Bush backs anti-gay constitutional amendment

This has to be one of the most historic -- as well as tragic -- days for gay people in the history of this country. The President of the United States announced today that he will support and advocate an amendment to the Constitution which would prohibit the equal treatment of gay citizens, EVEN IF legislatures and a majority of citizens favored equal treatment. A constitutional amendment which would target one group of American citizens and single them out for discriminatory treatment - a more repugnant and dangerous proposal is difficult to imagine. And now, the President is squarely behind it.

Here's what Andrew Sullivan, former ardent supporter of George Bush ("former," as in: before today), wrote today about these developments, which summarizes my sentiments exactly:

____________________________________________________

WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.

NO MORE PROFOUND AN ATTACK: This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents. That very tactic is so shocking in its prejudice, so clear in its intent, so extreme in its implications that it leaves people of good will little lee-way. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance. Gay people will now regard it as their enemy for generations - and rightly so. I knew this was coming, but the way in which it has been delivered and the actual fact of its occurrence is so deeply depressing it is still hard to absorb. But the result is clear, at least for those who care about the Constitution and care about civil rights. We must oppose this extremism with everything we can muster. We must appeal to the fair-minded center of the country that balks at the hatred and fear that much of the religious right feeds on. We must prevent this graffiti from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as their own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will.

Doug, knowing your politics, I appreciate your posting this from Sullivan. :o

However, surely you can't be surprised by Bush's announcement. x(

This is an extremely important issue. Thanks for posting it. I completely agree with you. I am appalled that the President would try to pass an amendment against gay people having equal rights. One commentator on the tube suggested that this was a good topic for Bush to latch unto because it's the only issue in which 60% of the American people support him. I don't believe he'll get it passed. Even if the lawmakers don't care about gays, they do care about their states retaining their rights. Luckily, it is very difficult to get an amendment to the Constitution passed.

I was listening to a talk show today in which some idiot was arguing that gay marriage would lower the birth rate and end the human race. I have heard this argument before. It has to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. First of all, there are too many people in this country and in the world. I don't think the human race would be in danger from a lower birth rate. But more specificly, does the birth rate go down if two gay people are married instead of just living together? Ridiculous contradiction in terms! Maybe just a smokescreen for a general dislike of gay people.

>This has to be one of the most historic -- as well as tragic

>-- days for gay people in the history of this country.

...and should this become the law of the land, that day and this shall be two most tragic and embarassing days for all Americans, not only those who proposed and supported the ammendment but those who stood by and acquiesced -- Kerry, Edwards, Clintons,... (is there such a thing as a liberal Republican anymore? I can't think of any!) It seems certain to me that eventually history will record this day and that (should it arise) for what they did, enshrine as the law of the land second class citizenship on a minority after the historic civil rights awakening of the 60s. Apparently bigots can be taught, but slowly it seems with no expectation that they can generalize the lesson.

>Doug, knowing your politics, I appreciate your posting this

>from Sullivan.

He's a much more ardent supporter of Bush than I am. I don't think gay people are compelled to support whatever political party is marginally better on gay issues, since every gay person is a lot of other things besides gay, and that issue need not trump every other one. But certain things are so extreme, so unacceptable, so dangerous, that when that line is cross, no self-respecting gay person could support a politician who does it, no matter the other issues. For me, and I suspect for lots and lots of other gay conservatives, wanting to amend the fucking Constitutuion to forever codify gay people as second-class citizens is way over that line.

>However, surely you can't be surprised by Bush's announcement.

Actually, I am surprised. Bush spent 3 years in office without doing anything particularly anti-gay. He never uttered an anti-gay sentiment. By contrast, Clinton signed DOMA. Bush did nothing similar.

Conservatives have been trying to get Bush for more than a year to support this and he wouldn't. I don't think in his heart he is a hater or has some obssessive anti-gay streak. If he did, he would have said and done a lot more before today. But he's desperate - he knows he's sinking electorally, and like a cornered rat, he's trying to do anything to save himself.

But I don't really care what his motive is. Supporting this amendment is so vile and destructive that motives don't matter.

One good thing - lots of conservatives have said today they oppose this amendment:

<<However, California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.

"I will say that I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue," said Dreier, a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary."

Lewis said, "At this moment I feel changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue.">>

Even Tom DeLay won't say he supports it:

<<House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he appreciated Bush's "moral leadership" on the issue, but expressed caution about moving too quickly toward a constitutional solution, and never directly supported one. "This is so important we're not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this," Delay said. "We are going to look at our options and we are going to be deliberative about what solutions we may suggest.">>

REAL conservatives don't go around trifling with the U.S. Constitution for political gain or petty political advantage. Bush is more concerned with saving himself, and that's why he's abandoned that principle.

