home

Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendment

For the second time in two years, the U.S. Senate is debating a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Today, Colorado Senator Wayne Allard argued in favor of the constitutional Amendment. A procedural vote may be held tomorrow.

"It's not about politics or discrimination," Allard told colleagues on the floor of the U.S. Senate. "It's about marriage and democracy."

I don't understand the connection between marriage and democracy. I thought in a democracy, all people are equal. If marriage is a democratic value, then shouldn't everyone be able to choose their spouse?

The Democrats have their talking points in order. Instead of arguing against a prohibition of same-sex marriage, they are talking about all the critical issues the Senate should be debating instead of marriage.

Sen. Harry Reid issued this statement today:

I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe in our federal system of government, described to me in college as a central whole divided among self governing parts. Those self governing parts--the 50 states--have already decided this on their own in state after state.

....So why are we being directed by the President and this Republican majority to debate an Amendment to the Constitution, a document inspired more than two centuries ago? Why would we be asked to change this American masterpiece? Will it next be to constitutionally dictate the cause of divorce, or military service, or even what America's religion must be?

While I'm pleased to see Senator Reid advocate against treating the Constitution like a rough draft, I can't help but wonder why he had to throw in his personal views opposing gay marriage. And, what if the states weren't busy passing laws against it and we weren't in the midst of a war and economic downturn? Would he then support Senate consideration of the ban?

The Democrats want to reclaim themselves as the party of values. Then they ought to champion constitutionally guaranteed equality for all. That's the bedrock of our Constitution and our democracy.

< Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing | Jose Padilla Alleges Witness Statements Obtained Through Torture >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    And the presidents press secretary likened this fight to the fight for civil rights....gag The civll rights of bigots are evidentially now a top priority. Someone has to vote republican in november and if the republicans only have bigots left well why not pander to them.

    I don't understand the connection between marriage and democracy. I thought in a democracy, all people are equal. If marriage is a democratic value
    I don't understand either - isn't there marriage in non-democratic societies? Not sure how it can be pigeonholed as a democratic value.
    then shouldn't everyone be able to choose their spouse?
    You mean like an adult and a 13 year-old? Or a couple of 12 year olds? Or a brother and sister? Mother and son? The severely mentally disabled? (Not sure about that last one.) It seems society, whether democratic or not, tends to draw the line somewhere, unfortunately it may not always be where we feel it should be.

    You mean like an adult and a 13 year-old? Or a couple of 12 year olds? Or a brother and sister? Mother and son? The severely mentally disabled? (Not sure about that last one.) It seems society, whether democratic or not, tends to draw the line somewhere, unfortunately it may not always be where we feel it should be.
    Of course, you drew the line on the extreme side in a poorly executed attempt to add weight to your point.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:48:56 PM EST
    Americablog has some great responses from Republican Senator staffers about this and other important questions like divorce, masturbation and sex with transvestites. Call your favorite supporter of this amendment and ask them some tough questions. link

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#5)
    by MikeDitto on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:57:09 PM EST
    In Colorado, the amendment to the state constitution being pushed by James Dobson and his ilk would be an amendment to the state's Bill of Rights. Right next to your freedom to keep and bear arms and your freedom from self-incrimination, this hateful amendment would tell you who you can't marry. They either do consider it a civil rights issue, or it's an extremely cynical ploy to get you to think it is. I argue for the former, because I think these "true believers" actually think their rights are being trampled on if two people who have nothing to do with them get married. That's just the world of paranoia that they live in.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#6)
    by glanton on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:10:22 PM EST
    Three interesting facts: 1)Republicans and Libertarians on this site and around the country continue to behave this way even as they speak ill of the Taliban, Fred Phelps, Zarquawi, etc. 2)The Democratic Party in Uhmerrikah remains a limpid waste. 3)When those in power, and their sycophants, say our soldiers are dying in Iraq for Uhmerrikah, this is the Uhhmerrikah they are talking about.

