Bush in crazy same sex marriage ammendment election gambit

An example: We couldn't let the State of Alabama decide whether or not school integration was a "state's rights" issue, so Johnson (who is a greater man than folks give him credit for) sent fucking troops.

Ultimately the courts will find that civil unions are the same as all-black high schools - separate but equal rarely is. Only equal marriage rights will hold up.

Let's just get this over with an ban marriage altogether.

Hold up -- not even the Supreme Court can invalidate an amendment. It is their job to interpret the Constitution via majority decision, but they cannot overturn amendments.

As it is, Bush's take that is this is solely something driven by 'activist judges' is ridiculously fallacious, in that it's rather obvious the people getting married weren't suddenly summoned up out of nothing by a judge's command. It is however a typical stance of his.

Marriage is a religious institution. What does it have to do with legislation, except that there's an inherent "civil union" legally binding contract that comes with it.

This is so fucking stupid.

The government should give civil union licenses to any two unrelated people of legal age, for tax purposes and survivor benefits and all that, and let marriage be a church-by-church issue.

I mean, if we got popular support and the Congress concurred, could we pass an amendment to eject all people of Haitian descent? Or could the courts shoot it down in advance?

I was shooting spitballs in Civics class.

the position of the courts is see whether or not it will pass constitutional muster BEFORE an amendment is ratified? That is doesn't conflict with existing constitutional precident? Is that right?

Uh, no. This is something that does not involve the courts. Amending the constitution by definition means that 'muster' is not an issue -- it didn't say it beforehand, it says it now.

(x-post)

I don't think any president has spoken about flag-burning at length.

Heh. Another way to think about it, Andy -- you will always hear legal arguments and decisions that argue something is unconstitutional. You will NEVER hear a legal decision that explicitly says that the Constitution is, even partially, wrong and invalidated -- judges do not have the authority to make any such decision -- and you will never hear a legal argument being advanced with that as the goal -- because they'd be laughed out of court.

Funny how he's so down on activist judges now when it was activist judges who made him the president.

Can we pass an amendment that convicted sex offenders can never own property?

Because it creates two classes of people - those who can be "married" and those who cannot. It's symbolic, but still important to a lot of people.

The easiest solution would be to make all 'marriages' into civil unions, but the wackjobs on the right would never let that happen. 'Cuz we're God's country.

Again, take Prohibition as an example. The mere act of brewing or drinking alcohol was judged to be a criminal act nationwide, without exception. Here's the text of the amendment as it was passed:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating
liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject
to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by
the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the
submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Nah, that's for the romantics. Marriage is a legal/financial contract. Transfer of property, alimony/palimony, etc.

language is, i think, inherently tied to equality as can be seen in most cases of discrimination (most obviously perhaps the women's movement wherein YES it matters if you keep using "he" for the neutral pronoun!)

I think the answer is always "yes," but if not then it depends on what you mean by specifically: the income tax amendment doesn't cite the portions of the Constitution which previously forbade income tax, for instance.

Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to ban same-sex marriages?

Yes
44%
88312 votes

No 
56%
113543 votes

At least Rove so hopes.

Hunter check that "Joe Louis" thread for libertarian fun

No need for the second r.

I'm somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to many of life's issues. This means I believe in the institution of marriage and I do still see it as vital and special, even if I don't see myself actually getting married anytime soon.

I have considered myself a Republican for at least ten years. The very first presidential election I voted in, I voted for the Republican, i.e. now-President Bush.

I am very much for equality for gays and lesbians and believe very strongly that gays and lesbians should be able to legally wed no matter where they are in the U.S. I also think there's nothing wrong with allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt.

I stand with the President on a lot of issues. However, I cannot side with him on this particular issue. And if the President is truly committed to supporting and pushing this amendment through, he is in serious danger of losing my vote when it comes time for November to roll around. One more thing -- as an advocate for stronger local government and subtracting from the federal bureaucracy, what John Kerry has said about this issue appeals to me.

That is all I'm going to say about this issue.

Solid stuff.

As for the other link, I have to say I like the fact that Sullivan finally had the scales drop from his eyes there...

As for me, I am planning to at least write letters to both my senators and my congressperson -- actual postal mail rather than e-mail, though I might follow up with that as well. A small gesture but an important one.

Please stop being a lying sack of shit.

Thanks.

Alex

Very tempting!

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he appreciated Bush's "moral leadership" on the issue, but expressed caution about moving too quickly toward a constitutional solution, and never directly supported one. "This is so important we're not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this," Delay said. "We are going to look at our options and we are going to be deliberative about what solutions we may suggest."

However, California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.

"I will say that I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue," said Dreier, a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary."

