November 08, 2004

• Nuremberg Laws... Nuremberg Laws...
• That Rove, what a scamp. This provides raw meat for the Bush faithful to knaw and a domestic distraction for the Dems while the Empire continues to raze and plunder abroad. Makes me want to put on a Wagner CD.
• xhammerboy...if you're going to do the same post on mefi AND mofi, at least change the headline... deja vu all over again going from on to the other! :)
• Not fair, HuronBob, he had "Here we go" here and "Here we go again" there 20 minutes later. As a repeat offender at dupe postings, I thoroughly approve of the way he did it.
• I'd support gay marraige but I look too good in women's clothing. Like Charles Barkley.
• Wait, he still cares about this? He does know he can't run for president again, right?
• I shall be interested to see how this gets spun. Some local right wingers are so desperate to have the Republicans be on their side they're engaging in some pretty disingenious dismissals of Bush's commitment on this issue (because they don't actually want to line up with religious bigots erecting Nuremburg Laws). This pretty much knocks the idea this is something forced on Bush, that he'll quietly stall/discard (like eagan with abortion), for six.
• I'll never post on MeFi again! ;-)
• Yeah Bob, some of us no longer check the mothership. Sorry if you are not amused.
• mathowie pretty much summed up my thoughts on the post already.
• Won't happen.
• You know, being single, I have no wish to marry, but things like this nearly drive me to tears. I know that people exist who hate me merely for having been born, but this really drives it home. I sit here typing filled with a sense of dread. My president, the man who—though I voted against him—leads my country, is trying to enshrine into our constitution a legal, sanctioned, declaration of me as a second-class citizen. What's next? Will I be declared only 3/5s of a human being? I can tell when I'm not wanted, and boy does it hurt.
• I shouldn't have "double-posted", but I disagree with the reasons for the MeFi deletion. This isn't an issue we've talked to death before, this is proof positive that Bush intends to make his second term as divisive and hellish as possible. Also, an aide? This is Karl Rove talking about what the president "absolutely" must do. Karl Rove saying something means more to me than the president's word. If the president said it, I would almost want to wait for Rove or Cheney to confirm it.
• I can tell when I'm not wanted, and boy does it hurt. It sure does.
• "Rove said Bush would ``absolutely'' push the Republican-controlled Congress for a constitutional amendment, which he said was needed to avert the aims of ``activist judges'' who would permit gay marriages."
• Re the "double post": this is Monkeyfilter, that other place is MetaFilter. Posting on that other does not make this a double post. Not everyone here reads MetaFilter, and even those who do may appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on an issue if they don't have MeFi user number. In fact, several of our folks with id's on both purposely post the same link to both just to give those of us without MeFi membership a chance to voice our opinions. That's been appreciated by most of us. And, HuronBob, calm down a bit. The tenure of MoFi is a lot more laid back than MeFi. We're glad to have you here, but our level of "self policing" is a lot less anal. Take a deep breath or two, put on your Hawaiian shirt, strum your ukulele, and enjoy the mai tais. Or, cockpunch.
• I agree with path - I don't read metafilter, enjoy the more laidback discussion here, and this link was news to me. Ominous, foreboding news to me...
• Gays should have their own union but it is not marriage. They could come up with a new term like 'Garriage.'
• I promise not to suggest "bondage".
• These nasty little pricks aren't going to waste a moment, are they, now that they've got a "mandate" and "political capital" to "spend"? The election isn't even a week behind us, the post-mortem's far from complete, and already they're focussing on the crowd-pleasers that will be used to distract attention from the truly urgent issues this country faces. I vividly remember talking with a friend on December 12, 2000, imagining how bad things could get in four years. We thought we were going a bit overboard, yet four years later things are far worse than we imagined then, in nearly every possible way. I grew up gay in the sixties, not an easy thing to do; Stonewall gave me my first glimpse of hope, and the seventies gave me my first taste of what freedom and equality would someday be like. The eighties were all about AIDS, and watching friends and lovers die while a Republican administration looked away. The nineties, well, the nineties saw "gay" become something of a pathetically mainstream commodity. It's apparent that this decade will, thanks to the Bush administration, be one of neo-marginalization and the "moral" backlash that comes with it. This crap, to me, is about about so much more than whether or not I can marry -- so much so, that that's almost beside the point. It's about reversing -- consciously reversing -- the progress I've seen over a lifetime. The anger I feel now is nothing compared to the anger I'm going to feel over the next few years, that much I can tell already.
