Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

[Jim]

I allow for the strong feelings which might exist on this issue on both sides yet the timing appears cynical, the remedy disproportionate to the pretext and, worst of all, Republicans are provoking a pissing match on hollowed ground. I defend the Bush administration these days more than most here, sometimes out of a contrarian stubbornness. Not this time.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right but Reid's diatribe qualified for a far distant second place "outrage of the week:"

 

Raging in Iraq is an intractable war. Our soldiers are fighting valiantly, but we have Abu Ghraib and Haditha—where 24 or more civilians were allegedly killed by our own—and no policy for winning the peace.

 

How can any American make political hay out of Haditha? This is a week where there are no limits.

[Pangloss]

You should probably start a separate thread on Haditha under a more appropriate subject line. I'd hate to see this one get derailed.

 

You have an interesting point about the timing of the gay marriage amendment. I'm sure that it is part of the ongoing push to recapture the base and bring up those approval ratings so he can get a last shot at passing some legislation.

 

Unfortunately I don't think it's going to work, and in fact I think it's going to backfire. The additional attention to this issue is going to lead to public opinion turning AWAY from the "traditional/conservative" side on this issue.

 

But hey, I've been wrong before.

[Mokele]

This is a week where there are no limits.

 

This week? Wait until November. I swear, I will be completely unsurprised when someone reaches the level of "Elect me or I kill these kittens". Anything and everything is fair game in politics as it is now, especially if you can twist it to your purposes.

 

As much as I despise one side, even that cannot match my disgust for the system as a whole.

 

Of course, we can fix that: Mokele for Supreme Dictator!

[Pangloss]

BTW, there's also an aspect of the politics here that is about mobilizing the conservative base to vote in November. The motivation being that they should get out there and vote Republican in order to stop gay marriage. Interestingly, some of the response from the right today was negative, in the sense of being a little rebellious about being treated in such an obvious manner.

[padren]

I just love how if you want to push a law thats unconstitutional, from flag burning to banning rights of certian minorties, you make it a constitutional amendment.

 

 

 

And about Haditha, I don't think anyone has desire to make "hay" out of it, they just want events like it to stop and voice their outrage at it. What else should they do - suppress their outrage over fear someone may think they are exploiting a tragic event?

 

If we can cut off the head of a nation's leader because they don't keep their ranks clean and some within their borders commit acts of terrorism...why don't we apply the same pressure to our own generals and high ranking military leaders to keep their soldiers from committing war crimes and atrocities?

 

Just a thought...

[Jim]

You should probably start a separate thread on Haditha under a more appropriate subject line. I'd hate to see this one get derailed.

 

You have an interesting point about the timing of the gay marriage amendment. I'm sure that it is part of the ongoing push to recapture the base and bring up those approval ratings so he can get a last shot at passing some legislation.

 

Unfortunately I don't think it's going to work' date=' and in fact I think it's going to backfire. The additional attention to this issue is going to lead to public opinion turning AWAY from the "traditional/conservative" side on this issue.

 

But hey, I've been wrong before.[/quote']

 

I think you are right. They've gone to this well one too many times.

[Jim]

I just love how if you want to push a law thats unconstitutional, from flag burning to banning rights of certian minorties, you make it a constitutional amendment.

 

In theory, I don't have a problem with the people refining their Consititution. In this instance, my BS meter is pegged to the max.

[blackhole123]

I dont understand how they could justify banning gay marriage. The only reason they would do this is because of their religeon which means there is no longer seperation of church and state.

 

What if someone banned heterosexual marriages? This is no different. Why should one person be able to tell another person how to live their life? I dont care if you're morally opposed to it you have no right to impose your opinions on another person like that.

 

just my thoughts about this.

[j_p]

I am outraged by the flagrant attempt at mis-direction.

 

I wish I could be certain the my fellow citizen would not fall for it.

 

The only justification for banning gay marriage is that marriage exists to provide a social construct for procreation. Great, I could have been shacking up and saving a bundle on taxes!

 

There is no reason to deny ANY two adults from forming a legal marital partenership with all the attendent rights and responsibilities.

[doG]

Bush is acting more and more like a divider instead of a uniter.....

[Pangloss]

And apparently he's not the only one...........................................................

[Mokele]

Uniters make people feel happy. Dividers make them feel angry. Guess which will movitate them to show up at the polls.

[AL]

Perhaps I'm politically naive, but I've never understood the strategy of "rallying the base." Who else is the base going to vote for? Or would they really abstain from voting (something I can't imagine they'd do if they thought the Democrats might do them worse)?

 

What makes sense to me is what my state's govah-nator suggested his party do long ago. They already have a monopoly on the right, so move toward the middle. And one obvious way to move toward the middle is to not bring up this very divisive gay marriage amendment business.

 

IIRC, aside from prohibition, this will be the only other amendment in US history that restricts a freedom rather than guaranteeing one.

[Pangloss]

Perhaps I'm politically naive, but I've never understood the strategy of "rallying the base." Who else is the base going to vote for? Or would they really abstain from voting (something I can't imagine they'd do if they thought the Democrats might do them worse)?