Lewis said, "At this moment I feel changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue."

This is already getting sweet!

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., meets his principles in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women. But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular piece of legislation in his announcement. White House officials have said that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.

If so, is this an attempt to bolster it up? Or will it in fact just cause it to collapse further?

But as Dennis Hastert, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, said, the president can win by losing.

Mr Bush is able to draw a stark distinction between himself and his Democratic rivals.

So where is Bush on civil unions?

So the issue of contention among these three is whether or not the Feds or the States should decide. Good grief.

http://wwwi.reuters.com/images//2004-02-24T221829Z_01_GALAXY-DC-MDF479920_RTRIDSP_1_NEWS-BUSH-GAYS-DC.jpg

http://www.zoarairdesign.com/pics/trojan.jpg

he has enough money and power that it doesn't really matter one way or the other

Fuck the ultra right wingers. They're archaic and useless anyway.

"For one thing, the proposal now pending before Congress would bar not only same-sex marriage itself, but also any of "the legal incidents" of marriage. That means that states and cities could not even provide for civil unions or domestic partnership arrangements that fall short of marriage. So it is not just be Massachusetts' pioneering recognition of same-sex marriage itself that are under threat. Other states' alternative solutions would also be rejected."

(emphasis added)

Everyone else has links, so here is a fantastic website with pictures of Bush 'n' Friends.

Personally, I have found it indispensible.

But it's still a gamble. Among other things, they're betting the Democrats will be too skittish on the whole issue to really capitalize on its potential to paint the Republicans as a bunch of hateful bigots. On first blush, Kerry and Edwards seem to bear that out.

Anyway, what's most interesting to me is that by calling for an amendment, Bush is implicitly acknowledging that the Constitution as written -- the one we currently live under -- cannot be reliably interpreted to deny gay marriage.

this will die ... there's no small number of even GOP congresscritters who will take a bullet for dubya on this one.

No individual whose parent has served as President shall serve as President. This isn't fucking tsarist Russia, we fought a Revolution so that this wouldn't happen you dumb shits.

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

For Better or for Worse?
By MARY ANN GLENDON

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage should be welcomed by all Americans who are concerned about equality and preserving democratic decision-making. "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience," he explained, "a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."

Those judges are here in Massachusetts, of course, where the state is cutting back on programs to aid the elderly, the disabled, and children in poor families. Yet a four-judge majority has ruled in favor of special benefits for a group of relatively affluent households, most of which have two earners and are not raising children. What same-sex marriage advocates have tried to present as a civil rights issue is really a bid for special preferences of the type our society gives to married couples for the very good reason that most of them are raising or have raised children. Now, in the wake of the Massachusetts case, local officials in other parts of the nation have begun to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples in defiance of state law.

A common initial reaction to these local measures has been: "Why should I care whether same-sex couples can get married?" "How will that affect me or my family?" "Why not just live and let live?" But as people began to take stock of the implications of granting special treatment to one group of citizens, the need for a federal marriage amendment has become increasingly clear. As President Bush said yesterday, "The voice of the people must be heard."

Indeed, the American people should have the opportunity to deliberate the economic and social costs of this radical social experiment. Astonishingly, in the media coverage of this issue, next to nothing has been said about what this new special preference would cost the rest of society in terms of taxes and insurance premiums.

The Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. There is a real problem of distributive justice here. How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?

If these social experiments go forward, moreover, the rights of children will be impaired. Same-sex marriage will constitute a public, official endorsement of the following extraordinary claims made by the Massachusetts judges in the Goodridge case: that marriage is mainly an arrangement for the benefit of adults; that children do not need both a mother and a father; and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together. It would be tragic if, just when the country is beginning to take stock of the havoc those erroneous ideas have already wrought in the lives of American children, we should now freeze them into constitutional law. That philosophy of marriage, moreover, is what our children and grandchildren will be taught in school. They will be required to discuss marriage in those terms. Ordinary words like husband and wife will be replaced by partner and spouse. In marriage-preparation and sex-education classes, children will have to be taught about homosexual sex. Parents who complain will be branded as homophobes and their children will suffer.

Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.

Finally, there is the flagrant disregard shown by judges and local officials for the rights of citizens to have a say in setting the conditions under which we live, work and raise our children. Many Americans -- however they feel about same-sex marriage -- are rightly alarmed that local officials are defying state law, and that four judges in one state took it upon themselves to make the kind of decision that our Constitution says belongs to us, the people, and to our elected representatives. As one State House wag in Massachusetts put it, "We used to have government of the people, by the people and for the people, now we're getting government by four people!"

Whether one is for, against or undecided about same-sex marriage, a decision this important ought to be made in the ordinary democratic way -- through full public deliberation in the light of day, not by four people behind closed doors. That deliberation can and must be conducted, as President Bush stated, "in a manner worthy of our country -- without bitterness or anger."

Ms. Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard.

It seems like it would read rather stupidly, is all. (I mean, suspend the idiocy of the debate and just think about what the Constitution would say..) It just seems really incongruous.

[...]

Newsom highlights the contradiction embraced by those who want to argue both that same-sex marriages are not constitutional and that the Constitution must be amended in order to make such marriages illegal.

If these marriages are not constitutional, then there is no need for the FMA.

If these marriages are constitutional, then one cannot argue that they are illegal or illegitimate.

The very effort to introduce and eventually ratify something like the Federal Marriage Amendment concedes the essence of Newsom's argument. Supporters of the amendment, therefore, are at least tacitly conceding that theirs is an effort designed to alter the Constitution in order to make it less inclusive than it is today.

xpost

Interesting. If so, I think it was Gore.

Re: the Glendon piece above. I used to find the communitarians at least worthy of attention, if not compelling. These days, afaic, she, Etzioni, and the rest of them can retire to, I dunno, Sandusky, Ohio, and spent a lifetime f*cking themselves. Not that anyone pays attention to them anymore.

Whether one is for, against or undecided about same-sex marriage presidential election outcomes, a decision this important ought to be made in the ordinary democratic way-- through full public deliberation in the light of day, not by four nine people behind closed doors.

xpost

If the author's point is that the Supreme Court may not be trusted to interpret the law in a manner most sympathetic to the claim to being an end expression of the will of the people, Florida 2000 is good ammo.

There might be some reasonable debate to be had about certain benefits going to married v. non-married people, but that's really a separate issue. Recognizing a couple's right to legally marry doesn't automatically mean they get X amount of benefits or privileges; the first is a civil rights issue, the second is a legislative policy issue. But if you're going to either reduce the privileges of marriage or expand them to the society at large, you have to do it in a way that affects all married people (gay, straight, young, old, etc.).

On the other hand, there are certain rights inherent to marriage -- parenting, most obviously (I love how Glendon just skips right over the obvious fact that lots of gay couples do have children), but also hospital visitation, legal proxy in all sorts of situations -- that are important for people who are committing to spend their lives together. Glendon might be smarter than your average ideologue on this, but she's still just put window-dressing on bigotry.

Seems like if they wanted to truly defend "the sanctity of marriage" they would first attack the churches who perform gay marriages/unions. Because other than the recent marriages in San Francisco, there are no legally sanctioned gay marriages.. But there are plenty of church-sanctioned gay marriages.

look as we all know any day now an asteroid will wipe us out so might as well just let go of all conflicts and live and let live.

she re-iterated the Talking Points about "Activist Judges", and also used the phrases "rogue mayors" and how this was being "forced" upon the people of Massachusetts.

Personally, I find his beliefs wholly irrelevant. Judge him by his actions.

She's an unusual woman.

"retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars"

the freedom to marry for same-sex couples if far more important than tax dollars. That's a lousy argument.

Granted, it is better than the one that originally appeared with it.

http://molassas.dampgirl.com/gaygeorge.jpg

behind closed doors

Just a thought.

I heard an interesting take on this on NPR today - a group of church officials in Rhode Island (not the Catholics of course) declared their support for gay marriage, and one of them in an interview said that since his church would marry same-sex couples, Bush's amendment was in fact discriminating against his religion.

http://www.basetree.com/thumbs/75jennabushsays.jpg

kicker is, he's talking about two different things; one is about a _state_ amendment, and the other a Constitutional. Apparently, CNN hasn't really felt the need to point this out, with the exception of the ex-Channel One guy.

I like CJR although it's got a stick up its ass about ten feet long.

CNN is so unbelievably stupid.

The amendment process is only sort-of democratic, since it requires supermajorities in both houses and ratification by 3/4 of the states. Insofar as democracy means "majority rule," the fact that supermajorities are required at all steps of the Article V process renders that process less democratic.

Not that I think that's necessarily a bad thing, mind you . . . .

no one can defend Bush on this issue unless they're a bigot, and since I do believe that most people aren't, I don't think there's any way an amendment will pass.

Left wing talking points make me want to plant flowers and hug people.

somehow I think Dublin would be even less tolerant of gay marriage

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Depends on which lawyer you ask. Since, I'm here, I'll give you my opinion/argument:

For the entire history of the U.S., the individual states have decided whether to recognize marrigaes entered into in other states. For example, some states still do no recognize marriages between first cousins, some do. The question of how each state decides usually boils down to whether the marriage would violate a "strong public policy" of the non-forum state. IMHO, the question of whether to recognize same-sex marriages will be decided in the same way (this, btw, is called "comity").

