Federal Marriage Amendment

Why is this even being discussed? There isn't one chance in a billion that this amendment will pass in Congress. No chance. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. The sole reason for the proposal for such a ludicrous amendment being made is to garner more [i[mittel[/i]-America votes for the GOP sponsors of the bill. Nobody, nobody, not even the authors of the bill expect the proposal to get past committee.

It's being discussed because the Republicans want to paint the Democrats as anti-religious during the 2006 election campaign. They want to take the voters eyes off of Iraq, rising interest rates, hugh deficit and Republican corruption.

All Democrats with one exception, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and some moderate Republicans plan to vote against it. But Republicans want their votes on record so they can play up the religious angle and try to make their base believe the Democrats are the Devil's ally and anti-marriage. Most religious conservatives will buy it. Homophobics will buy it. Social conservatives will buy it. It's nothing but a smokescreen.

This is a Civil Rights issue and poor Tony Snow didn't know what the definition of civil rights was. That's how pathetic these Republicans are.

But I know what the definition of Civil Rights is, xingu. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. It said "It shall be unlawful unemployment practice for any employer to discriminate against any individual because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin"

and, xingu, it was backed by most REPUBLICANS AND opposed by MOST DEMOCRATS.

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

I am strongly against such an amendment. Gay marriage is a controversial piece of social change, and the conflicts surrounding it can best be resolved through state experimentation: Have different states try different approaches, ranging from full blown marriage to no change at all, and see what works best. Federal involvement in this matter can only hurt, whether it's taking place through the wretched, bipartisan "Defense of Marriage Act, or the constitutional prohibition of it proposed by the Republicans, or a Supreme Court judgment compelling it.

I think it would be best if the US government staid out of this altogether. Accordingly, I oppose the federal marriage amendment.

This was the vote count in % by party;
Democrat
Senate 68%-32%
House 63%-37%

Republican
Senate 63%-37%
House 80%-20%

Most Republicans and most Democrats supported the bill. Most conservatives opposed it.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed by a vote of 73 to 27. Most of those who voted against it were conservative southern Democrats.

Do you know what southern conservative Democrats who voted against the bill are called today?

REPUBLICANS-conservative Republicans.


SOURCE

SOURCE
You know who voted against this bill Bernard? People you support. People like you.

I agree. As I said the only reason the Republicans are bring this up is to try to use it as a political issue in the fall elections.

Conservatives can't survive without focusing hate and intolerance against something. It used to be the black people. Now it's homosexuals.

The problem for the Republicans is this issue is not something the public is as concerned about as they were in the past. Since it was such a hot issue several years ago Pew polls have shown a 10 point jump in support for gay marriage. I suspect this will continue to rise over time.

HEY BERNARD-what's your opinion on this issue?

Gay Republicans slam Bush.

http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/an-open-letter-to-president.html

You are indeed correct as to your numbers, xingu, but you make an egregious error when you say that most of the southern conservative Democrats are called conservatives today. They are not called conservatives today. They are not in the Senate or House Today(exception may be Byrd) THEY ARE DEAD.

The point of this is,of course, that the Republicans were in the lead in pressing for this legislation. Senator Dirksen, Republican Minority Leader was the crucial person in the Senate who pressed for the bill.


So much for the Republican's alleged opposition to Civil Rights, xingu.

Mr.Thomas( who, as often as I have read his posts is pretty much on the money,in my opinion) is correct on this issue.

The federal government should stay out of the issue. They will since there is no chance that the Federal Amendment will pass.

There is an underlying issue mentioned by Mr. Thomas. The Federal Government is arrogating too many powers to itself and is making too many decisions which should be left in the hands of states. After all, if we exclude the kooks who wish to place everything including the kitchen sink under the Fourteenth Amendment---"equal protection under the law"( and remember it is equal protection under the LAW), we come to the real function of the Constitution, that is, to follow Article IX which says-

"The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

The states can make laws and are making laws, and if I understand Mr. Thomas correctly, should continue to make laws which they put into place into their state constitutions. DOMA ( the Defense of Marriage Act has been approved in many states and will appear as referendums in other states in November. The states will decide how marriage shall be defined.

