And the marriages then will
RESUME, fully VALID. At that point, formally-valid
replacement marriage certificates probably will be mailed
to all couples who got married during the period of
liberation.
(2) Better STILL!! As of May 17th, same-sex marriage will
become fully legal is Massachusetts, and no matter WHAT
you hateful bigots do, and no matter HOW much you ignor-
antly WHINE, those will continue UNABATED for **at
least* 31 months!! By which time probably around 100,000
same-sex married couples will be living in all 50 states.
And since Bush's hateful Bigotry Amendment will never
get through, that will be THAT for your loathsome and
worthless agenda -- forevermore.
In just a few years, Americans will look back at today's
homophobes and Anti-Choicers as we do NOW at the segrega-
tionists of 40 years earlier. And wonder how ANYONE could
**ever** have been so hateful and downright STUPID. And
I, and all my fellow egalitarians, will be LAUGHING at you
moronic bigots for the rest of our lives!
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<hate-SWILL flushed>
You're as hetero as Richard Simmons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
03 Apr 2004 01:41:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:03:45 +0000,
Lying Loony Lina Morgan <yajairasmom979@netscape.net> wrote:
Craig chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
Lina Morgan <yajairasmom979@netscape.net> wrote:
Craig chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
Lina Morgan <yajairasmom979@netscape.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
I don't EVER want to see anything like this ever again,
and I don't my children to ever see it again either, especially
when they're older.
ROTFL!!!!!! Then you'd better all find a nice, dark cave
to live in, pathetic little hate-filled sociopath. (But I feel VERY
sorry for your poor KIDS!!)
My kids are decent, loving, God-fearing human beings who know
the difference between right and wrong and know that homosexuality
is EVIL. That alone shows they are light years ahead of you.
Naw. That only shows that you have immersed them in mindless
BIGOTRY. That's the mechanism by which loathesome and uncon-
scionable hate is *perpetuated* from generation to generation. You
should have had your tubes tied before getting pregnant the first
time. You's have done those kids a FAVOR!
(BTW -- homosexuality is NO more *evil* than heterosexuality is.
Both are variations of NORMALCY, just as right- and left-handed-
ness is.)
*Here* is the REALITY ---
The GOOD news is:
(1) Once the California court takes up the issue, ITSELF,
in a couple of months, it will probably act in accordance
with the state's constitution. And the marriages then will
RESUME, fully VALID. At that point, formally-valid
replacement marriage certificates probably will be mailed
to all couples who got married during the period of
liberation.
(2) Better STILL!! As of May 17th, same-sex marriage will
become fully legal is Massachusetts, and no matter WHAT
you hateful bigots do, and no matter HOW much you ignor-
antly WHINE, those will continue UNABATED for **at
least* 31 months!! By which time probably around 100,000
same-sex married couples will be living in all 50 states.
And since Bush's hateful Bigotry Amendment will never
get through, that will be THAT for your loathsome and
worthless agenda -- forevermore.
In just a few years, Americans will look back at today's
homophobes and Anti-Choicers as we do NOW at the segrega-
tionists of 40 years earlier. And wonder how ANYONE could
**ever** have been so hateful and downright STUPID. And
I, and all my fellow egalitarians, will be LAUGHING at you
moronic bigots for the rest of our lives!
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<hate-SWILL flushed>
You're as hetero as Richard Simmons.
Keep right on lying, dishonest loon. That flagrantly BREAKS one
of the Ten Commandments, and *proves* that as a Christian, you are
nothing but a PHONY. For all of Usenet to see.
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keenan Clay Wilkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
24 Feb 2004 12:04:28 PM |
|
|
Allen <overriden@withspam.box> writes:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
'Prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever'
[...]
But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal
arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment
would do nothing to stop states from allowing civil unions for
same-sex couples.
"Our government should respect every person and protect the
institution of marriage," he said. "There is not a contradiction
between these responsibilities."
I love this little gem. Should such an amendment pass, I wonder how long
it would take for someone in Vermont to launch a Constitutional challenge
to their Civil Unions, claiming that it's akin enough to "marriage" to be
invalid under the new amendment. I wonder how many who back this proposed
amendment would support such a suit.
I would wonder how many would realise the hypocracy of supporting this
amendment and then challenging civil unions, but I already know the answer
to that, unfortunately.
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Christopher Byron (cbyron@nypost.com) thinks that a video game is
"10,000 times worse" than child molestation: http://tinyurl.com/37j8f
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David.Callyar" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
24 Feb 2004 01:11:48 PM |
|
|
Allen wrote:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
Lets face it, the reason Bush is calling for this Amendment is for
two reasons, one is, it is another title with no substance, like
his No Child Left Behind, but he left the funds behind, in other
words just a political action to divide the USA to get more
votes. And two, if Bush was not already breaking the law,
he would not be calling for a Constitutional Amendment
to deny other citizens the rights that they now have. He is trying
to usurp the rights of citizens to enshrine his bigotry into the
US Constitution.
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "NG User" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
24 Feb 2004 02:52:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:11:48 GMT, "David.Callyar"
<David@Callyarallz.com> wrote:
Allen wrote:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
Lets face it, the reason Bush is calling for this Amendment is for
two reasons, one is, it is another title with no substance, like
his No Child Left Behind, but he left the funds behind, in other
words just a political action to divide the USA to get more
votes. And two, if Bush was not already breaking the law,
he would not be calling for a Constitutional Amendment
to deny other citizens the rights that they now have. He is trying
to usurp the rights of citizens to enshrine his bigotry into the
US Constitution.
