1
   

Gay Marriage: A Constitutional Amendment?

Forums: Politics, Gay Marriage
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Dartagnan
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:13 pm
The Republicans are pushing for a Senate vote on this, no doubt to force Kerry and Edwards to vote against it, then use this during the fall campaign. Kerry and Edwards say they're against gay marriage, but that the states should decide. Agreeing with them, apparently, is Mrs. Cheney.

So, what's up with this? An obvious attempt to create a wedge issue to shore up right-wing support for Bush? Or is it appropriate for the constitution to be so amended? Weigh in on in this, if you please...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,506 • Replies: 54
No top replies

 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:17 pm
Quote:
An obvious attempt to create a wedge issue to shore up right-wing support for Bush?


You hit the nail on the head here. Bush can grab a lot of votes by presenting this issue to the knee-jerks out there.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:20 pm
I tend to agree, Cyclo. I'd love, however, to hear some responsible opposing view: That this issue is of such importance that the constitution should be changed to resolve it...

And whatever happened to States Rights?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:23 pm
States Rights? Dunno -- ask the DEA.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:24 pm
I see no reason why gays should not be allowed to make the same foolish mistake that so many others do!
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:25 pm
States Rights? Seems that pretty much went out the window in 1865.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:27 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
An obvious attempt to create a wedge issue to shore up right-wing support for Bush?


You hit the nail on the head here. Bush can grab a lot of votes by presenting this issue to the knee-jerks out there.

Cycloptichorn


Nice to know that people who don't believe as you do are quickly brushed off as "knee-jerks".
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:29 pm
Re: Gay Marriage: A Constitutional Amendment?
D'artagnan wrote:
So, what's up with this? An obvious attempt to create a wedge issue to shore up right-wing support for Bush? Or is it appropriate for the constitution to be so amended? Weigh in on in this, if you please...


Neither of the above? Wink

Bush doesn't need any "shoring up" with the right wing. Those people aren't going to vote for Kerry anyway.

What the issue does do is highlight the disconnect between a large portion of the Democratic Party base and their elected reps in Washington. Bringing this issue to the forefront is basiclly saying "put up or shut up" to the Dems in DC.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:29 pm
Well, while that is funny, I really meant to highlight the fact that gay mairrage/rights really is a 'knee-jerk' issue for a lot of people.

I mean, most people don't really know anything about the situation other than the fact that they aren't gay, and really don't care to fight for their rights. It's easy to round their votes up by presenting the opposition as strongly 'pro-gay rights.'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Redheat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:32 pm
Re: Gay Marriage: A Constitutional Amendment?
D'artagnan wrote:
The Republicans are pushing for a Senate vote on this, no doubt to force Kerry and Edwards to vote against it, then use this during the fall campaign. Kerry and Edwards say they're against gay marriage, but that the states should decide. Agreeing with them, apparently, is Mrs. Cheney.

So, what's up with this? An obvious attempt to create a wedge issue to shore up right-wing support for Bush? Or is it appropriate for the constitution to be so amended? Weigh in on in this, if you please...


Yes this is being used by Bush to go after Kerry/Edwards. Bush knows as does anyone paying attention that the admendment doesn't have support on either side of the aisle. However they want to shore up their right wing base which won't vote for Kerry anyway so what's the point I don't know.

I'm sure they are hoping like with the gun issue in 2000 they will take enough focus off real issues and convince some that the "liberals are trying to take marriage away". This is a tired and true tactic by Republicans , that is to take a non issue like this and blow it up so they can avoid addressing real issues. It did work to a certain extent in 2000 where some independent voters were convinced that the Democrats wanted to ban all guns.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:33 pm
Re: Gay Marriage: A Constitutional Amendment?
fishin' wrote:

Bush doesn't need any "shoring up" with the right wing. Those people aren't going to vote for Kerry anyway.


Au contraire, fishin'. It's true that the right wingers won't vote for Kerry, but some are threatening to sit out the election to punish Bush for not being aggressive enough in pursuit of their agenda. And some are steamed that pro-choice types like Giuliani are speaking at the GOP Convention.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:46 pm
Re: Gay Marriage: A Constitutional Amendment?
D'artagnan wrote:
Au contraire, fishin'. It's true that the right wingers won't vote for Kerry, but some are threatening to sit out the election to punish Bush for not being aggressive enough in pursuit of their agenda. And some are steamed that pro-choice types like Giuliani are speaking at the GOP Convention.


Yup. They'll huff and puff and then vote for Bush anyway.

This whole thing is just to force a vote and make Kerry take a public position he can't waffle on. As Redheat said, there isn't enough support for it and everyone already knows that. It's also the worst worded Amendment proposal I've ever seen. It doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:50 pm
It will be interesting to see what Kerry will do if it does come to a vote. I agree that it may be pushed to try to force him into a stand one way or the other. The hope being (just a guess) that democratic moderates who may be against gay marriage will find it difficult to vote for Kerry if he votes against the amendment.

