The Federal Marriage Amendment

[NachtSorcier]

The US Senate had a private meeting to vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment that, if passed after the final voting next month, will ban same-sex marriage in all 50 states for good. I encourage all US citizens to speak up and speak out against this throughly un-American travesty now.

If our right to marry is killed forever, our other basic rights will soon follow and eventually being gay will once again be punishable by law.

You can read the article here: http://news.**********/s/nm/20060518/...azkxBHNlYwN0bQ

Please go here to cast your vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment and pass it along!:http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fma_postcards

Thank you very much.

[Lady Victoria Pareesis]

I can't believe the way America regress further and further in the matters of homosexuality, security and xenophobia.
That's just scary.

[Dreaming Vendetta]

It would seem that the leaders of America today feel obligated to impose their right-wing Christian morals on the entire nation, regardless of the Constitution, our civil rights, and plain human decency. Why can't they realize that homosexuals are just people like everyone else?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Can a 17 year old still vote for "no"?

[Dreaming Vendetta]

I may not be of legal voting age, but I still care about what is happening in the country.

[Draconysius]

There's not much anyone can do to stop the regression back towards the segregation-age. The majority of the voting populace is so narrow-minded and ignorant that only a miracle would save our right to vote. As I'm certain many of you know, more people vote for American Idol than for the Presidential Election. I encourage everyone who's of voting age to vote "no" on the marriage ban. Every time something was about to happen that someone didn't like, people would use the Bible as a crutch for terminating it. It happened with slavery abolition, segregation, women's equal rights, and now with homosexual marriage. America is supposedly the role-model for the world in its so-called freedom from religion. Obviously, America is nothing but a giant ego-empire.

I encourage everyone to watch FS(Free Speech)TV and get involved with any and all protests with which you agree; one can't simply complain without action.

[WolfMoon]

They can't make being homosexual a crime, again.

As big as Gay Pride Day is down here, they'd have a very hard time imposing any kind of laws prohibiting homosexuality.

[Virulent Dryad]

There's no reason, other than religious ones, why two people cannot get married. I am surprised that it has been taken this far considering how stupid it is if you stop to think of it.

[WolfMoon]

It's the religion thing that is the whole issue here. If they would make separation(?) of church and state a real thing people wouldn't feel the need to shit on others about their harmless lifestyles.

[Virulent Dryad]

Ah yes, but I am sure there are American citizens who are not Christian. This country is also a Christian country but in the end, you have to appeal to all your citizens, not just the whiney ones.

[Virulent Dryad]

Point taken.

[Loy]

Wolfie-the separation of church and state is a real thing. It's that part of the constitution called "Amendment 1".

And as big as Gay Pride is everywhere......sorry, me and my sick sense of humor....can't...stop...giggling....sorry 'bout that.....as far as I know, Texas is the big state pushing for the outlawing of homosexuality (since they can't use "sodomy laws" to harrass homos anymore)?

Virulent-just so you know, we are NOT, nor ever WERE, a christian nation, despite what the right-wingers want to say. If there's any confusion over this fact, suggest to whoever is making this assertion to pick up A-a history book, and B-the constitution. That should get those right-wing fucktards to shut up for a minute or two.

And just for clarification purposes, here's article 5 of the constitution....the part about amending the constitution-

"Article V. - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

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."

In other words, a bunch of senators sneaking in the dark can't do much to change the constitution. Which is why I look at this "protecting marriage" thing as a ruse to suck up to their base voters.

[NachtSorcier]

Excuse me while I raise my voice for a moment:

YOUR AGE DOES NOT MATTER! IT IS NOT A VOTE FROM YOU, IT IS LETTING YOUR SENATOR KNOW THAT YOU WANT HIM/HER TO VOTE NO AGAINST THE FMA.

It sounds useless, I know, but doing something small is better than doing nothing.

[J.M.Lovechild]

Its unbelieveable that a country as large, rich and developed as American could blatantly defy human rights by banning marriage of same-sex couple in the 21st century! If they were trying to ban marriage between inter-racial couples the UN would be down there throats about it, so why is this ok?

I also thought that Britain's recent legalisation of same-sex marriage would have a postive influence on the USA as the countries are so close.

America has such a large gay community though that they could never get away with banning homosexual practices completely.

[Loy]

J.M.-the US might have a large homo populace (well to be honest, we have a large out-of-the-closet queer populace. As far as I know, the rates of homo/hetero are about equal everywhere. However, I could be wrong, so don't quote me on it). However, we also have a fairly large portion of our populace that are quite homophobic. How many? Enough to vote for Bush the second time (or really, the first time, since he actually lost the 2000 election). Polls taken at voting stations reported that the majority of Bush voters voted for him because he was "pro-family", which is a more polite way of saying "he hates fags".

