Gay Marriage Issue = Political Pandering

[monsoon]

Would you say the same if a Democate voted for the amendment?

Not to pick bones with you Metro, but I don't see any "facts" to support your statement in the above post.

Give me the name of one Republican Senator that is speaking out against the President and the Republican leaders of the Senate for attempting amend the constitution to forbid rights to Gays. I can give you plenty of Democrats that will. This is written in English. This is a fact. Give me the names of the Democratic Senators that is speaking in support of Bush on this matter. I don't think you will find any. Barring that, then I believe everything I have said is correct.

The republicans have become a party that panders to hate, religious extremism, and the worst in people They are unable to run on the miserable record they have had since 2000 so instead they intend to distract people from that by bashing demographic groups in the USA. When a President proposes to amend the Constitution to make sure the States can't decide amoungst themselves what state rights people should have, then you have a President and a Party that is corrupt and will do anything to hold onto their power.

Lest we forget, marriage is a state institution, not a federal one. People who that taken the time to understand this significant difference should be outraged even if they don't support gay marriage. It is none of the Federal Governments business. Republicans claim they are for less government interference yet here is the President attempting to do just that because it suits his needs.

The President and the Republican Senate are not serving the people, they are serving themselves.

[runawayjim]

Give me the name of one Republican Senator that is speaking out against the President and the Republican leaders of the Senate for attempting amend the constitution to forbid rights to Gays. I can give you plenty of Democrats that will. This is written in English. This is a fact. Give me the names of the Democratic Senators that is speaking in support of Bush on this matter. I don't think you will find any. Barring that, then I believe everything I have said is correct.

The republicans have become a party that panders to hate, religious extremism, and the worst in people They are unable to run on the miserable record they have had since 2000 so instead they intend to distract people from that by bashing demographic groups in the USA. When a President proposes to amend the Constitution to make sure the States can't decide amoungst themselves what state rights people should have, then you have a President and a Party that is corrupt and will do anything to hold onto their power.

Lest we forget, marriage is a state institution, not a federal one. People who that taken the time to understand this significant difference should be outraged even if they don't support gay marriage. It is none of the Federal Governments business. Republicans claim they are for less government interference yet here is the President attempting to do just that because it suits his needs.

The President and the Republican Senate are not serving the people, they are serving themselves.

i want to know when the republican (so-called conservative) party became about bigger government, because that's exactly what they're doing.

and yes, you are correct. john kerry is against gay marriage, but he knows that this is something the states need to decide for themselves, not something that belongs in the US constitution. marriage has never been something that the federal government ruled on. it has always been a state thing. the republicans in congress are behind the president on this one with few exceptions.

[DwntwnGeo]

Give me the name of one Republican Senator that is speaking out against the President and the Republican leaders of the Senate for attempting amend the constitution to forbid rights to Gays.

I was just asking if you would be as angry with a Democrate Senator (if there is even one) that supported the amendment change or didn't support gay marriage as you are with the Republicans.

You seem to have a large amount of anger on this topic. Which I can totally understand as someday I may be in the same situation as you are today. It seems (to me) that are directing all your anger towards the Republicans (which they may desirve) and I wanted to know if a Democrate didn't have the same views as you, if you would hate them as much as you do the Republicans.

I don't want to argue about things, as you have your opinions and/or facts and everyone else has their own opinions and/or facts. I don't support an admendment and I really don't think it will go anywhere.

[MJLO]

You know, I wonder if John Kerry is really against gay marriage, or if that was just a ploy to paint himself more as a centrist during the presidential campaign.

I Understand where Metro's anger is coming from, it's the republican party that is pushing that issue, being that they are using his demographic to hold onto thier power. It makes me seething too. Funny thing about this is, the republicans pushing it know that it's not going to pass. It's pure politics.

[Cotuit]

Give me the name of one Republican Senator that is speaking out against the President and the Republican leaders of the Senate for attempting amend the constitution to forbid rights to Gays.

Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME). But I don't think that invalidates your 'blanket statement,' since banning gay marriage is part of the Republican Party's platform.

[monsoon]

I was just asking if you would be as angry with a Democrate Senator (if there is even one) that supported the amendment change or didn't support gay marriage as you are with the Republicans.

I certainly would be, as it is a reprehensible action. I am angry with the Democrats as well as they have become a spineless party and they let crap such as this happen. They were once the party of the people, now they are the party of nothing. But at least they have not yet succumbed to changing our Constitution to discriminate against people. What is American about that?

