When everything else for Bush fails....

[MannyIsGod]

He can always go back to the gay marriage ban card! Give me a fucking break. We're back to this constitutional amendment crap. If we add that amendment, this country will be no better than any of the Islamic countries we so often complain about.

So you've heard it right here. If they pass that amendment, my ass will be on a plane out of here. I'll pull an Alec Baldwin and say I'm moving if this shit goes through and doesn't get struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. The day that shit like that is part of our constitution is a day that I never thought I'd see in this country and America will be dead to me.

[2centsworth]

I like your conviction. Where will you go?

[Extra Stout]

I like your conviction. Where will you go?
He's going to join that new Indian reservation on xray's property.

[Spurminator]

He's pandering to his base. He has nothing to lose, 99.9999% of the public who are in favor of Gay Marriage have a low opinion of him regardless. This amendment has zero chance of passing.

[ChumpDumper]

Primary season is coming up. Repubicans have to have their anti-homo street cred in order. If they could somehow convince their base that all homosexuals are illegal immigrants in posession of WMD, you would have a fear mongerer's perfect storm.

[scott]

Agree with everyone to this point on the pandering issue - but I am also highly disappointed in the Senators who oppose this ammendment but instead of taking it to an up or down vote and killing it (since the majority do oppose), instead they will block it from going to a vote - I can only presume as to not suffer the political damage of a no vote.

It is sad that our politicians must temper their convictions against public opinion.

And oh yeah... they are cowards.

[MannyIsGod]

I like your conviction. Where will you go?This is a good question. It is as yet undetermined, but probably a place in Europe or maybe a place like Costa Rica. Costa Rica would be sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. I'll have to review laws so I don't end up movnig somewhere with laws that are even worse but nicer beaches. That would suck. Kinda.

[MannyIsGod]

And there's no doubt he's pandering. It is the issue that won him the last election, and he's going right back to it to get people out to the polls.

[scott]

It would be funnier than hell if Manny got deported back to the US as an illegal.

[MannyIsGod]

It would be funnier than hell if Manny got deported back to the US as an illegal.:lmao :lmao :lmao

[boutons_]

Nobody's Buying

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, June 5, 2006; 1:00 PM

President Bush this afternoon speaks out in favor of a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

But nobody's buying it.

Not the Senate, where there's not even a remote chance that the amendment will muster the required two-thirds majority this week.

Not the critics, who see Bush's posturing on the issue as nothing more than a bald-faced sop to his increasingly restive social-conservative base -- and a desperate attempt to change the subject from the grimmer, more important issues that are appropriately disquieting the public.

And not even that social-conservative base, whose members doubt the intensity of Bush's commitment to the issue. The president has actively ignored this issue until this week, most notably by refusing to twist arms on the Hill. According to an old Bush friend quoted in Newsweek today, the issue is not one that Bush cares about -- except for its political significance. And two of his most loyal top advisers -- Vice President Cheney and First Lady Laura Bush -- have publicly distanced themselves from using the issue as a political wedge.

Jim Rutenberg writes in the New York Times: "President Bush on Saturday urged Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying in his weekly radio address that marriage 'cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots.' . . .

"Mr. Bush's radio address was the beginning of what White House aides had said would be a major push to support the marriage amendment, which the Senate is to begin debating in the next couple of days. The effort comes after weeks of increasingly vocal complaints from cultural conservatives that Mr. Bush and Congressional Republicans abandoned their issues after relying on them to win in the 2004 elections."

Caroline Daniel writes in the Financial Times: "The revival of the issue marks the most visible contours of the electoral strategy being crafted by Karl Rove, the president's chief political strategist who has been charged with focusing on the mid-term elections. In an effort to rally disaffected Republican conservatives -- whose support for Mr Bush has slipped from 91 per cent to 68 per cent -- he is turning again to the divisive issues of gay marriage and judicial nominations."


Reluctant Warrior

Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "Bush, whose opposition to marriage between gay partners helped power him to reelection in 2004, has remained largely silent on the issue since, much to the consternation of conservatives who complain he has not exerted leadership. Now, with midterm elections approaching, he is returning to a topic that galvanizes an important part of the Republican base. . . .

"Bush has given the appearance of a reluctant supporter of banning same-sex marriage. In an interview with The Washington Post in January 2005, he said he did not plan to lobby senators for the amendment because it did not have much chance of passing, infuriating conservative supporters. Even this week, he has sent mixed signals. The White House told activists that Monday's speech would be in the Rose Garden, but after criticism that he was using such a symbolic site, the White House moved it to an office building next door."

Here's the transcript of Bush's 2005 interview with Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher.

"The Post: Do you plan to expend any political capital to aggressively lobby senators for a gay marriage amendment?

"THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that the situation in the last session -- well, first of all, I do believe it's necessary; many in the Senate didn't, because they believe DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] will -- is in place, but -- they know DOMA is in place, and they're waiting to see whether or not DOMA will withstand a constitutional challenge.

"The Post: Do you plan on trying to -- using the White House, using the bully pulpit, and trying to --

"THE PRESIDENT: The point is, is that senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously.

"The Post: But until that changes, you want it?

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate. Do you see what I'm saying?

"The Post: Right.

"THE PRESIDENT: The logic."

So much for the logic, apparently.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Doesn't Register

Debra Rosenberg writes in Newsweek: "Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told Newsweek that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. 'I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a [expletive] about it. He never talks about this stuff,' said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush. White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that the president does care about banning gay marriage. They say Monday's events with amendment supporters -- Bush will also meet privately with a small group -- have been in the works 'for weeks' and aren't just a sop to conservatives."
Dissent in High Places

Here's my August 25, 2004, column, Cheney Breaks With the Boss , in which I ran excerpts from the vice president's comments at a town meeting in Iowa, where a questioner asked: "I need to know what do you think about homosexual marriages."

Cheney's surprising response: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. . . .

"With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. . . .

"I made clear four years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best be handled."

And here the first lady, just last month, on Fox News :

Q "[W]hat do you think of the constitutional amendment and the idea of using it as a campaign tool?

"MRS. BUSH: Well, I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously. But I do think it's something that people in the United States want to debate. And it requires a lot of sensitivity to talk about the issue -- a lot of sensitivity."

The Malcontents

Maura Reynolds and Janet Hook write in the Los Angeles Times: "The campaign against gay marriage is scheduled to get the full White House treatment on Monday -- words from President Bush in front of assembled VIPs and a bank of television cameras.

"Such a carefully staged production aims to confer the grandeur of the office on the push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But even before administration officials announced the event, some invitees denounced it as a sham.

" 'I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse,' said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. 'We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, it's too little, too late.' "

Charlotte Raab of AFP also quotes Glover: "He hasn't twisted any arms, he hasn't made any deals, he hasn't been pushing senators to support defining marriage as between a man and a woman. . . . And he thinks that he can hold one speech . . . the day before the vote, which is a clear expression of weakness, and appease conservatives as if he's done something significant."

About Those Nonexistent Calls

So is this just lip service, or has Bush put any actual effort into getting the amendment passed? That came up at Friday's
press briefing , but spokesman Tony Snow typically brushed the questions off with a laugh and a shrug.

"Q Is he making calls to senators?

"MR. SNOW: Senators aren't in town -- do you know how hard it is to find a senator this week? (Laughter.) I'm serious. Do you have any clue? . .

"Q So is that a 'no' about phone calls?

"MR. SNOW: I honestly don't know if he's making phone calls on this."

An anonymous White House official told Newsweek that Bush has in fact not made calls on the amendment -- because "nobody has asked us."
Not a Top Concern

Joseph Carroll writes for the Gallup News Service: [b]"Americans continue to say that the war in Iraq should be the top priority for the president and Congress, according to a recent Gallup Panel poll. After Iraq, the public feels that the government should focus on fuel and oil prices, immigration policy, the general state of the economy, and healthcare issues."

Gay marriage didn't make the list at all.

===================

The Const. amendments outlawing gay marriage and flag burning are the shittiest-common-denominator that Rove and Repugs in general pander to. They don't care if they look like fucking hypocrits to 90% of the US, as long as they pander to chauvinistic, knee-jerking holy rollers who want to legislate morality and the private behavior of adults.

The Repugs need to get out of women's vaginas and out of everybody's bedrooms.

[xrayzebra]

It's all Bush fault that Clinton got a blow job in the White House.

Manny, how come you say this debate about marriage "sucks". Just wondering?

[scott]

CLINTON. BLOWJOB. WHITEHOUSE. Someone gets it.

[xrayzebra]

^^Yeah, Clinton and the blue dress.

[chode_regulator]

Primary season is coming up. Repubicans have to have their anti-homo street cred in order. If they could somehow convince their base that all homosexuals are illegal immigrants in posession of WMD, you would have a fear mongerer's perfect storm.
lol

[2centsworth]

This is a good question. It is as yet undetermined, but probably a place in Europe or maybe a place like Costa Rica. Costa Rica would be sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. I'll have to review laws so I don't end up movnig somewhere with laws that are even worse but nicer beaches. That would suck. Kinda.
Cayman Islands. Do some research and let me know what you find. I might see you there in a few years.

[jochhejaam]

Cayman Islands. Do some research and let me know what you find. I might see you there in a few years.

Not sure Manny would go for that;

And while the Cayman Islands government now officially welcomes gay tourists, officials are making an effort not to anger residents of the mostly conservative population.

"Homosexuality, by and large, is not accepted in this society," said Kurt Tibbetts, Cayman Islands' leader of government business, at a press briefing last week.


http://uk.gay.com/headlines/9566

[spurster]

It's all Bush fault that Clinton got a blow job in the White House.
At least it wasn't gay.

[2centsworth]

Not sure Manny would go for that;

And while the Cayman Islands government now officially welcomes gay tourists, officials are making an effort not to anger residents of the mostly conservative population.

