Bush to Endorse Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

[Sticky]

4 Minutes Ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Tuesday will endorse a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, the White House said.


"The president will announce his support for a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Bush was to make the announcement in the White House Roosevelt Room at 10:45 a.m. EST.




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040224/pl_nm/bush_gays_dc

[Homer12]

1. "All hail the Bigot and Cheif"

[saigon68]

11. Homophobia is now institutionalized

Totally disgusting.

I guess we have no poor to clothe and no hungry to feed.

"CHIMPANZEE McSHRUB" = A thuggish despicable Bigot.

[Rainbowreflect]

13. Close, but shouldn't it be "Bigot & Thief"?

:evilgrin:

[Bertha Venation]

2. Bush to Blow Himself to Please Religious Right.

Film at eleven. :eyes:

[Skittles]

3. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

THIS IS WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

[aquart]

Well, yes, it's Bush.

He has never been on the humane and decent side of anything.

Would you have him tarnish his record?

[calimary]

151. Then you MUST let your congress-critter know how you feel.

Check my new sig line for details. FOR FREE!!! Remind him/her that it's a sad day when we've come to pushing discrimination into our Constitution.

[markses]

4. I guess their POLLING is complete

The integrity administration...:eyes:

If this passes, my wife and I are leaving this country for good. Despicable.

[BOSSHOG]

5. He's a United, Not a Divider

So the grand ole party is going to maintain the sanctity of marriage by preventing people who love each other from getting married. Falwell, Heritage Foundation et al, must have pictures of the one who deserted his military unit and committed corporate crime while at harken. IT MUST REALLY SUCK BEING HIM.

[ewagner]

6. We knew this was coming

The next thing is that the House will ram it through and force it into the Senate to make Kerry and Edwards vote against it.

Viola! Instant wedge issue!

[Atlant]

86. Oh you optimist!

> The next thing is that the House will ram it through and force
> it into the Senate to make Kerry and Edwards vote against
> it. (emphasis added)

Oh you optimist!

Atlant

[damnyankee2601]

198. A wedge between fundies and mainstream America.

Sounds good to me.

[Red State Rebel]

7. How is it any different from Kerry's refusal to stand up for gays?

He doesn't have the backbone to stand up and say he will fight for their right to be married, but expects everyone to get ticked off when * comes out against it.

It's so hypocritical!

[GainesT1958]

18. How is it different? Well...

For one thing, John Kerry wouldn't vote for a Constitutional Amendment DENYING people basic freedoms and rights...nor would John Edwards, IMO...

That's what this "Red Herring Amendment" would do...and the "wedge-issue" impact is why Dub's coming out for it...he's neither a uniter nor a divider...

Dub's a DESTROYER! :grr:

If this is the best they can come up with, it just serves to highlight all of their failures...a point we should WASTE NO TIME in capitalizing upon!

I would vote against it WITHOUT hesitation were I in the Senate--and even for more moderate Dems and Repubs it's an easy call...they can just say it's superflous, citing the "Defense of Marriage Act" of 1996. The rest of us could just say it's just plain wrong, like Prohibition before it...

They can also ask Dub why he couldn't come up with a Constitutional Amendment that would be FOR something positive...a balanced Federal budget, for instance? :eyes:

B-)

[MostlyBlackCat2]

143. So while bush is MIHOP on this issue

Kerry is just LIHOP? is that it?

[Atlant]

185. Ahh -- the same assurances Kerry gave the Anti-War movement.

> For one thing, John Kerry wouldn't vote for a Constitutional Amendment

Ahh -- the same assurances Kerry gave the Anti-War movement, that he
wouldn't vote *FOR* giving the President authority to go attack Iraq.

But when the cards were laid on the table, there was his vote in the
affirmative.

So don't be too sure about Senator Kerry's vote now, no matter what
assurances you believe he's given you.

Atlant

[WLKjr]

197. Your right

I am ashamed that more and more democrats are not comming out and speaking on this. I don't mind what they have to say, just the fact of comming out and saying something is what is needed. I am sick of some of these dem's not having any guts and always dodging the issues at hand by not saying anything particular on them, always giving some double-talk bs.

If you say 'no' becuase of your personal feelings, say so and people will have more respect for you, but also be man/woman enough to recognize that this is America, and Americans are NOT discriminated and divided, we are one people with a common dream, dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that no where in the constitution does it say, "by the way that exludes gays/lesbians".

If you say 'yes', some people may hate you for it, but still respect that you stood your ground and said something about it. Also mention that this is America, and Americans are NOT discriminated and divided, we are one people with a common dream, dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that no where in the constitution does it say, "by the way that exludes gays/lesbians".

I don't care for the lifestyle myself, but I am not homophobic. I also recognize that it is a personal choice and is NONE OF MY BUSINESS. I wouldn't like it if this were vice-versa and you(this isn't directed at anyone in particular) where trying to tell me how to live. I keep this in mind everytime someone tries an argument with me on this issue. To me, gay/lesbian or not, we are all United States Citizens and all have the same rights as the other. End of story.

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. Historic and sad

The first admendment to deny rights to its citizens. :(

[Sticky]

9. I'm not an American

....but I thought the Constitution was sacred. Won't all these tweaks and changes eventually backfire?

[Bonhomme Richard]

21. That's the problem.....

It's a can of worms that shouldn't be opened.
There's an old saying, Once the elephant gets his foot in the tent it's hard to keep the rest out. The repugs are the same thing.

[Sticky]

26. Another question then

If marriage is "a religious ceremony" is there not a rule somewhere about church and state?

[Bonhomme Richard]

32. That is another problem

The distinction between church and state has been already muddled by using the term marriage. This is what created the problem (besides peoples own predjudice). The state should only use civil unions because legally it is a contract, nothing more nothing less.
Gotta stop, I'm beginning to ramble.

[GainesT1958]

27. They would if they were successful...

But this one won't be...Amendments need a two-thirds majority in BOTH Houses of Congress...and in the Senate, at least, I don't see this one making it...perhaps not in the House, either...

We've had stupid Supreme Court decisions compromising civil rights (Plessy v. Ferguson), but never a Constitutional Amendment doing so. Although we HAVE had negative Amendments...

Here's hoping we've learned our lesson from Prohibition (the 18th)...which took ANOTHER Amendment (the 21st) to repeal it and allow us to drink liquor legally again.

I'm sure glad you folks in Canada didn't give in to the Temperance Movement in the 'Teens and Twenties and fall for that crap...after all, during that time we needed to get our booze from SOMEWHERE CLOSE!:eyes:

B-)

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

50. We're Canadians, dammit.

Anybody who tries to take away our beer gets fed to a moose.

[LiberalFighter]

59. gw* took your beer away

Please find that moose

[aquart]

44. Three-fourths of all state legislatures have to ratify it.

And the chances of that would be.......?

It's a flag burning garbage issue.

A distraction because his record sucks.

But flag burning is different from naked bigotry.

Gonna be fun.

[yellowcanine]

10. I guess he is conceding the Log Cabin Pub vote to Kerry

BTW, why are gay pubs Log Cabin Pubs? It is not immediately apparent to me. Do they have their meetings in a log cabin? Was Lincoln gay?

[aquart]

33. They cherish that belief, yes.

[ronnykmarshall]

67. Log Cabin will not vote for Kerry

Like always, they will bend over and take it.

[displacedtexan]

12. It takes about 100 years for an amendment to succeed.

So * gets creds for supporting, while he doesn't have to accomplish anything.

SUPER MAJORITY is necessary. If * could even get a judge past that little factor, we wouldn't be having this debate.

[saltpoint]

14. History usually blanks out leaders who --

-- appeal to the lowest common denominator to lead. Bush is a 1-termer, headed for the same obscurity as Pierce at best, or the infamy of Harding and Nixon more likely.

In the short term, write your representatives in Congress and let them know you don't support this Amendment circus.

[buckeye1]

15. Bully pulpit aside....

Presidents have no say here. Sorry Bush,no power here. Shout up! If you don't like it try stopping it. Keep it going.

[Bonhomme Richard]

16. I thought I read a long time ago that...........

It was a very dangerous thing to add a constitutional amendment. Something about once you open the door to changing the constitution it is very difficult to limit the change to 1 specific amendment. Any kook could come up with an amendment and it would go to a vote.
If that is the case it would put the wingers in a very powerful position.

[SaveElmer]

19. I believe that is if a Constitutional Convention

Is called by the states...which is the other way the Constitution can be amended. Once the convention is formed, it can consider any changes it wishes...it wouldn't be limited to the issue which precipitated it. That would not happen here.

[Bonhomme Richard]

23. Thanks for clarifying it.

[bluedog]

17. holier than thou repigs....

From the perspective of the Constitution, it is a privacy issue, plain and simple.

If we have two consenting adults, I figure what they do and how they do it is up to them. I simply don't care.

Now, what is intersting is that Republicans seem to want no government in business but more government in our social, private life.

how is gay marriage a crime or something that should be banned? This is simply too big a government trying to impose their moral values on the entire country--that's simply unconstitutional and a republican paradox.



want ann amendment??? heres 1

The President shall be elected by the popular vote of THE PEOPLE.

Not the electoral college, and certainly not the Supreme Court.

[GainesT1958]

34. I've been in favor of THAT one...

Since Eighth Grade...in 1973! :D

B-)

[LiberalFighter]

88. A better amendment!!!!!!!!!!!! Would be...

No lineage of the house of Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W Bush shall henceforth be prohibited from ever holding an elected or appointed position in the government of the United States.

[Norquist Nemesis]

20. It's time for me to write my Congressman

and tell them as my representative in Washington, I do NOT support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Also giving them a heads up that if they vote yes, I will not vote for them in the future.

