Mobilize! Stop Anti-Gay Amendment!

[sam7777]

The republican's bigotry isn't paying off politically:

Gay Marriage Issue Fails to Excite American Voters

Quote:

---

Evangelical Christian supporters of President Bush hoped their drive to ban same sex marriages would become a defining issue in this year's presidential campaign but so far this has not happened.



Political analysts and advocates on either side of the issue, interviewed as the Senate rejected a White House-backed bid to amend the U.S. Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage, agreed that so far the issue had failed to catch fire in the country at large. The Senate vote on Wednesday likely killed the proposal for this election year.



"It has not caught on. By forcing the Senate vote, supporters of the gay marriage ban may hope to generate enough publicity to make it more of a galvanizing issue," said John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron who studies the evangelical Christian community.



Polls suggest that a majority of Americans oppose homosexual marriage, although the numbers can vary wildly depending on how the issue is framed. When voters are asked whether they support amending the Constitution, opinion is more evenly divided.



Even many conservative opponents of same sex marriage would prefer to handle the issue at state level. Voters in a dozen states will be able to vote in ballot initiatives in November that propose amending state constitutions to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman and most if not all are expected to pass.



Pollster Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center said same sex marriage was not and would not become a top issue in the presidential battle. In one survey he conducted earlier this year, voters ranked it as 24th most important of 25 issues, ahead only of sending a space ship to explore Mars.



"That doesn't mean people don't think it's important but it doesn't have the salience and resonance of the big issues like the economy, Iraq and terrorism," he said.



In one CBS poll in May, only 29 percent said the issue should play a part in the presidential election while 70 percent were opposed.



That kind of data gives Democrats an opening to argue that the Senate should not be spending three days on this issue when so many other pressing matters remain on the agenda.



WASTE OF TIME



"This is a waste of time," said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democratic opponent to speak in Senate debate on the issue on Monday.



Stuart Rothenberg who edits a widely read political newsletter, said evangelical conservatives initially thought the issue would have wide appeal.



"It does energize the base but beyond that, most people are conflicted. They don't like gay marriage but they also don't want to appear intolerant. They would rather not have a huge battle and divide the country over this," he said.



The Senate vote was likely only an opening shot in a battle that was likely to extend for years or decades in the same way that the country is still arguing and battling about abortion more than 30 years after the Supreme Court declared it legal.



Gary Bauer of the conservative Family Research Council agreed that many Americans preferred not to talk about same sex marriage but maintained that fervor was building and that the issue would ultimately help Bush and Republicans and hurt Democrats and their presidential nominee John Kerry.



"The pro-gay rights side is sitting on a political powder keg here," he said. "Americans don't like it. The country does not want gay marriage. The evidence is overwhelming."



The danger for Republicans is that they overplay their hand and appear mean-spirited which could turn off moderates and undecided voters.



"The right has miscalculated. They felt there would be a high level of moral indignation in the nation but it just hasn't happened," said Ron Schlittler, director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, an organization that claims 250,000 members in over 500 chapters.



"Yes, it will galvanize the Republican base but too many people know gay and lesbian couples who don't fit the awful stereotype," he said.

---

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 7/14/04 10:20 am

[kpmuse]

Today was a huge sigh of relief! However, we unfortunately will have to remain vigilant because Tom Delay and The House are not going to sit idly by and do nothing. I'm guessing that when the time comes the HRC will send out a call to action.



Gay Marriage: Now It's The House's Turn

by Doreen Brandt

365Gay.com Newscenter

Washington Bureau



Posted: July 14, 2004 8:02 pm ET



(Washington) While the Senate was rejecting a bid to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage the House was working on its own measures to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.



The House Judiciary Committee began hearings on two pieces of legislation that would strengthen the federal Defense of Marriage Act.



DOMA passed Congress overwhelmingly and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. It defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman under federal law and exempts states from being forced to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.



The new measures have been put forward by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas)



One bill would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. The other would stop the District of Columbia from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. The committee is also considering a bill to block the District from implementing a limited domestic partnership program



DeLay says that he's concerned that before a constitutional amendment could be passed and ratified by the states the federal DOMA could be struck down by the courts.



Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to remove issues from federal courts' jurisdiction.

While a constitutional amendment requires a two thirds vote DeLay's bills would only need a majority of the House and Senate and the president's signature to take effect.



Gay rights advocates celebrating today's victory in the Senate (story) say they are now gearing up for a battle in the House.



"It's critical that every House member understands what happened in the Senate," Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Steven Fisher told 365Gay.com.



"Congress has to be reminded that the politics of division will fail and that the American people want their Representatives focused on health care and the war in Iraq."