    "You mean like an adult and a 13 year-old? Or a couple of 12 year olds? Or a brother and sister? Mother and son? The severely mentally disabled? (Not sure about that last one.)" that makes up most of the red states population, if these marriages were banned, Bush would lose most of his supporters

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#8)
    by Andreas on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:44:56 PM EST
    These are not simply the "personal views" of Harry Reid. As the WSWS wrote in 2004:
    The official position of the Democratic Party, and of its presidential candidate, John Kerry, once again displays the inability of a decaying American liberalism to seriously oppose the onslaught against democratic rights. They oppose the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but at the same time oppose gay marriage. The Democratic Party does not call on the US Supreme Court to rule that gays have a constitutional right to marry. Quite the contrary. In 1996, Democratic President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which gives states the right to not recognize same-sex marriages occurring in other states.
    Anti-gay measures threaten democratic rights Ballot initiatives seek to bar same-sex marriage By Don Knowland, 2 November 2004

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:04:42 PM EST
    et al - Cute, but you are trivalizing a very important issue

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:11:38 PM EST
    A very important issue that you chose to overlook all the time you stumped for as* rocket and made him sound like Washington,Lincoln and FDR rolled into one.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#11)
    by roy on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:21:41 PM EST
    Glanton,
    1)Republicans and Libertarians on this site and around the country continue to behave this way even as they speak ill of the Taliban, Fred Phelps, Zarquawi, etc.
    Defending Republicans -- the difference between not allowing gay people to marry and stoning them to death is not a subtle one. Both are wrong, but conflating them is transparent and cheap. Defending Libertarians -- huh? With a few oddball exceptions, small- and big-L libertarians alike support at least civil unions with broad marriage-like rights, if not full parity by legalizing gay marriage or "taking government out of the marriage business".

    et al - Cute, but you are trivalizing a very important issue
    Which issue are you referring to Jim? Is it: a.) the issue of banning gay marriages by an amendment to the federal constitution or b.) the issue of the Republican Party conveniently making this an election year issue

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#13)
    by glanton on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:41:02 PM EST
    the difference between not allowing gay people to marry and stoning them to death is not a subtle one. Both are wrong, but conflating them is transparent and cheap.
    True, being branded as a secondary citizen is not the same as being stoned to death. But in both cases we can learn about the same cankerous thing bureid deep in the Uhmerrikahn soul. And then, roy's paragrah leaves out that the same people pushing the one are also working to get Lawrence v Texas overturned: for precisely the same reasons cited for this ridiculous ban. But surely roy will come back with: Hey, the difference between being put in prison and being stoned to death isn't exactly a subtle one. How dare you conflate them! But again, same cankerous thing. But by far the best part of roy's post, demonstrating once again the nothing to see here nature of the libertarian mentality:
    Defending Libertarians -- huh? With a few oddball exceptions, small- and big-L libertarians alike support at least civil unions with broad marriage-like rights, if not full parity by legalizing gay marriage or "taking government out of the marriage business".
    They vote and they vote and they vote GOP, getting in bed between the corporate matrix on one sid and ...oh yes...the droolers on the other. But it's okay because you got your tax cuts and get to hunt deer with uzis. When you say civil rights, libertarians, what you mean is money. Mercenaries. On a side note, Jim's post was pretty funny. Saiid everything about his online persona right there in one little blurb. Loved it.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:45:10 PM EST
    Jondee - You continue to demonstrate a complete like of memory, which matches up very nicely with your demonstrated mental capability. I have commented time and again that I don't care who marries who, as long as they are consenting adults. So go snark around someone else. et al - The real issue is simply this. The only involvement government should have with marriage is the enforcement of any contractual dispute resolutions. Beyond that, we have the civil recording of the act, etc. So what we should have is a civil contract. Period. For marriage within a church, that should be up to the church. Seems simple, but both sides see it as a chance to score points rather than do right.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:49:04 PM EST
    mac - Do you feel stupid, or are you capable? glanton - I see you are still on your "America is evil kick."

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:58:37 PM EST
    ppj - The real issue is simply this: you and your regime change cohorts know you dont have enough support amongst the great out-sourced and down-sized for your trillion dollar blood bath/investment oppurtunity, so you have to use a little underhanded "fath-based" out-reach in order to keep the hoi palloi on the bus. My question is, who do you think you're jiving?

    mac - Do you feel stupid, or are you capable?
    Wow, that was a semi witty remark. Since we agree on this issue, I guess I really don't have anything more to discuss with you.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:01:41 PM EST
    Glanton - And, in case you were wondering, the Right IS America. Start packin yer bags Fidel.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:11:52 PM EST
    Jondee - Your problem is that in spite of what I have been telling you, you don't believe I'm not a Repub and I'm not a conservative. I like the term social liberal. What you can't get over is that, to you, if someone supports the troops and thinks the war is just, they must be Repubs, stupid, etc. In otherwords you are a single issue person. Very narrow minded, quite uninformed and very incapable of seeing the broad view. All-in-all you basically don't keep up with what people have said and all you want to do is rant. As I have noted before, please do so because it makes you look 100% stupid to the rest of the world. Thanks. Please do it again.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:18:18 PM EST
    Yeah, Jondee.... All this projection from people who are very narrow minded, quite uninformed and very incapable of seeing the broad view gets quite old after awhile. ;-)

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:33:22 PM EST
    ppj - Yeah Im a "single issue person" thats why I even bother commenting on this issue. Im suprised you didnt say that I just-hate-Bush, but I know you can only hold one bumpersticker in your mind at a time. Btw, Im always interested in what the rest of the world thinks, so feel free to fill me in anytime.

    It's ironic that Democrats and Liberals are asserting state's rights to resist the federal amendment. I thought only racist rightwingers were champions of state's rights? As far as the "cluttering the Constitution" argument, it's used against any proposal someone doesn't like. Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. wants to add 8 (eight) amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which gives the lie to the cluttering argument.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#23)
    by roy on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:53:17 PM EST
    FfJ,
    It's ironic that Democrats and Liberals are asserting state's rights to resist the federal amendment. I thought only racist rightwingers were champions of state's rights?
    Bah, that was before the GOP got control of Congress and the Presidency. The rule is: whichever party has the least power at the federal level supports states' rights.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:03:28 PM EST
    FfJ - Do you support this amendment push? If so, lets hear your argument. Or, is Hey-liberals-do-stuff-like-this-too it? Dont beat around the little shrub.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#25)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 10:50:14 PM EST
    The Democrats want to reclaim themselves as the party of values.
    let's just nip this little bit of preening nonsense right in the bud, shall we? all political parties are parties of "values", they may just be different values than the others. as well, all voters are "values" voters, i may just subscribe to a different set than you do. this self-righteous twaddle about "values" this and "values" that is an affront to the average person's intelligence, and ultimately means absolutely nothing. "It's not about politics or discrimination," of course it is, otherwise, who cares? it's also about religion, the ignored elephant in the room. this proposed amendment is nothing more than religious dogma, masquerading as civil issues, and attempting to impose that strictly religious dogma, by legislative fiat, on all of us. if you're going to have a debate, at least be honest enough to admit what it is your debating. the republicans can't seem to do that. worse yet, the democrats, either because they fail to recognize it, or are afraid to discuss it, for fear of alienating voters of a certain religious bent, refuse to call them on it. hey, democratic politicians, don't worry about offending religious voters, they aren't going to vote for you anyway!

    Divide and conquer has been working for ruling class conservatives since the Roman Empire so expect them to keep riding it. You would think from the smoke being blown by the shills around here that the Reptilians would be running on their great successes in the economic and foreign policy areas, though.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#27)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:34:44 AM EST
    The Democrats want to reclaim themselves as the party of values. Then they ought to champion constitutionally guaranteed equality for all. That's the bedrock of our Constitution and our democracy.
    Precisely!!! Well put!!

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:43:35 AM EST
    Now all we need is an equality-for-all lobbying firm on K-Street and we'll be all set.

    Anyone in favor of a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate this fall shoud rejoice at this move on the Republican's part. Short of admitting the frequent rape of small animals by every sitting Republican, I cannot imagine anything they could do that would make such a takeover more likely. Bush must be using a really big backhoe to have reached the depths he did yesterday. Suddenly Bill Clinton really does look like a constitutional scholar by comparison.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 07:26:31 AM EST
    Rove has something more up his sleeve. This is just the prelude. I imagine that there are at least five more acts to go in his Passion play. Jesus was gay. He didn't marry. Gotta stay to the script.

    Someday these seductive tactics will fail to give their audience a quick erection. And at that point we'll finally stop getting screwed in each election. (with apologies to "oscar wilde")

