It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Bush Gives Same-Sex Marriage Ban Another Try In U.S. Senate

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   
A Constitutional Amendment banning marriage between lesbians and gays will take center stage again starting with an endorsement from President George W. Bush Monday. The American leader will publicly call for the passage of the bill to revitalize his standings among conversatives. The Senate will vote on the same-sex marriage ban Tuesday. The last vote on the amendment failed while critics openly questioned issues of civil rights.
 



news. yahoo.com
WASHINGTON -
President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat — Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska — says he will vote for it.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I see this as yet another attempt by the President of the United States to garner support for raising his popularity numbers. Passage of the same-sex marriage ban in the Senate would further lower the clamp down on the liberties we as Americans were accustomed to experience. After all, we are being spied upon, classified and now a portion of our population has suffered yet another set back in the long climb toward acceptance within the U.S. populace.

The endorsement of this bill further communicates the unwitting climb of the police state within America. If it passes, it will proceed one step more down the slippery slope of restricting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for some citizens at the expense for more votes during the mid-term elections.

Related News Links:
www.usatoday.com






[edit on 3-6-2006 by ceci2006]




posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
While it is a classic distraction tactic, it won't work. Remember, only the extreme-right wing actually cares about this. When it was so big a few years ago, the right-wing media had also garnered up support from the moderates as well. Instead of getting support, they will end up simply shooting themselves in the foot, as most people will distance themsevles away from the "conservative loonies". Whether or not they are actual loonies is beside the point, as most in the middle are mad at Bush, and this is a tactic to energize his base. It's pretty dumb, actually, he had a better chance with immigration.

Note: I'm not trying to demonize anyone, I'm simply trying to discuss how this situation might pan out. I don't think conservatives are crazy, or anything like that, I'm just saying this specific tactic will backfire in the present political climate. Bush is really in trouble right now, and this will definitely not help his numbers, or increase his support.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Well, it's an election year and...

*sigh shmack shmack shmack*

what trivial issue were we talking about? I'm getting old, that or this is.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
The amendment is incomplete. It does not ban gay relationships, only gay marriages.

Our society is still going to degrade with all the meterosexual and homosexual people running around wearing pink, kissing, and holding hands. Banning gay marriage does nothing to solve the problem.

The amendment should be to ban gay marriage and gay relationships.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
With all the issues going on at the present moment: Wars, AIDS, Cancer, Unemployment, Poverty, Crime, ad nauseum, I truly cannot see why anyone would cling to this issue. On top of that, I don't see why even the most extreme of the extreme would want to take our Constitution and change it up to go against anyone. Our Constitution is to protect the civil liberties of it's people. It is not meant to take jabs at someone because of who they are. I find the idea of a Constitutional amendment to be horrendous, and a great disservice to those that have fought and died for it, regardless of what their sexual orientation may have been. To think that one of my best friends died in this war, and he was gay, while trying to defend the Constitution of the United States, is now going to have his grave spit on by the mere proposal of this amendment sickens me.

Divorce rates are sky high, why don't we make men and women be Constitutionally bound to be truthful and honest with their spouses so that we can uphold the sanctity of marriage?

This is nothing more than a ruse to pull up polls, and see what can be done to repair an election.

*edit - spelling error

[edit on 6/3/06 by niteboy82]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I'm glad he's done this. A more obvious grasp at straws I’ve never seen. Everyone knows that if even he got his way an amendment would never be passed ( I know that and I'm not even American)

He's basically announcing from the rooftops that he’s relying on divisive issues like this to just tread water in public opinion (obviously right wing opinion).

Especially with everything going on right now, the fact he sees fit to bring up and grasp onto something so irrelevant speaks volumes.

There goes another few supporters with braincells George.

I love it.





[edit on 3-6-2006 by kegs]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   


The amendment should be to ban gay marriage and gay relationships.


I encourage you to hold your breath or go on a hunger strike until this happens


As for the amendment itself, it's a cynical ploy by Bush to get his political base back behind him, he knows it's never going to pass. If it was even motivated by a genuine personal antipathy towards gays, I could perhaps understand it, but I don't think the record shows that Bush is particularly anti-gay personally, certainly not for a conservative Christian. It's a cynical ploy to get the religious right back in his corner, as others here have pointed out.

Fortunately, it will never pass. Even much of the Republican party is leery of enshrining discriminatory language into the US Constitution, however strongly they might oppose gay marriage.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
ImplementOfWar if you dont like a tolerant society go live in Iran.
This is a case of poor leadership. There are a number of issues that Bush should be dealing with including Iraq , rebuilding New Orleans and giving the working class a fair go.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
This proposal will fail; it was never intended to pass. It never had a chance from the beginning. It is merely an election year ploy.