The measures also drew fire from the ACLU.



"Majority Leader Delay knows that he doesn't have the votes to pass the marriage amendment, but he is still determined to force a vote on the denial of marriage rights," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel.



"On the very same day that the Senate voted against amending the Constitution, the House Judiciary Committee voted to violate the founding charter. Instead of playing politics with the private lives of hard-working American families, Congress should focus its attention on the real problems facing Americans."



"This court-stripping measure seeks to stop the judicial branch from doing its job and to shut the door to married gay and lesbian couples who deserve their day in court," Anders added. "The Senate rejected the discriminatory marriage amendment, and the House should also reject these stealth attempts to legislate discrimination."





www.365gay.com/newscon04/07/071404houseMarr.htm

[Tempest Duer]

Well, it's a small victory, but a victory nonetheless. I'm glad that the stupid potential amendment was tossed out like the piece of garbage that it was.

It's insulting to the whole gender[sic] of rap.



~Eminem

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

One bill would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.



DeLay says that he's concerned that before a constitutional amendment could be passed and ratified by the states the federal DOMA could be struck down by the courts.



Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to remove issues from federal courts' jurisdiction.

---

When I read this, I just about sh*t a brick. "This cannot possibly be Constitutional!" I thought. So I looked it up . . . and it isn't!!!



All Article III, Section 2 says is: Item 1. Specify that the courts CAN adjudicate damn near everything! and Item 2. Specify those cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (that is, the case is heard there *first*---as w/ cases dealing w/ other nations and their ambassadors), and appellate jurisdiction on everything else. Congress's regulating power is mentioned, but it is crystal clear from the context, that the Constitution is saying that Congress can kick a case up to the S.C. for original jurisdiction . . . NOT that it can take away the S.C.'s power of appellate jurisdiction!* DeLay is spouting Bullsh*t!!! (there's a shocker )



DOMA can, should, and will be challenged at all levels of the Federal Courts! (i.e., justice can be delayed, but never DeLay'd )



GG There's an Item 3, but it just states that trials shall be by jury (except for impeachment), and held in the State where the alleged crime was committed. Out



*Legal-Eagle Kittens: correct GG-the-Complete-Amateur if I'm wrong.

[ivygort]

1)

Failure Is Not an Option, It's Mandatory

By THOMAS FRANK



Published: July 16, 2004



Washington



For three days this week the nation was transfixed by the spectacle of the United States Senate, in all its august majesty, doing precisely the opposite of statesmanlike deliberation. Instead, it was debating the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would not only have discriminated

against a large group of citizens, but also was doomed to defeat from the get-go. Everyone knew this harebrained notion would never draw the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment, and yet here were all these conservatives lining up to speak for it, wasting day after

day with their meandering remarks about culture while more important business went unattended. What explains this folly?



Not simple bigotry, as some pundits declared, or even simple politics. While it is true that the amendment was a classic election-year ploy, it owes its power as much to a peculiar narrative of class hostility as it does to homophobia or ideology. And in this narrative, success comes by losing.



For more than three decades, the Republican Party has relied on the "culture war" to rescue their chances every four years, from Richard Nixon's campaign against the liberal news media to George H. W. Bush's campaign against the liberal flag-burners. In this culture war, the real divide is between "regular people" and an endlessly scheming "liberal

elite." This strategy allows them to depict themselves as friends of the common people even as they gut workplace safety rules and lay plans to turn Social Security over to Wall Street. Most important, it has allowed Republicans to speak the language of populism.



The amendment may have failed as law, but as pseudopopulist theater it was a masterpiece. Each important element of the culture-war narrative was there. Consider first its choice of targets: while the Senate's culture warriors denied feeling any hostility to gay people, they made no

secret of their disgust with liberal judges, a tiny, arrogant group that believes it knows best in all things and harbors an unfathomable determination to run down American culture and thus made this measure necessary.



Sam Brownback, senator from my home state, Kansas, may have put it best: "Most Americans believe homosexuals have a right to live as they choose. They do not believe a small group of activists or a tiny judicial elite have a right to redefine marriage and impose a radical social experiment

on our entire society."



What's more, according to the outraged senators, these liberal judges were acting according to a plan. Maybe no one used the term "conspiracy," but Mr. Brownback asserted that the Massachusetts judges who allowed gay marriages to proceed there were merely mouthing a "predetermined

outcome"; Orrin Hatch of Utah asserted that "these were not a bunch of random, coincidental legal events"; and Jim Bunning of Kentucky warned how "the liberals, who have no respect for the law" had "plotted out a state-by-state strategy" that they were now carrying out, one domino at a

time.



