Well, I guess he loses the *** vote

[maccool]

Well, I guess he loses the *** vote

Linkeroo

I guess what bothers me the most is that the last time the Constitution was amended to enforce a specific lifestyle choice on U.S. citizens, it didn't go too well - lousy Prohibition.

This bit is funny, though:

Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

Yes, because married, *** mobs will be recruiting more and more gays; thereby resulting in a country of homosexuals; spare me. Serious consequences? Is that like double secret probation?

And seriously, he needs to stop bringing up the phrase 'Activist Judges'. I mean, Activist Judges got him in the White House in the first place.

So, any chance of this being ratified? I'm going to say no.

There's no need for an amendment, let the individual states decide. Oh wait, what's that part of the Constitution that says states have to abide by the rulings of other states?

 

[Steve_Kow]

I think that the gov. should stay out of marriage altogether, however I can agree (especially with the federal benefits afforded to married people) that there should be a uniform code for what constitutes a marriage. Although I just can't bring myself to care if two homosexuals want to get married. Good for them, let them.

edit: I object to the title of this thread, Mac. I doubt he ever had any *** votes to lose.

 

[DurfBarian]

This just in: Bush calls for turning San Francisco denizens into pillars of salt

 

[maccool]

This just in: Bush calls for turning San Francisco denizens into pillars of salt

Woo Hoo! I'm gonna go line a margarita glass with someone from Castro Street. Now if can turn The Tenderloin into tequila, we'd have us an epic party.

 

[Munch]

spare me. Serious consequences? Is that like double secret probation?

Actually, it could cause a lot of confusion across the country. If one city/state allows a *** marriage, and that couple moves to a city/state that doesn't, there is a huge amount of legal work that would ensue. Multiply by several hundred thousand.

Oh wait, what's that part of the Constitution that says states have to abide by the rulings of other states?

There is none. States in and of themselves are sovereign from other states.

 

[maccool]

There is none. States in and of themselves are sovereign from other states.

So the 'Full Faith and Credit Clause' is just eye candy? I'm unclear.

Article 4, Section 1

 

[Munch]

So the 'Full Faith and Credit Clause' is just eye candy? I'm unclear.

Article 4, Section 1

True. I take that comment back. However, there is certainly precedent for one particular state's requirements/laws/issuances to not apply to other states. Noteably in the form of gun licenses, a license to practice medicine or a licence to practice law.

Also, the second clause of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" will pose troublesome:

And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

In other words, the federal govt can come up with as many exceptions to the rule as it wants.

 

[maccool]

Heh. I conveniently left that second part out :innocent:

 

[Steel_Avatar]

I think it's wrong. The Constitution and specifically the amendments, have all been about either 1.) Limiting the powers of government or 2.) Expanding the rights of the citizens. With the notable exception of Prohibition, which was also the only amendment to ever to be repealed.

The Costitution isn't about legislating morality.

 

[advil]

edit: I object to the title of this thread, Mac. I doubt he ever had any *** votes to lose.

whatever happened to the log cabin republicans? seem to recall bush refusing to meet with them leading up to 2000, haven't heard a whisper since...

 

[llad12]

Jeez ... we need a different leader in the White House. By making this a political issue, Bush appears to be pandering to his far right-wing constituency.

 

[John_Connor]

I think it's wrong. The Constitution and specifically the amendments, have all been about either 1.) Limiting the powers of government or 2.) Expanding the rights of the citizens. With the notable exception of Prohibition, which was also the only amendment to ever to be repealed.

The Costitution isn't about legislating morality.

This is a bit of a tricky issue, since the laws of the country are governed by the Constitution, as far as I understand it (being Canadian, I admittedly don't know a whole lot about the American Consitution or its methods). Marriage is largely a legal institution, granting certain rights and priviledges to the couple under U.S. law. Since deciding who can be recognized by such a union is largely a question of morality, it seems that the Constitution is forced to legislate morality to a certain extent.

To his credit though, there was this much said in the linked article:

'But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment would do nothing to stop states from allowing civil unions for same-sex couples. ' So he doesn't seem completely anti-***, just opposed to changing definitions that have been in use for however long.

 

[Freemason]

So lemme get this straight. Pres. Bush is throwing away what? 1, maybe 2% of the vote which he didn't have anyway? Whoop de flippin' doo. Rougly 2/3 of the nation is against *** marriage. I'd rather have 67% of the people on my side than try to pander to at most 2% of the nation.

 

[advil]

Rougly 2/3 of the nation is against *** marriage.

which isn't the same as saying how many support an amendment against it. last i heard the numbers here in MA were about 2/3rds against *** marriage but only around 40-45% in support of such an amendment. go figure. but i bet the national numbers show a similar pattern...

that being said, i think you're absolutely right about the political gain here for bush. he didn't lose anyone he hadn't already lost, and he made his religious fundamentalist support happier.

 

[maccool]

What is this 1 or 2% number that you're making up, Smeg? The ultraconservative base that Bush is trying to win back or the gays? As for the 2/3 who are against *** marriage, that's fine, an amendment requires 3/4 of state legislatures for ratification. I don't see 38 states doing that, if for no other reason than to preserve the status quo that political parties love so much.

The U.S. Constitution is not in place to enforce morality. They tried once, it didn't work.

 

[Freemason]

Mac, if I remember my demographics right, the percentage of *** people is 1-2% of the nation. So what if he throws their vote away. He never had it to begin with.

But don't ignore the possibility of an amendment. Prohibition wasn't supposed to be possible either.

 

[Steel_Avatar]

And it didn't work. There's a reason it was repealed, Freehead.

 

[Koko Puff]

Smeg - You’re a freemason right?

By the way you mind reciting the “blood†oath I’ve heard alot of about it - I heard it’s suppose to be gory.

Why do you even support bush - if he had his way the only religion in america would probably be fundamentlist bible thumping christians.

Anyways I’m *** and I just want to say one thing ... je souhaite president bush brulere dans l’enfer.

Viva la homsexuales.

 

[axeil]

Er..Koko can you translate what you said in french. Yo no hablo francais, solamente ingles y un poco espanol. Thanks.

(Forgive my poor Spanish skills, I said I dont speak french, only a little Spanish)

 

[maccool]

He hopes that Bush will burn in Hell.

Real mature, Koko. Just because it's in French doesn't make it any better; or you less of a jerk.