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gammajoe8" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
25 Feb 2004 02:11:21 AM |
|
|
"NG User" <nguser@localhost.com> wrote in message
news:98en30l1eofj1u5cjfa3ngt4ssiljl5tov@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:11:48 GMT, "David.Callyar"
<David@Callyarallz.com> wrote:
Allen wrote:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
Lets face it, the reason Bush is calling for this Amendment is for
two reasons, one is, it is another title with no substance, like
his No Child Left Behind, but he left the funds behind, in other
words just a political action to divide the USA to get more
votes. And two, if Bush was not already breaking the law,
he would not be calling for a Constitutional Amendment
to deny other citizens the rights that they now have. He is trying
to usurp the rights of citizens to enshrine his bigotry into the
US Constitution.
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
Are you serious? He can pressure all Republicans in congress and in state
governments.
--
#948
"What we fear most is that economic power would try to seize democratic
power." - James Madison
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
25 Feb 2004 11:59:17 AM |
|
|
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@netzo.com> wrote in message
news:JMY_b.20824$hm4.11376@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"NG User" <nguser@localhost.com> wrote in message
news:98en30l1eofj1u5cjfa3ngt4ssiljl5tov@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:11:48 GMT, "David.Callyar"
<David@Callyarallz.com> wrote:
Allen wrote:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
Lets face it, the reason Bush is calling for this Amendment is for
two reasons, one is, it is another title with no substance, like
his No Child Left Behind, but he left the funds behind, in other
words just a political action to divide the USA to get more
votes. And two, if Bush was not already breaking the law,
he would not be calling for a Constitutional Amendment
to deny other citizens the rights that they now have. He is trying
to usurp the rights of citizens to enshrine his bigotry into the
US Constitution.
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
Are you serious? He can pressure all Republicans in congress and in state
governments.
He needs to get it past 2/3 of each branch of the legislature before it can
even go to the states for ratification. Republicans are far from having a
2/3 plurality in either house, and those that I've seen interviewed have
unilaterally expressed opposition to a FMA.
Junior's simply kow-towing to the fundie far-right fringe that financed his
appointment. I understand he's been told that they'd boycott the November
election if he didn't support trying to enshrine their particular religious
predudice into the constitution. I think it's much more likely that the
backlash will mobilize a _far_ larger number of egalitarian political
moderates who otherwise wouldn't get out to vote.
The only other time in US history that the constitutional amendment process
was used to try to enforce the morality du jour was prohibition, and we all
know how that turned out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gammajoe8" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
26 Feb 2004 01:00:22 AM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:c1inr5$1isfhq$3@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
Junior's simply kow-towing to the fundie far-right fringe that financed
his
appointment. I understand he's been told that they'd boycott the November
election if he didn't support trying to enshrine their particular
religious
predudice into the constitution. I think it's much more likely that the
backlash will mobilize a _far_ larger number of egalitarian political
moderates who otherwise wouldn't get out to vote.
I hope you are right.
My concern is not that an ammendment will be passed quickly. It's that this
is a bold move. It is a huge crack in the ice that will encourage and add
impetus to the right-wing movement.
The only other time in US history that the constitutional amendment
process
was used to try to enforce the morality du jour was prohibition, and we
all
know how that turned out.
A Bush administration won't look at history. They didn't in Iraq. He
listened to the neocons who like hard power over our characteristic soft
power. They want to dominate the world with military might and force
democracy (make that capitalistic democracy) on people who have no clue
about the democratic process. The religious fringe wants to Christianize
the world. Four more years of Bush and we'll become a Christian
Imperalistic nation.
I wish I felt more optimistic, this is the first time in my life that I have
felt pessimistic about the future of our country.
--
#948
"What we fear most is that economic power would try to seize democratic
power." - James Madison
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
26 Feb 2004 11:51:21 AM |
|
|
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@netzo.com> wrote in message
news:aQg%b.22301$hm4.4239@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:c1inr5$1isfhq$3@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
Junior's simply kow-towing to the fundie far-right fringe that financed
his
appointment. I understand he's been told that they'd boycott the
November
election if he didn't support trying to enshrine their particular
religious
predudice into the constitution. I think it's much more likely that the
backlash will mobilize a _far_ larger number of egalitarian political
moderates who otherwise wouldn't get out to vote.
I hope you are right.
My concern is not that an ammendment will be passed quickly. It's that
this
is a bold move. It is a huge crack in the ice that will encourage and add
impetus to the right-wing movement.
No doubt it'll stir up the far-right homophobes, but it'll also stir up an
equal number of the left-wing fringe. Those usually tend to cancel each
other out. The really important segment is what i often call the 'movable
middle.' That segment is _far_ larger than either of the fringes, and tends
to be pretty fair when it comes to social issues. Unfortunately, they also
tend to be the most apathetic when it comes to voting. The way to get them
out to the polls in November is to focus on the issues that affect them,
like domestic economics, unemployment and healthcare, rather than this
right-wing *****-kissing wedge *****.
I personally think the upcoming election is going to be just as close, if
not closer, than the 2000 election. Apparently the candidates do too.
They're already concentrating their efforts on Ohio and Florida - the
'must-win swing' states.