Our age-old folkways, in other words, are today under siege from a cabal of know-it-all elites. The common people are being trampled by the intellectuals. This is precisely the same formula that was used, to great effect, in the nasty spat over evolution that Kansans endured in 1999, in which the elitists said to be forcing their views on the unassuming world

were biology professors and those scheming paleontologists.



And, as do the partisans of each of these other culture-causes, the proponents of the marriage amendment made soaring, grandiose claims for the significance of the issue they were debating. While editorialists across the nation tut-tutted and reminded the senators that they had important work they ought to be doing, the senators fired back that in fact they were debating that most important of all possible subjects.

Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who took particular offense at the charges of insignificance, argued that this was a debate about nothing less than "the glue that holds the basic foundational societal unit together." Wake

up, America!



Of course, as everyone pointed out, the whole enterprise was doomed to failure from the start. It didn't have to be that way; conservatives could have chosen any number of more promising avenues to challenge or limit the Massachusetts ruling. Instead they went with a constitutional amendment, the one method where failure was absolutely guaranteed - along with front-page coverage



Then again, what culture war offensive isn't doomed to failure from the start? Indeed, the inevitability of defeat seems to be a critical element of the melodrama, on issues from school prayer to evolution and even abortion.



Failure on the cultural front serves to magnify the outrage felt by conservative true believers; it mobilizes the base. Failure sharpens the distinctions between conservatives and liberals. Failure allows for endless grandstanding without any real-world consequences that might upset more moderate Republicans or the party's all-important corporate

wing. You might even say that grand and garish defeat - especially if accompanied by the ridicule of the sophisticated - is the culture warrior's very object.



The issue is all-important; the issue is incapable of being won. Only when the battle is defined this way can it achieve the desired results, have its magical polarizing effect. Only with a proposed constitutional amendment could the legalistic, cavilling Democrats be counted on to vote "no," and only with an offensive so blunt and so sweeping could the universal hostility of the press be secured.



Losing is prima facie evidence that the basic conservative claim is true: that the country is run by liberals; that the world is unfair; that the majority is persecuted by a sinister elite. And that therefore you, my red-state friend, had better get out there and vote as if your civilization depended on it.



Thomas Frank is the author, most recently, of "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America."



2) My mentor's niece told her this in all seriousness: according to her Pastor (a church with about 7 to 10 thousand members in Raleigh North Carolina) Bush is a direct descendant of David. And that in the final days, before Jesus' return there will be a great leader that has been "Called" by God to carry his sword. So that it doesn't matter that Bush lied to us about Iraq, because and I quote: " When God calls you to war you go without questioning His word."



This is what we are truly dealing with--people that just do not think the same way as we do. There are 450,000 people that identify themselves as Christian Conservatives in Raleigh, (Wake County) NC.

[Ben Varkentine]

Quote:

---

House OKs Gay Marriage Jurisdiction Bill



14 minutes ago





By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer



WASHINGTON - Stung by a Senate setback on gay marriage, Republicans passed legislation in the House Thursday to prevent federal courts from ordering states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned elsewhere.







Democrats called the bill an unconstitutional attack on gays and the federal judiciary, and said its passage was just a matter of election-year politics.





A day before Congress closes down for six weeks, the 233-194, mainly party-line vote handed at least a symbolic victory to social conservatives who form a key Republican constituency. The bill has the strong backing of the Bush administration, but is not expected to make headway in the Senate, aides to Democrats and Republicans said.





Last week, the Senate failed to advance a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.





Supporters said the House legislation would protect the institution of marriage by reining in federal judges who might otherwise impose gay marriage on states that have banned it. "Marriage is under attack," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., referring to the Massachusetts state court decision allowing same-sex marriages.





The bill would strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says states are not compelled to recognize gay marriages that take place in other states.





The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it could find no precedent for Congress passing a law to limit federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of another law, although Democrats said opponents of civil rights legislation tried to do the same thing.





The effect of the bill would be to single out gays and lesbians, barring them from going into federal court to seek to have their marriages recognized, several Democrats said. Civil rights groups said the bill is unconstitutional for that reason.





"We face no less than a sign on the courthouse door: 'You may not defend your constitutional rights in this court. You may not seek equal protection here,'" said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., the House's lone declared lesbian. "Today, the 'you' is gay and lesbian citizens. But who would be next?"





Some Republican opponents of the legislation also said they wanted to avoid setting a precedent that could used by a Congress controlled by Democrats to satisfy their allies or by lawmakers who wanted to shield future unconstitutional legislation from federal court review.





Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which opposed the legislation, said GOP congressional leaders continue to stay on the issue of gay marriage because of election-year politics. "On a day when Congress was told to focus on terrorism, it is a shame that they instead focused on discrimination," Jacques said, referring to Tuesday's release of the final report of the Sept. 11 Commission.





But a parade of conservative Republican speakers lamented the unbridled power of federal judges to thwart majority will, although no federal court has yet ruled on the 1996 law.





"Judicial activism has reached a crisis," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.





No one suggested that Thursday's vote was the last word on the issue.





Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said the legislation is a welcome interim step. "It provides us the opportunity to isolate some of these judicial rewrites of marriage. Until we can get an amendment to the Constitution, this will keep it from spreading," Perkins said.





Addressing Democrats, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay summed up the arguments on both sides at the start of the debate. "You think this bill is cruel and we think same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms," DeLay, R-Texas, said.





___











The bill is H.R. 3313.

---

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[justin]

Well it was hard to read through that without



However one statement did catch my eye

Quote:

---

"Marriage is under attack," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.,

---

He is definitely right there. The thing is it is people like him who are attacking marriage. My view has always been that it is basing who can marry on descrimination, turning it into a heterosexuals only club, that is destroying marriage.

What other people think of me is none of my business - Ellen Degeneres

[sam7777]

Missouri is the first to pass a bigotted ammendment against gay marriage:

US state's voters first to ban gay marriage

Quote:

---

The US state of Missouri has become the first in the country to ban same-sex marriage, after voters went to the polls yesterday.



The referendum saw a high turn out as the issue of same-sex marriage becomes a key issue in the country's election year politics.



Early counts suggest that more than 70% of voters backed the idea of a state constitutional amendment, which would limit marriage to "one man and one woman".



Despite the issue being discussed nationwide, Missouri is the first of the country's states to outlaw marriage. However, it is included in the 40 states that already have laws outlining their refusal to recognise same-sex marriages.

---

This should be a wake up call that this is a struggle for survival and that we can't be satisfied with the status quo. I feart hat thigns are going to get alot worse from here out.

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Seattle Judge Clears Way for Gay Marriage



By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer





SEATTLE - Same-sex couples cannot be deprived of the right to legally marry in Washington state, a judge ruled Wednesday in a decision hailed as a powerful affirmation of equal rights for gay couples.



While significant, the decision does not immediately clear the way for Massachusetts-style gay weddings in Washington state. The state Supreme Court must first review the case before same-sex marriage licenses can be issued. The court could take months to hear the case.



Still, gay couples said they were thrilled by the ruling, and expressed confidence that they would prevail whenever the high court makes its decision.



"We, all of us, are absolutely overjoyed today," said Johanna Bender, alongside her partner, Sherri Kokx. "We're fully confident that the Supreme Court will uphold this decision."



King County Superior Court Judge William L. Downing ruled in favor of gay couples who argued that Washington's law restricting marriage to one man and one woman violates the state constitution. In his decision, Downing singled out critics who consider such unions dangerous to children.



"The fact is that there are no scientifically valid studies tending to establish a negative impact on the adjustment of children raised by an intact same-sex couple as compared with those raised by an intact opposite-sex couple," Downing wrote.



He concluded that barring same-sex partners from marriage is "not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest."



Gay marriage opponents were disappointed by the ruling.



"I'm disappointed that we even have to be deliberating a well-precedented matter that people previously defined as a marriage between a man and a woman," said state Sen. Val Stevens, a Republican who intervened in the case. "What's to say we can't call a sister-brother union marriage? Where do you draw the line?"



Massachusetts is the only state to allow full-fledged gay marriage, the result of a historic court decision last year that had a polarizing effect around the country.



Although 38 states have laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, several states have been pushing for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage out of fear a court could toss aside state laws. Missouri voters soundly passed such an amendment Tuesday, and as many as 12 others could hold similar votes this year.



Jennifer Pizer, lead counsel in the case for Lambda Legal Defense, declined to speculate on the case's prospects before the state Supreme Court, but noted the justices had sided with gay couples in two earlier cases.



"Judge Downing saw the couples in the courtroom and he's recognized that they are full and equal citizens of Washington. No more and no less," said Pizer.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

"What's to say we can't call a sister-brother union marriage? Where do you draw the line?"

---

What is wrong w/ these f*ckwits, that they can't make a distinction between a (consenting adult) same-sex couple---identical in every way to a straight couple, except what is between one partner's legs---and all these specious, obscene comparisons, like incest, and pedophilia, and bestiality?! Does being homophobic interrupt every function of higher logic?



GG Well, I guess we know the answer to that one. Out

[Sheridan]

Well I'm on the other side of the atlantic but two things stand out here:

First this legislation seems like pure electioneering, put up bills that are supposed to be populist knowing full well the Supreme Court will just shoot them down. this both cynical and a waste of confressional time that could have been spent on something useful.

Secondly the argument against gay marriage has been undermined in much the same way as the ban on them in the military, because the institution has changed. In the case of the military the admission of women, against whom many similar arguments were deployed, into frontline roles has made a nonsense of the ban. In the case of 'traditional marriage' where it was expected you stayed together for life and the woman raised children it's all but vanished, how many marriages even make it ten years? In how many does the woman put off having children because of their career? Would anyone seriously consider dleclaring such a marriage 'nonexistent', stripping away spousal rights simply because it didn't fit some narrow definition? I'd love to see them try and get a bill like that into law.

Willow: ...I have to tell you....

Tara: No, I understand you have to be with the person you l-love

Willow: I am

[BBOvenGuy]

You've probably heard by now that yesterday Vice President Cheney broke ranks with the Bush administration and declared that he opposes a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. He repeated his position from the 2000 Vice Presidential Debate, where he said he thought the matter should be left to the states. The Vice President also talked about his lesbian daughter Mary for the first time in a public forum.



On the other hand, today it was announced that the official Republican Party Platform to be unveiled at next week's convention will include a call for an amendment to ban gay marriage.



Kind of makes you wonder what the Republicans are up to, doesn't it? Or who they're trying to kid...

"The stories we tell - that's us explaining how we think the world works. Once we speak it, once we say it aloud, that makes it real for us - and real for everyone else who hears it too. When we tell a story, we invite people to visit our reality. We invite them to move in. Our stories are the reality we live in." - David Gerrold, The Martian Child

[Sheridan]

I suspec that this will in the end collapse because the religious rightwon't be able to resist padding it out, after all once you start defining what a marriage is in the constitution where do you stop? Will they try and enshrine 'til death do us part' or 'love honour and obey' or maybe make adultery a criminal offence? If they want to protect the sanctity of marriage then they might want to ask how Britney Spears can get drunk, married, and divorced within the space of a few days. Las Vegas is probably doing way more to the institution than anything else.

Willow: ...I have to tell you....

Tara: No, I understand you have to be with the person you l-love

Willow: I am

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

Very good point about Vegas, Sheridan. In truth, the "sanctity" of marriage has been damaged long before Gay couples went looking for it.



Will Gay marriage further destroy marriage? Of course not. Indeed there is a good chance that gay couples will be the best thing to happen to marriage since its inception.

TARA AND WILLOW 2GETHER 4EVER!!! BLESSED BE ETERNALLY!!!

[Gatito Grande]

. . . could we rename this thread "Mobilize! Stop Anti-Gay President!"



GG who's just finished a Call to Arms (aka "ranting" ) on the Politics thread, and who would love to commandeer this one for Anti-Gay Prez Activism Out

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

Dunno about that, but I (and I say this as someone living in the UK) find Dubya's attitude to gay people reprehensible and in fact I feel that someone who is so obviously bigoted should not be allowed to hold office.



So if you want someone to shout "OUT WITH BUSH" (in the sense of Dubya, cos there is some bush I like, LOL!) then I'm your man.

TARA AND WILLOW 2GETHER 4EVER!!! BLESSED BE ETERNALLY!!!

[Sheridan]

It is odd that in the US 'gay marriage' has provoked this furore while in the UK the governments plans for 'Civil Union' hasn't roused more than a few geriatric fossils in the Lords and the usual suspects on the right in the press. Is America really so much less liberal or is it just that the religious right has such a firm grip on the Republicans? BTW if you really want rid of Bush get that $%&^ Nader to step down, his campaign makes no sense since it only hits the democrats and puts a man who opposes his ideals back in the Whitehouse for another four years.

Willow: ...I have to tell you....

Tara: No, I understand you have to be with the person you l-love

Willow: I am

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

Problem with the "Civil Partnership Bill" here in the UK, is that it is discriminatory as it will not confer ALL the legal rights and priveleges of marriage onto gay couples who sign up.



It is, in effect, legalised segregation as it allows to be written into law that a gay couple is inferior, legally, to a straight one.



For that reason, I oppose the Civil Partnership Bill. Marriage or nothing, I say. I can marry, why can't my friends.

Tara & Willow Together Forever!!! Blessed Be Eternally!!!