"Homosexuality, by and large, is not accepted in this society," said Kurt Tibbetts, Cayman Islands' leader of government business, at a press briefing last week.


http://uk.gay.com/headlines/9566
I don't want to go there because of their policy on Gays. I just think the Island is gorgeous.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

NOTE TO ALL HARDCORE NEOCONS, TAKE SMEGMA OUT OF MOUTHS FOR ONE SEC:


even Joe Scarborough said that (paraphrased):



The same conservatives that are asking the federal government to step in and institute a national ban on gay marriage are the same conservatives who are asking the federal government to step away and let states decide their rules on abortion. You can't have it both ways guys!

Joe

Scarborough

Is

Against

You

[Cant_Be_Faded]

http://www.moviejungle.com/images/enlarged/back2_marty.jpg

wha-whaaaaat

don't fall off that hoverboard neocons, or CORSO is gonna smegma slap you back into reality

[Melmart1]

Legal, legislated discrimination. I never thought I would see the day.

[gtownspur]

First of all,

Joe Scarborough is not a neocon, nor does having a R next to your name make you a neocon. To say that Joe Scarborough, a b-list conservative with tv ratings as big as the spelling bee championships on Espn, is a rank and file, big time woogly boogly authority on Neocon thought is retarted. I can name you a dozen or more conservatives who are not neo con,

Gulliani,
Buchanan,
Romney,
CHafee,
Helms,
Snowe,
Specter,
Tucker Carlson,
William F buckley and the whole NRO staff,

and many others.
The conservative movement like the liberal one is very multifaceted.

To come here and hotdog with Jeff Scarborough's recommendation, is the equivalent as Xray posting

"Sen Zell Miller, Democrat, has just come out in support of the Iraq war! You see liberals, Zell miller has put you in place, You have been choade bloated i Said. By your own"


I would then like to direct my post to all the pussy conservatives, and neo libertarians-closet liberals, and other fake libertarians, who lie prey to every liberal attack, that bush has every right to come out and support the ban on abortion. For one;

1. It was one of his campaign promises

2. THere has been a rise in court ordered gay marriage ban overrides, NY leading the pack, why not fight back for your supporters?

3. Who gives a flying fuck if the gay marriage ban is a homerun for the GOP, what are they supposed to do? Wait after the midterms and pass it under a Democrat controlled house and senate. I'm glad some of you royal fucktwads are not doing the political strategizing, you've got to pass the measure before midterms, becuase you dont know if you will have a majority to help you pass.

4. Letting the states decide on banning gay marriage, and passing a constitutional ammendment are the same thing practically. It is the states who ratify the constitutional ammendment. SOme of you need to go back and retake US GOV.

[Nbadan]

Gulliani

Definite Neocon.

[Nbadan]

The dimm-o-crats in Massacussets will never pass a gay ban amendment. Either state-wide or as ratification of a constitutional amendment. The right knows that, but they've seen the latest Rassmuesean and Zogby polls and they are hoping the wing-nuts show up in large enough numbers so Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia can steal the 06 mid-term elections without anyone asking too many unneccessary questions.

[jochhejaam]

Legal, legislated discrimination. I never thought I would see the day.
They can get married Melmart it's just not recognized by the state or at least not most states. I personally don't agree with passing legislation that supports a dysfunctional lifestyle to the extreme of getting married. I do support laws that protect them and everyone else from job discrimination, harrassment, hate crimes, etc.

As Christians we strive to walk the road of morality. I would be a hypocrite if I threw my support behind laws that condoned immorality.

In essense;
God hates the crime but loves the criminal.
God hates immorality but loves the immoral. He sent his Son to die for us while we were/are in that state.


Politically motivated? In part, yes.

If one of my sons or daughters were a criminal or a homosexual I would hate the sinful action but would still love them unconditionally forever (and pray without ceasing for their recovery/rehabilitation). It's not at all difficult to do both, in fact as a Christian doing both comes natural.

[fyatuk]

Nobody's Buying

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, June 5, 2006; 1:00 PM

I'm suprised nothing there mentioned that during the 2004 election season Bush actually had an interview were he said he favored civil unions for gays and disagreed with most republicans on the issue (and his own official platform that apparently he had no part in developing since he didn't even realize HIS platform was against it).

[fyatuk]

4. Letting the states decide on banning gay marriage, and passing a constitutional ammendment are the same thing practically. It is the states who ratify the constitutional ammendment. SOme of you need to go back and retake US GOV.

This is BS. As a state issue, states can institute or ban as each state wish. A neighboring state could handle it differently from its neighbor.

As a constitutional amendment, even the ones who don't ratify it will be subjected to it if the minimum is achieved.

[jochhejaam]

I'm suprised nothing there mentioned that during the 2004 election season Bush actually had an interview were he said he favored civil unions for gays and disagreed with most republicans on the issue (and his own official platform that apparently he had no part in developing since he didn't even realize HIS platform was against it).
His stance is that he supports civil unions and equal protection for gays but is against same-sex marriage. Not inconsistent with his proposed amendment.

[JoeChalupa]

Totally a political move.

[fyatuk]

His stance is that he supports civil unions and equal protection for gays but is against same-sex marriage. Not inconsistent with his proposed amendment.

I honestly think if Bush had his way, the constitutional amendment would include text on civil unions, but he probably does believe its a state issue whether to allow civil unions or not. Which is quite inconsistent with the proposed amendment (allowing states to decide vs telling states what is what).

but yes, being for civil unions is not inconsistent with an amendment specifically defining marraige on a national level.

I was merely saying that adding that information to an article would have helped make the point that it is not really a priority or important to Bush for this to pass. He is not as strongly anti-gay as most people who would push this amendment, etc. It was just more information that could have accentuated the point.

[Extra Stout]

So Bush doesn't really believe in the amendment, and the people who do want it think this is all just a dog-and-pony show.

I think the GOP is out of ammo for this round.

[j-6]

Not sure Manny would go for that;

And while the Cayman Islands government now officially welcomes gay tourists, officials are making an effort not to anger residents of the mostly conservative population.

"Homosexuality, by and large, is not accepted in this society," said Kurt Tibbetts, Cayman Islands' leader of government business, at a press briefing last week.


http://uk.gay.com/headlines/9566

Hit up one of the Dutch islands in the Caribbean.

[Extra Stout]

I've always held the idea that if everything went to shit in the U.S., I'd go to Chile.

[austinfan]

So Bush doesn't really believe in the amendment, and the people who do want it think this is all just a dog-and-pony show.

I think the GOP is out of ammo for this round.

I agree. Gas prices + corruption + Iraq >>>>>>> gay marriage in this election cycle.

And I don't care what people call it--marriage, civil union, whatever--just give gay people the same legal rights that straights have and be done with it. I'm straight myself, but I have friends who are gay and it's painful to have to watch them get married in Canada, pay high attorney's fees and/or other expensive legal contortions, just to have a semblance of the same rights that idiots like Britney Spears and Kevin Federline automatically get by saying "I do." There's something wrong with that picture.

[DarkReign]

If one of my sons or daughters were a criminal or a homosexual I would hate the sinful action but would still love them unconditionally forever (and pray without ceasing for their recovery/rehabilitation). It's not at all difficult to do both, in fact as a Christian doing both comes natural.

Do you think being gay is like, some sort of affliction that can be treated?

pffffft...

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[Extra Stout]

Do you think being gay is like, some sort of affliction that can be treated?

pffffft...

:lmao :lmao :lmao
Probably not, but biblically that doesn't make a difference. There are plenty of sins heterosexuals are biologically predisposed to commit, but there is no allowance made for those either.

[DarkReign]

Probably not, but biblically that doesn't make a difference. There are plenty of sins heterosexuals are biologically predisposed to commit, but there is no allowance made for those either.

What other sins are we "biologically predisposed" to commit?

Seriously. Maybe its my lack of imagination, but going thru the commandments I know, everything in there seems like something you choose.

Homosexuality is a choice for most gay people. There are those who didnt choose though, they just were.

Honestly, I always thought it was a choice. Until your girlfriend tells you about her neighbor friend who, from diapers, preferred Barbie, and makeup, and princesses, and when given ANY choice of ANY bike, he chose pink with a pink helmet and the white streamers on the handlebars.

They (my gf and him) are still great friends (he is my friend too). He hasnt come out of the closet (yet), but its common knowledge.

[Extra Stout]

What other sins are we "biologically predisposed" to commit?

Seriously. Maybe its my lack of imagination, but going thru the commandments I know, everything in there seems like something you choose.

Homosexuality is a choice for most gay people. There are those who didnt choose though, they just were.

Honestly, I always thought it was a choice. Until your girlfriend tells you about her neighbor friend who, from diapers, preferred Barbie, and makeup, and princesses, and when given ANY choice of ANY bike, he chose pink with a pink helmet and the white streamers on the handlebars.

They (my gf and him) are still great friends (he is my friend too). He hasnt come out of the closet (yet), but its common knowledge.
Well, all sexual activity under the scope of this debate is voluntary. Nobody has to be sexually active.

There's more in the book about moral behavior than just the 10 Commandments.

Biblically, there is only one flavor of sex that is considered licit, and that is between a man and a woman who are married to one another. Everything else is considered sin. Rubbing one out = sin. Even thinking about anything else is considered sin.

It's not supposed to be an easy standard to meet.

By the same token, the singling out of gay people has more to do with traditional social stigma and the need for some people to have a villain to objectify than it does with their allegedly being so morally inferior to society at large.

[CharlieMac]

I thought the Defense of Marriage Act was a bigger deal 10 years ago. And I was 16 at that time.

[gtownspur]

I agree. Gas prices + corruption + Iraq >>>>>>> gay marriage in this election cycle.

