Third Party & Independents Archives

Gay Marriage Amendment Shot Down

The Pentagon wants more money for Iraq. A sound immigration policy is non-existent. Iran is angry at us again, and a bunch of other problems need to be addressed. So naturally, the Senate is spending its valuable time debating gay marriage.

Dead in the water:

WASHINGTON - President Bush and congressional Republicans are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage, with events at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — all for a constitutional amendment with scant chance of passage but wide appeal among social conservatives.

Bush said Monday he is "proud to stand with" those who support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The president's remarks Monday were timed to coincide with the Senate opening three days of debate on the issue. Neither chamber, though, is likely to pass the amendment by the two-thirds majority required to send it to the states — three quarters of which would then have to approve it.

"Appeal" is exactly what this amendment is all about. Conservatives need to be reminded every now and again why they elected and re-elected the president who has been anything but a Reagan-style conservative. It didn't matter that the amendment had no chance, at least President Bush can now campaign for his party as a supporter of traditional marriage when the time comes.

Of course, supporters of the amendment deny it having anything to do with the upcoming election, one that Democrats desperately need to turn out in their favor. Republicans are just as desperate, as they need a strong turnout to retain their majority status in either or both houses. If the Democrats lose again they might as well just pack up and go home.

Is gay marriage something that should be debated? To me it just seems like a bad time when we have more pressing issues to worry about. But being that we're in an election year, these are the kinds of issues that are going to get attention whether we like it or not.

It's always good to see passionate debate. But it's never fun endure the typical rhetoric from the minority party.

"A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple," said Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.

This is why I can't stand the current Democratic leadership. Instead of rationally debating the issues, key players in the Democratic Party play the bigotry card, and Kennedy does it chronically. If you thought he was brutal to Samuel "wrong for the country" Alito, just wait until he gets to smear the next Supreme Court appointee.

The Massachusetts liberal is not good for the nation's discourse. By its very nature we may never get everyone to agree on the gay marriage issue, but we certainly don't get anywhere by calling our opponents gay-bashers.

But if anything, at least the amendment is being handled properly - in the halls of Congress. Had it passed, It would have gone to the states for ratification or rejection. While I and most Libertarians are opposed to any amendment that would curtail instead of expand liberties -- this one included -- democracy is at work. We don't need unelected judges determining society's values for us, and sometimes a federal amendment is the only thing that can keep them out of our business.

Posted by Scottie at June 5, 2006 3:31 PM
Comments
Comment #154554
This is why I can’t stand the current Democratic leadership. Instead of rationally debating the issues, key players in the Democratic Party play the bigotry card

Anyone for a “swift boat” ride?

Posted by: womanmarine at June 5, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #154562

Harry Reid on the Senate floor: Cutting right through this crap political ploy, to talk about the real issues the country needs to address.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 5, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #154563

The government being involved in Marriage is illegal since it violates both the seperation of church and state as well as equal protection under the law.

States often passed marriage laws to discriminate against interacial marriages. Clearly we as a society now view that as wrong, yet after this we still entrust government to define what marriage is?!? The state governments should follow the consitution and stick with defining legal partnerships between consenting adults and their children and property. The term “marriage” should strictly be used only by religious organizations.

The issue of legal partnerships is a state issue not a federal issue so congress shouldn’t be passing laws related to marriage at all. What congress should be doing if they are worried about judges that may someday uphold the constitution is to bring the federal laws in line with what the constitution says. Things like the IRS using marriage as a status for filing income taxes, etc should be fixed.

Posted by: redlenses at June 5, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #154569

Scottie, hate to burst your bubble, but the Constitution of the United States does in fact lay down and determine many of our society’s values for us, and the unelected judges are the persons which our forefathers charged with insuring those values are upheld, and additionally, they were charged with interpreting legislation by Congress when conflicts of interpretations arise, granting them the authority to, within these constraints, to determine our society’s values.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #154574

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Playing the bigot card? They want to re-write the constitution to deny even the possibility of marraige to gays. There’s no card. They’re bigots, pure and simple.

I know Bush is making an issue out of this right now just to get votes and distract from all the other things going wrong. But I’m also really sick and tired of wussy Democrats playing it safe, for instance, avoiding a position on this. Denying marriage to gays is bigotry. The values this country has always stood for are freedom, and equality and for all.