My guess though, is that Kerry will conveniently be on the campaign try and unavailable to cast his vote.
0 Replies
 
Redheat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:09 pm
CoastalRat wrote:
It will be interesting to see what Kerry will do if it does come to a vote. I agree that it may be pushed to try to force him into a stand one way or the other. The hope being (just a guess) that democratic moderates who may be against gay marriage will find it difficult to vote for Kerry if he votes against the amendment.

My guess though, is that Kerry will conveniently be on the campaign try and unavailable to cast his vote.


It won't be only Kerry avoiding this vote. The premise of the amendment is to DISCRIMINATE and to put that right to DISCRIMINATE in the Constitution. Even the American people do not agree with putting an amendment in. So any politican wishing to save his political ass will be avoiding this vote and this goes for both sides of the aisle.

It's all ready been concluded that a vote won't happen so the only thing left to assume is that Bush wants to take the focus off his record while in office to something that's not even a real issue. Another non issue, like school prayer, banning guns and the Pledge. Its meant to incite emotional responses so no one pays close attention to reall issues like Iraq.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:18 pm
Oh, so school prayer, banning guns, banning the pledge (as written with "under God"), gay marriage and such are non-issues? To whom are they non-issues? To some people they may well be important issues. But I guess to those on the left who know what is best for America these issues are irrelevant. They have already decided what is best and that is that.

Certainly they are not major issues and I think most intelligent people will realize they are not as important as this current war and such, but don't make the mistake of thinking they are not issues to a large number of Americans. Because rightly on wrongly, a large number will be voting based on some of those issues.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:19 pm
Oh, and I do agree with you. I think a lot of congressmen will want to duck that vote. LOL
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:21 pm
Quote:
Oh, so school prayer, banning guns, banning the pledge (as written with "under God"), gay marriage and such are non-issues? To whom are they non-issues? To some people they may well be important issues. But I guess to those on the left who know what is best for America these issues are irrelevant. They have already decided what is best and that is that.


Turn the partisan knob down a bit, CR.

Redheat is just saying that these issues are not ones that are designed to 'swing' voters - a lot of people feel very strongly about it one way or the other, and those people probably aren't going to change that feeling between now and the election.

I also think that Redheat is saying that the current admin would rather focus on these issues than the much more troubling ones where they were, yaknow, suspected of misleading the country.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Redheat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:23 pm
CoastalRat wrote:
Oh, so school prayer, banning guns, banning the pledge (as written with "under God"), gay marriage and such are non-issues? To whom are they non-issues? To some people they may well be important issues. But I guess to those on the left who know what is best for America these issues are irrelevant. They have already decided what is best and that is that.

Certainly they are not major issues and I think most intelligent people will realize they are not as important as this current war and such, but don't make the mistake of thinking they are not issues to a large number of Americans. Because rightly on wrongly, a large number will be voting based on some of those issues.


Yes in the scheme of things that actually affect me and this country they are non issues. They are emotional issues that really only shore up the most extreme on both sides.

Nobody has advocated banning guns= non issue

you can pray anyplace you want just don't do it publically at school, no rights are infringed =School prayer = non issue

Marriage is a pledge between two people keep religion out of it, it's either a right enjoyed by all or it's not = Gay marriage = non issue

Yes a number of people will vote on those issues thus the reason Republicans use them. They can take the focus off their records and what they are really saying v. doing. They USE these issues to get people all riled up for what? So they can prove that they are a better Christian=American=Person? Sorry don't buy it. Anyone who let's themselves decide on these kinds of issues are just working off some kind of holier then thou premise that in the end benefits no one.
0 Replies
 
Redheat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 02:31 pm
Quote:
Redheat is just saying that these issues are not ones that are designed to 'swing' voters - a lot of people feel very strongly about it one way or the other, and those people probably aren't going to change that feeling between now and the election.

I also think that Redheat is saying that the current admin would rather focus on these issues than the much more troubling ones where they were, yaknow, suspected of misleading the country.


True

Many independents according to exit polls in 2000 voted on "guns" and the "tax cut". They were lead to believe that Democrats were advocating banning guns which was competely false.

Now we have Gay Marriage, which will ultimately be decided in the USSC and if any judge is worth their merit they will not be able to support laws that allow disrimination.

This entire premise that the world will cease to exist or that marriages will end all over the world because gay's are allowed to say " I do" is about as asinine as it gets. You don't have to agree, I don't agree with letting ignorant redneck bigots marry and reproduce but do I have the right to refuse them marriage?

While most Americans support not allowing Gay "Marriage" they do support Civil Unions which IMO should be offered to anyone. They also don't support an amendement bannning it. It took a lot of time for Americans to get used to interacial marriages but it happened. Gay marriage will happen too. So let's focus on the important stuff like what got us into Iraq, what's been done to secure us, the economy, and what exactly has been accomplished in the 3.5 years Bush has been in office.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 03:10 pm
Redheat wrote:
I don't agree with letting ignorant redneck bigots marry


What about the educated redneck bigots? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gay Marriage: A Constitutional Amendment?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 04:13:06
▲ ▼