I simply am not going to get exercised about the Gay Marriage Amendment nonsense anymore, because there is no point. It is not even going to get out of the Senate:
But Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will vote against it on the floor but allowed it to survive his panel in part to give the Republicans the debate party leaders believe will pay off on Election Day. Specter has chosen a different battle with the Bush administration this week _ a hearing Tuesday on the ways the FBI spies on journalists who publish classified information.
As that hearing gets under way, debate on the marriage amendment will enter its second day on the Senate floor. All but one of the Senate Democrats _ the exception is Ben Nelson of Nebraska _ oppose the measure and, with moderate Republicans, are expected to block an up- or-down vote, killing the measure for the year.
It is nothing more than an election year stunt, it has no chance of passing, and we should just ignore and roll our eyes when the lunatics mention it.
Now you tell me…I just finished my new colour terror alert chart…with pink at the top!
The Other Steve
And vote against all Republicans, to insure they get the message that this shit doesn’t fly.
That’s what we did in Minnesota. In 2004, the GOP lost 13 state house seats because they spent all their time talking abortion and gays when the roads and schools needed to be addressed.
There’s the point that the Senate leadership and the President of the country thinks it’s ok to attack a minority in order to stay in power. Just because it’s not going to work doesn’t mean that it’s a reasonable tactic.
(Oh and I know that you don’t like it either. I just think it’s important to call people on their pandering)
When will the fundamentalists realize that that the Republicans do not give a whit about their religious beliefs? Despite all of their efforts, nothing of substance has been provided legislatively for them at a Federal level. Being thrown a token bone, knowing the outcome is hopeless, while all of the meat goes to business interests, is wildly desrespectful of sincerely held spiritual beliefs. And it is the recent history of Conservative/Republican politics.
yet another jeff
No, don’t just ignore it…punish them for bringing this frivolous crap up in the first place.
Wait, what lunatics are you referring to, the ones that take this issue seriously enough to present it as something that our legislative people have to bother to vote against? The witch-burners that are being pandered to with the FMA? The fact that it’s a cynical ploy makes the FMA even more repellent.
As has been said here before, the point is that the Democrats have no plan to oppose the gay agenda.
I’m with John. I think this is the last gasp of the gay marriage amendment. Never again will it be able to be used as a political issue, as it’s utility as such will be spent. Younger people just don’t care about gay marriage, at least not as much as adults over 40 or 50 years of age.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the textbook definition of “fucktard”.
He’s against it, but will let his party vote on it for no reason other than politics. He doesn’t think it’s good, knows it has no chance of passing, but politics trump gov’t. Classic fucktardiness.
That’s how they get to powerful up there on the Hill, Punch. The (twisted) theory is that you save your political capital for the important fights, and smoke the party bone in between to earn the capital.
It’s one reason why nobody outside of the north end of the building calls the Senate “the greatest deliberative body in the world.” It’s a country club for rich guys to play power games with each other, and Specter is one of the most adept of the gamesmen.
I suspect the fact that the American people will be completely unimpressed by this whole gay marriage thing, and Bush’s numbers will continue to slide (not matter how much he appeases the wacko base). This is like Issue Overload: pants-pissing over terrorism; hysteria over illegal immigration; followed by hand-wringing over gay marriage.
The Dems may not have a single, coherent plan, but the GOP seems to be just shooting wildly in the dark! [Insert Cheney joke here.] I think they are so shit scared of the upcoming elections, that they are just looking anywhere they can for something to stick (and distract us from Iraq).
What’s next? My guess: anti-manimal legislation. The sleeper issue of 2006-07!!!! :)
Sorry but these aren’t “sincerely held spiritual beliefs.” They are power grabs by the religious right. Wrapping a pretty ribbon around a turd doesn’t make it any less of a turd.
