ThreepMe
Morcilla
   
   
      
 
 
Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas
Since last post: 3179 days
Last activity: 2838 days
|  #1 Posted on 24.2.04 1007.59 | Instant Rating: 4.17 | http://story.news.yahoo.com/ news?tmpl=story&cid=564& ncid=564&e=2& u=/nm/20040224/ts_nm/ bush_gays_dc
This topic is getting bigger and bigger everyday.
"Are you kidding me? A soda with MY name on it? Now more than ever, SODAS RULE!" - Edge to Christian Smackdown Sept 7th 2000| Promote this thread! |           | Grimis
Scrapple
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 747 days
Last activity: 544 days
| #2 Posted on 24.2.04 1043.44 | Instant Rating: 7.29 | I don't think the GOP really had the gay vote.
Incidentally, if there is going to be a decision on this one way or another at the federal level, I would rather see it as a Constitutional Amendment as opposed to the federal legislation.
That does not mean I support it though...
Liberals sometimes claim to believe in personal freedom, but their concept of liberty seems limited to matters related to sex....Yet outside the sexual realm, liberals are downright illiberal. They want to control every aspect of our lives: what we eat, what we smoke, what we drive, how we defend our homes and families, how much of our own money we're allowed to keep.
- James Taranto
| vsp
Andouille
Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly
Since last post: 2511 days
Last activity: 233 days
| #3 Posted on 24.2.04 1044.44 | Instant Rating: 0.00 | Somewhere, the Log Cabin Republicans' heads just exploded.
"It looks like it was a larger dog with tighter skin, and then someone grabbed him by the anus and pulled him as hard as they could."
-- David St. Hubbins of Spinal Tap, explaining the Shar-Pei | CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
| #4 Posted on 24.2.04 1123.09 | Instant Rating: 8.65 | Originally posted by vsp
Somewhere, the Log Cabin Republicans' heads just exploded.
Well....they did write this two weeks ago (lcr.org), but I don't think there are any explosions in there - in fact, it sounds to me more like they're more than willing to fight from within.
| vsp
Andouille
Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly
Since last post: 2511 days
Last activity: 233 days
| #5 Posted on 24.2.04 1203.55 | Instant Rating: 0.00 | Originally posted by CRZ
Originally posted by vsp
Somewhere, the Log Cabin Republicans' heads just exploded.
Well....they did write this two weeks ago (lcr.org), but I don't think there are any explosions in there - in fact, it sounds to me more like they're more than willing to fight from within.
Yep. There are some fun quotes:
No matter what happens in the coming months, Log Cabin will stay in the GOP and fight---fight for fairness, liberty and equality. We will be a strong presence in New York at the GOPs 2004 convention.
THAT's going to be interesting to watch, though I'm sure the more confrontational bits won't make it to TV.
But when LCRs demand to be visible and make their message heard at the convention and the party leadership firmly tells them to STFU, what happens then? How many will stay home in November or (temporarily or otherwise) defect from the Republican camp?
(edited by vsp on 24.2.04 1005)
"It looks like it was a larger dog with tighter skin, and then someone grabbed him by the anus and pulled him as hard as they could."
-- David St. Hubbins of Spinal Tap, explaining the Shar-Pei | CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
| #6 Posted on 24.2.04 1212.32 | Instant Rating: 8.65 | Originally posted by vsp
But when LCRs demand to be visible and make their message heard at the convention and the party leadership firmly tells them to STFU, what happens then? How many will stay home in November or (temporarily or otherwise) defect from the Republican camp?
I think that's a lot of assuming. Keep an eye on their website and we'll find out together!
| JayJayDean
Scrapple
Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA
Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
| AIM: |  |
| | | Y!: |  |
|
| #7 Posted on 24.2.04 1331.58 | Instant Rating: 6.99 | Originally posted by vsp
No matter what happens in the coming months, Log Cabin will stay in the GOP and fight---fight for fairness, liberty and equality. We will be a strong presence in New York at the GOPs 2004 convention.
The 2004 Republican Convention is in New York City? Am I the only one who smells a special Convention-edition of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"?
To get ass, youve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.
"Your input has been noted.
I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim |
| DrDirt
Banger
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 2 days
| #8 Posted on 24.2.04 1710.17 | Instant Rating: 7.78 | You all are making the assumption that the average, not activist, gay person is in favor of gay marriage.
Perception is reality | Dahak
Frankfurter
Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.
Since last post: 1504 days
Last activity: 1157 days
| #9 Posted on 24.2.04 2005.59 | Instant Rating: 4.73 | Sorry but a Constitutional Amendment? That is almost impossible to pass. Hell, I don't see anyway that it will even go through Congress much less have 34 (or however many) states pass it. Plus it cheapens the important amendments anyway.
Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus. | MoeGates
Andouille
Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY
Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 10 hours
| #10 Posted on 25.2.04 0211.25 | Instant Rating: 6.28 | Originally posted by DrDirt
You all are making the assumption that the average, not activist, gay person is in favor of gay marriage.
I don't see how this is such a tough assumption. That's like saying "you are all making the assumption that the average, not activist, straight person is in favor of a man and a woman being able to marry."
