PDA

View Full Version : Here we go again


penchief
06-02-2006, 08:05 PM
I can't believe that with all the pressing issues this country is facing (most of them his doing) that this continues to be one of his priorities.

God help us.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/01/bush.marriage.ap/index.html

Bush to promote gay marriage amendment

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat -- Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- says he will vote for it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the amendment on May 18 along party lines after a shouting match between a Democrat and the chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania. He bid Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, "good riddance" after Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment and his intention to leave the meeting.

Bush aides said he would be making his remarks on the subject Monday.

A slim majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press from March. But the poll also showed attitudes are changing: 63 percent opposed gay marriage in February 2004.

Those poll results don't reflect how people might feel about amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to legalize such marriages in 2003. A year later, San Francisco issued thousands of marriage licenses to gay couples.

This November, initiatives banning same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. In 2004, 13 states approved initiatives prohibiting gay marriage or civil unions, with 11 states casting votes on Election Day.

Bush benefited as religious conservatives turned out to vote and helped him defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry in 2004. In Ohio, an initiative rejecting the legality of civil unions won handily. The same state tipped the election to Bush.

"The president firmly believes that marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women and has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage," White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.

Bush has lost support among conservatives who blame the White House and Congress for runaway government spending, illegal immigration and lack of action on social issues such as the gay marriage amendment.

Opponents of the amendment objected to Bush promoting a measure they said amounts to discrimination.

"This is fundamentally both a civil rights and religious freedom issue and the president's position of supporting amending the constitution is just dead wrong," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "This is simply to give ammunition to the so-called religious right just to show that the president is still with them."

htismaqe
06-02-2006, 08:22 PM
Gotta pander to that block of voters. The 2006 elections are right around the corner...

penchief
06-03-2006, 07:16 AM
Not only that, but whatever happened to the conservative mantra, "states rights?"

This administration has tried to block states from developing their own methods of delivering pharmaceuticals to their citizens and has also tried to prevent states from setting their own environmental standards.

the Talking Can
06-03-2006, 07:24 AM
Gotta pander to that block of voters. The 2006 elections are right around the corner...

bingo...a flag burning amendment is not far behind...then the issue miraculously disappears until the next election...you'd think the evangelicals would figure out that they're just props for Bush..

patteeu
06-03-2006, 08:49 AM
Gotta pander to that block of voters. The 2006 elections are right around the corner...

While I can understand the (IMO legitimate) sentiment behind this amendment, I agree that this is nothing more than pre-election pandering. And I also agree with those who think it's a bad idea.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 09:42 AM
I don't believe that wording prohibits gay unions...something I believe Bush is for. Bush is not a conservative.

This to me is a state issue...and I feel an amendment federalizes marriage now bringing in a host of other problems.

But I understand why it's being done: 1) one to pander due to an election 2) to beat the left to a potential SC decision which already has paved the way with the Lawrence decision.

I'd rather see the 14 th Amendment go and be narrowed down.

patteeu
06-03-2006, 10:38 AM
I don't believe that wording prohibits gay unions...something I believe Bush is for. Bush is not a conservative.

This to me is a state issue...and I feel an amendment federalizes marriage now bringing in a host of other problems.

But I understand why it's being done: 1) one to pander due to an election 2) to beat the left to a potential SC decision which already has paved the way with the Lawrence decision.

I'd rather see the 14 th Amendment go and be narrowed down.

I agree that it should be a state issue, but you touch on why it has become a federal issue and that is because many of those in favor of gay marriage are trying to use the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment to force the states to accept it. There's nothing the states can do to stop that approach if the federal judiciary adopt that interpretation. In fact, there is very little that the US Congress can do either, short of a constitutional amendment.

I'm with you on limiting the 14th amendment. :thumb:

P.S. Since you haven't been around that long I'll disclose that I'm in favor of gay marriage as a matter of policy but I'm strongly against an equal protection interpretation that forces the issue.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 11:45 AM
I agree that it should be a state issue, but you touch on why it has become a federal issue and that is because many of those in favor of gay marriage are trying to use the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment to force the states to accept it. There's nothing the states can do to stop that approach if the federal judiciary adopt that interpretation. In fact, there is very little that the US Congress can do either, short of a constitutional amendment.

I'm with you on limiting the 14th amendment. :thumb:

P.S. Since you haven't been around that long I'll disclose that I'm in favor of gay marriage as a matter of policy but I'm strongly against an equal protection interpretation that forces the issue.


Actually, there is another option, congress does have constitutional authority to remove whole types of cases from being heard by the SC, as I understand. I believe this congress did invoke that on something. This could and should be one of them.

Since our federal congress has passed no law on this matter, the SC has no right to hear it. The only loophole, I see is that it could be repealed by the next congress should it swing to another party. Not sure if that's easy to undo or what but it seems like most legislation, once it gets in, is harder to repeal.

Also, it's not that I am FOR "gay" marriage per se. Or "gay" rights. IMO that is "special" interest legislation as all "persons" seem to be protected in this country under the Constitution. They do have the right to marry someone on the same terms as the rest of us....to a member of the opposite sex. They want an exemption because of their special or different nature.

This is why I opt to get govt out of the marriage business altogether and make it a private contract, with such contracts enforceable by the state. I guess, then one could run into things such as any illegality being non-enforceable, violations of public policy and unconscionability issues. On a personal level, I prefer this because the militant wing of the gay agenda cannot force it on others with lawsuits and it's more difficult to mainstream. And if it mainstreams, then it's because the people have accepted it on their own and not through force. I tend to think it would run its course with it's own culture simply because they prefer that already to large degree. But the state for thousands of years was never involved in marriage. The other thing I don't want to see is living together couples take advantage of this. If they don't make the committment why should they get the benefits. These are not "rights" per se, as I see it. They are privileges and benefits. Anyhow, I see this as a compromise solution—gettin' the govt out of it. If it's to be a public thing, then
I go with the status quo.

People forget that our federal govt only had authority to even exist via the states originally. Of course there are some things, since I grew up in a more modern era, that I like about the 14th but the left are constantly using the feds too much to enforce laws not based on the values and customs of the people. It's just as facist and just as much running their values, morality ( what is considered right and wrong) as they claim of the right.

Pitt Gorilla
06-03-2006, 02:34 PM
I'm guessing that more than 30% of Americans don't want gays married. You do the math.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 03:11 PM
I'm guessing that more than 30% of Americans don't want gays married. You do the math.

I hate math. But I believe it's more than about 70% that don't want it. I also believe that some are gay ( I know some) and that others otherwise tolerant of them in many ways think it goes too far. I also believe most Americans don't like the idea of marriage no longer being public but private.

Bowser
06-03-2006, 04:43 PM
Call it a herding of the religious right and homophobes everywhere.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 05:31 PM
I'm guessing that more than 30% of Americans don't want gays married. You do the math.
But I believe it's more than about 70% that don't want it.
Pitt is right, Buc is wrong.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" N=487, MoE ± 5 (Form B)

Should Be Valid Should Not Be Unsure
% % %
5/8-11/06 42 56 2


FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 4-5, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).

"Do you favor or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?"

Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
ALL reg. voters 33 55 11
Democrats 45 43 11
Republicans 16 77 7
Independents 38 47 15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 09:17 PM
Please note, I used the word "believe" because the polls I've seen have shown otherwise. Those were in earlier polls which you data also indicates. That still shows more than 30% though. Nothing to sniff at. Shows that constant discussion and reporting is changing attitudes is all.

Pitt Gorilla
06-03-2006, 11:01 PM
That still shows more than 30% though. Nothing to sniff at. Um, that's what I said.

