I just heard President Bush saying he's backing a federal constitutional amendment prohibiting "gay marriage" because of "activist courts."

Atta boy, Dumbya! "States' rights" for stuff conservatives like, federal legislative authority for stuff conservatives don't like. A court that makes a decision conservatives like is showing "judicial restraint." A court that makes a decision conservatives don't like is pushing "judicial activism."

How do you spell "hypocrisy"? R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N.

I must give the President credit, though. I cannot think of a more pressing issue today than stopping two people of the same sex who love each other and want to establish a legal monogamous relationship from doing so!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/thefinger.gif

Oh, wait, election season is upon us, of course!

Hey! Look over there!  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.




Cat

I must give the President credit, though. I cannot think of a more pressing issue today than stopping two people of the same sex who love each other and want to establish a legal monogamous relationship from doing so!
what about keeping foreigners out of america? or making sure multibillionaires don't have to pay taxes on their inheritances? why do you hate america?

gah, this is such a transparent snowjob. i think all this chicanery pretty much amounts to an admission that we can expect nothing meaningful to be done about the deficit, the war, gas prices, or all the other huge real problems facing the country.

I find it rather ironic that this administration is anti-gay, considering they slip it into the backside of America on a regular basis, sans Vasoline.

Why add to a little thing called the Constitution when this administration doesn't believe in, follow, and uphold it in the first place?  ???

I just heard President Bush saying he's backing a federal constitutional amendment prohibiting "gay marriage" because of "activist courts."

Atta boy, Dumbya! "States' rights" for stuff conservatives like, federal legislative authority for stuff conservatives don't like. A court that makes a decision conservatives like is showing "judicial restraint." A court that makes a decision conservatives don't like is pushing "judicial activism."

How do you spell "hypocrisy"? R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N.

I must give the President credit, though. I cannot think of a more pressing issue today than stopping two people of the same sex who love each other and want to establish a legal monogamous relationship from doing so!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/thefinger.gif

Oh, wait, election season is upon us, of course!



There's barely anything to say about it anymore, it's gotten so bad.  If the Republicans want to give up the presidency, why don't they just say so and be done with it.  This long and painful death is huring everyone.

Why do Repubs hate gays? What do they do that's wrong?

Why do Repubs hate gays? What do they do that's wrong?



It's a ploy to get the religious right into their corner.




Cat

It's a ploy to get the religious right into their corner.




Cat


They're sellouts  ::)

They're sellouts  ::)



Of course they are-to the highest bidder.


The best democracy money can buy.  ::)



Cat

because they ARE gay, and can't admit it. have you seen their wives-slash-husbands? i'd be gay too.


;D

Don't Blame Me-I'm From Massachusetts

(and my world hasn't changed at all since they legalized it here, has yours?)

Don't Blame Me-I'm From Massachusetts

(and my world hasn't changed at all since they legalized it here, has yours?)



Here we have Civil Unions-for about 3 years now. Having 2 men or 2 women get "hitched" (in whatever way, shape, or form) has not hurt my marriage at all.




Cat

Flies in the vasoline we are -
sometimes it blows my mind
Keep getting stuck here all the time

Isn't you, isn't me -
search for things that you can't see
Going blind, out of reach -
somewhere in the vasoline


Ah, the Stone Temple Pilots.  Great song.  Karma point.

Ah, the Stone Temple Pilots.  Great song.  Karma point.


How did we get to some lousy grunge band? I'm talking about the biggest right-wing hypocrisy going on today. If you look at their records, Scalia and Thomas are the most "activist" justices in the court. They've overturned more federal legislation than anybody else, but it's OK because it's in service of the corporations and the religious right!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/snake.gif

Evan some Repugs admit the whole thing is a smoke screen and has no chance.  Hope they get it over with quickly, so it fades from memory.  On the local level, I can't wait to hear what the two front runner repugs for Congress (one house and one senate) will have to say.  They claim to be independant - minded outsiders. 

Evan some Repugs admit the whole thing is a smoke screen and has no chance.  Hope they get it over with quickly, so it fades from memory.  On the local level, I can't wait to hear what the two front runner repugs for Congress (one house and one senate) will have to say.  They claim to be independant - minded outsiders. 

They look bad talking about gay marriage, but they would look far worse talking about any of the real issues. The Repugs have all three branches of government sewn up, and they've made everything worse--except if you're a millionaire or a billionaire.

The amendment question didn't pass.
Great day for truth, liberty, and the American Way...... :)

^ The goal never was to amend the Constitution. The goal was to distract the folks with moral outrage and eschew spending legislative sessions on the real issues.
::)

^ The goal never was to amend the Constitution. The goal was to distract the folks with moral outrage and eschew spending legislative sessions on the real issues.
::)


True, and the truly lame minded will see this as an issue as they cast their votes..... on to the next distraction. 

I just heard President Bush saying he's backing a federal constitutional amendment prohibiting "gay marriage" because of "activist courts."


But Maxwell, in every poll I have seen the people of the country support this, with most polls ranging from 51-55% in favor of this ammendment.

I thought you wanted what the majority of people wanted.  After all, that is what Democracy is all about, right?

From what I see most of the time, Democrats favor Democracy, unless the majority of people want something they are against.  And the people of the country are also tired of the courts going against their wishes.  If you want to see this in action, look at California.

Several times in the last 20 years, a State Constitutional Ammendment will pass by overwhelming numbers, only to be overturned by some Judge because they themselves were against it.  This has happened with the Anti-Discrimination ammendment, Marriage Ammendment, Illegal Immigration Reporting Ammendment, and many many others.

Myself, I never expected the Gay Marriage Ammentment to pass, and I do not think that many other people did either.  It is more along the lines of making a statement then anything else.  And if the Judicial keeps stepping in and over-riding the Legislative branch, then it may come to the point that Constitutional AMmendments will be the only way to go.

the majority was in favor of slavery too, once upon a time. i rather think the issue is more complicated than that.

anyway, don't you find it at all dispiriting that the administration wants to use the constitution to inhibit people's rights rather than guarantee them, for the first time since prohibition?

^ Not to mention the majority were in favor of Jim Crow laws and anti-miscegenation laws, especially south o' that ole Manson-Nixon line!

Conservatives fought tooth-and-nail against abolition of every bigoted law, but 2,3,4, and 5 generations later conservatives call unequivocally wrong what their forebears fought so hard to preserve. Yet, without a pause, conservatives soldier on in favor of the latest bigoted cause, be it an anti-gay marriage amendment or a mandatory voter ID card.

Mushroom makes the most insipid right-wing rejoinder, "but I thought you were for majority rules." He knows better that that. I know he does and he knows he does.
::)

30 years from now, gay marriage won't even be an issue. 

America has a history of getting progressively more sociallly liberal as time goes on.  As far as any of these social issues go as a liberal I can like Mick said say "Tiiiiiime is on my side". ;)

the majority was in favor of slavery too, once upon a time. i rather think the issue is more complicated than that.


Not true.  This is simply not true.  If that was the case, then how did Abraham Lincoln ever win the election?

The majority of people in the US opposed slavery.  If the majority supported it, then the Civil War would never have happened in the first place.  If the majority did not oppose it, Lincoln would never have been president.  Don't forget, the North had over double the population of the South.  And that is before you count the newer Western states like California.  There was even talk of a Constitutional Ammendment over the issue, but the Northerners knew that they would never get the 3/4 of the states to agree, no matter what percentage of the population supported abolition.

And a lot of people in the South were against it too.  Among those who wanted to see it end were none other then Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.  They both wanted it to end, but did not know of a way for that to happen peacefully.

Not true.  This is simply not true.  If that was the case, then how did Abraham Lincoln ever win the election?

The majority of people in the US opposed slavery.  If the majority supported it, then the Civil War would never have happened in the first place.  If the majority did not oppose it, Lincoln would never have been president. 
sure, later, after the abolitionist movement had been around for a while, but before that, the majority were definitely in favor of slavery. and what's amusing is that you're appropriating the exact kind of progressive social movement, abolition, that's making gay marriage an issue! it's about bringing freedom to people, rather than taking it away.

the period we're witnessing right now in terms of gay rights is very much like the early period of the abolitionist movement, when the general attitude of the public was very backwards, seeing blacks as 3-5th of a person and all that. now, just like then, certain backwards people had everyone else convinced that free blacks would mean the end of civilization, just like today people think that giving gaays rights like the rest of us is somehow going to destroy america. silly.

Among those who wanted to see it end were none other then Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.  They both wanted it to end, but did not know of a way for that to happen peacefully.



www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm



Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

      I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?


Looks like he was for abolition, but not anytime soon.  I know we have gone through this before.  Robert E. Lee had it in his power to free the slaves of his father in law, (he didn't have any of his own only because his father had squandered the family fortune and he was but a poor relation) but he waited until the very last moment, knowing the intent of his father in law was not to make the slaves remain in that condition any longer than necessary to expiate their freedom.  In the mean time he sold a couple for trying to obtain that same freedom that they rightfully believed theirs. The astounding hypocrisy of it all.

www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm



Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

       I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?


Looks like he was for abolition, but not anytime soon.  I know we have gone through this before.  Robert E. Lee had it in his power to free the slaves of his father in law, (he didn't have any of his own only because his father had squandered the family fortune and he was but a poor relation) but he waited until the very last moment, knowing the intent of his father in law was not to make the slaves remain in that condition any longer than necessary to expiate their freedom.  In the mean time he sold a couple for trying to obtain that same freedom that they rightfully believed theirs. The astounding hypocrisy of it all.





  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_sunny.gif
Yea verily! Sunlight is the best disinfectant!
In common with the "illegal immigration" issue of today, everybody paid lip service to solving the problem at hand, but the profiteers really didn't want to dispense with the benefits--"Jeez what we're doing is despicable, but it sure beats having to pay a fair wage for labor!"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/tophat.gif


If the majority supported it, then the Civil War would never have happened in the first place. 
Oh, so then the Civil War was about slavery after all!