3 GOP Senators introduce anti-gay marriage amendment

U.S. senators introduce gay marriage ban[/font size]

Christopher Curtis, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network

Tuesday, November 25, 2003 / 05:26 PM

SUMMARY: Three Republican U.S. senators on Tuesday introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Three Republican U.S. senators on Tuesday introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

According to the Associated Press, Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., is sponsoring the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) along with co-sponsors Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

While the details of the proposed amendment were not clear at press time, Human Rights Campaign (HRC) spokesman Michael Cole said Tuesday evening from Washington, D.C., "It's our understanding that this bill is similar to the one introduced in the House. We hope to know more tomorrow."

The FMA was introduced in the House on May 21 by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo. The proposed amendment would amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex couples from attaining the status of civil marriage "or the incidents thereof." It has 100 co-sponsors and could pass if approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states.

The momentum behind the FMA has been fueled in part by last week's ruling by Massachusetts' highest court, which said not allowing same-sex couples to marry went against the state's Constitution. Same-sex marriage opponents fear if Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage, the U.S. Constitution's full faith and credit clause would compel every state in the union to accept gay marriage.

GLBT rights organizations decried the Senate's move.

"The U.S. Constitution is no place to play election-year politics, particularly when our nation is facing other critical issues such as an uncertain economy, threats to our homeland, the safety of our troops in Iraq and skyrocketing health care costs," said HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch in a prepared statement.

"Gay and lesbian citizens work hard, pay taxes and deserve the same rights as every other American," she said.

Mark Mead, spokesman for Log Cabin Republicans, was outraged.

"I think it's shocking that these allegedly conservative senators are introducing sweeping federal legislation," he told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network soon after the information became public. "True conservative Republicans believe in state rights, and this goes against it."

As for the senators who are behind the amendment, Mead said, "If their marriages are threatened by a loving gay relationship, then I suggest marriage counseling, not a federal amendment."

On Nov. 18 the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released a survey on how Americans felt about same-sex marriage. It found younger adults are evenly split over the matter, but older Americans oppose it by a 4-1 margin.

According to the Associated Press, congressional votes on the amendment could occur after Congress reconvenes in January.=30=

http://www.planetout.com/news/article-print.html?2003/11/25/1

Doug? Ethan/Oren? Dick? Isn't it time to bring up the standard Clinton response here? Or is this another sign of how Republicans don't hate gays?

well, come on...

if these 3 Republicans represent ALL Republicans, then why don't you accept the argument that Clinton & Nunn show that democrats hate gays?

Please show me where Clinton and Nunn are introducing similar legislation or supporting this effort and I will.

so THIS is the only thing that matters?

it doesn't matter that clinton signed DoMA (when he could have let it become law without his signature) and Nunn was responsible for killing the gays in the military initiative & leaving us with "don't ask, don't tell"?

you're picking & choosing.

Not at all. Clinton and Nunn are both out of office for one. Secondly, i agree that their efforts fell short. However, it is the GOP that is pushing this Marriage Amendment. I have no doubt that SOME Democrats and SOME Republicans will stand uo for what is right, but the party leadership is allowing this to press forward.

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

Where is Dougie on this one? He is the only one on the board who has the luxury of responding to virtually every thread repeatedly and at length, but here he is speechless!

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

He has already responded at length in the other thread.

Sen Clinton has come out against the amendment and also against gay marriage. So have all 9 of the dwarfs. Does that count???

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

So would that make Hillary Snow White?

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

Instead of this useless talk, any posters here who are constituents of these Senators need to write or call their offices and let them know how upset they are about the Senator's support for such an amendment and insist on their withdrawing the proposal. Remind them how many gay voters there are in their state! I'm one of Brownback's constituents (unfortunately) and have sent him several e-mails prior to the introduction of the amendment. He actually responded with a response detailing his more than somewhat illogical views on the issue, instead of the usual "thank you for your thoughts" form letter. I tried to get a dialogue going on the issue, but without success. However, there have to be at least 300,000 gay people in the state of Kansas, and that's more than enough to tip an election there, as it's a relatively small state. And it's a state where Democrats do get elected from time to time (the Congressional representative for the suburban Kansas City district where I live is a Democrat, as is the Governor) so re-election isn't just automatic there.

Get those fingers flying or dialing, then, and if you can't get them to back off be sure to contribute big to their opponents the next time they're up for re-election. And let them know you won't forget!

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

>Instead of this useless talk, any posters here who are

>constituents of these Senators need to write or call their

>offices and let them know how upset they are about the

>Senator's support for such an amendment and insist on their

>withdrawing the proposal. Remind them how many gay voters

>there are in their state!

Oh, yeah - like they'll give a flying fuck. One of the many reasons why it's so stupid for gay people and gay groups to keep themselves enslaved to the Democratic Party is precisely because, like blacks, gays end up with no influence with either party.

Democrats don't listen to gays (except to pay lip service) because they know that the vast majority of gay people are never going to support Republicans because they have been brainwashed and coerced into believing that their gayness creates an obligation to be Democrats.

And Republicans like Brownback are never going listen to gays either, because they know that most gays consider Republicans to be tantamount to Hitler, and will never support them anyway.

So congratulations to our gay groups and their leaders and their followers for swearing undying loyalty to the liberal agenda over gay groups, thereby totally marginalizing gay influence with both parties. Typically brilliant of them.

