Bush 'defense' of marriage is nothing but institutionalizing homophobia

[bigtree]

Bush urges Congress to ban gay marriages
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13132716/

His assertion that gays and lesbians who marry would cut the 'institution' of marriage "off from its cultural, religious and natural roots" and weaken the "good influence on society", clearly defines homosexuality, not just gay marriage, as a threat.

What other actions by gays and lesbians will he decide 'threaten institutions?' Certainly this logic can be applied to the actions of any disparate group of individuals with beliefs and practices contrary to those of the majority. I would think that he would have to demonstrate that threat rather than just presenting his own fears as evidence. Where is the proof that the marriage of gays and lesbians 'threatens' anything?

Besides, it's not just the 'institution' of marriage he's trying to "defend". Its his own political base that he's trying to appease, defending his failed presidency from the likelihood of the opposition party achieving power and stifling his agenda.

[sallyseven]

1. This is so tired and worn that even the

rw conservatives don't believe him. They know it is just bull.

[saltpoint]

2. Sounds about right to me. Bush is pandering big time, and

I hope a few of the more thoughtful voters among his ranks break away from him because of this.

Surely some of them have lesbian or gay children or parents or co-workers, or somebody.

Why, there might even be a Vice President who has a gay daughter, who knows?

[nolies32fouettes]

28. Exactly. Check this out.

http://www.progressiveu.org/014405-fundie-fest-2006-get-your-midterm-judgements-and-contradictions-and-politicking-here

[Trillo]

3. Yeah, I turned the news on for 'a moment' yesterday

saw Bush sayin something about that, and immediately changed channels. Once again he means the opposite of what he's apparently saying.

The 'institution of marriage' is so threatened(?)... and if anyone is stupid enough to believe that, then Bush has a plan to sell you something.

[nolies32fouettes]

31. Can I rant about this too? Do you think any fundie cares about this:

http://www.progressiveu.org/195113-civilian-casualties-of-terrorism-and-war

[spanone]

4. Legalized discrimination.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

5. Just a nit...

But homophobia is already legal so theres no need to legalize it.

As long we are free, we are free to fear or despise whatever we want...irregardless of whether its right or wrong, or socially acceptable or not.

More correct IMO: "Bush 'defense' of marriage is nothing but legalized Sexual Discrimination"

[bigtree]

6. good nit. brain freeze here.

words are tricky

[poverlay]

7. How long before Kristallnacht? That's all I can think of... n/t

[bigtree]

12. once homosexuality is established in law as a threat to something

it will open the door to allow others to claim their institutions are being weakened by their activites or mere being and seek sanctions to 'defend' their domain.

I can imagine an atmosphere of harrassment with impunity based on such a law. Certainly any individual actions against gays or lesbians will be mitigated by a law establishing the loving, benign act of gay or lesbian marriage as a 'threat.'

[Metta]

8. It's outright pandering and a waste of our time and money.

nt.

[Philosoraptor]

9. Even those it's aimed at think it's ridiculously timed and insincere.

[libnnc]

10. Funny, he's concerned with sacred marriage

I heard his is falling apart.

[KharmaTrain]

11. Fear...Get Your Fear Right Here...

Shall we count the ways this regime is trying to scare the sheeple? It's all based on the basic "fundamentals" of the Repugnican party...racism, sexism and discrimination...the mother's milk of every ignorant wingnut.

There's the "terror" threat of brown-skinned, non-Christians flying airplanes into people's heads and the phony shell game of Iran having a nuclear weapon and how they're out to destroy our ways of life...tractor pulls, gun shows, cross burnings and the like. If the "infidel" Democrats gain power, those hordes will surely launch attacks all across the U.S. like they did in the 90's. Oh, the only terrorist bombing in the 90s was done by a White Supremecist? Oh, pay no attention to facts, we're talking fear here.

Then there's evil gringos and Frito banditos who are streaming by the billions over the Mexican border to bring their filthy ways of life...a language other than English, Roman Catholocism and millions of possible Democratic votes. Let's mobilize all the facist militias and mobilize the military to prevent these evil brown-skinned demons from coming here to pick our fruits, work in our factories, mow our lawns, build our houses and all those lame-ass jobs that "real" Amuricans wouldn't want to do anyway. Oh, you mean those people coming across the border are unarmed and have to manuever across 20 to 50 miles of desolate dessert...facing possible death just to make in one hour (at minimum wage or less) than what they'd made in a day at a Mexican factory owned by an American corporation? Again...keep your eye on the fear ball here...facts and reality have no place when you're trying to scare the shit out of those who need a good demon to hate...and c'mon, hating Mexicans has been an American tradition since the 1830s.