• I agree with the idea that posting on Meta and Mofi does not make it a double post, never felt it has. I just don't feel like this was anything that Monkeys can't read in the regular news, and I don't usually come to Monkeyfilter to do that. But carry on, I'm heading over to this thread which could not have come sooner.
• Wait, he still cares about this? He does know he can't run for president again, right? Ha! Wait till after the midterm elections. Allow me to consult my crystal ball. Slipped into the constitutional amendment to allow the Schwartzengoverner to run for POTUS will be a clause repealing term limits. Upon its pass (because, c'mon, everybody loves Kindergarten Cop) Bush will run as Arnold as his vice prez. After his third term, in which he would have repealed abortion, banned gay marraige, and outlawed lattes, Bush will retire to allow Arnold to run for prez along with . After winning office Rumsfeld will asassinate Arnold with using the Touch of Death Technique, Swan Style. Zombie Reagan will then assume the presidency and proceed to do nothing but play pool and snack on minority whips. Dick Cheney will still run the country. Dubya got burned with that whole "losing the popular vote" thing in 2000. Now that he's got a 3% mandate he's ready to spend some politcal capital. To quote the prez: "Fool me, can't get fooled again."
• Zombie Reagan. Arnold will then be asassinated and Reagan will (again) assume office. Dick Cheney will continue to run the country.
• That's some spooky shit. ;)
• How about public executions for those who dare even question the idea of legislated morality? You could behead the unbelievers in baseball stadiums all over the country every Sunday. American Taleban. Death to the Infidel.
• OK.... to those of you who thought I was being too critical regarding the "double post", please not the little smilie at the end of my original comment. My intent was to express amusement, not to be critical. Ah well, it's been a tough week for everyone!
• It is an important function of government to deny equal treatment and access under the law to particular groups of people. Good for Bush.
• Hey, this is my first comment on MoFi - I'm more of a lurker - but I just gotta say, President Bush is a complete fucking joke! If only you Americans had an election coming up, you could vote him out or something.
• Wait a second - ah, shit.
• Keep in mind that "proposing" a constitutional amendment to make a law that is so prejudicial on its face and actually *changing* the constitution to reflect are two very different things. [the rest of this is shamelessly lifted from here] There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used. The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd). The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about. Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority. It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. [back to me] It is my understanding that anti-gay marriage bans were approved in 11 states. To amend the Constitution, however, 38 state ledgislatures would have to pass these amendments, after 67 Senators and 288 Representatives had done the same; Republicans, even after winning a few extra seats, hold about 55 and 230 or so, respectively, in the Senate and House. So unless several dozen Democrats, as well as the Log Cabin Republicans, decide to vote to amend the constitution to preclude gay marriage, it simply isn't going to happen. I am confident, as well, that the state laws against gay marriage will be challendged almost immediately, and likely found wanting from a civil rights standpoint. State legislatures may propose any damn thing they want, but the Supreme Court (as well as any one of the appellate courts on the way to DC) may dispose with impunity.
• Just so everyone knows, I will be adding extra 'D's to various words at random for the remaindder of the dayd.
• I am confident, as well, that the state laws against gay marriage will be challendged almost immediately, and likely found wanting from a civil rights standpoint. Does it disturb any conservatives, even a little bit, that there's a good chance that the United States is about to constitutionally re-define some of our citizens as second-class? Because it is hard to imagine anything more "activist" (judicially or otherwise), radical, or essentially un-conservative than that. Andrew Sullivan said it much more succinctly than I can manage.
• [pokepokeOW!] I would contest the term "good chance," since it seems that, based on the manner in which the constitution is changed and the votes required to make that change, that there's the chances are far better that such a redefining will not take place at the national level, but yes, it is disturbing to those conservatives who believe in the primacy of civil liberties. However, this particular one has faith that the courts will eventually prevail against these laws that have already been passed. This will take time, of course, but to me it seems inevitable.
• Better still, in my opinion, would be for the proponents of "gay marriage" to rethink their goals and, more importantly, their terms. To me, the question is one of legal contract status - gay partners are currently prohibited from enjoying many of the legal aspects of traditional marriage. While the term "marriage" is fraught with historical and religious connotations that evidently hit hot buttons with many, to reframe the argument as a movement for homosexuals to be allowed to enter into a contractual relationship that mimics the legal structure of marriage would, I think, go farther along the path toward general acceptance and eventual success, since it would avoid the moral questions and rest on a strictly legal/contractual basis.
• Fes, I assume, then, that there is very little chance of getting this proposed amendment through. People around Busch must know this, so what is the motivation behind the BuschCo talking about it all the time? Take attention away from something else?
