Cheney Daughter Remark

[elcorazon]

My memory is imperfect and fading.. but...

Kerry's first wife suffered from depression if I recall.

In the context of a question related to health care, would it have been "correct" for Bush to say..

"Senator, since your ex-wife suffered from depression, you know what I speak of when I say..blah...blah about mental health...."

A perfect point no one has responded to

Still waiting

I'll respond.  First of all, Kerry made a mistake by bringing up the issue, not because it was in bad taste necessarily, but because it opened the door to another irrelevant discussion which takes away from Kerry's ability to benefit from actual political discussion.

Secondly, your example is not on point because Kerry was trying to humanize the issue of gays in America.  I think, in a way, his biggest mistake may have been using the word lesbian, which somehow sounds worse to people than gay.  The question was whether being gay was a choice.  Selecting someone specifically in the family of the administration drove the point home that it IS a choice.

I suppose if Bush were answering a question about whether mental health needs to be dealt with AND if he were taking the position that the federal government should provide more help, then bringing up a Kerry family member might be appropriate, but somehow that scenario doesn't seem too likely.

The real question is whether the stigma to mental health issues = the stigma with respect to sexual orientation.

I do also think it's odd that no one really criticized Edwards too much and now that Kerry utilized the issue similarly, it's a big deal.  I think the Bush Cheney people were hoping this would happen and were prepared to pounce to hopefully take the edge off of Kerry's debate victory.

It may have worked.

[elcorazon]

here's a good article about the issue:

John Kerry's lesbian moment
Dick and Lynne Cheney screamed foul when the Democratic candidate mentioned their gay daughter. But for gays and lesbians, what is most outrageous is the Cheneys' outrage.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dave Cullen



Oct. 15, 2004  |  America's most notorious lesbian is back.

In the final presidential debate, John Kerry responded to a gay-rights question with a reference to Vice President Dick Cheney's gay daughter. The vice president's wife, Lynne Cheney, immediately went ballistic, condemning Kerry in her most moralistic tones as "not a good man" for the "cheap and tawdry political trick." By Thursday morning, it was all over the news networks, with the vice president also impugning Kerry's character and describing himself as "a pretty angry father." CNN's Wolf Blitzer gravely speculated that the controversy could dominate the entire post-debate landscape. Well, yeah, if the Cheneys -- supposedly outraged by the violation of their daughter's privacy -- get their way and keep the issue burning brightly in the public eye.

 
How incredibly sad for Mary Cheney, the lesbian in question. And not for the reasons that her parents and the pundits have been screaming about.

First, let's dispense with the comic aspects of the parental indignation:


Mary Cheney has been happily out of the closet for at least a decade, so John Kerry was hardly dragging her out against her will.
She spent the late '90s working as a veritable professional lesbian, as gay and lesbian corporate relations manager for Coors Brewing Co.
Dick Cheney himself has been using her sexuality on the campaign trail. Click here to watch a Human Rights Campaign ad with him on the stump on Aug. 24, 2004: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter ... "
The Bush-Cheney administration has shamelessly used homosexuality as a wedge issue, never hesitating to play the sodomite card when it serves their political ends.
John Edwards brought up Mary Cheney in response to a similar gay-rights question just eight days earlier in the veep debate. Dick Cheney responded by thanking him for his kind remarks.

Maybe Dick's indignation began later that night watching "The Daily Show." Jon Stewart poked fun at Edwards for opportunistically screaming GAY DAUGHTER! GAY DAUGHTER! to any homophobe out there who still hadn't heard about it.

It didn't go much further, but twice in one week was apparently too much -- for the Cheneys and for the media. The conservative cable clones began piling on. Even some liberals have been squeamish about the Democrats invoking Mary's lesbianism so shamelessly.

But they just don't get it. Much of the gay population is incensed. At the media.

Let's get one thing straight. It is not an insult to call a proudly public lesbian a lesbian. It's an insult to gasp when someone calls her a lesbian. That's how all the gays I have spoken to the past 24 hours perceived the press response. You're embarrassed for us. And it's infuriating.

Consider the way a paraplegic or a blind person feels when you act just a little too sympathetic about their "plight." We don't want your pity! Can you see how insulting it is?

The only thing offensive about Kerry's statement to us gay people was that he had to pause mid-sentence and gulp and sputter the terrifying word out: "Dick Cheney's daughter, who is ... a lesbian ..."

It's not a dirty word, John. And why is the press reacting like he exposed a breast?

