Bush promotes measure against gay marriage

[2GOLD 0]

Don't think many people thought it would pass at all, however, the discussion of gay marriage is hardly a moot topic. Anything that inspires this much debate may very well be worthy of debate.

 

It'll become debatable when the ones against it can come up with reasons besides "it's wrong in the eyes of our lord" cause last time I checked that invisible thing in the sky isn't the choice of everyone.

 

It really is a moot point until those against it get real arguments and not that book not all of us follow. Nothing against you of course because I'm not sure where you stand. But yours seemed the easiest to quote.

[NoCalMike 0]

the fact that this thing was shot down and pretty much laughed as was a good sign, but comments coming from supporters saying this isn't the last we have heard of this, and how the "struggle" will continue was saddening.

[NoCalMike 0]

Oh for christ's sake.........here we go again........

 

This time the target is federal courts

 

 

Gay Marriage Opponents Pin Hopes on House

 

34 minutes ago Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!

 

 

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

 

WASHINGTON - Unable to ban gay marriage, congressional Republicans are working to contain it, advancing legislation in the House to make sure federal courts don't order states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned outside their borders.

 

"When federal judges step out of line, Congress has the responsibility to drop the red flag," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday as the court-stripping measure cleared the House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) on a near party-line vote of 21-13.

 

 

Democrats objected, some strenuously. Rep. Maxine Waters of California called the legislation a political exercise, and Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the first openly gay woman elected to Congress, criticized it as "unnecessary, unconstitutional and unwise."

 

 

Even so, GOP officials said the measure likely would be on the House floor next week, and they expressed confidence it would pass.

 

 

If so, it would mark a clear victory for gay marriage opponents, who suffered a decisive setback Wednesday in the Senate when the constitutional amendment fell a dozen votes shy of the 60 needed to advance.

 

 

Within hours of the vote in which 48 senators voted to advance the measure and 50 to block it, President Bush (news - web sites) issued a statement saying he was "deeply disappointed" by the outcome but calling it a temporary setback.

 

 

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts," he added.

 

 

"It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue, and I urge the House of Representatives to pass this amendment," the president said.

 

 

Bush wasn't the only one who seemed eager to extend an election-year debate over the issue.

 

 

"We know now which senators are for traditional marriage and which ones are not, and by November so will voters in every state," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "This fight has just begun."

 

 

Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which opposed the amendment, expressed little concern about political repercussions. "I think the discussion will continue to play out but I think they played their best hand today and couldn't even get a simple majority," she said of the Senate vote.

 

 

Bush's public prodding alone assures the issue will persist into the fall, and Republican strategists have said they hope the issue can be put to use against Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting.

 

 

Kerry, D-Mass., skipped the Senate vote. He issued a statement renewing his opposition to the amendment and accusing Republicans of seeking to alter the constitution for political gain.

 

 

"The unfortunate result is that the important work of the American people — funding our homeland security needs, creating new and better jobs, and raising the minimum wage — is not getting done," he said.

 

 

Bush urged Congress last winter to pass an amendment banning gay marriage, but prospects have never been good that supporters could amass the two-thirds majority in the House and Senate needed to send the measure to the states for ratification.

 

 

Most Democratic lawmakers oppose the proposal, and some conservative Republicans in both houses objected to stepping on terrain traditionally reserved for the states.

 

 

The legislation advancing in the House is designed to address the concerns raised by GOP dissidents, and solidify Republican support.

 

"This simply defers to the states," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

 

Under the measure, federal courts would be stripped of jurisdiction over federal legislation that gives states the right to decide whether to recognize same sex marriages.

 

Republican officials also said it was possible they would stage other votes on gay marriage before the fall elections.

 

The possibilities include a measure to prevent the Washington, D.C., city government from recognizing gay marriages.

 

In addition, several officials said a constitutional amendment may be brought to the floor in the fall, closer to the election.

-----------------------------------------------------

 

Am I the only one sick to fucking death of the term, "Activist Judges" I mean just stfu already. Something tells me if a judge stood up and talked about his utter disdain and disgust for homosexuals and their behaivors, I don't think the right would be calling them "activist judges"

 

I am not quite understanding this measure though, how in effect do you "strip a court the right to make a judgement" I mean can someone explain this to me? Cause if this is the case, couldn't you just strip them of the power to rule on other things as well?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Here's what cracks me up about Xias' posts:

 

He's offended by what MrRant is saying, but he doesn't see that the civil conversation he and SpiderPoet are having are two different sides and Rant is simply the middle. SP sees marriage as much more than a government term but as a something spiritual and wants to preserve that. Xias thinks we either need to give everyone the right to marry, which SP disagrees with, or just go all out on civil unions.

 

Both proposals leave MrRant, the non-religious guy who wants to get a marriage, not a civil union, with the short end of the stick.

