nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Scarletwine said:
Pandering? Or a way to kill the issue once and for all?
I Hope You Had The Time Of Your Life
- Thread starter MrsSpringsteen
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Pandering? Or a way to kill the issue once and for all?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader said:
So the GOP will tell their supporters
"We tried and we can not get the votes, so this issue is over."
I am sure that is thier agenda
and this vote will kill the issue once and for all.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
You can't make much political hay out of failed constitutional amendments. Even flag burning amendments have come to a dead end.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
So you are saying the Senate should pass it
and it should flounder for 15? years
like the ERA amendment did?
Passing in the Senate gives it a lot of credibility
and puts pressure on the states to get to 38.
The ERA amendment did a lot to legitimize Women's' rights.
The amendment failing to get 38 state ratifications did not kill women's' right once and for all.
and it should flounder for 15? years
like the ERA amendment did?
Passing in the Senate gives it a lot of credibility
and puts pressure on the states to get to 38.
The ERA amendment did a lot to legitimize Women's' rights.
The amendment failing to get 38 state ratifications did not kill women's' right once and for all.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
I did not suggest that the Senate pass the amendment.
And on what basis do you see Senate approval as "putting pressure" on the States to pass? Your choice of example contradicts your suggestion.
And on what basis do you see Senate approval as "putting pressure" on the States to pass? Your choice of example contradicts your suggestion.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader said:
Once the Senate passed the ERA
there was a lot politicking to get the 38 states to ratify.
I was a teenager and remember quite well.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
But the Senate action had little impact as it took tremedous politicking to get the necessary states on board.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
This amendment disgusts me. 
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
but they get brought up every few years by a bunch of politicians trying to make headway with the nativist bunch -- even HRC has done this.
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
It's coming up Tuesday
PlanetOut Network Fri Jun 2, 7:27 PM ET
SUMMARY: As the Senate marriage debate looms, Soulforce love-bombs the majority leader's Nashville hometown with pro-gay statements by Coretta King.
When Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., heads back home, he'll soon be able to see a larger-than-life message opposing his proposed federal anti-gay marriage amendment. Soulforce, a group that fights religious discrimination against the gay community, is paying to put up billboards all over Nashville.
The 16 billboards will feature this quote: "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protections, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
That quote comes from a 2004 speech by Coretta Scott King at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. The civil rights giant, who died Jan. 30, was always an outspoken advocate for LGBT rights.
"Soulforce reminds Sen. Frist's hometown that Mrs. King stood for the full equality of lesbian and gay Americans and against homophobia," said Soulforce Executive Director Jeff Lutes in a written statement. Lutes is also featured on the billboards with his partner and son.
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and others, under pressure from wealthy fundamentalists, are again trying to write discrimination into the Constitution rather than focusing on the real problems facing America," Lutes said.
Frist reintroduced the anti-gay bill using similar language to the one voted down in 2004. The amendment would keep same-sex couples from getting any kind of marriage rights and prohibit states and local courts from granting marriage rights to same-sex couples, as happened in Massachusetts. It would void same-sex couples' legal marriages, and some observers even speculate that it could eliminate civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Debate on the marriage amendment is scheduled to start Tuesday in the Senate. Despite right-wing pressure campaigns against key GOP senators, support for the amendment is believed to fall short of the two-thirds needed to send it to the House.
Frist has acknowledged he brought the amendment back into the national debate to get conservative support for GOP candidates. Political strategists speculate that President Bush's historically low poll numbers could hurt Republicans running for Congress in November's midterm elections.
PlanetOut Network Fri Jun 2, 7:27 PM ET
SUMMARY: As the Senate marriage debate looms, Soulforce love-bombs the majority leader's Nashville hometown with pro-gay statements by Coretta King.
When Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., heads back home, he'll soon be able to see a larger-than-life message opposing his proposed federal anti-gay marriage amendment. Soulforce, a group that fights religious discrimination against the gay community, is paying to put up billboards all over Nashville.
The 16 billboards will feature this quote: "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protections, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
That quote comes from a 2004 speech by Coretta Scott King at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. The civil rights giant, who died Jan. 30, was always an outspoken advocate for LGBT rights.
"Soulforce reminds Sen. Frist's hometown that Mrs. King stood for the full equality of lesbian and gay Americans and against homophobia," said Soulforce Executive Director Jeff Lutes in a written statement. Lutes is also featured on the billboards with his partner and son.
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and others, under pressure from wealthy fundamentalists, are again trying to write discrimination into the Constitution rather than focusing on the real problems facing America," Lutes said.
Frist reintroduced the anti-gay bill using similar language to the one voted down in 2004. The amendment would keep same-sex couples from getting any kind of marriage rights and prohibit states and local courts from granting marriage rights to same-sex couples, as happened in Massachusetts. It would void same-sex couples' legal marriages, and some observers even speculate that it could eliminate civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Debate on the marriage amendment is scheduled to start Tuesday in the Senate. Despite right-wing pressure campaigns against key GOP senators, support for the amendment is believed to fall short of the two-thirds needed to send it to the House.