And I don't care what people call it--marriage, civil union, whatever--just give gay people the same legal rights that straights have and be done with it. I'm straight myself, but I have friends who are gay and it's painful to have to watch them get married in Canada, pay high attorney's fees and/or other expensive legal contortions, just to have a semblance of the same rights that idiots like Britney Spears and Kevin Federline automatically get by saying "I do." There's something wrong with that picture.

oh the agony.. :rolleyes

[gtownspur]

So Bush doesn't really believe in the amendment, and the people who do want it think this is all just a dog-and-pony show.

I think the GOP is out of ammo for this round.


People who are ardent towards don't give a damn wether bush believes it, they just want it passed.

It is those repugs that passively believe it, but hear media members, their own liberal-libertarian freinds, decry the president calling him an "oppurtunist" who really don't see that much of a benefit in it, and are whipped up into despising the president for following on his campaign promise.

It's quite funny how stupid the whole argument of "It seems like when shit happens the republicans go back to their ace in the pocket issue."

Dipshits!, the shit has been hitting the fan politically for the president for a while, why didnt he bring it out earlier? Is he supposed to pass legislation after midterms?.

[Extra Stout]

People who are ardent towards don't give a damn wether bush believes it, they just want it passed.

It is those repugs that passively believe it, but hear media members, their own liberal-libertarian freinds, decry the president calling him an "oppurtunist" who really don't see that much of a benefit in it, and are whipped up into despising the president for following on his campaign promise.

It's quite funny how stupid the whole argument of "It seems like when shit happens the republicans go back to their ace in the pocket issue."

Dipshits!, the shit has been hitting the fan politically for the president for a while, why didnt he bring it out earlier? Is he supposed to pass legislation after midterms?.
The point is not to pass a constitutional amendment, which would require 67 votes in the Senate, and ratification by 38 states. The last time this was brought up, there were only 47 or 48 Senate votes in favor, and Bush had more political capital then.

The point is that the midterms are 5 months away, and by bringing up the issue now, the GOP hopes to rile up the social conservative base and ratchet up turnout in November. Unfortunately for them, it appears that social conservative leaders understand this, and aren't falling for it.

[gtownspur]

Who are these social conservative leaders outside of Gary Bauer? That's ridiculous.

Please, i think the social conservative leaders will take whatever they get and run with it so that it can pass.

Remember the social conservative leaders know that the public favors them on this issue.

If anything the so cons are waiting to see how far bush will go in his proposal.

What's going on is simple. The media is proclaiming that it is a false politicial move, while innacurrately claiming that it's own proponents aren't falling for it. It's a smart move to quench the fire of the anti gay marriage movement that it has fooled many conservatives who are passive on the issue into thinking that the president is flipping them off, and not taking them seriously. It also creates an illusion to make you think that the president has abandoned every other issue and gone for this sole issue, which is utterly false.

[Extra Stout]

Who are these social conservative leaders outside of Gary Bauer? That's ridiculous.

Please, i think the social conservative leaders will take whatever they get and run with it so that it can pass.

Remember the social conservative leaders know that the public favors them on this issue.

Only 42% of Americans support the passage of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, according to recent polls. This should be contrasted with the 58% of Americans that oppose gay marriage in general.

The ones who want the amendment are the social conservatve base.



What's going on is simple. The media is proclaiming that it is a false politicial move, while innacurrately claiming that it's own proponents aren't falling for it. It's a smart move to quench the fire of the anti gay marriage movement that it has fooled many conservatives who are passive on the issue into thinking that the president is flipping them off, and not taking them seriously. It also creates an illusion to make you think that the president has abandoned every other issue and gone for this sole issue, which is utterly false.
An illusion. Hum. Bush needs 67 votes. Last time he got 48. If this were serious, he and the other conservatives would have been out there working to get 19 senators to change their votes, since that's what would be needed.

Instead, he's making a speech the day before the vote. By doing it this way, it gets the issue back in people's minds close to the election. Essentially zero Democrats will vote for the amendment, so the Republicans will try to sell their base on the necessity of getting out to the polls and voting Democrats out of the Senate so that this amendment can pass someday.

Right now the base is demoralized for a variety of reasons. The GOP hopes that the social wedge issues will work once again.

[MannyIsGod]

So you're telling me that the announcement of a proposed ammendment less than 5 moves before the midterm elections but 18 months after it was last mentioned in any form by the president is anything but a political move?

Then you're a complete moron G Culo. We already knew that, but this simpy confirms it.

It is political pandering at its finest. When you look at polls of what the important issues are for Americans - conservatives included - gay marriage doesn't even begin to crack the top five. You have the war on terror, iraq, gas prices, immigration way before you have gay marriage.

So why waste time on this? Because it is a political move in every sense. Not to say that almost everything done by any president today isn't political, because it is. But this is so far out of the scope of what the country considers important it's obviously a desprate attempt to get good ole evangelical voters out there again.

[MannyIsGod]

Marrige should not be any part of government. Christians don't want to support gay marriages? Thats really fine and understandable, because I quite frankly don't want to support the current class of heterosexual marriage which is quite likely to be rife with infidelity and end in divorce.

[boutons_]

It's a litmus test. Repugs who vote for the GM amendment, with NO hope of it getting passed and ratified, can wave their votes in the faces of the social conservative/morality-police between now and November to prove their social conservative credentials. Decisively cynical, divisive, inflammatory Repug politicking, purely and simply.

[Mr. Peabody]

Definite Neocon.

Giuliani's pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. How is he a neo-con?

[2centsworth]

Rubbing one out = sin

not according to James Dobson's interpretation of the bible. Lust=Sin, but nowhere does it say running one out=sin. Question is can you rub one out without Lust?

[xrayzebra]

So you're telling me that the announcement of a proposed ammendment less than 5 moves before the midterm elections but 18 months after it was last mentioned in any form by the president is anything but a political move?

Then you're a complete moron G Culo. We already knew that, but this simpy confirms it.

It is political pandering at its finest. When you look at polls of what the important issues are for Americans - conservatives included - gay marriage doesn't even begin to crack the top five. You have the war on terror, iraq, gas prices, immigration way before you have gay marriage.

So why waste time on this? Because it is a political move in every sense. Not to say that almost everything done by any president today isn't political, because it is. But this is so far out of the scope of what the country considers important it's obviously a desprate attempt to get good ole evangelical voters out there again.

Of course politics are involved. It makes all those who vote against it
show their true colors, again. And if it is not so important, why are
you so upset by it. You, yourself say it's just not that important. I like
it myself. Hell if they are debating stuff like this they aren't making dumb
ass mistakes like their immigration reform bill. Or the port authority
crap they went through. Oh, buy the way the money for port security
was cut so they could give it to the military. About 600 million, I believe.
Make you feel better?

[austinfan]

oh the agony.. :rolleyes

Gee, compassion at its finest.

The same arguments that are made against civil unions for gays were the same ones made about blacks having the right to vote, blacks being allowed to marry whites, women having the right to vote. Unfortunately there will always be bigots who want to exclude others from the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but thankfully there will always be people who choose to fight that prejudice and make life better for future generations.

[xrayzebra]

^^The old "bigot" card being played again. Disagree with the regressives and you
are a bigot. This is not a civil rights issue. It is an issue about sex. About a
lifestyle.

[austinfan]

I'm just calling a spade a spade. Don't like it? Then try justifying why two people should be denied basic civil rights based on their sexual preference.

And, btw, anyone who cares what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom has issues.

[xrayzebra]

I don't have to justify anything to anyone to express my opinion. I stated my
thoughts, you don't like it, lump it.

And bedrooms I have no problem with, public restrooms, parks I have a problem with.
They can go to their bedroom and do whatever. Just don't try and use the
marriage thing to gain something they have always tried to do and keep failing to do.
That is put their relationship on the same basis as a man and woman and family.
They can live together, in peace, next door if they so desire, they can also go
to a lawyer, get medical power of attorney, have joint bank accounts.....they
can have everything but the marriage. Because the marriage puts it in a
legitimate vain. Hell guess you think if a guy wants to marry his horse or a woman
her dog that is okay to. You say no, why. Aren't you violating their civil rights.

[boutons_]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_06062006_520.gif

.

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/06/06/ta060606.gif

.

[Spurminator]

They can live together, in peace, next door if they so desire, they can also go
to a lawyer, get medical power of attorney, have joint bank accounts.....they
can have everything but the marriage.

Sounds like semantics to me.

[austinfan]

If you had cared to read at all closely, you would have seen that I've been advocating for civil unions all along. I personally believe all couples should have civil unions and then whatever they want to do beyond that--get married in a church, celebrate vows on top of Mount Everest, have a ceremony officiated by a dancing pink elephant--is their private option.

What this Constitutional amendment would do is forbid civil unions from being legally recognized either.

[Extra Stout]

Sounds like semantics to me.
What some are looking for is the cultural legitimacy associated with the word "marriage."

[gtownspur]

So you're telling me that the announcement of a proposed ammendment less than 5 moves before the midterm elections but 18 months after it was last mentioned in any form by the president is anything but a political move?

Then you're a complete moron G Culo. We already knew that, but this simpy confirms it.

It is political pandering at its finest. When you look at polls of what the important issues are for Americans - conservatives included - gay marriage doesn't even begin to crack the top five. You have the war on terror, iraq, gas prices, immigration way before you have gay marriage.

So why waste time on this? Because it is a political move in every sense. Not to say that almost everything done by any president today isn't political, because it is. But this is so far out of the scope of what the country considers important it's obviously a desprate attempt to get good ole evangelical voters out there again.


Look you fucking arrogant prick. I simply said that bush is following what he was supposed to have done. Gay marriage was not a priority compared to the war on terror, social security, and he already addressed those, but his so con base wants the issue resolved before midterms seeing how it is the best chance now to do so, and if he could of used it as a distraction, there were plenty of more oppurtune times to have used it in the past, like the port deal, and the indictments.

Go fuck off and have a merry fuckin christmas dipshit.

Right now is the perfect time to get this done. If you want to take the high road and do it after the midterms, who the hell has the forsight to see wether the republicans will keep control.