    Republicans again trying to control peoples lives. I think this issue goes a little deeper but the result shows up as Muy Machismo. Bush,Cheney es Muy Macho. It's most likely to convene their so called Macho Exterior to deny and be in Control. Although the Bush and Cheney brigade by now has a few screws loose.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 08:44:47 AM EST
    Jondee - Your excuses don't work. As your first comment proves, you had no facts regarding my position on the subject:
    Posted by Jondee June 5, 2006 08:11 PM A very important issue that you chose to overlook all the time you stumped for as* rocket and made him sound like Washington,Lincoln and FDR rolled into one.
    When I chastised you for your like of knowledge, and stated my well documented position, you made up some more trash talk and concluded with:
    My question is, who do you think you're jiving?
    When I again chastised you for your comments based on no information, writing:
    All-in-all you basically don't keep up with what people have said and all you want to do is rant.
    You again come back with some garbled stuff about supporting Bush, etc., etc. Now, let me ask you. Do you condemn Senator's Reid's comment?
    I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.
    Disregarding his blather regarding cluttering the constitution, which is so weak that it can be demolished in 30 words or less, do you condemn his words? Because if you do not, you are providing aid and comfort to an attitude that has its roots directly in the discrimination fostered by Jim Crow. As I said in my very first comment:
    et al - Cute, but you are trivalizing a very important issue
    How? By ignoring the Reid connection. He is the minority leader. If a return to State's Rights and anti-cluttering BS is the best he can do, the Demos desperately need a new leader. Couldn't he bring himself to just say, "This amendment is so wrong on so many levels that it would take me days to state them, so let me just say this. I will oppose this amendment with every ounce of my body and wits. But he didn't. He found himself mouse trapped by Bush, and rather than turn and fight for what is right, he collapsed into a heap of blather. Shameful.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#34)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 08:58:05 AM EST
    Sen Reid is clearly showing that while one can be personally be opposed to gay marriage,that the consitution does indeed guarantee individual freedom. THis is the key difference between Dems and Rethugs. The Dems dont always force everyone to live by their personal beliefs. Rather they want a country where people can have their beliefs, especially like this where the opposition to gay marriage has deep religous roots as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. This is clearly too subtle for our own idiot savant,althoughI'm still trying to figure out the savant part. And note as usual he claimed that Reids argument could be demolished but did not do so.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#35)
    by glanton on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 09:10:34 AM EST
    But he didn't. He found himself mouse trapped by Bush, and rather than turn and fight for what is right, he collapsed into a heap of blather. Shameful.
    Well, Jim, welcome to what many of us have been dealing with every day. This is why I said: "The Democratic Party in Uhmerrikah remains a limpid waste." You made great points on this thread, Jim--especially the Jim Crow line, insightful: You must be plumb worn out. But don't fret, you'll be over this soon enough. The next time Bush says something about the "ter'ists," you'll forget all about the bigotry his party fosters.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 10:40:21 AM EST
    SD writes:
    Sen Reid is clearly showing that while one can be personally be opposed to gay marriage,that the consitution does indeed guarantee individual freedom
    Yes, we understand that Senator Reid is against Gay Rights. And we understand that he is claiming that the Constitution guarantees individual freedom. I am sure Senator Calhoun argued the same. And so did George Wallace,of course they were separate and equal rights. And George would define "equal." SD, Senator Reid is the Leader of the Senate Democrats. A party that has profited greatly from the support of gays and blacks. That he can fall back on the "states' rights" argument is despicable. The Demos should immediately read him right out of the party. That they don't, and that you defend him, demonstrates that they care nothing about gay rights, it is just another wedge issue they played for years... until it was time fo stand and deliver. Your approval of him speaks for itself. BTW - Read the thread, please. On cluttering:
    As far as the "cluttering the Constitution" argument, it's used against any proposal someone doesn't like. Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. wants to add 8 (eight) amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which gives the lie to the cluttering argument.
    I said 30 words or less. Actualy it was 39.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 10:49:20 AM EST
    Gay marriage again?...I know the polls are really down, but come on man, give us a new trick pony. Some hear "gay" and scowl, some shrug, some smile....we've been over this, the jesus patrol and the freedom lovers will never agree, let's just leave it to the states and be done with it. Jeez.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 10:54:04 AM EST
    Glanton - Oh, I have understood the Demos very well for the past 28 years, that being when I left it for the second and finale time. And I do appreciate the nice words. I'll try and remember them as I click my feels together as Bush does his terrorist bit. On the other hand I may just wonder why someone would be intemperate with a person who has just made a supporting remark. et al - I am still waiting for someone to condemn Reid's remarks. You are wearing my remarks well.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:02:13 AM EST
    PPJ-Unlike McCain who will vote for cloture while promising to vote against the bill, Reid honestly expresses his views against gay marriage but will not sell out his constituents. He will not be a part of the institutionalization of his personal views because those he represents are wholly against the amendment. So what is there to condemn? Someone's honesty and integrity? For you those qualities are clearly despicable.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#40)
    by glanton on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    On the other hand I may just wonder why someone would be intemperate with a person who has just made a supporting remark.
    Why Jim, because you consistently speak on behalf of and no doubt vote for the majority party, which actively pushes the discrimination you are against. If it weren't for a healthy hatred of the Other in their voting block this wouldn't be an issue. Poor defense is one thing. Going for the jugular is quite another. These truths being pointed to, your words are, how you say, lip service--no?
    et al - I am still waiting for someone to condemn Reid's remarks. You are wearing my remarks well.