The only other time in US history that the constitutional amendment
process
was used to try to enforce the morality du jour was prohibition, and we
all
know how that turned out.
A Bush administration won't look at history. They didn't in Iraq. He
listened to the neocons who like hard power over our characteristic soft
power. They want to dominate the world with military might and force
democracy (make that capitalistic democracy) on people who have no clue
about the democratic process.
That would include most of the far religious right in this country. :) I'm
constantly amazed at the correlation between religionism and ignorance about
how our government works.
The religious fringe wants to Christianize
the world.
Seems that way sometimes, doesn't it.
Four more years of Bush and we'll become a Christian
Imperalistic nation.
Fortunately, there's too many safeguards in place (e.g., the extremely
difficult process to amend the US Constitution) for that to happen in so
short a period. But, granted, that direction would continue with four more
years of Bush.
I wish I felt more optimistic, this is the first time in my life that I
have
felt pessimistic about the future of our country.
We've gone through these periods before. I grew up during the last one of
these right-wing swings when we all had to stock our bomb shelters with
bibles and become a christian nation because of all the 'godless commies.'
Talk to, for example, anyone from a Muslim country who's trying to get a US
visa. They're seeing the same sort of 'McCarthyistic' horseshit. If history
is any indicator (and it usually is), we're poised for another left-wing
swing like we saw in the 1960s and '70s.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gammajoe8" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
26 Feb 2004 08:57:26 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:c1lem1$1j1598$2@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@netzo.com> wrote in message
news:aQg%b.22301$hm4.4239@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
No doubt it'll stir up the far-right homophobes, but it'll also stir up an
equal number of the left-wing fringe. Those usually tend to cancel each
other out. The really important segment is what i often call the 'movable
middle.' That segment is _far_ larger than either of the fringes, and
tends
to be pretty fair when it comes to social issues. Unfortunately, they also
tend to be the most apathetic when it comes to voting. The way to get them
out to the polls in November is to focus on the issues that affect them,
like domestic economics, unemployment and healthcare, rather than this
right-wing *****-kissing wedge *****.
This is what Democrats don't seem to get today, but the Republicans have.
You don't bother people with the issues, they don't have time to get bogged
down in such things. They want little ditties they can hook onto. Like
what they did to Clinton - he told a lie and the next thing you know you see
all over the place: "I don't trust Clinton." Then your friends start
saying it to you - it is contagious. Issues aren't contagious. Where is
the I don't trust Bush stuff? Where is the vote of "no confidence" for all
his lies? I just got an email today with all kinds of junkie stuff in it
about Kerry. Little bits like his first wife was rich - her money came from
blah, blah. His second wife is rich - from blah, blah. Kerry had a fire
hydrant removed by the town from the front of his house at the town's
expense. And on, and on. At the end it says, Kerry for sale. Hey!
wait a minute - who is for sale, or sold out here? Nah, we need to change
tactics. We need a jingle, like in the 60's: Something like:
Hey! Hey! D - U -B - Y -A!
How many kids ya gonna kill today!
That will get lot more votes.
I personally think the upcoming election is going to be just as close, if
not closer, than the 2000 election. Apparently the candidates do too.
They're already concentrating their efforts on Ohio and Florida - the
'must-win swing' states.
More cyncism: In a close election Bush will win. Forget about Florida,
I'll bet a bundle (figuratively, of course) that Florida is already in his
pocket. The people in Ohio, I hear, are really hurting in this economy.
But they are a Bush state, and the gay marriage ban might just get them to
forget their troubles for a moment in the voting booth.
In any case, a close election goes to Bush. There has been enough time to
put things in places that will assure that. The only thing that will defeat
him is a massive outpouring of anti-Bush sentiment.
The only other time in US history that the constitutional amendment
process
was used to try to enforce the morality du jour was prohibition, and
we
all
know how that turned out.
A Bush administration won't look at history. They didn't in Iraq. He
listened to the neocons who like hard power over our characteristic soft
power. They want to dominate the world with military might and force
democracy (make that capitalistic democracy) on people who have no clue
about the democratic process.
That would include most of the far religious right in this country. :) I'm
constantly amazed at the correlation between religionism and ignorance
about
how our government works.
I wonder where these people went to school. They keep getting the DOI mixed
up with the Constitution, and that is the least of their mistakes about
historical America.
The religious fringe wants to Christianize
the world.
Seems that way sometimes, doesn't it.
Four more years of Bush and we'll become a Christian
Imperalistic nation.
Fortunately, there's too many safeguards in place (e.g., the extremely
difficult process to amend the US Constitution) for that to happen in so
short a period. But, granted, that direction would continue with four more
years of Bush.
I wish I felt more optimistic, this is the first time in my life that I
have
felt pessimistic about the future of our country.
We've gone through these periods before. I grew up during the last one of
these right-wing swings when we all had to stock our bomb shelters with
bibles and become a christian nation because of all the 'godless commies.'
Talk to, for example, anyone from a Muslim country who's trying to get a
US
visa. They're seeing the same sort of 'McCarthyistic' horseshit. If
history
is any indicator (and it usually is), we're poised for another left-wing
swing like we saw in the 1960s and '70s.
Oh yeah - dem good ole days - that the conservatives want to go back to.
Coming from a staunch Republican family, I broke the mold and voted for JFK
because of McCarthy and Eisenhower's refusal to get in front of the public
and speak out against what was going on.
