Great, now we have three days of Senate debate about amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage, even though few if any lawmakers think the amendment will pass.
Setting aside concerns about using the Constitution to restrict rights, rather than to protect and expand them, there is a fundamental reason to oppose this amendment: Marriage is a state issue, not a federal one. Yet with only a few noteworthy exceptions, Republican senators who champion federalism and local control seem happy to override states’ rights on marriage — especially if it energizes the religious right before the upcoming elections.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
112 Comments
Dumb amendment. Pointless time waving an election issue instead of dealing with real issues.
And this from a self-described conservative republican.
Bread and circuses time for the GOP and R.R.
Call one of your god, guns and gays congressmen and tell them to REALLY protect marriage.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/action-alert-call-congress-ask-if.html
read it if you dare
Ya know, the preznit and the rovester actually get real style points and degree of difficulty points on this by having it both ways.
LAURA bush thinks this amendment is wrong. Dead eye dick thinks this amendment is wrong. The PREZNIT thinks the future of our nation rests on the passage of this fine amendment.
“you can find anything you want at alice’s restaurant”
We have record deficits, a failing foreign policy, vietnam II in iraq, a culture of corruption in congress, conservatives spending our tax dollars like, well, conservatives…
… an education system in crisis, a homeland security department that cuts security funding for new york and declares “no terrorist targets” there, corporate crime run rampant, k streeters who own both houses of congress, a new hurricane season upon us with NO improvement in our ability to respond…
…and the preznit worries about whether my girlfriend and I get equal protection under the law?
But please, take all the time you need mr preznit and republicans in congress.
You have nothing better to do, no?
Know how in the movie Titanic they play “Nearer My God to Thee” as the ship sinks beneath them?
This is sorta like that for the bush. Only instead of an inspirational tune, you get legislation to comfort the desperate. That being bush’s few remaining supporters.
Next will be an Amendment to Protect the Flag. Patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels.
Osama bin Hidin and plannin and threatenin. It is good to know bush will keep our baser sensibilities protected from offense!
“Whatever it takes” is the new GOP motto. And they say WE have no class?
I did read though where moderate republicans are starting to say out loud that they are embarrassed by their party’s fixation on this issue.
Especially when gay marriage has a 47 percent approval rating and the preznit has an approval rating in the low thirties at best.
Embarrassing might be the mildest thing moderate republicans are saying. But we would never hear them in kansas. They are being drowned out by the god, gays and guns wing of the kansas gop.
No wonder republicans are switching parties to run in this state. They know where the real republicans can be found.
With the kansas democrats.
“And this from a self-described conservative republican.”
Yeah, you’re right, GMC. It’s a distraction, and always has been.
I remember several years back when conservative columnist James Kilpatrick came out against record labeling. He pretty much nailed the general reasoning behind this and other similar nonsense: He stated such people said they believed in “freedom, but only for me.” That about sums it up.
The simple fact is that these amendments cannot be logically or morally defended. They are the absolute essence of big, intrusive government.
Of course the related question is, where can the REAL democrats be found?
Certainly not in the KDP. Lately, it seems, real democrats cant be found in the state anywhere.
Just republican light.
Farm Gal,Next time you’re in town, go meet the head of the Sedgwick County Democratic Party. You might be surprised!
Jed, I left the kansas democrats, because, well, if I wanted to belong to a political party that didnt tolerate dissent…
…I’d be a kansas republican!
KFG – thanx for the link
I’m just shaking my head.
“What a maroon” – Bugs Bunny
heheh julie
And, IT’S a TWOFER!!!
He gets to hammer down that damn judiciary along with those icky queers.
The judiciary. The courts. The act-ee-vist judges in black robes who think the consitution is more than a g.d. piece of paper.
You know, the one with the courts of law? The one that provides that pesky check and balance to unlimited executive power? The one that cheney, rummy, wolfie, et al have been trying to put on a short leash ever since…. nixon?
heheh. without the damn interference of the courts, nixon would STILL be king. Cheney will NEVER get over it, even if it was Congress that wanted to impeach him. It was the courts that lifted the veil of secrecy on the presidency.
You wont find bushco making THAT mistake. Give the courts equal power, and then what? Well, hell, you’d have rule of law, and we COULDNT have that in a theocracy with an imperial presidency!
Laws? Checks and balances? Limited executive power? Those ideas are just for little people.
We dont need no stinkin’ judges. After all, the preznit has UNLIMITED power in a time of war.
And make no mistake abouty it. This is a JIHAD on queers. War is hell.
For those tougher than a wet noodle, the rude pundit nails it, with some really funny rude language too.
http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/05.html#a8586
More warm fuzzies from the preznit
We need a constitutional amendment prohibiting cheeseburgers. They are an abomination in the eyes of God (Leviticus)
Too bad if you actually read the Bible in it’s context Ben, you would see that there is an old covenant and new one.
It explains why Leviticus law is no longer valid.
That is if you actually care to represent the Bible truthfully and honestly.
Read ‘em and weep nathan.
MSNBC question of the day
Should same-sex marriage be banned under the Constitution?
* 19555 responsesYes 34%
No 64%
Can’t decide 1.5%
Well, this “G” (as in god guns and gays) isnt working out too well.
I bet we see the other two “g’s” soon.
And BTW…
WHERE IS MARY CHENEY?
..and no constitutional amendment on divorce?
“It explains why Leviticus law is no longer valid.”
Nathan, say it isnt so. Something in the bible is not valid anymore?
And if one part of the bible is not valid, as you say, could it possibly be…
…that other parts of the bible are ALSO not valid?
Nawww. I am SURE it will have something to do with context, a hasty generalization, or some other cliche.
hee hee. another post that will irritate the god, guns and gays crowd.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×1356182
The other two g’s are next….
Nathan–
Did you see the stats and sources on abortion before and after Roe v Wade on the other post.
Best estimates are that the US had about a million abortions a year in the 60’s when it was illegal.
If you look at the number of abortions/population then vs. abortions/population now, it’s .0049 vs .0027, almost HALF.
So if you want to reduce the number of abortions, you should do what has been proven to be effective in reducing abortions–comprehensive sex ed, contraception, and safe, legal abortion.
Of course, it’s always been my belief that most “pro-birthers” aren’t really interested in stopping abortions–they’re interested in stopping sex, especially for women.
I was thinking of posting, but I see that kfg is dominating the post in her usual rabid fashion, so nothing reasonable can be said. Emoting only allowed.
KFG- I think you have a new fan.
and dont you ever forget it
notice how easy it is to kill a thread?
Ah, you’re beautiful darling.
naw gster, he is an old fart, I mean fan.
He seems to be fixated on the gay marriage thing, and the gun thing. he also used to post on the god thing
go figure
I love it when he posts here though. Not in a million years could I illustrate the opposition’s failings as well as don murphy does
Good decision Don!
Do stay UNDER your rock.
well, I mean, except for his wife
It galls me to agree with you, but the amendment is useless. I agree with GMC70. Can you say ‘posturing’? I knew you could.
he must be home early though. usually he cant come out and play until after five
Well hi there JR! Its been ages! You simply wouldnt believe me if I told you how much I didnt miss you over the weekend!
Now kfg I am positively hurt that you dont recall my posting schedule any better than that. I only post when I am at work and can therefore milk my employer like a good little nazi conservative.
KFG,
I have more intelligent conversations with elementary school kids on the Bible.
As much as I would love to discuss it with you, you have sown that you refuse to engage in an honest discussion about it.
Your only intent is to use whatever you can to bash the Bible or Christianity.
Nathan – I HAVE read it and am familiar with the “New Covenant” idea. The whole thing is that you and yours are trying to force your religion’s rules on everyone else.
Interesting that Jesus never condemned homosexuality and that Saul only met Jesus in a “vision”
Well said Nathan.
Getting back to the post though. I can only assume that those opposing the marriage amendment on the ground that it is a state issue are going to start petitioning the federal government to overturn Roe?
Or is it an issue of federal rights except when the gay agenda tells them to oppose it? It’s funny how that line of reasoning seems to be double edged.