Kerry announced today he'd oppose the amendment in the Senate. I have no current info on Edwards' posture, nor about Hillary. My guess is, all 3 of them would/will vote against it.

Glad to see you on board, Doug. Can I put a Kerry/Edwards 2004 bumper sticker on your car?

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/GayMarriage/Gay-Marriage/keefe.gif

Edward's does not support what Bush is doing but he does not support gay marriage.

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa [email protected]

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html http://briefcase.yahoo.com/seaboy4hire

Senator Edwards said today that he is opposed to this amendment. As far as I know the Clintons have not publicly announced their position concerning it.

Big Wet Kisses to you, Doug69!!!!

La Trix

>Senator Edwards said today that he is opposed to this

>amendment. As far as I know the Clintons have not publicly

>announced their position concerning it.

They're all firmly AGAINST gay marriage, which I think is what TY was talking about - Edwards, Kerry and the Clintons, and just about every other mainstream Democrat of any national prominence are opposed to gay marriage. And that is a bigoted position they have.

But it's still a universe away from advocating this odious constitutional amendment. Kerry and Edwards have already come out oppositing the amendment (althoug Kerry's statement was a little less than ringing), and I'm sure most Democrats will, too.

For that matter, as I indicated, many Republicans - including those far to the right - are opposed to this amendment. Changing the central governing document we have is a very serious matter that has the potential for great destablization. Many conservatives will see this for what it is - an effort by Bush to save himself as the expense of the Constitution - and will oppose it.

>For that matter, as I indicated, many Republicans - including

>those far to the right - are opposed to this amendment.

>Changing the central governing document we have is a very

>serious matter that has the potential for great

>destablization. Many conservatives will see this for what it

>is - an effort by Bush to save himself as the expense of the

>Constitution - and will oppose it.

>

It will be interesting to see if such an amendment can even past muster in the Senate, garnering the required 2/3 vote to be sent to the states for ratification.

As far as the House goes, I'm convinced the "moron & bigot" count is high enough for it to pass there.

Doug, what's your take? Will the Senate block this, or are we in trouble? It is pretty scary to think that there may not be thirty four rational senators of either party left in the Senate to save us from this folly.

>This has to be one of the most historic -- as well as tragic

>-- days for gay people in the history of this country. The

>President of the United States announced today that he will

>support and advocate an amendment to the Constitution which

>would prohibit the equal treatment of gay citizens

Since you have consistently defended Bush in just about every thread on this board in which anyone has criticized him, it's mighty ironic to see you complaining about his actions now. As one of his ardent supporters, you should be apologizing for his actions in this area, not complaining about them. Every gay man who has supported Dubya, if he has so much as an atom of honesty in his entire body, should now come forward and shamefacedly admit how wrong he was. Starting with you.

At the Rally to address Bush's statement yesterday, held at the NYC LGBT Center, it was suggested that everyone call the White House Comments line today to express their indignation at Bush's statement. I just called. The first two tries resulted in a busy signal. The third try resulted in "all operators are busy".

The phone number is 202-456-1111. If you can, call!

>Since you have consistently defended Bush in just about every

>thread on this board in which anyone has criticized him, it's

>mighty ironic to see you complaining about his actions now.

This is one of the dumbest and most hypocrtical posts I've ever read - even if I include all the ones you've written. It's a little hard to sit on a high horse when you are going to vote for a candidate - like Kerry - who came out as recently as yesterday and re-iterated his completely bigoted view that he's against gay marriage. Why don't you apologize for his bigotry?

I've defended Bush when his actions were right and when partisan liars like you made things up that weren't true out of hatred. I've criticized him when his actions were wrong. Unlike you and other drooling drones, I'm not enslaved to any one political party and don't feel obligated to sacrifice my judgment and intellectual autonomy in service to some political ideology. I don't have to apologize when one political party does something sick or stupid because I'm not a tool or the property of any one party. Too bad you can't same the same for yourself.

>As one of his ardent supporters, you should be apologizing for

>his actions in this area, not complaining about them.

I have nothing to apologize for, moron. I support Bush's policies with regard to the war on terrorism and various domestic policies as well. I have never given blind support to anyone and so I have nothing to "apologize" for when some politician who has some policies I like enacts others which I dislike. That's the good thing about maintaining one's independence - something you can envy only from afar.

