GOP to back ban on gay marriage

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

From the Philadelphia Inquirer

 

GOP platform draft opposes gay civil unions

 

By Calvin Woodward

 

Associated Press

 

NEW YORK - Republicans endorsed an uncompromising position against gay unions yesterday in a manifesto that contrasts with Vice President Cheney's supportive comments about gay rights and the moderate face the party will show at next week's national convention.

 

A panel made up largely of conservative delegates approved platform language that calls for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and opposes legal recognition of any sort for gay civil unions.

 

The GOP's full platform committee, seeking to appease party members who support gay or abortion rights without embracing their positions, adopted language later that states Republicans "respect and accept" dissenting views.

 

"We are the party of the open door," said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who led platform deliberations on social issues.

 

Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, the platform committee chairman, said the compromise on dissent showed the party was open to other views, but in a way that did not single out abortion or gay rights as special areas where Republicans can agree to disagree.

 

"It's language I'm very comfortable with," he said later.

 

But activists who support gay and abortion rights said they felt shut out, and sharply criticized their party for adopting a hard line in advance of a convention that will seek support from swing voters and more liberal Republicans.

 

Christopher Barron of Log Cabin Republicans, a gay-rights group, was livid after the panel endorsed the first-ever call for a constitutional gay-marriage ban in a GOP platform and went beyond that to oppose legal recognition of any same-sex unions.

 

"You can't craft a vicious, mean-spirited platform and then try to put lipstick on the pig by putting Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger on in prime time," he said in an interview.

 

Giuliani, former New York mayor, and Schwarzenegger, the California governor, are among moderate Republicans accorded prominent convention speaking slots.

 

Gary Bauer, who has campaigned for the marriage amendment and against abortion rights as president of the group American Values, said the platform draft solidified the GOP as the "party of hearth and home."

 

The draft urges a constitutional ban on abortion, echoing a call from previous platforms, and endorses President Bush's restrictions on federal financing of stem-cell research. Some Republicans want the restrictions loosened.

 

Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition advised conservative churches not to worry about the religious right's exclusion from prime time next week, given the advances against gay rights.

 

"Don't be distracted by Schwarzenegger or Giuliani or even the vice president," she said. "It is what George Bush says that counts, and he has been faithful and fearless on this important issue."

 

Each side claims to represent the voters Bush needs most for reelection, setting up a balancing act as the party tries to keep its religious conservatives satisfied and motivated without driving other voters away.

 

Bauer, for example, said Cheney's comments making clear his opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage were "just the sort of thing that discourages and demoralizes voters the administration desperately needs."

 

Ann Stone, who leads Republicans for Choice, was just as insistent that Bush must heed voters in battleground states who might be driven away by a strong stand against abortion.

 

"Bush can't win with just his base," she said. "He needs base-plus. We are the plus."

 

The debate, while lively, was conducted largely in the hallways and in private meetings between party leaders and various factions.

 

The panel that gave initial approval to the language on family issues went through a sedate public process, with delegates reluctant to propose radical change to planks drawn up to match Bush's agenda.

 

But while Cheney's remarks Tuesday prompted no discussion in the hearing, they were the subject of heavy cell-phone chatter outside the doors. Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, said during a campaign stop that people should be free to have the relationships they want and that existing law may well be enough to uphold traditional marriage.

 

The platform committee intends to finish work on the document today and send it to the convention, which opens Monday, for ratification.

 

So much for any goodwill elicited by Cheney's comments earlier in the week. Is this really an issue the Republicans want to push hard for with so many undecided voters? The people who already support this (read: religious right) are going to vote for Bush anyway, so I just don't get the reasoning behind making this an issue.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

A panel made up largely of conservative delegates approved platform language that calls for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and opposes legal recognition of any sort for gay civil unions.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Good to see that GWB is a uniter, not a divider.

 

This should really not pass because it sets a dangerous precedent of amending the Constitution to take away potential civil liberties.

[Guest MikeSC]

Good to see that GWB is a uniter, not a divider.

 

This should really not pass because it sets a dangerous precedent of amending the Constitution to take away potential civil liberties.

What civil liberty is being taken away?

 

This belongs in the realm of the 10th Amendment, where the states have the right to make the call.

 

And, hey, run on this. Polls indicate that voters don't care about this issue.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What civil liberty is being taken away?

 

This belongs in the realm of the 10th Amendment, where the states have the right to make the call.

There's stuff at stake that falls outside the boundaries of state. Tax breaks and civil liberties for couples, for instance. There should be Civil Unions on the federal level. States can decide for themselves if the term marriage is appropriate or not.

[Guest MikeSC]

What civil liberty is being taken away?

 

This belongs in the realm of the 10th Amendment, where the states have the right to make the call.

There's stuff at stake that falls outside the boundaries of state. Tax breaks and civil liberties for couples, for instance. There should be Civil Unions on the federal level. States can decide for themselves if the term marriage is appropriate or not.

What civil liberties? You can do ANYTHING with some common legal documents.

 

Again, this is a thing the states should decide, not the courts.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Who gives a damn?

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

People who value civil liberties?

[Styles 0]

People who value civil liberties?

What civil liberties does this effect? Are you effected by this? Someone you know?

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

People who value civil liberties?

What civil liberties does this effect? Are you effected by this? Someone you know?

Yes, I know quite a few homosexuals who might be potentially affected by this.

[Styles 0]

People who value civil liberties?

What civil liberties does this effect? Are you effected by this? Someone you know?

Yeah, I know quite a few homosexuals who might be potentially affected adversely by this.

How?

EDIT: You know what. n/m, this isn't going to go anywhere good. I'm just SO SICK of this "issue". I really don't care either way. Let them get married, I'd support civil unions, it's just not something I personally feel is worth so much argument over...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What civil liberties? You can do ANYTHING with some common legal documents.

 

Again, this is a thing the states should decide, not the courts.

-=Mike

Let's take the whole marriage kerfluffle out of the picture and just say civil unions.

 

Now, in your picturesque America where states decide whether they want civil unions or not, let's pretend a couple gets a union in a state which has them, and then moves into a state which took the "get back in the closet, you fags" method of accepting no unions, no nothing.

 

One person gets sick and is taken to the hospital. Their partner can't be with them because the partner has all the privelages of a common stranger in this state.

 

You see a problem here? The couple has lost civil liberties by moving into a state which won't accept their civil union from their last state.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

People who value civil liberties?

What civil liberties does this effect? Are you effected by this? Someone you know?

Does that matter?

 

Supporting a bill allowing the killing of Siamese Twins doesn't effect me personally, but I'd be against it (obviously).

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

People who value civil liberties?

What civil liberties does this effect? Are you effected by this? Someone you know?

Yeah, I know quite a few homosexuals who might be potentially affected adversely by this.

How?

Not being able to marry the person they love, for one.

[Guest MikeSC]

What civil liberties? You can do ANYTHING with some common legal documents.

 

Again, this is a thing the states should decide, not the courts.

        -=Mike

Let's take the whole marriage kerfluffle out of the picture and just say civil unions.

 

Now, in your picturesque America where states decide whether they want civil unions or not, let's pretend a couple gets a union in a state which has them, and then moves into a state which took the "get back in the closet, you fags" method of accepting no unions, no nothing.

 

 

Then don't move to that state. Really, not that hard to figure out. I don't like NY's tax policies and have no desire to move there because of that.

One person gets sick and is taken to the hospital. Their partner can't be with them because the partner has all the privelages of a common stranger in this state.

Go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up giving you the power in that situation.

 

Really, isn't not even that difficult to do.

You see a problem here? The couple has lost civil liberties by moving into a state which won't accept their civil union from their last state.

1) Don't move there. Simple solution.

2) If you have to, going to a lawyer fixes up the problems.

 

Anything else?

Not being able to marry the person they love, for one.

You can't love somebody without getting married? Shocking.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Then don't move to that state.

 

Okay, and what about the breaks a couple gets in federal taxes?

[Guest MikeSC]

Then don't move to that state.

 

Okay, and what about the breaks a couple gets in federal taxes?

Then don't move to that state.

-=Mike

...Really, it's simple...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

No, Mike. What about the federal taxes? That's not a state issue, that's a federal issue. What do we do about them?

[Guest MikeSC]

No, Mike. What about the federal taxes? That's not a state issue, that's a federal issue. What do we do about them?

If it's a recognized marriage in that state, they get them.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

See, I think that's putting too much power in the hands of the states.

 

You need to set some government baselines on the national level, and then let the states work from there.

 

And I personally don't think there should be any state in America where people lose benefits because of who they choose to sleep with. How in the hell is that the state's business to begin with?

[Guest MikeSC]

See, I think that's putting too much power in the hands of the states.

This is the exact thing the 10th Amendment was supposed to address. I think the courts have far too much power.

You need to set some government baselines on the national level, and then let the states work from there.

Why? This is CLEARLY a power not given to the federal gov't. THUS, according to the 10th Amendment, it is left to the states.

And I personally don't think there should be any state in America where people lose benefits because of who they choose to sleep with. How in the hell is that the state's business to begin with?

It's not who you sleep with. It's who you marry.

-=Mike

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Why? This is CLEARLY a power not given to the federal gov't. THUS, according to the 10th Amendment, it is left to the states.

And the Republicans want to take it out of their hands with their proposed amendment.

 

It's not who you sleep with. It's who you marry.

"You 2 hetero's can get married, and here are your benefits. You other 2, however, don't even think about it. Maybe you should try to be straight?"

[Guest MikeSC]

Why? This is CLEARLY a power not given to the federal gov't. THUS, according to the 10th Amendment, it is left to the states.

And the Republicans want to take it out of their hands with their proposed amendment.

 

Actually, the ONLY way to keep it in their hands is through an Amendment. The states can opt to define marriage as more than just the Amendment.

 

WITHOUT the amendment, the courts will overstep their bounds --- per usual --- and proclaim it by lawyer-in-robes fiat.

It's not who you sleep with. It's who you marry.

"You 2 hetero's can get married, and here are your benefits. You other 2, however, don't even think about it. Maybe you should try to be straight?"

You sir and you ma'am can get benefits. You sir and sir cannot. You ma'am and ma'am cannot.

 

States should be the one to decide who gets to be married --- not lawyers in robes.

-=Mike

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

A panel made up largely of conservative delegates approved platform language that calls for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and opposes legal recognition of any sort for gay civil unions.

Seems to me like they're trying to completely outlaw it, not leaving it up to the states.

[Guest MikeSC]

A panel made up largely of conservative delegates approved platform language that calls for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and opposes legal recognition of any sort for gay civil unions.

Seems to me like they're trying to completely outlaw it, not leaving it up to the states.

And states will have the ability to decide, on their own, what is a marriage. This means other states don't have to recognize it --- but since it'd be a legally recognized marriage in the state they reside in, they'd get full benefits.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It's not who you sleep with. It's who you marry.

-=Mike

Okay, Mike. I got a new idea.

 

How about we let the states decide if blacks can marry? And then if a black couple gets married in a state where they let them do that kind of thing, and then wants to move on down to a state where the people said black people can't get married, then they are considered not married anymore.

 

Oh, and only white people should do the decidin' about if black people can marry in each state.

 

 

 

Hey, wait a minute, this doesn't sound very fair.....

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Not being able to marry the person they love, for one.

You can't love somebody without getting married? Shocking.

-=Mike

...

 

Wow, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

You sir, are a fucking moron.

 

He asked about rights being taken away, that was one, and your answer has no bearing on the topic.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's not who you sleep with. It's who you marry.

          -=Mike

Okay, Mike. I got a new idea.

 

How about we let the states decide if blacks can marry? And then if a black couple gets married in a state where they let them do that kind of thing, and then wants to move on down to a state where the people said black people can't get married, then they are considered not married anymore.

 

Oh, and only white people should do the decidin' about if black people can marry in each state.

 

 

 

Hey, wait a minute, this doesn't sound very fair.....

That would be unfair --- as they would not permit the legal description of a married couple (man and a woman) to get married.

 

You're trying to change the definition.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Does Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution have any comment on this matter?

[NoCalMike 0]

Well the republicans need their fresh red meat, and this hard-line anti-gay stance, will comfort the religious right whacks, coupled with Laura Bush going out and speaking out against stem cell research, I see the effort there to win over any of the religious base that previously felt dis-infranchised with Bush.

 

As for me, you all already know my stance. I think gays should have full disclosure to get married and every right/privelage that comes with it. However for republicans to come out against even Civil Unions is quite disturbing.