Reply With Quote
I like your conviction. Where will you go?
He can always go back to the gay marriage ban card! Give me a ing break. We're back to this cons utional 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 goes through and doesn't get struck down by the courts as uncons utional. The day that like that is part of our cons ution is a day that I never thought I'd see in this country and America will be dead to me.
I like your conviction. Where will you go?
He's going to join that new Indian reservation on xray's property.
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.
Primary season is coming up. Repubicans have to have their anti- street cred in order. If they could somehow convince their base that all sexuals are illegal immigrants in posession of WMD, you would have a fear mongerer's perfect storm.
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.
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.
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.
It would be funnier than if Manny got deported back to the US as an illegal.
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 cons utional 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 cons utional 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 cons utional 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 cons utional, 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.
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 sexual 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 cons utional 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 cons utional 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, [but] 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: "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 tiest-common-denominator that Rove and Repugs in general pander to. They don't care if they look like ing 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.
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?
CLINTON. BLOWJOB. WHITEHOUSE. Someone gets it.
^^Yeah, Clinton and the blue dress.
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.
" sexuality, 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
At least it wasn't gay.It's all Bush fault that Clinton got a blow job in the White House.
I don't want to go there because of their policy on Gays. I just think the Island is gorgeous.
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 ins ute 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
wha-whaaaaat
don't fall off that hoverboard neocons, or CORSO is gonna smegma slap you back into reality
Legal, legislated discrimination. I never thought I would see the day.
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 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 twads 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 cons utional ammendment are the same thing practically. It is the states who ratify the cons utional ammendment. SOme of you need to go back and retake US GOV.
Definite Neocon.Gulliani
The dimm-o-crats in Massacussets will never pass a gay ban amendment. Either state-wide or as ratification of a cons utional 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