Every

>gay man who has supported Dubya, if he has so much as an atom

>of honesty in his entire body, should now come forward and

>shamefacedly admit how wrong he was. Starting with you.

I'll make you a deal - I'll apologize for George Bush's support of this amendment right after you apologize for Bill Clinton's signing of DOMA into law; when you apologize for John Kerry and John Edwards' vigorous, unambiguous opposition to gay marriage; and when you apologize for the anti-gay comments and advertisements and campaigns of Democrats around the country.

If everyone needs to apologize for supporting anti-gay politicians with anti-gay, bigoted position, only a complete liar would claim that liberals and Democrats are exempt from this requirement.

The one thing I'm not going to listen to is pitiful, lying liberals like you who are going to pretend that your political Masters are pure. They're not. They're bigots also, as they ALL support anti-gay measures under the law. You have no business demanding apologies from others until you start offering them up yourself.

>It will be interesting to see if such an amendment can even

>past muster in the Senate, garnering the required 2/3 vote to

>be sent to the states for ratification.

I really have a hard time believing this will happen. The LAST thing most politicians want is to have to go on record as to whether or not they support amending the frickin' United States Constitution in order to take a position on gay marriage. There are lots of principled conservatives who, even if they are opposed to gay marriage (and MOST people are, including all of the Democratic candidates), do NOT want to start tinkering with the Constitution. That's why I quoted from some VERY conservative ones who oppose the amendment.

Also, the Senate is filled with pompous blowhards who pride themselves on being the voice of reasoned judgment and moderation. That's why so many GOP Senators voted against impeachment, even when it passed the House. I have a hard time seeing any Democrats voting for this, and just as hard a time seeing Senators like Snowe, Spector, Collins, Chafee, etc. voting for it, as well as other more conservative ones.

Also, I think that they know that this is NOT a position of principle taken by Bush, but something that is entirely about benefiting him personally and politically. I really think that most Americans, including otherwise anti-gay-marriage ones, are going to have a visceral reaction to creating such intense strife and risking the instability that comes from trying to change the Constitution all in order to save the political career of one unprincipled, selfish, worthless piece of trash.

I think Bush and the White House don't even except this to pass and don't care if it does - the same as they didn't care if the "immigration reform" proposal passed. They're just political flowers being tossed out, primarily to distract everyone from the 3 years of his Presidency which they have concluded, I guess, they can't defend. At least in my view, this makes it MUCH MUCH worse than if he really believed in it.

>Doug, what's your take? Will the Senate block this, or are we

>in trouble? It is pretty scary to think that there may not be

>thirty four rational senators of either party left in the

>Senate to save us from this folly.

Bucky - here's an excellent article from today's Washington Post detailing the strong uncertainty, and even resistance, even in GOP circles where you would except to find a receptive welcome for the amendment. I think it's becoming quite clear that nobody expects this to pass - this is just some disgusting rhetorical bone thrown to the religious right-wing. It's still amazingly damaging, but I really doubt that the amendment in question, ESPECIALLY one that bans civil unions and prohibits states from enacting CU and even gay marriage, has any chance:

_____________________________________________________

GOP Uncertain Ban Would Pass Congress

Alternatives to Lengthy Process Sought

By Charles Babington and Helen Dewar

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, February 25, 2004; Page A15

Congress's Republican leaders, facing a divided caucus and significant Democratic resistance, expressed deep reservations yesterday about President Bush's call for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and suggested that other approaches be tried first.

Although several GOP leaders called for blocking gay marriages, they said courts or state legislatures offer more feasible paths than does Congress, where a daunting two-thirds majority would be required in the narrowly divided Senate and House.

"We're looking at other ways of doing it, knowing that it will be very difficult to pass a constitutional amendment both through the House and the Senate," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told reporters. "The groups that are for a constitutional amendment are split over what it would be. We're trying to bring them all together and unify them. That's going to take some time."

Some senior House Republicans flatly oppose the idea. "I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue," said Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.). "I believe that this should go through the courts."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said he is open to several proposals but is especially interested in language that would leave the issue to elected representatives of the states. "I've got an open mind on all of them," including Bush's approach, he said.

Whereas the president and activist groups can engage the contentious issue in largely theoretical terms, congressional leaders operate in a cut-and-dried world of partisanship and roll calls. Even a fully united Republican Party would face difficult odds of attracting enough Democratic votes to build a two-thirds majority in the Senate and House. But Republicans are divided, congressional insiders said.