Well, some such folks (the ones whose beliefs are sincere, not the nutty asshole ones) are waking up, and they’re finding that–surprise surprise–when it comes to issues that actually matter, the dialogue is much more productive with Democrats than it is with Republicans. Here’s a funny-because-it’s-true key passage:
When you believe that man inhabited the earth with dinosaurs, after they all appeared out of nowhere, 6000 years ago, discerning the unscrupulous tactics of a political cabal might be a bit out of your league.
If the Dems were smart (debatable), they’d toss this “social conservative” bullshit right back in their face with full-court press on stem cells. Make the Republicans squirm over a vote on stem cell research…make them defend their unpopular party stance…demonstrate just how backwards and 18th century the fundies really are.
Now you tell me!
I’m glad Brian and John don’t mind the election year stunts of the people they helped put in office.
Come on, guys, grow a pair.
Seriously, guys, you need to do what you can to make sure the Republicans lose the House in 2006. If you’re lucky, if the Dems take the House and start investigating, Bush and Cheney will have resign. Once you’ve thrown out enough of the bums, you can start taking your party back.
I’m on your side here, but you’ve got to stand up for yourselves.
What do you think would happen if the Democrats pulled a strategic maneuver, as they did with the felony component of the immigration bill (if I recall correctly)? They let the amendment come to an up or down vote. . .Which side would take a bigger hit?
In the words of Mary Cheney, “This is a piece of BAD legislation!!!!!” Hear that frist, santorum and sam “brokeback”???
This is a seriously funny line. I might be tempted to use this in the future.. heheheh
Don’t know if anyone else is watching CSPAN-2, but Leahy basically stood up and said, “now that we are forced to talk about this Republican Jackalope.”
It was hawt.
From Bush’s speech today:
That’s his argument for expanding the role of government in order to make people less free in how they can live their lives. Makes sense to me.
Could somebody please put Specter out of his (our) misery already…?
Make the Republicans squirm over a vote on stem cell research…make them defend their unpopular party stance…
Gee, what a great idea, Punchy! We’ll just call up the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and tell him to put it on the calend.. oh wait, what’s this? They’re telling me here that the Republicans have total control over the Senate’s schedule and that they’ve used this specifically to dodge putting stem cells up for a vote, even though stem cell research has majority support in the Senate?
Also from Bush’s speech…
That’s the whole snip they played on NPR, and I thought, funny, where does gay people getting married NOT fit in with that…?
Last week, Primetime (I think) had a special on adoption and the kids languishing in the system unadopted. One kid they featured had been adopted by two gay men, and (gasp) he didn’t turn gay! And perhaps, Darrell, they even all went camping together!
What gay people want to do in now way impacts or effects what everybody else does. My marraige is unaffected by the gay couple across the street, yet what Bush wants to do is have the gay couple be affected by the insecure couple across their street.
I hope he rots in Hell for even trying.
Actually, I’ve changed my mind.
Couldn’t we just ban marriage entirely? It would save me a lot of trouble.
Kind of like this election year stunt pulled by the President?
Yes, exactly like that.
Chalk another one up for the “Clinton did it!” crew.
Beause they’re, you know…ting-a-ling-a-ling! That makes them different. And if they’re different, they must not be allowed to be equal!
I assume the link takes me to Clinton signing DOMA.
If you think you “got me” with that one you are wrong. And I trust many around here agree that DOMA was a blot on Clinton and every Dem who went anywhere near it.
Unlike you jackasses on the right, we are capable of thought independant of our policiticians, and recognize bad shit like DOMA as exactly what it is. Shit.
And even DOMA’s author and chief sponsor Bob Barr opposes a Constitutional Amendment, you douchebag.
The Other Steve
He’s serious. I’ve heard this from wingnuts for the past two years. That we need to make the size of government smaller by limiting gay marriage. Things like that.
The Other Steve
Are you sure he didn’t issue a Signing Statement saying he wasn’t going to enforce it?
Obviously you think DOMA is meaningless, or you wouldn’t be pushing this amendment.
If you will re-read my original post, I blockquoted DougJ, not you. Not sure how you could think otherwise. I only bring this up for the self-righteous phonies here (like DougJ) who are so up in arms that a politician would do something like that as an election year stunt when Clinton did the same damn thing.