[Beetwasher]

22. He's Doomed

Most people will not support tinkering w/ the constitution to limit people's freedom. Watch him free-fall now...

[Crachet2004]

117. I hope you are right...

and for what it is worth, Orrin Hatch, I heard has entered an amendment to change the no-foreign-born for president clause in the constitution...for Arnold, you know.

Now maybe I am wrong, but don't these two amendments coming at the same time make the GOP seem...well, UNSATISFIED with the Constitution?
Hey, I don't know about anyone else, but I LIKE the Constitution!

Is this a chance for us to wrap ourselves in the flag and defend freedom, like the GOP always pretends to do? With the Hatch amendment, it would seem those scumbags aren't just attacking gays, but are attacking the Constitution itself!

Our candidates should connect the above with the undeniable assault Patriot alone constitutes...and beat them to death with a rolled up copy of the Constitution!

The GOP hates the Constitution! I think I like that. Let freedom ring!

[DuctapeFatwa]

24. If he doesn' get a repub to bring it to congress right away a dem should

Let them vote. Bring it to a head, clear the air.

Let's see which of your servants vote for equal protection under the law and a secular state or if they prefer to make the US a theocracy with separate legal status for certain groups.

[saltpoint]

25. Bush forgot to say if he wants gay marriage banned --

-- on Mars, too.

He plans to spend a pile of money on the Mars project , and a Constitutional Amendment would only apply to the 50 states.

The Fundies will have to pressure him to include Mars as well.

[aquart]

But what about the amendment to let foreign invaders become President?

Arnold wants to run. Orrin Hatch wants Arnold to run. How many amendments do these fine fellows plan to put out there?

Maybe it'll be an amendment twofer.

[maddezmom]

28. on CNNI now, giving his speech

:puke:

[Suziq]

29. But, but . . .

who will the Log Cabin Repukes vote for now??

:grr:

[ronnykmarshall]

68. They'll vote for Bush.

They show up at pride events with their W'04 signs and act like all is well.

[Suziq]

76. Please - someone explain . . .

how gays can ever vote Repuke??? This is a major slap in the face and they keep asking for more?

Now that I think about it, how do women or anyone who works vote Repuke??

:puke:

[Atlant]

89. Some people value money over all else.

The LCRs apparently feel that the Republicans may eventually gas
them, but until then, they'll get great tax breaks.

It's an "interesting" point of view.

Atlant

[David__77]

30. The Democrats MUST stop this, to reiterate.

A lot of riding on this. The Democratic Party has the power to stop this amendment in the congress. It should pass in neither house of congress. Pelosi and Daschle had best make this is priority vote, threatening to cut off party support if Democrats vote "yes." Of course, exceptions can be made for marginal congressional districts and for some southern senators (who aren't retiring). But the point is that we have enough "safe" Democrats to kill this amendment.

[Atlant]

90. I wouldn't count on the brave Democrats stopping this one. (NT)

[tobinov]

120. the language needs to change

same sex couples need to approach this in the language of "covenant" not "contract".

When Bush* uses the "Sanctity of Marriage" line, it is code to the Religious Right and their covenant to God.

I think we could stop these calls for constitutional amendments as first, a violation of the first amendment and secondly, the fourteenth if we can regain control the semantics of this issue and use their terminology against them.

[mondo joe]

31. Why I Think This Will Work Against Bush

Bush has to satisfy two group - the far right and moderates.

I don't think there is an amendment that can please both. The far right will not be content with anything that permits any recognition of same sex couples.

Moderates will be a very hard sell if the language excludes any possibility of any recognition (ie civil unions).

[largato]

35. Smoke

So nice he wants to focus on gay marriage, why should hetero couples only be allowed to endure the happiness and misery of marriage?? Maybe he should focus on the real issues instead of blowing a smoke screen. Why not attend the funeral of a fallen US soldier, or go and try to have truce between the warring tribal factions in Iraq.

He is just a puppet appealing to the conservative so called "God abiding" citizens, and the true enemy. Corporate America.

[Beetwasher]

45. Great First Post!

Welcome! You certainly get it...

[DavidMS]

69. Hello!

Welcome to DU!

I believe that an anti-gay marrage amendment is unlikely to pass but it will excite Bush's Fundy base.

[smb]

77. Exciting!

it will excite Bush's Fundy base

Anything to do with ho-muh-seck-su-uls excites these people -- why is that?

[bluedog]

70. also

the income tax base....these gay couples could get the same benefits that married coouples get and this would lower the tax money the government would get....anyone ever think of that???

[Ganja Ninja]

92. Exactly! We don't need a constitutional amendment.

And if an amendment would fly we don't need to make it a presidential issue. Any Amendment would take years to pass all the hurdles so if the gay marriages that are happening right now are in fact legal and constitutional it will be too late to do anything about them. It's just blowing smoke to distract people from the looting of the treasury that's going on as we speak.

[Occulus]

115. Well said.

Welcome to DU! :wave:

[aquart]

36. He's interrupting a soap in sweeps here in NY.

For a non-emergency political speech.

[Endangered Specie]

37. Hail der Fuehrer has finally spoken...

Good thing they dont let me play the music where the president goes, else Id be working on Die Horst Wessel Lied, for his next stop

[SaveElmer]

38. This has everything to do with Electoral Politics

And nothing to do with preserving marriage. He is hearing the complaints from the Neanderthal wing of his party about his high spending etc. This is only designed to placate them.

This will never pass...I don't even think all Republicans will vote for it. I also think it will backfire. This may calm the right wing base, but it will fire up the Democratic base even more. If there were any doubts about Kerry among the Democratic base, this will put them to rest. This also pushes Nader further into irrelevancy

[Spentastic]

39. He now has a metaphorical gun pointed at his temple

If he continues with this idiocy he'll be pulling the trigger.

If this issue is debated publicly he'll get hammered.

[Tank in Texas]

46. Looking Forward to the Debate

I cannot wait for this issue to be debated and settled the only way it can be- full marriage rights will be given to all people in the United States and this land will become a fairer place.

Bush has opened a Pandora's Box by focusing on this issue. Now we will be able to have a real national discussion and to draw some distinctions between those for and against and quit ignoring the elephant in the room. I predict that you'll start to see opinion polls tighten where gay marriage is concerned. Democrats can no longer sweep this one under the rug folks. We need to "come out" as the party that will uphold the sacred responsibility of the majority to uphold the rights of the minority.

[bushisanidiot]

40. Way To Go Prez. "Uniter"

prez. dipshit is clearly going for the homophobe vote.. as if he didn't already have it.

keep driving the log cabin repukes out of your camp. give a clear message that the repuke party doesn't tolerate tolerance. that just means more votes for us!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[jayfish]

41. Take Heart DU'ers

I just ran up to the store to grab some sweet elixir and had a chance to hear *'s speech. When I got back to the office, I ran to a colleagues office to see if she had her radio on. She is someone who I would place at the middle-left of the political spectrum. She was not a Bush supporter but would probably have voted for him. (she agrees with GWII regardless of the reasons). She did not have her radio on so I said "Oh, so you didn't get to hear from our illustrious CIC". I told her that he just proposed a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages. This was her response. "Well that does it for me then".

* just buried himself.

Jay

[Neshanic]

42. The Zombie has spoken.

General Electric/NBC went straight,(no pun intended) to Tom the "White House dinner pal" Brokaw and house whore Russert. On their game today, they stated the sun rose in the east.

[prolesunited]

43. They are such f*ing hypocrites!!!

What happened to states rights and local control? What about individual rights and not having the government regulate your life or social policy? :mad: :mad: :mad:

If libertarians continue to support these people after this, I don't see how they could use this label.

BTW, have you seen americanstranger's video set to "Let Love Rule" by Lenny Kravitz. It's awesome! Take a look:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic...

Tell me, how does this threaten marriage?

[Bonhomme Richard]

47. The average american doesn't look at gays like they used to.

Since more and more gays have "come out of the closet" there are not many families that have not been affected. Just about everyone knows a gay person personally. This puts a face to the predjudice and makes it extremly difficult to maintain hatred. I also think the average american would go along with civil unions. The term marriage is a red herring.

[mondo joe]

48. 38 States Needed to Ratify - Where will they Fall?

Anyone have any thoughts on which states will ratify and which will decline?

[macdevo]

57. A lot of states might vote for it

Here in Pennsylvania, they will vote for it.

Most southern states will vote for it. About half of the mid-westeern states will tooo.

States like California, New York, Most of New England will vote against it.

But this is a debate which won't end soon. It takes years to get an amendment passed. Even after *'s gone.

[LiberalFighter]

62. Especially if they don't have a deadline for the states to pass it by

[mondo joe]

65. But only 13 states needed to block it

Surely at least 13 states would be opposed to this.

[CivilRightsNow]

66. Possibilities

Ratify-
Texas
Mississippi
Louisiana
Georgia
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah
West Virginia
Wyoming
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Hawaii
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Virginia

Decline-
Alaska
Arizona
California* (california could go either way- depends on the socal mobilization)
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Mass
Maryland
Maine
Montana
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Nevada
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington

[Atlant]

93. Vermont will ratify. They're Republican-controlled right now. (NT)

[mondo joe]

99. Is it a given that repubs will uniformly support it ?????

I think there are repubs who might oppose gay marriage but would not support an amendment.

And for that matter I'm confident there are dems who will support it.

[Atlant]

101. It's a given in Vermont for now.

This is the reactionary government elected as a result of Howard Dean
having signed the Vermont Civil Unions bill.