Actually, I do know Gay (or "LBGTQ") people that are against Gay-marriage - but they are the REALLY activisty people. They're against it (and I'm paraphrasing here) either because they think society needs a revolutionary change in the way we view sex and relationships, and therefor are against all marriage, or because they like the "subversive" aspect of being LGBTQ (ironically, these are usually the people that have the least amont of actualy sex with the same gender) and don't want to see Gay people )or at least the perception of Gay people) turn into a verion of Ward and June Cleaver with Chuck instead of June.
I wonder how much money George W. Bush gave Paris Hilton. | kazhayashi81
Potato korv
Since: 17.6.02
From: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Since last post: 2180 days
Last activity: 2130 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #11 Posted on 25.2.04 0344.53 | Instant Rating: 1.74 | I personally think that infidelity, the divorce rate being through the roof, murdering your spouse for the insurance money, etc. has ruined the sanctity of marriage a lot more than a same-gender couple.
This is one area(along with domestic spending) that I simply despise Bush's stance on.
"I do not have puppet cancer!" | JoshMann
Andouille
Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL
Since last post: 1770 days
Last activity: 1767 days
| AIM: |  |
| | | Y!: |  |
|
| #12 Posted on 25.2.04 0754.02 | Instant Rating: 4.43 | | (deleted by CRZ on 25.2.04 0813) | DrDirt
Banger
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 2 days
| #13 Posted on 25.2.04 0839.39 | Instant Rating: 7.78 | Originally posted by Dahak
Sorry but a Constitutional Amendment? That is almost impossible to pass. Hell, I don't see anyway that it will even go through Congress much less have 34 (or however many) states pass it. Plus it cheapens the important amendments anyway.
This has nothing to do with gay marriage or the constitution. This allows "W" to pander to that segment of his support that values social issues over the war on terror, etc. The beauty of this for him is he can say he did something without having to really worry about it. His advisors realize he has to play more than the wartime Prez card.
Perception is reality | AWArulz
Knackwurst
Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | | Y!: |  |
|
| #14 Posted on 25.2.04 1159.50 | Instant Rating: 6.58 | Originally posted by DrDirt
Originally posted by Dahak
Sorry but a Constitutional Amendment? That is almost impossible to pass. Hell, I don't see anyway that it will even go through Congress much less have 34 (or however many) states pass it. Plus it cheapens the important amendments anyway.
This has nothing to do with gay marriage or the constitution. This allows "W" to pander to that segment of his support that values social issues over the war on terror, etc. The beauty of this for him is he can say he did something without having to really worry about it. His advisors realize he has to play more than the wartime Prez card.
Bull. We have had, how many, like 27 amendments to the constitution? How many of them had to do with personal behavior? Lots.
Number 1, maybe #7, certainly #9, #14, #15, #18, #19, #21 (see 19), and #26, all address personal rights. Dubya (and many others) feel deeply about this, as do many "on the other side." The question is whether it's the will of the people. If it doesn't ratify (See Equal Rights Amendment) then it isn't the will of the people. Dubya sure isn't the only one who feels this way. I'd personally like to see the ratification process down so we can see where we stand in this country.
I think it's kind of interesting - this is the only LEGAL process to change/recognize/deny/ratify a right.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
But when a radical judge tries to change the law, everyone applauds. So Dubya follows the LAW (it's concept unfamiliar to most Libs, Doc, present company usually exempted) and the Judges do not. (see amendment 11) But Dubya is the bad guy.
Yeah. That's the ticket.
Rasslin' republicans - visit it soon | oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country
Since last post: 1465 days
Last activity: 1399 days
|  #15 Posted on 25.2.04 1221.06 | Instant Rating: 5.23 | All this pontificating about how Dubya's just following the law and bowing to the will of the people would play a whole lot better if there hadn't been such a fucking stink over how HE was elected to public office.
Sorry. I know that's a dead issue and we're not supposed to bring it up any more, but it bears mentioning here.
"You're A Big Hunk Of Hero Sandwich, And You Wanna Save The Girl!" | CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
| #16 Posted on 25.2.04 1231.21 | Instant Rating: 8.65 | Originally posted by oldschoolhero
All this pontificating about how Dubya's just following the law and bowing to the will of the people would play a whole lot better if there hadn't been such a fucking stink over how HE was elected to public office.
So you're saying the law WASN'T followed immediately following the 2000 election? Or have I missed your point?
| oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country
Since last post: 1465 days
Last activity: 1399 days
| #17 Posted on 25.2.04 1235.58 | Instant Rating: 5.23 | I'm saying that there are a significant number of people that believe that the Bush-leaning higher-ups manipulated the electoral sustem in order to ensure that Bush got into power, thus going against the will of the people. I don't believe the conspiracy theories as vehemently as some, but there was some monkey business involved, and whether or not it would've changed the outcome it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth whenever I hear/read anti-gay-wedding folks say things like "well, maybe the majority of this country ARE against gay marriages". Which I HAVE heard from several different places.
It was also a direct response to AWA's spiel about radical judges and Bush sticking to the letter of the law.
"You're A Big Hunk Of Hero Sandwich, And You Wanna Save The Girl!" | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
