-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gay Marriage Ban Ammendment.... FAILS.
- Thread starter Goreomedy
- Start date
- Status
That's the thing. They do. They already have gay kids and relatives. Everyone has a gay relative. Yet some people feel their hatred is justified b/c it's something they disagree with. Fucking idiots. Someone should bitchslap each one of those stupid 48 who voted yes. Fucking bigoted idiots, and they got the nerve to preach about morals. Douchebaggery is more like it.
Anyway, glad this got shot down. Sad Kerry and Edwards don't have the sack to stand up for a just cause. Abstaining is as bad as voting yes. It means you're too much of a coward to defend something you believe in. Reason #1001 I won't vote for Kerry. Spineless leaders = teh suck. Nader may not be popular, but at least I kinda know where he stands on the big issues. PEACE.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
"The voting on this was closer than anyone believed, Kerry/Edwards skipped the vote, so that makes for campaign fodder as well."
Um, skipping the vote is the same as voting against it. They need 60 votes, no matter how many people are present.
"A spokeswoman for Democratic Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina said the candidates would not come to the floor for a procedural vote, but would show up for an up-or-down vote on the measure, though that vote now appears unlikely to happen this year. Missing the procedural vote is virtually the same as voting against the measure, because 60 votes are needed to forge ahead with the amendment, no matter how many senators are present."
Um, skipping the vote is the same as voting against it. They need 60 votes, no matter how many people are present.
"A spokeswoman for Democratic Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina said the candidates would not come to the floor for a procedural vote, but would show up for an up-or-down vote on the measure, though that vote now appears unlikely to happen this year. Missing the procedural vote is virtually the same as voting against the measure, because 60 votes are needed to forge ahead with the amendment, no matter how many senators are present."
Now perhaps congress can get back to worrying about REAL issues in this country. People talk as if same-sex marriage will ruin the idea of it all. Perhaps they've forgotten how fucked up married couples lives are already. For example - how many people get married in a church but are only christian by name? Or how about the somewhat disturbing fact that over 50% of the people that marry get divorced? So many people are cheating today. Etc. etc. That doesn't help society either, nor does it set a good example for children. If two gay people wanna get married, let them get married. There's so much more going on in the world right now. What a silly thing to make such a big deal out of. This is almost as dumb as the government ignoring god knows what just to find out if Bill Clinton got some head from one of his interns.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Thats a little too close for comfort, but at least that crap failed.
Spiritreaver
Member
Grizzlyjin said:
Indeed, it obviously shows this country is still way to deadlocked to ever get something that would allow us equal rights as a married couple with "civil unions". Stick out an amendment that does that, and well It won't pass either. Gay marriage just isn't going to happen that way as much as I'd like it to. Not here anywho. We'll have to rely on states going through it by the courts if anything, as I can never see the legislature ever doing such a thing.
Meh oh well, as long as such amendment like this NEVER pass I don't have to worry about things. Someday I do hope to be able to get married, have a child, and have one happy family without having to go to another country or state just to do it. One can hope and pray.
Mermandala
Member
"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."
This was supposed to be part of a speech that Sen. John Cornyn was giving to the Heritage Foundation. According to his spokesperson he didn't use it. The Washington Post reported that he said it because it was in the prepared script handed out to the press. Draw your ovwn conclusion about journalistic integrity -- but -- more importantly, if a weird looking dude flashing a Box Cutter moves in next door with a Box Turtle, remove your children from the street and call Tom Ridge or Brian Fellows. Boom Boxes and Kick-Boxing are also suspect as they attract unsavories.
This was supposed to be part of a speech that Sen. John Cornyn was giving to the Heritage Foundation. According to his spokesperson he didn't use it. The Washington Post reported that he said it because it was in the prepared script handed out to the press. Draw your ovwn conclusion about journalistic integrity -- but -- more importantly, if a weird looking dude flashing a Box Cutter moves in next door with a Box Turtle, remove your children from the street and call Tom Ridge or Brian Fellows. Boom Boxes and Kick-Boxing are also suspect as they attract unsavories.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
DarienA said:
Well I mean close in terms that it is kinda split both ways, I know you need a majotiry for it to actually pass. But I just didn't expect so many people to be in support of such a thing.
