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. 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?
Gee, compassion at its finest.oh the agony..
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.
^^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.
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.
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. 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.
.
.
Sounds like semantics to me.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.
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 Cons utional amendment would do is forbid civil unions from being legally recognized either.
What some are looking for is the cultural legitimacy associated with the word "marriage."
Look you ing 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 off and have a merry in christmas dip .
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 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 dumb kerry would do.
Pandering is sound politics. That's why politicians pander.its not simply a case of pandering, it's sound politics.
you said not I.
too bad you want to read something that is not there.
We're coming up on primary season, dolt.
That's what's there.
No we're not.There hasn't been any massive troop pullouts like you predicited. Doof.
I'm sending Dubya a copy of Broke Back Mountain.
It's amazing that this Republic has managed to exist for almost 219 years under a Cons ution that didn't prohibit sexual 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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution largely protect the political, social, racial, and economic minorities from having their rights cir scribed 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 Cons ution as a vehicle to address the political-flavor-of-the-month in a manner that finds support among the political majority.
"baffled by the idea that anyone would contemplate amending the Cons ution 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.
I never, ever predicted that.There hasn't been any massive troop pullouts like you predicited.
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 ing idiot.
Which would explain why the Framers made amending the Cons ution so difficult.
On the other hand, it does allow for copious political grandstanding without the danger of causing lasting damage.
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 Cons ution to (totally stealing FWD's awesome way of stating it) imposing limitations upon the People. The Cons ution, 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.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/...age/index.html
Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate blocked on Wednesday a bid to amend the Cons ution 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)
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)
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 cons utional 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 ins ution 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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