It's almost a certainty that they'd do *ANYTHING* to end what they
perceive as this plague (of allowing any human being to marry any
other human being, even human beings whom they believe their God
would not approve of).

Atlant

[ButterflyBlood]

171. not quite

the state House has a two seat majority for the Republicans, but two independents (don't know where they sit) and 4 Progressives, a far left party. The Senate has a Democratic majority, 19-11. I doubt Vermont will. Neither will New Jersey, and probably not Minnesota.

[Atlant]

95. NH might ratify. We're definitely Republican-controlled, but with...

NH might ratify. We're definitely Republican-controlled, but with
a string Libertarian bent. Still, I'd say 75% odds we'd ratify.

Atlant

[Atlant]

107. I could imagine Mass ratifying. We'll see how their current debate goes.

If it were up to Finneran (Speaker of the Mass House), it'd have
been done ears ago. Luckily, it's not entirely up to him, although
if you vote against him, you may find your House office moved to
Roxbury.

Atlant

[NewJerseyDem]

177. New Jersey won't ratify

The legislature just passed a domestic partnership bill. The legislature is under democratic control and there are several moderate GOPers who I think would oppose it. This is a state where one poll showed 55% support gay marriage and another said a narrow plurality supported it. I doubt the legislature would go against public opinion and support ratification if it reaches the legislature.

[bluedog]

49. he flip flopped since 2000

Against gay marriage, but leave it to the states

Q: So if you have gays working for you, that’s fine and you don’t have a problem-you’d appoint gays in the Cabinet and so forth.
A: Well, I’m not going to ask what their sexual orientation is. I’m going to put conservative people in the cabinet. It’s none of my business what somebody’s . Now, when somebody makes it my business, like on gay marriage, I’m going to stand up and say I don’t support gay marriage. I support marriage between men and women.



Q: So therefore if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it.

A: The state can do what they want to do. Don’t try to trap me in this state’s issue.
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000

http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Civil_Rights.htm

[skippysmom]

51. Bring it on,

asshole.

Let's see who the real bigots are.

[macdevo]

52. It's the right decision

There has to be an amendment one way or another. We can't have each state setting it's own definition, and bickering among one another.

There has to be an amedment one way or another so everyone on the same page.

[Beetwasher]

54. Are you nuts?

What the hell are you talking about?

You think there should be an ammendment limiting only a certain segment of the population's freedom to pursue happiness?

Why not an ammendment banning pork products? Some religions have a problem w/ that too...

[macdevo]

55. No, that's not what I'm saying

I think there has to be an amendment defining marriage in some way or another. IF you don't drfine it than anyone can get married. Tom Green out in Utah can marry his multiple wives, a woman can mary more than one man.

It has to be defined some way, and there has to be boundries. If there is an open debate about it, and we decide to define marriage as between two PEOPLE, then that will be good.

[Beetwasher]

58. Wrong

It does not have to be defined in any way by the state and it should NEVER be. Why does one religion get to define what marriage is for me? Individuals get to define their personal, private relationships the way they choose. The state has no business making those kinds of decisions and intruding into people's lives in that way. That's just plain fucked up.

FYI, polygamy is practiced in this country and it's proteced because it's part of their religion.

[macdevo]

60. Polygamy IS NOT legal

Polygamy is NOT legal. No major organized religion supports it currently. Tom Green from UTAH is going to court on the same grounds that the gay rights groups are fighting for gay marriage rights.

When economics comes into it, we logically have to limit marriage to some boundries, or anyone or any group will wanting to marry (polygamy or polyandry) will expect the same benefits offerd other groups.

If we are willling to alllow polygamy or polyandry then that's okay, we need to discuss it and set boundries somewhere.

[Beetwasher]

71. It's Practiced by Mormons

and they are not prosecuted. I never said it was legal, only that it's not prosecuted and they get away with it because it's part of their religion.

Gay marriage is not polygamy nor is it in the same category anyway in which the question of benefits arise.

My personal POV is live and let live. If you're not hurting anyone do whatever you want.

The boundaries should ALWAYS be set to the default to PROTECT and individuals freedom, not restrict it. Banning gay marriage is a civil rights issue in which only CERTAIN citizens will be denied their right to pursue happiness.

A constitutional ammendment defining marriage (in ANY way) is idiotic and intrusive. The State should not be in my bedroom or in my private, personal relationships.

[aneerkoinos]

182. the lingo

polyandry - marrying many men
polygyny - marrying many women
polygamy - marrying many what ever

[Tank in Texas]

61. Protected Polygamy

Could you please show me the legislation regarding the protection of polygamy in the U.S.?

I agree wholeheartedly that this is not the business of the state. Desiring that marriage be for a man and a woman only is an issue for the church. If you don't want to recognize them in your church fine. Civilly though, it is an issue due to property rights and rights of visitation in hospitals, etc.

[Beetwasher]

73. Never Said there Was legislation

only that it's practiced and that they get away with it.

[Tank in Texas]

125. Your Exact Words

"FYI, polygamy is practiced in this country and it's proteced because it's part of their religion."

Those were your exact words. In fact, polygamy is against the law in the United States and there are people who have been arrested on bigamy charges who practice it as part of their religion.

[Beetwasher]

127. Tell It to all the mormons who practice it

and aren't arrested. You asked me for the legislation. I never said there was legislation. Just that they are practicing it and are using the religious argument to protect themselves from prosecution. Take your beef up w/ the State AG of Utah...

Please show in my exact words where I said they were protected by legislation? Never said it, and never meant to imply it.

The fact remains that MOST of the Mormons who practice polygamy are NOT arrested or prosecuted.

[Tank in Texas]

130. Where Are They?

Tell me there names and they WILL be arrested...

write me:

James Ashcroft
Office of the Attorney-General
Washington D.C.

:evilgrin:

[Beetwasher]

131. LOL!

I actually don't think he'll be touching them...They're BIG Repub supporters don't you know! He's got "better" things to worry about and prosecute anyway, like people selling bongs on the internet. ;-)

[LiberalFighter]

85. Each state doesn't have their own definition?

How about the earliest age each sex is permitted marry?
Not the same in each state.

How about parental consent?
Not the same in each state.

How about residency requirements?
Not the same in each state.

How about blood tests and other tests?
Not the same in each state.

How about between family members?
Not the same in each state.

How about requirements of the officiant? (The person performing the marriage)
Not the same in each state.

Members of the clergy permitted to perform marriages?
Not the same in each state.
(Many use the phrase "Any ordained minister of the gospel who is in good standing with his or her church may perform marriages." That restricts other members of the clergy from officially performing marriages.)

How about guidelines that members of the clergy must follow?
Not the same in each state.

How about capacity to consent?
Not the same in each state.

How about proxy marriages?
Not the same in each state.

[Ravy]

112. It is not the government's place to interfere with religious practices.

In so long as they maintain marriage is a religious practice (which I agree with) the government has no right to impose such a rule.

Marriage should, and could, be separated from the debate. In my opinion, marriage should not appear in ANY governmental ruling or laws.

The government should concern itself with civil unions, and civil unions alone. We should say that marriage is one form of civil union, but not the only way to become civilly united.

That way, gay couples could enjoy the legal rights that currently only married couples enjoy in most states by becoming civilly united (which has the support of the majority in recent polls).

If a gay couple wants to become "married", then they should go to a church that will perform the religious service to do so, and the government should recognize them as they do all other married couples, as civilly united. However, you could also become civilly united by a justice of the priest, or ship captian, or whomever is now entitled to perform such services.

We should work to differentiate the terms. It is the only way to add common sense to this explosive and divisive issue.

[Mr.Green93]

53. call for a Constitutional convention

A call for a Constitutional convention would stop the momentum for an amendment vote and could provide other benefits.

[Bridget Burke]

129. No, that's a dangerous idea....

With these nuts in charge,who knows what damage they might do to the Constitution? Revoke the Bill of Rights (except for Amendment #2)? Prepare the road for Arnie's presidency?

As it is, there's a good chance this idiotic amendment will die a slow death.

[CivilRightsNow]

56. I think you all should get out more....

You'd be quite surprised at what IMHO the majority of those that I come into contact with feel about the gay marriage hooplah. Even my liberal straight friends have no desire to see gay "marriage" become a reality.

Marriage...

For thousands of years it has been between a man and a woman. THOUSANDS of years. In non religious societies like the pagans.. the romans (who even condoned homosexuality much more then we do in the present day) there still was never marriage between two people of the same sex.

If two people of the same sex can get "married", I see no reason why a person has to even marry in species.. or why polygamy could be held as illegal. Polygamists and beastiality specialists.. get ready! Your day is coming too!

I love that this party can get behind something like this. But let's take the war on drugs that has been imprisoning nonviolent good people in the millions for 50 years now... that has been ruining lives and families...

Screw them, let them rot in jail. Let their civil rights to do with their body what they wish go down the toilet.. but yeah, gay marriage is a fight that really needed this prominence right now. Every other civil rights movement didnt have to work for years.. for decades to change the public opinion.

But you guys are here, and you're queer and you want every damn thing you can get right frigging now. It's your right!!

As a woman still dealing with the glass ceiling, with screwed up ideas of beauty and gender roles.. and oh so much else... 40+ years after the equality movement really swung into full gear, I dont feel an iota of sympathy for this blatent power grab and it is doing nothing but alienating a whole subsect of people who once had sympathy for this cause. You should hear why my african american friends have to say about it.. and just how much they appreciate the gay and lesbian movement trying to coopt their civil rights struggle and make it seem like they are one and the same..

[adamblast]

74. Sigh. Where to start with your bigoted rant...

You seem to feel there's some contest going on between women and blacks and gays, and--oh, no!--the gays are making some progress when it's still *my* turn, not theirs!!

