Bush backs anti-gay constitutional amendment

>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.

Look at how desperate you are. I point out that the top 4 Democrats are all opposed to treating gay people equally under the law, so that the only viable alternative to Bush will be a candidate who has adopted bigoted anti-gay views and wants to keep gay people as second-class citizens.

In response, you start arguing that I can't say this because maybe they'll all die and someone else will be nominated, and use Kerry's now-cured prostate cancer as evidence. You are babbling in extreme incoherence. Why not just admit: the Democratic Party nominee will be someone who advocates the view that marriage is for straight citizens only and that gay people should be barred from marriage under the law?

>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.

I said that supporting a constitutional amendment is in a different universe of bigotry than merely opposing same-sex marriage. You then came on like a crazed preacher saying how any gay person who expressed support for any of Bush's position somehow is obligated to apologize for what he said yesterday. It was in response to THAT stupidity that I made the point that if that is so, then ANY gay person who has supported a candidate with ANY anti-gay bigoted positions has the same responsibility. That leaves just about nobody left who doesn't have to apologize.

Bush supported this amendment kicking and screaming. He refused to do it for over a year while his supporters demanded it. He has displayed no interest in anti-gay measures throughout his career. His support yesterday was no less "lip service" than you claim Kerry and Edwards' opposition to same-sex marriage is. It's funny, and revealing, how you are so eager, like a little panting obedient dog, to excuse Edwards and Kerry's bigotry as no-big-deal, but pretend that Bush's is the root of all evil.

I just hope that Theresa Heinz isn't around when you get back your medical tests.

>>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.

Clinton said that he voted for the law because he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman ONLY. Are you denying that? Don't you think that this is a bigoted thing to say? His wife says it still.

>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.

There are no states that recognize same-sex marriage but there are states (such as Vermont) and municipalities all over the country which recognize domestic partnerships, and immigration lawyers who have tried to use those relationships as the basis for arguing for the foreign national spouses of gay citizens have been unsuccessful due to DOMA, and if you deny that, it could only be because you are completely ignorant about the entire area.

Bill Clinton and his supporters owe a personal apology to the gay couples who have been split up or who have been forced to leave the country because of DOMA.

>>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.

YAWN - if I were interested, I would point out that you have no business speaking for "the rest of the board," but the last thing I want is to say anything that remotely sounds like you.

My post had nothing whatsoever to do with party affiliation, as I never once said Democrat/Republican, so I don't know why you are replying as such.

Please, with all due respect, as you and I are never going to agree politically, you have always been an adamant supporter of Bush and have always found some basis to defend his actions, when those actions have, imo, always been indefensible. From your original post on this thread, it seems that only now, that the denial of civil rights to gays are being advocated from this abominatation of a president, that you have abandoned your defense of Bush and are advocating his dismissal.

You have and continue to do so, defend every other action that the current administration has undertaken. Are we to assume that just this one action, in your view, negates all the previous praise heaped upon him by you and others? Why is that? Is it because Bush's advocation of the denial of rights against gays, hits home personally, whereas all his abrogation of civil rights to other Americans and his appalling violation of human rights globally did not?

IMO, I find the Patriot Act, second only to the proposed amendment, to be the utmost violation of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (the original Bill of Rights as penned by George Mason). I don't care how many members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, voted for the bill, as the ultimate responsiblity lies with the one who introduced the bill and signed the bill into national law (ever hear of veto power?). And the person who in turn, proceeded to establish a whole new cabinet department of Homeland Security, a department that is 1/2 step below the SS established by Hitler.

Kerry? Come on, you know that I think little of him as he is just another national level politician. You don't make it to that level being an honest, care for the people person. Any politician, regardless of party affiliation, at the national level has long since sold out what, if any, integrity and honesty he originally possessed. Edwards is better than Kerry, but only in the sense that he hasn't been around long enough to be as corrupt.

Either, or for that matter, Satan, would get my vote over Bush. And I base my decision on all of Bush's actions, not just his advocation of a Constitutional amendment to deny gay citizens their rights.

Even in the midst of FINALLY getting the point that George Bush is the biggest WMD there is, Doug still has to resort to bringing Bill Clinton into an arguement that has nothing to do with him.