Frist has acknowledged he brought the amendment back into the national debate to get conservative support for GOP candidates. Political strategists speculate that President Bush's historically low poll numbers could hurt Republicans running for Congress in November's midterm elections.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Now surely such a thing can't get through; incidently people should look at the parliamentary democracy of Australia that got a gay marriage ban through very quickly as more or less a non-issue with both major parties in support.
Last edited:
onebloodonelife
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 15,106
for Feingold's response to Spector. He's a great Senator and I would love for him to run in 2008. I think right now he's the only Democrat that has the balls to stand up to the hypocritical GOP.
for the amendment for obvious reasons. It's just another political ploy by the GOP because Bush is losing big time in the polls and they need to get the fundamentalists out to vote.
Last edited:
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
He is down with the conservatives, "compassionate conservatism" really equals Christian socialism.
onebloodonelife
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 15,106
A_Wanderer said:
Who are we talking about?
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Bush, he has managed to erode his base away.
onebloodonelife
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 15,106
A_Wanderer said:
True, but the problem is that all he has to do to get them back is bring out irrelevant issues such as gay marriage and abortion to bring them out to vote for Republican candidates. And that's exactly what he's doing through this amendment.
najeena
War Child
When there is a valid reason to amend the Constitution, I hope that it's one that betters the country rather than weakening it by legalizing bigotry. Bush is wasting time and money (not that that's stopped him before) when there are myriad problems that deserve attention more than this pathetic grab for his disenchanted base. Shameful, but not surprising.
Last edited:
4U2Play
Refugee
A_Wanderer said:
?
What does that mean, "non-issue"?
I'm sure gays who wish to get married in Australia consider it an issue, no?
It's OK for Australia to pass a gay marriage ban, but not the US... please explain.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
I think what he means is that our ban got passed through relatively quickly and quietly, without the opportunity for backlash - a non issue in it's calm pushing under the rug by parliament.
Dont quote me, but I believe A_W agrees homosexuals should be permitted marriage same as anyone else.
Dont quote me, but I believe A_W agrees homosexuals should be permitted marriage same as anyone else.
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13121953/site/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 shit 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.
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 shit 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.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Well I guess that now people can quote meAngela Harlem said:
Gays should have the same legal recognition and rights of union as heterosexual couples (for which marriage is not always for procreation). This proposal is pure politics just like the idea of banning flag burning - in the flag burning case it violates the priciple of free speech and in the gay marriage case it is endorsing one particular religious position over another (for that matter why should consensual bigamy be outlawed?).
I am sure that people see it as a big negative that America has to have these "debates" when poll numbers languish but at least it's not going to be able to get through and it is out there in the open and not being rushed through and passed like the ban in Australia was (which is interesting because Australia on the whole is a relatively gay friendly country).
Another little point is the religiousity of America compared to other liberal democracies in the world; perhaps this is in no small part due to America not suffering an offical church of state in it's history since indepence that have turned people away from religion in so many other places.
Last edited:
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
It's not alright for either, but in the US such an amendment shouldn't be able to get through whereas the system in Australia allowed it to get through without a fuss.4U2Play said:
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
This is awesome 
huffingtonpost.com
"First off, understand that I am not gay nor have ever desecrated the American flag...yet.
But if something isn't legislated soon, I don't know how long before I head down to my local leather shop to suit up and match Old Glory. "Old Glory." There you go. A few days ago I would have called the flag "The Stars and Stripes." Anyone with a scintilla of flag history behind them knows that the term "Old Glory" was coined by Navy Captain William Driver, a 19th-century ship master.
Sailor. Ship. Do I have to draw you a Village People map?
Finally, our president and a solid 33% of our legislators are standing up for what is right, no matter how many of conservative core voters come out to vote Republican this November.
Thank you, Mr. Bush -- and Mr. Frist -- for standing up in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. For if not passed, how soon before gay men who married each other would start having gay babies? How long before extremely well-built, extremely attractive men who know how to dress will be wasted on other men? How soon before gay women start marrying and stop having that hot single lesbian sex that straight men love to watch?
Those who mock the Constitutional amendment seem to have overlooked that the legislation does not say gays cannot marry. They just would not be able to marry each other. What is the big deal? I would have loved to marry Catherine Zeta Jones Douglas but that didn't work out. Should she have been forced to marry me when she was single? And for the most part I can't marry people who are already married to someone else. Should Michael Douglas be forced to make Catherine available to me now. Not likely. But do you hear me complaining about changing the law? I mean a law that I agree with.
