Bush Battles The Gays

[RedImperator]

I welcome the amendment try, once these fundie fucks get slapped down when a 2/3 majority won't vote for it then they're fucked. No more recourse and a clear fucking signal that this country does not support their views and maybe politicians will stop suckling from their teat.

Sadly, I imagine similar things were said about the 18th amendment.

That's different. The country was different then. The movement for prohibition was sweeping across the country. All the polls now point to a very lax view on marriage. I don't think that other than the southern states they can drum up enough votes for the measure.

Yes, very different. Back then, a minority of religious fundamentalists with the backing of a meddlesome, fundamentalist president managed to slam through a Constituional amendment by taking advantage of war hysteria and wrapping it up in the language of morality.

Oh, wait...

And that was for DRINKING, something the majority of people in the country were not only in favor of, but actually did.

[Johonebesus]

That's different. The country was different then. The movement for prohibition was sweeping across the country. All the polls now point to a very lax view on marriage. I don't think that other than the southern states they can drum up enough votes for the measure.

Maybe things are better in New York City, but from what I can see, I don't think it's a sure bet that such an amendment must fail. The majority of Americans don't care about gay marriage one way or the other. They are perfectly happy to let it stay illegal. Conservatives are very good at getting grass roots movements going. Liberals aren't. I actually think fighting amendment to ban gay marriage would be a very tough battle, and there's a good chance the amendment would prevail.

[Stravo]

That's different. The country was different then. The movement for prohibition was sweeping across the country. All the polls now point to a very lax view on marriage. I don't think that other than the southern states they can drum up enough votes for the measure.

Maybe things are better in New York City, but from what I can see, I don't think it's a sure bet that such an amendment must fail. The majority of Americans don't care about gay marriage one way or the other. They are perfectly happy to let it stay illegal. Conservatives are very good at getting grass roots movements going. Liberals aren't. I actually think fighting amendment to ban gay marriage would be a very tough battle, and there's a good chance the amendment would prevail.

Maybe I'm deluded about the average American's view on gay marriage, living in one of the gay meccas of the US, but I just feel that most people think that the Consitution is no place to enshrine our views of marriage. I want to have more faith in people.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Maybe I'm deluded about the average American's view on gay marriage, living in one of the gay meccas of the US, but I just feel that most people think that the Consitution is no place to enshrine our views of marriage. I want to have more faith in people.

Quite frankly, you are. The simple fact is that these issues were pushed to fast, to far, by the judges involved--the President is quite correct; this is a matter of activist judges forcing the issue against the will of society, which is all that really matters. The result is going to be a vicious backlash and the main hope is that said backlash is so vicious that it destroys itself; that is to say that I think an amendment outlawing civil unions as well as gay marriage is rather less likely to pass than one just outlawing the use of the term "marriage", but the fundies might be stupid and push for the whole deal.


Oh well. There are worse rights to be denied by far. Perhaps in a generation or two. It's depressing but I hardly expected marriage to be had in my lifetime anyway, not a decade ago anyway. That's probably still pessimistic, for that matter.

[Gil Hamilton]

Marina, desegregation was against the "will of society" and there were even states who had laws against white and non-white people marrying. Then some "activist judges" said the whole thing was rotten, caused desegregation, and had all those laws repealed; despite large amounts of resistance and civil unrest. You could make the same argument there. The majority of people in America used to think that "colored" people should have seperate water fountains and schools, therefore the state shouldn't make the practice illegal.

[Iceberg]

Fuck, if we'd had George W. Bush as president in the 1960s he'd probably have spearheaded an effort to make a Constitutional amendment prohibiting black people from marrying white people... >.<

[Gil Hamilton]

Fuck, if we'd had George W. Bush as president in the 1960s he'd probably have spearheaded an effort to make a Constitutional amendment prohibiting black people from marrying white people... >.<

I don't know about that. I've never heard him caring about such issues before, but I do know that he wants a constitutional amendment based on gender discrimination.

[Gil Hamilton]

Hey look, Bill O'Reilly has chimed in with the Opinion of the Right.

Now we are more progressive, but all the secularism is redefining the country. And I think it's dangerous. The society of 300 million Americans without discipline or standards will fall apart, period.

Now the secularists did gain a victory in Massachusetts. Gay marriage will become legal in the Commonwealth this coming May, but the law of unintended consequences will definitely kick in.

Number one, there will be a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That will override any state court decision. Number two, Senator Kerry will be put on the defensive, even though he doesn't even support gay marriage. And number three, activist judges who defy the will of the people will now become objects of discussion and sometimes scorn. These people have hidden in the weeds for years. Now they're going to be exposed.

So all the happy faces over the gay marriage deal may not be so happy one year from today. The polls say 66 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage. I believe the will of the people will prevail in this case, but there's still an open question whether the will of the people will prevent the secularization of America. That war will be ongoing.

And that's The Memo.

Heh, beware of the Secularists and the Secularization of America!

*wiggles his fingers in a scary motion*

[HemlockGrey]

Isn't the entire point of the judiciary to check and limit the power of the legislature?

[Iceberg]

Isn't the entire point of the judiciary to check and limit the power of the legislature?

Shh, you talk sense.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't the entire point of the judiciary to check and limit the power of the legislature?

Of course not. According to the Bush Administration, the judiciary's only function is to make public opinion polls into law. Anything overstepping that mandate is "activist" and must be squelched via constitutional amendment.

I do find it amusing that they are considering a constitutional amendment while simultaneously accusing the judges of being 'activist" rather than doing their job of ... interpreting the constitution. If the constitution must be altered in order to satisfy the agenda of the fundie assholes, isn't that a tacit admission that their position is, in fact, unconstitutional?

[Iceberg]

Remember, kiddies, Judicial Activism is what liberal judges do, while Sound Jurisprudence is what conservative judges do!

[Iceberg]

Isn't the entire point of the judiciary to check and limit the power of the legislature?

Of course not. According to the Bush Administration, the judiciary's only function is to make public opinion polls into law. Anything overstepping that mandate is "activist" and must be squelched via constitutional amendment.

Like I said before, I suspect that if George W. Bush had been President in the early 60s, he probably would have pushed for a Constitutional amendment enshrining segregation.

I do find it amusing that they are considering a constitutional amendment while simultaneously accusing the judges of being 'activist" rather than doing their job of ... interpreting the constitution. If the constitution must be altered in order to satisfy the agenda of the fundie assholes, isn't that a tacit admission that their position is, in fact, unconstitutional?

Quoted for truth.

[Andrew J.]

Quite frankly, you are. The simple fact is that these issues were pushed to fast, to far, by the judges involved--the President is quite correct; this is a matter of activist judges forcing the issue against the will of society, which is all that really matters.

You know what? Fuck the will of society! If they don't like it we'll just impose it on them until the motherfuckers get used to it.

[Iceberg]

Quite frankly, you are. The simple fact is that these issues were pushed to fast, to far, by the judges involved--the President is quite correct; this is a matter of activist judges forcing the issue against the will of society, which is all that really matters.

You know what? Fuck the will of society! If they don't like it we'll just impose it on them until the motherfuckers get used to it.

Hear hear!

Desegregation was against the will of society, too, and the government forced that down society's throat, too. And I'll bet you heard the conservatives complaining about it to anybody who would listen, as well. But if it hadn't, the south would still be segregated to this day.

[Xenophobe3691]

Isn't the entire point of the judiciary to check and limit the power of the legislature?

Shh, you talk sense.

Yes, reason, the eternal enemy of Faith! No wonder Bush does not understand it...
Really, I have a question. Can the Supreme Court knock down legislation for an amendment?

[Stravo]

Isn't the entire point of the judiciary to check and limit the power of the legislature?

Shh, you talk sense.

Yes, reason, the eternal enemy of Faith! No wonder Bush does not understand it...
Really, I have a question. Can the Supreme Court knock down legislation for an amendment?

No, once an amendment passes it is incorporated into the Consitiution as if it had always been there. It's really the only way to trump the judiciary.

[Joe]

Quite frankly, you are. The simple fact is that these issues were pushed to fast, to far, by the judges involved--the President is quite correct; this is a matter of activist judges forcing the issue against the will of society, which is all that really matters.

You know what? Fuck the will of society! If they don't like it we'll just impose it on them until the motherfuckers get used to it.

Hear hear!

Desegregation was against the will of society, too, and the government forced that down society's throat, too. And I'll bet you heard the conservatives complaining about it to anybody who would listen, as well. But if it hadn't, the south would still be segregated to this day.

Yeah, good thing the Republicans and not the southern Democrats got their way on desegregation.

Like I said before, I suspect that if George W. Bush had been President in the early 60s, he probably would have pushed for a Constitutional amendment enshrining segregation.

No, he wouldn't have. Shrubby may have his problems but he's never displayed any overtly racist tendencies.

[Mitth`raw`nuruodo]

Bush's statement was similar to his remarks in his Jan. 20 State of the Union address in which he said that if judges ''insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.''

So, if the JUDGES try to "force their will upon the people", he will have to step in and force his OWN will upon us? I love this guy.

[Iceberg]

You know what? Fuck the will of society! If they don't like it we'll just impose it on them until the motherfuckers get used to it.

Hear hear!

Desegregation was against the will of society, too, and the government forced that down society's throat, too. And I'll bet you heard the conservatives complaining about it to anybody who would listen, as well. But if it hadn't, the south would still be segregated to this day.

Yeah, good thing the Republicans and not the southern Democrats got their way on desegregation.

You mean the southern Democrats who abandoned the party in droves and signed up as Republicans when the Dems adopted Harry Truman's civil rights plank in 1948? Those southern Democrats?

[Joe]

They didn't become Republicans, you stupid twat, they went out and formed their own fucking party, the Dixiecrats.

[Iceberg]

They didn't become Republicans, you stupid twat, they went out and formed their own fucking party, the Dixiecrats.

That was in 1948, dumbfuck.

And where were they by the 60s? That's right, they were in the Republican party.

[Joe]

Besides, I would never deny that the GOP has segregationist baggage, because it does, as evidenced by the Trent Lott fiasco. But it was Democrats or ex-Democrats that led the charge against desegregation during the 50s and early 60s, and there was greater Democratic opposition to the Civil Rights Act than Republican opposition.

[Joe]

They didn't become Republicans, you stupid twat, they went out and formed their own fucking party, the Dixiecrats.

That was in 1948, dumbfuck.

And where were they by the 60s? That's right, they were in the Republican party.

You were the one who brought up 1948, retard.

And I don't recall Robert Byrd, who voted against the Civil Rights Act, ever bolting to the Republicans (80 percent of whom, by the way, voted for the Civil Rights Act, compared to 60 percent of the Dems).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Isn't the entire point of the judiciary to check and limit the power of the legislature?

Within constitutional limits; and even that power is largely based on earlier rulings of the Court. Recently that has been a (well-grounded, frankly) accusation that certain rulings based on highly questionable interpetations have further expanded the power of the court to the point that it has unbalanced the structure of the government; they are essentially re-writing law instead of interpeting it.

The ultimate solution is a constitutional one and you're seeing it here; unfortunately, the reaction just had to come now.