But I am glad that someone had the presence of mind to throw in the "unwitting climb of the police state within America" bromide into the mix.
I'm rarely disappointed here on ATS.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I know that it probably won't pass. However, for one to entertain the further slippage into the police state, one must have other proof than the simple accusation of "bromide" to back them up. I find it unfortunate that the "serious thinker" in the previous post can only pull that insult out of the depth of his thoughts to prove his erudition. In essence, his ability to think is not taken far enough.

However, I do appreciate the other responses though. They have proved when considering this issue, that they exhibit their intelligence about this subject matter by thinking outside of the box.

That is an ability that some cannot master no matter how much they try.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
Our society is still going to degrade with all the meterosexual and homosexual people running around wearing pink, kissing, and holding hands. Banning gay marriage does nothing to solve the problem.


Metrosexuals? You do know anyone who is male and takes time over their appearance is a metrosexual? Combing hair, brushing teeth? Those are traits of the metrosexual. I do hope you brush your teeth...I really do. It's funny how many people don't even know what Mark Simpson meant when he wrote metrosexual.

However, I'll move to the real issue and not your lack of personal hygiene. Homosexuality is something that has existed for many thousands of years. Sometimes two men, fancy each other and in even rarer cases two ladies. :O Yes even they do it. [It's just wrong isn't it?] Now, if these people are being told by their body this is what they should do - who are you to say otherwise? If something is being created by their body and they do no harm [and I would love to see you display harm in your next post [proof of harm]] they in fact should not be punished. If two adults desire to hold hands, wear pink, skip down the road - kissing and go home and enjoy some sodomy. Why do you care? You do not have to stare. Do you when you see two heterosexuals kissing? I can easily walk passed any of these people and not care one bit....why does it bother you? Do you have to stare at them? Does someone force you?


Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
The amendment should be to ban gay marriage and gay relationships.


Yes! Good idea! Then the Government can spend even more money on this. That's an amazing idea, we can get them all together and lock them up. Amazing idea. So we'll pay Police Officers to chase around homosexuals, instead of solving murder cases, rape cases...we'll then put more strain on the Legal System so that they can have trial and more tax money to lock them up. Fantastic!

Get this man an award. He deserves it for being so darn smart.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
Our society is still going to degrade with all the meterosexual and homosexual people running around wearing pink, kissing, and holding hands. Banning gay marriage does nothing to solve the problem.


Metrosexuals? You do know anyone who is male and takes time over their appearance is a metrosexual? Combing hair, brushing teeth? Those are traits of the metrosexual. I do hope you brush your teeth...I really do. It's funny how many people don't even know what Mark Simpson meant when he wrote metrosexual.

However, I'll move to the real issue and not your lack of personal hygiene. Homosexuality is something that has existed for many thousands of years. Sometimes two men, fancy each other and in even rarer cases two ladies. :O Yes even they do it. [It's just wrong isn't it?] Now, if these people are being told by their body this is what they should do - who are you to say otherwise? If something is being created by their body and they do no harm [and I would love to see you display harm in your next post [proof of harm]] they in fact should not be punished. If two adults desire to hold hands, wear pink, skip down the road - kissing and go home and enjoy some sodomy. Why do you care? You do not have to stare. Do you when you see two heterosexuals kissing? I can easily walk passed any of these people and not care one bit....why does it bother you? Do you have to stare at them? Does someone force you?


Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
The amendment should be to ban gay marriage and gay relationships.


Yes! Good idea! Then the Government can spend even more money on this. That's an amazing idea, we can get them all together and lock them up. Amazing idea. So we'll pay Police Officers to chase around homosexuals, instead of solving murder cases, rape cases...we'll then put more strain on the Legal System so that they can have trial and more tax money to lock them up. Fantastic!

Get this man an award. He deserves it for being so darn smart.


I dont consider people who are clean as meterosexuals.

I consider people who wear pink and expose their chest and talk like they are a borderline fag as meterosexual.

I'm clean and I'm straight. I dont wear pink, I dont walk around with my chest hanging out unless I am at the beach, I dont talk like a fag, I dont try to act sensitive and say things only a fag or a woman would say.

I am a heterosexual.


Btw my suggestion was half serious and half joking. I dont expect there to be a ban on gay marriages, and I dont expect there to ever be a ban on gay relationships. As much as I would love to see it happen, im realistic in thinking it probably wont ever happen.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
I dont consider people who are clean as meterosexuals.

