BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Amendment to Ban Gay Marriages

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:31 / 28.02.04
Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry.

But what does this mean?

The court told conservative groups who oppose the weddings, which contravene state law, to file new legal briefs in one week's time.

Is this just the courts stalling things? Did the conservatives not follow the court proceedures properly? Is this just a legal way of saying "I see no reason for marriages not to continue happening, if you want to appeal you can do it in a week"?
 
 
w1rebaby
19:17 / 28.02.04
I think it was the semicolon.
 
 
grant
20:44 / 17.03.04
Don't let the sun set on you here.
 
 
Char Aina
18:52 / 23.03.04
A gay congressman on Tuesday challenged President Bush's drive for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage by asking how such unions hurt anyone.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040323/pl_nm/rights_gays_congress_dc
 
 
Ticker
19:02 / 06.06.06
this heinous thing is moving again:

US amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage

06/05/2006: Motion to proceed to measure considered in Senate.
 
 
charrellz
19:30 / 06.06.06
My fellow Americans: click xk's link and do the little "take action now" thingie in the top right. Quick & easy way to let your senator know that this is a terrible idea. (Great, both senators of my state are sponsors of the bill. My e-mail is gonna get straight deleted.)
 
 
Ticker
19:42 / 06.06.06
thank ya Charrellz for pointing that out.

yay my senators are all ultra conservative, but screw it I have the right to hassle them.

I get tons of letters from them after I send them letters on current issues.
(I'm such a cane shaker)
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
20:13 / 06.06.06
Yay for writing your congressman! I'm just glad the democraticness of Chicago outweights the republicanness of the rest of my state, so that I can write to Senators I generally support.
 
 
netbanshee
21:21 / 06.06.06
The wide majority required to have an amendment be proposed (2/3 of house and senate) and ratified (3/4 of states) leaves this dead in the water. In fact, having the President address this issue now instead of dealing with the issues that American's are really concerned about (War, Economy, Immigration) shows how far out of touch he is. He's pandering to a base that can offer him no more as he continues to plummet in approval ratings.

With the mid-term elections around the corner, he's wasting his time trying to get horribly discriminatory law on the books. He should be concerned about stopping the Democrats from taking a branch of government out of his control. Early indications are showing that Dems are making good moves as we speak.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
06:10 / 07.06.06
Yes, but look at what people were staying at the start of this thread, 'it won't work', 'it's pandering', 'it's divisive', 'this will loose Bush re-election'.

What I'm guessing is that the huge Christian base that was got to vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004 is being looked to to save the Republicans from loosing control of any parts of the Government this Autumn. Could Americans tell me whether this is likely to work, due to that whole red- state/blue-state thing or is this just something that Bush wants to get through while he's still got definite control of everything?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:20 / 07.06.06
US Senate does not vote for gay marriage ban.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
15:34 / 07.06.06
Well, that's good, if unsurprising news.
 
 
Ticker
16:43 / 07.06.06
YAY!
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
18:01 / 07.06.06
Hooray!

From that article:

President George W Bush had backed the ban, saying marriage between a man and a woman was the most fundamental institution of civilisation.

How so, George? Explain, please, you fucking dick. I wish he posted here so we could sic Haus on him and he'd cry.
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:41 / 07.06.06
The wide majority required to have an amendment be proposed (2/3 of house and senate) and ratified (3/4 of states) leaves this dead in the water. In fact, having the President address this issue now instead of dealing with the issues that American's are really concerned about (War, Economy, Immigration) shows how far out of touch he is. He's pandering to a base that can offer him no more as he continues to plummet in approval ratings.

With the mid-term elections around the corner, he's wasting his time trying to get horribly discriminatory law on the books. He should be concerned about stopping the Democrats from taking a branch of government out of his control. Early indications are showing that Dems are making good moves as we speak.


Peronally, I think Bush Boy does not give a damn about the issue. He only supported the ban because he knew it would never get through Congress and Senate. He only brough it up because mid-term elections are right around the corner and he wants to rally support from the crazy Christian fundamentalist who think Jesus was born in USA and killed by jews. Take his timing: he first started that talk before 2004 elections, than fogot all about it, now he remembers it again. I bet my testicles he'll forget it again after the elections and remember it again in 2008. it's his "wild-card".

It is that ridiculous.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
00:10 / 08.06.06
You're wrong, George. I'd say that while yeah, some sort of respected bond between people is the foundation of what we might call civilisation- you know, "we agree not to kill eachother", all that stuff, it doesn't have to be a marriage. If it is marriage, it doesn't have to be between a man and a woman.
 
 
RetroChrome
23:05 / 19.06.06
What I'm guessing is that the huge Christian base that was got to vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004 is being looked to to save the Republicans from loosing control of any parts of the Government this Autumn. Could Americans tell me whether this is likely to work, due to that whole red- state/blue-state thing or is this just something that Bush wants to get through while he's still got definite control of everything?

American *sigh* checking in.

OED, I'd say it's a bit of both, but more of a tactic to galvanize the Fundies. I don't think Shrub is smart enough personally to really know what he's doing. He's Cheney's puppet and is plugged in every night by Papa Bush.

It seemed that this whole "gay marriage is the APOCALYPSE!" conveeeeeeeeeniently showed up again when Americans began to become more and more polarized about the war (aka Big Fucking Mess) we've gotten ourselves into.

The White House looked at its hand and threw this card down, knowing it would reel the RR back in and a lot of other less conservative constituents.

The 2004 elections are a hot mess of debate on some other boards on which I participate. Been a lot of talk recently about how the election was swung in the Midwest (possibly) because of the "anti-gay/lesbian/horse marriage" platform many Republicans took. When voters spoke, they also put some laws down on the book that November.

I hope to whatever source has pity on the rest of the world that we have some sort of revolution. I'm not hopeful, however.

Ugh. Indigestion doing this post. (BTW, I'm looking for the medical establishment to create a diagnostic code for PTBD (post-traumatic Bush disorder)

"You know there are other countries?" (Eddie Izzard to a NY audience)
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply