http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040224-2.html

We have real problems in this Country and this? This is ...

How about acknowledging the Constitution as it stands before ya add anything new.

Maybe hopes of derission and division bringing favorable numbers to the polls for G.W.B.

Trying to hold onto Congress through midterms. The political game right now is that they can lose lots of seets as long as they retain control of both houses and still claim victory in the midterms. Which is either canny or delusional. But they're hoping to paint the dems as against the "mainstream".

Chicanery. Just like the one year "elimination" of the "death tax." Do you know that a person in this country is about four times as likely to be struck by lighnting as suffer the estate tax? And if you read the provision of the tax code and understand it, you realize that now the method of tax collection is now just a bit different and will now apply to everyone, not just millionaires. Chicanery.

And "torture" is the new "is" except it matters, where diddling an intern really doesn't.

Impeach the dumbass already.

Bear

Not one veto, but over 758 "Signing Statements" Never met a law he couldn't ignore.

Arrogance must be bliss.

I heard some policy wonk on NPR just the other day going on about the Iranian Nuclear issue and actually say that they are not to be trusted, regime change is what is needed for Iran... Such honesty was not jumped on by the host of the show. Damn if someone dropped a tip like the issue with Iran is actually about regime change and not their Nuclear capabilities, I would have gone gone hammer down on that bus, as soon as she laid herself in the road.

Oh yeah. My Point. The Constitution does not need this Amendment. I would bet $100 it will be struck down on un-equal treatment under the law, by the Supreme Court. Even this one.

When you swear to defend the Constitution you swear to defend the whole thing, not just the bits that appeal to you. That is what this Country is about. Not Majority rules, not Mob Rules. And while I firmly believe that Divided We Stand. Division is not a tool through which Unity, and poll numbers should be persued, nor garnered.

The degradation of the office of President of the United States, taking place makes me sick.

Fear and Loathing? I got 'em in spades.

That's why the amendment. Hell, you amend the constitution and you can do things that contradict the previous writings. That's why these culture warrior idiots keep pushing stuff like anti-flag burning amendments and anti-gay marriage amendments, just in case judges come up with a view of the constitution they don't like. I wonder when they're going to try to repeal the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments.

Bear

It's part of some ploy to energize the "base" in an election year. Marriage is an issue for each state.

Yep. Which is why DOMA is just screwed up. States have always been free to disregard marriages made in other states deemed to be against their public policy, though standards of what are acceptable public policy reasons have changed. This has always included the decision of whether to respect the marriages of state residents who go out of state to marry. DOMA doesn't really add to this.

What DOMA does do, though, is modify the statutory reach of the Full Fair and Credit act which indicates how the states are to apply the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Previously such statutory modifications have only been expansive (that states are to honor eachother's custody and child support decrees), but DOMA reduces where Full Faith and Credit is to be given.

So what, what does that mean? Say a person is killed in a hit-and-run accident in Massachussets by a driver from an anti-same-sex-marriage state and the victim's same-sex spouse sues in Massachussets and gets a judgment for damages. If the driver was here in Texas, DOMA indicates that Texas doesn't have to respect this judicial proceeding and assuming the driver's only assets are in his home state, the driver doesn't have to pay. Is creating this effect really important for people who have qualms about gay marriage?

The problem with the current gay marriage amendment is that it's a massive federal power grab usurping state rights. The Federalist Society should be appalled.

Bear

They should be given their supposed aims as an organizaition. However, in practice, the Federalist Society unfortunately grooms activists and political opportunists rather than conservatives and libertarians.

I think people need to understand that the President trots out the "fag" issue because he needs cover for the high price of gasoline, the failed war in Iraq and the national debt crippling our country's future.

I don't agree with gay marriage. I think for public law reasons that we should stick with the model that we know. However, if the people of one state decide otherwise, then that's their call for the people of their state only and not for my state.

Well here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the Supreme Judical Court found that refusal on the right for Gay's commitment to one another, to recognized the same as hetero-sexuals, was not equal treatment under the law. It is legal.

There are those who this this is an act of heresy by Judges with an agenda. Now we ain't had a Democrat for Governor since Mike Dukakis donned a helmet and poked his head out of a tank.

And, that's the Massachusetts highest court determining what equal protection means pursuant to the constitution and laws of the state of Massachusetts.

The people of Massachusetts can amend their constitution if they so wish.

Many people forget that a certain number of Republicans and Democrats embrace civil liberties. Many of these civil libertarians end up on the bench whether appointed by Republicans or Democrats.

I'm not a fan of gay marriage, but you have to admit it's just another thing to get out the vote. Sort of like the "don't sing the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish" talk going around.

Yuck...and how the hell can you enforce THAT???

War

Here in Massachusetts we have a Republican Governor and overtly Democratic Legislature. I don't know that that will change soon. I believe that an overwhlming majority of voters here are registered Not Affiliated as well.

I will not go into my tirade about how the 2 major parties have divided the issues up amongst themselves. I will stand by my statement that if you don't like Guns or Abortion, don't get one.

I agree to a point that it is a States rights argument. But the fact remains that there are people in committed relationships in all 50 states who are denied the same rights under the law, regarding their right to have that committment recognized as binding and legal, and the protections that would afford them. Simply because of whom they are committed to.

Last I checked, all citizens were to have equal protection under the law.

I would not be surprised if this were brought to a Federal Court as a Tax issue, it would not result in the same way it did here in the Commonwealth.

It was not a case of Amending our Consitution. It was a case which found that the Constitution of the Commonwealth found denial of the right to marry Un-Constitutional. BIG difference.

There is a fairly healthy explaination and debate below the actual column here.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Nov18.html

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2006/07/10/1

More news... I wonder if it'll get to the public for a vote.

Maybe they can bring back witch burning, too.

THe only guys who'll win on this one are the guys who want to go to Washington on God, guns and gays so they can bankrupt the federal government even more and do it with impunity.

This is a hot topic cuz the legislature can't put it on the Ballot to overthrow an interpretation of the state constitution by the judicial branch.

Bunch of bullshit.

I will read the Article and comment on it directly. but really. Are we Puritans or bleeding heart liberals here?

I wish I could vote for Kinky Friedman.....

Well, It appears I may have had my ballot initiative, legalities confused.

In a related topic, yesterday i was announced that the couple who won the landmark decision, and were first to wed, have filed for Divorce. Which only firms up my belief that Gay marriage is OK. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as everyone else.

Now that I'm married, I shouldn't repeat this too often, but those who viscerally hate gays and want to punish them should permit gay marriage but prohibit gay divorce.

Bear

It's funny because it's true.