As for your support of Howard Dean, you always came across as supporting Dean because if he were the nominee, Bush would ride to a landslide in Novemeber.

But, there is at least hope now that Doug may no longer be a shill for the Republican Party.

>Even in the midst of FINALLY getting the point that George

>Bush is the biggest WMD there is, Doug still has to resort to

>bringing Bill Clinton into an arguement that has nothing to do

>with him.

You can't come here and say that gay men who supported Bush owe an apology because of his support for the FMA -- as Woodlawn stupidly did -- and not simultaneously call on gay men who supported Clinton to apologize as well for DOMA, or call on gay men to apologize who support currently serving Democratic Senators who oppose gay marriage, i.e. virtually all of them - not, at least, without being guilty of odorous, sickening hypocrisy.

And if the very mention of the name Clinton horrifies you, as it seems to, then try these names - Kerry and Edwards. They both think that marriage rights are for straight citizens only. Don't you think that's rather bigoted of them?

>As for your support of Howard Dean, you always came across as

>supporting Dean because if he were the nominee, Bush would

>ride to a landslide in Novemeber.

This is your invention. I supported Dean because he: (a) believes what he says; (b) has a history of shrinking government and minimzing its interference in people's lives, and of cutting bloated social programs; © understands that you can't spend more than you take in, and that you don't raise taxes to feed social programs; (d) is opposed to gun control and other oppressive laws where the federal government has no business legislating, i.e., he supports the Tenth Amendment, the key amendment which convinced the Founders to enact the Constitution; (e) believes in aggressive attacks on Muslim extremists; and, most importantly, (f) transcendeds the libreal/conservative prison in which most of you live out your dank, thoughtless political lives.

>But, there is at least hope now that Doug may no longer be a

>shill for the Republican Party.

There is, however, no hope that you and Woodlawn will stop being obedient blind whores for the Democrats.

>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.

According to this - (http://www.oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_oxblog_archive.html) - which seems rather reliable, since they provide links which are quite credible, there are already 5 GOP Senators who have announced opposition to the Amendment - Hagel, Collins, Chafee, Lamar Alexander, and Campbell. Several other GOP Senators have said they would likely oppose it without saying so with certainty, such as Voinvoich, Snowe, and DeWine.

One Democratic Senator announced his support for the amendment (Miller), and several others said they were "undecided" or otherwise would not commit (such as Hollins, Landrieu).

Bottom line - if 5 GOP Senators ALREADY said they're not voting for this, then it has no chance to pass.

>>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.

>Look at how desperate you are.

Here we go again with the same crock of shit that appears in 80% of your posts. Can you please get a new shtick?

> I point out that the top 4

>Democrats are all opposed to treating gay people equally under

>the law,

More of the same crap from you. What does it mean to say that someone is "opposed" to same sex marriage if he's also made it clear he'll do nothing to stop it? For some reason you never want to answer that question.

>In response, you start arguing that I can't say this because

>maybe they'll all die

Stop lying. I merely pointed out how absurd your claim is that you know what is going to happen in the presidential race months from now. Your whole argument is based on that ridiculous fallacy.

>>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.

>I said that supporting a constitutional amendment is in a

>different universe of bigotry than merely opposing same-sex

>marriage.

But you're not honest enough to admit that "opposing" same-sex marriage is meaningless if one also opposes whatever measures would prevent it. Because if you admit that you will have to admit how hollow your claims are that all of the Democratic candidates are guilty of "anti-gay bigotry."

> You then came on like a crazed preacher saying how

>any gay person who expressed support for any of Bush's

>position somehow is obligated to apologize for what he said

>yesterday.

I don't see much difference between that argument and one you made last year to the effect that anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should take responsibility for advocating that Saddam Hussein remain in power. Thought people had forgotten about that? Guess again.

>Bush supported this amendment kicking and screaming. He

>refused to do it for over a year while his supporters demanded

>it. He has displayed no interest in anti-gay measures

>throughout his career. His support yesterday was no less "lip

>service" than you claim Kerry and Edwards' opposition to

>same-sex marriage is.