• based on the manner in which the constitution is changed and the votes required to make that change As someone who is also from the United States, I'm quite familiar with that process. Unlike you, I feel that even the current situation with regard to civil rights in 11 more states would have seemed unimaginable even a few years ago, and find only the coldest comfort in the fact that the votes of a handful of Senators and a few more state legislators are all that protects us from this radical step. As a lifelong fiscally-conservative Democrat who has on some rare occasions voted GOP, I ask this: if it didn't take a ballooning deficit, will it take even this attempted redefinition of some key issues that conservatives hold dear: property rights like the freedom to will property to another, rights of association in terms of hospital visitation, the right to conduct business in the form of contracts between two adults, and so on to cause some Republicans to speak up? [pokepokeOW!] Sorry if you perceive that as a poke in the (eye?, giblets?, other?). Quite unintentional in any case, and truly not meant personally. But I wonder if perhaps the discomfort is more than just an unintentional, online, textual poke in the giblets to anyone in OH, VA, etc., the homes of the "Super DOMAs", if they are in the hospital, or writing a will, and wondering if they have any rights, and finding that their only hope is a few votes in Congress.
• Skrik: I don't know. My first guess would be a sop to anti-gay voters: if the statistics on people voting for Bush on the basis of "Moral Values" is true AND those moral values include support for anti-gay legislation, this announcement could easily be a bone to those voters, a way of saying thanks and pretending that Bush is actually going to follow up on the issue. The memory of the American voter is remarkably short: it could easily be that the administration believes that most people who are anti-gay do not understand the rather onerous procedure required to actually change the constitution, while at the same time Bush may *say* anything he wants, the time required to try and do this is such that those voters who are behind such action will be well back into the tedium of their daily lives, and the issue itself will go back to sleep, save for in the courtrooms of those 11 states. I feel that even the current situation with regard to civil rights in 11 more states would have seemed unimaginable even a few years ago, I admit that I am not as fully schooled on this issue as many here are, but isn't that homosexuals are *not* allowed these rights the de facto situation in most states? The 11 states, from what I understand, only codified what was already the situation. and find only the coldest comfort in the fact that the votes of a handful of Senators and a few more state legislators are all that protects us from this radical step. Here, we differ, as I take significant comfort in it. The numbers of votes required to change the constitution seem to me far higher than what is conceivably attainable. Quite unintentional in any case, and truly not meant personally. It's just me goofing on a previous post of mine, think nothing of it. if they are in the hospital, or writing a will, and wondering if they have any rights, and finding that their only hope is a few votes in Congress. Well, my understanding is that (save for the will, iirc one can write anything in their will, the issue being whether others may contest it, and that is certainly not specific to homosexuals) that this is already the case, and the challenge is to that status quo, not the other way around. As for "few" votes, we are talking like 70+ in Congress, and who-knows-home-many at the state level. That seems to me a significant barrier to overcome in service of denying rights.
• isn't that homosexuals are *not* allowed these rights the de facto situation in most states? That is not the case at all. The "Super DOMAs" in places like Ohio and, earlier, Virginia, outlaw any contracts which attempt to duplicate the "benefits of marriage". Unmarried couples, straight and gay, have long used contracts like wills and power of attorney to make sure that their rights are not violated. Some municipalities have affirmed those rights. Now, in those states, those contracts between adult citizens, those local laws passed by referenda or otherwise, are void. The easy label "gay marriage", the videoclips of same-sex couples, that's not what we're talking about here. I can't find the ABA posting on the subject, so here's an article on the Virginia law from an admittedly interested party. After reading it, can anyone honestly say this is "conservative"?
• Keep in mind that "proposing" a constitutional amendment to make a law that is so prejudicial on its face and actually *changing* the constitution to reflect are two very different things. In my mind this moves the actions taken by Bush from the simply divisive column and puts them in the pure evil column. His goverment is deliberately enraging the population on both sides over a proposal that not only has no chance of succeeding but should horrify any member of a supposedly free society. One can only speculate on his motives but it sure is taking up news space that may otherwise have been spent covering the war on some drugs, the indefinite war against a conceptual perjorative, the enviroment, the PATRIOT ACT, the economy, the federal budget, etc, etc. PS: I wouldn't sweat the quasi double post call out xammerboy. If nothing else, as of right now the mothership has the JRuns again.
• Thomas Oliphant in Sunday's Boston Globe said it way better than I could have.
• el_hombre: much thanks for clarification and the link. The VA law, as described within, seems remarkably invasive. But that only reaffirms my faith that it, and others if they are similar, will crumble under judicial challenge. can anyone honestly say this is "conservative"? Like "liberal," the term "conservative" can mean nearly anything these days. His goverment is deliberately enraging the population on both sides over a proposal that not only has no chance of succeeding but should horrify any member of a supposedly free society. Evil is debatable, but this is common practice in politics. The concept of a "wedge" issue is a distillation of this idea, and is a mainstay of politics since people began electing leaders. And, thankfully (and sometimes maddeningly), news space is virtually inexhaustable.
• re: xammerboy's doubleup: I think it might be very interesting to compare the commentary between Mefi and Mofi in two threads that are, content wise, essentially the same! Mefi's down, but when it comes back I'm scooting over there to have a look.
• Like "liberal," the term "conservative" can mean nearly anything these days. But we both know what those terms actually mean. Are there true conservatives left? What happened to "enforce the laws already on the books"? What happenned to the idea of limiting governmental intrusions into Constitutional rights, other than gun rights? Two sentiments dead, buried, and, it would seem, quite unmourned.
• I mourn them, and vote accordingly when able. But in general I concur, the Republican party seems to have abandoned what were, in the past, core principles.
• From Oliphant: The target is homosexuality, not relationships between homosexuals Were that the amendment's proponents as honest about their hatred. As for those who believe the amendment stands no chance of passing, all eleven states voted handily not just for restricting gay marriage but for outlawing all non-het unions altogether. Several were swing or so-called "blue" states. Already the DNC has been discussing moving even further to the right to appease an intolerant electorate. Pelosi did a lot of backpedaling after 11/2. Time to pull out my dusty copy of Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here: "Every man is a king, who has someone to look down upon."
• I mourn them, and vote accordingly when able. But in general I concur, the Republican party seems to have abandoned what were, in the past, core principles. I'd challenge anyone who feels that way to make their feelings clear to their elected representatives. The courts may not do the job one would hope, especially when the real impact of the laws is not so obvious, and "activist judges" of a different stripe may feel that the obfuscation of the issue in the press provides them with cover.
• The Oliphant article states that three of the states' anti-gay votes were not as far reaching as the others: "Just for the record, the three states whose initiatives last week refer only to the granting of marriage licenses are Montana, Oregon (the one place where the vote was very close), and Mississippi. The states that used marriage as a cover to mount an assault on contractual relationships of all kinds were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah." Alex's comments on the voting percentages themselves, however, do seem accurate, which is not very heartening. Nevertheless, I still believe they will fall to constitutional challenges, and that this administration does not even remotely have the votes to enact an amendment. I'd challenge anyone who feels that way to make their feelings clear to their elected representatives I dispatched emails to that end some weeks prior to the election, and periodically do so on various subjects at odd intervals. I was unable to vote, however, for reasons that I've stated on other threads (basically, my children needed to be watched and fed, and it came down to either my wife could vote or I could, she'd already waited two hours in line to do so, so she voted. I don't know who she voted for, and haven't asked, it is her business and if she cares to tell me, so be it). But there is a limit to what one man may do in this world, my responsibilities are legion, and my time well spoken-for.
• You do your part, from what I can see. You stand up for what you believe in.
• Marriage All Married Heterosexuals in Spain Spontaneously Apply for Divorce </sarcasm>
• I hope it's not possible, that this is some sort of MacGuffin, but a lot more than 38 states voted strongly for Bush. I hadn't expected that either. What happened to this country?
• Has the ACLU spoken out against the state laws yet?
• Has the ACLU spoken out against the state laws yet? Even in Oregon, with one of the "milder" amendments just passed, it's unlear what they can do anymore. The last 3 paragraphs of this article should be the first one to read.

  "Unfortunately, we're going to have to find out on the backs of real people and real families."

• My own personal pet peeve about the gay marriage issue is that many of the "civil union" proposals seem to imply that marriage is only for religious people. I was married by a federal judge, and I'm married, dammit! I don't want to be told morally or legally that my marriage is second-class because it didn't happen in a church. That's one of the many reasons I support the right of gay Americans to get married. Fes is right, this is a wedge issue, but even as a straight woman it hits me where I live. I'd be happy if legally you had to have a judge perform a legal marriage, and anyone who needed godbothering/religious ceremonies could do what they liked about that. It seems to be an equally good way to handle the question of civil vs. religious marriage, and it gets the government out of the business of deciding which clergy should be licensed to marry people.
• I'd be happy if legally you had to have a judge perform a legal marriage, and anyone who needed godbothering/religious ceremonies could do what they liked about that. Isn't this how it works in England?