[Gatito Grande]

. . . sign up here:



johnkerry.com/VolunteerNow



GG Shake your booty, do your duty! Out

[sam7777]

Louisiana Approves Ban on Gay Marriage

Quote:

---

Louisiana voters on Saturday overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriages and civil unions.



With most of the state's 4,124 voting precincts reporting, the amendment was passing by a margin of 80 percent to 20 percent.



Supporters hailed the vote as a victory for traditional marriage.



"This was an incredible mandate," Republican state Rep. Steve Scalise, co-author of the amendment, told Reuters. "It shows that the people of Louisiana feel very passionately that marriage should be between a man and a woman."



Amendment opponents vowed to fight the legislation in court. They said it put in danger domestic partner benefits provided by private companies and local governments, including the city of New Orleans.



"The Christian Coalition did an excellent job of deceiving the legislature and the voters into believing that this amendment only dealt with the issue of marriage," said Randall Evans, an attorney for Forum For Equality, a statewide civil rights organization. "Now, 500,000 Louisianians will have to look to the courts for protection of their constitutional rights."



With Saturday's vote, Louisiana became the second state to adopt a constitutional ban on gay unions. Missouri voters approved a similar bill in August.



Constitutional amendments will appear on ballots in 10 other states in November, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization.

---

These bans don't only affect gay marriage but also civil unions nd the right to enter into contracts:

Crushing Louisiana Defeat Leaves Gay Groups Searching For Victory

Quote:

---

Louisiana voters Saturday supported the proposed amendment by an 80 per cent plurality. (story) Nevertheless, the victory came amid one of the lowest voter turnouts on record, noted Tim Hornback, the executive director of Equality Louisiana.



Horback also sees some benefits of the Louisiana battle, pointing to a statewide infrastucture of GLBT groups that never existed before.



The group is preparing to fight the amendment in the courts. Prior to the vote, the Louisiana Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the amendment calling the case premature. Equality Louisiana is now preparing to return to court to challenge the vote. The battle will center around arguments the group made in lower courts last month.



It will argue that the "Defense of Marriage" amendment is unconstitutional because it would deprive unmarried couples -- gay or straight -- of the right to enter into certain contracts.



Eventually, the case could go to the Supreme Court but that could take several years.



Eleven more states will vote on proposed amendments to ban gay marriage in November, and other states are expected to put similar questions to voters in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

---

Intolerance is the order of the day in the US today.

[Sheridan]

I still suspect this is just playing to the crowd by politicans who know that the Supreme Court will shoot these amendments down but when that happens they will be able to blame the 'wishy-washy' justice system.

Willow: ...I have to tell you....

Tara: No, I understand you have to be with the person you l-love

Willow: I am

[sam7777]

ACLU Launches Online Toolkit for Activists Fighting for Marriage for Same-Sex Couples

Quote:

---

Today, the American Civil Liberties Union launched Fighting For Marriage, an online resource designed to give local activists the tools to defeat proposals that would amend state constitutions so that same-sex couples could never be legally recognized. The toolkit, available at www.aclu.org/getequal, provides practical advice and resources designed to make the case for, and counter arguments against, marriage equality.



"The constitutional amendments proposed in 11 states this November are aimed at preventing legal recognition of same-sex couples for good, before people even have an opportunity to think the issue through," said Matt Coles, Director of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "Once Americans have a chance to see how these amendments would harm families, the country will reject them. That’s why it’s up to all of us to help show America that same-sex couples make the same commitments to each other that heterosexual couples do, and suffer terribly when society treats them as if they were strangers."

---

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

[Talula]

Federal Marriage Amendment Fails to Win 2/3 Majority in U.S. House Vote Today

Quote:

---

Illinois' statewide gay rights organization Equality Illinois applauds the U.S. House of Representatives' rejection of the Federal Marriage Amendment that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriages. The amendment did not receive the necessary 2/3 vote in favor.



"Today's rejection by the House of this antigay and antifamily amendment is a victory for fairness and decency and a defeat to those who attack gay people and our families," said Rick Garcia, political director of Equality Illinois. "The House refused to write bigotry into our Constitution."



Proponents of this amendment have suggested that the institution of marriage needs to be protected from same-sex marriages.



"This legislation has nothing to do with the protection of marriage or supporting families it is nothing more than a vicious attack on gay people and our families. The institution of marriage doesn't need to be protected from gay people," suggested Garcia. "It is gay people who need to be protected from hatemongers and bigots."



"While we welcome this vote we are also deeply concerned by the rhetoric used by the proponents of the amendment," said Garcia. "The rhetoric has been at best uninformed and ignorant and at worst hateful and mean. While this is a victory we have much to do before gay people are treated fairly and equitably in our society."