First off, your notion of history is completely biased. Same-sex coupling and love-relationships have been around as long as the human species. Marriage has been for "heterosexuals only" in this and most cultures, but by no means *all*. And since when has "tradition" been the measure of justice? I guess women and blacks better stop trying to improve their lot, as well...

Your comments about bestiality and polygamy barely deserve a response. For one thing, animals cannot give fair consent. Polygamy, like incest, raises a host of other issues.

*We're* talking about 2 people--a couple-- who are already in a committed lifelong relationship, perhaps with children, but whose family is *already* being discriminated against.

Fighting for gay rights doesn't take away from any other cause. If your focus is elsewhere, terrific. If you have moral or religious objections to homosexuality, fine for you.

But keep your ugly mitts off the Constitution. And the Democratic party, dearie.

[ronnykmarshall]

81. With post like that previous one...

you really find out who your friends are.

[CivilRightsNow]

141. Bigotted cause I have an opinion which disagrees.. I see.

You seem to feel there's some contest going on between women and blacks and gays, and--oh, no!--the gays are making some progress when it's still *my* turn, not theirs!!

Nope, Im not one of the endless gay or lesbian speakers on every news and media outlet comparing their struggles to those of blacks and women. Im not saying we are in a race, Im simply saying that these struggles have taken DECADES and how I feel it is completely pompous that the people I see speaking on this issue somehow feel that they are beyond the reach of public opinion. Instead, they want to take this to every court in every state, *uck the public opinion.. screw education, action and all that jazz! We want it now!

First off, your notion of history is completely biased. Same-sex coupling and love-relationships have been around as long as the human species. Marriage has been for "heterosexuals only" in this and most cultures, but by no means *all*. And since when has "tradition" been the measure of justice? I guess women and blacks better stop trying to improve their lot, as well...

Bull. Nobody said same sex love relationships had not been around for a long ass time.. Nobody said there was a problem with same sex love relationships. What I said is that MARRIAGE had been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time regardless of religion. You say that marriage hasnt been for hetrosexuals only in all cultures? What cultures would that be? Give me a few.

As for tradition being a measure of justice.. Im not saying that it always is. Im simply saying that this is how it has been in every culture since the beginning of time. Nobody is saying that you should not have civil unions.. nobody is saying you cant partner. Even the word marriage is based upon the french word meaning to impregnate. And the french word is based upon two latin terms that mean husband and mother..Marriage throughout history has been a way of carrying on the generations.. it hasnt always been about love or happiness. You want to change the meaning of the word, of it's history. I say, pick another word. Make your own history.

Your comments about bestiality and polygamy barely deserve a response. For one thing, animals cannot give fair consent. Polygamy, like incest, raises a host of other issues.

Really, I find it interesting that you say sex with animals is not a related topic. In 1944 Sweden thought it was and at the same time they removed the laws against homosexual sex, they also made sex with animals just as legal. Tell the hundreds of swedes that practice animal love that animals cannot give fair consent. They will tell you about the animals that show the same sexual signs to them, as they do to other animals.. they will tell you about the animals who initiate sex play. As for polygamy... I dont understand what other issues it raises. If a man or a woman wants to love more then one wife/husband... if that is what makes them happy, if they feel in their heart that they have soooo much love to give in so many different ways that it nessecitiates multiple wives/husbands then what's the problem? What if a man marries a woman who cant have children and they want to have another woman enter their loving relationship and create a big communial family? What if that is what brings them happiness? You say that is an issue? Okey doke.

Fighting for gay rights doesn't take away from any other cause. If your focus is elsewhere, terrific. If you have moral or religious objections to homosexuality, fine for you.

Nobody said it did except the people who are trying to ride the coat tails of other movements and pretend theirs is the same.

But keep your ugly mitts off the Constitution. And the Democratic party, dearie.
It's my constitution just as much as yours and my party, just as much as yours. So Ill keep voicing my opinion, just as loudly as yours.

[mondo joe]

145. To the courts - just like Roas Parks, just like Loving v Virginia

"Instead, they want to take this to every court in every state, *uck the public opinion"

Funny - interracial ws widely opposed but Loving v Virginia went to the courts.

Integration was widely opposed, but it went to the courts.

Should those cases also have rested on public opinion rather than going to the courts?

[kayell]

147. 96% of whites opposed interracial marriage in 1956

when Californias Supreme Court declare bans against interracial marriage unconstitutional in that state. Fortunately so called "activist judges" managed to save us from the tyranny of the majority in the '50s and '60s.

[CivilRightsNow]

157. Loving went 20 years after Perez vs. Sharp

You think that the back log was that long?

You dont think that in those twenty years people had time to become less polarized on the issue? You dont think that public sentiment means anything, eh?

[mondo joe]

163. So do you oppose Perez v Sharp?

"You dont think that public sentiment means anything, eh?"

What do you think the public sentiment was during Perez v Sharp?

And what does it matter, with regadr to Equal Protection?

[adamblast]

162. No, BIGOTTED because you think you're superior to another group.

You clearly think that homosexuals are inferior. Your posts reek of it. You're fighting to maintain your position of heterosexual superiority. You *are* a bigot, plain and simple.

>> Nope, Im not one of the endless gay or lesbian speakers on every news and media outlet comparing their struggles to those of blacks and women. Im not saying we are in a race, Im simply saying that these struggles have taken DECADES and how I feel it is completely pompous that the people I see speaking on this issue somehow feel that they are beyond the reach of public opinion. Instead, they want to take this to every court in every state, *uck the public opinion.. screw education, action and all that jazz! We want it now!

You think the struggle for gay civil rights hasn't been going on for decades? You think you have a monopoly on history? The fight for gay rights is no more sudden, trendy or ahistorical than the fight for women's rights, or the fight for racial equality. They *all* take time, and in many important ways, the struggles never end.

If you think there's no gay rights education or action going on, that's a comment on *you*, not the movement.

And if you think civil rights *should* be subject to the whim of public opinion, you don't understand civil rights at all--in spite of your username.

>> Bull. Nobody said same sex love relationships had not been around for a long ass time.. Nobody said there was a problem with same sex love relationships. What I said is that MARRIAGE had been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time regardless of religion. You say that marriage hasnt been for hetrosexuals only in all cultures? What cultures would that be? Give me a few.

Your attempts to create a heterosexual-only history for the word MARRIAGE won't wash. Gay couples have been considered "real couples" in many cultures throughout time. Most famously in Native American, Egyptian and Polynesean cultures, gay people have held positions of honor and esteem, and their love relationships were considered as worthy as any heterosexual relationships.

On the other hand, marriage as a legal, governmental contract is a fairly modern device, and one which has changed many times over the years. The New York legistlature, for example, was bitterly devided in 1844... over whether the institution of marriage would be destroyed by allowing wives to own property.

>> As for tradition being a measure of justice.. Im not saying that it always is. Im simply saying that this is how it has been in every culture since the beginning of time. Nobody is saying that you should not have civil unions.. nobody is saying you cant partner.

How generous of you. What you *are* saying is this: for the good of society, gay relationships must be kept inferior (and 2nd class) to heteosexual relationships, because... um... because... it's always been that way...

>> Even the word marriage is based upon the french word meaning to impregnate. And the french word is based upon two latin terms that mean husband and mother..Marriage throughout history has been a way of carrying on the generations.. it hasnt always been about love or happiness. You want to change the meaning of the word, of it's history. I say, pick another word. Make your own history.

More empty appeals to tradition. And I can't believe you're seriously trying to trot out the "infertility" argument... As if modern marriage has *ever* been based on the notion of impregnation... Shall we ban contraceptives again? Shall we prohibit childless marriages? Infertile marriages?

No, modern marriage has *always* been about the committed love between two people. It is the conservatives who are trying to change its meaning--trying to restrict it now, in order to fend off the further mainstreaming of gay couples and families.

>> Really, I find it interesting that you say sex with animals is not a related topic. In 1944 Sweden thought it was and at the same time they removed the laws against homosexual sex, they also made sex with animals just as legal. Tell the hundreds of swedes that practice animal love that animals cannot give fair consent. They will tell you about the animals that show the same sexual signs to them, as they do to other animals.. they will tell you about the animals who initiate sex play. As for polygamy... I dont understand what other issues it raises. If a man or a woman wants to love more then one wife/husband... if that is what makes them happy, if they feel in their heart that they have soooo much love to give in so many different ways that it nessecitiates multiple wives/husbands then what's the problem? What if a man marries a woman who cant have children and they want to have another woman enter their loving relationship and create a big communial family? What if that is what brings them happiness? You say that is an issue? Okey doke.

Wow. That's really appalling. Is it because you know you've already lost the battle on gay rights that you feel the need to trot out bestiality and polygamy? I'm surprised you didn't add necrophilia. In any case, gay rights are about gay rights only--your idea that "anything goes" if gay marriage becomes a reality is based on nothing but your own pidgeon-holing of homosexuality as part of a slipper-slope leading to the whole standard "litany of perversions"...

As for polygamy? If they want to try to legalize it, I say more power to 'em. But gay marriage has no more to do with polygamy than did interracial marriage--another unpopular "perversion" just a few decades ago...

>> Nobody said it did except the people who are trying to ride the coat tails of other movements and pretend theirs is the same.

Every civil rights struggle is different, and yet they all share things as well. I compare them *when appropriate*. No one is "pretending they're the same." You, on the other hand, are trying to discourage consideration of gay rights as a legitimate civil rights issue, which again says lots about *you*.

>> It's my constitution just as much as yours and my party, just as much as yours. So Ill keep voicing my opinion, just as loudly as yours.

