Senator Russ Feingold stormed out of a Judiciary Committee hearing on a gay marriage ban, Reuters reports. Feingold was protesting the lack of openness of the hearing and committee vote on a proposal by Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) alter the constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
Bravo to Senator Feingold to call a spade a spade and bring attention to this sham legislation the only way he could - by making a ruckus. Of course, I would rather see some sincere debate on such a weighty issue, but it is clear what Republicans are doing here.
A similar measure failed in 2004, and it will fail in the Senate again. This leads me to one conclusion - the Republican Congress, sensing that their majority is slipping away, wants to use the gay marriage bogeyman to stir up whatever votes they can. Why else would Arlen Specter (a man I usually hold in high regard) vote FOR the measure, even though he opposes it? He explains in the article that the only reason he voted for it in committee is so that it would go to the floor of the Senate (where it will be leveraged to turn out the GOP base in November).
Unfortunately, there are few Democrats with the courage to call BS on this issue, like Senator Feingold has. It's up to us to show Democrats that mainstream Americans don't want the Constitution used as a political football.
Take Action: Go to DontAmend.com, which lists a number of upcoming events that will protest amending our Constitution on this issue. Take a look and see what is happening in your area. All of these groups can use help, so visit their Web sites, attend their events, and let the Republicans know that we're not going to let them get away with inserting partisan politics in the very core of our republic!
Gee, I cant understand Senator Spector talking out of both sides of his mouth. What? is he a lawyer or something? Oh yea, he is a lawyer, maybe this is just his "single gay person" theory? It worked once, maybe he can make us all believe him again. Then he can say, "I voted for it, before I voted against it". Didnt someone else say that before about a different issue?
Posted by: steve at May 19, 2006 07:03 PMThe Republicans always raise the gay marriage issue all the time and the Dems bite on the hook. This is the best chance the Dems have had in 12 years to get their majority back in congress. Could we please please pleaaase stop talking about these types of fringe issues that only affect like 2 % of the population and concentrate more on bread and butter issues that concern the majority of Americans outside of NY City?
Every time the Democrats and liberals moan about gay marriage, Karl Rove salivates because he knows the issue is a sure loser for the party and keeps the Red State Rubes good and mad.
Posted by: Senatorfred at May 19, 2006 08:19 PMI call upon all real Americans and all clinically normal humna beings, that is, everyone who understands that marriage is a natural relationship between a man and a woman for the procreation of children, to support the Marriage Amendment. Its high time we stopped listening to the ideological foo-faw, flim-flam and folderol handed out by the Left and see same-sex marriage for what it really is - cultural deterioration that has its roots in the writings of Karl Marx. It is unnatural and un-American and, to borrow a phrase from natural science, de-volutionary.
Posted by: George Tomezsko at May 20, 2006 11:47 AMFAMILY VALUES THEOCONS AND THEIR COURTESANS
As the GOP performs their customary election year rite of pandering to the so-called Famly Values' bloc, their arms-length yet sacred coalition government partner, by offering an amendment with which to defile both gays and the constitution consider this:
A thin, multi-pierced young man with a green blaze in his hair is walking down a high school corridor. He approaches a hulking figure, in this case the school's starting defensive tackle, who is noisily slamming shut his locker.
“Hey Dude, do you know which room the gay lesbian meeting's in?"
"Yeh, go up that stairwell and turn right. You'll see it."
Neither young man gives this hallway exchange a moment's thought or reflection. The point is that, comparatively speaking, young people give less and less a fig about gay-lesbian activities, including whether or not G-L's appropriate the word marriage to consummate their emotional and contractual needs.
What exists now is that a high percentage of older voters are against gay marriage thus controlling the voting outcome on this issue. With certitude, this will change as seniors leave the voting rolls and youth join. Polling will not only confirm this trend but also actuarially divine the future year in which the majority of American voters will vote to allow gay marriage.
This whorish pandering to the TheoRight's bigotry needs may seem despicable and shallow but trollops must do what trollops must do to stay in bed with the Family Values voting bloc.
Posted by: cognitorex at May 20, 2006 12:30 PMDear Cognitorex:
Your blog is nothing more than yet another example of leftist wishful thinking with a dollop of shallow thinking thrown in. Just about every poll I've seen claims the current teen generation is much more conservative than teens were in the 1960s. And this after forty years of media hype in favor of homosexuality and the "do-your-own-thing" falvor of morality. No matter how much your side of the political spectrum tries to pass that perversion off as normal, the denial of reality upon which the whole notion of homosexual rights and marriage exists is so obvious and repellent that human nature will simply not accept it. Dream on, son, dream on. Your side's day is over and done with.
Marriage is, and has always been a union between a man and a woman.
It's no big deal if two homosexuals shack-up and live together in the same way a lot of hetero's do, but to give that union 'marriage' status would be the same as if one marries his/her dog or cat.
When are my fellow Republicans going to get it straight --- Constitutional amendments should expand the rights of individuals, not take them away! Even Barry Goldwater understood that.
Posted by: Steve at May 21, 2006 11:11 PMWhen are my fellow Republicans going to get it straight --- Constitutional amendments should expand the rights of individuals, not take them away! Even Barry Goldwater understood that.
Posted by: Steve at May 21, 2006 11:12 PMDear Steve:
To call you misguided as to the nature and purpose of government would be kind. The belief that a constitution or a government, any constitution or any government, exists to expand individual rights is nonsense. Where does that process stop? Since lefty losers like you think all morality is relative, there is no limit, according to that view of life. Whats' next? We've already declared open season on the unborn via abortion. Why don't you and your leftist buddies drop all the intellectual pretension and just say you favor a society in which everyone is allowed to do whatever he or she wants to without guilt or responsibility? Responsible citizens, and responsible public officials, fully cognizant of what would happen should that belief become widespread, will never let that happen. We've seen that future and it does NOT work. I have just four words for you, Stevie buddy: grow and up and move and on. Marriage is what is, and no (repeat NO) amount of ideological hallucinating in the name of a false view of government is going to change that.
Posted by: George Tomezsko at May 22, 2006 01:18 PMGeorge,
Your arguements are very entertaining, it is like stepping into a time machine, and listening to some (supposedly) well intentioned southern pol explain exactly why whites and black shouldn't attend the same schools, and then point to the polls that backed him.
I can't wait for you to pull out the "in my day!" rant. You're a fossil, go dig a hole and climb in.
Posted by: yt at May 22, 2006 01:49 PMGeorge, try not to forget that "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign". This inalienable principle even applies to you big guy. Stop being part of the tyranny of the majority. Peace
Posted by: JSM at May 22, 2006 02:05 PMGeorge T.
If the belief that the purpose of a consitution is to protect individual rights is childish, then I hope I never grow up.
Posted by: Steve at May 22, 2006 03:19 PMDear yt: Your ad hominem (you might want to look this up in a dictionary) response to my post is so typically liberal and so overworked to call it shop-worn would be an act of mercy. Pursuant to this matter, Dennis Praeger posted an interesting column on Town Hall today. I'll give you a small sample of its wisdom (just a small sample so as not tax your tiny liberal brain): Praeger writes that in the world of liberalism "One-word put-downs of opponents' ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual -- their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors -- liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm. This is easy to demonstrate." And Praeger then provides a list of the standard liberal put-down terms like "sexist," "racist," "homophobic," etc. By calling me a fossil, all you are doing is adding to the list. You are contributing precisely nothing to this debate.
Posted by: George Tomezsko at May 23, 2006 10:34 AMREFULGENT EPICENE RESPONDS TO CHRISTIANISM
The gorgeous, sexy gay man smiles at Jerry Falwell and says:
"Darling, Reverend, we honestly appreciate that you Christianists at least allow us to do "what we do" in the privacy of our homes."
"Likewise in the spirit of of turn-about is fair play, no pun intended, we are just tickled to have you do "what you do" in the sanctity of your churches."
Freedom is for every good citizen. Period.
Posted by: jd at May 24, 2006 04:39 PMGeorge,
Believe it or not people like Steve and other liberals actually have strong beliefs. They, unlike the Rush Limbaugh ditto heads, think for themselves. I agree whole-heartdely with Steve that: "If the belief that the purpose of a consitution is to protect individual rights is childish, then I hope I never grow up." Well said.
Posted by: Norton the Blogger at May 25, 2006 02:44 PMHoly smokes! The Left is serving up shoddy thinking in triple scoops! As far as jd goes, all I'll say is freedom, not license. There is a difference, a difference you lefties seem not to understand. As for Steve and Norton the blogger,here is a point to ponder: responsible citizenship and responsible stewardship of our constitutional system are based on the premise that it represents the rational midpoint between the extreme collectivism of Marxism and the extreme individualism of the anarchist or libertarian. As for marriage, two points are evident: 1) traditional marriage is what it is, and to deny that because a handful of sexual mutants feel discriminated against is absurd; 2) the preservation of traditional marriage is the foundation of a republic because it benefits the community by providing the best place to raise healthy, well-adjusted children, and by doing so, gives that republic a very important quality, duration through time. In case you lefties have forgotten, your views on sexuality and marriage were tried out in the Great Experiment known as Soviet Russia, and we all know how that turned out. So Citizen Hunter please take note, we traditionalists are the ones actually making noise for the Constitution. The Marriage Amendment WILL become law, perhaps not via this Congress, but it WILL become law. Bet on it.
Posted by: George Tomezsko at May 25, 2006 03:19 PMGeorge---Perhaps you would like to tell Mr and Mrs Cheney that their daughter is a mutant. As yt wrote, you are most entertaining.
Posted by: crex at May 25, 2006 07:48 PMcrex: you did not complete your thought concerning myself, so hare goes: ... most entertaining, educational, thought-provoking, and correct! Cheers, George
Posted by: George Tomezsko at May 26, 2006 03:10 PMGeorge, We are all God's children. He will judge us all when the day comes. Until then we must try and love our fellow brothers and sisters, seek forgiveness where we fail, and always strive to be make this world a better place for all.
Posted by: BW at May 26, 2006 03:48 PMWe must save the word by naming it something other than a marriage!" Here is my thoughts, please write back and let me know what you think about it.
Why A Gay Union or as they call it “Marriage
Amendment Will Always Fail!
This amendment that this government is seeking on gay legal bindings will and must always fail when it comes to the federal government. These citizen’s rights issues was and will never be able to be decided by the federal government. In the eyes of the federal government “ALL” citizen’s rights must be seen equal. I believe as most citizens believe that a “marriage” is between a man and a woman and not between a man and a man or woman and a woman. But this federal government chooses to waste money to discuss and try to make an amendment to The United States Constitution. I say a waste of money, since this issue does not require an amendment. As I sought in case number 04-CV-001 in Buffalo, NY; this federal government only needs to only come forward to call this legal binding as something other than a “marriage”. I have and will continue to say that they need to come forward and call this legal binding a “Union”.
We do not need an amendment but to get this nations government to call it a “Union” and save the money that we are spending to have these officials to discuss and vote on any amendment to this issue. It is up to this nation’s citizens to tell this government to stop spending this money for this and to put the money where it is needed: Education, the war in Iraq, and such. This issue is not worth an amendment and such have never been brought up to this level. Once, the federal government comes forward to call this legal binding as a “union” we save what we believe a marriage is and all states which votes to recognize this legal binding will have to call it as well. This is the easiest way to solve this issue and to keep this from being with us for years as the abortion issue is and will always be with us.
I say always will be with us, because the federal government was never empowered to decide citizen’s rights issues. When they start this we start to go to a socialist government and these issues will not be able to be settled because there will always be citizens that believe what the government is doing or has done is wrong, also.