Bush wants to regain support so he goes to the bag of tricks that he knows will work on the simple folk. I don't blame him; he knows how the game is played.

jAZ
06-04-2006, 12:10 AM
Looks like even the moral conservatives aren't buying this stunt... ROFL

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay3jun03,0,5316780.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Gay Marriage Amendment Getting a Presidential Push
Conservatives who think Bush has buried the issue denounce the planned event as a ruse.
By Maura Reynolds and Janet Hook, Times Staff Writers
June 3, 2006


WASHINGTON — The campaign against gay marriage is scheduled to get the full White House treatment on Monday — words from President Bush in front of assembled VIPs and a bank of television cameras.

Such a carefully staged production aims to confer the grandeur of the office on the push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But even before administration officials announced the event, some invitees denounced it as a sham.

"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse," said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. "We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late."

Such comments have raised the prospect that the debate over gay marriage — designed to galvanize one of Bush's most important constituencies, social conservatives — could instead exacerbate the president's political headaches.

Braincase
06-04-2006, 07:27 AM
Count me among those that believe marriage is a religious ceremony and shouldn't be subject to government control.

Sully
06-04-2006, 08:52 AM
Last month James Dobson, the influential founder of Focus on the Family, met privately with key Republicans, including Frist, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner, to warn them about the political consequences of failing to promote issues like marriage. "If you forget us, we'll forget you," he said, according to a GOP House leadership aide who was briefed on the gatherings, but declined to be identified discussing private meetings.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13121953/site/newsweek/

stevieray
06-04-2006, 09:05 AM
Last month James Dobson, the influential founder of Focus on the Family, met privately with key Republicans, including Frist, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner, to warn them about the political consequences of failing to promote issues like marriage. "If you forget us, we'll forget you," he said, according to a GOP House leadership aide who was briefed on the gatherings, but declined to be identified discussing private meetings.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13121953/site/newsweek/

and this is surprising why? why would anyone back something that doesn't support their views?

kind of like you dogging Christians who don't support yours?

Adept Havelock
06-04-2006, 10:11 AM
Yep. Approval in the 30's? Time to trot out the gay-marriage/flag burning dog and pony show again. The Dobsonites will go "oooh, pretty colors....shiny....", vote accordingly, and then wonder what the hell happened to those issues six months after the election.

Just like every other time. :D

stevieray
06-04-2006, 11:51 AM
Yep. Approval in the 30's? Time to trot out the gay-marriage/flag burning dog and pony show again. The Dobsonites will go "oooh, pretty colors....shiny....", vote accordingly, and then wonder what the hell happened to those issues six months after the election.

Just like every other time. :D

Truman's approval rating upon leaving office was 26%.

It will be intersting to see if history repeats itself.

go bowe
06-04-2006, 12:03 PM
was it that low?

i know he took a lot of flack for firing macarthur and for the stalemate in korea, but i didn't know his numbers had sunk that low...

i always thought harry was one of our better presidents...

DanT
06-04-2006, 04:12 PM
was it that low?

i know he took a lot of flack for firing macarthur and for the stalemate in korea, but i didn't know his numbers had sunk that low...

i always thought harry was one of our better presidents...

Truman bottomed out at 22%, but when he left office he was a little bit over 30%. (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Truman) You can find graphs of all of the President's approval ratings since 1937 at this site, which also contains links to the underlying data:

http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2005/11/presidential-approval-in-historical.html

penchief
06-05-2006, 07:43 PM
Truman didn't have the advantage of the complete and utter unity this country experienced after 9/11. Firing McArthur was akin to firing Eisenhower. He took the hit for McArthur's insubordination.

Following 9/11, Bush squandered more national unity and more international goodwill than any president has ever experienced only to turn himself into a pathetic symbol of a narrow ideology that has nothing to do with the virtues that made this country the greatest on earth.

Nobody else but this president could have started out with the political capital he had after 9/11 and turned the United States into the bad guy, worldwide.

It's actually quite unbelieveable.