I think the right-wing is more widespread than we have been led to believe.
In other forums, I've heard the charge over and over that they (Christian
right) are fed up with 40 years of liberalism. I used to think they meant
FDR, but find out that what set them off was the Pill. Yes, the first
contraceptive pill marketed for sale in the U.S. in 1960. The first evil
destroyer of the American family. Then in 1963, the attempt to give gays
equal rights, in of all places, Miami-Dade county. Anita Bryant enjoyed a
short stint of fame as she gathered a group together to Protect the Children
against being influenced by homosexuals. This group engineered a referendum
and overturned the Miami-Dade ruling. Enter Gay Pride in 1967, then Roe v.
Wade, then Affirmative Action. Well, you know the story. The long of short
of it is that while the right wing has many different prongs, and they don't
all agree, one thing they all agree on is the ban against gay marriage and
the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
--
#948
"What we fear most is that economic power would try to seize democratic
power." - James Madison
-----I wonder why rec.travel.air is on the newsgroups list. I would take if
off, but I don't know where you are reading.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David.Callyar" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
24 Feb 2004 03:26:54 PM |
|
|
NG User wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:11:48 GMT, "David.Callyar"
<David@Callyarallz.com> wrote:
Allen wrote:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
Lets face it, the reason Bush is calling for this Amendment is for
two reasons, one is, it is another title with no substance, like
his No Child Left Behind, but he left the funds behind, in other
words just a political action to divide the USA to get more
votes. And two, if Bush was not already breaking the law,
he would not be calling for a Constitutional Amendment
to deny other citizens the rights that they now have. He is trying
to usurp the rights of citizens to enshrine his bigotry into the
US Constitution.
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
He does have a bully pulpit to divide the USA and to use this
as a wedge issue just for his petty self interest to get reelected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
24 Feb 2004 03:39:56 PM |
|
|
"David.Callyar" <David@Callyarallz.com> wrote
He does have a bully pulpit to divide the USA and to use
this as a wedge issue just for his petty self interest to get
reelected.
What other choice does he have? Seriously.
He's the first "President" since Herbert Hoover to not create
any jobs.
Would you want to run on his record? Be honest. Would you?
Never mind the unnecessary war in Iraq, or the war he's been
trying to start in Korea, just his economic record alone is enough
to sink him.
Bush had to create about 100,000 new jobs a month, just to account
for the new people entering the work force. There are still more
new people entering the work force than retiring, and that's not going
to change for another ten years or so.
Then Bush had to create about 4,500,000 new jobs just to account for
all the retired people, the elderly that can't survive on their retirement
accounts. Some of that is do to the bubble -- their investment losing
a lot in value -- but a lot of it is healthcare costs. They simply can't
afford to both eat and take medications.
On top of that, Bush had to create 3,000,000 jobs just to replace the
ones he destroyed.
Oh, and then there was the almost 4% of the population that was
already unemployed when Bush took office!
Bush laid waste to the greatest economy in the world. Would you
want to run on that record, or would you rather ran against icky
faggots?
Be honest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gammajoe8" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
25 Feb 2004 02:11:19 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G_GdnVlJTJAjXqbdRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
"David.Callyar" <David@Callyarallz.com> wrote
He does have a bully pulpit to divide the USA and to use
this as a wedge issue just for his petty self interest to get
reelected.
What other choice does he have? Seriously.
He's the first "President" since Herbert Hoover to not create
any jobs.
Would you want to run on his record? Be honest. Would you?
Never mind the unnecessary war in Iraq, or the war he's been
trying to start in Korea, just his economic record alone is enough
to sink him.
Bush had to create about 100,000 new jobs a month, just to account
for the new people entering the work force. There are still more
new people entering the work force than retiring, and that's not going
to change for another ten years or so.
Then Bush had to create about 4,500,000 new jobs just to account for
all the retired people, the elderly that can't survive on their retirement
accounts. Some of that is do to the bubble -- their investment losing
a lot in value -- but a lot of it is healthcare costs. They simply can't
afford to both eat and take medications.
On top of that, Bush had to create 3,000,000 jobs just to replace the
ones he destroyed.
Oh, and then there was the almost 4% of the population that was
already unemployed when Bush took office!
Bush laid waste to the greatest economy in the world. Would you
want to run on that record, or would you rather ran against icky
faggots?
Be honest.
Yes, all that and yet 52% of Americans still support him. They think he is
doing a beautiful job. What do they think is so good?
--
#948
"What we fear most is that economic power would try to seize democratic
power." - James Madison
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fletch F. Fletch" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
25 Feb 2004 12:32:00 PM |
|
|
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@netzo.com> wrote in message
news:HMY_b.20822$hm4.18135@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G_GdnVlJTJAjXqbdRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
"David.Callyar" <David@Callyarallz.com> wrote
He does have a bully pulpit to divide the USA and to use
this as a wedge issue just for his petty self interest to get
reelected.
What other choice does he have? Seriously.
He's the first "President" since Herbert Hoover to not create
any jobs.
Would you want to run on his record? Be honest. Would you?
Never mind the unnecessary war in Iraq, or the war he's been
trying to start in Korea, just his economic record alone is enough
to sink him.
Bush had to create about 100,000 new jobs a month, just to account
for the new people entering the work force. There are still more
new people entering the work force than retiring, and that's not going
to change for another ten years or so.
Then Bush had to create about 4,500,000 new jobs just to account for
all the retired people, the elderly that can't survive on their
retirement
accounts. Some of that is do to the bubble -- their investment losing
a lot in value -- but a lot of it is healthcare costs. They simply can't
afford to both eat and take medications.
On top of that, Bush had to create 3,000,000 jobs just to replace the
ones he destroyed.
Oh, and then there was the almost 4% of the population that was
already unemployed when Bush took office!
Bush laid waste to the greatest economy in the world. Would you
want to run on that record, or would you rather ran against icky
faggots?
Be honest.
Yes, all that and yet 52% of Americans still support him. They think he
is
doing a beautiful job. What do they think is so good?
Perhaps people believe that any president would find this a trying time
economically. Perhaps not everyone buys into this absurd idea that the
president creates millions of job, nor destroys them. Perhaps many people
understand (or believe, you choose) that we are paying a large price for
the almost inconceivably inefficient use of capital in the late nineties (no
I'm not blaming Clinton). Perhaps people understand that 9/11 bodyslammed
many industries, and some still struggle. Just some ideas.
That said, it should be obvious from my previous posts that I disagree with
the prez on religion and gay marriage (assuming his political position is
his actual position). And the increased spending of the fed troubles me.
But I do like the idea of holding nations accountable in a meaningful way
for allowing terrorists to thrive on their lands. And I do like the idea of
removing defeated dictators who do not live up to the terms of their defeat.
(I too was suprised by the apparent lack of weapons stocks.) And I do like
the idea of the French always disagreeing with us as they have the lovely
habit of being on the dumbass end of most situations. :)
Slainte,
Fletch
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
25 Feb 2004 01:09:16 PM |
|
|
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote
Perhaps not everyone buys into this absurd idea that
the president creates millions of job, nor destroys
them.
The federal budget -- which, as chief executive, Bush oversees --
accounted for 22% of the U.S. economy when Bush took office.
That number is a little higher today, but I don't think more than a
percent.
Anyhow, the U.S. goverment is -- by far -- the single largest
influence on the economy.
Not just in terms of cash either. In addition to direct control over
more than one out of every five dollars in our economy, the federal
government exerts enormous influence with it's laws & regulations,
all of which literally define the market.
The government literally dictates what the market is, our economy,
what you can & can't do there, what is okay and what isn't. Plus it
has absolute control over one out of every five dollars in that market.
So, yeah, you're right. It's unfair to claim that President is everything
to the economy. He's simply the single biggest factor in our economy.
Not the only factor, but the single biggest factor.
His office has control of the budget. Congress has to pass a budget,
and they're certainly free to add or subtract from it, but the President
writes it.
As chief executive, he oversees spending the budget. All the
government agencies, all the government programs that the budget
pays for answer to him. Directly. Not the congress, they answer to
the President. He hand-picks the head of each agency, each
government program. If he doesn't like what they're doing he can
fire them.
And, oh, the Republicans not only believe that the President is
responsible for our economic conditions, they've said so many
times.
Take Reagan, for example. Not one Republican doubts Reagan's
influence on the economic expansion of the 1980s.
Nope. No doubts there. Not a one. It was Reagan's policies that
brought about the 30% economic growth.
I have to agree with them. The President is a huge influence on
the economy, the single biggest influence, and the 30% growth
we saw under Reagan was limited almost exclusively to the
top one-third of earners. 25% of the country actually grew poorer
under Reagan, while the folks just above them didn't see any
growth at all. It's impossible to not see Reagan's hand in that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fletch F. Fletch" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
25 Feb 2004 01:17:37 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AOKdna9mgtxxbKHdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote
Perhaps not everyone buys into this absurd idea that
the president creates millions of job, nor destroys
them.
The federal budget -- which, as chief executive, Bush oversees --
accounted for 22% of the U.S. economy when Bush took office.
That number is a little higher today, but I don't think more than a
percent.
Anyhow, the U.S. goverment is -- by far -- the single largest
influence on the economy.
Not just in terms of cash either. In addition to direct control over
more than one out of every five dollars in our economy, the federal
government exerts enormous influence with it's laws & regulations,
all of which literally define the market.
The government literally dictates what the market is, our economy,
what you can & can't do there, what is okay and what isn't. Plus it
has absolute control over one out of every five dollars in that market.
So, yeah, you're right. It's unfair to claim that President is everything
to the economy. He's simply the single biggest factor in our economy.
Not the only factor, but the single biggest factor.
His office has control of the budget. Congress has to pass a budget,
and they're certainly free to add or subtract from it, but the President
writes it.
As chief executive, he oversees spending the budget. All the
government agencies, all the government programs that the budget
pays for answer to him. Directly. Not the congress, they answer to
the President. He hand-picks the head of each agency, each
government program. If he doesn't like what they're doing he can
fire them.
And, oh, the Republicans not only believe that the President is
responsible for our economic conditions, they've said so many
times.
Take Reagan, for example. Not one Republican doubts Reagan's
influence on the economic expansion of the 1980s.
Nope. No doubts there. Not a one. It was Reagan's policies that
brought about the 30% economic growth.
I have to agree with them. The President is a huge influence on
the economy, the single biggest influence, and the 30% growth
we saw under Reagan was limited almost exclusively to the
top one-third of earners. 25% of the country actually grew poorer
under Reagan, while the folks just above them didn't see any
growth at all. It's impossible to not see Reagan's hand in that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fletch F. Fletch" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
25 Feb 2004 01:18:34 PM |
|
|
That last post was a mistake. Sorry. Will reply when I have some time.
Slainte,
Fletch
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lx6%b.141$S9.57@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AOKdna9mgtxxbKHdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote
Perhaps not everyone buys into this absurd idea that
the president creates millions of job, nor destroys
them.
The federal budget -- which, as chief executive, Bush oversees --
accounted for 22% of the U.S. economy when Bush took office.
That number is a little higher today, but I don't think more than a
percent.
Anyhow, the U.S. goverment is -- by far -- the single largest
influence on the economy.
Not just in terms of cash either. In addition to direct control over
more than one out of every five dollars in our economy, the federal
government exerts enormous influence with it's laws & regulations,
all of which literally define the market.
The government literally dictates what the market is, our economy,
what you can & can't do there, what is okay and what isn't. Plus it
has absolute control over one out of every five dollars in that market.
So, yeah, you're right. It's unfair to claim that President is
everything
to the economy. He's simply the single biggest factor in our economy.
Not the only factor, but the single biggest factor.
His office has control of the budget. Congress has to pass a budget,
and they're certainly free to add or subtract from it, but the President
writes it.
As chief executive, he oversees spending the budget. All the
government agencies, all the government programs that the budget
pays for answer to him. Directly. Not the congress, they answer to
the President. He hand-picks the head of each agency, each
government program. If he doesn't like what they're doing he can
fire them.
And, oh, the Republicans not only believe that the President is
responsible for our economic conditions, they've said so many
times.
Take Reagan, for example. Not one Republican doubts Reagan's
influence on the economic expansion of the 1980s.
Nope. No doubts there. Not a one. It was Reagan's policies that
brought about the 30% economic growth.
I have to agree with them. The President is a huge influence on
the economy, the single biggest influence, and the 30% growth
we saw under Reagan was limited almost exclusively to the
top one-third of earners. 25% of the country actually grew poorer
under Reagan, while the folks just above them didn't see any
growth at all. It's impossible to not see Reagan's hand in that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
25 Feb 2004 11:45:25 AM |
|
|
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@netzo.com> wrote in message
news:HMY_b.20822$hm4.18135@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
[snip]
Yes, all that and yet 52% of Americans still support him. They think he
is
doing a beautiful job. What do they think is so good?
That's a _really_ good question.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
24 Feb 2004 11:27:05 PM |
|
|
"David.Callyar" <David@Callyarallz.com> wrote in
news:403BB877.82B01F0E@Callyarallz.com:
NG User wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:11:48 GMT, "David.Callyar"
<David@Callyarallz.com> wrote:
Allen wrote:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
Lets face it, the reason Bush is calling for this Amendment is for
two reasons, one is, it is another title with no substance, like
his No Child Left Behind, but he left the funds behind, in other
words just a political action to divide the USA to get more
votes. And two, if Bush was not already breaking the law,
he would not be calling for a Constitutional Amendment
to deny other citizens the rights that they now have. He is trying
to usurp the rights of citizens to enshrine his bigotry into the
US Constitution.
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
He does have a bully pulpit to divide the USA and to use this
as a wedge issue just for his petty self interest to get reelected.
But...but...Chimp's a UNITER, not a DIVIDER!! *pretends to be utterly
disillusioned*
--
Dr. Smartass
BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
"You should realize Usenet is a strange reality where you see people
beating up a patch of grass where nine years ago there used to be a
horse. " 01 July 2003, talk.origins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fletch F. Fletch" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
24 Feb 2004 07:25:48 PM |
|
|
"David.Callyar" <David@Callyarallz.com> wrote in message
news:403BB877.82B01F0E@Callyarallz.com...
NG User wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:11:48 GMT, "David.Callyar"
<David@Callyarallz.com> wrote:
Allen wrote:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
Lets face it, the reason Bush is calling for this Amendment is for
two reasons, one is, it is another title with no substance, like
his No Child Left Behind, but he left the funds behind, in other
words just a political action to divide the USA to get more
votes. And two, if Bush was not already breaking the law,
he would not be calling for a Constitutional Amendment
to deny other citizens the rights that they now have. He is trying
to usurp the rights of citizens to enshrine his bigotry into the
US Constitution.
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
He does have a bully pulpit to divide the USA and to use this
as a wedge issue just for his petty self interest to get reelected.
A politician, self interest, the hell you say. Much like saying water is
wet.
To me this seems directly aimed at Kerry. The majority of the country is
against gay marriage, even if mildly, and so he cannot come right out for
gay marriage. But the gay vote is his to lose and he probably actually
favors gay marriage, so he can't and won't come flat out against gay
marriage (or for the amendment). What's left is the states right argument
.... but Kerry voted against DOMA (I know it contained other provisions.)
And one of Kerry's weaknesses is his apparent proclivity for being on both
sides of an issue (even if this is only perception in many cases). This
move seems to put him in that pickle or at least it could be perceived that
way.
As an added benefit, all of this serves to mitigate the beating that the
prez has been taking lately.
Just the opinion of one Republican who supports gay marriage.
