Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush supports anti gay marriage amendment

  1. Jun 4, 2006 #1
    The gay marriage issue is all of a sudden back in the news. Why is it that it only seems to be important to the far right when an election is coming up? That question kind of answers itself I guess.

    Actually as far as being a true critical issue, this should be at the bottom of the list even for neo cons. Bush supported the amendment in his weekly radio address.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 4, 2006 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yep, it's just more nonsense like the flag ammendment.
     
  4. Jun 4, 2006 #3
    It's an election year tactic. Nothing will really come of it. Expect new fuel for anti-abortion legislation, a BS promise to investigate those responsible for this oil hike (largest profit ever), and to hold those who botched the war, Katrina, etc. etc. to be help accountable. Nothing though, will happen.

    The conservatives are starting to understand what rational people have been telling them about the Republicans, and they're pissed.
     
  5. Jun 4, 2006 #4
    How many people still haven't figured this one out? Its like I said a year ago. The only reason it was ever brought up was to put it on state ballots to drive fundamentalists to the polls so that while they were there, they might as well vote for their republican candidates. The people pusshing this don't actually care. That is why Kerry lost the election in 04 for those of you who still haven't managed to figure it out.
     
  6. Jun 4, 2006 #5

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A liberal ignoring something the government did in order to continue using their rhetoric, im not surprised. Even after the investigation was completed, the rhetoric remains. No wonder liberals arent taken seriously in this country anymore.
     
  7. Jun 4, 2006 #6
    I'm not a liberal, I follow no ideology, and I despise the existence of political parties. A few people on this board really love to rush to judgement about other members.

    Of what investigation are you speaking?
     
  8. Jun 4, 2006 #7

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Considering one of your first posts here was an attack on conservatives and you got some shots in on Bush, i don't buy it.

    http://washingtontimes.com/business/20060523-125517-5777r.htm

    This was big news.. of course it never got time on this forum for obvoius reasons :rolleyes: Although im sure it'll quickly be met with the usual "I dont agree with it so its wrong and ill ignore it" from others.
     
  9. Jun 4, 2006 #8
    I hate conservative politics and GW Bush and his regime, but I also hate the democratic party and whiny liberalism. There is more than just one side or the other, mine is no side at all.

    And your report isn't even about what I was speaking about. I was talking about gas hikes in general and the fact that the oil industry had the most profit in one year than any other industry in history. Katrina was botched in terms of pre-planning and post-relief, the regime's obvious weakness in everything they do. I said nothing about a gas hike covered up by Katrina.
     
  10. Jun 4, 2006 #9

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't think you got the point of the article..
     
  11. Jun 4, 2006 #10

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I am responding to your posts not because I am liberal but because your posts make no sense.

    Back to the OP, I was reading a news article earlier today stating that a ban on gay marriage would not have the same affect as in 2004 because there are too many more important issues on people's minds at this time. Hallelujah, Lord have mercy, let's hope so.

    In the meantime, in Bush's radio address he stated: “Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years.” Hah! Activist judges would be the ones Bush has appointed. Though I'm personally not in favor of making same-sex marriage legal (I believe there are other legal implements that gays can use to achieve similar rights), it just may be that judges are following the rule of law (for example, a guilty person is set free if arrested or searched improperly), which Bush has no concept of. But ultimately, as Biden stated on Meet The Press, calls for a federal marriage amendment banning gay unions is nothing more than politics.

    As for criticism of Bush, I have stated many, many times in this forum that if a pro-Bush member has facts proving what a wonderful job Bush has been doing, please feel free to share it with us. I have yet to see this, because there is no such evidence. It is the truth (unfortunate as it may be) that Bush will go down in history as a below average president, so please stop sniveling.
     
  12. Jun 5, 2006 #11
    mometarily hijacking my own thread

    The point of the article was that there was/is no price gouging by the oil companies.

    They don't have to price gouge. Windfall profits were a given and a built in guarantee when the FTC allowed the oil companies and refineries to merge. That is why the oil companies wanted the mergers. The claim of big oil that they could provide cheaper petroleum products if they were allowed to merge was the biggest scam in the last 100 years.

    On the other hand at the same time the big oil mergers were going on, a company named "Breyers Ice Cream" wanted to merge with the Nestles Chocolate company. The FTC refused to allow that merger on the grounds that it would reduce competition.:rolleyes:

    Back to the topic: Will the Christain right see the light this time around?

    Will Karl Rove publish pictures of black children in magazines and claim that they belong to white Southern democrtatic candidates?

    Will Rove insinuate that some Democrtic candidates are gay and that the rest are philanderers.

    How many will Rove describe as being mentally unstable due to their military experiences.

    When the dirty tricks start, and they will, it will be Rove's doing. The gay marriage amendment is only the beginning.
     
  13. Jun 5, 2006 #12
    I find it interesting that you completely ignored the point of this thread. You're usually quick to defend Bush, so why aren't you now? Do you think that his motivations are purely political, or not?
     
  14. Jun 5, 2006 #13
    It should be the states responsibillty weather to ban same sex marrigage not the fedreal government.
     
  15. Jun 6, 2006 #14
    This being a proposed Constitutional Amendment, it requires the approval of 3/4 of the states. Do your research first.
     
  16. Jun 6, 2006 #15

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Is there any other game in town for the Christian right?

    Realistically, they only wield power if withholding their vote is a credible threat.

    On the other hand, Bush and Frist are the most supportive President and Senate leader they've had. Their situation can only get worse - something Rove will be sure to point out.

    It doesn't matter whether the amendment passes or not - it gives congressmen a chance to make their own position public, and to point out that Bush and Congress are doing all they can given the small majority of the Republicans. If the Christian right wants a realistic chance of getting these types of issues passed (and why Bush spend much political capital on something with no chance of passage), then they need to do their part by electing a few more conservative Republicans.
     
  17. Jun 6, 2006 #16
    So, isn't he saying that it shouldn't even be proposed outside of state legislature? States grant marriage licences, so shouldn't they decide on gay marriage individually? Sounds reasonable to me, even if you can try to do otherwise. (i.e. he knows it's a proposed Constitutional Amendment, but disagrees that it should be a federal issue)

    Ditto
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2006
  18. Jun 6, 2006 #17
    There's few restrictions on what amendments are allowable - probably because it takes so much time and overwhelming support on many levels. So whether something "should" or should not be proposed as an amendment is very much a matter of opinion - unlike the question of whether Congress can legislate a particular law. Amendments are very different from legistlations.

    Besides, federal marriage benefits are a federal issue, are they not? (I'm strongly opposed to this amendment, to clarify).
     
  19. Jun 6, 2006 #18
    I know about the constion but I was saying that a state should be the ones to decided on this kind of stuff not the federal.
     
  20. Jun 7, 2006 #19
    Yep, that's what I'm saying. He understands what is going on and is still offering an opinion. Basically, you just repeated what I said. Good to know we're all on the same page.
     
  21. Jun 7, 2006 #20
    Anti-gay admendment:defeted

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html [Broken]
    Not good news or bad news.
    I hope this doesn't get in congress next year again. This needs to be the states respsobillty not the federal goverment.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  22. Jun 7, 2006 #21

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ooh, the politicization of TheSwerve!!

    Welcome. Blunt weapons in this corner; pointy ones in that. :biggrin:
     
  23. Jun 7, 2006 #22

    NateTG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Actually, since the Constituion is the fundemental law here, there are no limits on what can be put into an amendment.

    For example, it would be completely legitemate (from legal perspective) to make a constitutional amendement that gave all worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster an exemption from income tax. Of course, that would never pass.

    Notably, the current version of the FMA includes:
    Which would, for example, legalize denying marriage licenses to jews, atheists, blacks, mixed couples, citizen-imigrant couples or, for that matter people with odd social security numbers. (And, as the most recent amendment to the constitution it supercedes *all* other law in the US.)

    Moreover, in the cases of, for example, Vermont and Massachusets, it can be readily argued (under the same equality clauses that led to civil unions or gay marriage) that providing disproportionate benefits to heterosexual couples is discriminatory, and that, as a consequence, all state laws that recognize marriage are unconstitutional.
     
  24. Jun 7, 2006 #23
    That depends. If the Democrats gain control of the Congress it wont come up again. If the Republicans keep control, it won't come up next year, but you can bet that they will roll it out in 2008 to mobilize the homophobic base.

    [edit]BTW. What happened to my post about the alleged bi-sexual affair Bush had?

    Is this forum being censored? :bugeye: :surprised [/edit]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  25. Jun 7, 2006 #24
    Not necessarily. This is an issue where a lot of people who support Bush take exception with his policies.

    I almost hesitate to agree with you (because there are reasons one could agree with the principle of Bush's argument without being homophobic -- that is an ignorant blanket assessment on people) , but yeah... Just about everyone seems to recognize this for what it is, especially given the timing. It is a political stunt to motivate the far right base. It doesn't have a prayer of passing as an ammendment, so it's really much ado about nothing. Just mid-term election year hoopla.

    But there is little chance of the Republicans bringing this issue up on their own from either house of congress. This is all GWB. And it's also not a given that it will ever be brought up again, either, even if a Republican wins in 08... especially if the Republican that wins the primaries ends up being someone like Guilliani.

    There is another reason for pushing for this issue, but it doesn't justify an ammendment or make Bush's tactics look any better.

    Honestly, speaking from a purely political stance and leaving religion out of the discussion, I think the vast majority majority of us on all sides of the aisle would agree that the states should be deciding this issue. And it's not an issue that every state should be expected to conform on even if 3/4 of them somehow agree on it.

    BUT... the real issue is that courts are ignoring the laws of their own states and even sometimes making up laws from the bench, without the legislative process.

    The judicial branch has no check or balance on them. The way the system runs now thanks to us allowing it to be kidnapped by lawyers, there is currently no way to override the courts. IOW the people have no say in a decision that ends up somehow becoming defacto law.

    THAT is the issue Bush should be addressing as far as instituting a national fix. Let the gay marriage debate happen at the local level where it belongs.
     
  26. Jun 8, 2006 #25

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not true. The GOP put this up as a high priority on their agenda a little over a month ago.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=971059#post971059
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook