Gay Marriage Ban -Debate Underway in Senate

Casey, I agree with you. There is a lot of mud slinging, but you know what? Why should we Republicans have to back down when our opposition constantly attacks us?

I think perhaps that the world is so far gone, no one knows what's worth the fight anymore.

It's a sad age in a America, but I'm not giving up. I stand by my country. That's the only good thing that matters. I love America. And I want to see her shine - I don't think the Democrats can accomplish that.

This seems to be the more salient point:

The history of the last 60 years cannot be blamed on the Russians or the Democrats or even the Republicans. We seem to be unable to deal with peace and how to spend our treasure on improving the nation instead of squandering our treasure on weapons and invasions.

While we are shoveling all this blame around on each other, perhaps we should look in the mirror. What can we do to make it better? (Thanks for riding your bike, Dana) What one thing have you done today to make the world a better place? I'm not sure I can add that I've done anything yet.

Frankly, the past is past. 9/11 and Katrina were horrible and it would be good if we could learn all the lessons we needed to learn from them, but I don't think that's happening. Too much mud flying.

We need to find our way clear to a better place as a nation. This split down the middle (and that's pretty much where it is) leaves us vulnerable to everything else.

Casey Dawes
Wise Woman Shining
www.WiseWomanShining.com ( http://www.WiseWomanShining.com )
http://cdawes.blogs.com/wisewomanshining/

It is as Edward R. Morrow reminded us, quoting from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar," the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

Yes. Edward Murrow - formerly on the Soviet payroll.

It's funny you mention him. People who watch by Good Nght, And Good Luck are only seeing half the story. Perhaps you all need to dive into Lexis Nexis a bit more and see the real story.

I'm a proud Conservative and I'll stand by my values until God ends the world.

I kind of hope the Repbulicans lose the House, then you liberals in bubbles will see how tough we'll really have it.

It was Gorbachev who ended the Cold War when Russia renounced Communism and Ronald Reagan had absolutely NOTHING to do with that.

Yes, according to Liberal history books.

Great debate! :)

Can I just say I like this quite a bit...

Let's make a deal: You remind yourself that most liberals are not wealthy like Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn, and I'll remind myself that most conservatives are not wealthy like Dick Cheney and Ken Lay.

We would all do well to remember this.

OK carry on, because I am enjoying this discussion very much. :-)

~Denise
Daily Dose of Denise ( http://flamingohouse.blogs.com )

FDR and Truman were in a hot war - not a cold war - that ended with the United States using atomic weapons on Japan.

There were people who suggested that after the Axis was crushed, that with its nuclear monopoly, the United States should take on Russia - and later when China invaded Korea, there were calls for using atomic bombs against the Red Chinese.

However, Russia managed to create an atomic weapon of its own and the United States and Russia came to grips that that a world war might go atomic.

The Cold War did begin at the end of the Truman Presidency and in 1952 the Korean War dragged on-and-on, finally ending in a cease fire without evolving into World War Three.

The fact Russia had an atomic weapon frightened many Americans and an internal war to find "commies" swept the nation. This was the "Red scare" exploited by the right, including Senator Joseph McCarthy. To him there was a Communist under every bed. He went so far as to say Secretary of State George C. Marshall might be a Commie. McCarthy was finally censured by the Senate.

I was very young at the time, but the recent film "Good Night and Good Luck" captures the feeling of the era.

In October 1962, the United States nearly went to war with Russia. The Cold War almost turned hot when John F. Kennedy - who the right wing smeared as "another Commie" - barely averted World War Three.

We had another hot (land) war in South East Asia once again.

It was Gorbachev who ended the Cold War when Russia renounced Communism and Ronald Reagan had absolutely NOTHING to do with that.

In the meantime the industrialized and not-so-industrialized nations have poured billions into weapons - chemical, biological, nuclear, and conventional. Billions have been spent on hardware that is now obsolete - old nuclear submarines, missiles, and tanks - money that could have been put into hospitals, schools, better levies for cities like New Orleans, mass transit, investment in alternative energy.

We now have nuclear waste dumps - here in the United States - that are filled with nuclear material that will be dangerous for a quarter million years and there is no way to "neutralize" it.

During the height of the Cold War - in my memory - we were setting off atomic weapons in the atmosphere in Nevada and elsewhere for testing. There were days children were advised to play indoors because atomic clouds were drifting over populated areas.

JFK unilaterally said the United States would no longer conduct atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons - and of course, that was because he was a "Commie," or so said the right wing.

The so-called Cold War continues, only today we call it "terrorism." It's the same old stuff in new bottles. We are asked to live in fear as our liberties are eroded.

A terror barometer that will never go below orange tells us we have things to fear. That our nation is in danger - and we are stuck in another war, this time in the Middle East.

Yes, Russia is no longer a threat. Now its others who are ... and the once frightening power Red China? They're our big buddy.

The history of the last 60 years cannot be blamed on the Russians or the Democrats or even the Republicans. We seem to be unable to deal with peace and how to spend our treasure on improving the nation instead of squandering our treasure on weapons and invasions.

It is as Edward R. Morrow reminded us, quoting from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar," the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

But just in case you're not....

Ummm...We can also say that former President Clinton ignored the warnings. Because he didn't want to "upset" Saddam Hussein.

This strikes me as a totally bizarre statement. What did Saddam Hussein have to do with 9/11? Surely you mean Osama bin Laden, head of al Qaeda -- the guy in Afghanistan (not Iraq).

FDR couldn't even battle the Cold War properly. It took Ronald Reagan to do that. Roosevelt and Truman were pansies. "We have to support Alger Hiss, he's not a Communist spy!" Thank God for people like Senator Joe McCarthy.

LOL! Of course you know FDR died during World War II, before the Cold War was even a dream. Truman was the president who, though way out-manned in Europe by the USSR, kept the Russians from taking more of Europe through a lot of bluff, including hinting at using the Bomb again on them. That was the beginning of the Cold War.

How does one "battle" a Cold War, when it's a cold war (i.e., no battles, in theory)? It was a face-off to avoid nucleaer armageddon. You win by avoiding World War III, and every president was successful at that. Reagan was nothing special in that regard, except that he raised the tensions with his "evil empire" talk. If the USSR hadn't crumbled under its own economic failures (when Bush the elder was president), that country and the Cold War would have continued, whether Reagan had used more "evil" rhetoric back in the 1980s or not.

I love the McCarthy line! That made me laugh out loud, even before I had my coffee.

The City of New Orleans was well aware of the need to replace/repair their levy systems. Scientists predicted a disaster of this extent, but the Clinton Administration did nothing. The City of New Orleans did nothing. And now all these people are blaming Bush.

Well, you know, as much as it's hard to face, Bush has been president for the past 5+ years, and he's the one who did nothing for the 4+ years he was in office before Katrina hit, despite appeals from New Orleans and the Corps of Engineers for funding to beef up the levies. The Clinton-blaming that gets pulled out so often is one joke getting funnier and funnier with time.

But the lack of rescue was a disaster. I can appreciate your concern for Bush getting blamed -- poor fella! -- but I think he can take care of himself, he's the president, he's rich, and he has plenty of people fawning over him. Can't say the same for the taxpayers who died days after the storm had passed. "Pansie" Truman said, "The buck stops here," but Bush has been really great at passing the buck right on back down the line. What a man!

Yes, we'd like to drill for oil in Alaska. But for some reason all the Environmentalist don't agree. If that's the case, they need to get rid of their SUV's, stop using their private jets to go around protesting drilling and start riding their bicycles, like me. The excersie might do them some good!

Of course, when the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve contains enough oil for America for only 2 days, it hardly seems worth the effort, especially when it doesn't solve the long-term problems of global warming and national dependency on a rapidly disappearing resource.

I agree about the bicycles. But I think you're mixed up a bit: Conservatives drive SUVs, too -- and RVs, and dualies and minivans and other gas guzzlers. (Isn't the official Red State vehicle the diesel pickup truck? Okay, bad joke.)

It's the wealthy (oil) executives who fly in the private jets, not environmentalists. I know, you see Brad Pitt and George Clooney and assume that all of us are just as rich, as Rush claims ad nauseum. It seems to be a common assumption. (Don't we all wish we were in Rush's tax bracket.)

Let's make a deal: You remind yourself that most liberals are not wealthy like Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn, and I'll remind myself that most conservatives are not wealthy like Dick Cheney and Ken Lay.

--
media girl ( http://mediagirl.org )

There's plenty of blame to go around re 9/11, but it's pretty clear that Bush and his administration ignored the warnings, including a top-level memo that laid out intelligence that Osama bin Laden was about to attack the US.

Ummm...We can also say that former President Clinton ignored the warnings. Because he didn't want to "upset" Saddam Hussein.

FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Being afraid does nothing but make people act irrationally. Cultivating fear in the American people is not only foolish, it's irresponsible, imho.

FDR couldn't even battle the Cold War properly. It took Ronald Reagan to do that. Roosevelt and Truman were pansies. "We have to support Alger Hiss, he's not a Communist spy!" Thank God for people like Senator Joe McCarthy.

I don't think there's any doubt that the Bush Administration totally fumbled when it came to Katrina. FEMA used to be a well-respected agency, but Bush used it for crony appointments.

The City of New Orleans was well aware of the need to replace/repair their levy systems. Scientists predicted a disaster of this extent, but the Clinton Administration did nothing. The City of New Orleans did nothing. And now all these people are blaming Bush. I feel sorry for them for having such an irresponsible Mayor.

Until this year, Bush has actively opposed alternative energy plans. In fact, this has a long tradition in the Republican party.

Yes, we'd like to drill for oil in Alaska. But for some reason all the Environmentalist don't agree. If that's the case, they need to get rid of their SUV's, stop using their private jets to go around protesting drilling and start riding their bicycles, like me. The excersie might do them some good!

(Warning: straying off topic, but I do come back to it ... eventually.)

Americans blame him for Katrina. Yes, he's got so much hot air that he thought it would be FUN to displace several hundred thousand Americans.

I don't think there's any doubt that the Bush Administration totally fumbled when it came to Katrina. FEMA used to be a well-respected agency, but Bush used it for crony appointments. At the very least, by appointing a horse lawyer to be in charge of FEMA, and by goofing off in photo-ops with musicians while people were on television drowning in American streets, Bush demonstrated a lack of appreciation of what emergency actually means, or what it takes to deal with one.

They blame him for 9-11 and he'd only been in office for a few short montsh. Yes, that's right. Bushy thought it would be a riot to blow up 3,000 Americans one day and start a war to protect us from future attacks.

There's plenty of blame to go around re 9/11, but it's pretty clear that Bush and his administration ignored the warnings, including a top-level memo that laid out intelligence that Osama bin Laden was about to attack the US.

But what's worse is that the Bush Administration has blocked any meaningful investigation into what happened, and how intelligence fell apart. Instead, he added yet another level of beaurocracy to the intelligence agencies, and by all accounts nothing is better and much is worse.

As for political exploitation, it's no secret that Karl Rove pushed for playing Americans against each other for political gain, and that ended up defining not only the policy but the rhetoric of the Bush Administration. Now we're in Iraq, which was a political move on Bush's part and was based on actions to "fix the facts to fit the policy." It seems like every day more comes out on this. People are dying as a result, and it doesn't take any venal judgments or absurd assumptions, such as you suggest, to see that Bush's handling of the "war on terror" has been less than optimal.

People blame him for the higher gas prices. I know, I couldn't believe it myself. Georgie just couldn't wait to screw us over. Like he had any control over the multi-million dollar oil companies. Get real.

Until this year, Bush has actively opposed alternative energy plans. In fact, this has a long tradition in the Republican party. Now he's suddenly seen the light and is talking alternative fuels. But I can't help but wonder what would have happened if the policies started after the oil crises of the 1970s were allowed to continue.

Bush was a failure as an oil executive, when the Saud family had to bail him out. I don't see anything but incompetence and short-sightedness on his part in terms of gas prices now. In my view, Reagan is the real culprit when he raised taxes on alternative energy companies by killing tax credits established by Carter.

