If . . . . .

[Shira]

I wonder what would have been the election outcome if only one single judge in the Massachusetts supreme court had voted differently: not recognizing gay marriages instead of recognizing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I wonder if the Massachusetts legislature will allow the people of that state to vote on overturning the legislation from the bench?

[Shira]

I wonder if the Massachusetts legislature will allow the people of that state to vote on overturning the legislation from the bench?

It’s irrelevant now. The disaster has already happened.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Its still rather 'relevant' to the people of Massachusetts.

Also, its relevant to the perception of the Democrats, since, if they block the vote of the people, they will be viewed as arrogant and irresponsible.

[dazzleman]

This is what the liberals get for trying to force major social change through the back door without the approval of the people.  Liberals are trying to turn this country into a black-robed dictatorship.

It must kill Democrats to realize that most of those who tried to help Kerry actually contributed to his defeat.  Dan Rather, Michael Moore, and all those Hollywood blowhards.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually, Kerry had a golden opportunity in September to help himself by publicly denouncing the smear on Bush by CBS (which Kerry knew was untrue).

I know some of his advisers suggested he do so.

[shankbear]

IF..........they could all get over it....Kerry is a loser.  He lost.  He didn't win.  He came out behind Bush.  He was a non-winner.  Lost and forgotten.

[Shira]

IF..........they could all get over it....Kerry is a loser.  He lost.  He didn't win.  He came out behind Bush.  He was a non-winner.  Lost and forgotten.

My question was very simple: How the election would have been looked like without this gay marriage stupidity.

In 1992 it was “It’s the economy, stupid”
In 2004 it was “It’s the gays, stupid”

What a shame. Most people in the civilized world are unable to understand it. People of Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, do  understand it very well.

[A18]

The more interesting question is how the elecction would have looked without the Iraq war.

[Gabu]

While we're at it, let's ignore everything else that happened since Bush was first elected, too.

[Shira]

The more interesting question is how the elecction would have looked without the Iraq war.

The difference is that Bush initiated the Iraq war and this was his policy. You vote for or against a president based on his records.

Kerry did not initiate the court decision on gay marriages and had nothing to do with it.  He would have been more than happy if he could prevent this ruling. I am confident that without this ruling Kerry would have been the president of the US.

[NHPolitico]

My question was very simple: How the election would have been looked like without this gay marriage stupidity.

In 1992 it was “It’s the economy, stupid”
In 2004 it was “It’s the gays, stupid”

What a shame. Most people in the civilized world are unable to understand it. People of Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, do  understand it very well.

Shira, you are right to place a lot of blame on Kerry's loss on the ruling, but ultimately Kerry himself doomed his candidacy.

[Shira]

My question was very simple: How the election would have been looked like without this gay marriage stupidity.

In 1992 it was “It’s the economy, stupid”
In 2004 it was “It’s the gays, stupid”

What a shame. Most people in the civilized world are unable to understand it. People of Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, do  understand it very well.

Shira, you are right to place a lot of blame on Kerry's loss on the ruling, but ultimately Kerry himself doomed his candidacy.

Kerry was not a pefect candidate. But without the gay marriage issue, he had won the election.

[J. J.]

My question was very simple: How the election would have been looked like without this gay marriage stupidity.

In 1992 it was “It’s the economy, stupid”
In 2004 it was “It’s the gays, stupid”

What a shame. Most people in the civilized world are unable to understand it. People of Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, do  understand it very well.

Shira, you are right to place a lot of blame on Kerry's loss on the ruling, but ultimately Kerry himself doomed his candidacy.

Kerry was not a pefect candidate. But without the gay marriage issue, he had won the election.

That seems to very hard to claim, since Bush's position is to leave the matter up to the states.

[FireFighterForBush]

4 More Years!

[Gabu]

That seems to very hard to claim, since Bush's position is to leave the matter up to the states.

That was his position.  Now, however, his position is that we need a constitutional amendment to ban it at the federal level.

If he really wanted to leave it up to the states, he'd draft a constitutional amendment specifically disallowing the federal government from making any laws saying one way or another, rather than drafting one that specifically bans it, leaving nothing to the states at all.

[J. J.]

Wrong again.  Here is a quote from another thread:

Now, here is the text of the proposed amendment:


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.  

Here is, after lengthy discussion, what elcorazon said about it.

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. [emphasis added]

Now, I disagree with him on his first point, but I agree with him on the second.  He is a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. 

Here is Bush's quote from the debate:  "It basically protected states from the action of one state to another."

This amendment basically permits one state not to recognize a same sex marriage or civil union contracted in another state.

[Brutus]

I think this Federal Marriage Amendment will end up in the dustbin of election gimmicks along with the flag burning amendment.  It was a great tool for mobilizing conservative voters, but I doubt anybody in Washington is now going to spend a lot of effort in pushing it, especially since a number of states just passed their own ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage.

[danwxman]

Wrong again.  Here is a quote from another thread:

Now, here is the text of the proposed amendment:


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.  

Here is, after lengthy discussion, what elcorazon said about it.

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. [emphasis added]

Now, I disagree with him on his first point, but I agree with him on the second.  He is a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. 

Here is Bush's quote from the debate:  "It basically protected states from the action of one state to another."

This amendment basically permits one state not to recognize a same sex marriage or civil union contracted in another state.

Here's a factoid: No state is forced to recognize another state's marriage.

[J. J.]

Wrong again.  Here is a quote from another thread:

Now, here is the text of the proposed amendment:


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.  

Here is, after lengthy discussion, what elcorazon said about it.

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. [emphasis added]

Now, I disagree with him on his first point, but I agree with him on the second.  He is a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. 

Here is Bush's quote from the debate:  "It basically protected states from the action of one state to another."

This amendment basically permits one state not to recognize a same sex marriage or civil union contracted in another state.

Here's a factoid: No state is forced to recognize another state's marriage.

Would you cite your source for that "factoid?"

[Gabu]

Wrong again.  Here is a quote from another thread:

Now, here is the text of the proposed amendment:


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.  

Here is, after lengthy discussion, what elcorazon said about it.

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. [emphasis added]

Now, I disagree with him on his first point, but I agree with him on the second.  He is a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. 

Here is Bush's quote from the debate:  "It basically protected states from the action of one state to another."

This amendment basically permits one state not to recognize a same sex marriage or civil union contracted in another state.

How does defining "marriage" to be "the union of a man and a woman" not disallow same-sex marriage?

Bush can say what he wants about the amendment, but its text is what it is.

[KEmperor]

Wrong again.  Here is a quote from another thread:

Now, here is the text of the proposed amendment:


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.  

Here is, after lengthy discussion, what elcorazon said about it.

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. [emphasis added]

Now, I disagree with him on his first point, but I agree with him on the second.  He is a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. 

Here is Bush's quote from the debate:  "It basically protected states from the action of one state to another."

This amendment basically permits one state not to recognize a same sex marriage or civil union contracted in another state.

Here's a factoid: No state is forced to recognize another state's marriage.

Actually, you are both correct and very wrong. 

No state is required to recognize or deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same sex which has been recognized in another state.  This is due to the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996.  However, under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution, each state is required to recognize any hetersexual marriage recognized by another state.

Some have argued that DOMA is unconstitutional and would not survive judicial scrutiny under the Supreme Court of the United States because it goes beyond the powers granted to Congress by that clause.  But the Supreme Court has long recognized a "public policy exception" to the Full Faith and Credit clause. If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage (such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity).

[J. J.]

How does defining "marriage" to be "the union of a man and a woman" not disallow same-sex marriage?

Bush can say what he wants about the amendment, but its text is what it is.

Here is the text again:

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.  

This gives the definition of the types what constitutes a marriage, for constitutional purposes, not a prohibition on the marriages.  For a prohibition within the constitution, see the 13th Amendment.  The 13th Amendment does establish a prohibition, uses different wording.

You'll also note the "shall be construed' line.  If the first line banned same sex marriages, there could be no construction.  Some southern states had a clause in them permitting slavery, that were not removed until the late 20th Century.  It wasn't necessary to put the line about construction in the 13th Amendment, because that prohibition was included.

This amendment does not even prevent a state legislature from enacting statute to permit same sex marriages.  It limits the rule of the judiciary in finding a same sex marriage "right" in a state or in the Federal constitutions.

[danwxman]

Wrong again.  Here is a quote from another thread:

Now, here is the text of the proposed amendment:


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.  

Here is, after lengthy discussion, what elcorazon said about it.

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. [emphasis added]

Now, I disagree with him on his first point, but I agree with him on the second.  He is a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. 

Here is Bush's quote from the debate:  "It basically protected states from the action of one state to another."

This amendment basically permits one state not to recognize a same sex marriage or civil union contracted in another state.

Here's a factoid: No state is forced to recognize another state's marriage.

Actually, you are both correct and very wrong. 

No state is required to recognize or deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same sex which has been recognized in another state.  This is due to the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996.  However, under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution, each state is required to recognize any hetersexual marriage recognized by another state.

Some have argued that DOMA is unconstitutional and would not survive judicial scrutiny under the Supreme Court of the United States because it goes beyond the powers granted to Congress by that clause.  But the Supreme Court has long recognized a "public policy exception" to the Full Faith and Credit clause. If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage (such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity).

I know what it says --- and states do not have to recognize a homosexual marriage.

[Gabu]

How does defining "marriage" to be "the union of a man and a woman" not disallow same-sex marriage?

Bush can say what he wants about the amendment, but its text is what it is.

Here is the text again:

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.  

This gives the definition of the types what constitutes a marriage, for constitutional purposes, not a prohibition on the marriages.  For a prohibition within the constitution, see the 13th Amendment.  The 13th Amendment does establish a prohibition, uses different wording.

You'll also note the "shall be construed' line.  If the first line banned same sex marriages, there could be no construction.  Some southern states had a clause in them permitting slavery, that were not removed until the late 20th Century.  It wasn't necessary to put the line about construction in the 13th Amendment, because that prohibition was included.

This amendment does not even prevent a state legislature from enacting statute to permit same sex marriages.  It limits the rule of the judiciary in finding a same sex marriage "right" in a state or in the Federal constitutions.

Here's the part I'm referring to:

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

Here it is again:

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

I fail to see how this is not defining "marriage" such that same-sex marriages are impossible.