Some complain that the leading proposal, sponsored by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), would not stop same-sex civil unions, while others say it offers the best hope of banning gay marriages. Musgrave would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Complicating the matter is a philosophical reluctance among many Republicans to alter the Constitution for any purpose. For example, many Republicans for years called for an amendment to require a balanced federal budget, but it never won the necessary votes.

"Amending the Constitution is a huge issue," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) told reporters. "We're going to go about this in a very thoughtful way."

Any member of Congress can propose to amend the Constitution by introducing a joint resolution, but it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to pass the measure. The proposed amendment then must be ratified by three-fourths of the states to take effect.

The Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution plans a hearing next week on the national impact of a recent Massachusetts court ruling in favor of same-sex marriages. But neither House nor Senate leaders yesterday would predict that Congress will vote on the issue this year.

Several Republicans and Democrats noted that Congress addressed the definition of marriage in 1996, when it passed a bill stating that no state has to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. "We still have a Defense of Marriage Act out there that has not been tested," DeLay said.

Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said he opposes a constitutional amendment because the 1996 law adequately protects marriage.

But Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), chairman of the Republican Conference, said more is needed to protect traditional marriages.

"We're in a process of vigilantes, of people taking the law into their own hands and changing what marriage is in this country," he said, alluding to same-sex marriages in San Francisco and one county in New Mexico.

Other Republicans, however, question the depth of interest among most voters. Sen. George Allen (Va.), chairman of the Senate GOP's campaign committee, said he never heard the issue raised during a recent campaign swing through North Carolina, Louisiana, California and Virginia. "People cared more about economic issues," such as job creation and the high price of gasoline, he said. "It's hard to say how it will play out in Senate races."

Some congressional Democratic leaders, meanwhile, denounced Bush for proposing to change the Constitution. House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said the president and other Republicans "will rue the day that they tried to enshrine in our celebrated Constitution . . . an amendment that at its core is based in intolerance and divisiveness."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that the Constitution "is not a place for political wedge issues."

"Never before has a constitutional amendment been used to discriminate against a group of people, and we must not start now," she said.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) issued a statement saying, "By endorsing this shameful proposal, President Bush will go down in history as the first president to try to write bias back into the Constitution."

Staff writer Dan Morgan contributed to this report.

>>Since you have consistently defended Bush in just about

>every

>>thread on this board in which anyone has criticized him,

>it's

>>mighty ironic to see you complaining about his actions now.

>This is one of the dumbest and most hypocrtical posts I've

>ever read

Being called such names by you is like being called "cruel" by Hitler.

> - even if I include all the ones you've written.

>It's a little hard to sit on a high horse when you are going

>to vote for a candidate - like Kerry

Who said I was going to vote for Kerry, you liar?

>Why don't you apologize

>for his bigotry?

Why should I apologize for a politician I have never supported?

>I've defended Bush when his actions were right and when

>partisan liars like you made things up that weren't true out

>of hatred. I've criticized him when his actions were wrong.

>Unlike you and other drooling drones, I'm not enslaved to any

>one political party

That's a lie, Doug. You've repeatedly defended Halliburton not because the company was innocent, as we now know it was not, but simply because it is connected in the public mind with Bush. When you've been asked to explain unexplainable actions of Bush's like his failure to secure the principal Iraqi nuclear facility at Tuwaitha, you haven't conceded that he either made a huge blunder or was lying about his concern for Saddam's nuclear program, which are the only two possible explanations -- instead, you've simply run away from the discussion rather than admit Bush did something wrong. Why do you lie about it?

>I don't have to apologize when one

>political party does something sick or stupid because I'm not

>a tool or the property of any one party.

But you are, Doug. As Bucky has pointed out, you never rail against people on this board who defend Repub positions, only against those of us who take the other side. Do you really think no one notices that?

>>As one of his ardent supporters, you should be apologizing

>for

>>his actions in this area, not complaining about them.

>I have nothing to apologize for, moron.

But you do, filth. When you support an evil man you need to take some responsibility for the evil he does. Bush is not divisible. If you are going to support him because you've been duped into believing in his phony "war on terror," you can't pretend that it's someone else who is trying to make gays into second-class citizens. It's not someone else, it's the same guy you have supported on this board over and over again. You can't hide from it.

>Every

>>gay man who has supported Dubya, if he has so much as an

>atom

>>of honesty in his entire body, should now come forward and

>>shamefacedly admit how wrong he was. Starting with you.

>I'll make you a deal

No, Doug, I only make deals with people who I believe can be trusted to carry them out.

>when you apologize for

>John Kerry and John Edwards' vigorous, unambiguous opposition

>to gay marriage

Show me one post on this board in which I state that either of those men should be president. You can't. You can show me several posts in which I state that Kerry is NOT my choice for president. Why do you lie and pretend I'm a supporter of either man?

>The one thing I'm not going to listen to is pitiful, lying

>liberals like you who are going to pretend that your political

>Masters are pure.

You're lying again, Doug. You can't show me any post of mine in which I've made such a claim.

>You have no

>business demanding apologies from others until you start

>offering them up yourself.

You're lying again, Doug. Don't you remember how you castigated Al Sharpton in an earlier discussion of the Democratic candidates? I defended him. And Sharpton has said over and over again in the debates that he thinks gays should have the same rights as everyone else. So why are you not supporting him? Please stop lying and pretending that you are not a blind partisan of the Repub party.

>> - even if I include all the ones you've written.

>>It's a little hard to sit on a high horse when you are going

>>to vote for a candidate - like Kerry

>

>Who said I was going to vote for Kerry, you liar?

You made clear over and over again that you hate Bush and want to see the Republicans defeated. Since the only two possible candidates who can defeat Bush - Kerry and Edwards - are both candidates who have adopted the bigoted opposition to gay marriage, it's rather impossible to help defeat Bush without voting for an anti-gay bigoted candidate.

The fact that you cite Al Sharpton as a candidate you support is a stupid joke. Guess what, Woodlawn? Al Sharpton won't be the Democratic nominee - Kerry or Edwards will. And they both oppose treating gay people equally under the law. I know you're embarrassed that the Democratic nominee will be an anti-gay bigot, but there's no point in trying to deny reality.

>>Why don't you apologize

>>for his bigotry?

>

>Why should I apologize for a politician I have never

>supported?

You've supported Clinton - you defend him again and again here. But, according to you, he's "not divisible" - that means you have responsibility for DOMA.

Clinton signed DOMA into law - which prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages. That's an extraordinarily bigoted law. When are all the gay men who supported and voted for Clinton going to apologize? How come you're not calling on them to apologize?

>>I don't have to apologize when one

>>political party does something sick or stupid because I'm

>not

>>a tool or the property of any one party.

>

>But you are, Doug. As Bucky has pointed out, you never rail

>against people on this board who defend Repub positions, only

>against those of us who take the other side. Do you really

>think no one notices that?

I made clear over and over that I would have voted for Dean over Bush. In fact, I never said I would vote for Bush over any Democratic candidate, nor did I say that I ever voted for Bush before. So, by your "standards" ("I never said I'd vote for Kerry, so you're lying when you claim I support him"), your whole post was a "lie" since it assumed, based on nothing that I said (and contrary to what I did say) that I voted for Bush before and that I would vote for him in 2004.

>But you do, filth. When you support an evil man you need to

>take some responsibility for the evil he does. Bush is not

>divisible. If you are going to support him because you've

>been duped into believing in his phony "war on terror," you

>can't pretend that it's someone else who is trying to make

>gays into second-class citizens.

Which candidate is going to be running against Bush who isn't in favor of "making gays into second-class citizens"? Which candidate ran in 1996 and 2000 who wasn't in favor of that?

Any gay man who stands up and screetches: "You better apologize for your support of Bush because he's against gay equality" is a complete and total imbecile. In the last 3 elections (at least), and in this upcoming election, the overwhelming majority of gay people will be voting for a candidate who opposes the equal treatment of gay people under our laws.

The fact that you see something wrong with that only when it comes to support for Republican anti-gay bigots, but don't say there's anything wrong with it when it comes to support for Democratic anti-gay bigots, just shows how intellectually dishonest, irrelevant, deceitful and corrupt you are.

I do agree with Doug - it's very doubtful this amendment will pass either House of Congress.

However, based on what I saw at the NYC LGBT Center last night, and the constant flow of e-mails I've received today, I do think Bush has energized significant parts of the activist gay community. It's much easier to energize people to act when a clear and present danger exists. Listening to Bush's speech yesterday had a major effect on me. Prior to his speech, I really didn't have a strong opinion about gay marriage. But, over the course of 15 minutes, I saw my personal rights and freedom being attacked. I know I'm not the only person who feels this way.

>>>It's a little hard to sit on a high horse when you are

>going

>>>to vote for a candidate - like Kerry

>>Who said I was going to vote for Kerry, you liar?

>You made clear over and over again that you hate Bush and want

>to see the Republicans defeated. Since the only two possible

>candidates who can defeat Bush - Kerry and Edwards - are both

>candidates who have adopted the bigoted opposition to gay

>marriage, it's rather impossible to help defeat Bush without

>voting for an anti-gay bigoted candidate.

This is just another example of your pattern of making unproven assumptions and demanding that the rest of us treat them as facts. This tactic of yours has never worked with me and never will. Yet you keep trying it on. None of us can be sure that any of the candidates you list will even be alive next month, let alone which of them will be doing what between now and November. I've made no decision about whom I'll vote for and won't do so for quite a long time to come. The idea that you can use tortured reasoning like the above to predict who I'll support months from now and then demand that I take responsibility for that person's actions now is as laughable as all the other crap you post here.

>The fact that you cite Al Sharpton as a candidate you support

>is a stupid joke.

The joke's on you. Or rather, YOU are the joke. You reject the only major party presidential hopeful who actually supports the position you claim is dear to your heart. That shows how much you really care about gay rights.

>You've supported Clinton - you defend him again and again

>here. But, according to you, he's "not divisible" - that

>means you have responsibility for DOMA.

>Clinton signed DOMA into law - which prohibits the recognition

>of same-sex marriages. That's an extraordinarily bigoted law.

> When are all the gay men who supported and voted for Clinton

>going to apologize? How come you're not calling on them to

>apologize?

For the simple reason that, as Clinton said when he signed the law, it's unlikely to withstand Constitutional challenge. But of course the same cannot be said for the Constitutional amendment your hero Bush supports.

>>But you are, Doug. As Bucky has pointed out, you never rail

>>against people on this board who defend Repub positions,

>only

>>against those of us who take the other side. Do you really

>>think no one notices that?

>I made clear over and over that I would have voted for Dean

>over Bush.

That's really odd, considering that you have consistently defended policy positions on this board that Bush supported and Dean opposed or vice versa. Like using the tax code to redistribute wealth, for example, a policy you once described as "stealing." Do you come from the Bizarro Planet, where people vote for the candidate who DOESN'T advocate the policies they support?

>your whole post was a "lie" since it assumed, based on nothing

>that I said (and contrary to what I did say) that I voted for

>Bush before and that I would vote for him in 2004.

Don't lie, Dung. I've never said anything about your vote. I have said, and it is perfectly true, that you have consistently defended Bush's actions on this board and that you have run away from discussions when you had no other alternative but to admit he did wrong.

>Which candidate is going to be running against Bush who isn't

>in favor of "making gays into second-class citizens"?

I don't know, and neither do you. Here again you revert to your old tactic of demanding that everyone else accept whatever assumptions you choose to make as facts. Why should we?

>the

>overwhelming majority of gay people will be voting for a

>candidate who opposes the equal treatment of gay people under

>our laws.

I hope that isn't so. But if it is it certainly does not take away from those who do support such candidates the responsibility for their choices.

>just shows how intellectually

>dishonest, irrelevant, deceitful and corrupt you are.

That's quite a mouthful coming from a hypocritical, lying hatemonger like you, Dung.

But instead of simply accepting your assumption that Kerry, if he's the nominee, is an "anti-gay bigot" because he doesn't support gay marriage, let's take another look -- knowing as we do that your assumptions often turn out to be 100% bullshit.

Kerry's position is that he doesn't support gay marriage. But he also opposes Bush's amendment. What does that add up to? That he gets to SAY he's against gay marriage while he DOES absolutely nothing to prevent any state or locality from legalizing it. That position is of course consistent with his decision NOT to vote for DOMA. So which candidate should gay men vote for -- the one who pays lip service to the anti-gay position, or the one who actually does something about it?

>This is just another example of your pattern of making

>unproven assumptions and demanding that the rest of us treat

>them as facts. This tactic of yours has never worked with me

>and never will. Yet you keep trying it on. None of us can be

>sure that any of the candidates you list will even be alive

>next month, let alone which of them will be doing what between

>now and November.

Since the top four Democratic nominees by delegate count (Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark) are all OPPOSED to gay marriage, and since it's somewhat unlikely that they'll all die between now and the convention, it's a pretty safe bet that the Democratic nominee, whoever he is, will have adopted the bigoted position that marriage is for straight citizens only.

Therefore, while you are lecturing to me about the evil of a gay man supporting a candidate who has anti-gay views and wants to make gay people second-class citizens, the reality is that virtually every gay person here will be voting for a candidate who favors law that make gay people second class citizens.

