Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?

---

Posted by Maribelle7777

I doubt it would happen. He can't just wish on the Bill of Rights. It has to be voted on and then if it is ever passed, I can tell you it will come before the Supreme Court pretty damn quick. Once that happens, who knows...

---

the President has no control over amendments - thank goodness - all he can do is support it...
it takes 2/3 of both houses to PROPOSE it...if thats not hard enough 3/4 of both houses have to APPROVE it...

the senate is 50-50 so I don't think the conservatives can win over that many liberals...


JMHO

---

Posted by peeweesgirl

This world has gotten out of control and it depresses me !!!!!!! It is not denying them love it is just not to be recognized, where does it say you still can't be together ??? JMO he def will win !

---

So, why shouldn't it be recognized by the law? I think he is totally wrong for trying to constitutionally ban it.

The church says it is illegal, why does the gov't have to say it is too?? I jsut don't get that.

There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state, and it sickens me that the President of all people does not understand it.

---

Posted by peeweesgirl

This world has gotten out of control and it depresses me !!!!!!! It is not denying them love it is just not to be recognized, where does it say you still can't be together ??? JMO he def will win !

---

So not having your love being recognized by your own state is fine?

How would you feel if you lived in a country where your union between your fiance and yourself was not recognized? Yes you have your love and maybe you feel that's all you need but to know all the time in the back of your mind that your union is not recognized legally by your own country.....that's depressing to me.

I dont' know if Bush will win or not. Long Island/NYC Metro area is very democratic and liberal. There's alot of states that aren't. But who knows....and even if he is reelected and wants to ban gay marriages, like I said earlier its not just that he wills it and it's done, he has to have congress vote on it and then if (more like when) it comes to the Supreme Court, we'll have our 'final answer' on it. I personally don't think the country can ban it.

---

Posted by Maribelle7777

I dont' know if Bush will win or not. Long Island/NYC Metro area is very democratic and liberal. There's alot of states that aren't. But who knows....and even if he is reelected and wants to ban gay marriages, like I said earlier its not just that he wills it and it's done, he has to have congress vote on it and then if (more like when) it comes to the Supreme Court, we'll have our 'final answer' on it. I personally don't think the country can ban it.

---

Congress is made up of people voted on my regular citizens as well and they need to keep their jobs like anyone else. And the fact is a vast majority of people OPPOSE gay marriage, but are all for civil unions.

eta - Just being objective.

All I know is that if Bush succeeds in banning gay marriage this country will take one giant step BACKWARDS. I seriously doubt a constitutional amendment will ever make it all the way on something as ridiculous as this.

And I have yet to hear any valid reason for banning gay marriage that isn't religious-based. So, if I'm correct in assuming that Bush's reasons are solely based on his religious beliefs (or whatever the religious right feeds him) then wouldn't it be unconstitutional to pass an amendment banning gay marriage, since Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.....?

(I'm taking religion & politics this semester...the professor has quoted that amendment every week so far so I have it memorized!)

---

Posted by eroxgirl

All I know is that if Bush succeeds in banning gay marriage this country will take one giant step BACKWARDS.

---

Abortion is next!

---

Posted by september2004

---

Posted by eroxgirl

All I know is that if Bush succeeds in banning gay marriage this country will take one giant step BACKWARDS.

---

Abortion is next!

---

actually this one is possible...

Roe is fighting to have the decision be reversed...b/c she has cahnged her views!!!!

---

Posted by september2004

---

Posted by eroxgirl

All I know is that if Bush succeeds in banning gay marriage this country will take one giant step BACKWARDS.

---

Abortion is next!

---

Then I will move out of my cave and go hunting for dinasours, careful not to fall off the edge of our flat planet.

I have never and will never vote for any candidate who is pro-life. never ever ever.

oops!!!

---

Posted by yabbobay

---

Posted by september2004

---

Posted by eroxgirl

All I know is that if Bush succeeds in banning gay marriage this country will take one giant step BACKWARDS.

---

Abortion is next!

---

actually this one is possible...

Roe is fighting to have the decision be reversed...b/c she has cahnged her views!!!!

---

are you F^%$$# kidding me???