[runawayjim]

I certainly would be, as it is a reprehensible action. I am angry with the Democrats as well as they have become a spineless party and they let crap such as this happen. They were once the party of the people, now they are the party of nothing. But at least they have not yet succumbed to changing our Constitution to discriminate against people. What is American about that?

the democrats in that committee did all vote against bringing that amendment to the floor. however, there happened to be 2 more republicans in the committee. all the republicans voted for it and all the democrats voted against it (one walking out after yelling at the idiot republicans).

[MJLO]

What I don't understand is that the federal government had already taken a stance on Homosexual Marriage in '96. Why do they need to take another stance on it? Most states already have the definition of marriage in their law books, why do they need to ammend their constitutions? What difference does it make. With these things already in place, why is the religious right taking a stance on it, again! Is it just that they want to reaffirm that they are against homosexuality? What happens if they do get something like that passed? It makes me question whether or not fundamentalist christians would prefer a society closer to that of fundamentalist muslims. Public hangings of sinners? I understand that these people like to ignore the social advances of the last 50 years, but it does make me fear that if they have their way they will try to take things a step further and tell people what they can and cannot do.

[webbage]

What do you expect from a party that panders in hate, discrimination and bends over backwards to religious zeliots? They can't run on their own miserable record, so they go and bash Gays.

Or maybe it's because the Senate finally got around to debating it, but I guess we could all ignore that.

[monsoon]

Or maybe it's because the Senate finally got around to debating it, but I guess we could all ignore that.

There is nothing to ignore. They know it won't be passed so the only reason for bringing up a bill like this is pander to the religious extremists. It's disingenuious and should be an insult to every voter out there.

Why aren't they debating ethics reform which they keep promising? or a host of other things that would do this country some good.

[runawayjim]

What I don't understand is that the federal government had already taken a stance on Homosexual Marriage in '96. Why do they need to take another stance on it? Most states already have the definition of marriage in their law books, why do they need to ammend their constitutions? What difference does it make. With these things already in place, why is the religious right taking a stance on it, again! Is it just that they want to reaffirm that they are against homosexuality? What happens if they do get something like that passed? It makes me question whether or not fundamentalist christians would prefer a society closer to that of fundamentalist muslims. Public hangings of sinners? I understand that these people like to ignore the social advances of the last 50 years, but it does make me fear that if they have their way they will try to take things a step further and tell people what they can and cannot do.

they need constitutional amendments to fight big bad judges who declare those laws defining marriage as unconstitutional. if it's in the constitution (state or federal), they can't do that.

the law from 96 can be declared unconstitutional, but i don't think with the 2 uber conservative new justices on the supreme court, that it will. also, that law simply says that other states do not have to recognize gay marriages or civil unions from other states. it doesn't say that they cannot recognize them, it simply leaves it up to them, but gives them permission to not recognize it.

[damus]

Let me preface this by saying I am NOT for gay marriage bans.

It really should be left up to the states, unless there is an amendment. It is not in the US constitution, and the US Constitution states that powers (i.e. defining marriage) that aren't given to the state or federal governments in the Constitution are given to the states. Activist judges (a good number of them fit the description...) like to work around that.

[runawayjim]

Let me preface this by saying I am NOT for gay marriage bans.

It really should be left up to the states, unless there is an amendment. It is not in the US constitution, and the US Constitution states that powers (i.e. defining marriage) that aren't given to the state or federal governments in the Constitution are given to the states. Activist judges (a good number of them fit the description...) like to work around that.

exactly. and congress and the president know this. i've written letters to both senators in CT when i was living there and they are both against the amendment and believe it should be up to the states.

i don't consider the judges in MA to be activist judges. they ruled as they saw fit. the state consitution in MA did not define marriage as a man and woman. therefore, they found the law defining it as such to be unconstitutional. and they left it up to the state to amend the constitution to define marriage. i don't think it'll pass the state, i think too many people are afraid of the ramifications.

[civitas]

The republicans have become a party that panders to hate, religious extremism, and the worst in people They are unable to run on the miserable record they have had since 2000 so instead they intend to distract people from that by bashing demographic groups in the USA...The President and the Republican Senate are not serving the people, they are serving themselves.

Politicians "pander" only to the issues and demographic groups that they believe to be representative of a majority opinion. It is that majority that keeps them in office. It does them absolutely no good whatsoever to push issues that only "serve themselves."

The Republican party is apparently willing to risk their political careers on the belief that the majority of voters want the traditional family protected. The Democrats apparently are willing to risk their political careers on the belief that the majority of voters support gay marriage. Only one position, of course, can be correct.