You see idiot, its not simply a case of pandering, it's sound politics. He needs to move on his campaign promise, it's what even your lottter pick of a dumbfuck kerry would do.

[ChumpDumper]

its not simply a case of pandering, it's sound politics.Pandering is sound politics. That's why politicians pander.

[gtownspur]

Pandering is sound politics. That's why politicians pander.


you said not I.

too bad you want to read something that is not there.

[ChumpDumper]

We're coming up on primary season, dolt.

That's what's there.

[gtownspur]

We're coming up on primary season, dolt.

That's what's there.


No we're not. :spin There hasn't been any massive troop pullouts like you predicited. Doof.

[Spam]

I'm sending Dubya a copy of Broke Back Mountain.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's amazing that this Republic has managed to exist for almost 219 years under a Constitution that didn't prohibit homosexual marriage. God must truly be with us!

On a more serious note, I'm still baffled by the idea that anyone would contemplate amending the Constitution by prohibiting activities of the People. It's contrary to the structure of the other Amendments, most of which are positive statements concerning limitations on government and not negative statements concerning limitations on the people. More importantly, it is fundamentally contrary to the notion that the Amendments to the Constitution largely protect the political, social, racial, and economic minorities from having their rights circumscribed by the majority. There's wisdom in those choices; I'm relieved to see that there's no realistic possibility that this proposal will gain Senate support -- Senators are actually wiser than I thought.

It's a long and slippery slope if we start using the Constitution as a vehicle to address the political-flavor-of-the-month in a manner that finds support among the political majority.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

complete moron G Culo.

[boutons_]

"baffled by the idea that anyone would contemplate amending the Constitution by prohibiting activities of the People."

The Prohibition amendent was a unique, and failed, experiment is legislating adult behaviour and morality.

Once these sickening, dangerous "Christian" do-gooders get political/financial power, it's time for the rest of us to fight back vehemently, or, run for the hills.

[ChumpDumper]

There hasn't been any massive troop pullouts like you predicited.I never, ever predicted that.

Protracted occupation, that's what I predicted.

Again, you've been reported to the proper authorities. There's no way you can be legal and understand so little.

[boutons_]

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/06/06/bs060606.gif

[Extra Stout]

I never, ever predicted that.

Protracted occupation, that's what I predicted.

Again, you've been reported to the proper authorities. There's no way you can be legal and understand so little.
Illegals aren't stupid. Most can express and understand ideas quite well in Spanish. Their problem is a language barrier.

gculo's problem is not the language barrier; rather, he is simply a fucking idiot.

[Extra Stout]

It's a long and slippery slope if we start using the Constitution as a vehicle to address the political-flavor-of-the-month in a manner that finds support among the political majority.
Which would explain why the Framers made amending the Constitution so difficult.

On the other hand, it does allow for copious political grandstanding without the danger of causing lasting damage.

[xrayzebra]

Look, I know the Republicans are stupid to bring this amendment up, and I know
Bush and his administration are really, really dumb, stupid and any sundry other things.
I have no idea why they would do this.

I mean after all they stole two elections. One in Florida and one in Ohio. boutons
said so. Robert Kennedy is now saying this and how many more I have no idea. So
It must be true.

So why would they bring up this amendment. Heck they know how to steal all
the elections so they really don't need to stir up the base of the dimm-o-craps
and all their kooks. Right?

Shows how dumb Bush and his group are. Just follow the old rules and steal
all the elections. No problem and still control everything. And all the Kooks
are still happy and the dimm-o-craps can go on accusing them of stealing and
being corrupt and talk about all our civil liberties that are being lost. See I
have the solution. So there!

[DarkReign]

Look, I know the Republicans are stupid to bring this amendment up, and I know
Bush and his administration are really, really dumb, stupid and any sundry other things.
I have no idea why they would do this.

I mean after all they stole two elections. One in Florida and one in Ohio. boutons
said so. Robert Kennedy is now saying this and how many more I have no idea. So
It must be true.

So why would they bring up this amendment. Heck they know how to steal all
the elections so they really don't need to stir up the base of the dimm-o-craps
and all their kooks. Right?

Shows how dumb Bush and his group are. Just follow the old rules and steal
all the elections. No problem and still control everything. And all the Kooks
are still happy and the dimm-o-craps can go on accusing them of stealing and
being corrupt and talk about all our civil liberties that are being lost. See I
have the solution. So there!

Cmon, X. You can do better than that. This has nothing to do with Florida or Ohio.

It has everything to do with amending this nation's Constitution to (totally stealing FWD's awesome way of stating it) imposing limitations upon the People. The Constitution, by and large, is a statement of what the government can never do. It is a statement by the People who allow themselves to be governed.

Total side note here: I think we forget that sometimes. We allow ourselves to be governed. Not the other way around.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html



Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate blocked on Wednesday a bid to amend the Constitution to essentially ban same-sex marriage.

Proponents failed to get the 60 votes needed to end debate and move to a vote on the actual amendment.

