Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Not so fast on Same Sex marriages

LGBT Bush Same sex marriage ban

  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#1 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 11:10 AM

Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4360783/

For the most part, I thought Bush was doing alright as President. What with the Tax cuts, the way he handled 9-11, Capturing Saddam, ect.

However...

His latest proposal to Ban Same Sex marriages leaves me feeling nauseous. I don't think there should be a constitutional Ammendment for allowing a foreign national to be President(Which is another topic)...and I certainly don't think we need a Constitutional Ammendment to say who can and can't get married.

People should have the right to decide who they want to marry. Period the end. I mean, what's next? A Constitutional Ammendment saying who can and can't get divorced?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#2 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 11:15 AM

LORD of the SWORD, on Feb 24 2004, 10:08 AM, said:

His latest proposal to Ban Same Sex marriages leaves me feeling nauseous.
"Nauseous" is that which causes nausea. The term you mean to use is "nauseated."

Quote

I don't think there should be a constitutional Ammendment for allowing a foreign national to be President(Which is another topic)...

Uh . . . "for" allowing? In other words, you don't think foreign nationals should be allowed to become president? On this we agree.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#3 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 11:17 AM

It's just politics. The bottom line is that this amendment will never pass.

Let's just refresh everybody's memory:

http://www.usconstit...et/constam.html

Quote

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention.

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.

Getting that kind of consensus is really freaking hard. Bush is just placating his base, and knows he can't win the votes of most of those firmly in favour of gay marriage in any case. It's smart politics.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#4 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 11:56 AM

Drew, on Feb 24 2004, 04:13 PM, said:

"Nauseous" is that which causes nausea. The term you mean to use is "nauseated."
From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: nau·seous  
Pronunciation: 'no-sh&s, 'no-zE-&s
Function: adjective
1 : causing nausea or disgust : NAUSEATING
2 : affected with nausea or disgust
- nau·seous·ly adverb
- nau·seous·ness noun
usage Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea, usually after a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated is used more widely than nauseous in sense 2.

http://www.merriam-w...ary&va=nauseous

#5 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 12:13 PM

Bah! Definition creep!

The line must be drawn he-ah!
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#6 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 01:08 PM

Personally  I know that majority o people do not want the constitution amended either for  or against gay marriage.  It is the reason I favor indivual states having the issue placed on the ballots.

They can vote on it and if it passes so be it but if not it must wait till the next time such an issue may be placed on the ballot for consideration. It does not guarentee tht they will ever get the right but if it's forced down people's throats this can lead to other problems. Such as states changing the state constitutions to have such bans.

#7 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 01:11 PM

Rov, call it smart if you will...I find it thoroughly detestable and has cost Bush my vote...not that theres any other I'd vote for either...I think I'll take a leave of absence on Nov 2nd.  :grr:  :grr:
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#8 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 01:17 PM

Shalamar, on Feb 24 2004, 11:09 AM, said:

Rov, call it smart if you will...I find it thoroughly detestable
In politics, there's often little difference between the two.

Quote

and has cost Bush my vote...not that theres any other I'd vote for either

But, honestly, how likely were you to vote for Bush before?

Quote

...I think I'll take a leave of absence on Nov 2nd.  :grr:  :grr:

What about your congressman? And, if I'm not mistaken, your state has a Senatorial race too....
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#9 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 01:24 PM

Update, link found via Instapundit:

http://www.detnews.c...4/a04-72847.htm

Bush may me smarter than I realized. Ralph Nader supports gay marriage. He may be able to force the Democrats to either move left, accept gay marriage, and lose the center... or force them to stick to civil unions and risk losing the gay vote to Nader.  This may be a brilliant tactical manuever, but it does have the possibility of backfire....
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#10 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 01:24 PM

Actually Rov, I had been going to vote for Bush...I'm so totally fed up with politics right now I don't care about ANY races.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#11 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 01:29 PM

Shalamar, on Feb 24 2004, 11:22 AM, said:

Actually Rov, I had been going to vote for Bush...I'm so totally fed up with politics right now I don't care about ANY races.
From the general tone of your posts, I'm surprised... but hey, you may be the exception to the generalized rule. :cool:
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#12 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 01:34 PM

Shalamar, on Feb 24 2004, 12:22 PM, said:

Actually Rov, I had been going to vote for Bush...I'm so totally fed up with politics right now I don't care about ANY races.
That happens to me, too. Though usually not until July of a given election year.  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#13 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 01:58 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Feb 24 2004, 09:15 AM, said:

It's just politics. The bottom line is that this amendment will never pass.