The fact is that most gay people also have voted in the past for candidates, such as Bill Clinton, who not only advocated such anti-gay laws, but also signed them into law. You stupidly sputter that Clinton only did it because he thought it was unconstitutional (which is NOT what he said at the time - he said he did it because he believes marriage is opposite-sex ONLY), but that law was encated in 1996, 7 years ago, and it's still perfectly good law.

Unlike Bush, who merely advocated this proposal, Bill Clinton signed into a law a repugnant, genuinely anti-gay law. He did so with the overwhelming support of Democratic senators, many of whom are still in office, and many of whom have been voted for by huge numbers of the gay electorate.

That law has directly harmed people's lives, including by being used in deportation proceedings to block any recognition of same-sex relationships as a ground for immigration benefits.

So before you go around demanding apologies from people for supporting Bush, you and your liberal friends - by your "reasoning" - should be apologizing for DOMA and for the almost unanimous opposition in your party to treating gay people equally under our marriage laws.

>>The fact that you cite Al Sharpton as a candidate you

>support

>>is a stupid joke.

>

>The joke's on you. Or rather, YOU are the joke. You reject

>the only major party presidential hopeful who actually

>supports the position you claim is dear to your heart. That

>shows how much you really care about gay rights.

The fact that you think Al Sharpton is a viable candidate to be President of the United States says all anyone ever needs to know about your intellect, your judgment, and your sanity.

>Kerry's position is that he doesn't support gay marriage.

That makes him an anti-gay bigot who defends the treatment of gay people as second-class citizens under the law. Why aren't you calling for the apologies of gay people who support him? Too busy painting SHARPTON FOR PRESIDENT signs and burning down white-owned stores?

IMO, the whole gay marriage amendment is a smoke and mirrors campaign tactic to divert attention from the real failings of the Bush administration ala the deficit, unemployment, Iraq, terrorism, and abrogation of Constitutional rights ala the Patriot Act. Oh yeah, such real issues don't have the panache that the media fawns over.

Why not concentrate on the issues that matter? Such an amendment most likely would never make it thru Congress, much less come up for ratification by the states. Even if by some slim chance it made it thru Congress, how many years would it take for ratification by the required 38 states? How long did the Equal Rights amendment for women hang around, without ever receiving ratification?

I really don't understand why this one issue has you in such an uproar. GW has proved thru out his administration that there is no level of deceit, no degree of the denial of civil rights, no power bullying stance that is too low or despicable for him to engage in, in order to advance his own personal agenda at the expense of anyone in his way.

Where is all the uproar about the denial of the EXISTING Constitutional rights of due process, legal representation and speedy trial for those innocently swept up and incarcerated under the aegis of the Patriot Act? What about their rights to a trial by jury of their peers rather than a kagaroo court military tribunal? Seems like so many gays are silent on those points and save their indignation and condemnation of Bush to when he applies his denial of rights to them, personally.

>>This is just another example of your pattern of making

>>unproven assumptions and demanding that the rest of us treat

>>them as facts. This tactic of yours has never worked with

>me

>>and never will. Yet you keep trying it on. None of us can

>be

>>sure that any of the candidates you list will even be alive

>>next month, let alone which of them will be doing what

>between

>>now and November.

>Since the top four Democratic nominees by delegate count

>(Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark) are all OPPOSED to gay marriage,

>and since it's somewhat unlikely that they'll all die between

>now and the convention, it's a pretty safe bet that the

>Democratic nominee, whoever he is, will have adopted the

>bigoted position that marriage is for straight citizens only.

Yeah? You seem to be unaware that Kerry only had surgery for prostate cancer last year because his wife, who is the daughter of a physician, happened to see something on his medical report that suggested to her he should have further tests for that condition -- his doctor had failed to catch it. If his wife had not insisted on the tests the condition might have progressed to the point that he would be unable to continue with his candidacy by November. Just a little reminder that you are one who loves to talk even when he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

>Therefore, while you are lecturing to me about the evil of a

>gay man supporting a candidate who has anti-gay views and

>wants to make gay people second-class citizens, the reality is

>that virtually every gay person here will be voting for a

>candidate who favors law that make gay people second class

>citizens.

Bullshit. The reality is that both Kerry and Edwards pay lip service to the opponents of gay marriage while making it clear they will do nothing to stop it. You're not honest enough to admit how different their position is from Bush's, but the distinction is about as easy to miss as the Grand Canyon.

>The fact is that most gay people also have voted in the past

>for candidates, such as Bill Clinton, who not only advocated

>such anti-gay laws, but also signed them into law. You

>stupidly sputter that Clinton only did it because he thought

>it was unconstitutional (which is NOT what he said at the time

Yes, that IS what Clinton said at the time. And as a former professor of Constitutional law he's in a good position to know.

>That law has directly harmed people's lives, including by

>being used in deportation proceedings to block any recognition

>of same-sex relationships as a ground for immigration

>benefits.

That is nothing but a crock of shit, like so many of your putrid posts. DOMA has had zero effect on the issue of recognition of same sex marriage by states because there are no states that recognize same sex marriage. And even if DOMA had never been passed there is nothing in either state or federal law that would allow a same sex relationship to alter an alien's immigration status.

>So before you go around demanding apologies from people for

>supporting Bush, you and your liberal friends - by your

>"reasoning" - should be apologizing for DOMA

Oh, knock off the bullshit for once in your life. DOMA has proved to be a big nothing, as Clinton anticipated.

>The fact that you think Al Sharpton is a viable candidate to

>be President of the United States says all anyone ever needs

>to know about your intellect, your judgment, and your sanity.

I never said he was viable, liar. But I did ask why, considering the amount of screaming you have done about this issue, you refuse to support ANY of the presidential candidates who share your position on the issue. And you still haven't explained that.

>>Kerry's position is that he doesn't support gay marriage.

>That makes him an anti-gay bigot who defends the treatment of

>gay people as second-class citizens under the law.

Liar. Tell all the lies you wish, but you can't obscure the enormous difference between Kerry's position and Bush's.

>Too busy painting SHARPTON FOR PRESIDENT signs and

>burning down white-owned stores?

Until now I didn't even suspect of you being a racist -- now I (and the rest of the board) know better.

>IMO, the whole gay marriage amendment is a smoke and mirrors

>campaign tactic to divert attention from the real failings of

>the Bush administration ala the deficit, unemployment, Iraq,

>terrorism, and abrogation of Constitutional rights ala the

>Patriot Act. Oh yeah, such real issues don't have the panache

>that the media fawns over.

The Patriot Act was passed with every single Democratic Senator except one (Russell Feingold) voting for it. The vote was 98-1. How do you think that the Democratic Party is going to run against Bush on the basis of the Patriot Act when the entire fucking party voted FOR it?

And, if you think that the Patriot Act is this fascist piece of unconstitutionality, how can YOU justify voting for Democrats like Sen. Kerry or Sen. Edwards, both of whom voted FOR that law?.

As for the rest of the issues you mentioned - particularly, the defecit and unemployment - I agree that this is why Bush raised this issue now. The White House obviously thinks it can't run on THOSE issues and so needs distractions like this one.

>Why not concentrate on the issues that matter? Such an

>amendment most likely would never make it thru Congress, much

>less come up for ratification by the states. Even if by some

>slim chance it made it thru Congress, how many years would it

>take for ratification by the required 38 states? How long did

>the Equal Rights amendment for women hang around, without ever

>receiving ratification?

Regardless of whether or not this amendment passes - and I agree that it's unlikely - it is self-evidently significant that the President of the United States wants to amend the Constitution to forever make you a second-class citizen.

>I really don't understand why this one issue has you in such

>an uproar. GW has proved thru out his administration that

>there is no level of deceit, no degree of the denial of civil

>rights, o power bullying stance that is too low or despicable

>for him to engage in, in order to advance his own personal

>agenda at the expense of anyone in his way.

I don't agree that Bush is any different than any other recent President with regard to his willingness to do any of these things. You just think it's worse because he's a conservative and you're a liberal. But there's nothing about being gay that comples one to adopt a liberal ideology with regard to any of the issues you described.

>Where is all the uproar about the denial of the EXISTING

>Constitutional rights of due process, legal representation and

>speedy trial for those innocently swept up and incarcerated

>under the aegis of the Patriot Act?

Again, if you're so upset by the Patriot Act, does that mean you're not voting for Kerry or Edwards, two Senators who voted AYE to enact it?

What about their rights

>to a trial by jury of their peers rather than a kagaroo court

>military tribunal? Seems like so many gays are silent on

>those points and save their indignation and condemnation of

>Bush to when he applies his denial of rights to them,

>personally.

I've said here many times that I oppose the incarceration of American citizens like Jose Padilla without due process. That's dangerous. But I don't exactly see leading Democrats standing up running around defending Jose Padilla or other Guantanomo inmates, do you?

Not all gay people agree with your liberal views on September 11-related matters. But all gay people should agree that supporting a candidate who advocates using the Constitution to keep gay people in second-class citizen status is the height of irrationality. But on that issue - like the other ones you've identified - the same exact thing can be said of the Democratic candidate who will be the alternative.