If marriage is a states right, I would like to know where it states that? And if it doesnt cover marriage, why then would it cover abortion? What an icky mess!
Nathan,
This is an honest question.
Please do not anyone else use my question to pile on.
Just how did it come about that SOME of the words of God were reversed or rewritten? I would think they would be sorta permanent?
Oooh, oooh!! I know! Waving the hand over here! Can I answer?! Can I can I can I? Pleeeeaseeee!!!
It is not an icky mess at all don.
Your states rights vs. Federalism arguement might have merit. That is if this state had not already afforded the likes of you to say who can and cannot be married thus covering your bases. It might also have merit if the current pResident had not won office on the Supreme Court subverting the ruling of the State Supreme court of FLorida.
Hypocrisy it do run both ways don’t it?
It do. Good of all of us to remember it.
So would you be crying foul if the Florida Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Dubya? I somehow doubt it. Im sure brother Al would have taken it to the US Supreme Court, no?
No, of course not. Freedom, but only for me. Rights, but only for me. Staes rights when they are convenient for me. Federal rights when they are convenient for me. Me, me, me, me. We sound like egocentric children.
Unity08 anyone?
JR,
Your question is indicating a premise I don’t agree with.
“Just how did it come about that SOME of the words of God were reversed or rewritten?”
I have not said that any of Gos’s words were reversed or rewritten. That implies manipulation on man’s part.
It is about our relationship with God. It changed when he sent Jesus to die for our sins.
“I would think they would be sorta permanent?”
Those laws were written for a specific people during a specific time, not for everyone forever.
BTW, I have to take exception to Brownlee’s phrasing of the proposed amendment. It is not a ban on gay marriage, or polygamous marriage or bestial marriage. It is a definition of what marriage is. If it has no definition, then it cannot exist. Just as you cannot have a right unless you have a wrong. There has to be an opposite for any argument to have meaning.
You would think that those so concerned with the correct labeling of issues they would get this right.
Ben,
You are not engaging in an honest discussion with me.
First you interject Leviticus law into this discussion knowing about the new and old covenants.
Now you are changing the subject to my trying to force my religion on everyone else.
Then you contradictingly attack the Bible again.
First you are going to use the Bible and what it doesn’t tell us Jesus said and then discredit it for what it says about Saul.
It is obvious what you are doing. You are doing little more than throwing what ever little sound bite you can at me to discredit the Bible or Chrisitianity.
You are not being honest.
You may answer my religion question Don. I’m sure Nathan will as well. It is not a shot when I say that comparing the answers will be interesting.
Ignorant as I am the matter, it would be interesting to know how it was that the word of God got “edited”.
As to gay marriage. IF the Constitution is NOT amended, gay marriage is GOING to be reality nationwide. While there are a majority of states that would make it illegal, there are a few more enlightened places like Massachussetts. (You know, the birthplace of America in that it was the original rebellious colony?) Equal protection means that if it is legal in Massachussetts it must be allowed nationwide. The same is true to a lesser degree about that other hot button issue abortion.
JR,
You are not trying to be honest at all with your questions. You keep throwing in words like edited which implies manipulation.
If you have a question, then ask it. Please stop with the loaded premises though.
Gay marriage is not the real threat, it is all of those Red Lobsters that have really taken God to the edge of destroying the planet.
How is it that Leviticus is out of style but bashing homosexuals is a classic for all ages? Hating people because they are gay is just as wacky as God punishing you if you eat lobster or touch a women during her menstrual cycle.
I was typing that last while you posted your answer Nathan. I was not taking a shot at your answer. I would need to study the matter further.
Scott,
If homosexuality was only frowned on in Leviticus you might have a point.
If you study the Bible it has a pretty consistent theme against it. It also has some pretty exlicitly clear verses against it too.
No one is talking about hating Gays being in the Bible either.
No one is talking about bashing gays being acceptable behavior either.
You are interejecting two premises into the discussion to set up your strawman.
Sometimes when I’m in an irritable mood, I play a rather mean game with my puppy. I pretend to throw a toy, she runs off after it and I snicker. Then, I call her again and do the same thing. It never fails…she always runs back to me when I call her and she never stops searching for the nonexistant ball.
