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.

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.