It's Official... Rick M. 1 GOP Lions 0

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum,

 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040714/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage_20

[marc anthony]

I like this one just as much!

 

 

said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

 

:+

 

Actually Rick S., the ultimate security is knowing that the Constitution is intact and still conferring rights rather than limiting them.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

It might actually have been better if the cloture vote succeeded thus forcing several GOP senators to vote NO for the ammendment rather than sacrificing its sanctity to political expedience. Now the GOP will use this as a campaign deflection away from the economy and IRAQ to rally the heartland along the lines of Senator San(ctimonious)torum.

[Doug69]

>It might actually have been better if the cloture vote

>succeeded thus forcing several GOP senators to vote NO for the

>ammendment rather than sacrificing its sanctity to political

>expedience. Now the GOP will use this as a campaign

>deflection away from the economy and IRAQ to rally the

>heartland along the lines of Senator San(ctimonious)torum.

 

Here is the very principled and inspiring argument made by the Senate Democratic Leader, South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschele, in explaining his opposition to the amendment:

 

"In South Dakota, we've never had a single same sex marriage and won't have any," he said. "It's prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in 38 other states. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity."

 

Wow. What a civil rights crusader. He's saying that there's no need for the constitutional amendment because all states can and should just do what South Dakota has done -- enact laws banning same-sex marriages.

 

Both John Kerry and John Edwards are categorically opposed to gay marriage, and John Kerry favors a constitutional amendment to the Mass. Constitution which would ban gay marriages and make marriage between a man and a woman only.

 

So let's refrain from any pretense that the Democrats are some sort of great crusaders for equal rights for gay people, shall we? Both candidates on the Democratic national ticket are as clear as they can be that they oppose gay marriage.

[Rick Munroe]

>So let's refrain from any pretense that the Democrats are some

>sort of great crusaders for equal rights for gay people, shall

>we? Both candidates on the Democratic national ticket are as

>clear as they can be that they oppose gay marriage.

 

I agree, Doug. Even Howard Dean said he opposed gay marriage. The only Democratic candidates who had the balls to stand up and say that we deserved all of the same rights as every other citizen were Sharpton and Braun (maybe Kucinich, too, but he was so whiny that I tended to tune him out). I have never felt that the fight would be over once the Democrats regain control; we will still have to work our asses off (an idea which I find appealing).

[AaronScottDC]

Dare I say it?..... Nader is a supporter of gay marriage...

 

 

Aaron Scott DC

http://www.erados.com/AaronScottDC

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/aaronscottdc.html

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>So let's refrain from any pretense that the Democrats are some

>sort of great crusaders for equal rights for gay people, shall

>we? Both candidates on the Democratic national ticket are as

>clear as they can be that they oppose gay marriage.

 

No such pretense was made in my post. Many Democrats in high office constitute a mealy-mouthed spineless bunch trying to have it both ways in their electioneering efforts, IMO.

 

However, it is clear that Bush and much of the GOP is spearheading the effort to codify in the Supreme Law of the Land the denial of one of the most basic civil rights to an entire group of citizens -- the first time since the Bill of Rights was conceived that such an effort was seriously undertaken. Clearly, this over-reaching is an embarassment and political anathema to some of its own members, hence the margin in today's failed vote.

 

The silver lining is that these zealous clowns are going down in history for what they are. Bull Connor, Lester Maddox,and their cohorts not having the benefit of history from which to learn relied on local ordinances and state laws under the guise of States Rights to deny rights to an entire group. Our present day bigots, having learned the lesson of history and realizing that the tide is ultimately against them, are prepared to distort the Constitution to use the full weight of the foundation of the world's oldest democracy to deny their target group the most basic of civil rights. Such upstanding behvior will not got unnoticed to the eye of history -- at least I hope not.

 

I doubt that history will overlook the spineless Dems either.

[Rick Munroe]

Guys, we did it and we should thank ourselves. As Cheryl Jacques,

Human Rights Campaign President, wrote to us today:

 

The real reason we won is this: You. You and every fair-minded American, gay or straight, who called, e-mailed, faxed, visited, tracked down, and otherwise urged your Senators not to write discrimination into the Constitution. Thank you. This amazing moment belongs to all of us. Please, share this victory with all the friends and family you talked into fighting with us. We join in celebration with each of you. The campaign to defeat this amendment has been a top priority for HRC and with your amazing efforts over the course of many months, today we won this round of the fight. Thank you - again.

 

What's next: I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't remind you that it's not over. Our ultra-conservative opponents are determined to spread their discriminatory agenda across the country. Fasten your seatbelts, my friends, because the months ahead are going to be challenging indeed:

 

[ul][li]Next week, the House will take up the issue of marriage equality as well. Expect a fight. Expect vicious words and fierce debate. And expect to speak up, loud and clear, once more.

 

[li]During the next three months, no fewer than 11 states - and possibly 13 - are facing ballot initiatives to write discrimination into their state constitutions. HRC will fight these initiatives shoulder to shoulder with state and local GLBT leaders. We'll let you know how you can help.

 

[li]And of course - like you, we will be actively working to stop discrimination at the source by electing equality-minded legislators around the country. We're glad to know you will be with us in that battle, too.[/li]

 

All of this work starts tomorrow. For today, I will take a moment to appreciate this hard-won victory. I hope you'll join me.

 

Many, many thanks for all you have done.

 

Cheryl A. Jacques

Human Rights Campaign President

[Guest alanm]

Would you rather have "spineless" John Kerry and John Edwards support gay and lesbian marriage and lose the election? Remember how much trouble Bill Clinton had with the "gays in the military" issue. His heart was in the right place, but politically he had to settle for the dumb Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

 

One great joy in my life is having Rick Santorum as my senator (and as a Pennsylvania resident voting in a toss up state). I love to call his office and question his staff on his positions (maybe I should ask a few on which sexual positions he favors). They have to be nice to me, because of caller I.D. -- there's no doubt that I am calling from PA. The bad news is that Ricky is gaining seniority in a state that highly values seniority (i.e., Arlen Spector) and will be tough to beat in the next senatorial election. Right now only Gov. Rendell could defeat Santorum. He is cute, earnest and not too smart in person -- the Kirk Cameron ("Growing Pains") of the senate

[+ Lucky]

"(maybe Kucinich, too, but he was so whiny)"

 

So whiny? He must be the guy writing those hundreds of emails to Hooboy that deej talks about!

[OneFinger]

>Dare I say it?..... Nader is a supporter of gay marriage...

 

Don't see a problem with the statement but do have a problem with the practicality of voting for Nader.

 

Until we rid of the Electoral College, my individual vote is meaningless. In my state all our College delegates vote Republican regardless of the popular vote. There is nothing that forces them to vote in proportion to the popular vote. x(

[dannynyc]

One of the changes I see in this election cycle is that the <pick one - liberals; Democrats; non-Republicans; anti-Bush crowd> are not demanding Kerry / Edwards be 100% right on every issue. On the other hand the religious right seems to be demanding they want everything on their agenda (abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research) and won't give on anything. On the subject of gay marriage, there are candidates who support gay marriage, but they're not electable.

 

Personally, I don't see any chance of attaining the right to gay marriage through legislation - at least throughout the country. The only way it will be done is through the courts. Thinking back 50 years, (I am not witness to this - I'm basing this on stories I've heard), what was the chance any legislature would pass a law supporting inter-racial marriage?

 

Rather than arguing about what candidate is not 100% perfect, we need to support candidates that give us the greatest support possible and yet are electable, and continue to fight for the rest. I totally agree with the letter Rick posted. This will take a lot of work. But, tearing apart candidates because they only have 90% of what we want, rather than 100% of what we want, when there is not alternative offering 100% of what we want is ridiculous

[Rick Munroe]

>Rather than arguing about what candidate is not 100% perfect,

>we need to support candidates that give us the greatest

>support possible and yet are electable, and continue to fight

>for the rest. I totally agree with the letter Rick posted.

>This will take a lot of work. But, tearing apart candidates

>because they only have 90% of what we want, rather than 100%

>of what we want, when there is not alternative offering 100%

>of what we want is ridiculous

 

Very well-put, Danny.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Op Ed Page

 

>Guys, we did it and we should thank ourselves. As Cheryl

>Jacques,

>Human Rights Campaign President, wrote to us today:

>

>The real reason we won is this: You.

 

The troops deserve a victory speech and everyone needs a pat on the back for hard work and concern. And certainly the great participation did no harm and maybe one or two liberal leaning senators were swayed. But this battle was won by a handful -- maybe two -- of GOP members (mostly conservative) swayed not by the outcry of a realitively small if vocal percentage of society but by their own common sense that the fudamental Law of the Land is not sacrificed to political expediency no matter how strongly they may disagree with a policy. As much as I or you may disagree with some of these men on policies up and down the line, I have to give them credit for placing country above their own personal views and recognizing that 'what goes around can come around' -- that assigning and denying rights to individual groups based on the majority will may not be so wise when todays majority becomes tomorrows minority or even worse, consigning the minority to live under the will of the majority without ANY redress in the courts -- a recipe for despotic rule.

 

Once you start jugglng the bricks in the foundation of your house to suit the mood of the moment, the days of the house are numbered. These men stood up in the face of intense political pressure and party discipline. It may cost some of them down the road. As much as I may dislike their political views overall and personal tactics of some I have to give them credit. Such is the stuff of statesmen, at least a glimmer of it.

[Guest drummer]

>On the subject of gay marriage, there are candidates who

>support gay marriage, but they're not electable.

>

>Personally, I don't see any chance of attaining the right to

>gay marriage through legislation - at least throughout the

>country. The only way it will be done is through the courts.

>Thinking back 50 years, (I am not witness to this - I'm basing

>this on stories I've heard), what was the chance any

>legislature would pass a law supporting inter-racial marriage?

 

This is a great point. The "I'm opposed to gay marriage" stance of many democrats seems a political expediency, not something that has actual conviction behind it. The Republican pro-amendment folks are right that given last summer's US Supreme Court decision and the complications that will arise from people being married in Massachusetts and eventually other states (and Canada) but not being considered married when in other states, DOMA and anti-gay marriage state statutes and state constitutional clauses are going to be overturned sooner or later.

 

Only a constitutional amendment could prevent it.

 

So let the dems blather on about opposing gay marriage. As long as they oppose an amendment, they are doing the best thing possible for us, no matter what rationale they use. By saying they do not support gay marriage, they keep this from being the powerful election-year issue the conservatives would like it to be.

 

Remember, actions speak louder than election-year rhetoric. Unless someone advocates a constituional amendment, they are essentially on our side.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Op Ed Page

 

>These men stood up in the face of intense

>political pressure and party discipline.

 

It's a shame that's such a rarity today.

[Rick Munroe]

>So let the dems blather on about opposing gay marriage. As

>long as they oppose an amendment, they are doing the best

>thing possible for us, no matter what rationale they use. By

>saying they do not support gay marriage, they keep this from

>being the powerful election-year issue the conservatives would

>like it to be.

 

That's such a good point. I keep forgetting what a game the whole system is.

[KY_TOP]

RE: Op Ed Page

 

>>These men stood up in the face of intense

>>political pressure and party discipline.

>

>It's a shame that's such a rarity today.

 

According to USA Today...There were actually 6 Republican Senators that sided against the Amendment, 2 are female Senators from Maine (Snowe and Collins) plus McCain (Arizona), Caffee (Rhode Island), Sununu (New Hampshire) and Campbell (Colorado).

 

Democrats FOR the amendment were 3; Byrd (West Virgina), Miller (Georgia) and Nelson (Nebraska)

 

Not Voting 2: Kerry and Edwards

[+ glutes]

RE: Op Ed Page

 

Bigotry has no place in the US Constitution.

If Santorum is so fond of keeping traditional families, why doesn't he work on outlawing divorce?