What a liar you are. First you claim Bush should be condemned for proposing this amendment. You paint yourself as a non-partisan commentator who praises or criticizes Bush according to his position on discrete issues. Now you are back to your usual mode of defending him no matter what he does. What next, are you planning to have your lips surgically attached to his buttocks?

>I just hope that Theresa Heinz isn't around when you get back

>your medical tests.

I have a better doctor than Kerry. And I come from a very long-lived family. So when you are in your coffin and the maggots are eating through your eyeballs, the chances are I'll still be hale and hearty.

>>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.

>

>Clinton said that he voted for the law because he believes

>that marriage should be between a man and a woman ONLY. Are

>you denying that? Don't you think that this is a bigoted

>thing to say? His wife says it still.

I denied nothing. Clinton merely repeated the beliefs of the church of which he has been a longtime member. He had and has, no less than anyone else, the right to his religious beliefs. If he had said the opposite you and the other right-wing scum would have called him a hypocrite for FAILING to adhere to his church's position.

But he also said he believed the law would not withstand constitutional scrutiny. Why lie and deny that?

>There are no states that recognize same-sex marriage but there

>are states (such as Vermont) and municipalities all over the

>country which recognize domestic partnerships, and immigration

>lawyers who have tried to use those relationships as the basis

>for arguing for the foreign national spouses of gay citizens

>have been unsuccessful due to DOMA, and if you deny that, it

>could only be because you are completely ignorant about the

>entire area.

As I said earlier, with or without DOMA there is nothing in federal or state law that permits an alien to achieve legal residence in this country because he has a domestic partner of the same sex. You tried to assert that DOMA has harmed people in this regard. That is false. The truth is that if it had never been passed the immigration situation would still be exactly the same as it is now. Why lie about it?

>Bill Clinton and his supporters owe a personal apology to the

>gay couples who have been split up or who have been forced to

>leave the country because of DOMA.

You are lying again. There is no couple who have been split up or forced to leave the country because of DOMA. Again, even if it had never been passed, federal immigration law would not permit an alien to achieve legal residence through a same-sex domestic partnership. Why do you keep lying about this?

>YAWN - if I were interested, I would point out that you have

>no business speaking for "the rest of the board," but the last

>thing I want is to say anything that remotely sounds like

>you.

I plan to repeat your racist screed over and over again so that no one here will ever be likely to forget it. It's a useful guide to the way your mind (if one can call it that) works.

>>Even in the midst of FINALLY getting the point that George

>>Bush is the biggest WMD there is, Doug still has to resort

>to

>>bringing Bill Clinton into an arguement that has nothing to

>do

>>with him.

>You can't come here and say that gay men who supported Bush

>owe an apology because of his support for the FMA -- as

>Woodlawn stupidly did -- and not simultaneously call on gay

>men who supported Clinton to apologize as well for DOMA,

Why not? As I've repeatedly pointed out, DOMA has proved to be a big nothing.

> or

>call on gay men to apologize who support currently serving

>Democratic Senators who oppose gay marriage,

And what does it mean to oppose gay marriage if one also makes it clear one will do nothing to stop it? Why do you keep lyimg and equating those who want to do nothing to stop gay marriage with those who want to change the Constitution to stop it?

>They

>both think that marriage rights are for straight citizens

>only. Don't you think that's rather bigoted of them?

Is it bigoted for Muslims to think that their prophet is the only true prophet, for Christians to think exactly the same thing, and for Jews to think that both of the other two faiths are wrong? If so then everyone who is a member of any of these religions is a bigot. Almost everyone in America is a member of a religion that is exclusivist -- that teaches that it alone is the path to salvation. The question relevant to this discussion is, who are the people who are willing to use the legal system to impose their religious beliefs on others, and who are the people who are not? The answer to the first part of the question is "Republicans."

>This is your invention. I supported Dean because

Because he wants to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts, even though you have railed against the income tax time and time again on this board? Because he opposed Bush's Iraq policy even though you have defended it on this board time and time again? Of course you do.

>transcendeds the

>libreal/conservative prison in which most of you live out your

>dank, thoughtless political lives.

You mock people who are political partisans, but you support a candidate who says he represents "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party"? Do you drink a lot before you post here?