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

So what you're saying is that gays should support Republicans? When they do things such as this Constitutional Amendment, what would be the purpose? And how stupid is it to tell someone they shouldn't write their Congressman?

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

>So what you're saying is that gays should support

>Republicans? When they do things such as this Constitutional

>Amendment, what would be the purpose?

YES! we should support Republicans!

the purpose? well, probably to save the country. is it worse than supporting the party that does things such as signing DoMA?

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

To save the country?

Bush saved us from the Clinton surplus certainly.

Bush saved us finding Osama bin Laden.

Bush saved us from obliterating Al Qaeda by abandoning the war on terror and going after Saddam.

Now Bush will save us from the evil homosexual agenda by trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment against us.

Bush saved us from fiscal responsibility by increasing the size of governement, and government spending more than his last three presecessors combined.

I assume that's what you are talking about.

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

bush isn't all republicans is he? again, if everything bush does is representative of all republicans, then you have to accept that all democrats are anti-gay bigots, because clinton signed DoMA and Nunn--well, nunn was just an ass.

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

Are you including Sen Clinton in that? She doesn't support gay marriage. How about the 9 dwarfs? They don't support gay marriage.

And no, Hillary stands as much chance of being Snow White as Bill does of being faithful to her.

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

to answer:

What Clinton surplus? Bush is innaugurated in Jan. Bush changes no spending patterns. In March suddenly the surplus is a deficit? Don't think so. Surplus never existed in the first place. Must have been an Arthur Andersen accounting moment for Clinton.

Clinton saved us from getting bin Laden when he could have had him handed over and never had to go through 9/11. And you talk about Bush and bin Laden? You were a few years late and with the wrong president on that one.

Whoever said Bush abandoned the war on terror? He never did.

Bush has said nothing about passing a constitutional amendment at all. A couple of senators mentioned it. Bush reserved any comment. You are trying to blame the man for what he has not said or done at all by saying he did say that. Can you point to any mention in a REPUTABLE news media that can quote his commenting on a constitutional amendment on this subject that says he supported the amendment? Didn't think so. Yet another BON moment. If you take your meds you can bypass those.

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

>What Clinton surplus? Bush is innaugurated in Jan. Bush

>changes no spending patterns. In March suddenly the surplus

>is a deficit? Don't think so. Surplus never existed in the

>first place. Must have been an Arthur Andersen accounting

>moment for Clinton.

Dick, it's one thing to have a difference of opinion. It's another to just outright lie, which you did in the above statement. Bill Clinton turned the Reagan/Bush41 deficit and turned it into a surplus. Bush43 turned it into the largest budget deficit in American History.

>Clinton saved us from getting bin Laden when he could have had

>him handed over and never had to go through 9/11. And you

>talk about Bush and bin Laden? You were a few years late and

>with the wrong president on that one.

>

>Whoever said Bush abandoned the war on terror? He never did.

Of course he did. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. It never has. Now, because Bush abandoned the war on terror to go after oil for the Halliburton Corporation, Al Qaeda was allowed to regroup and Osama bin Laden is still at large. Then of course, there's the business ties between the Bush and bin Laden families.

>Bush has said nothing about passing a constitutional amendment

>at all. A couple of senators mentioned it. Bush reserved any

>comment.

A couple MENTIONED it? Are you insane? These GOP senators have INTRODUCED legislation. That's a big difference from MENTIONING something. Is the sky blue in your world, dick?

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

>>Bush reserved any comment.

Actually he said we were all sinners

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

The surplus if there did not disappear in two months with no change in spending. If it did not disappear, which it wouldn't in that period of time, then ipso facto it did not exist. Why is that so f**king hard for you to understand. I know Clinton said there was a surplus. Clinton lied so many times that even he couldn't keep track of them. That does not make it so and under the circumstances it does not appear that it was so.

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

You seem to be confusing Presidents here. Clinton only lied the once, about the blowjob. As for the president-select:

http://www.bushlies.com

Usually when Republicans are confronted with the Clinton surplus, they try to point out that Clinton had a Republican Congress that helped Clinton to achieve that surplus. They don't deny reality like you. However, considering the reckless spending that this president and Congress have engaged in, it's not surprising that you are in denial. What it means is taht the Clinton surplus was truly the CLINTON surplus. Had the spend and deficit Republicans had their way, they would have squandered it MUCH sooner. Heck, even Rx[/font size]ush has lambasted them for their out of control spending.

RE: 3 GOP Senators introduce anti-Doug marriage amendment

Let's try it again for the simple-minded (BON).

If I have a surplus of let's say $100 and I am spending at the rate of $10 per month, the surplus would last 10 months if I did not change my spending habits. If the surplus ran out in 2 months, then several things may be the cause. My spending habits were not truly $10, I did not have a surplus of $100 or a combination of the two. When Bush took over, the Clintonistas claimed a surplus of x amount and a spending of y amount, such that x / y would last for quite a while. Bush did not change the spending habits in 2 months. The surplus became a deficit in 2 months. Net result can be that the surplus could not have been x or the spending was not y or a combination of the two. Simple logic says that there was not the surplus the Clintonistas claimed or their spending was not what they said. Either way the surplus that Clinton left would not have been a surplus even had Gore taken over but would also have been a deficit in 2 months.

As to the spending that is going on now, I don't think anyone on this board disagrees that it is much too high, but the claims that Bush inherited a surplus are in themselves laughable. I guess that Clinton believed that, like the word "is", the word "surplus" depends on how you define "surplus.."