Federal Marriage Amendment is Back.
Yet again, Karl Rove has picked up his hate hat and is revving up the base for another attack on GLBT Americans and their families.
HRC said, "Times have been tough for our anti-gay opponents lately. Mostly due to a nominee to the Supreme Court with little known about her views on hot-button conservative issues and a President facing his lowest ratings in opinion poll since he started his job."
So how does the conservative leadership respond? By bringing up the Federal Marriage Amendment back into the limelight hoping to once again use GLBT equality as a way to divide the electorate and please their conservative base.
This administration and their cronies always seem to use civil rights issues to further divide this country time after time. Oh, our numbers are slipping? Let's make it look like we are attempting to change the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION to discriminate against a minority--why not? It sure seems to resonate every other time with their base. However, the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) has already failed numerous times in previous votes. Washington insiders do not see it going anywhere--it's simply what the right-wing extremists do when things aren't going their way. They use "morality" as a key to open up the door of support by their Christian base. It's nauseating that these righties use the GLBT community to satisfy their own extremist agenda.
And to think... another three years with this son of a bitch.
That said, we cannot let our guard down. Call your U.S. Senator and urge them to vote NO on any legislation that is anti-GLBT.
Click here for their contact information
Written by Bryan Harding
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 1:27 PM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
ByI sure am glad that they are picking this back up. I was begining to think that it was just a campaign issue (since preserving traditional marriage is what the majority of Americans want) and that this administration wasn't going to follow through.
Do you think that it's any indication of your sides popularity that no statewide/national candidate can run on a platform of supporting gay marriage?
By
Daniel-
It is a campaign issue. It's called the '06 midterm elections and the White House freaking out about losing the Senate and House.
Sid
By
Oh, and when is HRC going to stop endorsing Republican candidates like Smith who support constitutional amendments than ban eqality for all tax paying citizens who want to marry and enjoy the legal benefits of it?
Sorry, for now I'm not a fan of HRC... at least until they see the big picture.
Sid
By
Daniel, as always, so good to see you. Though now we can actually see you! Did the Klan have new pics taken @ your last meet-up?
You did read the fact that we've been through this a few times before and it never passes right? It's solely a political division strategy used by the right. Plain and simple. Gay and lesbians are used as pawns by your extremist right friends to muster up support in times when they need it.
As Sid said-look what's coming up.
BTW-what are your thoughts on the Bush admin setting up Condi to be the next pres?
All my love (as always),
Bryan
By
That is correct Sid. That is why during the SB1000 battle, Smith failed us. During his campaign he used Judy Shepard, Matthew's mother, in a campaign ad. Smith was a wolf in sheeps clothing. He was called upon and delivered absolutely nothing last session. Pretty awful.
I'm not a huge fan of HRC myself, though under the direction of Joe, I believe that they will get it together a bit more on all fronts.
Bryan
By
Lot's of popular things don't get done by our "representatives." Like enforcement of our immigration laws. This, like opposition to gay marriage, is widely popular but our legislators refuse to do it.
No one is being used as a "pawn," we are debating the issues. I would have been happy to have left this issue alone and just lived with the status quo of traditional marriage...
I'm not a fan of Condi for prez. I like Tom Tancredo or George Allen.
By
"No one is being used as a "pawn," we are debating the issues."
Send money here:
http://www.defenseofmarriagecoalition.org/
And here:
http://www.afa.net/
And here:
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
Hmmm.... having trouble finding one for Bill Frist. Ah, but he made enough dough in the abortion business anyway.
And here...
http://www.tomdelay.com/contributetd.html
And make sure you do it long before you ever crack a text book or a medical journal.
Believing that nobody is being used as a pawn is very easy and comforting for any "True Believer" that has swallowed everything else whole and with Kool-Aid. So I'm not surprised with this comment.
The GLBT Community is the latest, streamlined marketing tool for campaign donations. It's a bigger, hotter advertising hook than the Taco Bell Dog ever hoped to be.
Gays are an empty air threat, but we are dressed by clergy to look like jagged hell- to scare the shit out of sheeple that are willing to pay money WAY before they would bother with science, biology or education. Might as well stamp "Cash Cow" on my forehead.
"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably, some part of him is aware that they are myths, and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed."
~Bertrand Russell~
Still waiting on those links to show how a hetero marriage is "ideal" for children, btw. Any chance that they can be found or provided?
I didn't think so.
By
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028317.cfm
"The liberal Center for Law and Social Policy, a child advocacy organization, recently reported “Most researchers now agree that…studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married biological parents…”2"
Do you dispute that Tanya?
By
I'll dispute it. If it wasn't taken out of context--and if they had actually used the entire statement... not just a snippet. Leave it to James Dobson's Focus on the Family. Seriously Daniel, lets not rely on their website for information.
I encourage you to actually read what they are referencing, though I'm sure you did before posting that comment...right? Exactly.
Bryan
By
Oh, thank you for the very incomplete data that was exhumed from 50 years ago. And written by a guy that was known for having unorthodox theories that alienated many of his fellow sociologists.
The information that we've been providing to you is up to date, and widely understood. I was hoping you we're actually able to provide something useful. Ah, well...
It's old. It's useless, and it's being used by a biased source, otherwise it wouldn't have been dug up from the rank old grave that it was rotting in. We've learned a lot over the years. Little things... like the earth is round too.
You have to do WAY better than that.
By
If we go beyond Pitirim Sorokin's information...
1- The Center for Law and Social Policy Brief, May 2003 reports that 1- "Adopted children have very similar outcomes to children raised by both biological parents." and 2-"There may be under-reporting by same-sex couples."
So this report did not collect enough data to make any opinion on our situation, admitting that "Little research has been done on children born to or adopted and raised by lesbian or gay parents."
2-Kristin Anderson Moore's report does not study same sex relationships. Why did this anti-gay family group include it? It compares single parents and couples in a healthy marriage. Her report also encourages marriage and sexuality education and contraception for teens and young adults. Well, yeah! Sounds like maybe she's NOT supporting what the homophobes want to say she supports.
Still reading. I'll get back to you on the others.
By
Okay Sara McLanahan's and Gary Sandefu's work is titled GROWING UP WITH A SINGLE PARENT.
I'm noticing a trend here. These reports are all in relationship to single parents and divorce.
WTF?!?!
If you'll notice an adoptive parent is considered a PARENT in most of these reports. Lots of gay parents adopt. And marriage is encouraged. Cohabitation is not. Another one for our side- we should gain the strengths of marriage for our families, but we're seen as "less than", so it is denied.
So we can reasonably conclude that gay parents should have that legal, physical, financial, medical, and socially recognized connection with their families. It will only strengthen their family, as these reports are showing. We are co-habitating now because it's the only choice we're given. Children of same-sex families deserve the same bond and protections that the neighbors kids have, and you links prove it.
» Post a Comment