HOWEVER, there's a big "if," and that "if" is the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As a general matter, most courts have refused to apply the FFaCC to marriages. The FFaCC applies only to "the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states, and marriage has generally been deemed to fall outside that qualifier. The Supreme Court of the United States could always hold otherwise, though. Finally, there's qualifier to the "if"--even if the SCOTUS holds that FFaCC applies to marriages,
some recent cases have suggested there might be a "public policy exception" to the FFaCC, which would throw it back to the individual states (this result is unlikely, though).

I was excited at first to read testimonies from moderate Republicans and Libertarians who have left Bush over this, but the more I think about this the more it seems to bode poorly for the Democrats. I hope that I'm wrong.

By REUTERS

Filed at 1:07 p.m. ET 02/26/04

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Worried by flagging poll numbers, a deteriorating situation in Iraq, and a sluggish economy, President Bush called on Congress today to approve a constitutional amendment that would ban gay sex on the Moon. Republican leaders hailed the move as a bold step to unite the country in a bold and forward-looking strategy to spread family values across the solar system, and protect the legacy of the Apollo missions.

"This is an excellent idea, simply excellent," said house Majority Leader Tom DeLay. "I remember the Apollo missions, and the incredible spirit of national pride and the interest in science and our amazing universe that it created. All the kids in the neighborhood wanted to be astronauts. It was like a Tom Hanks movie. And, looking for the first time at a man in an air-tight bunny suit walking around the antiseptic, cratered, lifeless surface of that blasted orb, I knew I wanted to grow up to be an exterminator. But all these beautiful dreams would be destroyed forever if some gay people got up there and had sex. I think we'd just have to blow up the Moon or something."

Others were more effusive in their praise. "This amendment is the best idea I've ever heard!" exclaimed Senator Rick Santorum. "Not only does it ban gay people from having sex on the Moon, but it also provides for automatic funding for manned space exploration every year. We can use this money to build a base on Mars - a 'Faith-Base', if you will. I've been really inspired by all the great stuff we've been learning about Mars from that little RC car we've got up there, about how it has water and maybe even life and whatnot. But it got me thinking: what if some of that Mars life turns out to be gay? We can't have that. Over millions and millions of years of evolution, through the gradual build-up of tiny genetic mutations filtered through the constantly-changing conditions of natural selection, it could evolve into something that has sex with dogs." And in a show of bipartisan support, Georgia Democrat Zell Miller put on his lucky pair of Uncle Jesse-style overalls and sang a song praising the President's leadership and vision, accompanying himself by stroking his filthy fingernail rhythmically on an old-timey washing board.

Since NASA would be charged with enforcing the provisions of the amendment, significant changes to be made in the way that agency would be managed to ensure that it adhered to the strictest standards of hetrosexuality. All NASA employees would be required to sign statements certifying their exclusive attraction to people of the opposite gender, and would be subject to random straightness screenings. Employees would also be forbidden from making puns based on the word "moon"'s colloquial use as a synonym for "bare bottom", and all Moon-bound rockets would be emblazoned with the legend "This Is NOT A Phallic Symbol". Naturally, the people who flew in those rockets could no longer be referred to as "astronauts".

Reactions from the Democratic side was less positive. Several lawmakers questioned the usefulness of such a program while the country was facing 1/2 trillion dollar yearly deficits, and many were skeptical of the economic feasibility of paying for the large expenditures required for the space missions by abolishing taxes for people making over $1 million a year. White House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed these complaints as "political hate speech". "It is clear some people would like to twist the facts for political advantage, but this bold move by the President makes it clear to the American people that the President and his allies in Congress are fully committed to kow-towing to right wing extremists in order to maintain our grip on power. I'm sorry, did I say 'kow-towing to right wing extremists in order to maintain our grip on power'? I meant 'defeating terrorism'."

Posted by Andrew Northrup at February 26, 2004 01:42 AM | TrackBack

Comments
Re: News Update
If anyone has the bad taste to make a joke about "craters", I will be reaaallly disapointed.

Posted by: Matthew on February 26, 2004 05:32 AM | Reply to this
Re: News Update
What about on Triton?

Posted by: Bron Hellstrom on February 26, 2004 12:47 PM | Reply to this
Re: News Update
Can we have gay sex on Uranus?

(I'm sorry, just couldn't help myself. I'm really sorry.)

Posted by: Lemuel Pitkin on February 26, 2004 02:39 PM | Reply to this

Fuckers.

And notice how the revised ammendment would presumably prevent civil unions as well.