Bush The Bigot
Nikon
Join Date: 2003-09-29 Member: 21313Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-09-29 Member: 21313Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">The audacity to ammend the Constitution</div> the story can be found here
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_gay_marriage_21' target='_blank'>Bush Backs Amendment Banning homosexual Marriage </a>
I just cant believe this guy, he wants to alter the same damn constitution that was formed so that religeous views and personal opinions were protected, formed because of the oppression its creators fled!!!!!!
He wants to force his opinions and views open people, even if they happen to be the minority. What ever happened to freedom? I mean I understand that laws need to be inplace to protect the general populace, but to ban homosexual marriage??? It doesnt stop people from being homosexual, its just blatant intollerance.
what do you guys think?
[edit] replaced a certain 3 letter word with homosexual, didnt know it was filtered[/edit]
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_gay_marriage_21' target='_blank'>Bush Backs Amendment Banning homosexual Marriage </a>
I just cant believe this guy, he wants to alter the same damn constitution that was formed so that religeous views and personal opinions were protected, formed because of the oppression its creators fled!!!!!!
He wants to force his opinions and views open people, even if they happen to be the minority. What ever happened to freedom? I mean I understand that laws need to be inplace to protect the general populace, but to ban homosexual marriage??? It doesnt stop people from being homosexual, its just blatant intollerance.
what do you guys think?
[edit] replaced a certain 3 letter word with homosexual, didnt know it was filtered[/edit]
Comments
It's just the word game, litagation, blah blah blah
Next, it's not in the hands of Bush to make the decision, it's Congress, both houses with 2/3 vote, not just a majority. It's probably given that the Republicans with conservative ideals will try and keep the original idea of marriage from changing and the liberals are probably the general swing with probably alot favoring **** marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I just cant believe this guy, he wants to alter the same damn constitution that was formed so that religeous views and personal opinions were protected, formed because of the oppression its creators fled!!!!!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've definitely taken some liberty with what they meant. In fact, I guarantee you that the founding fathers would be anti-homosexual marriage. I'm not saying any type of discrimination is ok, but their rights are being infringed upon by not having homosexual marriage, by the law, it is perfectly ok to not have homosexual marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It doesnt stop people from being homosexual, its just blatant intollerance.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what ? It was never meant to prevent people from being homosexual, if it did, then that would be intolerance. To many people, he's simply protecting the conservative view of what marriage is.
Bush said "activist judges and local officials" from Massachusetts to San Francisco to New Mexico were attempting to redefine marriage and "change the most fundamental institution of civilization" by allowing same-sex weddings. "On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard," he said.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What fundamental institution of civilization? Women weren't even treated as equal for an extremely long time, and marriage isn't "respected" in many countries anyway. Yes, the voice of people must be heard, and I do hope it's for **** marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One word : Athens.
<a href='http://www.ucd.ie/classics/94/Arkins94.html' target='_blank'>http://www.ucd.ie/classics/94/Arkins94.html</a>
Next, it's not in the hands of Bush to make the decision, it's Congress, both houses with 2/3 vote, not just a majority. It's probably given that the Republicans with conservative ideals will try and keep the original idea of marriage from changing and the liberals are probably the general swing with probably alot favoring **** marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I just cant believe this guy, he wants to alter the same damn constitution that was formed so that religeous views and personal opinions were protected, formed because of the oppression its creators fled!!!!!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've definitely taken some liberty with what they meant. In fact, I guarantee you that the founding fathers would be anti-homosexual marriage. I'm not saying any type of discrimination is ok, but their rights are being infringed upon by not having homosexual marriage, by the law, it is perfectly ok to not have homosexual marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It doesnt stop people from being homosexual, its just blatant intollerance.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what ? It was never meant to prevent people from being homosexual, if it did, then that would be intolerance. To many people, he's simply protecting the conservative view of what marriage is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He is being a bigot, now he may not be the worst or most severe, but by the merriam-webster definition, he is still a bigot
<a href='http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bigot' target='_blank'>Definition: Bigot</a>
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush said "activist judges and local officials" from Massachusetts to San Francisco to New Mexico were attempting to redefine marriage and "change the most fundamental institution of civilization" by allowing same-sex weddings. "On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard,"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He is doing this out of his belief that the beliefs of others is wrong, hes trying to protect an idea HE agrees with and deny the people that he disagrees with the basic right to a fundemental religous ceramony.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, said she would fight any amendment. "Never before has a constitutional amendment been used to discriminate against a group of people, and we must not start now," she said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You've definitely taken some liberty with what they meant. In fact, I guarantee you that the founding fathers would be anti-homosexual marriage. I'm not saying any type of discrimination is ok, but their rights are being infringed upon by not having homosexual marriage, by the law, it is perfectly ok to not have homosexual marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regardless if the founding fathers would agree with the admentment or not, that doesnt make it right.
<a href='http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti' target='_blank'>The First Amendment to the US Constitution Bill of rigts</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Amendment I
<b>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof</b>; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What right does he or anyone have to go against this? Its not like they are sacraficing babies in some ritualistic killing. They want to practice a part of their reglion and receive the benefits given to heterosexual people who practice the same institution the same way.
This is discrimination, while it may not be anywhere near as bad as the US or the rest of the world has seen before, it doesnt change what it is. A group of people are being denied a basic right given to everyone else basic on sexual preference. To me this arguement holds the same validity as denying someone rights based on thier skin color, and that validity is NONE.
They are being denied this because of who they love. Just because we cant understand it, does that make it any less valid than when a straight person loves someone of the opposite sex? Is that love any more right or valid than theirs?
<a href='http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/02/1670985.php' target='_blank'>http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/02/1670985.php</a>
"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. "
Pastor Niemoller on nazi germany
EDIT: hey i found this great twist on Niemollers words:
"First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.
Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant.
Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect.
Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen.
Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide.
Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups.
Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to speak up."
- Stephen Rohde, a constitutional lawyer and President of the ACLU of Southern California
And before Monse tells me im off topic, im not. The US is implementing facist policies that give chills in the back of europeans who can remember. There is a lot of similarities between whats going on in the US, and what happenned in germany in the 1930s... Remember that the nazis didnt implement all the measures at once, they did it slowly, step by step, using a legalistic facade that crumbled under examination. The reichstag fire was the excuse the nazis used to kill civil liberties, then they really got to work. And homosexuals were one of their first target.
Hitler was big on christian rethoric, too.
He's doing what he and his base beleive: that somehome having **** married people would be a huge moral blow the country. I personally find it preposterous that it would happen, but that is his justification, although I'm sure a heavy dose Christian morality factored in there.
I don't want to see homosexuality accepted as 'normal', but I don't think we should deny them the legal rights and act is if they don't exist.
EDIT
IndyMedia is a bunch of crap.
I don't want to see homosexuality accepted as 'normal', but I don't think we should deny them the legal rights and act is if they don't exist.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stop right there. Why?
Let's clear a few things up:
First, Constitutional Amendments <a href='http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html' target='_blank'>(from this link)</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention.
<b>It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.</b>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Informal Amendment"
Another way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.
There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to monied land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution, because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.
The second major way the meaning of the Constitution changes is through the judiciary. As the ultimate arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted, the judiciary wields more actual power than the Constitution alludes to. For example, before the Privacy Cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation's outlook on these issues changed.
In neither of these cases was the Constitution changed. Rather, the way we looked at the Constitution changed, and these changes had a far-reaching effect. These changes in meaning are significant because they can happen by a simple judge's ruling and they are not a part of the Constitution and so they can be changed later.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What we're currently looking at is an Informal Amendment. A handful of judges are using this process to insert their definition of marriage. A bit ironic when we look at the start of this thread. President Bush is merely reacting to the actions of these judges and wouldn't have bothered pushing for an amendment otherwise.
Now, in 1996 (under that Hitler Fascist Clinton *cough*) the <a href='http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm' target='_blank'>Defense of Marriage Act</a> was signed into law. Summary:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides
that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other
State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the
words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law. (ie-Man=Male=Husband and Woman=Female=Wife)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From what I can gather, the constitutionality of this act is now in question because of these judges' actions. I've even heard rumblings that Democrats are whining about State's Rights (HA!).
In my opinion, the Judiciary has jumped the gun here and may have ruined the chances of wider support by acting now as opposed to a few years from now. The largest voting bloc in the US is the elderly. Why? Probably because they don't have much else to do <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> But seriously, they are obiously the one group who would be most resistant to this change (besides the religious groups).
The judges should have waited for the Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out Hippy types to start their Geritol/Metamucil diets before flipping this switch. Now, it may be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to solidify homosexual marriages.
The people are not ready. Regardless of what you think of the President.