Funny how the republicans have been in power for 6 years and abortion is still legal and the gay marriage amendment has no chance of passing. They just keep tossing that fake ball out during election time. Those silly widdle conservatives fall for it every time. oooooh! Protect me from TEH GAYS!!
No, Leviticus is no longer applicable, as Nathan said. I think people refer to Acts when they say the Bible condemns homosexuality. But Jesus himself was silent on the subject. I do remember him being all gung-ho against divorce, though.
“Those laws were written for a specific people during a specific time, not for everyone forever.”
No shit sherlock.
But yet you make a literal interpretation and want to base constitutional amendments on biblical law that was written for people in a different time? “not for everyone forever” just for gay people?
Jesus wept, logic boy.
Well, I hear my mother calling, but a quick response to JR on the Bible is that it is only as accurate as the mortal translators. The existance of hundreds of translations is testimony to that. Through the carelessness or designs of men throughout the ages, it is entirely possible that any word was misplaced for any number of reasons. Sorry Nathan.
That being said, I believe it to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. I also believe that if it were not, it would still be the best book on the planet and the best hope for peace. What can compare to the eloquence of the Savior teaching simple truths? How much better would we be with just those few do’s and don’ts? I could lay down my political and verbal weaponry as could anyone else interested in pursuing a more mundane life.
Another answer is that it was indeed written for different peoples at different times. I tell my children when they are young that knives are dangerous, dont touch them. As they get older and more intelligent, perhaps more wise, I teach them how to use them as the tools they are. Eventually, I tell them that knives are a good thing that is necessary part of our life. To hear the beginning and the end, I contradict myself. In context, I am a loving father.
Wrong as usual Nathan. My point with Leviticus is that Judaism could equally demand that it’s law be enshrined in amendments. So could islam, etc. Instead, you want only YOUR religion so enshrined. I say that religion and state should be kept separate. I do not want to see ANY version of Sharia enforced.
As a 35-year married heterosexual I am constantly amazed about how fearful some people are about their marriages that they need the government to protect them. I do not feel threatened in any manner by any homosexual couple who wants to express their love for one another. More power to them; leave them in peace!
KFG,
I don’t want to make any constitutional amendments simply to base it on biblical law.
I don’t support a government endorsement of your choice to be gay.
Homosexuality is a sin by anyone who does it, forever. I am not saying different than that.
I have NEVER made the state’s rights comment. I think it is a stupid line of reasoning, but I tire of correcting phillip. If that is the best he can come up with, I’d say he really isnt trying.
If you give the states’ the right to subvert the u.s. constitution, why have a federal government or a constitution? Let’s just break up into fifty little countries with an economic federation. I’m headed to the blue state nations where economic performance and growth are happening. Unlike kansas….
If states had unlimited power to interpret the constitution, interracial marriage would still be illegal much to the pleasure of Ian. If states had unlimited power to interpret the constitution, SLAVERY would still be legal.But then since slavery is CONDONED by the bible, I guess that would be ok with you thumpers too.
How is permanently amending the US Constitution to ensure that homosexuals are never able to exercise all of the same rights as straights not an example of hatred and bashing. Also, what part of the 1st Amendment allows for a law or constitutional amendment based on the verses of the bible – make no law seems pretty clear to me. Nathan, I suppose you and the other fundies will welcome all gays with open arms as long as they agree never to have sex again.
If we are picking and choosing the parts of the bible that remain applicable to modern life is God OK with a homosexual that has never eaten shellfish? What about a straight person that likes pork? Is there a decision tree type chart that someone can use to determine where they fall on the list of hellbound souls.
I’m headed to the blue state nations
Dont tease us.
“Homosexuality is a sin by anyone who does it, forever. I am not saying different than that”
And where did you get that provincial little idea? From the bible, perhaps?
Or from joe, terry, fred, pat, jerry, etc.?
You want to base constitutional amendments on sin? Cool. Let’s start with divorce, straight adultry, etc.
Still no answer on the divorce constitutional amendment? You once said churches frown on it? Oh, I see. They frown on divorce, but gay marriage is such a threat it needs a constitutional amendment?
Your hypocricy is showing. You wonder why we use the bible to prove you are a hypocrit? Hehehe. Good example. Because you ARE one.
Good night all. A pleasure.
Gay marriage is going to be a reality.
Let that sink in.
See? It doesn’t hurt anyone. You don’t make laws of man against things that don’t hurt anyone.
Nathan I am trying to have more respect for your faith.
But it is YOUR faith.
I guess you might feel that you are failing God if you allow kfg to go ahead in what you see as sin. You are called to be a messenger. I get that. You percieve you as protecting kfg from her sin and trying to “save” her. I get that too. You probably also feel that a nation that “turns from God” is in trouble. I get that too.
You are not going to win this one Nathan. And I sorta don’t know why it bothers you so.
As I recall, your faith is in predestination? Why not just figure that kfg and I and others are NOT AMONG the predestined? Live and let live. Let God sort it out.
But JR, then he wouldnt get brownie points (heckuva job brownie) with the righteous reverends joe, terry, fred, pat, jerry, etc.
He doesnt give a damn about anyone’s soul. Just the glorification of terry, joe and fred. And what fills their collection plates.
Praise god and pass the ammunition.
Live and let live. Let God sort it out.
I think it’s kill ‘em all, let God sort them out
;-)
I rather like my version better Julie.
You may judge Nathan a bit harshly kfg. I’m affording him that he is acting in the interest his faith. Sad thing is his faith does not seem to afford him a like way of thinking…..tolerance I mean.
Kay Bailey Hutchison’s office says “no Christian” believes everything they read in the Bible, and agrees that the amendment is a distractionby John in DC – 6/05/2006 05:06:00 PM
Tsk, tsk, tsk. I just got the following email from an AMERICAblog reader who just called Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s office – she’s a Republican Senator from Texas who is divorced.
“John, I live in Dallas and just got off the phone with Kay Bailey Hutchison’s staff. The person who took my question said that even though the Bible might say that a woman who is divorced and then remarries is an adulterer, no Christian really believes that.
So, the Bible is really just a quaint notion, sorta like the Geneva Conventions. I will swear under oath that KBH rep said that.
When I asked about why this marriage amendment is even being considered amidst the other enormous crises we’re dealing with, she said she agreed with me. So, KBH is divorced but doesn’t believe what the Bible says about it.”
Why not just separate the legal structures from the ecclesiastical? Establish the legal ‘union’ entity as the sole legal framework with ‘marriage’ not appearing anywhere in Caeser’s laws. Allow the various legal protections flow to any couple regardless of orientation. Leave marriage (along with baptism, annointing the dead, etc) to the Church.
I dont usually like to shill, but there is just too much good stuff here about the hypocricy of the religious right, the republicans, and the insanity of this constitutional amendment.
If you are strong enough to read it, the good stuff is here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com
Ben, that would make WAY too much sense.
Besides, it wouldnt drive the religious base to the polls.
They love to be afraid they will be forced to accept gay marriage.
Oh heck, they just love to be afraid. Period. We are just the latest boogy man.
Before I jump in on the marriage ammendment issue, I have to post this.
When you watch this video, be sure to pay attention to what’s going on over GW’s left shoulder (right side of the screen and behind him), but listen to what he’s saying. You’re gonna love it!
TEE HEE
http://www.bangedup.com/post.php?media=6157
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060605/ap_on_bi_ge/bernanke_economy
Do you think this might be the reason bush needs us to look at the bright and shiney object of gay marriage?
Tony was asked about Bush’s speech on the Marriage Amendment today and got into a little trouble. A man such as the White House Press Secretary should know something about civil rights one would imagine.
Raw Story: Tony Snow signaled that Bush considers an amendment barring same-sex marriage a “civil rights” matter, then stumbled when asked to define civil rights…
Q You mentioned civil rights. Are you comparing this to various civil rights measures which have come to the Congress over the years?
MR. SNOW: Not — well, these — it –
Q Is this a civil right?
