AWB Renewal and Marriage Amendment


PDA






Selfdfenz
July 13, 2004, 10:55 PM
I was just listening to one of the talking heads on the radio (Haslet??) and he seemed to be indicating the AWB renewal should logically be a done deal and talk to the contrary is causing issues for the Marriage Amendment. This guy seemed to think he was a conservative yet he seemed totally inline with renewal and made it sound like a logical step, good for W, did not affect the 2A and fits well with the long range plane of "Conservatives" to get both houses and the Oval Office this time.*

I'm in favor of marriage but the amendment deal is pure posturing. Any of you that have been in a highly contested divorce know that. From the governemental POV marriage is just another contract. It's an institution that should have been left out of the domain of Court House/judges and attorneys.

But here is my question however:

Is there some equation that causes Congressmen in favor of the Marriage Amendment to abdicate their position on NOT renewing the AWB to leverage MA votes? I am 100% sure the outcome will be renewal and no marriage amendment if there is.

*The concept that there is a true conservative movement in the FG is funny.
The Republicans there are largely moderates and if they controlled both houses and the Oval Office they would not know what to do with it IMO.

I just wonder if there is some "issue" with the MA that could spell doom on the renewal issue. Is this the Democrat/Liberal lever they need to renew?
S-

If you enjoyed reading about "AWB Renewal and Marriage Amendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bartholomew Roberts
July 13, 2004, 11:15 PM
Is this the Democrat/Liberal lever they need to renew?

No.

There are nowhere near enough votes in either the House or the Senate to pass the Marriage Amendment. This is just to get an embarrasing record vote on the Dems that can be used against them in November because in many districts gay marriage is not a warmly received issue.

Selfdfenz
July 14, 2004, 12:48 AM
"This is just to get an embarrasing record vote on the Dems that can be used against them in November because in many districts gay marriage is not a warmly received issue."

I like the idea and hope it's true but the media is casting the MA as a struggle between the "enlighted, tolerant anti MA peps" and the "unenlighted, intolerant pro MA people". I genuinely hope the clarity of why the AWB is useless and stupid and needs to become part of history doesn't get entangled in this nearly non-issue of the MA as I see it.

I fear, at least from a media perspective, the Dem/Liberals will be credited with having the "high ground" on this topic come election time becaseu the media defines that for the public in so many cases.

S-

Gray Peterson
July 14, 2004, 08:10 AM
Unlikely. Someone put up a fear that AWB would be attached to the marriage amendment and passed. Not true, it can't happen, because constitutional amendments have to be "Senate Joint Resolutions" or "House Joint Resolutions". To put a bill in statutory law, it has to be "HR" or "S"., nor HJR or SJR. That's because HR's or S's have to go to the president, whereas the President has no power over SJR's or HR's or anything else in the constitutional process.

Leatherneck
July 14, 2004, 08:24 AM
I for one am delighted to see Congress tied up in knots over the stupid marriage amendment; it prevents them doing damage in other areas (one hopes). :D

TC
TFL Survivor

DevilDog
July 14, 2004, 12:55 PM
I agree Leatherneck.

The marriage amendment is an election year tactic. Politicians (on both/all sides of the fence) like to champion ideas and bills that can't get passed. They know that claiming support for a idea they couldn't get passed will typically get them votes but will usually not cost them many votes, provided it does not get passed. Bills that do get passed often get them kicked out (ala '94 crime bill).

The more time they spend debating the marriage amendment, the less damage they can do elsewhere, such as AWB renewal. I hope they debate this amendment for a year or two. :p

ninjaj448
July 14, 2004, 02:18 PM
Marriage, or lack thereof, the definition of, in any way, shape or form, has no place being mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Marriage has nothing to do with government or the rights of the people. Marriage is a civil matter under the jurisdiction of state and local government.

Changing the U.S. Constitution is a very serious thing and requires careful consideration. Amending the document to define the meaning of a term is inherently dangerous whatever ones views are of the term. I don't like the right-wing Republicans pushing for a marriage defining amendment any more than the liberal Democrats seeing nothing wrong with marrying ones dog. Issues like this are why we have states' rights.

No constitutional amendment either way!

mtnbkr
July 14, 2004, 02:34 PM
Marriage, or lack thereof, the definition of, in any way, shape or form, has no place being mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

Amen. While I care not one whit whether or not homosexuals have the right to marry, I will likely vote against any Virginia politician who votes in favor of the MA strictly on grounds of them trying to tinker with the Constitution.

I'm tired of these effing idiots thinking the Constitution is their playtoy.

Chris

Brett Bellmore
July 14, 2004, 02:36 PM
Hey, Ninja; Any news from MCRGO? Think they're ever going to hold a membership meeting again, or just shut down after the election?

flatrock
July 14, 2004, 02:51 PM
Marriage, or lack thereof, the definition of, in any way, shape or form, has no place being mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Marriage has nothing to do with government or the rights of the people. Marriage is a civil matter under the jurisdiction of state and local government.

I'll take this a step farther. I believe that Marriage is a religious sacrament. It's already dealt with in the first ammendment as something the government shouldn't be involved with defining.

I understand the government needs to have a civil definition of a union between two people because of transferring of property rights, and how benefits are handled for families. However, the government defining it as between one man and one woman definately starts infringing upon religion.

I think Marriage is a wonderful thing, and am going to celebrate my ten year anniversary of my marriage to my wife next month. I think that marriage helps for strong families, which provides for better upbringing of children in general. I think that encouraging marriages between one man and one woman is a good thing, and in the best interest of our country.

I'm just not sure that the government has any right to dictate the terms of marriage. While I think such an ammendment would be valuable to our country, I think it stomps on the rights of individuals. It would inhibit behavior I don't support, but I do support that the government doesn't have the right to inhibit it. Therefore I can't support such an ammendment.

SodiumBenzoate
July 14, 2004, 03:02 PM
The MA is dead, guys.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/samesex.marriage/index.html

Ransom
July 14, 2004, 03:04 PM
Good. Every argument I've heard in favor of banning gay couples from amrrying or having children have been incredibly weak.

VaniB.
July 14, 2004, 04:18 PM
Without standards, we're no better then the trash in Holland!

(Art's Grammaw used her broom.)

Ransom
July 14, 2004, 04:24 PM
(Unnecessary due to editing above.)

If you enjoyed reading about "AWB Renewal and Marriage Amendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!