Bush announced support for Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

[Silverhair]

Here is a link: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031217/D7VFS6HG1.html

They can easily bring it to a floor vote in summer of next year. This will be a campaign issue in 04.

67% of the general population opposes gay marriage. Most of those who support gay marriage are already progressives. The swing voters will be fairly strongly against gay marriage.

The idea on Rove's part is to force each and every Democrat in congress to have to vote on this, and to create a public record on the issue. If the Democrats cave, then Bush gets a major legislative victory.

[SadEagle]

1. Where did you get the 67% number?

Last I saw polls on this, it was pretty darn close to 50-50, if my memory serves me right

[Silverhair]

4. Link

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

[terrya]

2. If this hateful piece of crap gets out of Congress, it could pass.

I can actually see this getting ratified. The entire Southern and Western states could vote for it.

This amendment has bipartisan support, unfortunately. It's a distraction from Bush's disasterous domestic record and a way to galvanize the rabid fundementalists that are Bush's base.

[kentuck]

3. Of course he did...that's part of his war on terrorism....

Didn't you hear?

[Beer Snob-50]

5. 67% oppose gay marriage

but how many support the right for an unmarried couple (gay, straight,whatever) to have the same civil rights as a married couple? I don't think that the gay community wants to force the Catholic Church, or any other denomination to marry them.

[bearfartinthewoods]

11. bush covered that base in his press conference

he said that civil unions are a state concern.

[Plaid Adder]

13. Well, he hasn't read the proposed amendment then

because it is designed to invalidate civil unions. Here's the text:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this onstitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Depending on what kind of Supreme Court you have, any state law creating civil unions could be read as an attempt to "require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples."

I know two sentences is a lot to ask Bush to digest...but for him to pretend that this amendment wouldn't hurt civil unions is just a little much even from him.

@#$!!,

The Plaid Adder

[Beer Snob-50]

15. I am sure

Bush is thinking, ".................(hmmmmmmm cookies)....(oh wait) if people would not choose that sexual identity they could simply get married as God intended them to do!!!"

[bearfartinthewoods]

20. figures.......lets the states do the dirty work for him

[Jacobin]

6. Wedge issue of the century

They'll use it endlessly to slime Dean.

Get ready for Rove on steroids

[HFishbine]

7. Diengenuous premise

Is there a candidate in the race who favors "gay marriage?" If not, then the real question is about giving equal rights to gay couples, to which only 48% are opposed.

Your post begs the question, are you suggesting that we nominate a candidate who is opposed to equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians?

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

[Silverhair]

9. I don't think I made any suggestions.

I stated some facts and made a prediction about Republican strategy.

[Plaid Adder]

8. @#$!#$%!!!!!!

That bastard.

It's not a thread-starting post, so I can use profanity, right?

There's a lot about that sonofabitch that makes me angry, but the way he always tries to protect himself by stomping me and my people into the ground is right up there. Last time he threatened to support this "amendment" (I prefer to think of it as a defacement) was after the scandal abotu "terrorism futures" broke. Now, apparently, he's just doing this because he feels like he's on a roll.

But you know what, I wouldn't BE so fucking pissed off at him if I had *any* confidence in the Democratic Party to fight this "amendment." As soon as it gets to Congress, the rolling over will begin, and then I will officially be left without a party.

My partner and I am organizing now to try to lobby our Congressional representatives against this, for all the good a "citizen's meeting" can do. But I'm not hopeful.

@#$!!!,

THe Plaid Adder

[ramapo]

10. Leave the Constitution alone

Republicans always want to clutter it with clauses denying citizens something or another. Their goal is minimal government with maximum control.

[LuCifer]

12. so THIS is the Kompassionate Konservative Killers' idea of...

...FAMILY VALUES?!?!?!

Whomever is giving the extra strong crack laced with PCP to these neocon assholes, CESS AND DECISS IMMEDIATELY.

Lu Cifer

[LeahMira]

14. What a horror...

... to deface our constitution with an amendment that takes away rights from citizens.

Well, prohibition eventually was repealed, and actually wouldn't it take a while for an amendment to be ratified by all the states? Maybe by the time it does this administration will be history and people will be a bit more understanding and respectful.

[Silverhair]

16. 37 states already have DOMAs and Ohio has a DOMA

in their legislature, (If I remember right.) It takes 38 states to ratify. If put to the states, it could go through quickly.

[Hamlette]

17. This could be worse for Republicans than for Dems

The neocons favor gay marriage from a libertarian point of view or at least civil unions. Bush will become the president of never ending war (to keep the neocons) and no civil rights (to keep the fundies).

It will break apart, just as it did for his Dad.

[devinsgram]

19. How does that old saying go,

the sins of the father are visited upon the son. One can only hope.

[CO Liberal]

18. CO Liberal announced support for Constitutional amendment to ban Bush

:-)

[YNGW]

21. Keen Observation

n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. This is a minor distraction from the real achilles heel

which will be Dean's national security holes. I see Clark has come out against Dean on that point as well....

Clark: Howard Dean can't win

[mac56]

23. Have the Log Cabin Repugs weighed in on this yet?

Good lord. If this doesn't show them the light, what will?

[Plaid Adder]

24. They have, acutally:

http://www.lcr.org/press/20031126.asp

They're against it. Well, at least I can take comfort in the fact that their expectation that the Republican party will decline this wonderful opportunity to oppress them is even MORE unrealistic than my hope to see the Democrats beat this amendment.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Andy_Stephenson]

25. Oh great!

If this passes...I am outta here!

I refuse to sit in the back of the bus.