"We thank all of those who contacted their representatives and urged a no vote. Your speaking up helped stop this divisive and hateful amendment," Garcia said. "But, we cannot be complacent," warned Garcia. "Anti gay forces continue to work against us throughout the country. This is a great victory for those who believe in equality and fairness, but we have much to ensure that glbt people are treated fairly and equitably in our country.

---

----------------

Talula

"The lorry blocked the road. And the corrugated iron blocked the road. And a thirty-foot-high pile of fish blocked the road. It was one of the most effectively blocked roads the sergeant had ever seen."--Good Omens, Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett

[skittles]

This will not surprise anyone, but there is a comment further down in the story that gives some hope.

Quote:

---

PROPOSAL 2 | Church steps up effort to ban gay marriage



BY DAWSON BELL FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER



October 7, 2004



Catholic Church leaders in Michigan have decided to mount a full-blown effort to win approval of Proposal 2 -- the constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman -- comparable to church participation in campaigns for school vouchers and against physician-assisted suicide.



In a letter to be sent this week to each of the more than 800 parishes in the state, Michigan's six bishops assert that "we must reaffirm marriage as the basic institution of all human society."



Voting for Proposal 2 will help to "ensure that the meaning of marriage is secured and preserved," according to the bishops' letter.



Parish priests are being asked to sermonize on the issue this weekend and show a videotape produced by the Archdiocese of Detroit featuring Cardinal Adam Maida.



The Catholic Church's support for the proposal will include financial contributions. But Paul Long, executive director of the Michigan Catholic Conference, said this week that each diocese will decide the extent of its financial support.



In 1998, donations from the dioceses to the successful campaign to block legalization of assisted suicide reached nearly $2.5 million. The church in Michigan spent $2 million on the failed effort to enact a school voucher program in 2000.



The effort to pass the same-sex marriage ban is being coordinated by the Catholic Conference, with parishes all over the state being asked to incorporate teaching about the church's position on marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage into different activities over the next month. The conference is also sending out promotional literature by mail to 500,000 Catholic households. "In the end, if people are well educated about what is at stake ... they'll approve Proposal 2," Long said.



Catholics are a potentially decisive voting bloc in Michigan, comprising 25 to 32 percent of the electorate. But Catholics in Michigan often don't vote as a bloc, said Ed Sarpolus, pollster for



EPIC/MRA in Lansing. Even when they do, he said, they sometimes defy church leaders.



A Free Press poll of Michigan voters last week found that Catholics supported Proposal 2 nearly 2 to 1, 62 percent to 34 percent.



Dana Houle, spokesman for the Coalition for a Fair Michigan, which opposes the proposal, said he believes Catholics ultimately will reject it. While most Catholics oppose same-sex marriage, Houle said, they also value social justice. Proposal 2 would "cut health insurance to some families," he said.



Opponents of the proposal say it would stop private and public employers from providing health care and other benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees. Backers of the proposal say the measure would not affect the private sector or existing labor agreements with same-sex benefits in the public sector. But they agree that new contracts for public employees could not offer the benefits if the measure passes.



Rev. Charles Kosanke of Guardian Angels parish in Clawson said he doesn't consider the Catholic initiative a political venture, but an opportunity for the church to explore "our core beliefs."



"We don't believe we have the right to redefine marriage," he said. "But not just as believers, but as citizens, we have a right to participate" in the marriage debate.



Norma Loch of Farmington Hills, who attends St. Owen in Oakland County, said she welcomes discussion of the ballot proposal but it's not guaranteed she'll vote with church leaders..



Another major Michigan institution, the AFL-CIO, will oppose Proposal 2, President Mark Gaffney said Wednesday. Gaffney said the labor organization views the proposal as "an assault on collective bargaining rights" because some unions have negotiated benefits for same-sex partners.



Contact DAWSON BELL at 313-222-6604 or dbell@freepress.com.

---

skittles

Prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child.

When life hands you lemons, ask for a bottle of tequila and some salt

[Sally McFine]

So much is riding on this election. The right is using these amendments as a political football to try to get their supporters out to vote in November. We can't let them win. The scary thing is - the President who is elected in 2004 is going to almost certainly appoint 3 Supreme Court Justices who will eventually be the ones deciding whether all these state constitutional amendments and god forbid the federal amendment are constitutional.

I would much rather have justices deciding that who were appointed by President Kerry than President Bush. Wouldn't you? So here is how you can help make it happen.