I consider people who wear pink and expose their chest and talk like they are a borderline fag as meterosexual.

I'm clean and I'm straight. I dont wear pink, I dont walk around with my chest hanging out unless I am at the beach, I dont talk like a fag, I dont try to act sensitive and say things only a fag or a woman would say.

I am a heterosexual.


Btw my suggestion was half serious and half joking. I dont expect there to be a ban on gay marriages, and I dont expect there to ever be a ban on gay relationships. As much as I would love to see it happen, im realistic in thinking it probably wont ever happen.


Oh, Implement. The first reply you made, it was alright, you know? That was your opinion, and I respect anyone's right to give an opinion of anything. The wearing pink thing kind of grinded me the wrong way, but I let that pass.

Now, you are using the word "fag." Alas, now I am offended. You also have shown that you don't believe this will ever pass, so you may have partially intended on being offensive to a few people because you would love to see the government add discriminatory language into the constitution. I don't even know what really to tell you, because you will think I am wrong no matter what obviously, because you cling to your viewpoints so desperately without ever giving yourself a chance to explore other viewpoints that are different from your own.

I don't even really know where to refer you, except for this one clip that is on this site: About Above Top Secret. If you scroll down to the motto part, I think you will realize that such hateful remarks really don't add to the substance of this website. Of course, this is just my opinion, but it seems to be very clear to me.

Good luck in your quest for knowledge, Implement, and I hope that you fare well in the land of democracy, where people are considered equal, as opposed to being told by their government who they can/cannot love, and who they can/cannot be.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
we have same sex mariges in all but name in the uk and our socity dosen't seem to have degenerated as a result. It also made a few gay people very happy and more secure (wills, hospital visits etc.) so why deny them marige?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
It does not matter what you think. You did not make up the word, metrosexual. You are not Mark Simpson - sorry to inform you of this. However, I am still waiting for you to give a reason backed up by evidence on why they are wrong. Also why is it wrong for people to talk an act in any way? You've yet to show us how it causes harm...

If it doesn't cause harm, why do you have a problem with them? Are there not enough people and problems already to create more?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
all I have to say is that if the american people...particularly the far christian right fall for this again, well, they deserve whatever kind of hellhole these idiots create for them!!

I mean, they have PURPOSELY FAILED to push and CONSTITUTIONALLY ACEEPTABLE bill to restrict abortion to enforcement!! they just keep writing bills that they KNOW will be shot down as unconstitutional by the supreme court...they chose to ignore any relevance of the life and well being of the mother, knowing danged well it won't go anywhere like that.

come on...they can't be stupid enough to fall for it again, can they?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I certainly hope this doesn't pass. I'm just thrilled though, that our president is spending our precious dollars and the Senate's precious time with such trivialities, when we have real problems that need to be dealt with. :shk:

Running around, kissing and holding hands... Yes, degrading indeed! Oh, and wearing pink! It should be outlawed!



Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
I am a heterosexual.


uh-huh...



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Wonder if the would consider putting a third option on the ballot for this one...a I really don't give a dang one way or the other?

Then if that third option gets the majority of the votes, they can just let things be, let the states retain their power in this regard, and promise to never bring up the stupid issue again for at least a decade!!! And start working on the real problems that are present in our country!!!

a law, or a legal piece of paper, doesn't define a marriage, it's the attitude and the commitment of the two people making the vow. same goes for divorce. all the laws and papers are for is to make sure the gov't can cash in on the deal. and as for any religous institutions out there that might have a problem with gay marriages, well they don't have to marry them, just like they don't have to marrycouples where one is divorced from a previous marriage.

God, it's not the gays that is apt to destroy our county, it's the attitude and the commitment of it's citizens!!! our me first, consumer orientated, got to have everything, no matter what philosophy.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   
youd think goerge bush would have better policies etc to contend with ie healthcare,schools the list could go on. but what does he do, he tries to get a ban on gay marriage.


Personally i have no problems with gay people getting married, it doesnt affect me in anyway.

great to know george bush has his priorities straight



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
As I think most of us guessed, senators are having a hard time pushing through a ban on gay marriages.


One Republican senator says the amendment could open a rift in society as wide as the gulf over
Roe v. Wade. Others say the very health of society depends on traditional families.
Yahoo News

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So there we have it. I sincerely doubt that this is going to go through, but I have been following the story closely. Apparently there is an equal amount saying this is an election year stunt, compared to the people trying to save the sanctity of marriage.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join