There's no denying a slippery slope. If we allow a man to marry a man how soon before bisexuals will be allowed to marry each other. If we allow women to marry women, Mary Cheney may never have the opportunity to marry a man. How soon before Ellen marries the Dixie Chicks? And with all the men marrying men and women marrying women, the sanctity of marriage would suffer so immeasurably that there would leave little time or opportunity for Rush Limbaugh to keep getting married. Is that something future wives waiting to be future divorcees of el Rushbo would want?
We must focus on the country's vital objectives. The sooner we stop gays from marrying the sooner we can bring the troops home; the sooner we stop desecrating the flag, the sooner that the Homeland Security Department can become competent and keep bureaucracy from desecrating the safety of Americans at home.
Let us no longer let gays nor flag burners divide our country. Let's give that job to the Constitution.
*How that flag got into my assless chaps I'll never know.
Steve Young is author of " Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" and can be read every Sunday on the very straight L.A. Daily News opinion page...right on top of Bill O'Reilly's column.
huffingtonpost.com
"First off, understand that I am not gay nor have ever desecrated the American flag...yet.
But if something isn't legislated soon, I don't know how long before I head down to my local leather shop to suit up and match Old Glory. "Old Glory." There you go. A few days ago I would have called the flag "The Stars and Stripes." Anyone with a scintilla of flag history behind them knows that the term "Old Glory" was coined by Navy Captain William Driver, a 19th-century ship master.
Sailor. Ship. Do I have to draw you a Village People map?
Finally, our president and a solid 33% of our legislators are standing up for what is right, no matter how many of conservative core voters come out to vote Republican this November.
Thank you, Mr. Bush -- and Mr. Frist -- for standing up in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. For if not passed, how soon before gay men who married each other would start having gay babies? How long before extremely well-built, extremely attractive men who know how to dress will be wasted on other men? How soon before gay women start marrying and stop having that hot single lesbian sex that straight men love to watch?
Those who mock the Constitutional amendment seem to have overlooked that the legislation does not say gays cannot marry. They just would not be able to marry each other. What is the big deal? I would have loved to marry Catherine Zeta Jones Douglas but that didn't work out. Should she have been forced to marry me when she was single? And for the most part I can't marry people who are already married to someone else. Should Michael Douglas be forced to make Catherine available to me now. Not likely. But do you hear me complaining about changing the law? I mean a law that I agree with.
There's no denying a slippery slope. If we allow a man to marry a man how soon before bisexuals will be allowed to marry each other. If we allow women to marry women, Mary Cheney may never have the opportunity to marry a man. How soon before Ellen marries the Dixie Chicks? And with all the men marrying men and women marrying women, the sanctity of marriage would suffer so immeasurably that there would leave little time or opportunity for Rush Limbaugh to keep getting married. Is that something future wives waiting to be future divorcees of el Rushbo would want?
We must focus on the country's vital objectives. The sooner we stop gays from marrying the sooner we can bring the troops home; the sooner we stop desecrating the flag, the sooner that the Homeland Security Department can become competent and keep bureaucracy from desecrating the safety of Americans at home.
Let us no longer let gays nor flag burners divide our country. Let's give that job to the Constitution.
*How that flag got into my assless chaps I'll never know.
Steve Young is author of " Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" and can be read every Sunday on the very straight L.A. Daily News opinion page...right on top of Bill O'Reilly's column.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
how embarassing to be a Republican these days.
i find this whole thing so dispiriting. i wonder how straight people would feel being turned into political red meat to be tossed out to people who actively hate you. it feels lovely to be degraded on television, on the floor of Congress.
i can't wait for the schadenfreude -- in 10 years when the current crop of Republicans will look pretty much the same as George Wallace standint at the door of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama trying to block two black students from enrolling at the school.
why don't they just start chanting: "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever!"
stupid fuckheads.
i find this whole thing so dispiriting. i wonder how straight people would feel being turned into political red meat to be tossed out to people who actively hate you. it feels lovely to be degraded on television, on the floor of Congress.
i can't wait for the schadenfreude -- in 10 years when the current crop of Republicans will look pretty much the same as George Wallace standint at the door of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama trying to block two black students from enrolling at the school.
why don't they just start chanting: "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever!"
stupid fuckheads.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Bush is just trying to divert the public's attention away from all of his problems he has on the real issues. This is a diversion. This doesn't surprise me, it's Bush's way.
People who are against full rights for gays are on the wrong side of history.
In 50 years their grandchildren will wonder, who were these hicks who prevented my friends and neighbours from a life of human rights? And that'll be grandpa and grandma on the mantle.
In 50 years their grandchildren will wonder, who were these hicks who prevented my friends and neighbours from a life of human rights? And that'll be grandpa and grandma on the mantle.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
anitram said:
Very true...
Lila64
Blue Crack Distributor
at MrsSpringsteen's postStupid fuckheads is right, Irvine (meaning I agree with you)
I concur with verte76 and anitram as well
who let me in FYM anyways?
I can't stand the site or mention of Bush or his administration
as Bob Marley said... get up, stand up... stand up for your rights!