And I agree that what Bush is doing here smacks of insincere political opportunism.. I predict this particular action will backfire on him
you should change your ID name to “Verryhomo” for all threads dealing with gay marriage. That way, no matter what you wrote, good or bad, it’d be the funniest post ever. Each time.
As for gay marriage…just wait until a gay prez takes office. He’s going to rally for Amendments to ban cammo, ban ESPN, and making it a holiday every time a rainbow appears. Let’s not piss them off….
The stupidity of this Amendment is surpassing. It is a black hole of dumb, into which all other dumbness in the universe could be sucked, were it not for the Capitol Police throwing down a gauntlet of high security, and drunk House members, around the Senate.
So it’s time for Uncle Al’s Patented Meta Comment:
Capelza: There’s no terror threat. It’s just Bush scare mongering. Hey, anybody know how to get this sand out of my nose? It keeps falling in.
Several: Stoopid Christers! Kneejerk idiots!
PPGaz: I got nothin. Want some snark? I gots that… Want another helping?
Mr. Furious: #)(*%% stupid *%@&*% Republicans. They’re using #@$*% name calling politics again, the (*%@ing @#$ers!
Rachel: I called a senator gay. Isn’t that funny? I kill myself sometimes. But only symbolically. It’s a cry for help, they say.
Other Other Steve: Strawman, false comparison, ergo I RAWK! and Republicans SUX!
Perry Como: I can’t believe the Republicans keep talking about the Clenis. That’s all they talk about, the Clenis. Bill’s been gone seven years, and all they can talk about is the Clenis. The magnificent, unifying, center left-pointing Clenis. I’m beginning to think they are self hating closeted gays, they spend so much time talking about the Clenis. It’s like that’s all they can think about. The Clenis. I was in Clinton, New York the other day, and I couldn’t believe they were still talking about the Clenis, even though the Republicans who named that place did so in 1822…
Al Maviva: Making fun of others online sure beats leaving work early and getting hammered with my depressed,l betrayed feeling conservative friends at the Old Ebbit, and making fun of other drunks in person. Those old drunk ladies in wheelchairs can be mean when you steal their booze. I do not recommend it.
Ask Darrell whether he thinks the Defense of Marriage Amendment is a good idea.
Soon after hell freezes over, he might actually answer.
He’s a flaming homophobe whose entire schtick here is to bust your chops while concealing his actual views.
Al, if you’re simply hurt because nobody ever invites you to anything, just say so, dude.
I realize you weren’t referring to me, I was just speaking as a lefty presumably “zinged” by your turning the Clinton/DOMA thing on us…
I am refreshed to see you admit it is opportunism (in the case of Clinton AND now) and that you think it will backfire. I hope you are right.
To be claer, however, Bush’s actions do NOT equal Clinton’s. Clinton signed that legislation in repsonse to the box created by the Republicans. Bush is the one calling this, and it is a Constitutional Amendment. Big difference.
And as for Clinton, I’m sure he regrets his signature on the putrid piece of shit. As he should. It was opportunism and/or cowardice of the first order on his part. He should be ashamed.
The above post (4:22) was a reponse to Darrell, in case it was unclear.
This is for Al…
Three posts and in only one did I use an “obsenity.” And that was “jackass.” Oh, and I guess I callled Darrell a douchebag. But he was being a douchebag…
Sorry if that was too much for your delicate fucking sensibilities. You pussy.
Darrell, your refreshing candor at 4:01 means an official withdrawal of my “douchebag” comment. Cheers.
Fuck you, Al. :-)
Hey, what ever happened to “cordially” Rick?
I’m confused – if Leahy used the term “jackalope”, does that make him a Balloon Juice spoof character? This thing is getting out of hand!
Gee, and my first reaction on reading John’s title was “why not a jackalope?”
Popcorn in the 17th aisle, 50 cents.
What have you done with the real Darrell?
