Bush: constitutional amendment - Gay Marriage Ban

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat -- Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- says he will vote for it.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/01/bush.marriage.ap/index.html

He's trying to regain support from his base (bigots). What a desparate and pathetic man he is.
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
RE: Bush: constitutional

love it - just another further peice of evidence that blows this "freedom and liberty for all" (which was directly nicked from the magna carta) BS out the window.

what's it now?, freedom for all except:

Blacks
Gays
Hispanics
Disabled people without healthcare
the poor

so much for "bring me your poor, your sick, your needie" heez I could go on all day.

America - Land of the democratically chosen baby murderers
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Daz, how people could elect that buffoon is beyond belief.
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
RE: Bush: constitutional

I dont think it is, you see this is what happens when you live in a bubble, simply put, a lot of the people who voted for Bush have no concept of the outside world, or at least anything that goes on beyound their borders, sure, the fact that Bush looks like a bufoon and upsets foreigners wherever he goes isnt a reason not to elect him.

But what worries me is his war mongering and general christian extremist views, he might think he's doing right, but outwardly he looks like a bufoon who's being manipulated by the christian right, who ultimatly, if it goes on for much longer would lead the whole world in a religious war which could be the end of us all.

that's the problem I have with the man
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
RE: Same-sex Marriage

Hehe, cute picture, Jo Canadian.

I would agree with the premise of the image: in exemplia, that His Excellency the Honourable George Bush, the President of the United States of America, is attempting to distract from pressing matters using same-sex marriage.
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
I have been meaning to post this for a long time,but didn't want to start flaming Americans. But, Bush is the lamest excuse for a president ever :( He had the Senate and Congress under control and he still cannot do anything of any value. This isn't a surprise tho; look at all his accomplishments from before he entered public service :evil:
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Coulter Won't Buy Into Lauer's Liberal Logic
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on June 6, 2006 - 07:57.

While considerable attention focuses on Ann Coulter's more superficial charms, from a conservative perspective Ann's real beauty is her absolute refusal to buy into liberal logic, no matter how pervasive. That independence of mind was on display this morning during her 'Today' interview with Matt Lauer. Ann was on to tout her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, released today on . . . 6/6/6 - sign of the devil and all that. [See today's open thread.]

The first example came in the the context of President Bush's current push for a constitutional amendment that would prohibit gay marriage. The liberal mantra on his initiative, as exemplified by Ann Curry's performance on yesterday's Today, is that this is a cynical political ploy and a waste of time when there are myriad 'real' issues out there to be addressed.

Right out of the box, Lauer invited Ann to buy into that logic:

"David Gregory said if you ask people what they care about they say Iraq and gas prices. Gay marriages are way down on the list, but that's what the president is talking about and what the Senate is taking up. Why?"

Coulter would have none of it:

"I don't know what people are talking about or how David Gregory knows that. But I do know that gay marriage amendments have been put on the ballots in about 20 states now and passed by far larger numbers than Bush won the election by."

Matt then hit Ann with a classic exemplar of perceived liberal truth - the musings of a WaPo columnist. Lauer:

"Here's how E.J. Dionne puts it in the Washington Post: 'The Republican party thinks its base of social conservatives is a nest of dummies who have no memories and respond like bulls whenever red flags are waved in their faces.' Do you agree with that?

Coulter: "That the base are dummies or that Bush thinks that?"

Lauer: "That he can wave a red flag and they will run to the polls to respond to him?"

Coulter: "They don't need to respond to him. He's not running again."

Lauer: "They want the voters to turnout in the mid-term elections. They don't want to lose control of the congress."

Coulter: "Maybe they want to do what the voters want. Whatever you can say about whether or not Bush has a mandate, the mandate against gay marriage is pretty strong. It passed by like 85 percent in Mississippi. Even in Oregon, and that was the state that the groups supporting gay marriage fixated on and outspent their opponents by like 40:1, it passed even there. There is a mandate against gay marriage."