The most outlandish exchange I've seen came in a scholarly Fox News debate Thursday -- seriously, it happens -- over the candidates' linguistic styles, of all things. The conservative guy, Eric Dezenhall, charged that "the invocation of Vice President Cheney's daughter's lesbianism was sort of a radioactive concept. The words lesbian in a presidential debate -- even if you don't mean it to be mean -- came across as off the grid, and very, very shrill."

Is he serious? If it's innocent little gay people you think you're protecting here, listen up! Gay people do not consider the invocation of our existence radioactive. It's the comparisons to plutonium that drive us nuts. We are not toxic.

A gay reader e-mailed to lament that, "I've heard my own mom say that she wished there was a 'nicer' word" than "lesbian."

At least he didn't have Lynne Cheney for a mom.

Her response was truly deplorable. If Mary Cheney is distraught this morning, it's likely her mother is the cause. And it's perplexing to millions of gay Americans today why the press has not grasped how horrible she acted toward Mary Wednesday night.

Maybe it's understandable. Most of you out there have never been a homo. Let me share a personal story to illustrate how this works for a gay person. I came out to my parents when I was in my 30s -- they were shocked, then understanding, but also a little queasy about it. The queasiness was much less about them accepting me as it was their friends accepting them.

That's the part that stings. No matter how old you get.

Once you're happily out of the closet a few years, you don't bat an eye at someone hearing you're gay. Even on national television. Even if your father's the vice president. (Especially if your father's the vice president -- don't you think she's used to it by now?)

What rips your heart out is when someone close to you denies your sexuality in public. Or shudders at the mention of it, so you can see how desperately they want to.

It may sound like a subtle implication to a straight person -- clearly it does; even the most liberal straight pundits appear oblivious to it -- but a gay person hears it scream out loud and clear. You people still feel there's something to be ashamed of here.

One of the happiest days of my life came when one of the old ladies at my mom's Catholic bridge club mentioned what a nice young husband I'd make. My mother, in her 60s by then, laughed it off. "I don't think that's going to happen," she said. "He's gay."

I was stunned when I heard the story. It had taken her years to get to that point. And it meant everything to me. She didn't care what the bridge ladies thought. She cared more about me.

I doubt very much that Mary Cheney gives a rat's ass if some church lady in Idaho knows she's gay. But her mother cringing at the church lady knowing -- that's gotta hurt like hell.

[elcorazon]

Homosexuality is a disorder obviously. If its a mild form of retardation or due to rape or whatever I don't know but I do know thats it's an illness.

Do you truly believe what you are saying?
Do you live in a bubble?
Do you know any gay people?
Are you saying Mary Cheney was raped? is retarded? or merely mentally ill?  
Isn't she running Cheney's campaign?  Would you put someone with that type of illness in a responsible position?
Why am I asking so many questions?

[elcorazon]

are you gay j.j.?
When did you decide?

[elcorazon]

I read the thread.  Sorry I couldn't remember your discussion of this issue over the course of a 12 page thread.  I remember back in high school, I was thinking of going on a date, so I had to decide; should I ask a boy or a girl?  For me, it was a pretty easy decision, and one I've been resolute about, never waffling or going back on my decision.  I guess for you, it was different, huh?

[elcorazon]

The question was whether it was a "choice" or not.  Even if it's not genetic, I don't think anyone really thinks it's a "choice".  Kerry's response was accurate, well stated and perfectly legitimate.

Bush's response was ignorant, politically motivated and mostly off point.

Here's what I wonder:  how did Mary Cheney come to become gay if she was raised by the Cheneys and if it's somehow a "choice"?

[elcorazon]

Often children of evangelical christians see their parent's hypocracy and rebel against it.  Do you think that's what happened to the Cheneys?  Did Mary see the horrible nature of a heterosexual relationship and decide it'd be better to become homosexual?  I doubt it.

I wonder if Bush agrees with statesrights that it's a medical disorder, but didn't want to say it for fear of the political ramifications.

[elcorazon]

based on your theory of knowledge, no one "knows" anything.  Just like Bush didn't "know" that Saddam was a threat; we still don't really "know" why the terrorists attacked on 9/11.

I'll grant you that Bush's answer "could" make sense under your scenario, but you should also grant that Kerry's answer was also a legitimate one, assuming you don't want your political candidates to engage in the philosophical debate about "what is knowledge?".

[elcorazon]

based on your theory of knowledge, no one "knows" anything.  Just like Bush didn't "know" that Saddam was a threat; we still don't really "know" why the terrorists attacked on 9/11.