Slainte,
Fletch
.
|
|
|
| User: "gammajoe8" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
25 Feb 2004 02:11:20 AM |
|
|
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wQS_b.2774$ax2.257@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
"David.Callyar" <David@Callyarallz.com> wrote in message
news:403BB877.82B01F0E@Callyarallz.com...
NG User wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:11:48 GMT, "David.Callyar"
<David@Callyarallz.com> wrote:
Allen wrote:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
Lets face it, the reason Bush is calling for this Amendment is for
two reasons, one is, it is another title with no substance, like
his No Child Left Behind, but he left the funds behind, in other
words just a political action to divide the USA to get more
votes. And two, if Bush was not already breaking the law,
he would not be calling for a Constitutional Amendment
to deny other citizens the rights that they now have. He is trying
to usurp the rights of citizens to enshrine his bigotry into the
US Constitution.
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
He does have a bully pulpit to divide the USA and to use this
as a wedge issue just for his petty self interest to get reelected.
A politician, self interest, the hell you say. Much like saying water is
wet.
To me this seems directly aimed at Kerry. The majority of the country is
against gay marriage, even if mildly, and so he cannot come right out for
gay marriage. But the gay vote is his to lose and he probably actually
favors gay marriage, so he can't and won't come flat out against gay
marriage (or for the amendment). What's left is the states right argument
... but Kerry voted against DOMA (I know it contained other provisions.)
And one of Kerry's weaknesses is his apparent proclivity for being on both
sides of an issue (even if this is only perception in many cases). This
move seems to put him in that pickle or at least it could be perceived
that
way.
Yes, Kerry's long voting record will be used against him. Unfortunately,
Bush has no voting record.
As an added benefit, all of this serves to mitigate the beating that the
prez has been taking lately.
As far as I'm concerned, he deserves it.
Just the opinion of one Republican who supports gay marriage.
--
#948
"What we fear most is that economic power would try to seize democratic
power." - James Madison
Slainte,
Fletch
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David.Callyar" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
24 Feb 2004 10:41:06 PM |
|
|
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:
"David.Callyar" <David@Callyarallz.com> wrote in message
news:403BB877.82B01F0E@Callyarallz.com...
NG User wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:11:48 GMT, "David.Callyar"
<David@Callyarallz.com> wrote:
Allen wrote:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
Lets face it, the reason Bush is calling for this Amendment is for
two reasons, one is, it is another title with no substance, like
his No Child Left Behind, but he left the funds behind, in other
words just a political action to divide the USA to get more
votes. And two, if Bush was not already breaking the law,
he would not be calling for a Constitutional Amendment
to deny other citizens the rights that they now have. He is trying
to usurp the rights of citizens to enshrine his bigotry into the
US Constitution.
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
He does have a bully pulpit to divide the USA and to use this
as a wedge issue just for his petty self interest to get reelected.
A politician, self interest, the hell you say. Much like saying water is
wet.
To me this seems directly aimed at Kerry. The majority of the country is
against gay marriage, even if mildly, and so he cannot come right out for
gay marriage. But the gay vote is his to lose and he probably actually
favors gay marriage, so he can't and won't come flat out against gay
marriage (or for the amendment). What's left is the states right argument
... but Kerry voted against DOMA (I know it contained other provisions.)
And one of Kerry's weaknesses
You know what is Kerry's strength, he's not Bush, good enough.
Even the Republicans no longer can stand Bush, opening the
flood gate of immigrants, being a Spend and Spend president,
and putting Hillary Clinton's health prescription into law, hell he
makes a ***** poor Republican or Democrat. A deer in the
head lights when told about 9-11 and too ***** to kick *****
in Iraq to restore order. His pResidency is about as effective
as Jimmy Carter's, hell he make Jimmy Carter look like the
best president there was.
is his apparent proclivity for being on both
sides of an issue (even if this is only perception in many cases). This
move seems to put him in that pickle or at least it could be perceived that
way.
As an added benefit, all of this serves to mitigate the beating that the
prez has been taking lately.
Just the opinion of one Republican who supports gay marriage.
Slainte,
Fletch
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
24 Feb 2004 05:34:22 PM |
|
|
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
He does have a bully pulpit to divide the USA and to use this
as a wedge issue just for his petty self interest to get reelected.
Remember there still has to be thirty-eight states which would approve this in
order to get passed. Name thirteen states that would oppose the amendment and
it goes nowhere.
This is one of the most blatant and ruthless attacks on states rights in
decades...and all done by the party which claims to defend states rights.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
24 Feb 2004 07:00:20 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:34:22 +0000 in episode
<20040224183422.20524.00000299@mb-m28.aol.com> we saw our hero
forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert):
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
He does have a bully pulpit to divide the USA and to use this
as a wedge issue just for his petty self interest to get reelected.
Remember there still has to be thirty-eight states which would approve this in
order to get passed. Name thirteen states that would oppose the amendment and
it goes nowhere.
This is one of the most blatant and ruthless attacks on states rights in
decades...and all done by the party which claims to defend states rights.
But that's so *paleo-conservative. <snort>
Next you'll be talking about Goldwater or something...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
24 Feb 2004 06:58:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:52:01 -0500 in episode
<98en30l1eofj1u5cjfa3ngt4ssiljl5tov@4ax.com> we saw our hero NG User
<nguser@localhost.com>:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:11:48 GMT, "David.Callyar"
<David@Callyarallz.com> wrote:
Allen wrote:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
Lets face it, the reason Bush is calling for this Amendment is for
two reasons, one is, it is another title with no substance, like
his No Child Left Behind, but he left the funds behind, in other
words just a political action to divide the USA to get more
votes. And two, if Bush was not already breaking the law,
he would not be calling for a Constitutional Amendment
to deny other citizens the rights that they now have. He is trying
to usurp the rights of citizens to enshrine his bigotry into the
US Constitution.
