Posted on 05/28/2006 5:33:55 PM PDT by madprof98
In 1964, just one congressman from the Deep South, Atlanta's Charles Weltner, voted for the Civil Rights Act. For all practical purposes, his righteous leadership on civil rights — he also supported the Voting Rights Act — cost him his congressional career.
In 1966, he resigned his seat rather than sign an act of loyalty to the segregationist Lester Maddox, as Georgia Democrats insisted. But some analysts believe he would have lost the race for re-election.
Doing the right thing is difficult because it often means losing. And the typical politician is willing to lose anything — honor, integrity, dignity — but an election.
That helps explain why, during this election season, so few politicians have stepped forward to denounce initiatives against gay marriage as the cynical and opportunistic tactics that they are. They know that playing on prejudice and fear can rally a certain constituency and provide the winning margin in tight races.
It certainly worked two years ago. Republican tacticians maneuvered to add amendments against gay marriage to the ballots in 11 states, including Georgia. The result was to lure religious conservatives to the polls in large numbers, probably giving President Bush the boost he needed in the battleground state of Ohio.
This year, conservative Republicans — struggling against voter discontent over Iraq, health care and high gas prices, among other things — are desperate to bring those religious conservatives back to the polls. So they've resurrected the same tired tactic. Next month, the Senate is expected to vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex unions.
Senate leaders haven't made much of an effort to disguise the initiative as anything other than the base political ploy that it is. After a frenzy of gay-bashing during the 2004 campaign season — they thundered against gay marriage as a threat to just about every family tradition, from man-woman marriages to peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches — Republican leaders hadn't even mentioned the issue again. The threat disappeared for two years. Until now, when they're facing the prospect of losing control of Congress.
Given the stakes, prominent Republicans won't get in the way of a good wedge issue. Oh, first lady Laura Bush has pointed out the unfairness of a constitutional amendment. So has Mary Cheney, the vice president's gay daughter, who lives openly with her partner of 14 years, Heather Poe, and has recently published her memoirs. This month, Cheney told CNN that "writing discrimination into the Constitution of the United States is fundamentally wrong."
But it's unlikely you'll hear the vice president arguing against the amendment so pointedly on the campaign trial. While he has said in the past that he opposes it, he'd rather remind his right-wing supporters of his staunch support for the invasion of Iraq. President Bush, for his part, has spent his last pennies of political capital trying to pass a humane policy on immigration. He may not fight for an amendment banning gay marriage, but he's unlikely to get in the way of it, either.
In Georgia, meanwhile, even progressive politicians have been cowed by the state's overwhelming consensus against gay marriage. Though 76 percent of Georgia voters approved the ban two years ago, a Superior Court judge recently struck down the amendment on technical grounds. After the ruling, Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, quickly announced plans for a special session of the Legislature to rewrite the ban and place it before voters again in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox, rushed to support the move.
Cox's awkward leap onto the bandwagon was especially disappointing. While Taylor had supported the ban, Cox had pointed out two years ago that the amendment is "unnecessary." Georgia law, like federal law, already bans same-sex unions. But many analysts have noted that Cox is desperate to draw black voters away from Taylor in the Democratic primary for governor; black Georgians, like their white neighbors, gave their unabashed support to enshrining bigotry in the state Constitution.
Cox, like most other politicians, would rather pander to the prejudices of voters than stand by her principles. It's a perfectly human inclination — doing the safe thing, rather than the right thing.
There are never more than a handful like Weltner, who preferred losing a campaign to sacrificing his conscience. In his resignation speech, he declared, "I love the Congress, but I will give up my office before I give up my principles. ... I cannot compromise with hate."
His courage is as rare now as it was then.
Where's the barf alert ?
Ploys like this are just a waste of time and tax dollars and don't help the country at all. If they really wanted to pass the amendment they should make a sincere effort to pass it, otherwise they should ignore it completely.
"President Bush, for his part, has spent his last pennies of political capital trying to pass a humane policy on immigration."
I don't know about "humane", but he spent his last pennies on it all right.
They should just ignore it. There is currently no need of an amendment. The only need is to prevent a non-homosexual marriage state from having to recognize a gay marriage from another state under Article IV if the Constitution. But the Defense of Marriage Act already does that. To my knowledge, there has been no challenge to the DOMA. If and when there is, I am confident all but the 9th Circuit will send it back. If not, given the makeup of the USSC, there is no chance the DOMA will be struck down.
Individual states should have the right to legalize any type of union/marriage they want, with no interferance from the federal government.
Congress has a host of important issues to deal with. Forget this amendment.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree too. I just feel that talking about enacting a specific policy just to get elected than ignoring it is pretty low.
Ditto that. I don't know why he does not believe in the rule of law.
I'm 100 percent in agreement with that. But it is the silly season, and the Republicans are pandering to two groups. The first is the radically anti-gays who simply want any anti-gay statement they can get. The second is a much larger group who do not approve of homosexual marriage, but do not understand that it is simply not a threat to any state that does not want it.
Those looking to be reelected likely think it's easier to just vote for it than to explain it.