And my favorite point is this. People claim that Bush likes to insitll fear into Americans? YOU'RE DARN RIGHT HE DOES. We should be afraid. Afraid of God watching us destroy innocent life with abortions. We should be afraid of the GODLESS liberals who want us to surrender our country to the Taliban because we might upset them. Did they give a rats behind when the attacked the WTC??? I don't think so.

FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Being afraid does nothing but make people act irrationally. Cultivating fear in the American people is not only foolish, it's irresponsible, imho.

Personally I don't know anybody, personally or in the mediasphere, who wants the US to surrender to the Taliban. I'd be curious who you have in mind. If anyone has given the Taliban a break, it's Bush himself, because he cut short the war in Afghanistan and send most of our troops to Iraq, where they still are, overextended, close to burn-out, while the Taliban enjoys a resurgence in Afghanistan.

However, I woudn't say he wants to surrender to the Taliban. He's just a chickenhawk (a hawk who's never served in combat) who made ignorant decisions, and we're all paying the price.

More importantly instead of fear we should be angry.

Anger just leads to rash acts. If you ever saw Muhammed Ali box (back when boxing was considered prime time network entertainment), he was great at demonstrating how anger only destroys you. He would taunt his opponents, making them get angry. Then they'd lose it, and make mistakes, and he'd win again and again and again.

I think we need to get smart, not angry. We should focus on the real problems facing this country, and avoid things like accusing "liberals" of being godless, wanting to kill "innocent" life (as if pregnant women are not innocent?), wanting to surrender to the Taliban, celebrating the 9/11 deaths, and so on. I hear tell that peacemaking and good works and loving ones enemies and letting ones light shine, that these are good things.

At least we can agree on gay marriage. And I really do wish homosexual people -- and heterosexual people -- the best of luck, because lord knows far too many marriages end up in dysfunctional misery.

--
media girl ( http://mediagirl.org )

..is that one man alone does not rule the country of America.

President Bush wants to ban gay marriage, but you can't blame him for the problems he inherited when he took over this country. There are many Americans who agree with him and many who don't. We have a House and Senate that helps make these rules. I get so sick of the blame that's placed on President Bush.

Americans blame him for Katrina. Yes, he's got so much hot air that he thought it would be FUN to displace several hundred thousand Americans.

They blame him for 9-11 and he'd only been in office for a few short montsh. Yes, that's right. Bushy thought it would be a riot to blow up 3,000 Americans one day and start a war to protect us from future attacks. You're right it, was all a campaign plug. Shameless promotion for the re-election 4 years later.

People blame him for the higher gas prices. I know, I couldn't believe it myself. Georgie just couldn't wait to screw us over. Like he had any control over the multi-million dollar oil companies. Get real.

And my favorite point is this. People claim that Bush likes to insitll fear into Americans? YOU'RE DARN RIGHT HE DOES. We should be afraid. Afraid of God watching us destroy innocent life with abortions. We should be afraid of the GODLESS liberals who want us to surrender our country to the Taliban because we might upset them. Did they give a rats behind when the attacked the WTC??? I don't think so.

More importantly instead of fear we should be angry. Angry with "Amnesty". It didn't work in '86, it's not going to work now. The Hagel-Martinez-Kennedy trio are complete idiots.

We should be angry that the terrorists are still conniving to blow us up.

We should be angry that there Americans are wishy-washy and can't make a decision to save their own lives.

Americans are just as much to blame as the man that leads them.

And as far as Gay Marriage goes...I say now....let 'em have it. You want to be married? I wish you the best of luck.

Some xlnt posts on the subject: http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/

--
media girl ( http://mediagirl.org )

Our president has made a career out of cultivating fear. Unfortunately on this issue there are a lot of God gay-fearing folks out there who are all too eager to kick the other guy down to alleviate their own hang-ups.