I'll grant you that Bush's answer "could" make sense under your scenario, but you should also grant that Kerry's answer was also a legitimate one, assuming you don't want your political candidates to engage in the philosophical debate about "what is knowledge?".

The question was almost philosophical.  There is substantially more evidence for the other two that this.

I don't know exactly what amount of "nature or nurture" goes into sexual preference; it has never been established.  We don't if it's genetic, congenital, or environmental.  You don't, and I think you are intellectually honest enough to admit that you don't.  I wish Kerry had been as well.

more evidence for the other 2 what?

I believe sexual "preference" (a misnomer) is NOT a choice.  I don't understand the "exact" root of its manifestation, but I believe (not know, but strongly believe) that it is NOT a choice.  Kerry agrees with me, I think, and rather than AVOID the question, he answered it to the best of his knowledge.

How would you feel if the candidates were asked questions about the deficit and they said "I don't know what will happen".  That'd be the truth, but I doubt it would go over well.

When asked about all kinds of things, the true answer would be "I don't know".  The whole point of the debate is to answer it to the best of your own ability.

If Bush isn't sure whether homosexuality is a choice, then why is he so sure that gay marriage should be illegal?  What if it ISN'T a choice?  What if it IS what GOD intended?

By the way, I hated Kerry's answer on this subject as well.  Gay marriage should be LEGAL. Period.  The truth is he knows if he said it, it'd be poor politics.  I'm not sure he's right, but candidates HAVE to think about these things if they want to win.  Don't kid yourself Bush AND Kerry make decisions constantly based on the political ramifications. It's just the way of the world.

[elcorazon]

I have no clue what you're talking about J.J.  I'd love to disagree with you or even agree with you if I could only figure out what you're trying to say.

[elcorazon]

Learn to write a coherent sentence and then maybe I'll have a clue what you're saying, you useless excuse for a debater.

[elcorazon]

Mary Cheney is a lesbian

the more people hear this the better.
Not sure why you bring it up here though.

J.J. - you can call me stupid, but I'm the tasteless one.  You are so hypocritical, its ridiculous.

[elcorazon]

typical of a Republican to alter my comments to make them seem illogical.

I read your posts prior to my question, but over the course of dozens/hundreds of posts forgot who said what; your only defense to my arguments is that I forgot about a point you had previously made.  Another typical Republican deflection of the issue.  Why not address my points rather than make personal attacks?

[elcorazon]

based on your theory of knowledge, no one "knows" anything.  Just like Bush didn't "know" that Saddam was a threat; we still don't really "know" why the terrorists attacked on 9/11.

I'll grant you that Bush's answer "could" make sense under your scenario, but you should also grant that Kerry's answer was also a legitimate one, assuming you don't want your political candidates to engage in the philosophical debate about "what is knowledge?".

The question was almost philosophical.  There is substantially more evidence for the other two that this.

I don't know exactly what amount of "nature or nurture" goes into sexual preference; it has never been established.  We don't if it's genetic, congenital, or environmental.  You don't, and I think you are intellectually honest enough to admit that you don't.  I wish Kerry had been as well.

more evidence for the other 2 what?

I believe sexual "preference" (a misnomer) is NOT a choice.  I don't understand the "exact" root of its manifestation, but I believe (not know, but strongly believe) that it is NOT a choice.  Kerry agrees with me, I think, and rather than AVOID the question, he answered it to the best of his knowledge.

How would you feel if the candidates were asked questions about the deficit and they said "I don't know what will happen".  That'd be the truth, but I doubt it would go over well.

When asked about all kinds of things, the true answer would be "I don't know".  The whole point of the debate is to answer it to the best of your own ability.

If Bush isn't sure whether homosexuality is a choice, then why is he so sure that gay marriage should be illegal?  What if it ISN'T a choice?  What if it IS what GOD intended?

By the way, I hated Kerry's answer on this subject as well.  Gay marriage should be LEGAL. Period.  The truth is he knows if he said it, it'd be poor politics.  I'm not sure he's right, but candidates HAVE to think about these things if they want to win.  Don't kid yourself Bush AND Kerry make decisions constantly based on the political ramifications. It's just the way of the world.

[elcorazon]

You're right tredrick.  Sorry everyone, but J.J. just got me very angry.  Here's a letter I just sent to the Chicago Tribune in response to an editorial from yesterday's paper on this subject:

There has been much discussion about the appropriateness of John Kerry’s utterance of the name of Mary Cheney at the final presidential debate last week, so much that even a week later, in an article published October 20 in the Chicago Tribune, Kathleen Parker devoted an entire editorial to lambasting the evil democrats for being so politically impolite, suggesting that any attempt to invoke the name of an opponent’s family member is improper.

