July 14, 2004

• that is good news.
• I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere (I didn't read the other thread), but there are those who say this vote was a way to identify and therefore purge non-religious right republicans.
• But they haven't actually voted yet, have they? It seems premature to celebrate just yet.
• The institution of marriage must be protected! Since procreation is the purpose of marriage, having children should be made mandatory and divorce must be made a federal felony.
• But they haven't actually voted yet, have they? It seems premature to celebrate just yet. The Republicans don't want to. The Bushies thought this was going to be a wedge issue that they could use against Democrats. It turned the other way around. The Dems want to put the vote on the floor.
• The institution of marriage must be protected! Since procreation is the purpose of marriage, having children should be made mandatory and divorce must be made a federal felony. Hey! I didn't know that Rick Santorum was a member is this community.
• Well, if that's true, I suggest you all get out the vote for senators that agree with your stance on this issue. And, if they purge non-religious republicans, might that not decrease their base? I'm sure there are a lot of them that represent the opinion of non-fundamentalist republicans who are relatively liberal on this issue. But even if they did get it through the Senate next time, a constitutional amendment is a tricky thing to pull off. While the neo-cons might be able to puff up their chests and finger their "I'm a right wing wonder 'cause I voted for the Bible" buttons, and, maybe get re-elected, the untimate burden for an amendment falls on the ability of the states to ratify it. So, if you've not been politically active in the past, and if you think this is a crock of sh*t, look to the rules in your state for ratifying an amendment, and campaign among your friends who previously thought voting was too boring to actually give it a try this time, and next, and next. Passing, or not passing, it won't affect GWB's personal chances for 4 years from now (which are nil, assuming he wins in the next election and would have served the maximum 2 terms), since it's something of a six year effort. But getting the local and federal politicos in place in the future might mean that we don't have to wait for a Supreme Court decision years form now to tell us whether it was even constitutions.
• no "s" but "al".
• Social threads shows current teens and college age American support gay marriage and civil unions. They have to pass it now. ASAP. Let's be honest, this amendment doesn't stand a chance in hell. Bush just handed the Democrats a baseball bat to hit the Republicans over the head with. So much for building a base.
• They know they don't have the votes, but they're pushing it anyway to make it a campaign issue- Bush is for good old traditional marriage, Kerry and democrats are against it. See here for reasons and quotes. Kind of like the Clinton impeachment- knew they didn't have the votes, but did it anyway to help beat Gore. In their simplest form, American politics work like this: Republicans want what's good for the rich and bad for the middle class and poor- which most voters are. So they need to appeal to puritanism, religon, faux patriotism, etc to get people to vote against their own best interests. And it's getting harder and harder for them to pull off. For all the talk about how "conservative" the American people are, the last time a Republican got more votes for president was 1988.
• Hey! I didn't know that Rick Santorum was a member is this community. I neglected to mention that adultery, a stain upon the sacred nature of marriage, shall be punished by a public whipping at a joint session of Congress. Jerry Falwell will administer.
• Hey! I didn't know that Rick Santorum was a member is this community. I neglected to mention that adultery, a stain upon the sacred nature of marriage, shall be punished by a public whipping at a joint session of Congress. Jerry Falwell will administer.
• I neglected to mention that adultery, a stain upon the sacred nature of marriage, shall be punished by a public whipping at a joint session of Congress. Jerry Falwell will administer. That sounds like good Monkey sex. Yummy :)
• Well, if the purging thing true, I suggest you all get out the vote for senators that agree with your stance on this issue. And, if they purge non-religious republicans, might that not decrease their base? I'm sure there are a lot of them that represent the opinion of non-fundamentalist republicans who are relatively liberal on this issue. But even if they did get it through the Senate next time, a constitutional amendment is a tricky thing to pull off. While the neo-cons might be able to puff up their chests and finger their "I'm a right wing wonder 'cause I voted for the Bible" buttons, and, maybe get re-elected, the untimate burden for an amendment falls on the ability of the states to ratify it. So, if you've not been politically active in the past, and if you think this is a crock of sh*t, look to the rules in your state for ratifying an amendment, and campaign among your friends, who previously thought voting was too boring, to actually give it a try this time, and next, and next. Passing, or not passing, it won't affect GWB's personal chances for 4 years from now (which are nil, assuming he wins in the next election and would have served the maximum 2 terms), since it's something of a six year effort. But getting the local and federal politicos in place in the future might mean that we don't have to wait for a Supreme Court decision years fromm now to tell us whether it was even constitutional.
• path: The neoconservatives are not, generally, the portion of the Republican party who are for this; quite the contrary, I would suggest. This is something that would be finding favour amongst the "nostalgia for an age that never existed" conservative crowd and the religious bigots in the party. This isn't a wedge issue that's working, because it's as divisive within the Republican party as it is in the US generally; the neoconservatives tend toward social libertarians domestically, so they have to hold their noses to support this; US Likudniks who have moved to the Republican party based on it's embrace of the Israeli right mostly aren't the religious right; a large chunk of post 9/11 Republican support is based around nationalism and perceptions of strength in foreign and defense policy; and Bush probably has a bunch of the so-called Reagan Democrats, who are characterised as social liberals/economic conservatives (how "borrow and spend" can be considered conomic conservatism is beyond me). Heck, think about the US conservatives here on MoFi. You think this makes the Republican party more or less attractive to someone like Fes? It has the potential to be the straw that breaks the camel's backs for the more liberal wings of the Republican party.
• For Americans opposed to the proposed ammendment, the ACLU has a very quick form where you can fax your representative.
• Wasn't part of the reason Bush pushed so strongly for this because he know a constitutional amendment didn't have a chance in hell? It was an easy way to throw a bone to his religious right base without actually doing anything.
• rodgerd, enlighten me. You say the neo-consrvative aren't for the amendment.It's my impression they are. And, the neo-conservatives, from a US perspective, are pretty much the religious right, as far as I kow.
• I hope you're right rogerd. If you are, then this could be the flipside of the dixi-crats becoming Republicans.
• The recent cover story from Milwaukee's Shepherd Express elucidates the methods behind the GOP's madness... A Republican senior statesman recounts how the Republican Party was hijacked by the radical right:

  ...The campaigns were no longer pitched to the general ideas and issues that had been Republican territory during the era of Republican governors Rennebohm, Kohler and Knowles. Instead, the campaigns were pitched to what R.J. Johnson, a former director of the [Wisconsin GOP], called "the wedges." "What you do," he said, "is put together enough wedges or ideological segments to get to over 60% of the votes needed to win, and then you target the campaigns to these segments individually using mass marketing techniques. You add up the anti-taxers, the pro-lifers, the gun owners and whomever else you need. When you get the critical mass, you do polls to find what they want, and focus groups to find out how to appeal to them. You really emulate the marketing techniques of the people selling colas and beer. You don't need everyone to buy your product/candidate, 51% will do." And that's how hired guns, marketing, money and campaigning to one's base of sure-voters while ignoring the mushy general interest came to dominate politic campaigns.

  It's an excellent article; highly recommended reading if you've been wondering how and why the republican party has become so fucked up in recent years.
• path - just to nitpick for a moment, but by definition a Constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot overturn a Constitutional amendment on any grounds. That's why it's so hard to get them passed in the first place.
• For something to go down it has be off the ground in the first place.
• path: Neoconservative generally refers to a movement that has its genesis in the owrk of Irving Kristol; a significant number are people who were stupid about Marxism and the like when younger, and are now stupid about various right wing ideologies now. It's more about American triumphalism and echos of Manifest Destiny that the Puritan forefathers, and while Kristol kicked it off it's as much guys like Christopher Hitchens now. You can find a chunk of one of Kristol's essays with critique here.
• "There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage..." Yes. Finally my plans are coming to fruition. Next, I will work on getting everyone to hate America. Tinfoil hats all around! Hey! I didn't know that Rick Santorum was a member is this community. I wish I could remember who said that "Rick Santorum is Latin for 'asshole.'" And rodgerd is right. Technically the neocons are former liberals/centrists who defected during the Reagan years. David Brock's book (I know, he's a douchebag) gives a pretty good brief history of this. Many of them are (or were) culturally liberal to moderate. However, more of them seem to be embracing the religious right lately, probably because they see it as politically advantageous. Of course, that's my perception, and I hardly have my finger on the pulse of contemporary conservatism.
• 50 votes
• meanwhile, what about same-sex ballroom dancing, for crying outloud! this will weaken the institution of the cha-cha! (nytimes, reg required, yadda yadda)
• same-sex ballroom dancing. Registraton not required with this link. People, use the New York Times Link Generator. This gives you the Userland code that doesn't require registration. Must I tell you everything. Even monkeys would know ... well, maybe not.
• This is all that's in the Senate Record. They just introduced the bill. I guess you had to be there to experience all the exciting that is our government in action. And I mean that from the very bottom of my heart. CSPAN rules!

  ``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. ``This Article may be cited as the `Federal Marriage Amendment'. ``SECTION 2. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT. ``Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.''. By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. DASCHLE, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. AKAKA, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. WYDEN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. INHOFFE, Mr. LAUTTENBURG, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. DODD, Mr. SMITH, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. JOHNSON, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. CCCAIN, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. BURNS, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. BROWNBACK):

• Hey, check out who's hanging out with Rick Santorum.
• Mr. LIEBERMAN: Oh for heaven's sake, just join the religious bigot wing of the Republican party, already.
• How ironic that he's showing his support of banning gay marriage while wearing what is arguably the gayest jacket in history.
• Haley at Tacitus has a good post how the issue is tearing up the GOP from within. As a Democrat all I have to say is thank you George Bush!
• The Capital Times: "President Bush is a bigot."

  Why is he attempting to demean the country's most important document by smearing it with an official sanction of discrimination? Out of respect for the president and his office, we suggest that he is a bigot. The alternative would be to suggest that he is a political cynic who continues to push an amendment to the Constitution that will never be enacted - in part because key senators from his own party oppose the amendment - in order to gain political advantage. If he is a cynic, then he is also a fool. Trying to whip up anti-gay bigotry in Wisconsin, which more than two decades ago was the first state to enact significant gay rights legislation, is politically inane.

• Funny because it's true. (For most people, at least.) via #mefi