Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Ovid (2709)

  (email not shown publicly)
AOL IM: ovidperl (Add Buddy, Send Message)

Stuff with the Perl Foundation. A couple of patches in the Perl core. A few CPAN modules. That about sums it up.

Journal of Ovid (2709)

Tuesday February 24, 2004
11:56 AM

Bush's Announcement

[ #17597 ]

I just heard that Bush officially announced his support for a Constitutional amendment to legally support discrimination and relegating gay people to the status of second-class citizens (which is all it boils down to). I knew he was probably going to do this, but I was very upset. It still hurts to see how incredibly evil someone can be just to hold onto power.

And if you think my comments above are strong, believe me, I've seriously restrained them.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Do you know how hard it is to amend the constitution? Very hard. So what he's done is make a spinny statement to help get elected, with no real substance. Typical politics.
    • Randal L. Schwartz
    • Stonehenge
    • I don't doubt that he seriously wants to do it. I don't think that it's just for the election.


    • I am familiar with the process of amending the Constitution (I've been doing a lot of reading about Constitutional law lately), but I don't know how difficult this will prove to be. When we have prominent Democratic politician's "coming out" against gay marriage, I can see this possibly passing the House. The Senate has a good chance of a filibuster, though until (if) this gets introduced I think there's a good chance that many Senators will not have the moral courage to stand up for decency and announce

        • I used the word "evil" because, in my view, Bush is again using deliberately divisive issues and exploiting a minority for attempted political gain. I realize that not everyone will view things this way, though.

          It's a given that a later amendment would overrule a previous one on the specific issue it references.

          Is it? If that were the case, why would the 21st amendment explicitly repeal the 18th? I'm not saying I disagree, though, as I don't know the law here.

          Other than that, I think I agree with

          • I used the word "evil" because, in my view, Bush is again using deliberately divisive issues and exploiting a minority for attempted political gain. I realize that not everyone will view things this way, though.

            Yes, and my view is that you only alienate people whom you already disagree with by attributing motive to the people you disagree with instead of arguing the actual issue. I think this is one of the reasons Gore lost, and I think Kerry is going to get hurt by it too. Edwards was the only one who
  • Money? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by djberg96 (2603) on 2004.02.24 12:55 (#28734) Journal
    Let's skip the moral/ethical stuff and get right down to what people are really willing to fight for - money.

    Anyone have any stats on how a federal law that allows same-sex marriage affects insurance, taxes, etc? Or is it insignificant.

    Anyway, the lawyers will be happy if this passes. Just think - an instant 3% increase in divorce court clients!

    • Oops - I should clarify. By "this" in that last sentence I meant a law that *allows* same-sex marriage, not a constitutional amendment banning it.
    • I don't have the stats on hand -- I doubt the government has ever commissioned a study of the financial impact of gay marriages -- but if we consider some of the financial benefits of marriage (and other special rights automatically granted to married couples), then we get quite a list:

      • joint parenting;
      • joint adoption;
      • joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
      • status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
        • I agree completely. I don't think that the special rights that marriage conveys should be something enshrined into law. However, given that married people are going to fight viciously to maintain their special rights, I think the easier tactic is to at least end the discrimination against homosexuals.

            • I look at the moral slide this country is making and I do not wonder why talking about God is not allowed anywhere any more.

              There is nothing wrong with talking about God. There is everything wrong with a government that is supposed to recognize the separation of church and state failing to do so.

              One of the biggest threats our country faces today is the hate and intolerance that the religious right is teaching us. To try and take their values and enshrine them in the Constitution would not only be de

              • I don't understand why Americans are so much attached to their constitution. A constitution that does not mandate absolute separation of church of state is anti-democratic; be it two centuries old or not. One of the problems here is that some people continue to think that civil marriage and the form of marriage practiced in their favourite religion are related in some way; they are not. Several religions authorize polygamy; should a government allow it, then? So why a government should ban a form a marriage
                • I've been hearing the "no separation of church and state" claim for a while now. People who utter it are absolutely right that those exact words are not in the Constitution. However, they're dead wrong that it's not mandated. I don't know who started this ridiculous lie, but many people have been parroting it blindly that it's become this piece of Right Wing Christian propaganda that they keep throwing at unsuspecting people (mind you, I have no problem with Christians or people who are right wing, thoug

                  • No, there is nothing in the Constitution mandating a separation of church and state, as that phrase is understood today. The very assertion is ridiculous, because the people who wrote, voted, and ratified the First Amendment used religion in the government in many ways.

                    Maybe you mean something different by "separation of church and state" than most people today do. Most people think it forbids putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of a government building; the historical context does not support that
                • A constitution that does not mandate absolute separation of church of state is anti-democratic

                  No, you have it backwards: any Constitution that DOES that is anti-democratic. If you tell people they cannot have laws that mandate Christian teaching in public schools, even if a majority favor such a law, you are rejecting their rights as a democracy. This is an issue of liberty, not of democracy, and it is why the U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy.

                  One of the problems here is that some people continue to
                  • I don't agree with the 1st point : a democracy, besides listening to the majority of citizens, is built on a small set of moral principles, notably that every citizen is equal under the law. A government that has a religious bias (or a public school, part of the governement) is simply promoting religious discrimination, which isn't better than racial or sexual discrimination.

                    I remember, when civil unions were introduced in France, a far-right deputee who was against them waved a Bible in the Assembly. This

                    • A government that has a religious bias (or a public school, part of the governement) is simply promoting religious discrimination, which isn't better than racial or sexual discrimination.

                      That's your opinion. You present it as fact. One could make the same argument about incest or pedophilia: it's discrmination! You're not treating people equally! I happen to think those are good discriminatory policies that benefit society. Simply noting they are discriminatory does not mean it's a bad thing.

                      And reg
                    • Incest and pedophilia hurt people, and thus hurt the Republic, such as thievery, murder and other crimes. Homosexuality does not, nor does having a darker skin or another ethnic origin. Discrimination happens when it targets a class of people instead of individuals, and when the incriminated individuals didn't hurt the society in any way.

                      To me, that reads as perfect nonsense -- what I was saying is that it's a perfectly sensible point of view in France, where the common opinion is that religion has nothing

                    • Interested quote from the second article: Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species.

                      Obviously we need a Constitutional Amendment to ensure they cannot be protected by the Endangered Species Acts.

                    • We, as a country, had a long history of segregation. We, as a country, had a long history of denying women the right to vote. We, as a country, had a long history of many other things. Similar arguments as yours were raised for segregation and women's suffrage. Just because "that's the way we do things" doesn't make those things "right".

                      Of course, even then your statement is ridiculous. Many states had anti-bigamy laws, but it wasn't until the Morrill Act of 1962 that the we outlawed bigamy "as a cou

                    • I find this kind of argument completely silly. More than 450 species of animals eat raw meat and go naked out of their nests/holes/etc. Should humans do the same thing? Bloody hell no -- I wouldn't, for sure. Even if there was no homosexuality at all in nature, that wouldn't justify discrimation against human homosexuality in any way.
                    • Well, actually, before I became a vegetarian, I used to eat raw meat all of the time. I had no problem with a nice, raw steak with a bit of salt (I'm not kidding.) As for being naked, I really don't have a problem with that, either, but US society has clearly identitified Janet Jackson's right tit as a greater threat to society than watching murder acted out on TV, so who am I to argue with such brilliant reasoning? Now if you had pointed out that cats often cripple their prey and play with it before eat

            • What about domestic violence where men beat the crap out of their wives? That's neither moral nor right yet unsurprisingly there is little legislation for it much less a constitutional amendment. What about prostitution and human trafficing that is rife in the US? A few people are in love and want to share in the legal benefits that come from a civil union and somehow it's the most immoral act one could imagine.

              You can't legislate religion or morality. Stalin figured that one out the hard way. One would h

  • I think the response should be for the Democrats to move the focus away from the "Instution of Marriage" to how our real marriages are doing. Do they need more help from the government, or less?

    Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would *want* to get married anymore, now that my wife is no longer available.
  • As an acolyte of humanity's filthiest religion [], Bush² et al faithfully uphold the principle of "action for action's sake" []
    • Yes. I oppose this amendment even more than I oppose ERA. ERA was dumb because it was entirely redundant, but at least it wouldn't really have done any harm (in addition to doing nothing beneficial). However, for someone who believes that the state should keep marriage between a man and a woman, a Constitutional amendment is probably the only way to do it.

      My political take on this is that Bush doesn't want it, but supported it for two reasons: 1. the gay rights activists pushed him into it, because (as