Breaking News: Our Moral Leader Stops Gay Marriage- Page 2

[orion59]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 2:31pm

I'd love to but there just isn't enough time to get a good caterer, order the yellow calla lilies, pick out the perfect music, order the dresses for the bridesmaids, Chuck and Steve. Then of course the wine needs to be shipped over from Paris, the cake needs to decorated with just right shade of yellow icing to match the flowers, the Armani linens need to be ordered...also the Armani tux, I'd have to find a photograher with who manage only to get my good side, there's the chemical facial peel to be done, a few pounds to be lost, botox to be injected. Gay weddings are just too much trouble....remind me again why we want them.

[Corine2]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 2:32pm

Damn you guys would do such a great job. Can a woman be a flower girl?

[orion59]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 2:34pm

In a gay wedding anyone can be any kind of girl they want to be.

[Corine2]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 2:35pm

Ha ha.
Cute.

[rlbgbc]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 2:54pm

On another board, I read something that stopped me in my tracks.

This whole thing is starting to sound faintly Third Reich-ish. Didn't it all start rather innocuously in Germany? And then in 15-20 years, exploded into horror?

Food for thought...

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 3:15pm

rlbgbc - I've had exactly the same feeling. It's really starting to freak me out. What with this and the Mel Gibson Passion thing, it's getting to be a bit scary.

[orion59]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 3:44pm

Yes, if my memeory is correct and the nuns did their job of drumming history into my head as a child, this is errily close to the way things began in Germany as well as in other countries. It always starts with a country in financial turmoil, high unemployment, etc. then the government makes a huge issue of something involving an oppressed group to draw attention away from the real issues. Then, it's just a short step toward blaming this group and eventually others for all the problems of the country. I won't be one bit surprised to see a very dramatic increase in violent hate crimes against gay men and lesbians which will be, in essence, sanctioned by our lawmakers by their silence around it and willingness to look the other way. That is exactly how Hitler gained power.

[sambaflora]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 3:57pm

Very scary business. All of it.

Following is a link to a grass roots organization which might have activities going on in everyone's respective communities. No matter what the reason for us being put in this situation right now, RobbieJ is dead-on that it is no time to be silent.

For those uninformed, we here in Georgia are facing this on a State-wide level as well. The SR 595 Georgia Marriage
Constitutional Amendment was passed by the Senate on Monday and now is in process of going to the House for consideration. If this legislation squeezes through the House with a 2/3rds majority, the Constitutional Amendment will be on the November 2nd General Election Ballot. This resolution would effectively codify discrimination in the Georgia constitution.

Prior to Valentine's Day, while trying to encourage a good friend to join me for a rally at the State Capitol, I was met with the response," I am not that invested in gay marriage." These words coming from someone I love dearly.....who has been in a loving yet legally unprotected relationship for SEVEN years shocked me...especially understanding the family dynamics behind both individuals that make up this couple (were something to happen to either, you can bet the other's families would see fit that the living partner would have zero rights). Sadly, I think a lot of G/L/B/T's are looking at the issue in this same self-serving way. Whether you have the 'personal investment' or not, you damn sure should have the option.

P.S.- If anyone here happens to be in the ATL area and would like updates on rallies/community events in regards to SR 595 feel free to hit me up with a private message.
Don't Amend!

[newyorkuniq]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 3:58pm

"President Bush said Tuesday that he supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to prevent what he calls "the meaning of marriage from being changed forever."

I have so many mixed feelings right now. First of all I feel like it is somehow an invasion or human rights. The meaning of marriage is two people in love wanting to spend the rest of there lives together. How would this change it? Updated On: 2/24/04 at 03:58 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 4:18pm

orion59 - Didn't we already endure that in the 80s with the AIDS crisis? I think the government is clinging to the one last minority group they can legally bully. The laws against races, religious groups and women now protect them (as long as they're hetero), so they need a group to pick on to feel superior.

[orion59]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 4:28pm

Yopu're right, we did endure that in the 80's. The poeple dying of AIDs were also being scapegoated, blamed for "The New Plague". It's just like the Jews who were scapegoated in late 1930's Germany, it's the same thing that has happened to many other groups in many other countries since that time and it's the second time for gays in America since then. I guess our world leaders tend to forget that old saying about what happens when we don't learn from history

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 4:46pm

Darn...I was hoping papalovesmambo would take me up on the offer

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 5:01pm

I agree with papa. This is completely a political move by Bush to shore up support with the central base Conservatives. It also purposely creates a visible issue on which the Democrats are forced to step up, remove their masks and clearly demonstrate the true extent of their liberal beliefs. Will a definition of "marriage" ever become an amendment? I doubt it seriously, the odds are indeed against that from ever happening. By saying he supports such an amendment Bush creates a false sense of security among those who believe in the ban most strongly and from whom he needs continued support.

This particular tactic may backfire on the Conservatives however and result in a tremendous swell of vocal and active support for legalizing same sex marriages. So it is conceivable that those of us who support same sex marriage might see the benefit of the President raising the stakes on the issue so quickly.

Because money talks, I still hold that a total economic freeze (i.e., spending zero dollars) for 3 days by all supporters of same-sex marriage would clearly demonstrate where the majority of citizens stand on the issue. Supporters of same-sex marriage should hold back all the Presidents--Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, etc.--and simply stop spending, maybe even stop working and creating, for 3 days, and articulate the reason for this action.

Broadway Bulldog

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 5:08pm

erik, ya know i luvs ya, but i go to d.c. at my own risk as the secret service will meet me at the airport, or bus station, or train depot, or on 395. i may be a fan, but the volume of email traffic i send out to people in power has me on more watchlists than a saudi pilot.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 5:29pm

I'll marry ya Erik!! =)

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 7:07pm

I'll be happy to offer my services in a suitable role...mother of the groom, perhaps?

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 7:09pm

I think the President is right. Gay Marriage is a threat to the family and must be prevented.

Of course, in the interest of preserving the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, it is only right and just that divorce be prohibited as well.

If those married heterosexuals are miserable, well too effing bad! You're STUCK together forever, suckers!

Updated On: 2/24/04 at 07:09 PM

[Corine2]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 7:13pm

Master that is killer thank you for making me smile and laugh out loud.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 8:21pm

I'm appreciating all the humor and camaraderie here, but also the very clearly articulated fears. We must keep remembering that this is not remotely a true policy decision; this move has but one goal: re-election. Put a wedge between Kerry and Edwards and Dubwa. Kerry said tonight that the President is exploiting the Constitution for political gain. Kennedy said he'll go down in history as the President who restored bias to our law.

I've talked to friends who are in/around the law. They say the baldness of this strategy will not fly. Constitutional scholars -- even conservative ones -- do not like to see the foundation for this nation sullied with partesan shenanigans, and will come out swinging to call foul. The timing of this "announcement" -- a day after the official start of his campaign -- is screaming the real headline here, and tomorrow, look for many papers to be loaded with pundits who call Camp Rove on their divisive and tactics. I also think the average American -- a phrase I never use -- will not be swayed by this efforts to pull focus from the real issues in this campaign.

Speaking of which: Today we hear the Al Q. is again readying an attack. Tomorrow, they'll trundle out Ashcroft for an Orange Alert. But we've been down this road. The simultaneous Lavender alert will not distract the jobless, uninsured, and fright-weary masses out there.

Updated On: 2/24/04 at 08:21 PM

[NYCbabe3789]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 8:29pm

I know I'm late but...

HATE HIM HATE HIM HATE HIM

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 8:53pm

Mr. Iflit just suggested that Bush's move to clutter the constitution may actually prove to be good for the Democrats. The electorate basically falls into three groups. A third of the voters will vote Republican, no matter what. The second will always vote Democratic. That leaves the remaining third up for grabs. Bush has moved so FAR to the right that he is likely to alienate a good percentage of the 3rd third. Same sex marriage is unlikely to be a deal breaker for most people...the voters who are the most vehemently opposed to it are already in the Republican camp. The key to winning is to capture the majority of the undecided group All Kerry (or Edwards) has to do is to BE a Democrat, but ennunciate basic Republican values: states rights; balance the budget; no corrupt contracts in Iraq...open bidding; capitalism.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 9:07pm

the general rule used to be 40 right 40 left 20 independant, but i think it's down to 45/45/10 or so with the way the country's so evenly divided. i think that this has been something that bush was planning to do in his 2nd term if he had one, but the mass. and san fran stuff pushed him to do it now. i mean the state of the union was a warning, back off or we'll go for an amendment. well, they called his bluff and now he's got to put up or shut up. if he does nothing he gets pillioried on the right and you see a right wing nader like that bozo 10 commandments judge who's already talking about running.

i'll be interested to see if they go with the musgrave language as it's so freakin' vague. if they're gonna make an amendment they need better wording than that. also, will you see bush make a statement regarding federal rights and civil unions?

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 9:38pm

"Speaking of which: Today we hear the Al Q. is again readying an attack. Tomorrow, they'll trundle out Ashcroft for an Orange Alert. But we've been down this road. The simultaneous Lavender alert will not distract the jobless, uninsured, and fright-weary masses out there."

And if all else fails.... Can you just imagine the terror alert level the Rovers will pull out of their ass the weekend before the election? I'm already anticipating a BRIGHT ORANGE alert. It's a given.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 9:45pm

now not for nothing, but al q's # 2 guy just issued a big ol' fat statement saying "hey, gw, lock up yer daughters cuz we're sending the suicide rapists yer way, and while yer at it ya better lock up babs too because these guys are not picky at all and kinda like the whole white curls look." now 'splain it to me oh bastions of conspiracy: is al qaeda trying to make bush look good or was this message that was broadcast on al jazeera ginned up by the boys in the basement at langley?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 9:56pm

I just watched the Larry King hour devoted to this cause. From listening to the call-ins, one can decude that the frightening behavior and mindset of the religious right is scaring even Republicans, particularly libertarians, who never, ever, want the Government to intrude in this maximized, highly invasive way. Musgrove -- with her mantra of "what's next, group marriage?" -- is a cold-hearted firebrand, whose singular mission seems conceived in a self-righteous fervor. A chilly "calling." She freaks me out even more than the Bible-thumping Catholic, a Mel Gibson lacking 30 million to state his case.

I still believe thinking,moderate people will be scared spitless by such hard-line fantacism. If not, look for what's happening in Haiti to come to our shores, the second week of November.