The Senate vote was 49-48 to end debate, or invoke cloture. (Watch why the Senate vote tally may have surprised conservatives -- 3:22 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:cnnVideo%28%27play%27,%27/video/politics/2006/06/07/bash.gay.marriage.vote.cnn%27,%272006/06/14%27%29;))

Conservative Republicans, looking to solidify their base in an election year, pushed the plan even as they conceded it did not have enough votes to pass. After the vote, they pledged to keep the issue in the spotlight.

"We're going to continue to press this issue," Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard said. "If it's up to me, we'll have a vote on this issue every year."

"We're making progress, and we're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas.

"We have 45 states that have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman," Brownback said. "Since the last time we voted in the Senate, we've seen a total of 14 states take this issue up on the ballot -- on the ballot -- and you've got another seven set for this fall."

Meanwhile, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the same-sex marriage amendment will come before that body next month, The Associated Press reported.

"This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner said. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote."

Opponents called the measure an election-year ploy that wasted precious time on the legislative calendar.

"This is not about the preservation of marriage. This is about the preservation of a majority," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said as debate started Wednesday. "I think, sadly, most people realize there's political motivation here."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, denounced the proposed amendment Tuesday as "an instrument of bigotry and prejudice," which he said was designed by the GOP leadership "to try to bring Republican senators out of the ditch of disapproval."

And Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said that "the reason the Senate Republicans are pushing this marriage amendment is because they don't want to address the real issues of this country."

"This is an effort by the president and the majority in the House and the Senate to distort, to misdirect what the real issues are," he said. (Watch the politics behind the proposed ban -- 4:32 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:cnnVideo%28%27play%27,%27/video/politics/2006/06/05/schneider.gay.marriage.debate.cnn%27,%272006/06/12%27%29;))

The vote began around 10 a.m., after a final hour of debate. The Senate began debate on the amendment Monday afternoon.

Even if the measure had been able to clear the procedural vote, a two-thirds majority -- 67 votes -- would be required for final approval by the Senate of a constitutional amendment -- an even higher hurdle to overcome.

The last time the Senate voted on the amendment, in July 2004, only 48 senators supported it and 50 were opposed.

Spurred on by religious conservatives in his political base, President Bush had called on the Senate to approve the amendment, saying it was necessary to protect the institution of marriage from state court decisions striking down marriage laws that exclude gay and lesbian couples.

So far that has happened in just one state, Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages became legal in 2003, although court cases are pending in other states.

To become part of the Constitution an amendment needs approval from at least two-thirds of the Senate (67 of the 100 members); at least two-thirds of the House (290 of the 435 members); and three-fourths of the states (38 of the 50 states), or by a convention called by three-fourths of the states.

In the nearly 220 years since the Constitution was written, only 27 amendments have made it through this arduous approval process, the most recent in 1992 governing the timing of changes in congressional compensation. No amendment has been approved by a convention.

[xrayzebra]

Cmon, X. You can do better than that. This has nothing to do with Florida or Ohio.

It has everything to do with amending this nation's Constitution to (totally stealing FWD's awesome way of stating it) imposing limitations upon the People. The Constitution, by and large, is a statement of what the government can never do. It is a statement by the People who allow themselves to be governed.

Total side note here: I think we forget that sometimes. We allow ourselves to be governed. Not the other way around.


Just my way of saying that yeah maybe it was a political
ploy to stroke the necons or maybe it wasn't. But everyone
was talking about it and have talked about Bush stealing
all the elections. Just a little sarcasm/humor. It is a mute
point since it was something that will never fly anyhow. And
was defeated last night. It is also a joke that the "gay"
group want "equal" rights. It's all about sex and legitimacy.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Just my way of saying that yeah maybe it was a political
ploy to stroke the necons or maybe it wasn't. But everyone
was talking about it and have talked about Bush stealing
all the elections. Just a little sarcasm/humor. It is a mute
point since it was something that will never fly anyhow. And
was defeated last night. It is also a joke that the "gay"
group want "equal" rights. It's all about sex and legitimacy.
explain that part?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

gculo's[...] a fucking idiot.

[gtownspur]

I never, ever predicted that.

Protracted occupation, that's what I predicted.

Again, you've been reported to the proper authorities. There's no way you can be legal and understand so little.


and you've also have never claimed to be the manlove forum moderator, :lol .


Protracted occupation, (I don't know what's worse, you pulling that term out of your ass, or causing idiots like Extra Skank to believe you actually said such term.)is that what you said? Get the fuck out.;lmao

When you were bitching about why the administration wasn't being clear on an exit strategy in one thread, you later in the same thead stated cynically that you dont need to know the exit strategy, that troops would be back by midterms.


Extra Skank, seriously fuck off. You don't have a clue.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao @ G Culo telling someone else they have no clue.

Irony at its finest.

[gtownspur]

:lmao @ G Culo telling someone else they have no clue.

Irony at its finest.


Manny, filling in the spot for Chumpy's big sister in a fight. :lol

Well can't blame you, you probably have bigger tits.