Bush demand Constitutional Amendment is most arrogant and insulting

[MurikanDemocrat]

You need not be GLBT to find this insulting, and I am personally insulted on several levels. If bastardizing the Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights is not bad enough, using our GLBT brethren to incite bigotry and hatred is absolutely unconscionable.

The fact is there is NO WAY all the hurdles to pass this egregious attempt to legislate morality would ever pass to begin with. It would take 2/3 approval of the Senate AND 2/3 approval of the Congress AND ¾ ratification of the States to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Bush is just stirring shit!

I won’t back down on this though. I don’t give a shit what it’s called, I defer to the GLBT community on that. I fully and vocally support equal rights for everyone, and goddammit, that includes gay marriage/civil unions.

[GainesT1958]

1. I'm not gay...

And I think it's a crock--a purposeful "wedge-issue" crock, that is! :mad:

The good news, though, is that it won't pass the Senate by the two-thirds margin needed for an Amendment--and maybe not the House, either!

B-)

[Jawja]

8. And the corporate media

is going to help stir the pot. The GOP and their controlled media machine will keep this issue front and center.

They intend to get the max out of the gay marriage controversy in order to smokescreen Bush*'s failures.

[AlinPA]

10. This "issue" is good cover for Bush*'s problems. The media

has taken over the election.

[Old and In the Way]

2. This is election year politics at its worst. But this has always been a

hallmark of Republican administrations for the past 30 years. Create artificial divisive issues to divert from their actual record.

What I want to know is:

(1) Will this admendment make divorce illegal? I assume that is the greatest threat to marriage.

(2) Will heterosexual civil unions be banned?


Rather hypocritical to want a federal solution when they have screamed "state's rights" on so many issues over the years. And what about those activist SCOTUS justices who subverted the will of the people in 2000?

[MurikanDemocrat]

3. Hypocritical exactly. States rights were forgotten in Election 2000 too

when it suited them. :eyes:

[no_hypocrisy]

4. He's consistent. If * doesn't get his way, he'll try another route to get

it.

Example: Congress was highly ambivalent to say the least with regard to approving *'s choice to fill vacancies on the federal circuit courts, Charles Pickering and William Pryor. Rather than withdraw their names and putting up less partisan judges, * appoints them, even for the end of this year, while Congress is in recess and bypasses the will of the people (yeah, yeah, I know . . . ) and makes sure that what he wants, he gets.

Now, it has to be a constitutional amendment. Why such a severe process? Because any other legislation by Congress, a state, etc. with regard to a ban on gay marriage, etc. would be shot down as unconstitutional because it so blatantly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution. You simply can't discriminate against a social or ethnic group by passing a law that places a burden on the members of that group, especially when it involves a civil right such as the right to marry.

The only way to pass a law that is unconstitutional is to incorporate it into the Constitution. You could technically and legally destroy American democracy one brick at a time by passing constitutional amendments that invalidate clauses in the body of the Constitution and/or its Amendments. That's why the Founders made the process of amending the Constitution so burdensome and onerous. It's supposed to be immune to the immediate passions of the masses.

That is, unless you have an uninformed and apathetic citizenry. So I guess we don't have anything to worry about .

[BruinAlum]

5. Agreed it won't pass, and is being used as a wedge issue to stir bigots.

[Cronus Protagonist]

22. I think it's a wedge issue for MORE amendments. Think about it for a bit..

http://bushspeaks.com/home.asp?did=160



"LICK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[FeelinGarfunkelly]

6. damn those "activist Judges"

Seems like they're only activists when they rule in one's opposing view.

Seriously, when we see what we've tried to amend the constitution to ban, it's completely silly and we've even had to amend amendments--Prohibition, anyone? Yes, it's a wedge issue, but it's a smack in the face to the Constitution and a huge blow below the belt to the GLBT community. We tried second-class citizenship before..it's not right.
GRRRRR

[jansu]

7. Here is one way to fight them. Hoist them on their own Petard!

I started this thread early about Bush prayer group and what they are praying for. They want a constitutional amendment based on the Biblical terms of marriage. This link has some of those quotes with chapter and verse. Use it to make the point. They want truth....give it to them!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=393591&mesg_id=393591

Freedom is the first Human Right!

[mohc]

9. The sad thing is, it CAN pass

While every amendment to the Constitution which has been ratified has gone through the Congressional tract, there is another method of application. If 2/3 of the states submit an application for an amendment, which requires only majorities in their state legislatures, then it needs 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify it. Presumably, any state involved in the application would also support ratification, so all the amendment proponents need are 34 states to apply and 4 more to ratify. Do we have the 13 states needed to stop them? There are already 38 states which have banned gay marriage, its not inconceivable that they could pass an amendment as well.

[MurikanDemocrat]

13. That's a lot of "if"'s. I'm not familiar with this application process

either. It would still take 2/3 of the Senate AND 2/3 of the House to approve it as well. I beleive there is also a 7 year time limit to get it passed.

This issue is nothing but a GOTV message for the religious right. Falwell was out on cue today warning of the dangers of bestiality if gay marriage is allowed.:eyes:

[Vas Liz]

16. He is correct

Everyone please check the constitution. There is a very real threat here. There is NO excuse not to be aware of this method of amendment. One read of the constiution is all that is ever required.

There are FOUR methods to amend the constitution.

The method he is referring to is from Article V.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, *OR*, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments"

Emphasis added.

Also, 7 years is in no way set in law. For example, congress gave 10 years for ERA to be adopted.

[Dookus]

17. Nobody is calling for a constitutional convention

and for very good reason. Nobody of either party wants one. It would be a mad house.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi Vas Liz!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[kher-heb]

11. what does GLBT mean?

?

[mohc]

12. GLBT

Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered

[union_maid]

14. This is scary, but probably good for us

I don't think that there's a tremendous lot of moderate support for this. It's not the same as opposing gay marriage personally, or wanting it outlawed at state level. I think this is going to blow up in Bush's face just like his other initiatives. We can face the fact that if someone favors this amendment to the US constitution, we weren't getting that vote anyway. Sure we want votes from uhappy Republicans, but they're not going to come from the Religious Right, so screw 'em. Everyone knows someone who's gay. Most of us are related to someone who's gay. Anti-gay stuff is wearing very thin in the general population.

[MurikanDemocrat]

15. I suspect you're right. I think moderates, and even many conservatives

think messing with the Constitution is going way too far.

For the love of God, USING the Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights is egregious!

This was intended by Bush as a GOTV effort for the religious right. He's in trouble right now, with his own credibility and dropping in popularity and poll numbers, and needs all the help he can get.

This is intended as a wedge issue, nothing more. He has no intention of following through with this.

Incidently, I heard a couple of the Judges on the Mass. court that legalized gay marriage were appointed by Republicans, or were conservatives, or something like that. I'm just saying ..

[kodi]

18. orwell said it best

[zoeyfong]

19. It's intended to divide democrats more than anything else.

If the dems waffle around on this it will depress their turnout, no matter which side they appear to come down on. On the other hand, it will most likely energize republican voters. Its actually a fairly smart move, i think, because of course dems will appear weak and unprincipled by not taking a strong stand either way.

[MurikanDemocrat]

25. I totally disagree. Kerry has taken a strong stand on this.

Kerry statement yesterday on Bush proposal for Federal Amendment to the Constitution against gay marriage

“I believe President Bush is wrong. All Americans should be concerned when a President who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his reelection campaign.

“This President can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy, which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.

“While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years, this has been a state issue. I oppose this election year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor.

“I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions. I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states, and that the President of the United States should be addressing the central challenges where he has failed – jobs, health care, and our leadership in the world rather than once again seeking to drive a wedge by toying with the United States Constitution for political purposes.”

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0224b.html

Also, this was brought up by Bush to get out his religious right to the polls. It won't depress the Dem turnout one bit, IMO.

[Snivi Yllom]

31. this does not look strong to me, Kerry says its good

this is from yesterday

http://www.news24houston.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=2443...

"If the amendment provides for partnership and civil union, which I believe is the appropriate way to extend rights, that would be a good amendment. I think that you need to have civil unions," presidential candidate John Kerry says.

[MurikanDemocrat]

32. That's a recipe for cooking sweet corn on the cob

Your quote otherwise doesn't conflict with his previous statements or positions on gay marriage or civil unions.

[Snivi Yllom]

33. wrong link

http://www.news24houston.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=24437

but yes, it shows Kerry can support a constitutional ammendment to ban gay amrriage.

[MurikanDemocrat]

34. That's not inconsistent with his previous statements

He has a consistent position on civil unions versus gay marriage

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x396911

[Zhade]

20. Thank you for that admirable post.

NT!