Now we've got the threat that two guys or two women are going to ruin everyone's marriage by being able to live together and bring their "perverse" sexual picadillos into the mainstream. We let these fags get married and before you know it, they'll be multiplying and spreading their "un-natural" habits in schoolyards all over the country. That's right, it'll be a major threat to my 25 year marriage as if they are able to marry, surely that will minimalize all that my wife and I have worked to build together and we'll soon be wanting to find same sex partners and encouraging our heterosexual children to do the same. It's fait accompli, ya know. Oh...you mean this isn't about sex? It's about two people who are in a committed relationship being able to share such immoral things as medical benefits, pensions and other financial services that a "real" Amurican enjoys? It's not about allowing NAMBLA to open branch offices in every Red state. Oh, and you mean the concept of a committed relationship doesn't refer to the large number of divorces and broken families that have been created by the financial hardships the war on the middle and lower classes the Repugnicans have been waging for the past 25 years. Again...forget the facts, this is Fear...those evil Democrats are sure to turn Barney Frank loose on the Judiciary committee...and before you know it, we'll all be wanting to be interior decorators and hairstylists.

:sarcasm:

[bigtree]

13. all of that implied, not cited, in Bush's declaration.

I wonder if the courts will ultimately rule on the fundementals of the law if passed, or will they just affirm the right of Congress to enact such a law. If they rule on the premise of the law there should be some evidence presented to support the contention that it threatens any institution as the president claims.

At the least, they should be made to spell out just what, specifically, they contend it is about homosexuality they are asserting affects anything.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Never Has The Constitution Been Ammended To Deny Rights

By passing such a sham ammendment, it would mark the first time liberties and rights had been restricted from Americans. It's the inverse of the 14th ammendment...and in many cases is in direct conflict with that and several others...where a specific group of people would be discriminated against based on who they are...that once you declared you were gay or it was "proven" (I don't even want to go there and the draconian aspects of that) then your rights would be eliminated. This is a precedent that would totally destroy the entire Constitution.

The Repugnicans...or at least those with a modicum of knowledge of history and the law...know this crap would never stand a court challenge purely based under the equal protection under the law provision...the same one this regime cited in destroying the Florida vote in 2000. Once you discriminate on lifestyle, what stops that from religion or sex or income? Again, it's completely counter to what the Constitution was intended to be.

Finally, there's no way 2/3rds of the state legislatures would pass out this horseshit in the required time. Many here probably were too young or never heard about the Equal Rights Ammendment...an attempt to codify woman's rights in the late 70s and early 80s. Despite having a majority of Americans favoring its passage, and was passed out of both the House and Senate, it died in the state legislatures as it became a political football for the growing right wing factions that were starting to invade the state legislatures. Not that the measure has to pass...it's the time limit involved...the ERA died that way as there weren't enough states ratifying the ammendment in the 7 years (I think that's the time frame) from the time it was approved by Congress, to become an ammendment.

This is the most base form of fear pandering I've ever seen the Repugnicans try to pull. Rove knows this is purely a stunt...but its one that worked in '04 and he uses the old Green Bay Packer "end around" sweep. That's where you keep running the same play over and over until someone stops it. Democrats have yet to come up with a way to stop these things...it's only been the GOOPs overplaying of their hand that has backfired.

[bigtree]

15. they'll never get all the states to ratify it, you're right

and we haven't come up with a way to stop them from the pandering.

work beckons . . . more thoughts later

thanks for laying it all out for me KharmaTrain

[KharmaTrain]

16. I Think A Majority Of Repugnicans Aren't Buying It

Again, the game Rove is playing here is to energize a very split and demoralized Repugnican base.

The fundies are pissed because this regime hasn't done enough on their pet issues. They look at booosh having bailed on them on Schaivo and then the Harriet Meyers mess really created riffs that ScAlito couldn't cure. Only selecting a Pickering or Moore would.

Without those church busses filled with scared bible thumpers in Florida, Ohio, Michigan and other "swing states" the house will fall to the Democrats and with it the flimsy deck of cards this regime has built.

There's nothing the Democrats can do to reach the fundies and there's no need to. It'd be like Rove trying to make nice to us...none of us, with any modicum of sense and principals, would cross over. IMHO we stand back and let the Repugnicans overplay their hand on this issue as it appears with all the other problems this regime's created...real and imagined...non-religious Repugnicans will see this as putting someone elses' agenda ahead of theirs.

Thanks for a great discussion...

Cheers...

