Marriage Amendment - Page 3

MaggieL · 06-05-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

while I just whip out my small-but-functioning penis and my rather weirdly shaped vagina

If you can whip out your vagina, it is wierdly shaped indeed.

Happy Monkey · 06-05-2006, 03:17 PM

It's a little teeny-weeny one on the end of the penis.

Urbane Guerrilla · 06-05-2006, 06:46 PM

Marriage is not properly a Constitutional matter. This would be an even worse social time bomb than the ERA Amendment.

Refrain, always, from Constitutional Amendments that lend themselves to being bludgeons.

richlevy · 06-05-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Marriage is not properly a Constitutional matter. This would be an even worse social time bomb than the ERA Amendment.

Refrain, always, from Constitutional Amendments that lend themselves to being bludgeons.

OMG

, I actually completely agree with him.

06-05-2006, 07:16 PM

I cannot believe that more people were not as upset as I that there was going to be an AMENDMENT removing civil rights from a group of people.
Dubya and company have the jack-boots fully on and are jack-stepping down main street and no one cares.

MaggieL · 06-05-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I cannot believe that more people were not as upset as I that there was going to be an AMENDMENT removing civil rights from a group of people.

The reason being that it has not a snowball's chance of passing, and nothing would suit the homophobes better than a hysterical reaction from the left to it all.

It's pure whoring to the Christian fundies, and it's embarassing everybody else on Bush's side of the aisle.

On the other side, they're delighted to have a distraction from Howard Dean's peformance on The 700 Club...

xoxoxoBruce · 06-05-2006, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Marriage is not properly a Constitutional matter. This would be an even worse social time bomb than the ERA Amendment.

Refrain, always, from Constitutional Amendments that lend themselves to being bludgeons.

Congratulations on your first rational post outside the food thread.

OK, I'm kidding. But you making a post I agree with...well...well...I don't know...Uh oh....tomorrow is 6-6-06....oh shit...

MrVisible · 06-07-2006, 03:13 PM

Well, that didn't take long.

Think maybe they cut the much-ballyhooed debate short once they realized that it was causing an enormous backlash?

It's this kind of thing that makes me think there may yet be hope for this country.

Happy Monkey · 06-07-2006, 04:50 PM

No, Boehner plans to bring it up for debate in the House next month, even though it has already failed in the Senate. They still think it's a winning issue.

There was never any threat that it would pass. It is completely an election year issue.

9th Engineer · 06-07-2006, 06:23 PM

I don't think that anything at this point is going to restore my faith in our country.

richlevy · 06-07-2006, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It is completely an election year issue.

Well, they had some Republican congressman on NPR who swore it had a very legitimate purpose. You could tell he was a good politician because he didn't crack up laughing once.

BigV · 06-07-2006, 07:43 PM

All upside for Bushco. Anyone who likes the prez, but is currently pouting/fuming/prosletyzing may be placated/pandered/purchased by this gesture. Anyone who dislikes the prez just writes it off as more of the same. Both of these situations are net non losers for him, *regardless* of the outcome of the putative "debate".

Urbane Guerrilla · 06-08-2006, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

OK, I'm kidding. But you making a post I agree with...well...well...I don't know...Uh oh....tomorrow is 6-6-06....oh shit...

Hehe; I didn't read this until the eighth. Here, have this nice big three-liter bottle of carbonated Booga-Booga. :p

Honest, it's tastier than canned Whoop-Ass.

bluecuracao · 06-08-2006, 10:57 PM

Canned whoop-ass is stale, 'specially from you, ole UG.

Pangloss62 · 06-09-2006, 10:59 AM

OK, he is red-faced and a bit bloated, and there was that "accident" in a river, but Ted Kennedy is still one of the better orators we have. His statement on the Gay Marriage Amendment last Tuesday was rational and succinct:

The General Accounting Office has identified 1,138 protections and benefits provided by the federal government on the basis of marital status. Many of these are laws relating to family and medical leave, social security benefits, and tax benefits. Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights as married couples, including the right to be treated fairly by the tax laws, to share insurance coverage, to visit loved ones in the hospital, and to have health benefits, family leave benefits, and the many other benefits that automatically flow from marriage.

Supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim the need to stop activist judges. Our colleagues should recall the words of another activist court:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the most vital personal property rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness."

The activist judges stating this fundamental belief were part of the Supreme Court's 1967 decision in the landmark case Loving v. Virginia, which held that marriage is a basic civil right, and that freedom to marry a person of another race may not be restricted by racial discrimination.

You can read the whole statement here:
http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/statement.cfm?id=f2efaa1f-d819-400d-9164-0afb4fced8f4[/url]

View Poll Results: Should man-woman marriage be supported and do alternative threaten it?
Man-Woman marriage should be supported.	9	18.37%
Marriage should succeed or fail without government intervention.	27	55.10%
Same sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage.	7	14.29%
Same sex marriage is not a threat to traditional marriage.	37	75.51%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

06-05-2006, 03:17 PM	#32
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	It's a little teeny-weeny one on the end of the penis. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

06-05-2006, 06:46 PM	#33
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Marriage is not properly a Constitutional matter. This would be an even worse social time bomb than the ERA Amendment. Refrain, always, from Constitutional Amendments that lend themselves to being bludgeons. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

06-07-2006, 03:13 PM	#38
MrVisible May Ter Dee Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 26	Well, that didn't take long. Think maybe they cut the much-ballyhooed debate short once they realized that it was causing an enormous backlash? It's this kind of thing that makes me think there may yet be hope for this country. __________________ Meanwhile, elsewhere...

06-07-2006, 04:50 PM	#39
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	No, Boehner plans to bring it up for debate in the House next month, even though it has already failed in the Senate. They still think it's a winning issue. There was never any threat that it would pass. It is completely an election year issue. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

06-05-2006, 07:16 PM	#35
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	I cannot believe that more people were not as upset as I that there was going to be an *AMENDMENT removing* civil rights from a group of people. Dubya and company have the jack-boots fully on and are jack-stepping down main street and no one cares.

06-07-2006, 06:23 PM	#40
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	I don't think that anything at this point is going to restore my faith in our country. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

06-07-2006, 07:43 PM	#42
BigV Goon Squad Leader Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,063	All upside for Bushco. Anyone who likes the prez, but is currently pouting/fuming/prosletyzing may be placated/pandered/purchased by this gesture. Anyone who dislikes the prez just writes it off as more of the same. Both of these situations are net non losers for him, regardless of the outcome of the putative "debate". __________________ Be Just and Fear Not.

06-08-2006, 10:57 PM	#44
bluecuracao in a mood, not cupcake Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 3,034	Canned whoop-ass is stale, 'specially from you, ole UG.

06-09-2006, 10:59 AM	#45
Pangloss62 Lecturer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Atlanta Posts: 768	Kennedy Speaks OK, he is red-faced and a bit bloated, and there was that "accident" in a river, but Ted Kennedy is still one of the better orators we have. His statement on the Gay Marriage Amendment last Tuesday was rational and succinct: The General Accounting Office has identified 1,138 protections and benefits provided by the federal government on the basis of marital status. Many of these are laws relating to family and medical leave, social security benefits, and tax benefits. Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights as married couples, including the right to be treated fairly by the tax laws, to share insurance coverage, to visit loved ones in the hospital, and to have health benefits, family leave benefits, and the many other benefits that automatically flow from marriage. Supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim the need to stop activist judges. Our colleagues should recall the words of another activist court: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the most vital personal property rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness." The activist judges stating this fundamental belief were part of the Supreme Court's 1967 decision in the landmark case Loving v. Virginia, which held that marriage is a basic civil right, and that freedom to marry a person of another race may not be restricted by racial discrimination. You can read the whole statement here: http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/statement.cfm?id=f2efaa1f-d819-400d-9164-0afb4fced8f4[/url] __________________ Things are never as good, or bad, as they seem.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)