Indeed. In fact, you seem to think they are yours *more* than some folks. And yes, you're entitled to your own bigotted opinions, Ms. CivilRightsForSome. :thumbsdown:

[saltpoint]

189. I think we all need to abandon our versions of --

-- marital units and replicate the model Jesus used, which was to travel around the countryside with 12 men and a prostitute.

You can't get any more Traditional Family Values than that.

[Atlant]

190. *THAT* is quite possibly the *BEST REPLY* I've read *ALL MONTH*!!!

Thank you!

I will try *VERY* hard to remember that one!

Atlant

[saltpoint]

200. Hi, Atlant. Thank you for the

good words.

All good steps to you.

[Jankyn]

195. "Bigoted because I have an opinion which disagrees..."

(Sorry, I couldn't help but correct the spelling)

I understand that there are many African-Americans who are upset by comparisons between the gay civil rights struggle and that of gays and lesbians. It is, I suspect, comparable to the on-going historical tension between woman suffrage/women's rights activists and those who were fighting for civil equality regardless of race. As many have pointed out, it's not a competition.

But I'd like to pose what I think is a better comparison: civil marriage as a civil right, similar to the franchise. Opponents of the women's suffrage movement, lo these many years ago, argued with the entire arsenal currently being used by the right against women voting: it's unnatural, it's never been done in history, it will destroy the family and undermine the male franchise, and (my favorite) some even argued that it would lead to a slippery slope that would include voting rights for blacks!

I'm not going to throw around terms like "bigot," because the use of such language undermines all possibility for discussion. But let's not ignore the large number of civil rights that accrue with the right to marry.

This isn't a moral issue, it's an issue of liberty and equality. Don't get caught up in thinking that greater access to civil rights for one group will somehow inhibit the access to civil rights for another. Instead, let's all "raise as we climb."

Jankyn

[twistedliberal]

80. I hope you're kidding.

For African Americans and women, it's a civil rights struggle, but for gays and lesbians, it's a "blatant power grab?" Please.

"If two people of the same sex can get "married", I see no reason why a person has to even marry in species.. or why polygamy could be held as illegal. Polygamists and beastiality specialists.. get ready! Your day is coming too!"

What the hell??? That doesn't even make sense. Limbaugh says shit like this all the time.

Civil rights are for everyone, not just the groups you or your friends think deserve them.

[CivilRightsNow]

142. Im not

Civil rights are for everyone, not just the groups you or your friends think deserve them

This country is a democracy and majority rules. So when the majority wishes to acknowledge that this is a struggle for a "civil right" I guess that's when things will change to your benefit. That time is not now. And the (yes, blatent power grab.. I didnt stutter) that is being made in the courts of this land are not helping your cause any in the eyes of a great deal of the public.

[peterh]

149. “This country is a democracy and majority rules”

Your ignorance is really showing now…come back and play when you get a friggin clue as to the nature of our Federal Democratic Republic…..

[CivilRightsNow]

156. whatever...

The majority opinion has ruled on issue after issue after issue.

So, toot whatever horn you wish to.. when the people have been forced into decisions history can tell you how they reacted.

[peterh]

166. “whatever”???? good fucking rebuttal….

Your credibility has been tanking all day and the best you can say is “whatever”…..

[Spentastic]

152. This where people can say

You have got your facts wrong.

Perhaps that's the reason you have your mind so tightly closed.

[WillParkinson]

82. Working for years...

Oh, please! I've been with my partner for 16 years. I don't have any 'rights' where he's concerned. If his family wanted to keep me away from him while he was in the hospital (pacemaker) they could simply say, "No."

If I died today and my family didn't want Paul to get my property (even if I had it in the will) they could contest it and probably win.

I have no 'rights'. All the money that I pay in for my Social Security becomes the governments upon my death. Why? Because Paul and I cannot be married. I pay my taxes like everyone else. Every year I lose money. Why? Because I can't claim the married credit like straight couples do.

If two CONSENTING adults want to be married then that is their choice, I believe. You talk about how your African-American friends feel. How do you think *I* feel when you compare my wanting to be with my partner to someone who wants to wed a dog?

Also, as far as your African-American friends are concerned let them recall when people held their ancestors as property and all they wanted was basic freedoms and dignity. Let them recall how it was frowned on for black and white couples (or other ethnic groups) to co-mingle.

And, finally, you have the audacity to say that we haven't toiled for decades? Stonewall took place June 27, 1969. That's 35 years that we've worked to get basic rights. Before that it was allowable for gays and lesbians to be forced into institutions, to undergo shock and other horrible 'treatments' to make them 'normal'. Please tell me when was the last time someone used electro-shock therapy to make someone not black? Before THAT Hitler killed between 5 and 15 THOUSAND gays but you hardly ever hear about that.

Yes, it's not the exact same. If they don't want to understand it and help then obviously they've learned nothing from their years of struggle.

[ronnykmarshall]

113. Go Will!

Go Will! Go Will!

:loveya:

[CivilRightsNow]

148. So...

You are saying that good legal representation and making sure to draft the proper wills, power of attorneys etc somehow does not follow the same rules for gays that it does for straight people. Where is that law singles you out? Im curious.

As for the rest, you assume I am against your plight.. that I am somehow incapable of understanding love. I am not. Hence why I cannot comprehend why when such gains were being made in the area of civil unions, your movement decided it was now the time to take on an institution that has existed since the beginning of time. How you want a whole country to suddenly take one of the few things that is sacred, regardless of religion, and change it from its original intention to fit the needs of a minority.

I have no problem with civil unions. I have no problem with you and your partner having the same rights that me and my partner have. But there is a difference. You and your partner are of the same sex.. it does, regardless of what you think should be.. change things. It does nessecitate a different place in our society for you. I dont think that place is in the gutter or below anyone else. I just contend that it is different and until your movement chooses to acknowledge that, I dont feel that starting lawsuits all over the place to coopt a word amounts to a hill of beans and serves to further your cause with the majority. What Hitler did is not a sin of this nation. It is not their burden. As for Stonewall, even today, people who are not nessecarily lesbian or gay are undergoing treatments like this, often against their will for "deviant" behavior (as labeled by society). Im sorry if I do not understand how that relates to marriage, how that relates to civil rights, how that is just singled out for you. These are seperate issues.

That is my opinion. That is what I see around me. Im not asking you to agree with it. But in all of your gusto and righteous anger, Im telling you how this other side looks at it. And instead of attacking the otherside.. perhaps you could start educating. --That statement didnt nessecarily pertain to you.. it pertained to all the others who bitch and moan and scream and yell that we are bigots, we are fools.. etc.. Those arent highly effective tactics on how to win friends and influence people.

[Spentastic]

153. "the beginning of time"

You keep saying this. Do you have any proof?

Additionally your arguments sound very much like separate but equal. That's coded language.

[kayell]

154. Education

Let's try this quote of yours with a few changed words. "I have no problem with blacks. I have no problem with blacks having the same rights that I have. But there is a difference. You are of a different race. it does, regardless of what you think should be.. change things. It does nessecitate a different place in our society for you. I dont think that place is in the gutter or below anyone else. I just contend that it is different and until your movement chooses to acknowledge that, I dont feel that starting lawsuits all over the place to coopt a word amounts to a hill of beans and serves to further your cause with the majority. "

How the hell does that feel???? That's pretty much how your comments make me feel.

Separate but equal doesn't work for ANYONE. And why? Because it ISN'T equal. Your examples to the poster of the wills and powers of attorneys are especially offensive, because all those rights are granted to a heterosexual couple on the event of marriage AUTOMATICALLY.

A gay couple has to jump through hoops, round up lawyers, go to court, sign tons of papers, just to come close to achieving the rights that married people have in this country. Even then, they are FAR more vulnerable to having those legal protections they worked so hard for overturned by bigotted or greedy relatives in court.

[WillParkinson]

179. Win Friends and Influence People...

Telling someone that they are not worth having rights is no way to win friends, either.

First off, I'm sorry to tell you this but your 'religion' has no bearing on my life or my government. Many people join together in unions, called marriage, that is NOT religious in nature.

You were the one who said that Gays and Lesbians had not struggled for decades. I merely pointed out that you were wrong.

As far as civil unions are concerned that's great. Thank you so much for your magnanimous offer. That still does not allow my partner and I to collect Social Security benefits of the other. It still does not allow us to have the credit on our taxes. Which rights would you allow us and which would you deny us?

And, finally, your going under the assumption that we are asking for your blessing. I'm not. If people had to wait for someone else to give their blessing before they did anything no group, Women, African-Americans, Gays would EVER have gotten anywhere - women would still not be able to vote, African-Americans would still be property and Gays would still be sick perverts in the minds of most Americans.

[Blue Adept]

87. Gotta love it

Somehow polygamy or polyamory always seems to get tied to bestiality. Why is that? I'm not in any way for bestiality, but are people so closed-hearted that they aren't able to love more than one person? I'm madly in love with two people, each with their own differences. Yet for some reason I get associated with bestiality for it.

People need to get their heads out of their asses.

[CivilRightsNow]

150. I apologize..

I was associating behavior which general society seems to consider deviant.

Some would argue that the same love you say you feel for multiple people can also be felt for an animal or *insert object*, just talk to any one of a few hundred Swedes that actively and legally particpate in animal husbandry.

[Blue Adept]

180. It's a poor comparison

People who say one can equal the other just have no grasp of reality.

I have two daughters. Obviously I love both of them. Do I love them both the same way? Or the same way I love my wife or my own mother?

People are capable of love in many different ways, all of them valid. To only equate it with beastility, objects, etc, just proves the truly limited mindset of the person speaking.

