Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Bush plans to ammend the Constitution
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Bush plans to ammend the Constitution Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Feb 28th, 2004 05:52 PM
KevinTheOmnivore Congress.org isn't all that bad. You can do searches based on issue and stuff. I used to check out another website where you could search by issue, bill #, committee, and/or those who were endorsing it. But for the life of me, I can't recall which site that was. If I remember I'll let you know, but Congress.org is pretty cool....

EDIT: Ooh, the Library of Congress site isn't too bad, either: thomas.loc.gov
Feb 28th, 2004 05:20 PM
theapportioner Hey Kev, do you know of any good sites that keep a tab on what bills before congress are subject to debate, and when?
Feb 28th, 2004 05:09 PM
KevinTheOmnivore Looks like this is becoming ever and ever more unlikely to happen, and in the process, Bush has simply started a wild fire with the issue that is spreading beyond San Francisco. Then again, IMO, this was never intended to happen. This was merely a political volley ball that Bush needed to throw out there in order to show that it isn't HE who opposes this, but merely the corrupt Democrats and the U.S. Congress (not to mention most state houses, even Georgia's).

From politics1.com:

"GAY MARRIAGE BAN AMENDMENT APPEARS DEAD IN US SENATE. The US Constitution places many obstacles in the path of proposed amendments, including the requirement that each house of Congress approve the amendment by a 2/3 vote and that 3/4 of the states ratify it by similar votes. That said, it takes just 34 votes in the US Senate to kill the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage endorsed by President Bush. It now appears that there are well more than 34 Senators on record as saying they will not support a constitutional amendment. Many are opponents of same-sex mariage, but they either oppose the concept of placing an issue like this in the US Constitution or maintain an amendment isn't currently needed. Don't believe us? You can look their names up in online searches of news stories. Here are the names of the 45 announced amendment opponents (or those saying that leaning strongly against the amendment): Lamar Alexander (R-TN), George Allen (R-VA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joe Biden (D-DE), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), John Breaux (D-LA), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Jon Corzine (D-NJ), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Edwards (D-NC), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Bob Graham (D-FL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dick Lugar (R-IN), John McCain (R-AZ), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Harry Reid (D-NV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), John Warner (R-VA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Dems who have yet to announce their views -- but are likely to oppose the amendment -- include some traditional liberals like Dan Akaka (D-HI), Mark Dayton (D-MN), Dan Inouye (D-HI), Carl Levin (D-MI), Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). Even some uncomitted Republicans who would be expected to support it seem to be leaning against the amendment. Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) -- a conservative who says he strongly opposes gay marriage -- said he was "very cool to the idea of an amendment.""
Feb 26th, 2004 03:15 PM
Brandon Andrew Sullivan's in an interesting position these days. This amendment fiasco has really given him a clear indication of how little his rights matter to the administration he's been blindly supporting.
Feb 26th, 2004 02:26 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
You forgot the bit about him divorcing his wife while she was a CANCER WARD.
Oh, that too.
Feb 26th, 2004 01:39 PM
El Blanco
Quote:
3. Newt Gingrich has had an affair.
You forgot the bit about him divorcing his wife while she was a CANCER WARD.
Feb 26th, 2004 01:15 PM
Brandon Naturally, since the Republican party is mobilizing to preserve the "sanctity of marriage," they'd all have clean marital histories, right?
  • 1. Rush Limbaugh has been married three times.
    2. George Will has had an affair.
    3. Newt Gingrich has had an affair.
Shall we tackle some others? Or am I just making ad hominen attacks "so typical of the left?"

And while we invoke the Old Testament, here are a few choice tidbits:

Deuteronomy suggests that if a man marry a woman and she is not a virgin, that she be stoned to death. Interesting.

In Kings, Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines. So much for Jerry Falwell's attack on polygamy.
Feb 26th, 2004 12:31 PM
El Blanco I think adultery is a crime in some states, its just too much of a pain in the ass to prosecute.
Feb 26th, 2004 02:36 AM
Big Papa Goat Bigamy isn't adultery and outside of Utah, mormons don't count for shit. And Bigamy is a crime. Even in Utah.
Feb 26th, 2004 01:35 AM
Emu One word: mormons
Feb 26th, 2004 01:21 AM
Big Papa Goat Why isn't adultery a crime?
Feb 26th, 2004 12:44 AM
El Blanco
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I really hope we go after all kinds of adulterous behavior, since we're defending marriage and family and stuff. Hey, and I'd say shitty ass work weeks with less money adjusted to inflation, record setting hours, and less benefits due to a shift towards a part-time economy, probably play a big part in taking time from couples and families.
Some how I get the feeling that we'll see a crack down on goods and entertainment aimed at single men 18-30 before we see that taken care of.
Feb 26th, 2004 12:24 AM
KevinTheOmnivore I really hope we go after all kinds of adulterous behavior, since we're defending marriage and family and stuff. Hey, and I'd say shitty ass work weeks with less money adjusted to inflation, record setting hours, and less benefits due to a shift towards a part-time economy, probably play a big part in taking time from couples and families.

Heck, I like this "defending social institutions" stuff, it could set a very progressive precedent. Then again, I'm a Liberal, and there's simply NO WAY the Republican "not in favor of social engineering" Party would try to define and codify what private, free, and consenting adults do with their lives, right? I mean, it's only big government liberals that support that kind of stuff, right?
Feb 25th, 2004 10:05 PM
Anonymous The other day, a thought occurred to me:

This whole ban gay marriage thing seems like something that will really put off swing voters. Perhaps Bush knows this, but is doing this as a cynical jab at the Democrats, saying that with their current choices of candidates, and with Nader there to take votes from them, they have no chance of beating him, even if he alienates a lot of people with a proposal like this.
Feb 25th, 2004 09:09 PM
Emu This pisses me off:

Quote:
also, i haven't seen the news today, but there's lots of livejournal talk about our president outlawing gay marriages? well, i think that's a wonderful idea. i do not believe that 'gay' or 'bi' relationships are something God wanted to happen, and i don't think people are 'born that way'. some people would argue that 'if God loves me, He would want me to be happy', or 'it's just the way God made me', but God doesn't want YOUR happiness (or their) for you, He wants HIS happiness for you, which should be want you want- because it's perfect! God created woman for man, not in any other way or form. i think our president is doing a VERY good thing in showing that this is not the way relationships are supposed to be. and it really bothers me when 'bi' and 'gay' people say that they are Christians, too- because Christianity is based upon the idea of submitting to Him. with that submitance, Christians are blessed, and God gives us His joy and a taste of His happiness. i'm really happy with the decision that our president has made (if the livejournal talk is right).
I found this when one of my friends directed me to it, posted on a livejournal of one of her friends'. It epitomizes the thought process of a good 90% of my school. Makes me sick.
Feb 25th, 2004 03:54 PM
mburbank Naldo; I understand your position on marriage vs. civil union and even think it's reasonable (isn't that scary) but since I can't imagone any politician suggesting a formal division between the legal an religous deffinition of marriage, and that in the eyes of te state no one would be married, why would you agree with Bush on one side of the equation?

Ie. Yes, Gays should be denied legal marriage and everyone should hve legal civil union instead, but all we intend to do is deny gays marriage.
Feb 25th, 2004 03:36 PM
Immortal Goat Because that would piss off 50 percent of the country, rather than just a measly 40.
Feb 25th, 2004 01:45 PM
Brandon Also, if Mr. Bush is so fucking concerned about preserving the "sanctity of marriage," why has he not, say.. outlawed divorce?
Feb 25th, 2004 09:45 AM
mburbank In addition to religous traditions, Bush stresses the idea that marriage being defined as solely between man and a woman is 'time honored'. That's powerful argument. Here are some other lengthy historical human traditions that we've done some redefining of in the last relatively short few hundred or so years.

Slavery.
Voting being restricted to white, land holding males.
Citizenship being restricted to white, landholding males.
Child Labor.
Ritual Animal Sacrafice.
State sanctioned religous prohibition.
State sanctioned freedom of speech.

Laws on all these things were tolerated, even enshrined in law for the vast bulk of human recorded history. I don't see as that's much of an argument.
Feb 25th, 2004 03:03 AM
Comrade Rocket
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat
You know whats a dumb idea? Respect for religion.


And I really mean that
Your Preaching to the Choir... no pun intented
Feb 25th, 2004 01:56 AM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
Adultery is still a sin, but Jesus wasn't preaching about the sin in this case. It was about our attitudes towards it.

Its not the Law he really went after (although He did adjust it to make it less ceremonial and more meaningful) but the way we observed it.
Well, the Law claimed that the divinely ordained punishment for an adulteress was stoning. The crime and the punishment are both a part of the same system. By challenging the punishment, Jesus did go after the Law itself and not merely "the observance."
Feb 25th, 2004 01:39 AM
El Blanco
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
The reason I asked you about those two issues in the "old law" is because you claimed the only rule he completely overturned was the dietary restriction. We just covered two prime examples of how he completely opposed parts of the Jewish Law.
I said it was the only one I could think of that was scrapped. Adultery is still a sin, but Jesus wasn't preaching about the sin in this case. It was about our attitudes towards it.

Its not the Law he really went after (although He did adjust it to make it less ceremonial and more meaningful) but the way we observed it.
Feb 25th, 2004 01:24 AM
Big Papa Goat You know whats a dumb idea? Respect for religion.


And I really mean that
Feb 25th, 2004 01:22 AM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
Yes, because there are certainly no instances of Jesus reaching out to everyone in His time. Obviously, He wants people singled out for ridicule and to be ostricized.
Well? Did he specifically mention that rule as null and void?

How about adulterous women? Should we still stone them to death?
Holy shit, you have no clue what you are talking about. Have you ever heard of the story where Jesus prevented the mob from stoning the adultress to death? Thats where we get the saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". That exact fucking story.

Do you actually want to have a real discussion or are you interested in only antagonizing people with faith in something greater than themselves to feed some bullshit pretentious attitude of your?

If its the former, fine. I may not have all the answers(I am sure I don't) but I will do my best to satisfy your inquiries.

If its the latter, I'll be ingoring you from now on.
The reason I asked you about those two issues in the "old law" is because you claimed the only rule he completely overturned was the dietary restriction. We just covered two prime examples of how he completely opposed parts of the Jewish Law.
Feb 25th, 2004 01:17 AM
Big Papa Goat He didn't specifically knock out the pork thing. When one of his disciples was going to eat without washing his hands (or some weird jewish ritual or somehting like that) Jesus said that it was not what goes into a man, but what comes out of him that makes him clean or unclean. I think thats how it went down. I know that statement is in the bible anyway.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:59 PM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.