Methinks they dost protest too much. What are they really afraid of? ( http://mediagirl.org/node/1276 )

--
media girl ( http://mediagirl.org )

Ok here it is, i am a British citizen. My partner, Laura, is an american citizen by birth with an American passport. Two weeks ago we went to the 'wedding' of our two pals Simone & Sanna who, after 10 years together, decided that it was their time to make the ultimate commitment to one another and get married. Although Dear old Tony B has his own personal views on the place of gay marriage within the church, he has fully supported the implementation in law, (yes law), of the rights of same sex couples to have a legally binding civil union, that is, to get married. He has also made sure that ALL laws relating to the rights of gay people have been brought into line with those of heterosexual people. In the workplace, in discrimination law, in marriage, in employment law and in adoption law etc etc. This gives us EXACTLY, to the letter and across the board, the same rights as heterosexual people. I know that Britain doesn't always get it right, it bimbles and faffs its way along and there are some points of policy that i am not to enamoured with. The weather is also pretty rubbish for much of the year but all in all, this is a pretty good country to live in and be gay in and i have to say i am proud to be British. Europe is the place to be if you are Gay.

Now to America. I absolutely love the country, all of the people i have had the pleasure to meet and call friends and i would love to be able to move there with Laura as she wishes. We are both professional women, i have been in law enforcement for 10 years and Laura works for a global branding company. We have no criminal records, have never been in debt, have great families, are nice people (really!), have always done everything by the book. We are also planning to have a civil union in the near future. We are so clean that we squeak! NONE of this matters, however, when it comes to Lauras rights as an american citizen to return to her country of citizenship with her long term, legal, partner BECAUSE SHE HAPPENS TO BE A SHE! I'm sorry but i just don't get it! When you question the embassies they say that 'i can't comment on that m'aam'. The only reason they could deny us the right of every other american citizen, who has a foreign spouse, is that we are gay.

"Sorry M'aam there appears to be a problem. It says here that you're married?".
"Yep that's right".
"But you're both erm, erm, females" (man scratches head!). "Yep that's right. We are British and we got married last year".
"Oh dear m'aam the president has specifically said that we don't allow gay people into the united states. Something to do with moral infections or the spreading of dangerous propoganda or something!".
"Next"

GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY! Do you think if we shout it loud enough at George 'mad as a Bush' he will implode?

It makes me SO angry. America the Superpower? America the most advanced country in the world? America the beautiful? America we have a problem. The beautiful has a wort growing in the form of George 'Daft As A' Bush! I couldn't believe it when i heard that he was pushing a constitutional change to ban gay marriage! His alliance with the far right, (and his pursuance of his goal to be seated at the right hand of god!), is so obviously BAD for the country. How can he possibly run a democratic society when he clearly doesn't know what it means! Does he have an Uncle Adolf somewhere in the family tree? From this side of the pond it is CLEAR that the man is abusing his position as president to further his own biggoted, discriminatory opinions about a HUGE section of society that do nothing but good things and his 'political puppet pals' are all sliming along behind him not one of them with the balls to stand up and be counted. What a prize prat! When is this blatant discrimination against one section of the communtity going to stop and why is America continuing to tolerate it. In my book this is no different than the way ethnic minorities were treated back in the bad old days in the states. It took struggle and heartbreak to turn the tide in those days but now the gay community is in the 21st century and is powerful. SO PLEASE LET THE GAY WORLD SEE YOU USING THE POWER.

I am saddened, angered and afraid for America which beneath BUSH has such a beautiful soul.

Spread the luv.

I really don't understand why they're so threatened by someone else's life choices. Why gay marriages will "destroy" the institution (as opposed to say, divorcing the mother of your children to marry a much younger tobacco lobbyist would - Roy Blunt of Missouri).

And if, rather than real work, they feel it necessary to engage in defining terms, can we have a definition (along with some rules on it) for "corruption"? Or perhaps "scandal"? And of course "ethics"?

How much are we paying them not to work?

Jim Heivilin

A rather pathetic attempt to rally support for a failed president, whilst attempting to stand on our backs.

Five years into the "uniter" presidency, how I wish we could have run video of his future presidency on major media outlets around say... 1 November, 2000.

nelle ( http://liberalfeministtranniedyke.net/ )

If I recall my history correctly, marriage was an invention of men to insure that the sperm they contributed went to the child they supported. There was nothing sacred about it. It was a financial transaction.

Unfortunately, in too many cases, it still is.

Casey Dawes
Wise Woman Shining
www.WiseWomanShining.com ( http://www.WiseWomanShining.com )
http://cdawes.blogs.com/wisewomanshining/