[foreigncorrespondent]

98. Maybe you should have used...

...civilrightsforeveryoneBUTGAYS for your DU handle. :shrug:

Firstly I suggest you brush up on some marriage history. And then, take a gander at some gay history, where you will learn that in many ancient culters, gays and lesbians were allowed to marry. Oh, and did you know that in Ancient Egyptian times, gays were actually called GOD's? No? I suggest you take a gander at gay history.

As for your remarks about polygamy and beastiality, I am simply shocked. How can anyone who claims to be a liberal spout off at the mouth like that, with a very right winged argument?

BTW, were you aware that when the Californian supreme court voted in favor of mixed race marriages, that they were actually going against the majority of people in the United States? No? I suggest you brush up on your civil rights history then. While you are at it, why don't you and your friends who are so against gay rights learn about how the LGBT community has supported the civil rights movement. Isn't it ashame that the support my community gave them isn't returned?

Then I suggest you sit down and think long and hard about what I am going to say now. Do you realize that gays are human beings as well? Do you realize that being queer isn't a choice? Who would choose to be discriminated against so badly? Not me, and certainly not my girlfriend who is currently sick, but doesn't have me to look after her, because I am stuck on the other side of the world, because, the United States is run by bigoted assholes.

And sister, YOU BET YOUR DAMN FUCKING ASS THAT IT IS OUR RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS FUCKING EQUAL! Every hear of HUMANITY? NO! I didn't think so.

[ronnykmarshall]

116. And a BIG

:loveya: to you, too!!!

[CivilRightsNow]

155. I guess I would have if I felt it was a civil right

Firstly I suggest you brush up on some marriage history.
links. I have done extensive research on marriage. Do you even know from where the word originates? Id love to know in what cultures two people of the same sex were able to marry. Ive spent quite a bit of time researching that and Ive found that although in rome gay and lesbian activities were often partaken of and were not taboo, they did not consider marriage between two people of the same sex an option. So please, provide me with this information, I am honestly curious.

Oh, and did you know that in Ancient Egyptian times, gays were actually called GOD's? No? I suggest you take a gander at gay history.

I could care less about religions practices and Gods, what I care about are the practices of men, women and societies.

As for your remarks about polygamy and beastiality, I am simply shocked. How can anyone who claims to be a liberal spout off at the mouth like that, with a very right winged argument?
The arguement makes sense to me. If you are saying that we cannot legislate people's happiness and love... that happiness and love are civil rights.. I do not think it is fair to penalize any societally "deviant" expressions of that love. Im with the Swedes on this one.

BTW, were you aware that when the Californian supreme court voted in favor of mixed race marriages, that they were actually going against the majority of people in the United States? No?
I need to do my research? And it took 19 years for that decision to make it to a federal level with Loving. Much groundwork in MANY other areas of race was laid and covered during that time. These are NOT the same issues.

While you are at it, why don't you and your friends who are so against gay rights learn about how the LGBT community has supported the civil rights movement. Isn't it ashame that the support my community gave them isn't returned?
Where did I ever say that I was against the "rights" of gay people? I didnt. I am not against them. I however do disagree that marriage between two people of the same sex is a right or is even marriage as defined my the original entymology of that word. I do not agree that the support that you gave has not been returned. There are many issues unique to your community that have been furthered and addressed on a national level by people of all stripes and colors. Do you think that anti hate legislation was passed for miscellaneous race issues?

Do you realize that gays are human beings as well? Do you realize that being queer isn't a choice? Who would choose to be discriminated against so badly? Not me, and certainly not my girlfriend who is currently sick, but doesn't have me to look after her, because I am stuck on the other side of the world, because, the United States is run by bigoted assholes.
Yes I do realize gays are human beings.. probably a surprise to you, but I do know gay people.. big shocker eh? They know my opinions and I find it interesting that there does seem to be a quiet faction that dont feel the need to fight this battle over "marriage". They were perfectly thrilled with what a huge victory they had won with civil unions in key states. They were perfectly happy to plan a strategy of love and education.. not in your face court cases in state after state and media blitzes.

I do know that being queer is not a choice. Im not saying you are bad or wrong or somehow less because of it. I am simply saying that when it comes to an institution like marriage, that many straight folk do consider sacred.. I do not feel that this is something we are in agreement on or a fight that had to be fought this way. Keep calling me a bigotted asshole, but just as strongly as you feel that is your "right", I feel that marriage is something that is between a man and a woman. The whole practice wasnt even founded on love.. it was founded on furthering generations and preserving social status. Although the social status part isnt a big thing to me.. the covenant in creation of life is... That's why there are men and women.. we are two parts needed to create future life. We are not asexual. Now, if you want the rights to see your partner when they are sick... if you want the rights to get a tax break because you have multiple people in your household.. Let's fight THOSE fights. Im there with you. But not on this one

And sister, YOU BET YOUR DAMN FUCKING ASS THAT IT IS OUR RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS FUCKING EQUAL! Every hear of HUMANITY? NO! I didn't think so.
Heh, You ask me if Ive ever heard of humanity.. but you dont give a flying fuck what humanity has had to say on this issue for thousands of years. That's rich.

[foreigncorrespondent]

175. Well...

...if you haven't brushed up on gay history and learned that same sex marriage has actually been approved in societies in the past, then you haven't actually studied marriage properly. However, don't ask me to send you links and like. I refuse to help anyone who is so against the very person I am.

I could care less about religions practices and Gods, what I care about are the practices of men, women and societies.

My God! What the hell do other peoeples private lives have to do with you? What business is it of yours?

I suggest you go read the CA constitution, Mass. Constitution, and then the United States constitution. Hell I am not even an American citizen but I have done so, only to learn that the majority of the country is against their own very damn constitution for not wanting equality.

But, I am certainly not going to waste my time on someone so against myself, my partner, my many friends, and my community.

I suggest you relearn the meaning of HUMANITY, then I suggest you rethink what you said to me.

[WillParkinson]

181. Oh, and by the way...

Not all of us appreciate the word 'queer'.

Thank you very much.

[kayell]

100. Time to change your handle

Your hypocrisy is showing. You obviously believe that CivilRightsNow are only for the groups YOU approve of.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

108. CivilRightsNow for me...the devil may care about you

[skippysmom]

122. I'm glad I'm not the only one

who sees the irony in this poster's handle.

:eyes:

[CivilRightsNow]

158. Nah, but every want by every faction under the sun isnt a civil right

in my opinion.

[JusticeForAll]

133. You are the one that should get out more

CivilRightsNow, my ass. You believe in nothing. I love this quote: "(gays are)...alienating a whole subsect of people who once had sympathy for this cause." You were NEVER sympathetic to MY cause. To revise a phrase from good Eleanor, "No one can make you feel (alienated) without your permission."

If you don't believe that marriage is a civil right, why don't we just turn the tables and propose that marriage is illegal for all citizens? Not happy about that, huh?

Amendment 28. Section 1. The United States government recognizes no right to marry or unionize between any two persons. Any rite, contract, covenant, or activity that condones such distinction is illegal and criminal. All former protections, privileges, granted married persons are hereby voided
Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Hmmm, not happy with that I'll bet. If two people are allowed to get married, why cannot any two people get married? Their gender? Oh right, we have laws that state that the government will not discriminate on the basis of gender, but marriage is it's own protected right to which this does not apply?

Since you are a woman "still dealing with ...screwed up ideas of beauty" all I can say is your stance on this issue is plain UGLY. Your stupid logic says that all groups should have to wait for what is clearly an inalienable right?

No thanks! you can wait at the back of your own miserable bus. This issue has always been around, honey. Do you think committed partnerships, civil unions, gay marriage just suddenly sprang up because there all of a sudden was a name for their love? Love is eternal and has been around forever, and has been practiced by people of races and genders. YOU should get out more and experience LOVE and embrace LOVE, maybe the other 'issues' you are dealing with will suddenly fall into place.

Edited for punctuation

[CivilRightsNow]

159. I just love how love and marriage are the same thing to all of you..

So, what the nutshell of all this is.. that somehow society hasnt given you the right to love if they dont think that two people of the same sex should marry.

We shall see how this all plays out. Call my ideas ugly call me whatever you wish.. a bigot, a republican.. I dont care.

See, your problem essentially is, Im still the majority.. making my own opinions that dont agree with the way you lead your life.

I say you should change.. and you say I should.

Either way.. neither of us are going to and now, I think you guys have painted yourself into a corner that has forced a hand to be dealt that you sure as hell arent gonna want to play.

But keep it up. Stay in my face. Keep demanding I agree with you. Let's see how far that gets you.

[kayell]

160. My problem with you is

that you obviously believe that the majority rules in some cases (when it supports what you like) and in supporting CivilRightsNow in others (correctly recognizing that this country should not be ruled by the tyranny of the majority.)

You call yourself CivilRightsNow, yet see no irony in insisting that gays wait for their civil rights, since the Lovings had to wait for theirs.

In other words, the level of hypocrisy in the contrast between your chosen handle and what you espouse is almost unbearable.

Perhaps at some distant time in the future you will come to the amazing revelation that it is possible to work for civil rights for all people, without relegating anyone to the back of the bus.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kayell]

169. "pollyanna syndrome of the left that I see permeate boards like DU "

This post may just be the most revealing and truthful thing that you have said all day. If you abhor it so much, just why exactly are you here???

[JusticeForAll]

170. Um, why was that last message deleted?

BOy, I kinda wish the pollyanna message was still here.

At this debate, I really am interested in the workings of her so-called "liberal" mind. Kayell, if you or anyone else remembers, please respond to me in private, since apparently repeating her comments publicly might be too painful for other readers to bear.