>There is, however, no hope that you and Woodlawn will stop

>being obedient blind whores for the Democrats.

BON, you really should abandon any hope that Dung will stop shilling for the Repubs. It's what he lives for.

>Please, with all due respect, as you and I are never going to

>agree politically, you have always been an adamant supporter

>of Bush and have always found some basis to defend his

>actions, when those actions have, imo, always been

>indefensible. From your original post on this thread, it

>seems that only now, that the denial of civil rights to gays

>are being advocated from this abominatation of a president,

>that you have abandoned your defense of Bush and are

>advocating his dismissal.

Yes, I would say that pretty much sums up the situation.

>You have and continue to do so, defend every other action that

>the current administration has undertaken. Are we to assume

>that just this one action, in your view, negates all the

>previous praise heaped upon him by you and others? Why is

>that? Is it because Bush's advocation of the denial of rights

>against gays, hits home personally, whereas all his abrogation

>of civil rights to other Americans and his appalling violation

>of human rights globally did not?

Dung's reaction certainly seems to validate your original point in this subthread, that many gays have paid little attention to the Bush administration's deplorable record on civil rights UNTIL Bush turned his attention to them.

>I don't care how many members of

>Congress, regardless of party affiliation, voted for the bill,

>as the ultimate responsiblity lies with the one who introduced

>the bill and signed the bill into national law (ever hear of

>veto power?).

It's true that many Democrats held their noses and voted for the bill. Some did so because they were afraid a negative vote would be used against them at the next election. Others -- and this certainly includes Kerry, since he was just re-elected with 80% of the vote -- did so because in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the nation was convulsed with rumors of other impending attacks. Had there been other grave terrorist plots about to come to fruition, some of the measures in the Act might actually have been necessary. But if we had known then what we know now, that there was no such impending danger, I suspect that many Democrats would not have supported the bill.

And now that we DO have a more realistic grasp of the situation, most Democrats favor letting the Act's stringent provisions expire. That is what divides Dems from Repubs on this issue. You will recall that during Bush's State of the Union address he mentioned that these provisions were going to expire, and that remark was met with applause from the Democrats in the room, which drew a sour look from Bush.

> And the person who in turn, proceeded to

>establish a whole new cabinet department of Homeland Security,

>a department that is 1/2 step below the SS established by

>Hitler.

In all honesty I must point out that it was Lieberman and other Democrats who originally advocated creating DHS, while Bush originally took the position that it was not needed. Public support for the idea became so great that Bush yielded. Then in the fall of 2002 he campaigned on the notion that it had been his idea all along.

>Either, or for that matter, Satan, would get my vote over

>Bush. And I base my decision on all of Bush's actions, not

>just his advocation of a Constitutional amendment to deny gay

>citizens their rights.

Like you I am no great fan of Kerry. But the Bush administration has been a huge disappointment. We were told that Bush would bring into office with him a team of brilliant foreign policy and defense experts, but somehow these experts have not prevented a series of gigantic blunders in both foreign policy and defense. We were told that our first "MBA president" would run the government like a business, but instead he has piled up an enormous debt through fiscal measures that seem to have no purpose other than to curry favor with wealthy campaign contributors. We were told that he would restore honor and integrity to the White House, but instead we have White House officials calling up reporters to divulge the name of a covert CIA operative in order to punish her husband for speaking out against Bush's policies. In short, unless all you care about is preventing gays from getting married, if you voted for Bush you got the opposite of what you voted for. Time for a change.

RE: Democrats can poop on Woodlawn

Bill Clinton, with the support of most Democrats, signed into law the most anti-gay piece of legislation ever enacted by the United States in its history - one which excluded gay people from marriage, confined marriage rights for straight citizens only, and barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages EVEN IF it becomes legal in any state - and all Woodlawn can do is offer excuses for why it was perfectly OK what Clinton did:

(1) "As Clinton said when he signed the law, it's unlikely to withstand Constitutional challenge."

(2) "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. DOMA has proved to be a big nothing, as Clinton anticipated."

(3) "Clinton merely repeated the beliefs of the church of which he has been a longtime member. He had and has, no less than anyone else, the right to his religious beliefs."