I think that this issue is one that needed to be addressed in 2004. The states did a lot of good work in stemming the tide of gay marriage, but too many of our moonbat states- Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut come to mind immediately, but perhaps I’ve missed some others- have chosen to legitimize homosexual conjugation in some form or other. The only way to stop homosexuality from undermining the most basic structural unit of our society in the moonbattier, less sensible states is to pass a Constitutional amendment preventing this occurrence. If Leaky Leahy and a bunch of RINOs like Specter don’t see that as an important issue, they should suffer accordingly at the polls this November.
Who cares what Specter thinks, anyway? He’s not up for re-election for another 4 years, so he probably won’t hold himself accountable to the American people for another 3.
Serious question: How does homosexuality undermine marriage?
I have yet to hear anyone explain that. Especially given that Massachusetts has the lowest rate of divorce in the country.
It undermines the traditions of marriage. The traditions are what keep marriage strong. If people disavow these traditions, they’ll divorce their wives over trivial disputes that could otherwise be resolved and keep the basic family unit whole and entire.
Those traditions are religious. We can be ecumenical about “religion”, but we can’t allow homosexual atheist/Marxist/Darwinist/secularists to pretend that some nonsense gobbledygook their Communist Studies professor thought up in 1967 is on par with a traditional religion’s millenia-old concept of marriage. That doesn’t stand to reason, and it’s not good for the country or the basic family unit.
Only Darrell knows, and he is sworn not to reveal it.
Really, Mister Spoofanus?
2) Marriage is a tradition of the church.
Your spoofass argument is rejected with prejudice.
You may not post here again until you apologize to everyone here you have ever offended. You are now the Earl of Balloon-Juice.
Al, I loves me some Clenis. I’m just glad that the Republicans love the Clenis as much as I do. The way they worship at the altar of the Clenis is cathartic. If not for the Clenis, how could Republicans justify half of their positions today? I’m considering asking Chris Matthews if he’ll open a 24 hour Clenis Network. All Clenis, all the time. How often is the Clenis getting it on with his lesbian wife? Does the lesbian wife of the Clenis have images of a dead Vince Foster dancing in her head when she is lying prostrate on her back?
Really, how can anyone not be fascinated with the Clenis? I’m hoping, and I’m pretty sure I’ll be right, that in 2008 the Clenis will dominate the political discussion.
What traditions are you referring to? There aren’t very many that apply across the board. Even something as basic as marrying for love is far from universal.
The religion argument also doesn’t hold up. The United Church of Christ (my church so don’t go slamming it) supports gay marriage. Others will likely step up to the plate when gay marriage becomes legal.
Your arguments appear to be based on nothing more than you just don’t like the idea. Discrimination really should be based on more than that.
We’re sorry, your spoof cannot be completed as dialed!
Please hang up and try again later.
Like, in about ten years. Or whenever I get over being sick to death of you.
Marriage is a tradition of the society, obtained through and enforced by the local church/synagogue/mosque throughout the centuries. It’s not a purely religious function, you know. But it does tie in very strongly with religious organization, and it undermines those organizations when their most basic ritual for the consummation of earthly love is undermined by homosexuality. So there’s also an issue of religious liberty.
I don’t even know what this means. You should know from reading Scrutator that I despise spoofing, though, Gandalf.
Not every church shares those views, and the churches which don’t are having their viewpoint undermined by a society which permits homosexual marriage.
Stop calling me a spoof, Saddamite.
hmmmm….I had to reread that a number of times. Are you referrring to an ostritch? Hahaha…no.
I in no way dismiss the threat of terrorism. I DO dismiss the colour chart that disppeared right after the election howver. I’m sorry…do I need to explain the sacrcasm of my first post? Okay..in CAPS, when in doubt SCARE THEM WITH THE GAYS!!!!! Pink is apparantly scarier than yellow, orange, and red.
Then leave it alone. There is no basis in the Constitution for managing “society.” The word does not appear in the document. Nor does the word “marriage,” or the word “woman.”
“Society” is not yours to fuck with, you idiot.