My reaction to this is simple:  BUNK.  I actually do think Kerry brought up Cheney’s daughter to make a political point.  He wanted to point out that there is a hypocrisy in the administration’s position(s) on gay rights.  He also wanted to accentuate the fact that Bush’s running mate disagrees with Bush on this issue.  He also may have wanted some right wing voters to be aware that Cheney has a gay daughter.

All of these are perfectly valid political considerations.  All politicians frame issues in the way to best make their point.  Kerry could have given a one-line response, “No, I don’t believe homosexuality is a choice.”  But had he done so, his answer would have been less convincing.  The fact that presumably good parents raised an intelligent, seemingly well-adjusted daughter who is in a high level position in the campaign AND who happens to be gay makes Kerry’s point clearer than any generic statement possibly could.

The only possible reasons that the Republicans and the Cheneys are so “offended” by this issue are (1) they are ashamed to admit that Mary is gay (although her sexuality is not a secret); and (2) they want to make political points of their own and take the focus OFF the issues and onto irrelevancies like the “politeness” of John Kerry.

I only hope voters aren’t fooled by this obvious political strategy.  If you support Bush’s policies, by all means vote for him, but don’t do so because of irrelevancies like whether Kerry’s decision to bring up Mary Cheney’s name in a debate was “polite.”

[elcorazon]

Nice to know I'm agreeing with the Tribune.

Actually, I'm not angry with you.  I just feel sorry for you.  I really do mean that.

You actually are agreeing with syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, not the Tribune. 

The only thing that really makes me angry is your refusal to address my points and instead insult me, then your gloating when you made an incomprehensible point rather than trying to clarify your point.

I enjoy an intelligent discussion of issues, but when the other side can't stick to making their point and addressing mine, I get angry.

I hope no one was offended at any point.

Why not just agree to disagree since this argument isn't going anywhere?

[elcorazon]

I believe sexual "preference" (a misnomer) is NOT a choice.  I don't understand the "exact" root of its manifestation, but I believe (not know, but strongly believe) that it is NOT a choice.  Kerry agrees with me, I think, and rather than AVOID the question, he answered it to the best of his knowledge.

How would you feel if the candidates were asked questions about the deficit and they said "I don't know what will happen".  That'd be the truth, but I doubt it would go over well.

When asked about all kinds of things, the true answer would be "I don't know".  The whole point of the debate is to answer it to the best of your own ability.

If Bush isn't sure whether homosexuality is a choice, then why is he so sure that gay marriage should be illegal?  What if it ISN'T a choice?  What if it IS what GOD intended?

By the way, I hated Kerry's answer on this subject as well.  Gay marriage should be LEGAL. Period.  The truth is he knows if he said it, it'd be poor politics.  I'm not sure he's right, but candidates HAVE to think about these things if they want to win.  Don't kid yourself Bush AND Kerry make decisions constantly based on the political ramifications. It's just the way of the world.

I find nothing about "sexual preference" to be a misnomer.  It refers to the sex of the partner would choose, if givin a choice.

The "best of his knowledge" is poor and can't really be guessed at.  He doesn't really know, so he makes up an answer to pander to the group he's trying to attract to his cause.  He chose the politically correct answer, for him, which may or may not be the correct answer.  He didn't do so based on reality, just what he thought, incorrectly, sounded good.   

Bush has not proposed making same sex marriages illegal.  He has supported a constitutional amendment stating that one state is not required to recognize another state's marriage.  If a state, PA for example, wishes to permit them, NJ doesn't have to recognize them. 

PA, my home state, should not be in the business of telling NJ, or any other state, that it must accept marriages beyond the traditional bounds, with NJ's own boundries.  This is why Clinton, hardly a reactionary, supported and signed, the Defense of Marriage Act; Kerry opposed it.  There is a serious constitutional threat to that act, hence the ammenment.

I find it interesting, in light of the issue, that you've reached the possible conclusion, that this "IS what GOD intended."  You know what, I'll agree with you.  For all I know this could be what God intended.  To reach that conclusion, I'd have to know the mind of God.  I make no claim to.

Elcorazon has given perhaps the best example of arrogance, claiming that his "believes" that sexual preference is not "a choice," and that it might be "what God intended."  This is the type of arrogance seen in John Kerry's answer and is one of the many reasons he should not be president.

This is your only post where I suggested I didn't understand your point.  I've addressed all the other points elsewhere.

Here's a quote from Bush's initiative supporting the amendment:

Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

I believe he is officially outlawing "gay marriage", while "allowing" states to make "other arrangements" for other non-marriage unions. 

Your description is clearly inaccurate.  I can only conclude:

1. you are intentionally lying about Bush's position; or
2. you don't understand his position.

[elcorazon]

He is the part you left out:

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. ...



Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html

Now, I'm not seeing that this says, at al, same sex marriage is being illegal.  It refers to a certain part of Article IV,  Section 1., the "full faith and credit" clause.  It is clear, in that context, that the call here, modifies that specific clause.   (BTW: I did cite that clause earlier; I guess you either didn't look at it or understand it either.)

This is, as are serveral current constitutional amendments (12th, 13th, 18th 25th), overides a section of the Constitution.  It states that one state does not have to recognized a specific act, a same sex marriage, of another state,.  This is why the press release cites the "full faith and credit" clause.

the bold part is where he discusses the constitutional amendment.  It would clearly define marriage as between a man and a woman.  That's the way they overcome full faith & credit, by defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman, effectively making same sex marriage unconstitutional.  He leaves open whether states might create some other form of union with similar rights, but clearly makes calling that union, "marriage" illegal.

[elcorazon]

the bold part is where he discusses the constitutional amendment.  It would clearly define marriage as between a man and a woman.  That's the way they overcome full faith & credit, by defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman, effectively making same sex marriage unconstitutional.  He leaves open whether states might create some other form of union with similar rights, but clearly makes calling that union, "marriage" illegal.

Here is what was actually proposed:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. [Emphasis added] 

This does not make same sex marraige illegal.  I can site two examples. 

In 1868 the 14th Amendment was passed.  It said in part (Section 1), that the right to all citizen cannot be abridged.  It also says Section 2. that the right to vote only "can be denied to male inhabitants of such State being twenty one years of age, and citizens of the United States... " for certain this, e.g. engaging in rebellion or convicted of a crime.

Now the states could, and some did, deny the right to vote to females and to people under 21.  Was it illegal, because of this, for people under 21 or women to vote?  No!  There were states that permitted women to vote well before the  19th Amendment (I think WY was one of the first) and states that permitted 18 year olds to vote prior to the 26th (possibly NJ).  The fact that the Constitution did not required something did not and does not make it illegal or unconstitutional.

The proposed amendment states that no state constitution nor the US Constitution can be interpreted to "require" that same sex marriage.  That does not prohibit any legislature from doing it.

This is the famous "straw man" tactic, misrepresent the other guy position and attack the false position.  It is, of course, intellectually dishonest, or perhaps based on a lack of understanding.

I believe your analysis of the language is inaccurate.  The proposed amendment would do 2 things:

1) make it unconstitutional for any state to recognize marriage other than between a man and a woman;
2) allow the states to set up other "rights", not including marriage upon same-sex couples, while not requiring other states to recognize those rights.

Under the proposed amendment, civil unions could be legal, but need not be recognized by other states.  Marriage would not be possible between same sex couples in the United States.

The specific language is irrelevant, of course, since it would never pass; it is merely an election year attempt to woo voters who are scared of anything relating to gay rights.

[elcorazon]

so how do you interpret the language:

marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman .

Is that just superfluous language?  The next clause has to do with negating the requirement of recognizing civil unions and the like. 

If Massachusetts law now says couples of the same sex can marry.  This amendment negates that. [clause 1]

If Vermont allows civil unions, this amendment allows other states to decide if they want to recognize the Vermont civil unions.[clause 2]

That's my reading.  Did you go to law school J.J.?

[elcorazon]

I am not currently licensed to practice law, but I DID go to law school and did practice law for a few years.  I could easily renew my license if I so chose.

Should VT be required to recognize a marriage between a 30 year old and a 10 year old?  I'll say no, they shouldn't.

[elcorazon]

I am not currently licensed to practice law, but I DID go to law school and did practice law for a few years.  I could easily renew my license if I so chose.

Should VT be required to recognize a marriage between a 30 year old and a 10 year old?  I'll say no, they shouldn't.

Under your theory, if consistent, they should.  This, however was my state, PA, that called it a legitimate marriage, based on the principles of common law.  Until last year, common law marriages were permitted.

If you did go to law school, my suggestion is, don't practice.

First of all, you are presuming you have any clue as to what "my theory" is.  Which "theory" of mine presumes that they should?

And, as I stated previously I did go to law school, but am not currently practicing.  Believe me, my not practicing has NOTHING to do with my ability to analyze statutes and laws.  I was Order of the Coif and a very good law school.

By the way, you never explained why the language about the definition of marriage would even be in the amendment if it had no meaning.

[elcorazon]

Here's what a defender of the Amendment says about it:

The Federal Marriage Amendment introduced in Congress takes a prudent and reasonable approach to the problem. It abolishes same-sex marriage in the United States, and prohibits judges from legalizing other forms of same-sex unions, while preserving both federalism in family law and local self-government by protecting the authority of the legislatures to establish state policy regarding whether (and to what extent) to give some legal benefits to unmarried — including same-sex — couples.

bold added by me to show my point.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wardle200402170918.asp


I'm too tired to address anything else tonight.

[elcorazon]

Here's what a defender of the Amendment says about it:

The Federal Marriage Amendment introduced in Congress takes a prudent and reasonable approach to the problem. It abolishes same-sex marriage in the United States, and prohibits judges from legalizing other forms of same-sex unions, while preserving both federalism in family law and local self-government by protecting the authority of the legislatures to establish state policy regarding whether (and to what extent) to give some legal benefits to unmarried — including same-sex — couples.

bold added by me to show my point.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wardle200402170918.asp


I'm too tired to address anything else tonight.

Would you then, after nappy time, you please explain why it talks about laws being "construed."  If this type of marriage is "illegal," there would be no reason to for state and the US Constitution to be "construed."  Much like the slavery prohibition clause in 13th Amendment, there would be no need for anything in a state constitution to be "construed."  That's not a defender of the amendment says, it is what the proposed amendment itself says.

J.J.:  there are 2 points:  1) to make same sex marriage illegal; 2) to allow states NOT to construe "other similar rights" to marital rights as being required for other types of unions from other states.

One other point.  The law professor who you claim is making a "straw man argument" supports the amendment.  And although he's not part of the administration, he's well qualified to interpret the meaning of the words.

By the way, EVEN if you were correct about the interpretation, which I don't believe you are, calling me out for misconstruing Bush' position is out of line, given that clearly reasonable minds CAN construe this amendment to mean what I said it means. 

[elcorazon]

J.J.:  there are 2 points:  1) to make same sex marriage illegal; 2) to allow states NOT to construe "other similar rights" to marital rights as being required for other types of unions from other states.

One other point.  The law professor who you claim is making a "straw man argument" supports the amendment.  And although he's not part of the administration, he's well qualified to interpret the meaning of the words.

By the way, EVEN if you were correct about the interpretation, which I don't believe you are, calling me out for misconstruing Bush' position is out of line, given that clearly reasonable minds CAN construe this amendment to mean what I said it means. 

First, the law professor isn't a "straw man argument," on my part.   You imply that because it is Wardle's argument, this is the intent of the people proposing the amendment.  Second, you should know that legislative intent, which is what you are claiming, is determined by those people in the legislative process, not an outside law professor.  You really should know things like that.

Second, here is your quote about the text of the amendment:

The specific language is irrelevant, of course, since it would never pass; it is merely an election year attempt to woo voters who are scared of anything relating to gay rights.

[/i]

This is yet another example of the arrogance that both you and Kerry share.  You called the language of the proposed "irrelevant".  You have stated you "believe" on how sexual preference is determined, you "believe" that this might be God's will, you "believe" that this is  what Bush was thinking in proposing it, and that you "believe" that this is what the text of the amendment means.  I, on the first three points say, "It possible, but we don't have any real way of knowing."  You expect us to accept what you "believe" as fact, because you "believe" it.  That is intellectually dishonest.

On the fourth point, I have asked, "Okay, if this ammendment creates a situation where the Federal Government makes sames sex unions totally illegal, why is there a need to worry a state constitution being 'construed'[b/]."  A state constitutonal provision, permitting, even expressly, same sex marriages would be null and void, if the amendment violated the US Constitution, much like those clauses permitting slavery in some state constitutions.  There would be no need to instruct the courts how a state constitution should be "construed" in that case.  Why don't you answer the question?  Does it again interfer with what you "believe?"

I've already answered that question several times.  You just don't like my answer.  The construed language deals with issues such as civil unions, not marriage.

I know what legislative intent is.  We hadn't been discussing that.

My "irrelevant" comment had to do with the fact that the amendment is NOT going to pass, so we are really wasting our time with this argument.