 

So it's funny that's Xias is talking about people who don't care and how "they" are telling "us" what to do, when it's people like MrRant who are the most persecuted here.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Before anyone asks, Xias was Kamui.

[Skywarp! 0]

*Reads NoCalMike's Article*

 

What the fuck is with the gay marriage opponents...it's almost like they're just plain irrationally AFRAID of gay people.

[Guest SP-1]

Before anyone asks, Xias was Kamui.

A shame. He was civil.

[Guest INXS]

People are ignorant and afraid of what they don't know about. If someone has lived in a relatively small town all their lives they might very well have never come across "a gay". (Or at least someone openly homosexual). Not everyone is as worldy as others or as educated. It's not an excuse, but it is a reason as to why maybe some people are anti-gay. I was myself pretty much bigoted toward homosexuals and for no real reason until one of my close friends came out - then I realized that all the prejudices I had were just wrong.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Before anyone asks, Xias was Kamui.

Guess he ran out of video games to play or something...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Well, Jesus, I could've told you that.

[NoCalMike 0]

So here is a question: Is this whole gay marriage thing the battle between redefining marriage as oppossed to redefining the Constitution? Cause on one case you have conservatives saying the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, and then you have liberals saying that the Constitution says Equal rights for every american citizen. So either way, one "definition" is going to have to be changed somewhat. I just personally feel safer having it NOT be the constitution.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I dunno, and I don't care. I just think marriage = Man/Woman, not Man/Man Woman/Woman.

 

That's all, thank you drive-thru.

 

And I'm sad Kamui didn't say "hi" to me. Guess I logged on when it was past his bedtime...

[NoCalMike 0]

I dunno, and I don't care. I just think marriage = Man/Woman, not Man/Man Woman/Woman.

 

That's all, thank you drive-thru.

 

And I'm sad Kamui didn't say "hi" to me. Guess I logged on when it was past his bedtime...

since you are here, did you get any email notice about me sending you a pay pal payment? I got an email confirmation sent to me saying I did....

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I dunno, and I don't care. I just think marriage = Man/Woman, not Man/Man Woman/Woman.

 

That's all, thank you drive-thru.

 

And I'm sad Kamui didn't say "hi" to me. Guess I logged on when it was past his bedtime...

since you are here, did you get any email notice about me sending you a pay pal payment? I got an email confirmation sent to me saying I did....

 

[NoCalMike 0]

I dunno, and I don't care. I just think marriage = Man/Woman, not Man/Man Woman/Woman.

 

That's all, thank you drive-thru.

 

And I'm sad Kamui didn't say "hi" to me. Guess I logged on when it was past his bedtime...

since you are here, did you get any email notice about me sending you a pay pal payment? I got an email confirmation sent to me saying I did....

 

ehh, I just got to work, client software server is down, I was bored....chalk this up as an "oops"

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Manners, NoCal. Manners.

 

Because I didn't want to turn this thread off-topic I PM'd you my answer. Because talking about my TSM football contest, where 32 TSMers face off in 17 weeks worth of gridiron action for big prizes, in a CE thread about gay marriage would be wrong...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Before anyone asks, Xias was Kamui.

This explains the incredibly stupid post about black people. WTF did he come back for more after that last beating?

[NoCalMike 0]

As far as the defintion of marriage, is it reasonable to believe that when it was originally defined, it might have been not such a friendly world to homosexuals in the first place? I mean when I hear people say, "the definition of marriage is one of the most fundamental structures of our country that we can't breach" I think of some other fundamental structures, that have since been deemed ridiculous, or racist, or discriminatory etc......so why is the right trying to hold onto the "fundamental definition of marriage," any different then those other instances......Times change, and ideoligies change, mostly for the better, and I just see the Gay Marriage issue as another one of those "hot-button issue" today" - "laughed at 50 years from" issues. To me it is inevitable that it will happen sometime, maybe not in the NEAR future, but eventually so.

[Guest Cerebus]

Aw, Kamui is banned? I was looking forward to tearing him apart, or at least have another classic thread about him.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Idiots. All of you...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Idiots. All of you...

I was just playing you all along and you FELL FOR IT

 

 

 

I suspect he got wind of Marney's departure and thought he could survive a little easier in here now that our Big Dog is gone. Hah!

[Zorin Industries 0]

So whos me-too?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

We don't really have that Me Too on the rightie side, and she posted probably the least often of all the regulars here.

 

Mike has recently graduated to a complete Wonk though.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Marney really didn't interact with him much, though. He mostly romped with me, Mike, Slapnuts and a few others. Marney was too busy picking on Tyler and SpiderPoet...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Don't forget the guy who was talking about how we'd be happier if we lived like cavemn.

[Justice 0]

Damn it, I called this from the first day and I wanted to screw him over. When I told AoO to confirm it, I wanted to get everyone else in CE on it so we could all agree with him on some stupid thing and then turn around and say "FOOLED YOU! OMG BANNED!" or something.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Good idea.

 

AoO is a party pooper...

[BX 0]

Mike exhibits a great deal of wonkery, but he also exhibits a characteristic of the Cogitator -

 

Wonks & Cogitators

 

Many Cogitators employ an extremely nimble fighting style that leans heavily on ironic humor and dismissive sarcasm.

 

Perhaps we have a Wonkitator on our hands, Jobber.

[Guest netslob]

this whole thing smacks of bigotry. Bush hates gays, so he'll go out of his way make it hard on them (no pun intended).

 

this whole "sanctity of marriage" thing...bullshit. it doesn't exist. if it ever did, STRAIGHT people ruined it along time ago. all marriage basically is is a collection of papers that say that if it doesn't work out, she gets everything. that's all it really is. letting gays do the same thing will not harm this "sacred institution". if gays want to have loveless and unfulfilling marriages like everyone else, who are we to stop them? hell, Morman men marry as many women as they want, but we don't look at that as a violation of the "Holy bond of marriage". but it's their religious tradition and besides, their STRAIGHT, so it's ok.

 

yeah i know, people are afraid of gays. it's "unnatural" and "goes against the way we were made" or whatever nonsense. well, what people fail to realize is, being gay is genetic. they're born that way. there are gay animals...they don't make a conscience decision to just "become gay". and neither do people, because for the simple matter of fact that being straight is easier. i doubt any gay person on earth ever woke up one morning and said to themselves "Hmmm, how can i make all my friends and co-workers shun me AND get my family disown me? I know, I'll tell them I'm GAY!!" no doesn't happen. if being gay or straight was like a switch that they could turn on and off, they would be straight, if for no other reason then to avoid all the shit gay people have to deal with.

 

and i love the argument "But if we let gay people get married, soon people will want to marry animals or household items or whatever...". that's the connection you make? when two consenting adult human beings who love each other and want to legally consummate their love, you put that on par with someone fucking a goat or a vaccuum cleaner?

and these people have the fucking nerve to call gays sick?

 

Bush likes to throw his religious beliefs into the ring as a reason to not allow gay marriage. again, bullshit. here's the thing, George: there is no God. and even if there were, if he created everyone and everything, then that means he created gays too. remember, "He made us in his own image". God would see gays as his own children, the same as straights.

 

but yeah, i know, one passage in a book written 2,000 years ago (written by MAN, btw, not god...i doubt a supreme deity would bother to write books, seeing as how he has whole universes to worry about) says homosexuality is wrong, so we have to go out of our way to fuck with them. here's another point, George: not everyone believes what you believe. can you handle that? yeah, the country is predominately Christian, but there a hell of a lot of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. who don't pray to the same invisible man that you do. but i know, they don't count, cause majority rules. but keep in mind...Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and yes, even gays, VOTE...food for thought at the very least.

 

just leave these poor people alone. they aren't hurting a soul. they enough things to deal with in their day to day lives without the government cracking down on them. they just want to live their lives like everyone else. remember "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", George? does that only extend to straight Christians?

[Styles 0]

Shit, I missed Kamui. This is what I get for having to work/do other things and not sit online for 2 days.

Oh well, I'm sure he'd be interested to know that as my deity, Jeff Jarrett condones of gay marriage....I mean just LOOK at some of the clothes the man wears!!!

 

I've got to agree totally with KKK here. I have no problem with civil unions if gays feel theyre excluded from certain tax breaks and legal rights, but marriage is traditionally in all cultures understood as a man and a woman. You can't just change the definition of things to suit everyone's needs. It might sound insensitive but a blind person can't drive a car, a wheelchair bound person can't run in a marathon, a white person can't apply for affirmative action, a person who can't speak English can't hold a lot of jobs, and a man and man can't be "married". It's just the way it is. It has nothing to do in my mind with god, religion, grossness, or anything else. For the sake of stability we can't go around changing around the definition of things to please everyone when it doesn't make any sense. If the gay activists are too stubborn to accept civil unions which would give them every equal right status they want, without the label "marriage" under the law, then tough.

 

Kamui's point about somehow calling them "marriages" would make everything all peachy in the eyes of people who don't like gays is such bullshit, call it what you will, but people will STILL look down on you, it's the way the world is. If you want to call it a marriage in your privacy, no one will stop you, but the spirit of the law needs to be upheld. You couldn't just "do away with the marriage label altogether" anyway since the taxcode is literally impossible to re-write and "marriage" is already etched in stone in that document. It would be far easier to just add "civil unions" than trying to take out anything already defined.

 

Anyway, that's my opinion, I'm entitled to it. I don't think Im insensitive, and I like equal rights but I think this is much ado about nothing.

 

Oh, and Jobber, did I miss something or did you say you weren't heterosexual?