Let's just refresh everybody's memory:

http://www.usconstit...et/constam.html

Quote

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention.

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.

Getting that kind of consensus is really freaking hard. Bush is just placating his base, and knows he can't win the votes of most of those firmly in favour of gay marriage in any case. It's smart politics.
This is why they stretch the "Interstate Commerce" clause in the Constitution to fit all manner of things instead of adding new amendments to the Constitution.

#14 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 02:35 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Feb 24 2004, 11:15 AM, said:

It's just politics. The bottom line is that this amendment will never pass.
I think you are being far to hasty stating that Rov. Getting it out of the Congress might not be possible for Bush but once among the states I could see it being ratified.  You only need 38 states to pass it and currently 38 states have laws on the book that outlaw gay marriages.  It could pass especially if those who are very heavily in favor of gay marriage keep pressing as hard as they are.  I said early on that this could be going to backfire in a big explosion in their faces and I think this is the start of it.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#15 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 02:39 PM

For those of you who are interested in letting your Congressional representatives know your view on this (or any other) subject, an easy way to communicate is at www.congress.org

The extremity of proprosing a Constitutional amendment to incorporate this discrimination is, as you could guess, something the ACLU is in opposition to.  If you want to come out against the amendment, but are not sure what to say specifically, they have a very easy way to do it. ACLU Page on the Proposed Amendment

An essential part of democracy is that people like you and I make our voices heard.

Ro
Member of the League of Women Voters, the ACLU, and no political party.

#16 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 03:22 PM

Thanks Ro, message sent.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#17 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 03:30 PM

Good point Dave.

CJ:

Quote

I think you are being far to hasty stating that Rov. Getting it out of the Congress might not be possible for Bush but once among the states I could see it being ratified.

Please. Even assuming Bush could get every republican congressman behind the effort-- which he can't, in part due to the log cabin republicans-- it wouldn't be enough. It would die there. Even if he could, there simply aren't that many state legislatures with the political motivation to get it through. Heck, the relatively non-controversial, "Men and women are equal" couldn't get passed; this is far more contentious.  If Bush can get this through, it would be a completely shocking turn of events. I've underestimated him before-- particularly in the 2002 elections-- but I don't think he can do it. Maybe he'll surprise the hell out of everybody, but I think not.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#18 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 03:31 PM

Ah, the good ol' ACLU, . . . Johnny-on-the-spot if it's perceived as a lefty issue . . . quite deaf if it's not.  :wacko:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#19 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 03:33 PM

Except for that little thing where they're defending Rush Limbaugh. ;)

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-ŕ-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V

#20 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 03:42 PM

Wow, this is pretty bizarre. :crazy:

Quote

From the MSNBC article:
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said. "Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

Ah, so gay people have never been legally recognized as married all through human history. Guess no one told the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians, the ancient Spartans, or the Romans. Don't they look silly now.

Quote

Citing what he said was an "overwhelming consensus" that marriage should be only between a man and a woman...

Who decided this? Is there a secret Club of Overwhelming Consensus? Do they have a special handshake, maybe somes robes and nifty rituals? How does a fellow join up?

Quote

...Bush criticized city officials in San Francisco, a county clerk in New Mexico and the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which has ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, clearing the way for same-sex weddings to begin there in May.

"A few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," Bush said in a White House announcement.

Darn their impudence! No one should ever challenge the government or want to change the laws. Civilization is perfect just the way it is.

Quote

Anthony Romero, director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said amending the Constitution to deny homosexuals the same rights that others take for granted "just isn't very American."

Understatement of the year. :thumbs-up:

Edited by Kevin Street, 24 February 2004 - 03:43 PM.

Per aspera ad astra



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Bush, Same sex marriage, ban

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users