I don't think it's right to call Bush a bigot....
anyhow my thoughts on the subject
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A group of people are being denied a basic right given to everyone else basic on sexual preference.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are not being denied the right to be married, they just have to marry the opposite sex like everyone else. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Semantics aside, Im not against marriage between same sex couples. The funny thing is; if it wasn't for the idiots in california giving out marriage certificates, **** marriage would of eventually been accepted. Now its going to take longer for people to accept **** marriage. Am I mad at the president for his actions and do I think he is bigoted, no. Bush knows that this will never go through, it is simply a reaction to actions of a few government officials.
I've never been a big fan of that accusation, as the label seems to belong to both sides of the arguement.
I've never been a big fan of that accusation, as the label seems to belong to both sides of the arguement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
point taken, the work in its extremes can likely be applied to anyone. While I may have been out of line to call him a bigot, I do stand firm in saying that it is unjust to impose the belief that marriage is only for a man and a woman. This is mainly based on the religious values and morals of this group.
If homosexual marriage was part of a religion, part of teh belief system, would it still be an viable admendment? It is the homosexuals belief that they should be able to be married.
hes also expressing hes feelings that its wrong and shouldnt be allowed, regardless of who started it, I based this thread off what he said and what he said he wanted to do.
a married homo couple is < a married strait couple
and the consitution states
all Men are created equal
hahahhahahahha, the consitiution is now contradicting itself
There is nothing wrong with Bush having an opinion that stems from his religious beliefs.
What Bush has done is say that the law must be followed and that the current federal law should be "reinforced".
The opinion he shares with a very large portion of the American population has to do with religious beliefs ( nothing inherently wrong with this, so don't try to make an issue out of it ) on marriage. Now with this in mind, we can go back to my first statement. Bush actually left himself another avenue to follow... That of civil unions. I am of the opinion that those who oppose marriages of the same sex would be open to the idea of civil unions that grant the same protections and tax-status... Now what would be the difference between the two in this case? Besides the semantics... Just the idea behind each function.
Now... Why doesn't someone start bashing Kerry also since he's against Marriage of the sex as well??? Would it be because he opposes the idea of a constitutional amendment?
I really don't care one way or the other... But I can understand both sides. I was raised Baptist ( although I'm not anymore ) and I can fully understand why people oppose it. Especially when religion is brought into the fold.
But like I said... I don't really care either way. Won't affect me.
I don't want to see homosexuality accepted as 'normal', but I don't think we should deny them the legal rights and act is if they don't exist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stop right there. Why? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it seems pretty obvious how things are supposed to work between the sexes, considering our animalistic roots.
Also, I think that totally accepted mainstream homosexuality will raise some tough questions families may not want to answer about sex to young children.
"Sammy has 2 daddies. why?" "Cause that's how their family is." "Why don't they have a mommy?" "Well..."
I don't want to see homosexuality accepted as 'normal', but I don't think we should deny them the legal rights and act is if they don't exist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stop right there. Why? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it seems pretty obvious how things are supposed to work between the sexes, considering our animalistic roots.
Also, I think that totally accepted mainstream homosexuality will raise some tough questions families may not want to answer about sex to young children.
"Sammy has 2 daddies. why?" "Cause that's how their family is." "Why don't they have a mommy?" "Well..." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Drawing lines between normality and abnormality breeds intolerance and bigottry.
Which is precisely why when creep goes out to his back yard and finds some man mating with his dog, he wont be intolerant, nor will he be a bigot, he will offer the man a packet of condoms and have a friendly chat.....
Which is precisely why when creep goes out to his back yard and finds some man mating with his dog, he wont be intolerant, nor will he be a bigot, he will offer the man a packet of condoms and have a friendly chat..... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm....I really doubt that.
Civil unions? Why is that ppl will support civil unions but not marriage? Civil unions is just another bigoted way for ppl to oppress others. Civil unions is just the modern day homosexual equivelant of "separate but equal" practiced and preached by the racist haters of the past. We all know that there is no such thing as "separate but equal."
I can understand some politicians supporting civil unions somewhat as they are looking out for thier own butt and dont want to lose votes. They know that most of the US is still homophobic and so they take what they feel is the middle road. I dont agree with it but I do understand why politicians do that. They dont want to lose votes for saying that are for the basic human right of marriage between consenting adults no matter what sex. To many politicians its a compromise but in reality it still bigotry.
100 years from now(mebbe even less) ppl are gonna look back on this issue and think "How could they treat homosexuals like that?" "How could ppl be so bigoted and intolerant?" Just like how we look back on the racial bigotry of the past.
Which is precisely why when creep goes out to his back yard and finds some man mating with his dog, he wont be intolerant, nor will he be a bigot, he will offer the man a packet of condoms and have a friendly chat..... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I'll tell them to bugger off my property. Much in the same way I'd do the same for two people fighting, breaking my windows etc...
Applying a label like "normal" creates divides that do not need creating.
And just because I disagree with someone's behaviour, doesn't mean I label them abnormal.
/edit and to clarify - I don't disagree with homosexual behaviour. I would disagree with bestiality behaviour (gr?). But let's not go there. Create a separate thread: "Is bestiality acceptable ?" if you want to discuss this further.
Applying a label like "normal" creates divides that do not need creating.
And just because I disagree with someone's behaviour, doesn't mean I label them abnormal.
/edit and to clarify - I don't disagree with homosexual behaviour. I would disagree with bestiality behaviour (gr?). But let's not go there. Create a separate thread: "Is bestiality acceptable ?" if you want to discuss this further. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So is it okay if he does it in the privacy of his own home?
You are claiming that to label things abnormal is bigotted and wrong. That statement is out and out false, I dont think we need another thread to figure that one out.
There are heaps of things in society that are labelled abnormal and wrong. Stealing, rape, beastiality just to name a few. You cant simply claim that labelling homosexuality abnormal is wrong on the basis that labelling anything abnormal is wrong. We label things abnormal all the time, and just about everyone in society accepts it.
I'd be interested to see if you are going to label my purely theoretical preference for young children as sexual partners abnormal?
Wake up folks, Bush needs something to re-establish his picture as a "conservative." What conservative things has he done lately? Increased governmental spending? oops, that doensn't fit... Increased the size, scope and power of federal agencies? nope, that doesn't fit either... doing the previous while allowing them to delve into our privacy with impunity? nope, that doesn't seem like a "no big government" stance either... expanded prescription drug plans and healthcare plans/spending? damn, that seems almost liberal now that you mention it... Hmmm, maybe the expansion of federal standards for public education? That smells like "big government" as well...
outside of advocating and initiating a war, there's not a whole lot Bush has done that <i>wasn't</i> of the "liberal" political variety. He billed himself as a "compassionate conservative" for the 2000 election, and he's facing election again in november. he has to do <i>something</i> so that his own party and faction will think "hey, he's one of us." Look at his track record in the last three years. Tell me where he's done any of the following: cut government spending or reduced/elminated a deficit; reduced the role the federal government plays in the lives of the everyday citizen; failed to expand any role the government plays wherever possible; honestly cut taxes when the economy <i>wasn't</i> reeling...
Hell, outside of his religious views, there's not a whole lot that makes him seem like much of a conservative at all...and what did he try to do regarding religion? faith-based initiatives you say? giving federal funds to specific religious non-corporate entities? Say it aint so....
He's taking a stand on this the way his dad took a stand on the flag-burning over a decade ago. No one's going to pass the amendment. But he's required by his hopes for re-election and the establishment of a "conservative" foundation for his campaign to take <i>some</i> sort of stand. This way he can simply say "Well, you know I <i>tried</i> to bring a solution. it was those damned judges/congressmen/state governments who blocked my efforts. What else could I do?" to his constituents, his running-mates, his conservative support bloc. Wake up folks, the amendment wouldn't make it out of the House, wouldn't survive the Senate, let alone be ratified by 75% of the states. He's built a paper tiger so that down the road he can claim that he tried to "do something about it" on the campaign trail with his conservative backers.
Also, why do people buy that rhetoric crap of being a homosexual equates to a "sexual preference"?
Guys, being a homosexual is like being born without an arm or with an extra head, it's a birth defect. In this sense, homosexuality is just abnormal.
You are claiming that to label things abnormal is bigotted and wrong. That statement is out and out false, I dont think we need another thread to figure that one out.
There are heaps of things in society that are labelled abnormal and wrong. Stealing, rape, beastiality just to name a few. You cant simply claim that labelling homosexuality abnormal is wrong on the basis that labelling anything abnormal is wrong. We label things abnormal all the time, and just about everyone in society accepts it.
I'd be interested to see if you are going to label my purely theoretical preference for young children as sexual partners abnormal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/edit
OK, in light of Beast's post beyond, I'll modify my stance since we live in the real world. These high minded ideals just don't work in the real world.
Yes, some behaviour is abnormal. It is not normal to mate with dogs, kids, dead people etc...