Everyone needs to vote. The more turnout there is, the better Kerry will do. Get out and vote! Not only vote, but VOLUNTEER to help GOTV. Here are 3 easy steps:

1. Request an absentee ballot so you can vote and be out of town on election day. Go here: http://www.fvap.gov/links/statelinks.html



2. Sign up to travel to a battleground state. Go here: http://www.americavotes.org/action/index.cfm?mg=hrc



3. Request the day off and TRAVEL, and get FIVE FRIENDS to go with you!

It's all about Ohio...and Iowa. And every vote counts. Help every vote count.

[sam7777]

Agreed it's absolutely essential to have President Kerry pick the next supreme cour justices. Most state ammendments banning gay marriage will pass leaving us only with court challenges to stop the bigotry:

Most anti-gay marriage amendments likely to pass

Quote:

---

Polls suggest that many of the 11 state constitutional amendments that would ban gay marriage are likely to be approved by voters on Tuesday. But that might not be the case in Ohio.



A growing number of politicians and newspaper editorial boards, in addition to the League of Women Voters, AFL-CIO and the AARP, have joined forces to oppose Ohio’s constitutional amendment that seeks to ban not just gay marriage but civil unions, domestic partnerships and other living arrangements for couples.



Eleven states will have constitutional amendments on their ballots next Tuesday. Eight of the amendments seek to ban gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership and other legal arrangements for gay couples while four would only prohibit same-sex marriage.



But polls in Oregon, where voters will face an amendment that bans gay marriage, and in Ohio indicate a divided public.



An Oct. 19 ABC News poll showed 48 percent of Ohio voters in favor of Issue 1, with 47 percent opposed.



Opponents of the Ohio amendment say they have successfully altered the debate from a matter of gay marriage to one highlighting the fact that the second sentence — as interpreted by many — will remove unmarried couples’ rights to jointly own property, and forbid Ohio employers from offering health care to their employees.



The controversial second sentence reads, “This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effects of marriage.”



-------------------

-------------------

Voters in 13 states this year either are about to consider, or have already considered state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. Some also would ban civil union recognition.



Louisiana

Missouri

States that have already voted and passed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.



Oregon

Mississippi

Montana

States that are scheduled to vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban only gay marriage



Michigan

Arkansas

Georgia

Kentucky

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Utah

States that are scheduled to vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban both gay marriage and civil union recognition

---

Even without the Federal Marriage Ammemdments, gay couples still stand to lose their rights as state by state push laws and amendments to limit rights to couples that are not married.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 10/29/04 11:05 am

[Sheridan]

Well it looks as though the amendments have gone through and unless Ohio throws up a surprise Bush is heading back to the White House so any help from that quarter is unlikely unless Dick Cheney decides to make a stand, which would be a no then....

Willow: ...I have to tell you....

Tara: No, I understand you have to be with the person you l-love

Willow: I am

[sam7777]

We can also expect court challenges to be much more difficult with the conservative anti-gay judges that the republicans will put in. I expect GLBT rights to erode over the next four years with the executive, legislative and judicial branches all in conservative hands.



ETA: What went wrong? (Gay-bashing edition)

Quote:

---

As a final note, do read Andrew Sullivan this morning on how Republicans used gay-bashing to win the election. The president may say he supports civil unions, but he had no trouble using bans on civil unions to churn out voters in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and elsewhere. It was nothing less than an electoral lynching -- of a small and completely harmless minority -- that will remain for all time a black spot in American history.



Unfortunately, with Tom Coburn ("rampant lesbianism" and Jim DeMint ("Gays should not be allowed to teach in public schools" now in the Senate, it will only get worse over the next few years. In the long term, however, this will collapse, like all other forms of bigotry have. Young people are far, far more accepting of civil unions, gay marriage, and equal protection than older people are, and demographics are on the side of gay rights. So I have to share Sullivan's optimism when he says, "Do not let the Republican party rob you of your hopes. This is America. Equality will win in the end."

---

Our hops lie with getting rid of the republican dominance of the US government.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 11/3/04 12:09 pm

[NS Maestro]

I'm just hoping the moderate judges in the Supreme Court can hold out for four more years, which would hopefully mean Bush only gets to replace two already on his side with others. Note that the current split tends to be 5 against 4... We don't need another one of the checks in the system to fail at this point.

[Sheridan]

Such swings to a political extreme never last, eventually they push so far that the oridinary voters will reject them. the rabid right wing nature of the Bush administration may wreck the Republicans as effectively as Thatcherism in the end wrecked the Conservatives here in the UK. Sooner or later the religious right is going to ask for something that they just can't get, then comes the meltdown.

Willow: ...I have to tell you....

Tara: No, I understand you have to be with the person you l-love

Willow: I am