Republicans Schedule Vote On Anti-Gay marriage Amendment

[Cannikin]

(Washington) The Senate will vote on a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage the week of July 12. The announcement was made today at a Capitol Hill news conference.

The vote will come just two weeks before the start of the Democratic national convention, July 26 in Boston, and is seen as a way of embarrassing Democrats most of whom are opposed to the amendment.

"It demonstrates the disgusting nature of the GOP leadership, specifically doing this in an attempt to embarrass Democrats. But its the Republicans who should be embarrassed," John Marble a spokesperson for National Stonewall Democrats told 365Gay.com.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) denied scheduling the vote to coincide with the Democratic convention.


http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/06/061804amendVote.htm

[FlashHarry]

1. Yay! Let's have an amendment to limit the rights of Americans!

We haven't had one of those in a while!

[arwalden]

2. Bedsore Eating Wart Sucking Puss Drinking Pig Fuckers.

[rusty charly]

3. where's

the "two-time loser" rider?

[zydeco]

4. Excuse me, but can anyone write an amendment

that would contradict the original document?

[mike1963]

5. Sure. Any congresscritter could "write" an amendment to eliminate congres

congress! The Constitution contains within itself the ability to change -anything- in it. That's what amendments -do-.....
:eyes:

[zydeco]

7. The elimination of congress would be an enhancement.

They aren't watching our backs anyway. What I mean doesn't an amendment to the constitution have to be like an improvement and not something that violates the very rights the document is supposed to guarantee?

[Sporadicus]

6. It Could Be Repealed

like the 23rd amendment to the constitution. The 23rd amendment - prohibition - was the only one that restricted the rights of individuals. An anti-gay-marriage amendment would likely meet a similar fate.

[King Of Paperboys]

8. Prohibition was 18th.

Repealed by 21st.

[thebigmansentme]

9. the sad thing is

if this actually gets through government most americans will vote for it. or may be not. vast majority of americans are against gay marriage, but a lot fewer support an amendment that meddles with our constitution, so we'll just have to wait and see.

i wonder what the hell kerry is going to do... oh, i know, how about 'skip the vote'.

[BattyDem]

10. I don't defend the 23rd amendment, but at least ...

it restricted the rights of EVERY American ... not just one particular group of people. That's what makes the anti-gay-marriage amendment so disgusting! It doesn't matter what a person's position is on gay marriage ... if you believe in what this country is supposed to stand for, then you can not allow an amendment to the Constitution that would specifically discriminate against certain people. The idea that they would even consider doing something like this is despicable!

And don't forget .... once they are "allowed" to write discrimination against one group of people into Constitutional law, they will try to do it against other groups of people ... women, African-Americans, Muslims, Hispanics, liberals, etc. - anyone who doesn't "fit" into their straight, white, male, Christian world where they rule over all.

[DaveSZ]

11. Can't we kill this in the House?

I know the Senate is more moderate, so it might pass.

However can't we get 110 members of the House to vote against this?

[King Of Paperboys]

14. Prohibition was 18th.

Repealed by 21st.

[BattyDem]

19. Thanks for the info.

You still get what I was trying to say, right? :-)

[TexasSissy]

12. It may not pass this time...but there'll be a next time.

This is a big political issue to the Repubs, and they're using it to take campaign funds to the bank.

I wish Massachusetts had held off just a few months. I guess the legal case came to a head when it did, but it just would've been better for the Massachusetts and CA issues to happen AFTER the election. It's gonna cost the Dems, I fear. How much remains to be seen.

But if * gets re-elected, this amendment will come up again and again. They're like pit bulls with their pet causes. They don't let go until they get what they want. No reason for them to comprise. They own the entire government.

[Curious Dave]

13. Why would any Democrat

Be "embarrassed" for opposing dreck like this. I'd think they would be proud!

[thebigmansentme]

15. actually

aren't gay a constitutionally defined minority by now ?...

[TexasSissy]

17. No.

My understanding is that they are not. Age, gender, race, ethnicity, disability. That's it, I believe. Lawsuits involving wrongful termination of someone with AIDS (the Philadelphia movie) falls under the "disability" section. But not because it involves anyone gay...which, of course, is not a requirement for having AIDS.

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. I thought that settled the question of whether the gays were allowed to marry. This has me confused.

[blueblitzkrieg]

16. Ugh.

Republicans /should/ be embarrassed. How can anyone with a conscience vote for these people???

[kentuck]

18. Pulling out all the stops, huh?

desperation, thy name is Republican. :)

[Cannikin]

20. kick

[Kipepeo]

21. check out

www.loveisloveislove.com

and scroll down to 11 things you can do

I don't think this will pass but it disgusts me to no end that the Senate doesn't have anything better to do than debate taking away rights from Americans.