I don't think Bush has the cajones to call for a convention in regards to this amendment. What I see being the most probable case is the supreme court (which is now a majority neo-conservative) overturning their recent pro-leaving-queers-alone rulings, thus making the "need" for the amendment moot.

Nacht-did you read the part of the constitution I posted up here? They can't...let me repeat, CAN'T pass an amendment in backrooms.

As for voicing your concerns to your representatives....sorry to burst your bubble, but whilst they'll give under-18 year olds time, very few of them actually listen to them. Why? Simple-they're not voters.

Now, I'm not suggesting that you kids not raise shit. Hell, that would make me a hypocrite (me being a former ACT-UP member and all). What I am saying is A-understand ALL the aspects of whatever you're gonna protest, and B-be realistic about your goals.

X-the joke is "big' and "gay pride". Childish, but funny, in that stupid kind of way.

[J.M.Lovechild]

Hmm, i stupidly assumed that the number of non-homophobic people would outnumber the amount of homophobic people, because of all the popular "gay" shows coming from America (The L Word, Will & Grace, Queer as Folk etc). I did know there was a lot of homophobia in America, but not that much. It seems the British are more open-minded, i thought it was the other way around.

*sighs*

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by Loy

However, we also have a fairly large portion of our populace that are quite homophobic. How many? Enough to vote for Bush the second time (or really, the first time, since he actually lost the 2000 election).

They voted for Clinton twice, also. This issue was part of his campaign platform and he signed the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.

Approving an amendment which purposefully segregates a portion of the populace, is horrible and needs to be fought at all levels. How far away will we be before writing amendments based on segregation of races again?

[Loy]

Nuksau-hate to burst your bubble, but the defense of marriage act wasn't one of slick Wllies platform issues. In fact, it was something he hoped wouldn't be fussed about too much during the electon happening that year. No, he signed DOMA into law (afte it had passed the house and the senate) as a deal (remember NAFTA? do you think those know-nothing Republicans would've let that puppy slide without some kind of appeasment?).

I won't say that Clinton screwed up in authorising this piece of shi...err, legislation. I'm just saying that there's more to the puzzle than you're allowing for everone else to see. And by the way you're bringing this point up in the clones of this thread, I'm guessing that you're trying to say "look, the Dems are hypocrites, since they'll only complain about fag rights when the Republicans attack them, thus giving themselves a number of voters". What you're doing is creating what we journalists call a "false sense of worldly truth", and I'm gonna ask youy nicely to stop. Why? Because it's tantamount to lying, and because I personally prefer to live in a world with less bullshit floating around. Deal?

[WolfMoon]

Originally Posted by Loy

Wolfie-the separation of church and state is a real thing. It's that part of the constitution called "Amendment 1".

And as big as Gay Pride is everywhere......sorry, me and my sick sense of humor....can't...stop...giggling....sorry 'bout that.....as far as I know, Texas is the big state pushing for the outlawing of homosexuality (since they can't use "sodomy laws" to harrass homos anymore)?

I don't think that people should be able to make Amendments based on fear and prejudice. Especially if those fears and prejudices are based in religion.

That's what I originally meant. Sorry for the confusion.

And I giggled too.

[J.M.Lovechild]

Nobody seems to have posted the outcome of the FMA yet (maybe i just missed it), but it wasn't passed thankfully. Link to a news story below.

http://www.gayalliance.org/content/view/462/

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by Loy

Nuksau-hate to burst your bubble, but the defense of marriage act wasn't one of slick Wllies platform issues.

I remember reading it as part of an article discussing the subject, but I cannot locate the article so I will retract my statement do to it falling into the conjecture bin without a linked fact. But I will build on the hypocrisy statement and link to a source for Clinton's 1996 platform and emphasize this statement: "We continue to lead the fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, ethnicity, disability, and sexual orientation. The Democratic Party has always supported the Equal Rights Amendment, and we are committed to ensuring full equality for women and to vigorously enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act. We support continued efforts, like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to end discrimination against gay men and lesbians and further their full inclusion in the life of the nation."

Originally Posted by Loy

I'm guessing that you're trying to say "look, the Dems are hypocrites, since they'll only complain about fag rights when the Republicans attack them, thus giving themselves a number of voters".

Let me remove the guessing. I am tired of the many pinning all this on Bush as if he is the only one who would ever push for this discrimination. Many whom I speak to/debate with on political issues put Clinton on some hallowed pedestal and justify how this wouldn't have happened during Clinton's adminstration. I also tire of the repeated blame on the presidential seat as a whole for the problems facing the US vice equal focus on the checks and balance system when it comes to government spending and lawmaking. I hope that clarifies my view. Both the DOMA and the proposed FMA are extreme pieces of fecal matter. Bush and Clinton are in the same light on this issue along with a whole slew of other sitting on the Hill.

Originally Posted by Loy

what we journalists call a "false sense of worldly truth",

Interesting. My personal opinion of 'we journalists' is the majority create the 'false sense of wordly truth' as I am being accused.

[ghostposts]

It's discriminatory, hateful and damaging. I imagine if anything like this ever gets passed, there will be challenges before the supreme court in the blink of an eye.

There should be equal protection of our rights for all of us.

As far as it being a religious thing, A) I don't think anyone should legislate morality, and
B) many people, not just christians, (And not all christians) have a problem with gays.
Unfortunately a narrowminded majority in this country are allowing hatred to be taught in the name of religion.

Again.

It's so stupid. The Word says "Judge not." and "Love thy neighbor." I guess they're glossing over those parts.

[Loy]

Nuksaa-Ahh, the old "liberal journalists are lying to the masses" ploy. No, you didn't say it, but you hinted at it (and not very subtly, I migt add). Nice try, child, but I suggest reading something other than political screeds. Maybe, I dunno, take some courses in sociology...anthropology...communications...modern politics....hell, go to college and pay attention rather than drink and impregnate passed-out sorostitutes. The whole "journalists are lying to the public" stance is false from the get go, and so obviously simple-minded that....fuck it, I have better things to do with my time...such as pull my leg hairs out one by one.

As for the difference between Clinton and Bush....again read both statements. Whilst fucking with homos is bad all around, Bush's push was worse because he tried to put it IN THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION. If you can't figure out the difference between a constitutional amendment and a federal law....again, going to college and paying attention is something I highly suggest....or maybe reading.

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by Loy

Nuksaa-Ahh, the old "liberal journalists are lying to the masses" ploy.

No subtly about it. Though I wouldn't include liberals in the statement. And I did say majority, not all, and I will explain. Many journalists (liberal, conservative, and those in between) want to be published and much of what gets published borders on the sensational. So several of these journalist are willing to lose part of their integrity in order to be published. Not necessarily bold face lies but not including the whole story and omitting certain facts. And later when the quote is discovered as not true or the facts which were not included come to light, the retraction story gets buried on page 7 in small print. And now they resemble politicians who are willing to sell their integrity for a vote.

And the rest of your statement is a poor attempt to raise my ire and only makes it apparent you have no idea to who you are talking. One point I will make light of is the one about the Constitution. I know very clearly the difference between law and Constitution. I would go a step farther and I say I understand the ramifications, of any change to the Constitution, more than you. I, also, understand the checks and balances inherent to the Constitution. The President can suggest anything he (and eventually she) desires to the Congress but it is the Congress which passes the laws (or approves amendments) to the President for approval or veto. And then the Supreme Court upholds the Constitutional standard to all laws. So when discrimintory laws get passed and are maintained in the books, they are all a culpable bunch.

And as far as college goes, I do have a degree in Electrical and Nuclear Engineering. Granted they are a technical degrees and not literary degrees.

[Loy]

Well, to explain the whole thing about the dire state of journalism.....see, the 70's were considered a golden era for what's termed "pure journalism". You know, journalists going out, and putting out factual, concise stories? Then a few things happened.

1.Corporations found a great way to abuse libel/slander laws. See, before whenever they'd sue a newspaper over an article, they'd sue over the entire article, claiming that it "ruined their professional reputations". Now, they knew they'd luse, but they hoped they'd drag the case out in a game of financial chicken ("who's gonna balk first"). Then they figured out that they could sue over and over again for the same article by suing sentance per sentance. Remember that game of financial chicken? Well, the stakes get higher, the court costs rise, and it makes it so that even though the newspaper would win each and every time, they'd usually go bankrupt. This lesson, so far, hasn't been lost.

2.Reagan and his whole love of deregulation got rid of the limits on how many news sources could be owned. What this means is this-in the 70's, you had thousands of different news sources. In the 80, you had hundreds. Now, you have 7. what this means-less competition to get all the facts correct. what this also means-more widespread censorship over content that "management" might have problems with.

3.The rise of skags. See, skag is a derogatory term that I heard in college. They're the "person every journalist relies on for their job". A skag is basically the common reader/watcher, but the term implies a person "who reads or watches the news, and knows they're being lied to, but won't admit it it, because if they admit that they're government's using media to lie to them, them they have to admit to other lies about their lives....pretty soon, they have to keep admiting to lie after lie until they come to the realisation that their entire lives are nothing but lies, and the only honorable thing left for them to do is suck on a .38 caliber". The rise of FOX corporations has only proven that the skag is the ruler of the media world, thus killing off pure journalism from lack of interest, and lowering the national IQ.

As for your understanding of the sturcture of our government....very good. Now apply this understanding to the difference between peoples reaction to what Clinton did, and what Bush is doing, and maybe you'll see that whilst Clinton did his shit on the sly, Bush makes no bones about letting people know that he wants to destroy the very fabric of our society (the conbstitution), even if it includes using the constitution against itself.