If someone came along and took a huge dump on Woodlawn's face, and Woodlawn then found out that the shitter was a Democrat, Woodlawn would thank the person and say that it wasn't his fault because he was really constipated and had nowhere else to go.

These 3 excuses are as corrupt as they are stupid:

Excuse (1) defies belief. When he was inagurated, Bill Clinton pledged to defend and adhere to the Constitution. But you're saying that he signed a law KNOWING that it violated the Cosntitution - the same Constitution he swore to uphold as President. So he signed an unconstitutional law that he knew violated the constitutional rights of American citizens. And you're saying that excuses and justifies what he did? That's a fucking impeachable offense - for a President to knowingly sign an unconstitutional law. But you're so desperate to be a good little abused fag and excuse his anti-gay bigotry that, to you, this becomes an "excuse" for what he did. How sad to watch you demean yourself this way.

Excuse (2) is just dishonest. Without DOMA, states would be forced to recognize same-sex marriages which are about to become valid in Massachusettes, and the federal government would have been forced to recognize such marriages for purposes of distributing federal marriage-based rights and privileges, such as immigration and tax benefits. With DOMA, same-sex couples are barred from these rigths. But becasue it was signed by Clinton, you say that's no big deal. That is truly reprehensible.

Excuse (3) is just hilarious. You seem not to have heard that we don't live in a theocracy. Whatever Bill Clinton's religion teaches him about marriage has absoultely nothing to do with that the SECULAR LAW regarding marriage ought to be. Therefore, for you to excuse Bill Clinton's bigoted signing of DOMA into law on the ground that his religion teaches him that marriage is only between a man and a woman is about the most demeaning thing you've ever done to yourself. Besides, if Bill Clinton's religion makes it OK for him to sign anti-gay and bigoted legislation, how come the same isn't true for George Bush's religion?

Hey Woodlawn - look - someone just puked down your throat. Oh, but it was a Democrat, so it's ok - he just had an upset stomach and mistook your face for a toilet, so he did nothing wrong at all.

>BON, you really should abandon any hope that Dung will stop

>shilling for the Repubs. It's what he lives for.

Yeah -I just got done saying that I will never vote for Bush, nor could any self-respecting gay person, because of the bigoted and decidedly un-conservative position he just took in wanting to amend the Constitution.

Gosh, I'm just a shill for the "Repubs."

Dung69

>Bill Clinton, with the support of most Democrats, signed into

>law the most anti-gay piece of legislation ever enacted by the

>United States in its history

Uh, is that the same Clinton who also risked his career to try to make good on his campaign promise to let gays serve in the military? Or is that a different Clinton? Must be a different Clinton. An "anti-gay bigot" would never take a risk to empower gays.

>If someone came along and took a huge dump on Woodlawn's face,

Then it would be hard to tell the difference between me and you, Dung. Fortunately that's unlikely to occur, so the difference remains clear.

>Excuse (1) defies belief. When he was inagurated, Bill

>Clinton pledged to defend and adhere to the Constitution. But

>you're saying that he signed a law KNOWING that it violated

>the Cosntitution - the same Constitution he swore to uphold as

>President.

Which is exactly what Reagan did when he signed legislation under the War Powers Act. You remember Reagan, right? The same guy you have lavishly praised on this board?

>That's

>a fucking impeachable offense - for a President to knowingly

>sign an unconstitutional law.

So why wasn't Reagan impeached? Or is it only an impeachable offense if a Democrat does it? Dung, you have this habit of pretending you know all sorts of things you don't. One moment it's Constitutional law, the next it's psychology. That's why it's so easy to make a fool of you. If you would just stick to talking about subjects you actually know (if any) it would be a little harder.

> But you're so desperate to be

>a good little abused fag

What was I just saying? Here we go again with Dung's specialty -- bullshit amateur psychology. I maintain that Dung is the champion of this board when it comes to pretending he's qualified to analyze the motives and emotional problems of people he's never even met and doesn't know. No matter how stupid it makes him look, he keeps doing it.

