Posted on 12/05/2004 11:27:47 AM PST by JustAnotherOkie
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that a proposed constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples would be "an act of discrimination" against gays.
Noting that some Republicans in Congress joined Democrats in opposing a federal ban gay marriage, Pelosi told "Fox News Sunday," "There were many Republicans who did not want to taint the Constitution with an act of discrimination. Many Republicans fell into that category."
The San Francisco Democrat made her comments while claiming that Sen. John Kerry was unfairly painted as pro-gay marriage during the presidential campaign.
"President Bush and Sen. Kerry were substantively at the same place on gay marriage," she claimed. "They both opposed it and they both supported civil unions."
The top House Democrat added, "Clearly the public is not ready for the idea of gay marriage. But Sen. Kerry's position was identical to President Bush's on that score."
When Fox host Chris Wallace noted that Kerry opposed the constitutional marriage amendment favored by Bush, Pelosi countered with her comments that amendment opponents "didn't want to taint the Constitution with an act of discrimination."
It is also important to use NON-religious arguments against homosexual marriage. the ilk of Pellosi and other leftist is to pigion hole all opposition as extremist religious radicals.
We need to keep repeating homosexuality is about a BEHAVIOR, whatever the cause or reason. This destroys arguments for homosexual marriages.
People with mental disorders like homosexuality shouldn't even be allowed to procreate much less marry.
Most of these nut jobs should be in little padded rooms, and would be, if they hadn't taken over the American Psychiatric Association and declared themselves sane awhile back.
I was married in San Francisco in 1983 and we had to take a blood test. The marriage license was not "a given" to anybody.
"I'm well aware of the exit polls that showed a majority in favor of either gay marriage or civil unions, but in 8 of the 11 states to ban gay marriage the voters also banned civil unions."
The Left learned from their defeat. Already, in Massachusetts, they have been plotting a referendum to "ban gay marriage, and allow civil unions" (with all the same rights as marriage.) That will be their new tactic.
There are rumors in the papers that Connecticut will be the next target, and they have the support in the legislature for "civil unions", and RINO governnor Rell may sign it to ward off a strong reelection challenge from Senator Dodd.
I fully anticipate "civil unions" (gay marriage, by another name) in the Northeastern and West Coast states within 5 years. They were outsmarted by the right on the wording of ballot initiatives in 2004, but they won't be forever.
That is a lie! Marriage defined as a union between a woman and man does not discriminate against gays. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, or a lesbian wants to marry a man, they may do so without being discriminated against. The institution of marriage as defined cannot discriminate.
We recognize a slippery-slope when we see one. (Most times...)
It takes on a whole new meaning when talking about
gay marriage....
Pelosi is trying to paint this as another ism, all the while
trying to destroy those institutions that have worked to
make this country what it once was...I say that because
it sure isn't the same as when I was growing up.
Lying liberal-demokkkRAT-socialist-commie-nazi-fascist, botox b!tch.
Kerry had a position on something? Must have missed it.
Good catch, PC!
You and your petty little mind are wrong again Ms. Palosi.
They would have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as any other group of people!
It occurs to me that gay marriage clearly denigrates real marriage.
The only reason queer behaviour is not still recognized for the perversion that it is, is because some queer phychologists conspired to change the wording in the clinical manuals.
This does not mean that I think sexual perversion between consenting adults should be legislated against. I fully believe in the individual's right to commit suicide.
What started with the Dan White episode has been going ton too long...When we see someone other than a liberal from San Francisco heading the minority house leader seat, we will know that things are finally changing.
Yes, the FMA would allow the people or their state legislatures to adopt civil unions. Unfortunately there is still not enough votes to get it out of Congress. So many Dems and Repubs said that they oppose the Amendment because they think "it should be left up to the states." Therefore, I think the FMA proponents should consider another tactic.
I think they should consider calling the bluff of all of these people by offering an alternative Amendment that stops short of banning gay marriage, but instead says that with regard to marriage and the legal incidents thereof, that the people and/or state legislatures of each state shall set policy for their own purposes, while Congress shall set federal policy.
This would have a better chance of becoming law since it puts into law precisely what people like McCain claim to believe. They would have a hard time explaining a vote against such language.
Another benefit of it would be that it would have no practical difference between the proposed FMA. I say this because the current FMA allows civil unions, which is gay marriage w/o the word "marriage." Therefore, it would really be no different if the people and/or their legislatures could choose to adopt gay marriage instead of civil unions since they are the same thing. Therefore, it is best to protect the majority of the states from the few that would do so.
But of course there are other things to try. The House passed a law last year barring the Courts from hearing challenges to the Federal DOMA. The Senate needs to follow suit and put it before President Bush to sign into law. Sure, the Sup Court could just throw out such a law, but I say that if it leads to some sort of constitutional crisis which leads the American people to fully examine the rolls of the three branches and the Original Intent of the Constitution then that would be a good thing.
I agree with you, but it is my contention that most people in most states would reject civil unions as well, just as they did in 8 states on Nov 2 (again, including Ohio and Michigan).
Sure, several states, especially in the NE, Leftcoast, and parts of the Midwest would voluntarily adopt civil unions as the majority in those states are comfortable with euphemistic comforts. But the important thing is to protect all the other states whose people would choose to be consistent and recognize only traditional marriage.
And the only way to do that is to pass some sort of Federal Amendment that at a minimum bars the Courts from getting involved. Otherwise, I fear that the Sup Court (esp the current one w/ people like O'Connor and Kennedy) would try and issue what the bogus conventional wisdom has already deemed to be the moderate compromise -- i.e. they would give states the choice of either having gay marriage OR civil unions, but that they must do one or the other.
And I think we agree that such a choice is no choice at all. Any judicially imposed outcome is not moderate and it is not a compromise as it would inevitably be to the Left's favor.
Much like John Kerry, they will say anything to anyone to get their agenda through.
What President Bush has said is that the people in the states should be deciding this, not activist judges. A constitutional amendment may be the only thing that the courts would ever abide by (it WOULD BE Constitutional then). I believe that if there is NOT an amendment prohibiting same sex marriage, we will soon find constitutional protection for sexual proclivities the same way there are for race/creed/color/sex. And don't fall for attempts to link sexual fetishes to "sex" (male/female). Transvestites are screwed in the head. We are born naked, there is no "wear the opposite sex's clothes" gene.
A person's politics are not protected by the Constitution (while you have free speech, you are not protected against being fired for being a Republican or having epithets shouted at you, and there is no "hate crimes" law to push for additional punishment of those painting swastikas on Bush-Cheney 2004 signs or Republicans homes.
Ah, but "gay marriage" permits them to push for acceptance of their perversion in the church. The "right" to have same sex ceremonies at churches, to be listed in the church directory as a "family". All counter to biblical teachings.
While all sinners are welcome in the church, they should not expect to change the church and encourage such sin. Go forth and sin no more.
what a bimbo
sodomy is a FELONY in some states including MA and personally I think it should be put back on the books in every state, pelosi sounds like the type that would approve of humans marrying animals, sure what the hell.
That's exactly right. The word "discriminate" was hijacked a long time ago by racbaiters.
Two of the most important words in our language is "discriminate" and "discern"...the former has been bastardized.
FMCDH(BITS)
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.