Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gay-Baiting Congress Puts on a Show This Week

Eggs Mayonnaise

All In With The Nuts
Senate to Tackle Gay Marriage Ban

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 5, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and congressional Republicans are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage, with events at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- all for a constitutional amendment with scant chance of passage but wide appeal among social conservatives.

''Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society,'' Bush said in his weekly radio address. ''Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.''

The president was to make further remarks Monday in favor of the amendment as the Senate opened three days of debate.

Many Republicans support the measure because they say traditional marriage strengthens society; others don't but concede the reality of election-year politics.

''Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised,'' said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. ''As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined.''

But Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will vote against it on the floor but allowed it to survive his panel in part to give the GOP the debate party leaders believe will pay off on Election Day. Specter has chosen a different battle with the Bush administration this week -- a hearing Tuesday on the ways the FBI spies on journalists who publish classified information.

As that hearing gets underway, debate on the marriage amendment will enter its second day on the Senate floor. All but one of the Senate Democrats -- the exception is Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- oppose the measure and, with moderate Republicans, are expected to block an up-or-down vote, killing the measure for the year.

Democrats say the amendment is a divisive bow to religious conservatives, and point out that it conflicts with the GOP's opposition to big government interference.

''A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple,'' said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.

Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, which in 2004 began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, on Monday denounced Bush's move as predictable and ''stale rhetoric'' aimed at rallying conservatives for this year's midterm elections.

''It's politics. It's pandering and it's placating a core constituency, the evangelicals,'' Newsom said on ABC's ''Good Morning America.''

Fueled by election-year politics, the gay marriage issue is the most volatile Congress will consider as it returns from a weeklong Memorial Day recess.
Full story here

So it's gotten to the point where they know it will never pass, but they put on the charade of debating it so they'll have juicy quotes to pass on to their right-wing newsletters and action groups, just in time for midterm elections.

Our tax dollars at work, folks.
 
^^Just exactly the same thing they're doing with the illegal immigration debate. Both are all show and no go. Gay marriage will remain un-banned -- which is good -- and illegal immigration will be forgiven and permitted to continue -- which is not.

Nothing changes but the commercials.
 
It's true that this serves to distract from the illegal beaner issue - but someone's got to do something to stop the dirty gay pigs from defiling Marriage by smearing it with the fecal filth of their behavioral perversions.
 
Gurk_MacGuintey said:
It's true that this serves to distract from the illegal beaner issue - but someone's got to do something to stop the dirty gay pigs from defiling Marriage by smearing it with the fecal filth of their behavioral perversions.
Shut up, you moron.
 
Gurk_MacGuintey said:
Don't worry, Messy, you and Question can still get "married" up in Canada or some other amoral socialistic cesspool like the UK or Denmark.
No one will ever take your ramblings seriously, old timer, if you can't leave you flame-baiting nonsense at the door when it comes to slightly more important discussions, comprende, my sophomoric little buddy?
 
Messenger said:
No one will ever take your ramblings seriously, old timer, if you can't leave you flame-baiting nonsense at the door when it comes to slightly more important discussions, comprende, my sophomoric little buddy?


Bwa hahahahahahaha!

If I wanted "civil debate" on "important issues" I'd more likely find it on Yahoo than here, Messy.

Of course, I am perfectly serious about stopping the filthy homosexuals from defiling Marriage, but I believe the point of this topic is how the repugs in Congress are using the dirty pervert issue to distract from other, more pressing, national concerns.

And I agree with this assertion.

If the republicans really wanted to fire up their base, then they'd start rounding up illegals and deporting them by the busload.
 
Gurk_MacGuintey said:
Bwa hahahahahahaha!

If I wanted "civil debate" on "important issues" I'd more likely find it on Yahoo than here, Messy.
Yeah, because you're such a long time member. :lol:

Of course, I am perfectly serious about stopping the filthy homosexuals from defiling Marriage, but I believe the point of this topic is how the repugs in Congress are using the dirty pervert issue to distract from other, more pressing, national concerns.

And I agree with this assertion.
Yeah, it's a pretty vile tactic on their part. But 'filthy homosexuals' isn't going to make people take you that much more seriously.

If the republicans really wanted to fire up their base, then they'd start rounding up illegals and deporting them by the busload.
The thing is, they are concerned about piecemeal offers. And even if they did do that, their interests would lie with their base's votes, and not the interests of the nation.

Which sucks.
 
Messenger said:
Yeah, because you're such a long time member. :lol:

Just going on what I've seen since I came here.


Yeah, it's a pretty vile tactic on their part. But 'filthy homosexuals' isn't going to make people take you that much more seriously.

Is it any more vile than the dems and their allies in the media trying to turn Haditha into the new My Lai? It's the same tactic of trying to 'energize the base', so to speak.

And what's wrong with "filthy homosexuals"? Homosexuality is filthy and disgusting, so I don't see why I should worry about being taken seriously by 1 or 2% of my readers.

The thing is, they are concerned about piecemeal offers. And even if they did do that, their interests would lie with their base's votes, and not the interests of the nation.

Which sucks.

I agree here. Both sides of the aisle seem more worried about how all these illegal beaners will vote than about how millions of Americans who already vote think about how they're pandering to these illegal aliens.

And it does suck.
 
^I fully believe that you hate Bush more than Osama Bin Laden hates him.

So let's move on to this...

"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised." --Bill Frist.

Let's get over how totally illiterate that sounds and dive right into the careful wording, "...humankind has devised." Look at Frist trying to get all God on us, all sneaky like. Not gonna work jack ass. And then that aside, how the fuck does Frist know that men and women as married parents do a better job of raising children than men and men or women and women?!?! There are no studies because *gasp* same sex couples aren't allowed to marry in the U.S.! WTF!

I'll never be a democrat, never, ever but until Libertarians have a decent shot, I might not vote again.
 
Hambil said:
No, you misunderstood. I hate Bush more than I hate Osama Bin Laden.

Surely you know me better than that.

Anyhoo, going by your general opinion you really shouldn't hate Bush more than Bin Laden. Bush hasn't quite killed 3,000 innocent Americans...yet. When the casulties of war reach 3,000 then by all means hate Bush more than Bin Laden...Makes you look crazy ignorant but go ahead.
 
Top