[kayell]

174. I don't think it's all that painful

As well as I can remember, the poster said that they chose the name CivilRightsNow not because of a support of civil rights, but to make fun of pollyanna liberals that want everything NOW. There were some references to my taking up my blankie and stomping around, and to my foolishness in assuming that the name CivilRightsNow meant support. There were some comments made about abhoring the usual pollyanna working of the left on boards like DU. So I alerted, figuring that the poster (I really can't use the name under the circumstances) had outed their political persuasion. I *assume* the mods deleted only that post figuring that it was a personal attack or something. I didn't feel all that personally attacked since it is hard to be harmed by such a juvenile effort.

[Atlant]

186. "CivilRightsNOW" has been "tombstoned" as a disrupter. (NT)

[kayell]

187. GOOD nt

[WillParkinson]

188. Oh, I love this one...

See, your problem essentially is, Im still the majority.. making my own opinions that dont agree with the way you lead your life.


Yes, you're in the majority. Good for you. Now you can thumb your noses at everyone else.

While you're up there on your high-horse please take a look around you and see what else the 'majority' believes and work very hard to enforce those beliefs on everyone else.

By the way, not to be rude or anything, but I don't give a tinkers damn if you agree with how I live my life. You worry about your life and let me worry about mine. Or, if you don't like that answer, let's open your life to the public and see if the 'majority' agrees with all your choices.

As a woman dealing with the 'glass ceiling' you are the last person who should care what the 'majority' thinks. After all, if we always followed the majority you'd be home, in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

[Bertha Venation]

192. can't think of a more deserved tombstone

good riddance

If you're lurking: I don't care if you agree with me. I only care that you don't try to block the recognition of my equality.

Marriage is a fundamental human right. I won't let the Constitution be re-written to take any right away from any person.

Stick that in your pipe & smoke it.

[ronnykmarshall]

194. CivilRightsNow ..... now has one of these

[dawn]

140. Perhaps you should get out more, too.

I don't know anyone, except my hard-core conservative Dad, who is vehemently against gay marriage.

Moderate Republicans I know don't really care about it either way. And others, while they may be uncomfortable with gays kissing in front of them per se, don't want the government in their bedrooms.

Gays marrying does not lead to bestiality, men marrying childen, etc. It is an issue of two *consenting adults* wanting to have the same rights as other people in society.

[ButterflyBlood]

172. what a worthless load of bigoted crap

n/t

[GRClarkesq]

63. Anyone think the SF marriages pushed him over the edge?

Bush seemed to be waffling on this issue, but now he is going for the FMA.

OR

he has to deliver to his base or they are not gonna show up in November. The evenegelical types want the FMA.

[Atlant]

91. I'm fairly certain that...

> Anyone think the SF marriages pushed him over the edge?

I'm fairly certain that (as they say) "the cheese slid off
Bush's cracker" a long time ago.

Oh. You mean "pushed him over the edge" on this one issue!

Nevermind! :)

Atlant

[ronnykmarshall]

64. Attention Log Cabin Repubs

Please be put on notice that when you set your little booth up at LA Pride this year, you're going to get a ear full from yours truly.


Love ya, mean it.

RKM

[onehandle]

103. They will not support Bush.

"Log Cabin Republicans, which supported the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2000, has warned that it will break with the campaign if President Bush formally endorses the proposed amendment, as White House aides have said he intends to do."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A487-2004Feb23.html

[adamblast]

104. They better stick to that... (n/t)

[ronnykmarshall]

111. I won't hold my breath.

It would however be somthing if they endorsed the Democratic nominee.

[JusticeForAll]

183. The LCR's are joining in protest in Arizona!

There may be some hope for these wayward gays! (see sponsors in ad below)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x5826

AHRF (Arizona Human Rights Fund) Action Alert – Mass Demonstration planned in Phoenix for Thursday, February 26th, 12:30pm

Outraged over Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment against us?

Furious over the hatred being spewed at our own Capitol?

Let them know we are fed up with being bashed, and we’re not going to take it anymore. We are having a mass rally. Come one, come all. If you have ever considered coming out for a demonstration, now is the time.

WHEN: Thursday, February 26, 2004
12:30 p.m.

WHERE: Arizona State Capitol Mall (between the House and Senate) 1700 West Washington, Phoenix

WHY: To let our elected officials and the citizens of Arizona know we will not stand for being labeled as second class citizens

WHO: Sponsored by The Arizona Human Rights Fund
Human Rights Campaign
Arizona Log Cabin Republicans (YES!)
Arizona Stonewall Democrats

Please forward this information to everyone you know – We need EVERYBODY. That includes parents, children, neighbors, friends, business colleagues, straight allies and anyone else you can think of. Let’s show them our strength in numbers.

*************************************************************
You have received this E-Newsletter because you are already on an AHRF e-mail list, because you have requested your name be added to our database or because someone has forwarded this to you. See below for subscription information.
***************************************

Questions? Send an email to [e-mail] or call 602-650-0900

[artistforpeace]

72. question

Just thought I'd throw this idea out to see what you all think.

If Bush has now isolated his moderate voters with this issue by having to decide if they would want to support this ideology in order to still vote for him, why not the Democrats do the same? Obviously Bush is gambling that his moderates will ignore the raping of our liberties and still vote for him because they believe in the republican "core beliefs". Why not the Democrats come out totally in favor of same sex marriages? The only thing I can think is they are worried about their moderate voters not backing them and voting Republican. But if Bush doesn’t care and feels that he’s still got his moderates, Democrats should feel the same with a total support of same sex marrage. This will cancel each other out and the other issues of the election will take president. What Bush is hoping is that Democrats flip-flop on this so that he can yet again say his stupid "For and against blah blah" retoric. Because you know HIS world is only black and white. Forget about the reality of gray...to hard to think about.

BTW I’m not new to DU, just been a very long time since I’ve posted and decided I wanted a new account. Start fresh.

[Rockholm]

83. Artist, I Agree.....

That jerk-off Bush (ooops, *) can say whatever he wants and it is OK for him to play to his base. However, if the Democrat plays to the base, it is portrayed as a negative by the media. Since Kerry is a waffler on just about everything, it would be really cool if Edwards would come out in favor of equal rights for gays. And yes, that means marriage. Look, the religious right will vote for *, the religious left will vote for the person in favor of gay rights. The TRUE conservatives are really pissed at Bush and this amendment talk will hopefully make some of them angrier.
Truth is, the discussion frankly is absurd. CNN and everyone else, including cyberspace, is running wild with this. Perfect for *. Nobody is focusing on jobs, tear-ism, health care, education, etc. I can't believe that who can get married is more important. I would like to get married too, and hopefully I will be on May 17th! Until then, George...F**k you.

[onehandle]

75. Well, he just made $50 million more for his campaign...

Won't help. He's toast.

[Kamika]

78. This can both backfire or earn him votes

first off I think this can backfire since he might lose votes from conservatives who aren't fundie christians, and conservative people who like the same sex.

But he might also know that they know this wont pass so they will vote for him anyway WHILE he gets the fundie vote for sure.

[BigBigBear]

79. Bush has now officially overplayed his hand

Had he said "I believe this is a matter left up to the states", even allowing for inter-state confusion, he could have kept his base happy and sidestepped the issue.

By now publicly endorsing the alteration of the Constitution to deny rights to a class of people, he's toast.

It's not about gayu marriage anymore - it's about rewriting the Contitution to satisfy his wingnut constituents.

Stick a fork in him, folks, he's done.

[underpants]

96. OUT____________OF_________TOUCH

Who cares? Don't we have more important things to worry about?

That is what most people will say when they hear this, even if they only hear the 10 second soundbite. When they hear it again next week and then the next week.....as you said "pass me the fork".

[smb]

84. Fundy Goofballs Are Desperate

The right-wing big-government fundies know on some level that one legacy of Wahabi terrorism is going to be their total marginalization(in much the same way that one legacy of Naziism was to banish genteel anti-Semitism from polite society).

[kayell]

94. Gotta protect the sanctity of marriage from dangerous people like these

[my cuppa tea]

199. Yes....

Trouble making trollops, clearly.

;)

They're so cute. I love them both :grouphug:

Stupid sexless prick chimp...

[saltpoint]

201. Easy to see how same-sex marriage could --

-- just RUIN civilization from pictures like this one.

It's terrifying!

Run for your lives!

----

I don't know these two people but I love them. Shame on anybody who wishes them harm or hurt.

[kayell]

203. Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon

Together since Valentines Day 1953. The first couple married in San Francisco on February 12, 2004. Founders of the Daughters of Bilitis. More on this couple http://netscape.planetout.com/pno/specials/pride/features/lyonmartin.html

[saltpoint]

204. Thank you, kayell --

-- and thanks also for the link for more info.

Much appreciated.

[SideshowScott]

97. The Daily Show put it best..

When Steven Colbet freaked out when Jon Stewert suggested that why dont we have a amendment banning adultry..It just showed the hypocacy of the issue..
Um Mr President..Isnt there more pressing issues to worry about???

[Ganja Ninja]

105. How about an amendment banning divorce?

I'm sure that would go over like a lead balloon.

[MaineDem]

118. Bingo!

Banning divorce and things like Britney Spears' little stunt in Las Vegas?

There are way too many ramifications to this. I can't beleive Bush has jumped into this issue right now.

[SidDithers]

102. Protect the sanctity of marriage?...

Does that mean he's outlawing divorce? </sarcasm>

Just wondering...

Sid

[Bonhomme Richard]

106. It's time to bring back Stoning or

maybe the scarlet letter.