[truth2power]

22. Kharma, could you explain, again (I should know this)

how the ratification process works? As I understand, it has to be ratified by the legislatures of each state. I've always felt, as you indicated, that this doesn't have a chance in hell of being ratified. But given the rightward turn in our state legislatures, who knows? Aren't we on shaky ground here?

[bigtree]

23. if I may

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Such amendments may be proposed by the United States Congress or by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. To become valid, amendments must then be ratified by either the legislatures of or ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the several states.


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Proposal

Whenever they "deem it necessary," two-thirds of both houses of Congress may propose an amendment. This means two-thirds of those members present—assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast—and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress. It was suggested that the two houses first adopt a resolution indicating that they deem an amendment necessary, but this procedure has never been used—the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives instead directly proceed to the adoption of a joint resolution itself proposing the amendment, the implication being already clear that both bodies "deem" the amendment to be "necessary." Amendments have always been proposed as Articles in addition to the original Constitution, rather than being incorporated into the main body of the document.

If at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the states so request, Congress is required to call a convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment. The requisite number of states never made such a request although two proposals have come just two states shy of the required number. There is much controversy as to how such a convention would operate, how its delegates would be chosen, the necessary vote required to propose a particular amendment, and many other lingering questions. The state legislatures have, in times past, taken advantage of the fear of the unknown by using their power to apply for a national convention in order to frighten Congress into proposing the desired amendment. For example, the movement to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators began to see such proposals regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate from the early 1890s onward. As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called, thus pressuring the Senate to finally relent and approve what later became the Seventeenth Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—might stray to include issues above and beyond just the direct election of U.S. Senators.

After being officially proposed, a constitutional amendment must then be ratified by the legislatures of, or by conventions in, at least three-fourths of the states. It is not mandatory that amendments proposed by Congress be ratified by legislatures nor is it mandatory that amendments proposed by a national convention be ratified by state conventions; either mode of proposal may be used with either mode of ratification. Of the twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution that have been ratified, Congress has specified the state conventions ratification method for only one: the Twenty-first Amendment, which became part of the Constitution in 1933. Most states hold elections specifically for the purpose of choosing delegates, but even that is not a requirement. For example, New Mexico provides, by state law, that the members of its legislature be the delegates at such a state ratification convention, thereby skirting the occasional sentiment that persons other than state lawmakers should consider the ratification of a particular proposed Federal constitutional amendment.

more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[KharmaTrain]

24. Actually It's Moved In Our Direction

I'm far from being an expert on the Constitution...So I'll let Aricle V speak for itself

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate

As I cited in the earlier post, I wasn't sure how long the clock was set in passing an ammendment and for good reason...as you see Article V really doesn't specify. Here more from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Deadline_imposed_on_ratification_process

Beginning in 1917, Congress has usually—but not always—imposed deadlines on proposed amendments. The limitation originally took the form of a clause in the text of the constitutional amendment itself, such as "This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress." Such a clause may be found in the Eighteenth, Twentieth, Twenty-first and Twenty-second Amendments. However, with the Twenty-third, Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth amendments, Congress instead placed the ratification deadline in the preamble of the joint resolution proposing the amendment rather than in the amendment's actual text. And in the cases of the Nineteenth Amendment (proposed in 1919) and the still-pending Child Labor Amendment (proposed in 1924), Congress chose specifically not to establish any deadline at all.

The ERA was passed out of the House & Senate in 1971 and missed the 1978 deadline...by only 3 states...and the dealine was extended until 1982...and still didn't get the extra states. Not that this is the blueprint...it all depends on how this is passed out of the Congress (they could specify the time limit) and whose in control of the House/Senate.

There's several scenarios here in the Congress...one of the biggest is the GOOP maintaining control of the House/Senate this fall.

On the state level in recent years we've seen a trend toward the Democrats in many state legislatures. For example in my state, Illinois, both houses are controlled by Democrats and, unless something really earthshattering occurs in November, they'll retain control...and I can think of at least a dozen other states where Democrats are firmly in control (maybe we an compile a list of that status) and another dozen that are split which puts us very close to the number that would prevent passage.

In a nutshell I don't think there's even the 2/3rds of the Senate...the "Super Majority" being there...the same number that was required to impeach Clinton as I couldn't see Senators like Snowe or Specter or Chaffee voting in favor and surely there's not enough Democrats who would cross over.

Cheers...

[sutz12]

29. Actually, you could argue that 18 did....

Banning alcohol was basically infringing on commerce and individual rights to get shit faced when you wanted to. :)

And we all know how that turned out.

:kick:

[KharmaTrain]

34. Very Good Point...Thank You

But then that was discriminating against a substance...alcohol...not people. This sham ammendment is targeted as a specific group of people that is based on their lifestyle and one that would make it easy to accuse first and prove later.

Let's play a game. Pretend that this crap does become law...now how does one prove a person is gay? Do we only discriminate against those that are open about this...or do we start witch hunts to clear out the closets?

[truth2power]

20. Great rant, Kharma! n/t

[OneBlueSky]

17. "homophobia" is probably a misnomer . . .

"phobia" means fear, and I don't think what this is doing is institutionalizing fear of homosexuals . . . rather, it is institutionalizing "homo-hatred" -- which is much more virulent and much more destructive . . .

[bigtree]

18. I chose fear because of how they define homosexuality as a threat

threatens hetero marriage etc. The fear leads to the expressions of hatred imo.

KharmaTrain's got it down. It's a juvenile fear. They're afraid it will encourage others who aren't inclined toward homosexuality. I would speculate that they're also afraid of unleashing their own homosexual proclivities, although that's as presumptive as the contrived notions of the detractors so I leave that alone.

Maybe your view that they're institutionalizing hatred is on the mark. Legislating their fears, institutionalizing hatred. At any rate, I'd like a chance to legislate some of my own fears about the right wing in defense of my own preference of established institutions. And, I do hate the right wing.

[bunkerbuster1]

19. "What kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay?"

Pink poses an excellent question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eDJ3cuXKV4&eurl

[Ganja Ninja]

21. The last throes of the Bush presidency.

They have nothing else to talk about. To bring up any other subject is to bring up their failures. So fear not all you marriage minded gays. If Bush is as successful with this as he has been with everything else, you'll be getting hitched in no time.

[Jawja]

25. Let's ban divorce and adultry

FIRST.... :argh:

[kineneb]

32. why not chuck marriage altogether: have civil unions

for everyone. Marriage was for centuries an economic alliance between families using their children. It had nothing to do with religion. In fact, in the Middle Ages, weddings were not performed in churches, but often on the church steps: 1. so everyone could see the legal ceremony (important in a pre-literate society) and 2. because the Church was into "celibacy" and marriage implied...-horrors- Sex!

[Jawja]

35. Exactly.

Let's have civil unions for everyone; and like Baptism, "marriage" with vows can be a religious ceremony.

[sentelle]

26. Where to start

First of all, if our representatives call it what it is, *The Discrimination of Homosexuals Act of the 2006 election cycle* I think we would all be able to get on with our lives and laugh it off as the joke it is.

To call it *defense of marriage act* makes me wonder whether they understand anything about marriage.

I don't understand how discriminating against gay people defends marriage.

Marriage is undermined by people who enter into it too casually, not thinking it out well, and wind up divorcing just as quickly. When the average mariage lasts less than eight years, marriage can use any help it can get, even among those who can legally get it.

AFAIK, marriage laws are created by individual states, I think a constitutional lawyer would call it 'states rights'. The GOP now wants to turn this into a federal law.... Over the last few years, the GOP has campaigned for smaller (federal) government, and less (federal) government interference. Why then, the shift. (of course we all know the answer is that now that they have control of the federal government, they want to increase their power.)

This can be used as a bludgeon against the GOP. Repeat after me. This is a state's rights issue. Leave the issue to the states. The GOP does not stand for anything if it reneges on this.

The GOP wants to make our representatives take a stand, for or against homosexuality. If we take a stand, on their rules, we lose. If we frame it as a states-rights issue, we win.

[SeattleRob]

27. it's all a scam....

[Deja Q]

30. Good influence on society? Britney Spears and Donald Trump come to mind.

Whatever. Bush likes to aim at targets... trouble is, he's looking at the bullseye that's in a different arena. Oops.

[newspeak]

33. I'm getting tired of sicko rightwingos

bleating that they don't want government in their lives; and yet will turn around and vote for a bill that puts the government in their lives. Wiretapping? no problem. Abortion? those women must be kept in their place and we can use the government to do it. Gay marriage? By damned, there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution, why they're destroying our country. Gun rights? I got my guns; therefore, I'm free, free I tell you!!!!

[bigtree]

36. that's the impetus behind the bill. It's an opening shot by the govt.

in their campaign to do away with gays and lesbians, push them back underground, and give legal cover for anyone who acts against gay and lesbian individuals, or groups, by insisting their 'institution' is threatened.

If this passed we'd see a further push for gays and lesbians to either register their preference or keep it to themselves. Of course selected services would be unavailable to those who register a sexual preference outside of the legalized norm. That would allow the rest of the public to exercise their new right to discriminate with impunity. Don't ask, don't tell for the general public.