Bush quits beating around the bush on gay marriage

Well I'm afraid that that pretty much says it all. Bush is trying to win political points by playing games with our nation's constitution, and with the lives of many of the citizens under his governance. All I can say is that if Kerry doesn't stop Mr. Bush this November, then we can only hope that a bullet will.

Call me crazy, but I thought that this provision was already written into our constitution over 200 years ago. I guess full faith and credit just doesn't go as far as it used to.

Good ol' Big-Head-Ted throws in his two cents:

I think that Ted's got it right, there. Judging by the rest of Bush's legacy, however, I suppose that this new distinction will fit right in.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Constitutional amendment? Is he for real? Where is the constitutional amendment for adultery, or premarital sex? Why aren’t there pushes for those? Because they don’t belong in the constitution, and no matter which way the gay marriage issue goes, it doesn’t belong in the constitution. Bush is showboating for the religious right, and as always he is all style no sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't actually see Bush give the press conference, but I'll wager he was either wearing a pair of cowboy boots, or maybe a flight suit at the time. If it passes I'm willing to bet that he'll have a pair of six-shooters strapped to his belt, and he'll start firing them in the air and shouting "YEEEHAW!" and then go to a NASCAR race or something, in order to celebrate. Maybe he'll be so happy that he'll lead us into another war.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The amendment is a critically flawed idea in the first place. The constitution is not a document designed to define the powers of the citizenry, it is a document that describes the powers of the government. Limiting the rights of citizens is outside of its scope, this sort of thing is supposed to be handled by national or state legislature. The only other instance of an amendment like this (forced through on similar rabid religious fanatic grounds) was the prohibition of alcohol, and of course it didn’t belong there, the constitution says what the government is allowed to do, not what the citizens are not allowed to do. It didn’t stand, if this anti-gay amendment is pushed through I don’t think it will stand after the nation has a chance to sober up.

 

ah all i gotta say is the "land of the free"
glad i live in canada.

he brought up the case
we have a standard outlook on marriage or some jazz liek that
and we'll uphold it.

But i wonder if statistics ever show that gay marriages last longer
then hetero.
That man is a quacker

 

Don't you dare pollute my beloved Constitution with this transitory, partisan bullshit, Bushie!

 

I just wish Walter would go on the air with his reasoned, tolerant approach to this issue. I also wonder how Mr. Cronkite will look in an orange jumpsuit.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cronkite's voice matters on this. The only group, age-wise, that supports a Constitutional Amendment (in my very limited and informal poll of friends my age and their parents) to define marriage is those over 65, a group that listens to Walter with some reverence. People my age, those 40ish and under, are just livid at this, conservative and liberal alike. Even the College Republican crowd, when the aren't enjoying their "I'm the next Karl Rove" fantasies of dirty trickstering, are bemused at the idea of amending the sacred Constitution to prohibit gay unions, of all tawdry and trivial things.

We've all grown up with a popular culture that exposes people to homosexuality and few of us don't know personally someone who is gay. These aren't "sodomites" they are human beings. Sure, a lot of them would like gays to stay "in the closet" and believe they are going to hell, but that goes for more than a few others and we don't use the Constitution to deal with their "issues."

There he goes; pandering to reason again.

This is just a desperate ploy - another distraction employed by the "make war, not love" administration. And his support for this bogus constitutional amendment once again underscores the great divide between his "compassionate conservative" rhetoric, and his real world antics.

:m: Peace.

 

Bush is doing this because he has actually ostracized his base after the budget mess. Conservatives were not happy with Bush, and they were showing it. I think it was very politically prudent for Bush to do this, but this shows the very sad state that the United States is in today. Canada (thankfully we are civilized) has accepted the fact that in order to maintain our constitution, and live to our secular, enlightment values we have to understand that equality is the epitome of civilization. I am really sick and tired in the US (like Larry King last night), when the anti-gay marriage cabal starts screaming the logical fallacy of the slippery slope, "will incest, bestiality, etc. be allowed as well" obviously not, the ppl/things involved cannot give their consent, thus no relevance. In Canada there isn't this fictitious "slippery slope" nonsense. I think Americans today are being strangled by this movement of the Christian right, and political expediency. It is sad when one of the stalwarts of western civilization (constitution) is being used as a tool to invite bigotry.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Honestly, it'd be an honor to get gunned down by a bling adorned Arnold with MP5K's Akimbo. He wouldn't go down without a fight, though; Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce the beginings of Pink-Delta Force? Militant gay-rights activism has just gone that extra step into domestic terror. (I smell big summer blockbuster here!)

 

Mystech,

"All I can say is that if Kerry doesn't stop Mr. Bush this November, then we can only hope that a bullet will."

Next you will be complaining that the Secret Service is investigating you. Our "free speech" has it's limits ya know.