Thomas Jefferson, a father of our democracy commented that, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." The minority is always disappointed. However, Winston Churchill said that democracy, "is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried." Our democracy is a good system that continues to serve us well.

I think it takes the support of 2/3's of the states to ratify a congressional amendment. Let's vote.

[dimebag1980]

Ok I will say I am wrong about any Republican Senator that does not vote for this Amendment in the Senate. Get back to me with the talley once they have finished wasting our time on this issue of hate again. If Republicans were so honorable, they would be outraged and expressing the fact their leaders and their President have even suggested an amendment to the constitution that is obviously nothing more than Gay Bashing to appeal to Religious Extremists. Where are they? I don't think it can be summed up better than that. Call it a blanket statement if you like, but it is also the facts.

I wasn't speaking specifically of Republican Senators, but Republicans in general. That said, career politicians such as Senators do not represent well any political party. In most cases those people are the biggest extremists known... well, aside from Rush Limbaugh.

[damus]

I wasn't speaking specifically of Republican Senators, but Republicans in general. That said, career politicians such as Senators do not represent well any political party. In most cases those people are the biggest extremists known... well, aside from Rush Limbaugh.

Rush... Can you say neo-con? Aside from his insane social conservatism, I'd have to say the best right wing voice on talk radio is actually Michael Savage. Follow that with Laura Ingraham. Bill O'Reilly is the worst, most obnoxious, hypocritical jackass on the dial.

My favorite political voice on the radio is the center-left Don Imus. Best guests, good humor. As much of an a--hole he acts like sometimes, he's one of the few people in the media with a true social conscience. I buy his chips and salsa from the local supermarkets and don't get any other brands. All after tax profits on products bearing his name go to the Imus Ranch for Kids with Cancer. His products are also, in my opinion, the best you can get at the supermarket. These brands are around for the future; when the I-man dies the ranch can still have a stream of income to pay for the services provided for the kids. He's also got a big interest (his wife moreso) in the Autism epidemic despite having no relatives that have had the disease. Count me as a big fan all around of the I-man.

[runawayjim]

so the republican priorities show... this quote off CNN...

"I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one," said Republican Sen. David Vitter.

the full article with more absurd repubican comments.

[Recchia]

so the republican priorities show... this quote off CNN...

"I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one," said Republican Sen. David Vitter.

the full article with more absurd repubican comments.

"We're making progress, and we're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas.

I didn't know that marriage between a man and a woman was so threatened. You'd think by reading these quotes that "straight" marriage was being outlawed or something...

[runawayjim]

I didn't know that marriage between a man and a woman was so threatened. You'd think by reading these quotes that "straight" marriage was being outlawed or something...

i consider straight marriage to be attacked in different ways... gay marriage is not one of them. how about the ridiculous divorce rates. i saw a bulletin on myspace that goes into details of many congressmen's divorces...

the best ones...

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.

[GRDadof3]

I think we need MORE people happily married and committed to one another, not fewer. An amendment to the Constitution forbidding gay marriage is just plain stupid.

[runawayjim]

I think we need MORE people happily married and committed to one another, not fewer. An amendment to the Constitution forbidding gay marriage is just plain stupid.

i am frankly appalled that senators would even waste time on this and try to say that it's a real important issue in this country. one senator said they won't stop bringing it up until they get an amendment (although they'll stop when the democrats get a majority i'm sure).

[Cotuit]

All of New England's Senators voted No*.

Chafee helps defeat gay-marriage ban amendment [ProJo.com 7to7 NewsBlog]

Other senators who joined the Rhode Island Republican in the effort to block the amendment were John McCain, of Arizona; Arlen Specter, of Pennsylvania; and every Republican senator from New England: Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and New Hampshire's John Sununu and Judd Gregg.

Roll Call by state

*Dodd (D-CT) did not vote.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

The Senate may have voted but the battle is far from over...

Shakespeare's "Othello" used to be among the hardest plays to stage in America. Although the actors playing Othello were white, they wore dark makeup, so audiences felt "disgust and horror," as Abigail Adams said. She wrote, "My whole soul shuddered whenever I saw the sooty heretic Moor touch the fair Desdemona."

Not until 1942, when Paul Robeson took the role, did a major American performance use a black actor as Othello. Even then, Broadway theaters initially refused to accommodate such a production. Fortunately, we did not enshrine our "disgust and horror" in the Constitution - but we could have. Long before President Bush's call for a "constitutional amendment protecting marriage," Representative Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia proposed an amendment that he said would uphold the sanctity of marriage.