 

There are two main aspects to "rallying the base" that impact on modern politics. The first is the issue of voter turnout. Around 80% of the country votes either Democrat or Republican every time, regardless of who the candidate happens to be. On top of that, 92-96% of all incumbents (for all kinds of elected offices) are returned to office, regardless of their party affiliation, which is an indication of what kind of uphill battle the opposing party has to deal with.

 

So the general idea of "appealing to the base" is that whichever base turns out actually has a tremendous impact on who gets elected (because 40% > 20%). In fact it could well have a greater impact than trying to appeal to that "moderate middle". Presidential elections are actually the exception, rather than the norm, when it comes to appealing to moderate voters. Congressional elections are very much about mobilizing the base, because you typically have a higher population of one or the other, which is why that party is represented and the other one is (typically) not.

 

The other concept that comes in to play, especially in national politics, is the issue of passing legislation. Because the president's approval rating is low, he can't convince congress to pass legislation that it normally has qualms about. If his rating is high, they don't want to "mess" with him, and are more cooperative. Because it's low, they can "afford" to disagree -- in fact it helps them, because 435 of them (plus around a third of the senators) have to get re-elected every November.

 

How mobilizing the base correlates to approval ratings is by giving him free poll bumps. The president has the "bully pulpit" (to quote TR) -- when he speaks, people listen. So if he talks about things that his base likes to hear, he gets an instant bump in approval ratings, which amounts to chips he can cash in over on the Hill.

[bascule]

I like how Bush uses "activist judges" as an excuse for his religiously-derived intolerance.

[ecoli]

a federal ban on gay marriage is a violation of state's rights, IMO.

[Severian]

a federal ban on gay marriage is a violation of state's rights, IMO.

 

I agree with that, although I do approve of banning gay marriage.

[Pangloss]

<blink blink> Did I read that right?

[scicop]

Bush and his religious bible holding chronies, as well as Ratzinger, and all religious leaders of all faiths should be locked in a room and be anally brutalized by a heard of chimpanzes holding rainbow flags. I'm sure they'll like it so much, that they'd have table the ban ammendment.

 

I'm not a fan of the Gays, but they are entitled to the rights of any other human being.

 

I think Ratzinger is gay. He's human just a like all of us and gets the urge from time to time. Can't tell me he's not tapping any of those fine looking cardinals. He just has self hate.

 

Jesus was gay too, he was tapping Peter, why do else would he be in charge of the "pearlie"..ahem..."Gates".

 

Paul was gay, he was tapping Timothy. If them letter's ain't love letters..then...call me a chimps uncle. (name's lester by the way)..so Uncle Lester.

[Pangloss]

Wow. Do you think you could possibly state that in a more offensive manner?

[Mokele]

although I do approve of banning gay marriage.

 

Yes, because laws based on irrational, baseless hatred are always a good idea!

 

We must preserve marriage, just like we tried to back in the 60's with laws banning inter-racial marriage! After all, we can just recycle the same arguements, so it'll be easy!

 

I'm not a fan of the Gays

 

The way you said that makes me expect you'll follow it with "...but darn it if the San Francisco Gays didn't beat the Houston Astros fair and square, 38-22."

 

Mokele

[Severian]

Yes' date=' because laws based on irrational, baseless hatred are always a good idea!

[/quote']

 

Don't you think it would be better if the state wasn't interested about what you get up to in your bedroom?

 

We must preserve marriage, just like we tried to back in the 60's with laws banning inter-racial marriage! After all, we can just recycle the same arguements, so it'll be easy!

 

Well, laws banning inter-racial marriage were a step in the right direction at least. Any marriage banned is good for me (although I obviously don't support the racism inherent in the distinction).

[Mokele]

Don't you think it would be better if the state wasn't interested about what you get up to in your bedroom?

 

Yep, and thus it's got to be an all-or-none state; either everyone marries or nobody does.

 

Well, laws banning inter-racial marriage were a step in the right direction at least. Any marriage banned is good for me

 

I'm guessing you're supporting the libertarian position that marriage should be solely religious/social, not civic/governmental. And while it makes sense, it'll never happen; people will *not* let you take away their tax breaks and benefits. Self-interest over-rides all, no matter how rational the arguement.

 

Mokele

[Severian]

Yep' date=' and thus it's got to be an all-or-none state; either everyone marries or nobody does.

[/quote']

 

I agree. The end goal is to ban marriage completely, but it seems rather foolish to legalize gay marriage and set up all the formalism to deal with such an institution just to ban it again.

 

I'm guessing you're supporting the libertarian position that marriage should be solely religious/social, not civic/governmental. And while it makes sense, it'll never happen; people will *not* let you take away their tax breaks and benefits. Self-interest over-rides all, no matter how rational the arguement.

 

On the contrary, I can see this happening within 10 years or so. In the UK, the married couples tax allowance was already abolished back in 2000, so the tax incentive of being married in the UK is gone. Now, the UK is already thinking about a system in which the rights of non-married cohabiting couples will be the same as those that married couples have (eg. hospital visitation, inheritence, rights to children etc). If this comes to pass there will be no legal reason for couples to marry any more. Maybe then the state can start minding its own business.

[JaKiri]

Any marriage banned is good for me

 

Why?