Lauer: "Do you think George Bush in his heart really cares strongly about that issue?"

Coulter: "I don't know what anybody cares in his heart."

Lauer: "Would you take a guess?"

Coulter: "I know what Americans think because they keep voting, over and over and over again overwhelmingly they reject gay marriage. So why is that a bad thing for politicians to respond to what is overwhelmingly a mandate?"

Ann's rejection of Lauer's liberal logic was again on stunning display a bit later in the interview. Lauer suggested that Pres. Bush's low approval ratings are attributable to Iraq. That in turn engendered the following exchange.

Coulter: "I don't think so. That's the one thing he is doing right and that the Democrats are incapable of doing. That is fighting the war on terror."

Lauer: "But I am talking about the war with Iraq, not the war on terror."

Coulter: "I consider them the same thing. We didn't invade Guatemala."

Cue the rim shot!
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
RE: Same-sex Marriage

Have the courts in the United States of America overturned the opposite-sex requirement for marriage in any jurisdictions, or is this issue one of "debate", rather than one of whether or not opposite-sex marriage or same-sex marriage are provided for in the approrpiate provisions of the constitution?
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
This amendment will never pass, it will be left up to the States where it belongs. Personally, I don't care who jumps into bed with who and who marries who, I can care less. And contrary to popular belief, the world will not end if the definition of marriage remains between and man and a woman

Daz_Hockey, you're a pretty funny fellow, you make all these accusations of discrimination when your law of civil partnerships permits same-sex ONLY to engage in it, opposite-sex couples are restricted from it, you live in your own bubble and don't even realize how things work. And the rights in civil partnerships are limited, so get real.

And as for your last comment about baby murdering, it's old and washed 100 times over, get a new line.
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
RE: Bush: constitutional

I'll fetch the tablets ITN (it'll stop the godfather impersonations)....baby murdering never gets old my man, unless the babies gain the capability to shoot an uzii themselves.

Frankly, there is no defending any of it. simple point, if a hetero-life-couple dont want to get married, they simply dont have to, same now with gay couples here.

I'm a "funny fellow" lol, dont worry they were only kids, and I mean, hey they could have grown up to be potential avengers.....erm why does that sound familiar? lol

I have no problem at all with gay marrages, and in the world we live in, I thinks it's disgusting that a country that promotes itself as the democratic lightbearer (oh I love the irony in that word) should be allowed to ban same-sex marrages is appaling
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
I guess you missed the breaking news Daz, it didn't fly, it will never fly, this is all political play, like the abortion issue.

And btw, Great Britain is light years away from freedoms and rights the US and Canada enjoy. You have alot of backyard cleaning to do before you criticize from afar.
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
RE: Bush: constitutional

prey tell, please could you provide some examples of how britain is so far behind in the "freedoms" and rights that the US and Canada (who use pretty much UK law anyway) hve?

I really would like to know
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Sure Daz, here's a quick one for you to ponder, your legal system has never afforded negative rights until the EU strolled along. And then, it isn't as it should be.
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
RE: Bush: constitutional

ok then....

but the rights you cherish are slowly being removed anyway, ala "Patriot" or was that "Parrot" Act
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Thanks for bringing up this perfect example. Had the Patriot Act been enacted in the UK, there wasn't a dam thing you could do about it. Your government is "fused" into one entity. Clauses of the Patriot Act being deemed unconstitutional, are being struck down, one by one. Or don't you ever get that info on the BBC?
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,336
66
48
51
Das Kapital
But doesn't the UK have some obligations through their joining the EU?

I get confused on that one, membership has conditions with resepect to human rights and a few other areas, but there's no official constituion.


Why oh why would anyone want MORE bureacracy complicating things(I can never spell that word, did I get it right?).
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
That's exactly what I said, the UK only obtained negative rights via the EU and then it isn't on the same level as the US and Canada.

And it's bureaucracy. :D