If the ACLU OR GLAD wishes to contest those state decisions, they may indeed to to the USSC for adjudication, but in the meantime those state decisions stand!!!!

Mr. BernardR, as is often the case, is blowing smoke re the passage of the Civil Rights Act. It was Lyndon Johnson who did what he had to do (including twisting arms) to pass the bill.

And LBJ, of course, was a Democrat.

Please be so good as to review the major role of Everett Dirksen in this regard, Mr. D'artagnan.Of course. President Johnson had a key role in this Act but without Everett Dirksen, the Republican Minority Leader, the legislation might not have passed!

No, I'm not in error. Apparently you chose to ignore the insert I added about the conservative Democrats of the South switching over to the Republican Party.

Derksin did play a big role in helping its passage. He was from the north. Mansfield, a Democrat, introduced the bill. And, as D'artagnan said, Johnson pushed it through despite resistance from conservatives, the ones that switched to the Republican Party. The Civil Rights Bill is one of the things that made the southern conservatives switch to the Republican Party.


Your wrong again. They were called conservatives, Southern Conservatives. If the southern conservatives of the Republican Party are not called conservatives today, what are they called; Liberals?

You see Bernard, conservatives who hated blacks voted Democrat up to Nixon's time. After the Civil Rights Act they felt deserted by the Democratic Party and stared voting Republican. It's still conservative, still hateful and still overly religious. They're just not Democrats anymore.

SOURCE


At the time of the Civil Rights Act the Republican Party was not controlled by conservatives. It is today. So when I refer to the Republican Party I'm also saying conservative. They're pretty much one in the same.

By the way Bernard, you didn't answer my question about your position on the FMA.

You obviously did not read my post, Mr. XIngu. I said that the people who were called conservatives then are not in the House or Senate Today. THEY ARE DEAD-Possible exception =Senator Byrd.

But the figures clearly show that the Democrats were the party that tried to block the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Below are the figures based on Party and by Region

In the House- Southern Democrats--7 yes 87 no

So. Repubs------------0 yes 10 no

North Dems----------145 yes 9 no

North Reps------------138 yes 24 No

That makes it Democrats for the bill 153- Republicans 138

Democrats against 95 Republicans 34

It is clear that more Democrats opposed the bill than Republicans while the number of Republicans and Democrats who favored it was nearly the same.


And in the Senate

So.Dems 1 yes 20 No

So, Rep. o yes 1 No

No. Dems 45 yes 1 No

No, Reps 27 yes 5 no

Total No's 27- 21 of which were Democrats

Total Yes's 73- 46 of which were Democrats

It is clear that the bulk of the Opposition came from Democrats.

Federal Marriage Amendment????

I don't care if i'm the only American on earth that thinks so, This is profoundly contradictory. This is one of the stupidest things that has ever taken place in American government.

Are we getting stupider?

This is a sign. It means somthing is very wrong with the state of American democracy.

I'm still waiting for Bernard to tell me what he thinks of the FMA.

I believe the verb 'to think' is inoperative in this connection, xingu. 'To opine', perhaps. But it takes no actual thinking to form an opinion. We know from past performance that Bernie is capable of research. But this, too, need not necesarily involve any actual thought any more than rote memorization of columns of facts does.

Bernard isn't fooling anyone with his stats, because, as has been noted, those Democrats who voted against civil rights legislation have all been superceded by Republicans who are equally--or more--conservative.

Really? D'Artagnan- You can only prove that you are correct by reviewing the elections since 1964- When the Civil Rights Act was passed and showing that ALL of the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act have been replaced by Republicans. This means, of course, that you must show that each of the Democrats in the South who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act have been replaced by Republicans. This you cannot do and therefore you are quite mistaken!

Mr. Xingu. I must confess that I know little or nothing about the Federal Managers Association. I don't know how that enters into our discussion on this thread.