Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Yep, she put it pretty well -- short and to the point.

Tie this up to Scalia's statement from the bench. Buying into the homosexual agenda, talking about the social culture. Frist is such a lightweight, they're probably trying this out with him. Rove is looking to make Bush's conservative base solid, and they know this will help opposition to judicial selections.

I think the Supremes may have been a bit of a surprise; they had Ted Olson there to argue the case for the WH.

What the hell are they afraid of? (Don't tell me - I do know.)

I also have a problem with Frist as top senator.

Frist is a lightweight. But don't be surprised to see him running for President in 2008. The man gives new meaning to the word "ambitious".

Actually, my second thought is to wonder how one can consider onself a conservative while being so quick to amend the constitution.

Well, but these conservatives are so talented. They can do anything.

Witness all the hubbub about gays being an abomination. Now, how do they look at Cheney and his progeny? How does Cheney see it? The sanctity of marriage...there's a laugh. I speak from the vantage point of more years of marrigae to one person than I would have dreamed imaginable - but it not the marriage; it's the person.

D'art - but, to balance Frist, we have Edwards. They're like twins.

Perhaps the two can run against each other in 2008. Might be Nader's best chance ever!

At this point, there have been only 7 votes on the question of this thread. All 7 votes are against the proposed amendment. Those, who would support this ammendment, apparently aren't voting.


Modified 6/30/03

Huh? The proposed amendment is to ban gay marriage, no? How are these votes "against gay marriage", New Haven?

yeah....

New Haven
All I see is that there are 8 people against an amendment. Nothing to indicate pro or con on gay marriage. That wasn't the question asked.

In an age of AIDS and other STDs, you'd think we'd be doing everything we can to encourage people to remain faithful to lifetime partners!

The conservatives' kneejerk "make life difficult for 'em" response to this issue fits in the same category as their responses to teenage sex and abortion. Pretend the problem doesn't exist, or can be solved by simply saying "no." It never ceases to amaze me how deeply some people can bury their heads in the sand...

My take on this issue is not only gay; but, what about two people who live together for life ("til death do us part")? Say, two sisters; this use to be very common and is still happens. One works, the other stays home and keeps the home.

Of course, we don't call this "marriage"; but, financial dealings, insurance, death benefits, even relationship divorce ought to be considered and legalized.

It just don't make sense - I categorize this with the issue of slavery and place the neocons as bigots and haters of mankind. Trying to protect their vested images beyond all sensibilities!

I will admit that I find PDFs from homosexuals inappropriate, then again, I find PDF's from heterosexuals, dogs, and elephants inappropriate also. I remember when I was much younger a friend of mine's wife would flop a tit out in a restaurant to feed the kid. I mean, jiminy - I don't have problems, but discreation and privacy is appropriate. Recently I became aware that a lady was very properly feeding her baby in a restaurant and would never noticed it if I hadn't seen her remove the baby. I knew my friend's wife well and she did it for attention. Which is my whole emphasis here, appropriate, thoughful and sensible. But not condemnation of the entire gender based on archaic beliefs!

The more I think about this, the sillier it gets. Bill Frist proposes an amendment. Just read that Trent Lott is out to get Bill Frist. ith any luck, they'll do themselves in.

Then who do we get - Nichols, Santorum, Hatch - it's never ending <sigh>

BillW, I'm with you.

I don't really care if they call it "marriage," "same sex union," "lifetime partner" or whatever... To me, this fits in the same category as male/female couples who live together without being married. It's a nontraditional union. I believe there should be some legal protection for all committed couples because they have created their own family unit. That should be respected, whether it is traditional or not.

Hear, hear - exactly, there also needs to be reprecussions for commitments that have been discarded. Shared lives, shared wealth, shared retirements! That's what it is all about. In the end it is summed up in one word -

RESPECT!!!!!!!!

W aides would love
gay-marriage ban


By THOMAS M. DeFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

WASHINGTON - President Bush's political advisers believe a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a potent political plus for Bush's reelection - even though the odds of it ever happening are virtually zero.Bush political sources told the Daily News yesterday that the amendment - floated on Sunday by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) - reassures the President's conservative base while appealing to independents who support traditional values. "It's a pretty popular position for average people out there," a top Bush political adviser said. "The majority of Americans would say you shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals - but that doesn't mean you change the rules that our society traditionally operates by."A second adviser said the amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures to be added to the Constitution, "polls very high" in private White House surveys. Even so, "it's probably less serious than the flag-burning amendment" that Bush has already endorsed, he added.Nevertheless, the idea gives the GOP a chance to comfort pro-family groups, some of which are annoyed because Bush didn't condemn last week's Supreme Court decision endorsing some private homosexual acts.Frist's office, the White House and the Bush-Cheney campaign had no immediate comment.

Frist's proposed amendment is an election wedge tactic
Frist's proposed amendment is not a serious proposal. It is a traditional Republican election wedge tactic designed to appeal to the republication right and conservative independents.

We see these wedge-issue tactics emerge every election year: Flag issues, race issues, religious issues, national health care issues, etc. These "button-pushing" issue tactics also divert the public's attention away from the really important issues, polices and agenda about which the parties want to conceal.

These "divide and conquer" and "smoke and mirrors" tactics are one reason why I despise the use of these divisive political wedge issues by politicians and their parties. We need to unify this country for the common good, not divide it.

BTW, I support the right of two people to marry regardless of their sexual orientation, including Priests. Of course, marriage applicants should not be bigamists or genetic first cousins, bothers/sisters et al.

As an aside, can anyone tell me why people should have to get and pay for a marriage license from a state in order to marry? How did this start and what was the rationale behind it?

-----BumbleBeeBoogie

Re: Frist's proposed amendment is an election wedge tactic


If it is a "traditional Republican wedge tactic" why is it that Roonnie Shows, a Democrat, proposed the same amendment last year?



Why should cousins/siblings be allowed to be discriminated against? (< Serious question.) If the issue is one of rights, on what basis should the right be expanded to include more than it currently does yet still exclude others?



It is supposed to be a "user fee". The people getting married are supposed to cover the cost of the system that maintains the records. The marriage licence is a legal document. It's no different than paying a fee to register a name change with a court.