"Well I'm afraid that that pretty much says it all. Bush is trying to win political points by playing games with our nation's constitution, and with the lives of many of the citizens under his governance."

Funny that you become the rather large hypocrite, AGAIN. I have not read ALL of your posts, but I doubt you ever wrote about judges legislating from the bench. Of course the vast majority of this happens with activist, liberal judges. Whether you agree or disagree with the issue, at least a Constitutional Amendment is the legal and proper way to go about it.

Moosey baby,

“The constitution is not a document designed to define the powers of the citizenry, it is a document that describes the powers of the government.”

Apparently you have never heard of The Bill of Rights

 

Do you know what the word hypocrite means or are you just using it because your conservative talk radio or fox news heroes use it when they are upset? The hype about "Judicial activists legislating from the bench" is silliness. You may have heard of separation of powers, if judges always did exactly what legislatures wanted regardless of constitutionality then we would have a breakdown of the system, judicial review is one of the prime functions of the courts, without it the courts would be nothing but a rubber stamp for the legislature and hence we would not have proper checks and balances.

Also, read the bill of rights again, it defines how the federal government may interact with citizans and states, it is once again not telling citizens what they cant do, this is beyond its scope, it is telling the federal government what it cant do. An amendment designed to limit the rights of the citizenry is completely out of place.

 

*bangs head into wall repeatedly*

Moosey, people like you frighten me more than armed intruders and terrorists.

 

Yes, I know, the uneducated masses should fear people who know how the system is actually supposed to work. We are a threat to all your catchy buzz phrases and sound bites. Would you feel more self satisfied if I just said "Don’t write discrimination into the constitution" like all the hip cats holding the signs are chanting? I'm sure bouncing rhetoric off of rhetoric would be a productive exercise.

 

Yeah, "activist judge" is another beauty from Republican marketing dept. The first time someone repeated that one to me, I asked him how he can tell the difference between an activist judge and a judge making judgments. Of course he couldn’t. An activist is simply one who disagrees with Bush.

 

it is digusting to me how the right uses the term "activist" judges. if you paid attention in your 6th grade civics class you would know the legislative makes the laws, the executive executes/enforces the laws and the judicial is main funcions is to interpret the law. that is one of the very foundations of our government. the attempt by the right to prvent judges from doing their function is just another manipulating power grab. when the rules dont work for bush and his hooligans, they just change them to make thme work.

 

well, not to be too hard on the Republicans, I'm sure when some of Bushes judicial appointees start conservative it up big-time in a few years then the Democrats will remember how well the "Judicial Activists" rhetoric worked for stirring up the republicans, and start using a similar tactic themselves.

 

I doubt that the secret service has the resources or manpower to investigate everyone on the internet who flippantly expresses that they'd like to see Bush shot.

"Well I'm afraid that that pretty much says it all. Bush is trying to win political points by playing games with our nation's constitution, and with the lives of many of the citizens under his governance."

I have no idea what you're talking about here. When did I become a hypocrite? I don't see anything in that quote that runs contrary to anything else I've said, and I stand by it. Bush is trying to play games with American lives by amending the constitution to limit our rights. As for "activist judges" and the implication that their rulings (Only one ruling, really, that in Massachusetts, so I don't know if it's fair to say activist judges, it makes it sound like this is more common) is somehow illegal. That's what judges are there for, it's the way our government is set up. It's so that if the Legislative branch goes crazy and says that you can't have a relationship with another person there is another governmental recourse to have the law repealed. The exact same thing happened last year in the Supreme Court, Texas' sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional, now Massachusetts says that in Massachusetts we can't have that sort of institutional discrimination against homosexuals. Judging by those rulings I'd say that the ideal of American freedom is taking some great steps forward.

As the moose put it, you should go and read the constitution yourself. It outlines how the federal government is to operate and what it can not do, it does not, however say what the citizenry can or can not do. Or if you need a catchy little phrase to help you remember, It says what the government can't do and what the citizenry must be allowed to do, not what the government can do and citizenry can't. It doesn't contain any "Thou shalt not. . ." clauses.

One quick question, are you sure you spelled your name right? Isn't it supposed to be Inane? It really fits you well.

 

Doubtful. Recall how Clinton was plagued by baseless scandals? I don’t see the Democrats doing that to Bush. They just aren’t in the same league. Republicans lie & cheat to get what they want; that’s their whole game plan. The Democrats aren’t faultless but for the most part they play it straight.

 

Then you, my friend, do not understand Echelon. How do you think the CIA was listening to the 9/11 hijackers’ phone conversations on 9/12? Almost every communication that can be recorded is recorded and electronically searched for keywords, including this forum. The statistic I read recently is that enough info to fill the Library of Congress is recorded every second.