Deja Vu all over again.

[YNKYH8R]

So as most have may or may not have heard the senate is going to start debating same sex marriage...AGAIN!!!!

Now I know I don't have to go too deep to let you all know what I feel. (I've spoken about it enough on various occasions.) But this vent is not about the issue it self; it is about how they are going to waste 2 or 3 weeks debating what didn't go through two years ago...why? Because Bush is at 29% approval rating and he needs to energize his base with something all the right wing christians can cling to..this issue. If he can't help republicans get re-elected in the fall because everyone has been distancing themselves from him then they feel that if this issue comes around again it will assure republican seats won't be lost.
It's all a stunt. Get it?!? They won't bring up immigration, Iran, Iraq, or the defecit (important issues) no they feel now is the time to save marriage again. (Like it really needs to be saved by the likes of them anyway.)

[Advertisement]

[MAlice101]

it is about how they are going to waste 2 or 3 weeks debating what didn't go through two years ago...why? Because Bush is at 29% approval rating and he needs to energize his base with something all the right wing christians can cling to..this issue.

BINGO!

[JKATHERINE]

[YNKYH8R]

Republican majority uses symbols to woo its base
AFP - 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Five months before a congressional election that may prove difficult for Republicans, the party of President George W. Bush has decided to move to the forefront an issue dear to its conservative base: a gay marriage ban. Congress has many burning issues on its agenda: it has to unblock emergency funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, adopt a budget, ratify a nuclear deal with India and encourage construction of refineries to lower painfully high gas prices.
I guess the highlighted issues are back burner now, huh?!?

[dv8grl]

Yes!

This is so ridiculous. Their are much more important things than what 2 human beings want to do with their lives.
What they do will not effect another damn person, PERIOD!




10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Wrong

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

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriages will be less meaningful if gay marriages were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. We could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[delSol]

why don't they spend more time on stuff like this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...r=U.S._1638404

[Jolie Rouge]

SAME-SEX AMENDMENT?
By William F. Buckley Jr.
Tue Jun 6, 8:06 PM ET

Key figures in the administration have involved themselves in the matter of the amendment to limit marriage to members of complementary sexes. Mrs. Bush was heard to say on television that she hoped the question would not become a "campaign tool." To let this happen, she suggested, would remove it from the moral plane on which it should travel.

Precisely such a plane is where Mrs. Cheney's daughter Mary believes it belongs. She is a lesbian, a fact everywhere acknowledged but here noted with reluctance, because it oughtn't to figure in the discussion. Ms. Cheney's point is that the contemplated amendment is exactly that, a moral ruling given constitutional dress. If it were passed, it would be "writing discrimination into the Constitution, (which is) fundamentally wrong."

Mrs. Bush's appeal, however appealing, is not likely to inform the debate ahead. Almost all public issues tend to be politicized. The rule shouldn't be strictly applied, but it is generally so that liberals, whose party is Democratic, tend to permissive alternatives. In the debate on Prohibition, which was passed with overwhelming popular endorsement in 1917, the anti-liquor forces were associated with that part of America on the warpath against sinful practices. It was a decade before liberals consolidated their position in favor of repeal, as urged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

It is an item of minor historical interest that the repeal of the 18th Amendment zipped through the state legislatures faster than any other in constitutional history. But those who wish to make a libertarian point against the amendment currently proposed have got to grope for appropriate language, which doesn't come readily to mind.

Because the point at issue has to do not exclusively with connubial relations, but with the sanctions that are visited by the state on connubial unions. It is one thing for a state to decree that a man cannot have sexual relations with another man -- such an intrusion attempts prohibitions that are blissfully unenforceable. What the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) was that sodomy is protected under the 14th Amendment. It did not rule that the state of Texas was required to enshrine homosexual unions as "marriages."

The making of civil laws is a political enterprise.

States have differed over the years on what it is that is required in order to qualify for a marriage license. The most obvious differences have had to do with age. Others require variable lengths of time between the filing of an application and the issuance of a license. Some have differing health requirements.

It is important to stress the point made by the president in advancing his defense of the marriage amendment. Sure, it has moral implications, but there is more to the amendment than that. What it seeks to do is to guard the right of individual states to devise their own requirements in the matter of marriage. We know that contemporary interpretations of the authority of the courts have had the effect of nullifying state authority in the matter. Already in Massachusetts, the highest state court has ruled that a law defining marriage conflicts with what amounts to state constitutional rights.

It is the point here that in an age of judicial activism, we have in effect the nullification of state laws. Not a single state legislature has passed a same-sex marriage law. But there is no reason to bet that when faced with such a law, the Supreme Court will deny itself the authority to override states that affirm traditional distinctions.

It is a pity that more time is not given to the constitutional question of state vs. federal authority. The reason for this has to do with the tendency of the Supreme Court in past decades to set itself up as a moral tribunal for the entire country. That superordination of the judiciary can't be coped with except by a constitutional asseveration, and the only way to do this is by an amendment.

On the matter of how this will play politically, we have as the major contender, of course, the gay lobby. It is asking individual states to extend to homosexual unions the same accommodations it makes to marriages. That is a direct challenge to traditional assumptions. If a demand were made merely to extend identical protections to gay unions in matters of tax or inheritance, the issue could be negotiated without fearing to step on judicial toes.

As it works out, the Democratic Party will almost certainly associate itself with the opposition to the amendment -- pleading individual "rights." Whether Mr. Bush can succeed in bringing proper attention to the real issues at stake is, unhappily, bound up in the question of the prestige he now has, diminished by matters that do not affect the reasoning of his appeal for a constitutional amendment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucwb/2006060...p2BHNlYwMxNzA0

[janelle]

LOL, stupid like a fox. This will get the Republican/Conservative voters out in droves to vote the Republican candidates in. The are doing the happy dance.

[Cessie]

LOL, stupid like a fox. This will get the Republican/Conservative voters out in droves to vote the Republican candidates in. The are doing the happy dance.

That makes perfect sense – our economy is slowing at an alarming rate, Feds are going to continue raising interest rates, the stock market is dumping like crazy, our education system is one of the worst in the industrialized world, infant mortality is one of the highest, we’re stuck in a useless war that is only increasing terrorism everywhere, we’re in debt up to our children’s head, China is jumping ahead of us in every area (except the number of big bombs and they’re working on that) & owns most of our horrendous debt, illegal immigration is out of control and nothing is really going to be done about it, millions of jobs are being outsourced to emerging countries, foreign countries own our banks, land and now our airlines and what gets the Right Wing motivated to vote ------- Homophobia and “the sanctity of marriage” in a country where 70% of the men cheat anyway and most people are on their 2nd, 3rd or 4th “sanctified” union.

[janelle]

Doom and gloom. You must be a liberal. LOL

[Cessie]

Doom and gloom. You must be a liberal

Partially wrong on the liberal part. I’m socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Totally correct on the doom and gloom. I see little ahead, for at least the short haul, 20 to 40 years, but worsening conditions for this country. I have young children and this is not the world I wanted for them, so if I want them to grow up in this country, I can’t afford the luxury of rose colored glasses and sticking my head in the sand.