Others do. Who cares what you know?
I know from Scrutator that you are as nutty as a damned fruitcake, dude.
Churches with different views? Then keep the fucking government out of it.
Wow…. What a losing argument this is. According to you, churches which are against alcohol and tobacco use are being undermined by society. Therefore, according to you, society should make these substances illegal.
And, according to you, any society that permits the practice of religions which are contrary to one church is undermining that church. Therefore, such practices should be illegal.
Yikes! You might want to try another argument.
Steve Benen, quite excellent blogger filling in on WaMo this week.
If he’s right, and I think he may very well be, the GOP is basically done this year. Their House caucus needs to start saying goodbye to each other. Party’s over.
Which ones? Polygamy? Arranged marriage? Dowries? Women as property? Marriage at 13?
Whose culture? Whose history? Whose tradition?
All this tradition bullshit is just a smokescreen for the fact that you can’t stand the gays. Maybe you can teach them to pray the gay away after your reach-around.
jaime – well, if things keep going as they do, one of the traditions of marriage will be divorce. Will the tradition of marriage dissolution be threatened if we allow teh gays to get married? Only time will tell…
We have to protect the sanctity of marriage from those who want to destroy it. I’m not afraid to man the the culutral barricades against the swarms of gays and liberals out to undermine our society.
Well, off now to take my good, wholesome, female wife to the heterosexual swingers club to celebrate the sanctity of our marriage by having straight sex with strangers. God Bless America!
“It undermines the traditions of marriage. The traditions are what keep marriage strong. If people disavow these traditions, they’ll divorce their wives over trivial disputes that could otherwise be resolved and keep the basic family unit whole and entire.”
I’m visualizing some husband announcing to his wife, “That idiotic giggle of yours makes my skin crawl… and while that may not seem like a big deal, they’re letting queers get married, so I want a divorce.”
I could respect the courage of your convictions (if nothing else) if you would simply ADMIT that you find gays loathsome and hateful on the basis of nothing more than who they happen to love. Instead, you cough up utterly dishonest hogwash like your statement above.
What a sad, shrivelled soul you have. People like you do more to turn people away from Christianity than any worshipper of Satan ever could.
On the other hand, I suspect more than a few of the good Christian folk as obsessed with holding down the queers as GOP4ME and his ilk (Fred Phelps, anyone?) are wrestling with little rainbow demons of their own…
GOP4Me, if you want to defend marriage, why aren’t you campaigning to make divorce illegal? The availability of divorce is much more likely to cause people to break up over trivial things than a homosexual married couple is.
I never found the idea of a gay marriage the least bit threatening to my heterosexual marriage, and I still can’t figure out why others do.
The answer, which is known only to Darrell, is sealed and must remain sealed for fifty years after Bush’s term expires.
Of course I do. It’s an unpleasant thing to imagine homosexual activities, in my opinion. But that’s hardly relevant here. My personal feelings are hardly at issue. What’s at issue is America’s future, and the future of free speech in this country. If homosexual marriage is legalized, I give it 20 years before decrying it is considered a hate crime. That means that churches will be forced to have gay marriage, or else pastors, priests, rabbis and imams could face jail time. This, at a time when the majority of Americans oppose permitting a miniscule minority to undermine our culture and our freedom of speech and our freedom of religious practice. In a democracy, the majority rules, not the focus groups demanding special treatment.
And no, this is not like Loving v. Virginia. Homosexuals are not like African-Americans. Skin color is an immutable characteristic; sexual orientation is a choice. And why should society have to warp itself to accommodate every choice? Who should we accommodate next? Polygamists? Polyandrists? NAMBLA? Bestialists? Foot fetishists? Corpophiliacs? Transsexuals? Autoerotic asphyxiators? Frotteurists? Necrophiliacs? Some weird sexual urge that some deviant hasn’t even invented yet? Sooner or later, you’ll all come to see why undermining civil liberties based on the sexual choice of a smattering of individuals is not a good idea.
One battle at a time.
What’s wrong with polygamy/polyandry/polyamory? Afraid you won’t be find a date on a Friday night?
Trust me, my wife wouldn’t date you nor marry you.
Neither would my girlfriend.
So much nonsense, so little time…
This is, of course, pure bullshit. Look at it this way: interracial marriage was illegal in many states a few decades ago… today it is not. And there isn’t a single church in this land that is obliged to marry a mixed-race couple if they would prefer not to. Your straw figure is big enough to headline at Burning Man.
Funny how much these self-appointed arbiters of morality know about the Perversions of the World. I am reminded of the asshat I once saw on some talk show, pushing for legislation banning sex toys in Alabama… ranting about “ten-inch vibrating latex penises,” and how adults needed to be protected from them. We laughed pretty hard, actually.
You know what, GOP? Your “nuggets” of wisdom above, coupled with this little gem of yours from the other day,
has me convinced you are either A) the least funny spoofer I’ve yet encountered on this site, or B) the most sexually perverted Christian imaginable. Well, other than Fred Phelps. Maybe he could give you some pointers…
Oh, c’mon. It’s perfectly obvious why the GOP views “homosexual marriage” as dangerous and undermining to the “traditional marriage” structure. It’s all about maintaining a certain set of social expectations. Sure, I’d say the majority of young people still grow up wanting and expecting to get married someday, in the traditional sense. But there is a minority of people who don’t. Some because they’re gay. Some because they’re too self-involved, or too picky, or whatever. Pick your reasons. But these GOP types really do think that society depends on MOST of these people going ahead and getting married anyway, whether it’s what they really want deep down or not.
I’m not saying this very well — which is a real bummer for a professional writer — but think about the “social expectations” that our grandparents grew up with. It was just understood that EVERYBODY would eventually “get married, settle down and have kids.” EVERYBODY. And if you didn’t — if you somehow made it to age 45 as a committed bachelor, or a spinster, then you were an object of mixed scorn and pity, with just a dollop of suspicion tossed in for spice.
THAT’S the world the religious right-wingers want back. I honestly don’t think that most of them want gays thrown in jail, necessarily — but they DO want them subjected to social pressure and ostracism. The kind of social pressure that used to result in gays living double lives, publicly “married,” keeping their true selves secret and hidden.
If gays are not just allowed to live openly among us, without fear of being thrown in jail, but also granted the same social benefits, so that society is “officially” welcoming them and accepting them — then where’s the social pressure going to come from? How are we going to maintain the overwhelming societal expectation that “getting married and having kids” is What One Must Do?
Anyway, they aren’t going to come right out and admit that they want to impose hypocritical, empty “marriages” on unwilling but socially obligated participants. But that’s what it means when they say that gay marriage “undermines” traditional marriage. It undermines the set of societal expectations that those people want to impose.
Even if we accept your premise that “sexual orientation is a choice” — it’s absurd, but for the sake of argument, let’s accept it — what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Your religious orientation is a choice too. Should we ban atheists from marrying? Muslims? Hindus? Jews? Catholics? Why not ban them from marriage for other choices? Maybe some people should be prevented from marrying because of their choice of jobs. Certainly mortgage lenders and insurance companies break up more marriages than the gay couple down the street – maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Heck, nobody likes telemarketers, let’s restrict their rights.
In fact, who you choose to marry is a choice. Loving v. Virginia is about a two people of different races who made the choice to marry one another instead of people with the same skin color.
I’m also implicitly accepting the premise that GOP4Me is actually serious and not a spoof, which is fairly dubious.
Of course you would. You probably know ALL about dildoes, Lardo. (da Vinci? That would explain quite a bit, actually.)
First of all, the reference to my mother was made by one of your moonbat allies, to whom I notice you give a clean getaway. Secondly, I’m not a spoof. Thirdly, I’m not a pervert. But I do dislike you immensely, Lardo, so do us both a favor. Go away.
I think of them as latex replicas of body parts that were created for our delight by a loving God.