Posted by: Max at June 5, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #154575

Redlenses:

The state governments should follow the consitution and stick with defining legal partnerships between consenting adults and their children and property. The term “marriage” should strictly be used only by religious organizations.

Absolutely!!

Posted by: womanmarine at June 5, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #154579

George Bush sucks.

Posted by: james at June 5, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #154631

This debate is not going on so the parties can give rights to homosexuals or take rights away from them.

This debate is going so the parties can do nothing at all while still pandering to their bases.

See also my responses to the Blue Side articles of the same topic.

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 5, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #154661

So what activist judges is W talking about? Ive heard the term so often that Im starting to beleive that there really are activist judges and that the religous whackos are right.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 6, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #154665

j2t2,

The only activist judges I have seen are the ones Bush has appointed to the courts. The Cons are just mad because they hate that the Constitution gives rights to people they hate.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 6, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #154670

If anything the Republicans WANT activist judges—just look at what they want to push through. they want judges that are anti-separation of church state or even powers and that is what they stand for. thus it would take activist judges to accomplish their crankbox christo-fascist nut-ball schemes.

Too bad now neither Karl Rove nor Ken Mehlman can get married.

Alright show’s over, every log cabin Republican get back in the closets!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Novenge at June 6, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #154671

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 6, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #154673

The bottom ticker might be doctored a bit but the “pres. Bush” statement is probably accurate as to what CNN would highlight as what they think of as an “important” message for the unwashed masses to hear and nod to. Every American deserves to be treated with tolerance and respect—garsh doesn’t sound like a dumb mealy-mouthed jingoism to me. CNN server of binge-fotainment pablem to the obediently nodding masses—what the hell does CNN think we come away with? Bush wants tolerance and respect? They’re half the damn problem anyway—what dumb crap to highlight.

Posted by: Novenge at June 6, 2006 2:43 AM
Comment #154675

Not to mention it’s right under the words. “Developing Story”.

Posted by: Novenge at June 6, 2006 2:49 AM
Comment #154715

This is all hot air and no balloon.

Hopefully the Republicans will wake up and realize they’ve been had.

Everyone else already knows it isn’t just a bad dream.

Posted by: Rocky at June 6, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #154761

Wow, an entire thread devoted to discussing why a topic isn’t worth discussing. A tad ironic, don’tcha think?

Posted by: j at June 6, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #154789

If Congress really had any kahonies they’d pass this then go face the voters.
That could get real interesting real fast.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 6, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #154891

Look, it’s the law that we don’t elect judges. They are appointed by the people we elect, and given lifetime appointments so that some political schmuck in congress or the White House can’t force them out over a policy disagreement.

It’s a constitutional check. Party politics can’t yank them out when their majority is out of power, but the congress and the president get to choose who gets in. Aren’t these sorts of checks what libertarians want? Limits on a government’s power to simply impose its will on people?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #154922

Stephen, you are asking for consistency. That’s like asking the Republicans: Are you for State’s Rights or a Constitutional Marriage Amendment? The hypocrisy is absurd on its face.

Sometimes, principles have to take a back seat to real world emergency requiring spontaneous decisions for life or safety. But, we are talking legislation here, one of the most deliberative processes known to the human species outside of scientific endeavors. A Constitutional amendment clearly preempts State’s Rights to define marriage and civil legal contracts. This grotesque dismissal of GOP core principle regarding State’s Rights is what is giving Democrats there shot to regain power.

I hope Democrats are learning this lesson EXTREMELY well. So, far however, all I see is Democrats avoiding any party principals at all so as not to be caught in this GOP type contradiction.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 6, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #155274

What core principles do the Republicans have?

Fiscal Responsibility: Open a credit card in the tax payers names and give them tax breaks (share some of the money they are charing up - how thoughtful of them)

State’s rights? The one thing both major parties agree on is growing the federal government - if you want limited governemnt you can’t vote for a major party anymore. Both parties happily take turns growing the governement and appointing judges that will support this wink, wink, nudge, nudge form of ignoring the constitution.

The only core priciple that Republicans have nowadays is using the government to promote their socially “conservative” ideas. Even that concept is a talking point not a real action - the republicans control all of the governement right now yet they choose not to really push these items, but instead use them to rally their base to vote each election. Thankfully (for them) their base is willing to put “faith” in their elected party members intentions instead of holding them accountable for misleading them.

Posted by: redlenses at June 7, 2006 5:06 PM
Post a comment