MR. SNOW: Marriage? It actually — what we’re really talking about here is an attempt to try to maintain the traditional meaning of an institution that has maintained one meeting for — meaning for a period of centuries. And furthermore –
Q And you would equate that with civil rights?
MR. SNOW: No, I’m just saying that I think — well, I don’t know. How do you define civil rights?
Q It’s not up to me. Up to you.
What Ben? Actually SOLVE the problem?
Nah can’t happen. Don’t wanna lose those hot button issues. Then there is also that little tolerance thing.
This amendment has already lost. It is what it was supposed to be; a gin up for the base that doesn’t really change anything.Actually, the rabid right might have more to gain by it being legal. Then they could use it for a wedge issue for the next 30 years as they have abortion.
kfg? Am I invited to your wedding?
Is Nathan?
“Here, here!” Ben. But, oh no, we couldn’t have it a ‘union.’
Nathan,
“Homosexuality is a sin by anyone who does it, forever. I am not saying different than that.”
Which really got me to thinking. Was the Bible written to give people the right to pass judgement on what others are doing? I know what you’ll say, that you aren’t judging anyone, when, in truth, you are. You and many others have made yourselves the deciders because of some scripture from the Bible.
What I believe is that the Bible was written as a guidebook for each person to follow for him or herself. Doesn’t each person have the right to choose between ‘good and evil?’ Isn’t that why Jesus Christ spoke to as many as he could, so that each could hear him?
And just how many times is homosexuality mentioned in the Bible? I’ve asked you before, but perhaps you missed the question.
kfg? am I invited to the bachelorette party? (gotta be more fun J R!)
;^)
Nathan, how can the Bible have not been edited when it is common knowledge that King James did just that? Not only was it edited for words, some was completely removed.
heheheheh. If we ever have a bachelorette party, or a wedding, you are invited.
I wouldnt want to offend nathan’s sensibilities with all that love and all…
hee hee RD
Translation, we dont need no stinkin’ translation.
Did you see what Steven Colbert said this weekend?
“God wrote (the Bible) in English for a reason: So it could be taught in our public schools.”
heeheheh.
someone else said on another blog, that the KJV of the bible was good enough for her because it was good enough for jesus….
Oh please, it was the Dems in California that put this on the ballot, not Republicans. To blame this fight on the R’s is pure crap.
Hell ya, Take all dem faggots an queers an put em all in da same place, like that there california place. We kin fence off da hole state en let em bugger each udder till the cows come home, or them mexicants take back the state ta mexico. Then we haves ourselves a real Amerika, filled with god fearin, white folk, like da bible say. Dats what I’m a talkin bout.
For once blow, you are correct. I dont know about California, but we have our very own DINO, Jan Pauls from Hutch.
You know Jan “Defense of Marriage” Pauls? The one who stomped out of the state dem committee meeting in March 2004? The one who had a hissy fit in the media when the lgbt caucus was allowed to make a presentation at the convention?
That “democrat” Jan Pauls? The best republican representative hutchinson EVER had?
That one?
NO INCUMBENTS
Why thanks farmergirl, hugs and kisses to you, too. Does No Incumbents include Kathleen?
“Those laws were written for a specific people during a specific time, not for everyone forever‚”.I am glad we agree on that Nathan, often Leviticus is sighted as the basic for opposition to not only gay marriage but to homosexually in general. As justification to “Christian activism” against both, I point out exactly what you just did. And I am told if God said it to one people he said it to all. I stress more to the point that the laws of the Bible are directed to the Christian, if you become a Christian that is when it become relevant.
It would, blow, if the republicans could run someone other than wingnuts.
I’d just about vote for a yellow dog other than governor leadership, but unfortunately, big jim and susan dont even rise to the level of yellow dog. And the rest of the pack? Puleese.