Grizzlyjin said:
I hear ya... I feel similar way about the upcoming election in that I can't believe most polls show Bush still has so much support...
Mermandala said:
No references to the evils of rap music in that speech? No wait you did say boom boxes... close enough.
Dickweeds like my father, who stands behind civil unions, but is completely against gay marriage, because of his religious beliefs.
edit: I'm a registered Republican as well, but there are some things I just can't stand for, and assholes who try to impose things like that piss me off.
edit: I'm a registered Republican as well, but there are some things I just can't stand for, and assholes who try to impose things like that piss me off.
Spiritreaver
Member
Ecrofirt said:
That gave me quite the chuckle. Ir's amazing how many homosexual related terms are used as derogatory remarks.
DarthWufei said:
It's very weird when you've got several homosexual friends, and homosexual terms have always been used in a derogatory manner. It's something I'm worknig to overcome, especially when one of them is being an ass and I've always said something like "You're being queer.".
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
"Originally Posted by Ecrofirt:
I hate that goddamn cocksucker, and he's from my state.
That gave me quite the chuckle. Ir's amazing how many homosexual related terms are used as derogatory remarks."
well, to be fair, women do that too.
I think there are just as many derogatory words connected to women as there are to gays actually.
I hate that goddamn cocksucker, and he's from my state.
That gave me quite the chuckle. Ir's amazing how many homosexual related terms are used as derogatory remarks."
well, to be fair, women do that too.
I think there are just as many derogatory words connected to women as there are to gays actually.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
What does RINO mean?Ripclawe said:
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Took a bit to find, but:Prospero said:
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
......and ho, hoar, skank, pussy, girl.........(if we are including things guys call each other)
i'm sure there are more, but i don't use such language
i'm sure there are more, but i don't use such language
Spiritreaver
Member
Ecrofirt said:
Haha, it's fine, I usually use them myself if we're just kidding around, but I never enjoy them when they're used seriously for obvious reasons.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep said:
Well that sure says a lot about heterosexual males!
Father_Brain
Banned
Republican In Name Only, I presume.JoshuaJSlone said:
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
"Well that sure says a lot about heterosexual males! "
yeah, the only words i know degrading heterosexual males are redneck connected slurs. Funny how heterosexual males are above critique, but everyone else is flawed and must be ridiculed.
"yeah, the only words i know degrading heterosexual males are redneck connected slurs. Funny how heterosexual males are above critique, but everyone else is flawed and must be ridiculed.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Lathentar said:
Cylons always do it by your command, baby.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but as others have said, this was not a majority vote. Any action that wasn't a "yes" vote counted against it. I think both Kerry and Edwards knew this and decided they could take a day off doing campaign stuff.
Yeah, I think someone else explained that. But I'm still annoyed that they are too scared to declare an opinion one way or another. As someone else called them, Waffle and Grits. Not a spine between them, although I'll give Edwards some credit for defending the Confederate flag during the debates, as much as I disagree with it. He at least presented a defense of an unpopular opinion, and without coming off as pompous or douchebaggy. But IMO, politicians should believe in something. It doesn't forgo being pragmatic, but at least grow a pair, even if it's unpopular. I'm assuming both Kerry and Edwards would have voted "No" if given the choice, but decided not to upset the conservative members of their base. PEACE.
Traumahound
Member
JoshuaJSlone said:
What the hell Internet is he on? And why don't I have access to it?
According to CNN, Kerry would have voted Yes for this Ammendment.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.kerry.new.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.kerry.new.html
Saint Cornelius
Banned
I think he's on the "intarweb"
Lathentar said:
Actually, he would've voted "No." Not that this was a vote on the actual amendment, but essentially a vote on whether to just drop the fucking topic all together before it even got as far as an actual vote on the bill.
Kerry's firm in his stance that it remain a state issue, and it's people like Rick Santorum that make me weep for this country.
MaddenNFL64
Member
Cheney's daughter is gay, not Kerry's. Although maybe she is, who knows.
And this was for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Kerry is not for that. State issue.
And this was for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Kerry is not for that. State issue.
Phoenix
Member
The US code already establishes that any law passed down by Congress with respect to marriage defines marriage as something between one man and one woman. I always get a laught out of this because I wonder if any of the politicians know enough about the US code to know that this is a dead issue already.
This is all one large issue intent on spliting the vote and taking the people against 'gay marriage' and siding them with Bush. This is all one big game of chicken with the hearts and minds of the public, and just like with the war on Iraq people are believing what they are being fed from all sides.
I have seen this issue take people who absolutely hate Bush consider voting for him because they don't want to allow 'gay marriage'.
YOU ARE BEING USED PEOPLE
This is all one large issue intent on spliting the vote and taking the people against 'gay marriage' and siding them with Bush. This is all one big game of chicken with the hearts and minds of the public, and just like with the war on Iraq people are believing what they are being fed from all sides.
I have seen this issue take people who absolutely hate Bush consider voting for him because they don't want to allow 'gay marriage'.
YOU ARE BEING USED PEOPLE
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Of course I'm no expert on these things, but that quote seems to be concerning laws of the Congress and federal government only, whereas an amendment to the Constitution could overrule the decisions of states.Phoenix said:
This I agree with.
reggieandTFE
Member
Santorum, Frist, Cheney and the like make me want to puke. I just found out this week that one of my friends went to the University of Illinois with Frist's gay nephew. Going along with Cheney's daughter, it blows (no pun intended) my mind that these rich old white men want to legalize bigotry that affects their own families.
Kobun Heat
Member
1) I've heard it said that this election is going to be a referendum on gay marriage. It's tough to disagree with.
2) What's so wrong with having a vote on the Senate floor to get elected representatives on the record about their views on a hot-button political issue? Seems to me that's good for democracy.
3) W&G didn't vote. A vote for yes? A vote for no? Neither, actually. Kerry's position is that he's for civil unions, against gay marriage. If he voted No on this, there would be all sorts of ads saying "JOHN KERRY VOTED AGAINST AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD HAVE DEFINED MARRIAGE AS BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. DUN DUN DUUUUN." If he voted Yes, the world would explode.
2) What's so wrong with having a vote on the Senate floor to get elected representatives on the record about their views on a hot-button political issue? Seems to me that's good for democracy.
3) W&G didn't vote. A vote for yes? A vote for no? Neither, actually. Kerry's position is that he's for civil unions, against gay marriage. If he voted No on this, there would be all sorts of ads saying "JOHN KERRY VOTED AGAINST AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD HAVE DEFINED MARRIAGE AS BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. DUN DUN DUUUUN." If he voted Yes, the world would explode.
Phoenix
Member
JoshuaJSlone said:
That is correct. An amendment to the constitution would require that all states conform to it. Any power not delegated to the federal government through the constitution becomes the juris of the states, until you start dealing with things like marriage which have both a state and federal component at which point federal juris trumps state juris. Without the amendment these issues would end up being resolved in federal court for several reasons, the more obvious one being taxation at the federal level. This would require (though through litigation) that the states fall in line because that is a federal juris area (the protection of the rights of the citizen) and since the federal courts already have a definition... this would be a long trip back to where we started from to begin with. Same as the 10 commandments in government buildings. The law quickly becomes a federal issue and not a state one.
Warm Machine
Member
Traumahound said:
He's probably just looking at his own hard disk.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
I usually hear it as something like "referendum on our foreign policy".Kobun Heat said:
Father_Brain
Banned
Now there's a bill in the House that would prevent most gay marriage cases from reaching the federal courts. Yeah, that'll work.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040715_90.html
Kobun, most poll that I've seen show voters ranking gay marriage dead last on the list of issues they consider important. Care to explain your point?
Ripclawe - I'm amused that you're calling some senators "Republicans In Name Only" just because they opposed the FMA. About a year ago, the New York Times Magazine ran an editorial about the conservative movement on college campuses. Well, guess what? Most of these groups actually have made statements supporting gay marriage. Sadly, although it will take some time, it appears that the future of the Republican Party does not include gay-bashing.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040715_90.html
Kobun, most poll that I've seen show voters ranking gay marriage dead last on the list of issues they consider important. Care to explain your point?
Ripclawe - I'm amused that you're calling some senators "Republicans In Name Only" just because they opposed the FMA. About a year ago, the New York Times Magazine ran an editorial about the conservative movement on college campuses. Well, guess what? Most of these groups actually have made statements supporting gay marriage. Sadly, although it will take some time, it appears that the future of the Republican Party does not include gay-bashing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked