veronica_rich (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
veronica_rich) wrote2006-06-07 01:45 pm
veronica_rich) wrote2006-06-07 01:45 pm
Entry tags:
Let's just call a spade a spade
From my fabulous younger sister, who sent me the CNN news alert this morning along with a personal message ("Well, I wonder how Bush is going to try to screw us now ..."), we have an update on the proposed gay marriage amendment. Why does this matter particularly to the childfree? Think about it (the bolded parts, aside from the headline, are my emphasis):
Direct Link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html
Senate Blocks Same-Sex Marriage Ban
WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Senate blocked on Wednesday a bid to amend the Constitution to essentially ban same-sex marriage.
Proponents failed to get the 60 votes needed to end debate and move to a vote on the actual amendment.
The Senate vote was 49-48 to end debate, or invoke cloture.
Conservative Republicans, looking to solidify their base in an election year, pushed the plan even as they conceded it did not have enough votes to pass. After the vote, they pledged to keep the issue in the spotlight.
"We're going to continue to press this issue," Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard said. "If it's up to me, we'll have a vote on this issue every year."
"We're making progress, and we're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas.
"We have 45 states that have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman," Brownback said. "Since the last time we voted in the Senate, we've seen a total of 14 states take this issue up on the ballot -- on the ballot -- and you've got another seven set for this fall."
Meanwhile, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the same-sex marriage amendment will come before that body next month, The Associated Press reported.
"This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner said. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote."
Opponents called the measure an election-year ploy that wasted precious time on the legislative calendar.
"This is not about the preservation of marriage. This is about the preservation of a majority," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said as debate started Wednesday. "I think, sadly, most people realize there's political motivation here."
Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, denounced the proposed amendment Tuesday as "an instrument of bigotry and prejudice," which he said was designed by the GOP leadership "to try to bring Republican senators out of the ditch of disapproval."
And Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said that "the reason the Senate Republicans are pushing this marriage amendment is because they don't want to address the real issues of this country."
"This is an effort by the president and the majority in the House and the Senate to distort, to misdirect what the real issues are," he said.
The vote began around 10 a.m., after a final hour of debate. The Senate began debate on the amendment Monday afternoon.
Even if the measure had been able to clear the procedural vote, a two-thirds majority - 67 votes - would be required for final approval by the Senate of a constitutional amendment - an even higher hurdle to overcome.
The last time the Senate voted on the amendment, in July 2004, only 48 senators supported it and 50 were opposed.
Spurred on by religious conservatives in his political base, President Bush had called on the Senate to approve the amendment, saying it was necessary to protect the institution of marriage from state court decisions striking down marriage laws that exclude gay and lesbian couples.
So far that has happened in just one state, Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages became legal in 2003, although court cases are pending in other states.
To become part of the Constitution an amendment needs approval from at least two-thirds of the Senate (67 of the 100 members); at least two-thirds of the House (290 of the 435 members); and three-fourths of the states (38 of the 50 states), or by a convention called by three-fourths of the states.
In the nearly 220 years since the Constitution was written, only 27 amendments have made it through this arduous approval process, the most recent in 1992 governing the timing of changes in congressional compensation. No amendment has been approved by a convention.
CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this report. Copyright 2006 CNN. Associated Press contributed to this report.
Do Americans really care who has sex with what for recreation, or how? Porn is still one of the most bottom-line profitable industries in this country. We have a state that has kept hookers legal. Bestiality is a much joked-about (though perhaps not practiced - I really don't know) pastime among college males. The "GGW" acronym continues to get plenty of husbands in trouble when the credit card statement comes in at the end of the month.
Ah, but a friend points out that tolerating sexual preferences does not extend to sanctification of it in society. No society, she tells me, has ever tolerated or recognized marriage between two people of the same sex (though I have to wonder, do the poly male Mormons who force their wives to all live together consider their wives married to one another as well as to them? At least for orthodox Muslims, Mohammed dictated a man should not take more than one wife unless he could afford an equal number of households). Canada now has a conservative PM partly because its citizens are disgusted with that recent legalization, she tells me.
Look at what I've bolded in the article above. I, at least, get the distinct impression that what is actually being hammered on isn't so much sexual preference as preservation of the nuclear family - that is, mother, father, AND CHILDREN. Is it a matter of time before these witch hunters come after those who've actively chosen not to have children, as being "unnatural" too? Yeah, it sounds like a silly persecution complex. I really do wonder, though, if it's simply a coincidence that the two big issues conservatives use to bring out the "emotional vote" at election time are the two geared toward pushing BABIES, BABIES, OMG ABOVE ALL ELSE BABIES: anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion (and, lately, anti-BC). And let's not forget, most conservatives who are anti-abortion are also anti-gay adoption of unwanted children. Because, you know, gays are all pedophiles who want to use all available young meat for fucktoys.
Maybe I'm the last person to figure out this angle on the gay marriage thing. It's simply an epiphany I had. I have no problem with children; shit, I grew up helping take care of my sister and cousins. I don't even have much of a problem with people who try to bingo me with "oh, you'll change your mind, you'll want them" even when I know at almost 34 that I never do. I do have a problem, however, with this "YOU MUST REPRODUCE OR FOREVER KEEP YOUR KNEES TOGETHER" being forced on women through the hammer of the law - social pressure to do something isn't the same as being mandated by law into doing it.
I believe we need limits on marriage to protect social structures like land ownership and inheritance. But I'm thinking of poly marriage, which has a proven tendency in many cases to reduce some of the partners to breeding chattel (let's face it, can you really have more than one favorite?). I do not think the human reproductive drive is going to slow to a grinding halt simply because Susie wants to marry Fern instead of Johnny. There's nothing that says Susie won't still want to pop out six kids. Our society hasn't outlawed single mothers or fathers; why is it worse for a child to have two female or two male caretakers, than simply one?
Direct Link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html
Senate Blocks Same-Sex Marriage Ban
WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Senate blocked on Wednesday a bid to amend the Constitution to essentially ban same-sex marriage.
Proponents failed to get the 60 votes needed to end debate and move to a vote on the actual amendment.
The Senate vote was 49-48 to end debate, or invoke cloture.
Conservative Republicans, looking to solidify their base in an election year, pushed the plan even as they conceded it did not have enough votes to pass. After the vote, they pledged to keep the issue in the spotlight.
"We're going to continue to press this issue," Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard said. "If it's up to me, we'll have a vote on this issue every year."
"We're making progress, and we're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas.
"We have 45 states that have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman," Brownback said. "Since the last time we voted in the Senate, we've seen a total of 14 states take this issue up on the ballot -- on the ballot -- and you've got another seven set for this fall."
Meanwhile, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the same-sex marriage amendment will come before that body next month, The Associated Press reported.
"This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner said. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote."
Opponents called the measure an election-year ploy that wasted precious time on the legislative calendar.
"This is not about the preservation of marriage. This is about the preservation of a majority," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said as debate started Wednesday. "I think, sadly, most people realize there's political motivation here."
Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, denounced the proposed amendment Tuesday as "an instrument of bigotry and prejudice," which he said was designed by the GOP leadership "to try to bring Republican senators out of the ditch of disapproval."
And Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said that "the reason the Senate Republicans are pushing this marriage amendment is because they don't want to address the real issues of this country."
"This is an effort by the president and the majority in the House and the Senate to distort, to misdirect what the real issues are," he said.
The vote began around 10 a.m., after a final hour of debate. The Senate began debate on the amendment Monday afternoon.
Even if the measure had been able to clear the procedural vote, a two-thirds majority - 67 votes - would be required for final approval by the Senate of a constitutional amendment - an even higher hurdle to overcome.
The last time the Senate voted on the amendment, in July 2004, only 48 senators supported it and 50 were opposed.
Spurred on by religious conservatives in his political base, President Bush had called on the Senate to approve the amendment, saying it was necessary to protect the institution of marriage from state court decisions striking down marriage laws that exclude gay and lesbian couples.
So far that has happened in just one state, Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages became legal in 2003, although court cases are pending in other states.
To become part of the Constitution an amendment needs approval from at least two-thirds of the Senate (67 of the 100 members); at least two-thirds of the House (290 of the 435 members); and three-fourths of the states (38 of the 50 states), or by a convention called by three-fourths of the states.
In the nearly 220 years since the Constitution was written, only 27 amendments have made it through this arduous approval process, the most recent in 1992 governing the timing of changes in congressional compensation. No amendment has been approved by a convention.
CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this report. Copyright 2006 CNN. Associated Press contributed to this report.
Do Americans really care who has sex with what for recreation, or how? Porn is still one of the most bottom-line profitable industries in this country. We have a state that has kept hookers legal. Bestiality is a much joked-about (though perhaps not practiced - I really don't know) pastime among college males. The "GGW" acronym continues to get plenty of husbands in trouble when the credit card statement comes in at the end of the month.
Ah, but a friend points out that tolerating sexual preferences does not extend to sanctification of it in society. No society, she tells me, has ever tolerated or recognized marriage between two people of the same sex (though I have to wonder, do the poly male Mormons who force their wives to all live together consider their wives married to one another as well as to them? At least for orthodox Muslims, Mohammed dictated a man should not take more than one wife unless he could afford an equal number of households). Canada now has a conservative PM partly because its citizens are disgusted with that recent legalization, she tells me.
Look at what I've bolded in the article above. I, at least, get the distinct impression that what is actually being hammered on isn't so much sexual preference as preservation of the nuclear family - that is, mother, father, AND CHILDREN. Is it a matter of time before these witch hunters come after those who've actively chosen not to have children, as being "unnatural" too? Yeah, it sounds like a silly persecution complex. I really do wonder, though, if it's simply a coincidence that the two big issues conservatives use to bring out the "emotional vote" at election time are the two geared toward pushing BABIES, BABIES, OMG ABOVE ALL ELSE BABIES: anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion (and, lately, anti-BC). And let's not forget, most conservatives who are anti-abortion are also anti-gay adoption of unwanted children. Because, you know, gays are all pedophiles who want to use all available young meat for fucktoys.
Maybe I'm the last person to figure out this angle on the gay marriage thing. It's simply an epiphany I had. I have no problem with children; shit, I grew up helping take care of my sister and cousins. I don't even have much of a problem with people who try to bingo me with "oh, you'll change your mind, you'll want them" even when I know at almost 34 that I never do. I do have a problem, however, with this "YOU MUST REPRODUCE OR FOREVER KEEP YOUR KNEES TOGETHER" being forced on women through the hammer of the law - social pressure to do something isn't the same as being mandated by law into doing it.
I believe we need limits on marriage to protect social structures like land ownership and inheritance. But I'm thinking of poly marriage, which has a proven tendency in many cases to reduce some of the partners to breeding chattel (let's face it, can you really have more than one favorite?). I do not think the human reproductive drive is going to slow to a grinding halt simply because Susie wants to marry Fern instead of Johnny. There's nothing that says Susie won't still want to pop out six kids. Our society hasn't outlawed single mothers or fathers; why is it worse for a child to have two female or two male caretakers, than simply one?
no subject
We are basically discribes as walking and talking incubators. . .
no subject
But I agree that in a lot of ways, women are being treated more and more by lawmakers and those in charge of something they want (such as pharmacists) as shells for their uteruses (uteri?) rather than individual human beings who might want to keep "mother" off their personal goal list.
no subject
My opinion of course
no subject
When will the fundies wise up to the fact that the problems WE are experiencing are the same ones THEY are experiencing, too? It's the same major majority of us suffering the effects of higher energy prices, a crashing economy, and friends and family dying overseas in unwinnable wars.
no subject
On a slightly more patriotic note, however, I am Canadian and would like to defend my little country here a sec, even though the idiots who voted Stephen Harper in don't really deserve it. Anyway, point being that he did not get elected because of same-sex marriage. He got elected by a slim minority because the party that had been elected for the past 16 previous years had a leader who was mired in a sponsorship scandal. Indeed, his entire campaign played down the more conservative and restrictive aspects of his platform, and he promised not to ressurect the same-sex marriage issue. People, for some reason, believed him. And not the greater majority, either, because Canada has 4 major parties, so you don't need more than 50% to be elected into office.
However, lo and behold, Mr Harper is going to revisit the same-sex marriage legislation and he announced that just this week, concurrently with Mr Bush's own gambit. Coincidence? I think not.
Thanks for giving me the chance to vent. Always a pleasure to read topical stuff on your LJ (though I love the POTC stuff, too).
Cheers,
-G. ;D
no subject
While I feel sorry for the teacher who lost her job, there's an evil, evil part of me that can't help smirking over that situation. Such as THIS is what happens when a religion declares such strict, narrowing dogma that it paints itself into a corner. Frankly, I believe the Vatican would take every little future-collection-plate-donor it can get, but with the whole "natural" thing that means it has to exclude the IVF babies or risk being questioned about some of its other policies by curious parishioners. Awwww, poor Pope.
Just bear in mind that a lot of politicians are people who couldn't make a go of it in the real world. Unfortunately, they get to make all the laws. I think the Chinese had it right - if someone stays in office for a dozen years, line 'em up against a wall and shoot them, and bring in fresh, uncorrupted blood. Rinse, and repeat as needed.
no subject
no subject
no subject
As far as this someday leading up to civil liberties being taken away from those of us who are single & childless by choice, wow, that's a stretch. More and more people are in this category every decade. We're either getting smarter or maybe just less desireable by the opposite sex, not sure. Oh, that would also be less desireable by the same sex.
However, I already have less financial liberty than people who have kids because most of my property taxes go to schools for THEIR kids. They are infringing on my rights, in that respect. So there should be an amendment saying people without kids don't have to support schools via a tax. But then if this were true, I suppose we'd be having 10 year olds buy property.
ON a side note: if Barack Obama ain't runnin' for prez in the next election, Dick Durbin needs to consider it. "This is not about the preservation of marriage. This is about the preservation of a majority," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said as debate started Wednesday. "I think, sadly, most people realize there's political motivation here."
Damn straight. Oops, no pun intended.
no subject
And honey, you're not alone. I knew at a young age that I didn't want kids. Other kids were playing house and I wanted to do what *I* wanted to do, not be saddled down with kidss I knew I was ill-equipped to deal with. I'm 44 now and my biological clock came without batteries. Never wanted kids, never will.