"He has spent his last pennies of political capital trying to pass a humane policy on immigration. "
You know Bush is on the wrong side of an issue when the Liberal nitwits start praising it.
The 'humane' policy is amnesty, a policy that will encourage more illegal immigration and make it worse. It's a terrible idea and a terrible bill, which must be why Cynthia is attracted to it:
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/worst-bill-ever.html
The reality most are facing when it comes to gay issues are, they feel their normal and most (heteros) think their not. Gay marriage would normalize their relationships.But to just use the Gay marriage issue to get out the vote is wrong.
It is already an established legal fact that they do not:
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).
- - See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Marriage is a religious “rite,” not a civil right; a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be “monogamous” because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate such "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
The only need is to prevent a non-homosexual marriage state from having to recognize a gay marriage from another state under Article IV if the Constitution.
Wrong again, you did not read Article IV... Congress only needs to pass a statute.
Pay attention to the words in red:
Article. IV.Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
It needs to be resolved immediately by a total refutation with logic that homosexual monogamy is not possible. It needs to be banned totally and put to rest through an Amendment so that liars like you cannot foist it upon us.
No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual.
Either homosexuality is a choice, a birth defect, or it is a mental illness. Take your pick. It is a filthy disease generating behavior and is a risk to the public health.
MACVSOG68, you are not a skillful liar...
If someone in 1969 had proposed a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, there would have been plenty of people who would have opposed it because there was "no possible reason for it". Why, abortion has always been left to the states. It would be unthinkable that the Supreme Court would ever rule otherwise!
A great British parliamentarian once noted that the greatest acts of statesmanship involve forseeing preventable evils, and preventing them before they become reality. Unfortunately, such statesmanship is a rarity. That's how we got into this current immigration mess. It's how we ended up with Roe vs. Wade, affirmative action, and McCain-Feingold.
And it's how we'll end up, within the next decade, with a Supreme Court fiat ordering nationwide gay "marriage", and all that accompanies it (gay adoption, gay curricula in the public schools, etc.), followed a few years afterward by a court ruling stripping churches that don't perform gay "marriages" of their tax exempt status (based on the Bob Jones ruling).
In order to force homosexual marriage on the public, the government will have to assume vast totalitarian powers, invading every single aspect of life.
Wait, they already do that.
But it will increase geometrically, and it's already so bad it's intolerable.
Remember "whatever is not mandatory is prohibited" - or is the other way around? (The Once and Future King)
Exactly! The liberals are playing their little word games, and easily manipulating the libertarian types and the "moderate" types.
When someone suggests that we need a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman, the liberals oppose it with their usual dishonest tactics. First, they assure us that they oppose gay "marriage" just as much as we do (remember when Kerry & Edwards said that?). Then, they say they oppose the constitutional change on two grounds: 1) It would violate states rights and 2) It's unnecessary since the Supreme Court, as of today, hasn't ordered nationwide gay "marriage".
Those two reasons for opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment sound reasonable if you don't think about them too much. And liberals know that "moderate" Republicans won't think about them, since they're too busy pretending to be sophisticated ("Darling, I really don't think this amendment is necessary, and it just serves to pander to anti-gay sentiment instead of addressing the real issues such as lowering the tax rates on yachting facilities"). Libertarians won't think about them because they're too busy fantasizing about a world where the federal courts decree their every desire to be an "unenumerated right". So "moderates" and libertarians join with liberals to kill the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The result? In a few years, the Supreme Court orders nationwide gay "marriage", followed by gay adoption, gay school curricula, gay affirmative action, and a zillion other violations of states rights and property rights. Liberals will no longer be able to claim that the FMA is unnecessary, and their "fear" that it would violate states rights will be rendered a laughable joke.
But don't worry. They'll now have two brand new reasons for opposing the FMA. Now that the courts have made the entire gay "marriage" agenda the law of the land, it would "threaten the independence of the judiciary" to overturn the ruling. In addition, it would "take away a constitutional right" to pass the FMA.
So, you see how it works? We can't pass the FMA now because it's unnecessary since there has as of yet been no judicial decree ordering gay "marriage" nationwide. But once there is such a decree, we still can't pass the FMA, because it would threaten judicial "independence" to overturn their ruling. We can't pass the FMA now because it would violate states rights. But once the court crushes states rights by demanding gay "marriage" nationwide, we then can't pass the FMA because that would take away an "established" right.
As for liberal claims to oppose gay "marriage", once the Supreme Court orders such "marriages" nationwide, liberals will switch from dishonestly claiming to legally oppose gay "marriage" to dishonestly claiming to be "personally opposed but pro-choice" on the issue, even as they vote to boot the Boy Scouts out of our national parks.
But its abnormal to be Cindy.
It's getting harder and harder for me to think that they're just stupid.
When you make a decision based on behavior, it's not bigotry it's discernment.
If two men want to call their relationship marriage they can, but that won't make it marriage. And perhaps we don't want to put definitions into our Constitutions, but if we can't keep judges from legislating from the bench any other way, then we'll do what we have to.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.