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
It is just pandering.
Interestingly enough, it may not *work. The far right of the far right of
the religious right is upset that a simple "marriage amendment" won't also
get rid of civil unions and won't ban extending *benefits to gay unions.
That is, the amendment will have no actual effect because it will *only
restrict marriage.
So the right and the righter right are all in tizzy with each other.
*Somebody in the religious reich camp is going to be pissed no matter
*which way Bush jumps...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "gammajoe8" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
25 Feb 2004 02:33:09 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.25.00.58.46.571689@hoo.com-amikchi...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:52:01 -0500 in episode
<98en30l1eofj1u5cjfa3ngt4ssiljl5tov@4ax.com> we saw our hero NG User
<nguser@localhost.com>:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:11:48 GMT, "David.Callyar"
<David@Callyarallz.com> wrote:
Allen wrote:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
Lets face it, the reason Bush is calling for this Amendment is for
two reasons, one is, it is another title with no substance, like
his No Child Left Behind, but he left the funds behind, in other
words just a political action to divide the USA to get more
votes. And two, if Bush was not already breaking the law,
he would not be calling for a Constitutional Amendment
to deny other citizens the rights that they now have. He is trying
to usurp the rights of citizens to enshrine his bigotry into the
US Constitution.
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
It is just pandering.
Interestingly enough, it may not *work. The far right of the far right of
the religious right is upset that a simple "marriage amendment" won't also
get rid of civil unions and won't ban extending *benefits to gay unions.
That is, the amendment will have no actual effect because it will *only
restrict marriage.
So the right and the righter right are all in tizzy with each other.
*Somebody in the religious reich camp is going to be pissed no matter
*which way Bush jumps...
Good point. It also may not work because of the religious basis of the
ammendment. There is going to be a lot of holding Biblical teachings up to
the light because the Word is the foundation of this ammendment. Along
comes this Gibson film, at the same time, where critics are asking what kind
of a religious message is the interminable torturing to death of Christ
sending to children? The general public may just get overloaded and say,
enough. As we know, the good book held up to scrutiny doesn't come off too
well. I think it's a combination that could blow-up in Bush's face.
One can only hope.
--
#948
"What we fear most is that economic power would try to seize democratic
power." - James Madison
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
25 Feb 2004 11:51:05 AM |
|
|
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@netzo.com> wrote in message
news:95Z_b.20844$hm4.5026@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.25.00.58.46.571689@hoo.com-amikchi...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:52:01 -0500 in episode
<98en30l1eofj1u5cjfa3ngt4ssiljl5tov@4ax.com> we saw our hero NG User
<nguser@localhost.com>:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:11:48 GMT, "David.Callyar"
<David@Callyarallz.com> wrote:
Allen wrote:
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
Lets face it, the reason Bush is calling for this Amendment is for
two reasons, one is, it is another title with no substance, like
his No Child Left Behind, but he left the funds behind, in other
words just a political action to divide the USA to get more
votes. And two, if Bush was not already breaking the law,
he would not be calling for a Constitutional Amendment
to deny other citizens the rights that they now have. He is trying
to usurp the rights of citizens to enshrine his bigotry into the
US Constitution.
Still Yelling Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
Doesn't mean a thing. Just talk. The pres has *zero* role when it
comes to of constitutional amendments.
It is just pandering.
Interestingly enough, it may not *work. The far right of the far right
of
the religious right is upset that a simple "marriage amendment" won't
also
get rid of civil unions and won't ban extending *benefits to gay unions.
That is, the amendment will have no actual effect because it will *only
restrict marriage.
So the right and the righter right are all in tizzy with each other.
*Somebody in the religious reich camp is going to be pissed no matter
*which way Bush jumps...
Good point. It also may not work because of the religious basis of the
ammendment. There is going to be a lot of holding Biblical teachings up
to
the light because the Word is the foundation of this ammendment. Along
comes this Gibson film, at the same time, where critics are asking what
kind
of a religious message is the interminable torturing to death of Christ
sending to children? The general public may just get overloaded and say,
enough. As we know, the good book held up to scrutiny doesn't come off
too
well. I think it's a combination that could blow-up in Bush's face.
One can only hope.
I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about a FMA ever seeing the light of
day. Every congressperson I've seen comment on the subject, regardless of
party affiliation, has said they oppose it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R J Carpenter" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush calls for Gay Marriage Ban |
24 Feb 2004 05:59:28 PM |
|
|
IMO, folks are getting all wrapped up in the wrong details.
If it generally isn't a Federal crime if I murder the next person I meet on
the street, why should it be a Federal crime if I want a same-sex union?
I'm conservative enough to think that "marriage" is a subsidy to encourage
the continuation of the species, thus I used the the term "union". But in
any case, why is it a Federal issue? (silly me)
Why don't I hear railing against the usurping of states rights? I guess
that is so 1950s.
RC
[We now have two major parties, the tax-and-spend one and the
borrow-and-spend one.]
.
|
|
|
|