    What a silly, silly comment. To begin with Jeralyn condemned Reid's words right out the gate. Then, see every post I have made on this thread. See my depiction of the Democrats and ask yourself why I speak of them that way. It shouldn't take long for the lightbulb to go off. Yes, there are those who will cling to the Democrats and forgive everything simply because that party doesn't go for the jugular on civil rights--instead, they merely enable the truly cankerous element in our society to thrive. They treat the element with respect. They allow Rupert to throw them giant fundraisers. Yes, Jim, it's all very nauseating. But again, Jim, you make a joke out of yourself when you criticize the Repug agenda: you enable it with voice and ballot. What more can they possibly ask of you? Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    First, this "debate" is absurd. At a time like this, when people are being slaughtered for militarism and corporate profits, LGBT's (and Right Wing zealots) should be more worried about what to do in regards to the unaccountable forces that are running our nation into the ground (i.e. the military-industrial complex) rather than spend their time focusing Uhhmerikah's attention on this kind of issue during an election year. But, if we were to discuss the issue, at least do it honestly. What we're talking about really is the right for LGBT's to sue one another for property and cash after a DIVORCE, obtain tax benefits, obtain housing benefits, and fight for custody of children after a DIVORCE. The (somewhat) SECULAR STATE cannot alter the MARRIAGE of two individuals in the eyes of whatever Church they attend or whatever faith they choose to believe in. In that regard, the REAL fight for marriage is between LGBT's and their individual churches. Now, if we're going to argue the difference between "Civil Union" and "Marriage", the major value gained by Conservatives by forwarding this ignorant notion is the LABEL. The material oppression through the numerous benefits and rewards that "MARRIAGE" brings with it, if voted on correctly as "CIVIL UNIONS", makes the LABEL the only "victory" by zealots/wingers. Yes, it is oppression of the gay community and is wrong. But no amount of ignorant rednecks and right wing zealots can prevent two people from being "Married" in the "biblical sense" (no pun intended). Again, I hardly believe either of the two issues: (1) material benefits granted under civil unions, (2) the false-label of Secular-granted "MARRIAGE", or (3) the oppression of LGBT's by Right-Wing idiots using false-meanings and propaganda...is anywhere near as critical to our Democracy as the slaughter being carried out in ALL OF OUR NAMES abroad and the FUNDAMENTAL destruction of our rights through legislation THAT IS ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN INTO LAW by recent actions. THAT should be the whole focus of the next election. What the hell good is it for Progressives to spend the next 5 months debating James Dobson's issue if we're going to have Secret Police roaming our streets under current and future "ANTI-Terrorism" laws? In the long run, Conservatives will not be able to stem the tide of gay rights. There are too many out and closet LGBT's to stop it, growing larger as time passes.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:11:06 AM EST
    Tampa, Excellent post. This argument is beyond absurd and reaches into the realm of the truly insane. As predictable an election year offering from the right as the sun coming up. I feel like going out and making out with some dude on the steps of the RNC headquarters just to make a point. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Thanks to SEINFELD for that last quote.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#43)
    by glanton on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:21:05 AM EST
    Tampa, you're right, but the sad thing is the point you raise has always been anathema to Uhmerrikahn politiks. Any time there's a national election the media enables the debate to be about this kind of stuff. Yesterday I found out that a friend of mine was killed in Iraq on Saturday. I joined tens of thousands who have lost somebody in the Uhmerrikahn invasion of Iraq. And yet, we have never had a referendum on this action, and we never will. You woulda thought 2004 would have been it, but Kerry was too busy preening and then you had the swiftboaters and biggest of all was the gay marriage flap. Tampa, do you remember when Brit Hume (jeez) hosted one of the Dem primaries and asked the candidates what they thought about gay marriage: do you remember how Edwards tried to handle it? He said something similar to what you're saying, and Hume jumped all over him for it: It is an important issue, Senator, Hume intoned. So with the media in the bag how do you ever do what is right? Answer: you don't. Not unless you can get publically financed elections, that would be a start. But that's never, ever going to happen. You think the gay marriage flap is stupid? Wait until the whole thing gets trupmed, round about Oktober, by another Terry Shiavo or Natalie Holloway or D.C. Sniper. Uhmerrikah, a poem: There is no hope left.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:38:14 AM EST
    Obviously this issue is merely a hat tip to Bush's dwindling base and that is all. Rove made him do it. No chance of it passing. The fact that his Rose Garden speech yesterday was moved indoors. Proof that even Bush is embarrassed to have to piss on himself over this obligatory ridiculous pander. Not to worry, not only do the republicans at large hardly care about this, the democrats are yawning over it. What is interesting about the issue is that it is only the tip of the religious right iceberg. Their wet dream is to pass this and then they own the bedroom. Gay rights is the very least of it. I do agree with Tampa Student that there is great irony in the fight for gay marriage. It is also the fight to become part of the bulging US divorce statistics and the misery that comes with all the court battles where couples drag each other through the gutter, usually more for vengeance than property.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:43:27 AM EST
    90% of congress are pandering cowards, so what is new? Specter says "government should stay out of our bedrooms" and 2 minutes later says "this was left up to the states in 1996 and they should handle it (paraphrased)" So why doesn't Specter write an amendment in favor of gay marriage if he wants the gov't out of our bedrooms? The pandering is ridiculous, not as ridiculous as some of the posts on this site, but silly nonetheless. 50 years ago people were very against interracial marriages, MOST people. Tons of americans are still against it but are labeled racist if they say it out loud, rightfully so. 50% of marriages end up in divorce, tell me how that "preserves" our republic? Are marriages failing or are we as a people failing? I say it is all because women are employed and no longer buying the biblical bs that a woman is to serve her husband baloney. Let Adam and Steve be and tell me how we are going to address the national deficit, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Osama (remember him, he was behind the 9-11 attacks), how we can help Darfur, National Healthcare, Social security, public education system, cathing polygamists etc......

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:04:43 PM EST
    Glanton writes:
    What a silly, silly comment. To begin with Jeralyn condemned Reid's words right out the gate.
    Uh, I have seen hundreds of posts in which she condemns something/someone and is immediately joined by a host of people agreeing with her. In this case that didn't happen, and in fact her condemnation was rather restrained. Your initial condemnation was these words:
    2)The Democratic Party in Uhmerrikah remains a limpid waste.
    You then rattle on for a few hundred words before again saying:
    Well, Jim, welcome to what many of us have been dealing with every day. This is why I said: "The Democratic Party in Uhmerrikah remains a limpid waste."
    And then the always condemnation of me because I don't buy into the complete and utter condemnation of Bush. And Reid's remarks prove that there are no particular differences between the two except their position on National Defense. In fact, this is the second time the Demo leadership have aligned themselves against an issue that affects their natural membership. i.e. Older Americans. The issue was Medicare Rx. But the larger issue remains. Outside of Glanton. TL and PPJ.... Who condemned Reid?

    'Now, let me ask you. Do you condemn Senator's Reid's comment"ppj,you're so full of bs, it's pathetic. You say you're against this amendment, but you don't attack the bush maggot who's putting up the amendment. Instead you get your right wing talking points in by attacking Reid, who has very little to do with it.Rveryone here sees through your right wing propaganda, so give it up, rethug boy

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#48)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:36:14 PM EST
    I wish we could have a referendum here and try and make purposeful and continual dishonesty grounds for banishment for some period of time.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#49)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    Jim,
    ...Who condemned Reid?
    This is not worthy of a response, other than to try and thwart your obvious attempt at making anyone in opposition to George Bush look bad. I am, at least, happy Glanton has rightfully rebuked you for attempting to support his hopeless position concerning democrats. Harry Reids personal opinion on marriages is worth disagreeing with. It is not worthy of condemnation. You have had enough conversations with people here to know what most TL participants are in agreement with and what positions and who is worthy of condemnation.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#50)
    by glanton on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    Jim, try to wrap your mind around this simple truth: As a GOP supporter/voter/apologist, when you offer up your little soundbites in favor of civil rights for any oppressed group in Uhmerrikah, what you are doing is adding insult to injury for that group. Even you are not so dense, I hope, that you do not know that anti-gay bigotry played a decisive role in the 2004 election. The resukts of which made you happy. So now you have no credible right to posture as one concerned with civil liberties. As for Reid and other Democrats, their great crime is not, for the most part, that they perpetrate evil, but rather that they enable the perpetrators, they do not resist. Whether it is imperialism, institutionalized violence against women, or legislating hatred against gays, they have perfected the art of cutting their losses and looking the other way. As such, they deserve nothing but contempt, and certainly not votes. But these are issues that do not concern you , Jim. You should stick to referencing Taps whenever invasion threads appear.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:56:11 PM EST
    Reid said his beliefs but in no way indicated he'd shove them down other folks' throats. There, another strawman bites the dust. But all that leaves begging the question the post was actually about, (gee, ppj change the topic!? say it ain't so joe;-), the dems response was that this is a political trick to distract from what the American people know really counts; bushco is costing them money, killing their children and lying about it.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    Yeah Jm lets get Reid outa there and replace him with a REAL bigot who dosnt beat around the shrub about it. Again I ask, who here do you think is buying that b.s? Better yet, why dont you do a survey of all the prominent Gay Rights orgs and find out what candidates they're standing behind and why. If you were genuinely concernd about this issue and not just an obedient little shrub shill, thats what you would be doing. But you aren't and you wont.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:06:03 PM EST
    Lets face it the only way someone could be as shamelessly disengenuous as that chump and not care how glaringly obvious it is to everyone here is if he's a paid shill. In other words he gets his brownie points no matter how many people continually point out his obvious b.s.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:16:58 PM EST
    Reid is a cockle burr in the little shrubs saddle. Thats all spuds knows and all he needs to know.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:30:34 PM EST
    And as we speak, Bush's referendum to have f*llatio declared the official language of Whitehouse correspondents continues to make headway.

    roy wrote:
    Defending Republicans -- the difference between not allowing gay people to marry and stoning them to death is not a subtle one. Both are wrong, but conflating them is transparent and cheap.
    Right - in a civilized society, the civil rights go first; the stoning comes later.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#57)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 04:49:10 AM EST
    tampa, last time i checked, 3 is, well............3, not 2. jim, i'll happily condemn sen. reid's comments, as a lifelong liberal democrat. it's these kinds of things that prove, on a daily basis, sen. reid's complete lack of fitness to lead the democratic party. frankly, i don't want to know what his personal feelings are on the subject, unless they impact on legislation. if they're at odds, who cares? maybe it's time hillary stepped up to the plate. of course, it was her husband who signed off on the loathsome "defense of marriage" act. again, for those democrats reading this, don't waste time attempting to pander to the religious right, they aren't going to vote for you anyway.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 08:32:24 AM EST
    Sailor - The subject of the thread is "Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendment." Reid's comment was:
    I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.
    Now tell me how discussions of that statement is a straw man or off topic. They aren't.
    Reid said his beliefs but in no way indicated he'd shove them down other folks' throats.
    Sailor, he is the Minority leader. If he isn't willing to step forward and oppose the bill based on its content, then why in the world don't the Demos meet and appoint someone who will represent the values of the party? Peaches writes:
    your obvious attempt at making anyone in opposition to George Bush look bad.
    Wrong. And no one would have to make Reid look bad on this issue. He does it himself. He is the Minority Leader. How does that go? "Lead, follow or get out of the way." Peaches, you are defending something you should not. BigUnit12 - You write:
    but you don't attack the bush maggot who's putting up the amendment.
    BU, I think the above quote defines the differences between us quite well. Note the vulgarity of the language and the attack. Outside of your local tavern, who speaks like that? You then write:
    Rveryone here sees through your right wing propaganda, so give it up, rethug boy
    First, BU, since I oppose the Amendment it is obvious that I am not happy with the person pushing it. That is like day following night. Of course I am sure the logic of that will escape you. And you again return to claiming that I am not sincere in my position. You should know by now that I am very consistent in my positions see 9:49AM comment).
    (Demos)...continues to ignore our lack of national health care, rights for gays and lesbians, a drug policy that isn't working, ....a tax system that makes little sense ...
    cpinva - I'm proud of you. And you are right. The Right won't vote for a Demo no matter what, just as the Left won't for a Repub, no matter what. That leaves the politicians plenty of room, as Bush is doing, to throw the base a bone. The pity is the Demos won't attack the amendment on its content, and see what middle America will do. I think middle America would support a reasoned opposition to it. If the Democratic Party can't condemn the amendment, who can? Does the Party actually think they can speak of human rights with leadership such as this?

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 09:17:52 AM EST
    All Dems except Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd voted against cloture (Rockefeller and Dodd didn't vote).  7 Republicans broke with the party and also voted against cloture: Snowe, Collins, McCain, Sununu, Chafee, Gregg and Specter.  Gregg and Specter had voted for cloture in 2004, so they are pickups.  I don't believe anyone who voted against the FMA last time switched sides this time.
    link Yes ppj, some put their personal views aside in order to represent both their constituency and their commitment to uphold the constitution. Reid is among that group. I see that you are whirring around chasing your tail like a confused puppy on this one so I will spell it out simply by way of example. Imagine that you are personally against eating dairy products because of religious beliefs and happen to be a Senator. A constitutional amendment comes to the floor making it illegal for all Americans to stop eating dairy products. You make a statement that says I am personally against eating dairy products but am against legislating laws that criminalize others who eat dairy products. In other words the speaker in this example has a thing you find incomprehensible. It is called integrity. Your pals in congress would sell themselves out for some free golf trips, or worse. They would attempt to impose their own personal views on all americans. Your chimperor in chief regularly thumbs his nose at congress and the American people in just such a manner as you wildly cheer him on. The most eggregious example of this are his 751 or so signing statements.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#60)
    by Peaches on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 09:19:54 AM EST
    Peaches, you are defending something you should not.
    Jim, you are being dishonest again. I defended nothing. Refusing to condemn is not defending no matter which way you want to construe it. CPI,
    again, for those democrats reading this, don't waste time attempting to pander to the religious right, they aren't going to vote for you anyway.
    I think this is a stupid strategy and imo wrong. The reason Bush has to throw a bone to the religious right is because he is losing his authority as a moral leader becasue of his policies in the WOT, domestic spying, executive privilege, etc. The religious base is discovering there is a contradiction. Democrats should strive to achieve the moral high ground with Republicans and that means reaching out to religious groups. It is practical, pragmatic and a winning strategy for moderate Dems to denounce the administration on the WOT while making concensions by treading lightly around subjects such as abortion and gay marraige. Politics is all about compromise. Principles are wonderful, but democracy is about being pragmatic. Whatever works to achieve your main objective and a politicians main objective is to win reelection. I don't need Reid to throw me a bone stating views similar to mine about Gay marraige, because, to tell you the truth, I don't care about it as much as I care about the money we are spending on an unjust war. So, I want democrats to win. And whatever, it takes to win, I am fine with--up to a point, anyway (but, we need not go into that).

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 09:43:22 AM EST
    Sorry boys and girls, the fact remains that some things are not available for compromise. Reids comments will live on after this vote.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 10:39:54 AM EST
    Sorry boys and girls, the fact remains that some things are not available for compromise.
    Spoken like a good Freikorpsmann. Fascism rules, f*ck what the people want. Democracy is just soooo old school. Looks like ppj will be busy for a while writing letters chastising all those Senators who chose to represent the people rather than their own quaint beliefs. Is your man on dog Santorum going to be the first one to hear from you or has he come out of the closet and renounced the church?

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#63)
    by glanton on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 11:08:43 AM EST
    Jim the reason everyone is calling you out for straw man fallacy is because you are not acknowledging the difference between proposing, pushing, and voting for the Amendment-- and arguing/obstructing/voting against it. Reid's rhetoric sucks. I have "condemned," as you so banally put it: there is no way I would ever vote for Harry Reid for anything. But can you be man enough to recognize that there is no way in Hades that Harry Reid will vote for this amendment? And that if the Dems controlled the Senate, Reid would never have allowed this debate to come to the floor? And, will you be man enough to recognize that the party for which you speak, whose base you refer to as "good folks"--that this the the originative force behind the bigotry we are discussing. These are your people, Jim--your fellow citizens, who are obliterating all pretgense of Uhmerrikah as a free country. At least take your medicine, don't be a dog. But no. You are one of those who commits acts of oppression even as you speak of freedom. The worst kind of hypocrite. Suck on that.

    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#64)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 11:50:11 AM EST
    Sailor, he is the Minority leader. If he isn't willing to step forward and oppose the bill based on its content
    He did oppose the bill based on its content, why would you lie about a point like that?
    "Our country faces great challenges: record high gas prices, skyrocketing healthcare costs and an intractable war in Iraq," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. "Yet instead of addressing these issues, Sen. Frist has chosen to put the politics of division ahead of real progress by pushing for a debate on a divisive amendment that will write discrimination into the Constitution."