Ahh, it would, but it doesn’t. Didn’t think so :-)
The Old Testament Law was really interesting in the way God protected his people. The ceremonial washing and removing dead people, etc. were healthy things to do in a day when man did not even know what germs were. There were also rules against things like homosexuality which was good for a warring nation that had soldiers camped out together for months at a time. If you study the Law.. everything seemed to be designed to either protect God’s people or to Worship God.Today, we have a lot more understanding, and many of the ceremonial laws are no longer necessary, the laws about festivals apply only to Jews, and the moral laws are summed up in the 10 commandments. I don’t know what God thinks of homosexuality today… Jesus never mentioned it. It’s not for me, but, as writerdog said.. the Biblical “rules” only apply to those who accept Christ. It is better to be a channel of God’s grace than a stumbling block between another man and his God.
The marriage amendment is not only divisive, but discriminatory. It closes minds and hearts to the work of the Father, and the faithful should reject it because IMHO that’s what Jesus would do.
Why is this discussion about biblical law? I was under the impression that our nation was ruled by the Constitution. If you wish to live by biblical law, go ahead; nothing’s stopping you! Of course, if you want to force everybody else to live according to your interpretation of biblical law, then maybe you don’t belong in a secular society and should go somewhere else. I’m sure you can find a nice desert island someplace where you can rule over all the people you can attract!
Jed…I believe it was brought up by Ben Huie about the 15th post in this thread……..
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/
Scroll down to the “Hate the Homos Day” part to see how the bush family holds the moral high ground, unlike us dirty queers.
Farm Gal,Of course it’s you queers that inspire those good christian conservatives to sin; they certainly aren’t anywhere near creative enough to think up such pleasures on their own!
hee hee Jed.
When some ignorant redneck askes me what we DO with each other, I just look at him and say “the same things you do, only longer and better”.
hehehehehe
Everybody ready? It’s “Bread and Circuses,” Day Two. Woohoo!
Or, “Fiddling While Rome Burns,” or “Strumming While New Orleans Drowns.”
NOW can we impeach the motherfucker(s)?
And here’s a nice set of questions that the folks over at AmericaBlog sent out for constituents to ask their representatives who support amending the Constitution, and the response of one Senator’s staff.
*******************************
AMERICAblog reader Bill writes in about his phone call to Senator Crapo’s office (R-ID) this afternoon:
Q: Is Senator Crapo in favor of traditional marriage?A: Yes he is, he’s a cosponsor of the bill.
Q: He is? Can you tell me if he masturbates?A: I could not tell you that.
Q: Can you tell me, do you masturbate?A: I cannot tell you that either.
Q: Can you tell me, does he commit sodomy, analingus, cunnilingus or fellatio?A: What is the purpose of this questioning?
Q: It’s regarding his views on traditional marriage.A: Okay, he supports the bill.
Q: Yes, but could you tell me does he commit sodomy?A: I could not give you an answer on that.
Q: Is he willing to pledge that he has not or will not commit sodomy?A: I could not answer that.
Q: Has he ever had sex before or outside of marriage?A: Again, sir, what is the point of this questioning?
Q: It’s regarding traditional marriage and how far his support goes.A: Any one of those questions I could not answer.
Q: Have you ever had sex outside of marriage?A: Again, I will not answer that.
Q: It’s nobody’s business, right?A: That’s right.Q: Okay, thank you.**********************************
stevegilliard.blogspot.com
Jed – I would go further than KFG and say that the whole amendment is based on the RR’s desire to enshrine their version of scripture into the US Constitution.
Ben Huie, word.
And here’s a bit of T.S. Eliot for the GOP members of the Senate, on this most craven day of their posturing and preening.
*******************************
The Hollow Men (1925)T.S. Eliot
We are the hollow menWe are the stuffed menLeaning togetherHeadpiece filled with straw. Alas!Our dried voices, whenWe whisper togetherAre quiet and meaninglessAs wind in dry grassOr rats’ feet over broken glassIn our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossedWith direct eyes, to death’s other KingdomRemember us — if at all — not as lostViolent souls, but onlyAs the hollow menThe stuffed men.
http://www.cs.umbc.edu/~evans/hollow.html
Ben,Of course it is, and in so doing would subvert the intent of both the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers. These people need to go start their own country rather than muck up ours! I understand there’s a vacancy in the Guyana jungle they could use.
Heh, CF–
The right-wing only care if the dead are people like them. Just mention Luke Tiahrt’s suicide for instance and endure the howls of outrage and threats against your person.
Kids in Iraq? Oh well, that’s war. You gotta break a few eggs . . . Nothing to see here.
Farm Gal,I honestly don’t care what you do with each other- if it makes you both happy, that’s good enough for me!
Farm Gal,Oh, and be careful about saying that you do anything similar to what they do. I’ve known a few, and what some of ‘em do to chickens, you wouldn’t believe!
lmao jed, yeah, and WE are the perverted ones, heheheheh
and this copy from Newsweek, just to illustrate why “act-ee-vist” judges are so hated by the republicans….
“Last week New York’s highest court heard arguments that the state must allow gay couples to wed.
A similar case in New Jersey was argued in February. Decisions could come later this summer.
At the same time, judges recently struck down 2004 bans from Georgia, Ohio and Nebraska.
“It’s just a matter of time before the other shoe falls,” says Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. “This is not an issue you can take a pass on.” For politicians and activists, that may be true. But average voters might do exactly that.”
The only thing standing between democracy and theocracy are the courts. The republicans and the religious wingnuts dont just want to control the courts, like they already do, they want to wipe them off the planet.
I mean hell, even THEIR OWN judges are a threat to them. How DARE they interpret the constitution.
Doesnt the judiciary know, that job is up to terry, joe, fred, pat, etc. The four horsemen of hate.
Now THERE is real constitutional genius.
hehehe
The R.P. is SO rude today I cant even excerpt it here.
So for a roll-on-the-floor-laughing kind of look at outed gay republicans, click here:
http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Farm Gal,”I mean hell, even THEIR OWN judges are a threat to them. How DARE they interpret the constitution.”
Actually, that is the problem- interpreting the constitution, or as it is known in some circles, “that scrap of paper!” The leadership of the religious nationalists is fully aware of the massive conflict between the Constitution and their agenda, and they’re not about to give up their agenda!
Well jed, why should they give up their agenda?
It is SO MUCH easier for everyone else to just cave in to their tantrums and give up on the constitution!
Farm Gal,That’s what we’re here for!
Instead of the piecemeal approach that the religious right is currently using to taking away our rights, I suggest that they work on the constitutional amendment that they really want. If they simply change the 1st Amendment so that Christianity is established as the official state religion then all of their problems would be solved. It is like one stop shopping for all your theocracy needs – pro choice, queers, evolution education and the Da Vinci Code all gone in one fell swoop.
Why not just do away with all rights and proclaim a dictatorship?
Heheh RD. It is easier to use 750 signing statments and tapes from ossama!
“If they simply change the 1st Amendment so that Christianity is established as the official state religion then all of their problems would be solved.”
Scott, that would be like dropping the frog into boiling water, and, well, the frogs here kinda like the nice warm feeling they are getting in their slowly heating water…
Scott,They don’t need no stinking constitution; they got a bible, and an interpretation!
Nice…
More of the same old lies, distortions, and bashing of Christianity.
Nathan,If you christians would clean up your act, I’m sure most of us christian-bashers would gladly fall silent.
Does anyone but me wonder if values boy sits in on the WE editorial meetings?
Or does he operate independently? I mean, independently other than shilling for the taliban.
I would love to be a fly on the wall when he starts spouting his crap in front of the real journalists.
How can phillip post a thread like this, comment on the term “values” as used with values boy, (thank you phillip) and then look at that guy, masquerading as a writer, across the table?
I would love to be a fly on the wall. But then, maybe there is no discussion or dissent at all. Maybe the nazi bosses at the we have sent down the word from Olympus.
“Leave values boy alone! He is god’s own messenger, and besides, terry, joe and fred will not be happy if you pick on him”.
Hee hee. If I were a REAL journalist? I would be TOTALLY offended by the publishing of values boy. Acting like he is a real writer when they have a whole STAFF of professionals. Then they bring in an amature like values boy and try to pass him off as credible?
Yep, if I were a REAL editorial writer for the WE, I would be incensed.
But then, that’s just me.
HelloNice site! Wery Good! (Sry for my bad englesh)