Bush And The Constitution

[clocker]

Well, I suppose it was inevitable...disheartening nonetheless.
Bush has come out ( funny choice of words, eh?) in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages.

As I recall, the Constitution is strangely silent concerning the validity of opposite sex marriage, how is it reasonable to use this document to bludgeon a minority on this subject?
Oddly, I imagine that the very same folks who are most vocal about the "sanctity" of the Constitution when it comes to upholding their rights ( yes, I'm referring to gun owners), have absolutely no qualms about adding a whole new section to this, "the most perfect",document.

What I find the most distressing is that I now believe that Bush plans on making this, a most divisive yet ultimately sooo trivial, issue the centerpiece of his campaign.
A diversion, if you will, distracting us from the general inanity of his past performance.
A smokescreen to cover up the fact that his latest budget wouldn't survive the scrutiny of a 9th grade economics class...NO MENTION WHATSOEVER about the 50 or so BILLION necessary to keep us in Iraq for the next year.
Grandiose promises of social programs ( "No Child Left Behind", my ass), with, ooopsie!, no funding to implement them.
A Medicare plan that won't produce ( the disputed) benefits for several years and will, most likely, cripple coming generations with unsupportable debt.
The systematic and unrelenting dismantling of environmental protections...for example, just last week, ignoring the recommendations of TWO Bush appointed panels and overwhelming public support, Yellowstone was again opened to essentially unregulated snowmobile traffic. Oh gee, that's right...there is regulation...too bad Bush has also dismantled the Parks Service, so there's no one around to do the regulating.

Ironically, as Bush is beavering away at cutting funding for every program to preserve and protect our natural resources and historic monuments, Laura is the star of a series of national ads urging US to pony up the money.
Gosh Laura honey, LOVE to help out, but, funny thing...I'm unemployed. My job went to India.
A phenomonon which Bush's Labor Secretary wants us to believe is a "good thing".
Good if you are a CEO of a multinational corporation, maybe.

Oh well, I look forward to the next months with great anticipation.
Bush's fabled grasp of rhetoric should provide hours of amusement.

And damn! maybe we can keep the queers from further degrading the institution of marriage.

I wonder if supporters of this amendment would mind if it also prohibited adultery?

[atiVidia]

i support it!


and id like it to prohibit adultery as well


lets also remember how many buckets ofr red ink he threw onto the national bill...

what is it: 500 trillion by the end of the year???

[Busyman]

Yeah clocker and vote Nader to preserve all of that.

[Agrajag]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[clocker]

"Unless they be queer."

That part gets left out a lot....

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 22:59
"Unless they be queer."

That part gets left out a lot....

You forgot "Islamic" and "anti-government activist".

[clocker]

Talk about a minority..."the homosexual Islamic activist"...
As Jon Stewart said, a voting bloc as large as the "retarded death row Texans for Bush".

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 22:59
"Unless they be queer."

That part gets left out a lot....

Don't you hate it when people quote something and deliberately leave a bit out, because it doesn't suit their point ?

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 23:12
Talk about a minority..."the homosexual Islamic activist"...
As Jon Stewart said, a voting bloc as large as the "retarded death row Texans for Bush".

[Agrajag]

From Website

Dateline: 12/20/99

The Decision

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled today (December 20, 1999) that gay and lesbian couples must be granted the same benefits and protections given married couples of the opposite sex. The ruling has been described as the first of its kind in the nation.

Gay rights activist Scott Miller notes, "A huge victory in the state of Vermont goes a long way towards removing our second-class status as citizens."

He continues, "To mark this momentous occasion, I would like to see every national gay organization schedule their next convention in Vermont. Giving this state an influx of gay dollars is the least we could do!"

I can't say that I disagree with him. Any state that supports fundamental fairness is all right in my book.

The case that is bringing the smiles is Baker v. State, where three Vermont (two men and four women) couples were suing for freedom to marry.

In its landmark decision, the Vermont Supreme Court today ruled in favor of three same-sex couples who challenged the constitutionality of Vermont's marriage laws.

Writing for the Court, Justice Amestoy declared, "The extension of the Common Benefits Clause to acknowledge plaintiffs as Vermonters who seek nothing more, nor less, than legal protection and security for their avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship is simply, when all is said and done, a recognition of our common humanity."

The decision made no bones about the benefits marriage confers, "We hold that the state is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law."

The Court concluded that statutory benefits and protections of marriage must be extended to same-sex couples. The Court directed the legislature to remedy the discrimination. The court said the Legislature will determine whether such benefits will come through formal marriage or a system of domestic partnerships.

Under either method, the result must offer equal protections to same-sex couples as currently afforded to heterosexual married couples. The decision was unanimous.

The Plaintiffs

Holly Puterbaugh and Lois Farnham, one of the plaintiff couples, cheered the Court's ruling, noting, "We'll be celebrating our 27th anniversary together in October. We look forward to the time when we can finally make it official." Stan Baker and Peter Harrigan of Shelburne, and Nina Beck and Stacy Jolles of South Burlington, joined Farnham and Puterbaugh in challenging the State of Vermont's refusal to grant them civil marriage licenses.

Susan Murray, co-counsel for the Plaintiffs from the Middlebury law firm Langrock Sperry & Wool, stated: "It's really a win-win situation for everyone. The Court's decision will provide added security and protection to same-sex couples and their families without taking anything away from anyone else."

"This is a legal and cultural milestone," added Mary Bonauto, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, and Civil Rights Director at New England-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. "The Court recognized that same-sex couples need and deserve the same legal rights and protections other people take for granted. The Court's decision paves the way for more secure families and stronger communities."

It appears that The Pres now wishes to change your Constitution in order to outlaw Gay marriages. It would seem that he has no desire for individual states to make their own decisions in this matter. See my earlier post re the fourteenth amendment.