Sure. Why not. I don't care if gays get married. It doesn't bother me at all. And a constitutional amendment against it is a despicably r****ded idea. Your turn: why? and do you support a constitutional amendment forbidding them from doing so?
Forget the amendment for a second, I'm still interested to know why he or anyone else opposes gay marriages (if in fact TJW does). I'm still waiting for someone to provide a cogent rationale. It's fun to watch people try to defend bigotry. Unfortunately, it seems TJW knows he can't, which is why he drags in all sorts of non-germane things such as Kerry's stance, Biblical/Christian perspective and the amendment itself to obfuscate the central issue.
He's not going to respond I don't think. He's backed himself into a corner by responding and I think going AWOL (like somebody else I know) is his only option now. Maybe a cameo role with a picture or two though....
Quite right you are. I guess we should all await a cleverly unearthed (or stored on the hard drive?) picture or two of the gay Teletubbie and then the inevitable CAPS LOCK MALFUNCTION.
From the NY Times: February 25, 2004 Putting Bias in the Constitution With his re-election campaign barely started and his conservative base already demanding tribute, President Bush proposes to radically rewrite the Constitution. The amendment he announced support for yesterday could not only keep gay couples from marrying, as he maintains, but could also threaten the basic legal protections gay Americans have won in recent years. It would inject meanspiritedness and exclusion into the document embodying our highest principles and aspirations. If Mr. Bush had been acting as a president yesterday, rather than a presidential candidate, he would have tried to guide the nation on the divisive question of what rights gay Americans have. Across the nation, elected officials and others have been weighing in on whether they believe gays should be allowed to marry, have civil unions, adopt, visit their partners in hospitals and be free from employment discrimination. Except for a throwaway line about proceeding with "kindness and good will and decency," the president's speech was a call for taking rights away from gay Americans. President Bush's studied unwillingness to talk about the rights gay people do have is particularly significant given the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment now pending in Congress. It calls for denying same-sex couples not only marriage, but also its "legal incidents." It could well be used to deny gay couples even economic benefits, which are now widely recognized by cities, states and corporations. Such an amendment could radically roll back the rights of millions of Americans. In his remarks yesterday, President Bush tried to create a sense of crisis. He talked of the highest Massachusetts court's recognition of gay marriage, San Francisco officials' decision to grant marriage licenses to gay couples and a New Mexico county's doing the same thing. He did not say the New Mexico attorney general found that gay marriages violate state law, the California attorney general is asking the California Supreme Court to review San Francisco's actions, and Massachusetts is considering amending its State Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. The president, who believes so strongly in states' rights in other contexts, should let the states do their jobs and work out their marriage laws before resorting to a constitutional amendment. The Constitution has been amended over the years to bring women, blacks and young people into fuller citizenship. President Bush's amendment would be the first adopted to stigmatize and exclude a group of Americans. Polls show that while a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, many would prefer to allow the states to resolve the issue rather than adopting a constitutional amendment. They understand what President Bush does not: the Constitution is too important to be folded, spindled or mutilated for political gain. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/opinion/25WED1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
I'm going to be so happy come November. It's gonna look like the end of Return of the Jedi outside. How could anyone with half a conscience support this guy? He goes against just about every ideal that I was raised to believe this country was about. I accidentally had a debate with my ex-girlfriend tonight about this issue even though I know she's a good person, I don't go looking for fights, I just couldn't help but question why she supported Bush on the issue. She honestly believes gay people are immoral and she couldn't tell me a single good reason why other than she's a good Christian! And then after our "disscussion" which was just me giving reason after reason after reason why its r****ded, she's like "It's okay. I still like you." Ugh. Even if I were especially religious I wouldn't support this. It's so r****ded I hope Bush wears a helmet when he goes to Congress... And rides a segue and falls off. Again.
I have been a life long Republican. I'm so sick of Bush and his feeble, dangerous mind that I'm probably done with that Party for a long time. I even voted straight ticket a few times. I'm just about motivated enough to vote a straight ticket again.
Sounds like Jr's own party doesn't want to touch this issue... ------------------------ President Bush Urges Gay Marriage Ban 18 minutes ago By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - President Bush wants quick election-year enactment of a constitutional amendment prohibiting gays from marrying each other, but Republicans in Congress are not rushing to heed his call. After Bush's announcement Tuesday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said it would take time to gauge the level of support in Congress for a constitutional amendment. He suggested the difficulty of passing one may cause lawmakers to take a different approach to preserving marriage as a solely man-woman union. "We don't want to do this in haste," DeLay said. ------------------------------- Several GOP lawmakers said they would prefer to see Congress take a different route rather than amend the Constitution. Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000, said he doesn't support a constitutional amendment. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary," he said. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the matter should be left to the states, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue. With some conservatives wanting a broader approach than Bush supports, and others opposing federalizing the issue, DeLay said it's "going to take some time" to unify those groups and examine other options. "Constitutional amendment — I believe that is the ultimate remedy left for the Congress," he said. "We are looking at other ways of doing it." The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group, worried that Bush risks alienating the 1 million gays and lesbians who voted for him in 2000 by pushing for the constitutional amendment. "We believe that this is a move to start a culture war, fueled and pushed by the radical right, that will end up in George Bush's defeat, and defeat for a lot of good Republicans who are with us on equality," Mark Mead, the group's political director, said in an interview with AP Radio. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...n_go_pr_wh/bush_gay_marriage&cid=544&ncid=716
Man, there sure are a lot of bigots in Congress. Apparently liberals can be bigots too...who would've guessed? Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse' "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.". YEAS--85 Abraham Republican Michigan Ashcroft Republican Missouri Baucus Democrat Montana Bennett Republican Utah Biden Democrat Delaware Bingaman Democrat New Mexico Bond Republican Missouri Bradley Democrat New Jersey Breaux Democrat Louisiana Brown Republican Colorado Bryan Democrat Nevada Bumpers Democrat Arkansas Burns Republican Montana Byrd Democrat West Virginia Campbell Republican Colorado Chafee Republican Rhode Island Coats Republican Indiana Cochran Republican Mississippi Cohen Republican Maine Conrad Democrat North Dakota Coverdell Republican Georgia Craig Republican Idaho D'Amato Republican New York Daschle Democrat South Dakota DeWine Republican Ohio Dodd Democrat Connecticut Domenici Republican New Mexico Dorgan Democrat North Dakota Exon Democrat Nebraska Faircloth Republican North Carolina Ford Democrat Kentucky Frahm Republican Kansas Frist Republican Tennessee Glenn Democrat Ohio Gorton Republican Washington Graham Democrat Florida Gramm Republican Texas Grams Republican Minnesota Grassley Republican Iowa Gregg Republican New Hampshire Harkin Democrat Iowa Hatch Republican Utah Hatfield Republican Oregon Heflin Democrat Alabama Helms Republican North Carolina Hollings Democrat South Carolina Hutchison Republican Texas Inhofe Republican Oklahoma Jeffords Republican Vermont Johnston Democrat Louisiana Kassebaum Republican Kansas Kempthorne Republican Idaho Kohl Democrat Wisconsin Kyl Republican Arizona Lautenberg Democrat New Jersey Leahy Democrat Vermont Levin Democrat Michigan Lieberman Democrat Connecticut Lott Republican Mississippi Lugar Republican Indiana Mack Republican Florida McCain Republican Arizona McConnell Republican Kentucky Mikulski Democrat Maryland Murkowski Republican Alaska Murray Democrat Washington Nickles Republican Oklahoma Nunn Democrat Georgia Pressler Republican South Dakota Reid Democrat Nevada Rockefeller Democrat West Virginia Roth Republican Delaware Santorum Republican Pennsylvania Sarbanes Democrat Maryland Shelby Republican Alabama Simpson Republican Wyoming Smith Republican New Hampshire Snowe Republican Maine Specter Republican Pennsylvania Stevens Republican Alaska Thomas Republican Wyoming Thompson Republican Tennessee Thurmond Republican South Carolina Warner Republican Virginia Wellstone Democrat Minnesota NAYS--14 Akaka Democrat Hawaii Boxer Democrat California Feingold Democrat Wisconsin Feinstein Democrat California Inouye Democrat Hawaii Kennedy Democrat Massachusetts Kerrey Democrat Nebraska Kerry Democrat Massachusetts Moseley-Braun Democrat Illinois Moynihan Democrat New York Pell Democrat Rhode Island Robb Democrat Virginia Simon Democrat Illinois Wyden Democrat Oregon
The late Paul Wellstone is on that list. May his soul rest in peace without liberals calling him a bigot.