[gauguin57]

114. the scarlet letter ...

should be a big red M. For Moron. And it should hang around George W. Bush's neck for the rest of his life.

What a massively bigoted jerk.

Still waiting for someone to explain to me how a gay couple getting married affects the "sanctity of marriage"? How does the union of that elderly lesbian couple pictured above affect the Bushes' marriage? Or the Santorums' marriage? No effect whatsoever.

Get LOST, Fundies!

[K8-EEE]

109. He Needs To Protect Marriage -- FROM NEIL BUSH!

WHAT a bunch of hypocrites.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. A possible way to embarrass the religious right

A BBC radio presenter was just interviewing Roberta Combs, President of the "Christian Coalition of America". He asked her: "Bush says marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization. How will same-sex marriage affect civilization?" And he had to ask her about 5 times (by the 4th time she was promising "I will answer your question ...", which is always a good sign they can't). All she could parrot was "marriage is the foundation of a traditional family".

To be quite honest, she did sound brainless. If a reporter stops someone in the street and asks them a question like this, you might expect a wishy-washy non-answer; but if this is the best argument the pressure groups can put forward, then they look so weak that any rational discussion will leave them looking like King Canute, trying to hold back the tide.

[kayell]

119. Sounds exactly like the questioning of Scottie McClellan

on the same question. The same as her, he just kept parroting the same old spin, but NEVER answered the question.

[TrogL]

121. Wanna see some great tap-dancing

Someone should do a political comic.

http://www.gaytoday.com/events/022404ev.asp

Question: No, I understand the decision hasn't been made yet. But I'm just trying to figure out -- you say the President is determined to defend the sanctity, and that he thinks it's a very serious issue. I'm just trying to figure out what it is that would require presidential intervention. You've got bills in the Congress, you've got judges working on it. What would the President -- what could he do?

Mr. McClellan: Well, what he said -- well, he said -- he has said that if necessary he would be prepared to look to the constitutional process, because that may be the only -- or that would be the only alternative available if activist judges continue to redefine marriage.

Or in other words, the Executive branch wants to now directly interfere with both the Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch.

Didn't the Founding Fathers want to avoid this?

[Manix]

123. good..the intolerant bigot will be on the record for all to see!

nt

[The empressof all]

124. muddy waters rambling

I have to tell you all that I'm getting really pissed off with this issue. If marriage is a union between one man and one woman for purpose of procreation (the definition I have heard most often from the right) then where is the cut off. If a man and a woman have been married and there are no children does the marriage become null and void after some point. Should women older than 50 or infertile folks be banned from marrying? What would be the point? I was married by a judge 18 years ago. Can a judge bestow "sacred status"?
Will my marriage convert into a civil union if we establish a two tiered system? Will I have to return my wedding gifts?

This is the biggest red herring to divert our attention from what we need to focus on in this country right now and even questioning the right for two people to marry in my opinion is sinful.

[MaineDem]

126. Way to go!!!

Excellent points.

My husband and I have been married almost 30 years and we have no children. Where would that leave us?

My two good friends have been in a committed, monogamous, same-sex relationship almost as long. Why shouldn't they have the same rights of hospital visitation/determination/inheritance that we have?

What about divorces?

There are so many branches off this issue that I'm sure the conservatives haven't even thought of yet.

It makes me want to scream.

[dawn]

139. I would like my marriage converted into a civil union.

If gays and lesbians can't be in a marriage, I don't want to be, either. I was married by a justice of the peace, because I didn't want a religious marriage.

And yeah, they'll probably go after women who don't want children next.

[gulfcoastliberal]

128. Daschle on CSPAN

"I need to see what the amendment looks like before I decide how I would vote on it." Fuckin wussy!

[yellowcanine]

134. Emergency back bone transplant needed for Daschle

Somebody call Howard Dean.

[cboy4]

146. I wish he would just get the F out of office n/t

[Snellius]

132. Will the Constitution force us all to get genital exams?

Cultural reactionaries want to turn the Bill of Rights into the Ten Commandments.

[yellowcanine]

136. Only if there is probable cause to believe you aren't what you say

Your post points out how ridiculous this whole thing is. Whatever happened to Reagan's rant about getting the government off our backs?

[Kool Kitty]

184. Yes. Strange, isn't it,

republicans are always saying they want the government off our backs. They don't seem to have a problem with it going between our legs, though.

[peterh]

135. As the judge in the S.F. case so eloquently stated….

“on the one hand, you have the question of voting rights….on the other hand, you have the question of Equal Rights”…..

Now…Constitutionally speaking….what trumps what?

Past amendments have had the purpose of re-enforcing the concept of “Equal Rights”. It appears we’ve entered into an era of now wanting to limit the scope of how “Equal Rights” may be defined. And if that’s the case, could there be further limitations imposed on a minority not deemed in-step with the majority? Is that a slippery slope Citizens should want to be subjected to?

Democrats could easily take the high road in this very sensitive wedge issue by focusing their rhetoric on the concept of equal rights and the pitfalls of redefining/erosion of said concept….rather than the low road of what one’s definition of sanctity of a concept may be in a muddied secular argument.

[dawn]

137. I weep for this country.

:( :( :(

[teryang]

138. Fascist gay bashing by chimperella

Domestic issues are the prerogative of the states. That is what federalism is all about. As the federal courts have stated over and over again about marriage issues, they are loathe to get involved, as this is an area traditionally within the domain of the states.

This is the perfect issue for chimp, it suits his fascist demogogic agenda.

[cboy4]

144. How about this for an idea?

A constitutional amendment that no more presidents can weasel their way into office via a crooked election.

What Bush said today is yet more proof he's controlled by the right-wing neo conservative extremist Christian network of haters. Bush is a despicable piece of human filth -- and I'm being nice :mad: :puke:

[mondo joe]

164. "No difference between Gore and Bush"

Thanks again Nader voters of 2000.

[triguy46]

165. Where's the proof?

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

Have I missed something here that provides evidence that same sex unions are the cause of marital break ups? It seems that the greater risk to marital stability is two human beings.

[wabeewoman]

167. You can't assume all conservatives

are for this. True conservatives would have a problem with changing the constitution for social issues. Not all republicans will be for it either. Obviously, they must have focus grouped the issue but then maybe they did on the mars and immigration ideas too. Hopefully, this is the 3rd strike for many soon to be former bush supporters.

[ronnykmarshall]

168. LA DU'ers: Protest Bush Tonight - West Hollywood

West Hollywood Rally and Demonstration 7 p.m. Today

Say NO to Bush Call to Enshrine Discrimination Against GLBT People

WHERE: Corner of Santa Monica and San Vicente boulevards,

West Hollywood (Rain Location: West Hollywood Auditorium, West Hollywood Park)


WHEN: 7 p.m. TODAY, Tuesday, Feb. 24 (Gather at 6:30 p.m.)


This morning, President Bush called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriages, thus permanently relegating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to second-class status.

If passed, this would be the first time in history that the U.S. Constitution has been used to deny rights to an entire class of people.

Join the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, the City of West Hollywood, the National Black AIDS Institute, Metropolitan Community Church, Bienestar, Lambda Legal, the Family Pride Coalition and other community organizations in saying NO to this attempt to enshrine prejudice and discrimination in our U.S. Constitution!

For more information about tonight's rally, call 323-860-5858.

[Politicub]

173. * only strengthened my resolve

The story of America is still being written. History will judge * harshly for his call to deny civil rights to a group of American's via a constitutional amendment.

Kerry impressed me today with his swift statement on the matter. Although I wish he could throw his full support to opening marriage to gays and lesbians, I'm a political realist and someone who thinks that we can't risk another * term.


My partner and I have been together for nine years, and there's nothing more I would like than to marry him. But for now, leaving the matter to the states is fine by me!

I believe we'll have equal rights for gays and lesbians one day -- hopefully in my lifetime.

Today I signed up for my first Kerry meetup - I urge each and every one of you to get involved however you can and fight like hell to oust *.

[Stuckinthebush]

176. Stupid play by Rove...

Bush has the crazy religious right vote. These are the people who care most about this amendment. The middle conservatives are already wary of him, and to see him try to screw with the constitution will be the last straw for most of them. These are small government people who couldn't care less about gay marriage. They do care about government access into their lives, however.

Bush lost votes on this one.

[saltpoint]

178. Have to agree.

Rove might have dropped the ball on this one.

[Claire Beth]

191. This just proves Bush and his cronies are worried ! n/t

[rawtribe]

193. Sign the Pledge

Dear Elected Official: 

I pledge not to vote for, or otherwise support, any politician of any political party who supports adding the Federal Marriage Amendment, or any similar amendment to define marriage, to the U.S. Constitution.

Sign at:

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/votepledge/

[WLKjr]

196. Awww....I thought only Liberals wanted to tear america apart

Just like a compassionate conservative and a bunch of right-wing couks, they want to amend a constitution to suit their needs, much like they changes the facts to suit thier rhetoric. Like I have said before, it seems that all a republican cares about is someone elses personal business, A.K.A. sexual orientation and who's doing who.

They bi*th about this while school taxes have went through the roof and people are lossing jobs still here in Ohio. its a damn shame and a sham from the republican party to the citizens of Ohio and the rest of the country.

[nolabels]

202. First they came for the.......................

Hello, does this remind anybody of anything?

The US, the place that was built to render mute these type of things. We now have an appointed appointed by other appointed declaring such. This is nothing to be a part of, if you discriminate against one person because of who they are, you have discriminated against all for who they are.

Seeings that people have been lynched up, murdered, and have had just told or untold ghastly things happening because of their fear of who or what someone else perceives someone else to be is way too far for me

Why would any such person claim to be defending others from anything