Mr. Roddenberry's proposed amendment, in December 1912, stated, "Intermarriage between Negroes or persons of color and Caucasians . . . is forever prohibited." He took this action, he said, because some states were permitting marriages that were "abhorrent and repugnant," and he aimed to "exterminate now this debasing, ultrademoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy."

"Let this condition go on if you will," Mr. Roddenberry warned. "At some day, perhaps remote, it will be a question always whether or not the solemnizing of matrimony in the North is between two descendants of our

Anglo-Saxon fathers and mothers or whether it be of a mixed blood descended from the orangutan-trodden shores of far-off Africa." (His zoology was off: orangutans come from Asia, not Africa.)

In Mr. Bush's call for action last week, he argued that the drastic step of a constitutional amendment is necessary because "marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." Mr. Roddenberry also worried about the risks ahead: "This slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation to a conflict as fatal and as bloody as ever reddened the soil of Virginia."

That early effort to amend the Constitution arose after a black boxer, Jack Johnson, ostentatiously consorted with white women. "A blot on our civilization," the governor of New York fretted. In the last half-century, there has been a stunning change in racial attitudes. All but nine states banned interracial marriages at one

time, and in 1958, a poll found that 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites. Yet in 1997, 77 percent approved.

Mr. Bush is an indicator of a similar revolution in views - toward homosexuality - but one that is still unfolding. In 1994, Mr. Bush supported a Texas antisodomy law that let the police arrest gays in their own

homes. Now the Bushes have gay friends, and Mr. Bush appoints gays to office without worrying that he will turn into a pillar of salt. Social conservatives like Mr. Bush are right in saying that marriage is "the

most fundamental institution in civilization." So we should extend it to America's gay minority - just as marriage was earlier extended from Europe's aristocrats to the masses.

Conservatives can fairly protest that the gay marriage issue should be decided by a political process, not by unelected judges. But there is a political process under way: state legislatures can bar the recognition

of gay marriages registered in Sodom-on-the-Charles, Mass., or anywhere else. The Defense of Marriage Act specifically gives states that authority.

Yet the Defense of Marriage Act is itself a reminder of the difficulties of achieving morality through legislation. It was, as Slate noted, written by the thrice-married Representative Bob Barr and signed by the

philandering Bill Clinton. It's less a monument to fidelity than to hypocrisy.

If we're serious about constitutional remedies for marital breakdowns, we could adopt an amendment criminalizing adultery. Zamfara, a state in northern Nigeria, has had success in reducing AIDS, prostitution and extramarital affairs by sentencing adulterers to be stoned to death.

Short of that, it seems to me that the best way to preserve the sanctity of American marriage is for us all to spend less time fretting about other people's marriages - and more time improving our own.

[GRDadof3]

The Senate may have voted but the battle is far from over...

Shakespeare's "Othello" used ...

Short of that, it seems to me that the best way to preserve the sanctity of American marriage is for us all to spend less time fretting about other people's marriages - and more time improving our own.

Did you write that Phillydog? Very nicely done.

[Joope19]

My point was not to define sin. I was always taught ( not that I adhear to it) that the only permissable sexual acts, were an act between a married man and woman. What I was saying, is if that is the "christian standard" that they need to focus on all of it, instead of waging a war against just homosexuals, it's hypocracy by definition. But back to topic on hand, I pray that these people in this base, see this ploy for what it is.

Leave the gays alone, and fix this country. Even if there were nothing else to fix, gays wanting to get married, never threatened anyones family. It hurts NOONE.

Are you serious! "Gays are not hurting anyone" HUH!! The little things are the problems that have destroyed the quality of this country. When they started talking that little kids should be talked to and treated like little adults. And now you have a country of back talking disrespectful youths. Hey she's should have a right to privacy in her room and no parents are allowed to go in until they ask. And now you have kids doing more drugs then before and other harmful things. Hey you have the right to express yourself in anyway you want. And now they don't know where to end and where to beginning. And that can cause harm to them physically.

So what I'm saying is a major lie started of as little white lies. So fix the problem before it happens. Gays getting married is another confusion for the younger kids. NO guy can teach a girl how to be a proper lady. And NO Girl can teach a guy how to be a guy. And I'm speaking in terms of emotionally not physically. Doesn't matter how much they claim "all you need is love". Love is a great component but it's not the beginning or end and it doesn't justify something wrong being right.

So i am glad they are saying that it should be between a male and female. Since people don't know when to quit that is why laws are in place. Gays really think it's all about them and it's not. Where there is lack of order there is confusion.