This issue is one that really troubles me. In many ways, it's a non-starter. From this Christian's perspective, homosexuality is something God isn't cool with. From my reading of the Bible I find that infinitely clear...in fact, far clearer than I find many other things in scripture. Having said that...that's an offshoot of MY faith...not necessarily the faith (or absence thereof) that other people who call themselves citizens of the United States share with me. So in some ways, I see the argument that it's entirely irrelevant if we're talking about marriage rights as really nothing more than a legal contract. I'm not saying that's what I believe marriage to be, and it damn sure isn't what my marriage is about....but, again, not all of us share that view. I think Christians are going gung-ho at this thing in a way that Christ would kinda shake his head at, I think. I realize that sounds insanely presumptuous, but it is how I understand my God to be. I'm not saying Christ would be saying, "yeah, you two guys should get married," but I'm saying the approach right now is entirely legalistic. The focal point of Christ was always the heart...separation from God begins with the desire to follow our own way instead of His. So if guy x and guy y are living together and having sex, there is, again from my reading of scripture, a very active rebellion against God that is continual. Saying that we as a society should not allow for the same contractual rights to pass between them that we allow for husband and wife...I'm not sure that's an issue that Jesus would spend much time on. As I've said before, I don't think he would hesitate for an instant to point out to heterosexuals and particularly to the church that when they get this marriage thing down, then maybe they can start dictating it to others. Bottom line....I'm find myself saying, "Constititional amendment??? really??" We want an amendment defining religion amidst amendments about term limits, qualifications for senators and the Bill of Rights themselves?? I'm just struck with that as seeming out of place.
Max, how else do you propose stopping the runaway train that is activist judges who are rewriting the laws, instead of interpreting them?
I guess you are not intelligent enough to know the difference between defining marriage for an "act of Congress" and defining marriage for every single citizen of the United States, eh? Too bad. I feel sorry for the students you tutor. Using your convoluted sense of logic, they are obviously well on their way to flunking their next TAKS test.
that's a good question. i'm not sure. i just don't feel strongly enough about this issue, personally, to say, "hey...let's amend the Constitution." if others feel strongly about it, then it will come to pass....and i think it's entirely possible that it will come to pass.
I'm stilll waiting on your answer. Why do you oppose gay marriage? And do you support a constitutional amendment banning such?
I tutor high school drop-outs and troubled youth preparing for the GED. I suggest that you do not denigrate this service, as I have helped many youth work towards their goals of bettering themselves.
I'm stilll waiting on your answer. Why do you oppose gay marriage? And do you support a constitutional amendment banning such?
Sam, I see you ganged up on me after I retired for bed last evening. Very cowardly of you. Sorry I didn't stay up all night hitting F5 on my screen to see if you posted so that I could immediately respond. My decision is a personal one. Sam, do you go to church? If so, which church do you attend? You're Catholic, right?
I'm stilll waiting on your answer. Why do you oppose gay marriage? And do you support a constitutional amendment banning such?