[Shanty Oilish]

21. I'm glad to hear he's taken that stand

Now if the Dems would just take the opposite stand, we'd have ourselves a victory. I support Kerry but I'm not happy with his ambivalent comments on this subject. "I'm against gay marriage but endorse gay rights," is a lot like "I'm against abortion but support choice." What does that mean? It means "I want you to hear what you want to hear, just don't listen too closely."
Civil union is a grudging compromise, like how many fifths of a person a Negro was, like separate drinking fountains.
There can be no reason to deny marriage to gay people, except hatred of gay people.

ed: not saying the politicians have that hatred---they're just being cowardly.

[MurikanDemocrat]

24. I don't think Kerry's stand is ambivalent. It's only so to those who

seek to find something wrong with it IMO.

Here's his statement from 3 weeks ago:

"Well, it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union. I'm for partnership rights.

"I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded," Kerry continued. "Obviously under the Constitution of the United States you need equal protection under the law. And I think equal protection means the rights that go with it. I think the word marriage kind of gets in the way of the whole debate, to be honest with you, because marriage to many people is obviously what is sanctified by a church. It's sacramental. Or by a synagogue or by a mosque or by whatever religious connotation it has. Clearly there's a separation of church and state here. ... Marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is under the church, between a man and a woman, and I think there's a separate meaning to it."

What Kerry is doing is taking the religious connotation out that the term "marriage" gives it. Marriage is religious, or sacramental. He simply points out that "marriage" is a religious institution, and therefore has separate consideration under the separation of church and state.

And because of the separation of church and state, the Constitution cannot address "marriage", because it is a religious issue. That's basically his point.

Make sense?

[Shanty Oilish]

26. What's a religious institution doing on my tax returns?

Marriage is woven into the legal system. It's an institution practiced by atheists and in countries where one's religion is forbidden. Calling it a religious thing is just a sop to the prejudiced.
I want him elected. Want it real bad. But he's being a politician on this issue, not a statesman.

[SerpentX]

27. No, he's starting to get it right.

Get the government out of the marriage game altogether. Couples, gay or straight, get the exact same civil protections. Let the churches decide who they'll marry.

[BruinAlum]

28. It's your legal staus as married that's included on a tax return, not your

religious status. Civil union for gays would afford the same status for gays on a tax return.

Whether it's what the predjudiced want to hear or not is irrelevant. Kerry has a valid legal point on this issue. And he's right.

That's not to say gays cannot get married. That designation needs to be settled with their church. Kerry is just saying the Government cannot sanction it because of the separation of church and state.

The bottom line is that Kerry wants all the same rights afforded to heterosexual marriage afforded to civil unions.

[Ridley Park 704]

23. Look on bright side, he's not stealing a Democrat issue

He is making it easier for the Democrats to defeat his sorry arse.

He's stepping in a cow pie, and this will do him in, IMHO. Cripes, Andrew Sullivan, a gay member of the flying monkey right, is even mad at him and the emails on his website are damning for Bush. Support is dwindling from Republican voters. Even Tom DeCay is wavering on this amendment.

Relax, gays. This amendment has no chance to get out of the House alive, but it's advertising to Americans and the world how backward this nitwit actually is, and will substantially lead to his defeat by even a bigger margin than before.

I feel good about this.

[MurikanDemocrat]

30. GOP isn't united behind ban on gay marriage

GOP isn't united behind ban on gay marriage

Congressional leaders cautious on Bush's call for amendment

WASHINGTON - President Bush wants quick election-year enactment of a constitutional amendment prohibiting gays from marrying each other, but Republicans in Congress are not rushing to heed his call.

After Bush’s announcement Tuesday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said it would take time to gauge the level of support in Congress for a constitutional amendment. He suggested the difficulty of passing one may cause lawmakers to take a different approach to preserving marriage as a solely man-woman union.

“We don’t want to do this in haste,” DeLay said.

<snip>

Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., a co-chairman of Bush’s campaign in California in 2000, said he doesn’t support a constitutional amendment. “I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we’re at a point where it’s not necessary,” he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4360783/

[mac2]

35. AU sent a letter to Congress saying it is Unconstitutional

You shouldn't pass an amendment that takes away citizen rights. Most the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to protect the citizens FROM their government not the other way around.

As President, Bush has no power to do so. The people have the power to change it if they want...of the states.

[oasis]

36. Rove's desperation about sliding poll numbers has led to miscalculations

of gigantic proportions.