>Excuse (2) is just dishonest. Without DOMA, states would be

>forced to recognize same-sex marriages which are about to

>become valid in Massachusettes,

That's a load of crap. Even a first-year law student knows that no federal statute can overrule the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Come back when you actually know what you're talking about. If that ever happens.

>Excuse (3) is just hilarious. You seem not to have heard that

>we don't live in a theocracy. Whatever Bill Clinton's

>religion teaches him about marriage has absoultely nothing to

>do with that the SECULAR LAW regarding marriage ought to be.

Stop the lies, Dung. Drooling idiot though you are, even you can probably point to a number of laws that have their basis in our religious traditions -- the laws against polygamy, for one. The line between a people's religious beliefs and "what the law ought to be," whatever that may mean, is and always has been entirely subjective.

>Hey Woodlawn - look - someone just puked down your throat.

Dung, you are the filthiest, most despicable hatemonger it has ever been my pleasure to make a fool of on this board. And it's a pleasure I intend to grant myself many more times in the future. After all, you do most of the work yourself.

Please excuse me if someone else has already stated this. The thread is very long, and I may have missed it. A headline in yesterday's Boston Globe stated that John Kerry will support an amendment to the MA constitution making gay marriage illegal in that state.

>Please excuse me if someone else has already stated this.

>The thread is very long, and I may have missed it. A headline

>in yesterday's Boston Globe stated that John Kerry will

>support an amendment to the MA constitution making gay

>marriage illegal in that state.

It's totally different. Kerry is a Democrat, and Bush is a Republican. As a result, Bush's support of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is vile, heninous, evil bigotry, but Kerry's support of a virtually identical amendment is merely a slight, harmless flaw in an otherwise good and kind and just man.

That's because Kerry's a Democrat and Bush is a Republican. Don't you know basic logic?

This is becoming a really sterile argument. ALL of the pols in this situation are opportunists. Bush is pandering to his base constituency with his support of an amendment he knows has little chance of passing. The Democrats who "oppose" gay marriage are scared shitless they might lose a few votes in the moveable middle. It's all kind of sickening.

Notably, even Bush is willing to allow for civil unions if the states wish to make them possible. Being a realist, I recognize that social change in the U.S. is a wrenchingly slow, difficult process, and even though I don't like it, I'd personally be willing to settle for civil union NOW if it affords me all the legal rights incident to marriage, and forego the actual designation of "marriage." Is that "separate but equal?" Yes it is. Is that good? No, it isn't. But it took the U.S. a hundred years to come to that realization where it came to segregated education. And even if "separate but equal" was bad, it was better than what existed before, when blacks were denied education altogether! So, like a lot of people, I'm willing to settle for half-a-loaf instead of no loaf at all. And civil unions, Vermont style, are actually the whole loaf. It's just kept in a separate bin than the white bread.

As for DOMA, it reeks of unconstitutionality, but we won't know for sure until it's tested. I'm waiting for a case to test the validity of Vermont's civil unions. The Full Faith and Credit clause applies to ALL official acts of the states, not just some of them. It's certainly not limited to recognition of marriages. Civil union is an official act in Vermont, so under the FFC clause, other states are obligated to recognize those unions, as I understand it. Even if their own state doesn't permit such unions, they have to honor them in exactly the same way that states have to recognize legal marriages between cousins (which some states permit but most don't).

An overlooked argument here against any Constitutional amendment is that, in addition to enshrining a discriminatory amendment in the Constitution, it would savage one of the rights reserved to the states ever since the founding of the republic. (Family law is a matter exclusively in the jurisdiction of the states.) If the Constitution is successfully amended to take away that reserved right, then what other reserved rights are fair game? Even if the Congress were to pass the amendment, this one would be difficult to get through 3/4 of the state legislatures because it would represent an intolerable encroachment on the states' powers to regulate marriage as they see fit (consistent, of course, with the provisions of the state and federal constitutions). But I don't think Congress, upon reflection, will go so far. Such an amendment would fly in the face of conservative states' rights values, and many conservatives would vote against the amendment. Not because they support gay marriage, but because they support states' rights. So getting the necessary 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress will be a difficult task, indeed.