My question is(look at me stirring the pot ) where is the argument that they SHOULD be allowed to marry. Considering everyone is jumping on poor peewee

ps - I mean an argument other than 'If two people love each other then they should be together'

o it is about to jump off in here........all i ask is to be respectful ladies............no need to get ugly

---

Posted by eroxgirl

All I know is that if Bush succeeds in banning gay marriage this country will take one giant step BACKWARDS.

---

Some countries would say america isn't as forward as they think.

---

Posted by NYCHICK

My question is(look at me stirring the pot ) where is the argument that they SHOULD be allowed to marry.

---

if other Americans are allowed to - I feel that it is a violation of equal rights under the law...14th amendment baby!!!


misty...finding the info...heard it this weekend...but think i heard it a few weeks ago too

for misty:
well I spoke a few hours too late...

Posted on Tue, Feb. 24, 2004
Court Cancels Roe V. Wade Consideration
Associated Press


SAN ANTONIO - Oral arguments on a motion to reconsider the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 31 years ago have been canceled by a federal appeals court, which will now only review written pleadings in the case.

Monday's move represented an about-face by justices on giving Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade fame a chance to argue before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that her landmark abortion case should be reopened and reversed, the San Antonio Express-News reported Tuesday.

Former plaintiff Norma McCorvey of Dallas, who challenged Texas' abortion ban under the pseudonym Jane Roe, has contended that the case should be re-decided in light of evidence that the procedure may harm women.

The New Orleans-based appeals court had agreed they would hear McCorvey's arguments March 2. But the order signed Monday by Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones of Houston offered no explanation for why judges decided against the hearing a week beforehand.

Justices Edward C. Prado of San Antonio and Jacques L. Wiener Jr. of Shreveport, La., are the other judges on the panel that will now rely only on written briefs to decide whether the case can be reopened.

A federal district court in Dallas last year threw out her request days after it was filed, saying it wasn't made within a reasonable time.

Allan Parker, director of the San Antonio-based Texas Justice Foundation, which represents McCorvey, said he was surprised.

'It's highly unusual that they would designate a case for oral arguments and then withdraw it,' Parker said Tuesday. He said it probably means 'that the judges have made a decision and are fairly confident in what they intend to do.'

'They may just be urging us to go to the Supreme Court,' he said.

Parker said the panel denied a request by a group of law professors to argue the other side of the case. The professors were concerned that judges would decide the appeal based only on evidence provided by McCorvey since Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill decided not to file a response.

Hill, the successor of Henry Wade named in Roe v. Wade, has argued that he is not the proper party in the issue.

McCorvey, who publicly identified herself in 1980 and now actively opposes abortion, filed her motion in June seeking to have the 1973 decision overturned.

The 5th Circuit panel could do several things: reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, reverse the 2003 lower court's decision to throw out McCorvey's motion and order it be granted a hearing, or affirm the lower court's decision, which would prompt McCorvey to take her motion to the Supreme Court.

LINK

---

Posted by NYCHICK

My question is(look at me stirring the pot ) where is the argument that they SHOULD be allowed to marry. Considering everyone is jumping on poor peewee

ps - I mean an argument other than 'If two people love each other then they should be together'

o it is about to jump off in here........all i ask is to be respectful ladies............no need to get ugly

---

I believe they SHOULD marry because of the protection it gives the people involved from the government, from families, etc. Gay couples who spend their lives together sharing everything (home, money, life) are not protected at all when one dies. The remaining partner has no rights whatsoever as a husband or wife would, making the final decisions for their loved one, they can't inherit, etc.

Roe has been on the pro-life side for several years now. I think she found religion.

My argument for why it should be legal is that it violates liberty and equality rights to forbid it. Also, as Rebecca pointed out, forbidding it solely on religious grounds violates the Constitution.

Here's Section 1 of the 14th Amendment...which is a Civil War Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Posted by NYCHICK

My question is(look at me stirring the pot ) where is the argument that they SHOULD be allowed to marry. Considering everyone is jumping on poor peewee

o it is about to jump off in here........all i ask is to be respectful ladies............no need to get ugly

---

Where has anyone jumped on anyone??

I really do't see it, I see it as people having an educated discussion.