Bigot Bush is at it again on gay marriage!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 12:32pm

2004---gay marriage! gay marriage! gay marriage! gay marriage!

2005---tumbleweeds

2006---oh look! election year and we are up a **** creek! What to do? What to do? I know:

gay marriage! gay marriage! gay marriage! gay marriage!

"It's fresh so I'm FURIOUS!!" -- Sandra Bernhard
Bush to promote gay marriage amendment

[Calvin]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 12:35pm

He should listen to wifey. Maybe she'll slap his ugly sun-withered face.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 12:38pm

I think that Specter is more shameful. He does not even support it but voted the amendment out of committee.

[DAME]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 12:40pm

He is such a creep. If there ever was a president that needed to be impeached or eliminated. This one is it. Oh well. I did not vote for him. Those who did should be branded idiots. ( I know, I know. I am just frustrated )

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:00pm

Desperate times, desperate measures. What a dip-****. It won't get past the Senate anyway and he will look even more foolish.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:15pm

depends sueleen, you're assuming that it will come to a vote. looking at it from a purely (almost cravenly) political viewpoint, there's little chance that it will be allowed to get to the floor. however, should it get there and there's a straight party line vote, it gets defeated by not getting the 2/3 majority it needs. then, the gop has the gay marriage hammer to wield in the election.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:20pm

Well, it is worse than "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:21pm

There is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO spin for this! NONE.

You wouldn't be spinning this if it was interracial marriage being used for political playtime.

Will it come to vote? No. We know that. It's the DAMAGE that Bush is doing to gays and lesbians with this rhetoric--rhetoric which DOES have consequences even if the amendment does not.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:24pm

i wasn't spinning, jerbette. i was speaking to a comment made by sueleen. i'm not defending it, but to pretend that it will damage the president is ridiculous.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:24pm

It doesn't matter how small of a chance ther eis that it will come to a vote. I am sick and ****ing tired of being used as a god damned political pawn by the all the bigots in the republican party, and anyone who doesn't decry these actions.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:28pm

"..but to pretend that it will damage the president is ridiculous.".

LOL! He is already as damaged as he can be from all the other stupid things he has said and done. Finally, people are waking up and figuring out what he stands for, and all the polls show that they don't stand with him. The only poll he has done well in is the one naming him as the worst President of the past 60 years. I'd go further and say he is the worst in history.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:33pm

History may treat him better....

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:35pm

History has a way of putting a filter on the lens of most of our notables.
It doesn't mean he will ever be confused with being a good president, though.
I hope Mary Cheney's deal with the devil (i.e. dad) is causing her constipation.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:36pm

but that doesn't speak to the fact that gay marriage still doesn't have the majority support it needs to survive as a political issue.

once more for the cheap seats: do i agree with the way this is being done? no.

but to pretend it won't be effective for the gop is the height of foolishness. will it win any elections? not by itself, no. will it help to make sure the base turns out in november? yes. is it craven? yes. but will it help the gop? yes.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:46pm

My neighbor used to have a Bush bumper sticker on his car. The other day I saw him scraping it off...it made me happy.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:47pm

"but will it help the gop? yes."

You keep saying this as if we are supposed to calm down and think, "oh. well that makes it ok." What goal do you possess in conveying this to us dense homos?

Because we don't give a **** about your fascist party. And we don't like the fact that our personal lives are being dragged through the mud so that your fascist party can continue to pull the blinders over the people that actually are stupid enough to vote for your party in spite of the mega list of **** ups and evil doing and greed.

Updated On: 6/2/06 at 01:47 PM

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:49pm

I'm interested in what Mary Cheney's "Hoo-Hoo" has to say about this.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:52pm

Jerby, it's pointless, Papa is just one of the sheep lined up to follow the unholy shepard around.

Nothing you can say will ever get him to admit he belongs to a party full of bigots, racists and just all around evil people.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:52pm

Mry Cheney, as part of the Bourgeoisie, will be just fine. Thanks to Daddy Cheney, he will be living in Rio with daddy off their Haliburton takings with his gay wife while America burns.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:57pm

jerby, i was responding to sueleen's assertion that this would damage bush. you accused me of spinning. i responded to that. that's all. don't assume that there's always an agenda.

nice generalization there, zoney.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 1:57pm

But jrby as much as I like you, I don't understand why you are so outraged. You. You , the guy who defended Clinton and his signing of DOMA. How are DOMA and an amendment which bans gay marriage so different?




"I firmly believe that Clinton signed DADT and DOMA to prevent harsher legislation."--jrb_actor Updated On: 6/2/06 at 01:57 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 2:01pm

Because I believe that Clinton signed DOMA and DADT to PREVENT HARSHER legislation. If he had removed the ban or vetoed DADT, the Congress would have ignited harsher legislation, possibly a Constitutional Amendment. I think the same applied with DOMA. DOMA is much easier to remove than a CA which in the right environment CAN pass and that's why toying and dancing with CAs can be scary. If Congress DID vote it in, I think 38 states would vote for it as well.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 2:02pm

Big difference. One is a bill/law. One is an AMENDMENT to our Constitution.
One is an essentially worthless but potentially dangerous piece of legislation that is sort of the documented statement of what marriage is.
The second is a change to the Constitution of the United States, possibly forever defining who gets extended rights and who gets denied said rights. Discrimination. Written right there into our Constitution alongside the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps, tongue-in-cheekly, we can change it to "The Bill of Rights You Cannot Have, Gaywad."

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 2:03pm

and you don't think DOMA contributed to the climate we currently have where this amendment is actually being considered?

[Calvin]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 2:04pm

Without a doubt (eta: this is responding to what Jerby said about it passing through the states). There are far more gross states than there are good states. If this ever gets out of the Senate (which, thank God, it won't for now), we're toast. But senators are fickle, and that's why I worry. Didn't Clinton at one point tell Kerry to come out in support of a marriage amendment in an effort to gain votes in 2004?
Updated On: 6/2/06 at 02:04 PM