An interesting fall-back position might be for gay leadership groups to say (now that the pols have had the pants scared off them) that we're willing to back off on our demands for marriage in the courts IF we get all the federal marriage rights and benefits as a consequence of being civilly united, and the federal government agrees to recognize civil unions by the states. This probably won't be a popular proposal, but given the current state of political panic, it might actually fly and we might actually get all of the legal rights and protections we've been seeking much faster than if we have to slog through the courts to do it. Anyway, it's a thought!

>Yeah -I just got done saying that I will never vote for Bush,

>nor could any self-respecting gay person, because of the

>bigoted and decidedly un-conservative position he just took in

>wanting to amend the Constitution.

Bullshit. We've got to eliminate the reduced tax rate on dividends as a preference item for AMT purposes; and then get to a flat 20% rate. Remember, everyone votes their self-interest and at least my politicians deliver most of the time.

Later.

PS. Ruben, reviewed today under Chicago where he's visiting, is one fun fuck DickHo, you should try him if you haven't yet.

>Bullshit. We've got to eliminate the reduced tax rate on

>dividends as a preference item for AMT purposes; and then get

>to a flat 20% rate. Remember, everyone votes their

>self-interest and at least my politicians deliver most of the

>time.

Nobody is more of a fiscal conservative than I am, but that is another reason to vote AGAINST Bush, not to vote for him

In case you haven't noticed, discretionary spending (i.e. outside of Afghanistan and Iraq and the military generally) has increased MASSIVELY under Bush - far more so than any increases under Clinton, who had far more tax revenue coming into to the Government (due to the extreme growth) in the 1990s than did Bush.

Those huge deficits Bush is running means that state and local governments get starved, which means that they have to increase taxes wildly. If you live in New York City, and you think your taxes have gone down under Bush, you either can't add, or you insanely exclude state and city taxes when you calculate how much tax you owe. Plus, the enormous deficits are going to FORCE the next President, Republican or Democrat, to raise taxes just to pay for basic services.

In the meantime, genuinely crucial programs in Homeland Security are being dangerously chopped to nothing (do you ever fly? Do you want air marshalls?), while pork and election goodies are being handed out at the most reckless rate ever.

Just because someone is a Republican doens't make them a fiscal conservative. Even if your only interest is keeping your tax bill low - and you self-demeaningly don't care if the Constitution is written to ban the equal treatment of your most central intimate relationship - Bush is still a candidate you ought to be protesting against, not voting for.

>Later.

>

>PS. Ruben, reviewed today under Chicago where he's visiting,

>is one fun fuck DickHo, you should try him if you haven't

>yet.

>Those huge deficits Bush is running means that state and local

>governments get starved, which means that they have to

>increase taxes wildly. If you live in New York City, and you

>think your taxes have gone down under Bush, you either can't

>add, or you insanely exclude state and city taxes when you

>calculate how much tax you owe. Plus, the enormous deficits

>are going to FORCE the next President, Republican or Democrat,

>to raise taxes just to pay for basic services.

Right on target!

>

>In the meantime, genuinely crucial programs in Homeland

>Security are being dangerously chopped to nothing (do you ever

>fly? Do you want air marshalls?), while pork and election

>goodies are being handed out at the most reckless rate ever.

Again, you hit the nail on the head.

>

>Just because someone is a Republican doens't make them a

>fiscal conservative. Even if your only interest is keeping

>your tax bill low - and you self-demeaningly don't care if the

>Constitution is written to ban the equal treatment of your

>most central intimate relationship - Bush is still a candidate

>you ought to be protesting against, not voting for.

>>Later.

Bush is a major embarrassment to any true fiscal conservative. John McCain had it right when he said that Bush Co spends money like a drunken sailor. Or maybe he said that about the Republican controlled Congress. Either way, he was correct.

While Bush obssesses about cutting taxes and making the ill-advised tax cuts permanent, the bottom line is that this whole thing is nothing more than a shell game. Cut taxes at the Federal level (where you can always produce more currency and do deficit spending) and pass the burden to the states where they have no such options. Little wonder that Bush pretty much bankrupted all of his private sector businesses.....he doesn't know a damned thing about fiscal responsibility, or how to manage shit.

At last, an honest conservative! }(