Tag Archives: same sex marriage
Cruz Proposes Constitutional Amendment…
Article V of the United States Constitution states, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Republican/Tea Party (GOTP) Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz has said he will propose a Constitutional amendment where the country will hold judicial retention elections every eight years for Supreme Court justices saying, “When they (the Supreme Court) violate the constitutional amendment and the law, the American people can remove them. We are not governed by a judicial priesthood. We are not governed by judicial tyranny.”
There are a few obstacles to Cruz’s dream of upending the Supreme Court.
First, in order to get an amendment through the Congress he would have to garner 2/3 of both houses, that would be 357 members of the House and 67 members of the Senate, meaning he would have to get 112 Democratic members of the House to go along with him – that is flat out never going to happen – and additional to that he would need 13 Democrat Senators to vote with him, also never going to happen. He would – if he could get it to pass Congress – need 38 State Legislatures to ratify it, meaning at least seven legislatures not controlled by Republicans would have to ratify – yeah right.
Let us suppose he goes the State Conventions route. He would need 34 states out of the 50 to vote for the amendment, meaning at least three states not under GOTP control would have to go along with the Snake Oil Salesman from Canada.
Cruz is posturing, just posturing – either that or he is certifiable.
Putz to introduce constitutional amendment
Republican Tea Party (GOTP) favorite, Ted Cruz has decided he’s going to answer the recent Supreme Court decision to not hear five cases regarding same sex marriage – effectively establishing it as the law of the land within the near future – by introducing a constitutional amendment barring the Federal Government and courts from overturning state marriage laws.
So, let’s review how this would happen.
First, the Senator from Canada – oops Texas – would introduce his amendment.
Next, he would need to get a two-thirds (supermajority) from both Houses of Congress. That would be 67 votes in the Senate (meaning at least 22 Democrats would have to vote in support) and he needs 290 votes in the House (meaning at least 48 Democrats would need to side with him). Neither of which would ever happen, however, let’s suppose he does manage it.
Next, the distinguished Senator from Cuba – oh sorry, Texas – would have to persuade three-fourths of the states, or 38 state legislatures to go along with his scheme. Well, there are about 14 states which are solid Republican (Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina) leaving him at least 24 states short straight out of the gate.
Cruz is doing this to play to his homophobic base and nothing more; he’s proving once again he’s nothing but a showboating putz.
Congress to cut SNAP?
According to the Associated Press (AP), the Republican Tea Party (GOTP) controlled House Agriculture Committee’s beginning to throw together a farm bill cutting $2.5 billion in food aid, because feeding the poor has become “too expensive”.
The proposed legislation would cut roughly 3 percent from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), achieving the cuts by eliminating “broad-based categorical eligibility,” or automatic food stamp benefits when people sign up for other programs, which more than 47 million people used last year, or about 1 in 7 Americans; because of the additional numbers needing help the cost has more than doubled since 2008 due in a large part to the economic downturn caused by the disastrous economic policies of the Bush/Cheney presidency.
God fearing Christian Conservative members of Congress have repeatedly attacked the President for daring to care for the poor by expanding SNAP, and many of those same white bread House members are refusing to consider a farm bill without cuts to food stamps. Clearly they don’t read the parts of the Bible where Christ said things like, “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
“For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
“I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
“Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
“Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.”
Funny how conservatives repeatedly thump their Bibles when opposing same-sex marriage, which by-the-way isn’t mentioned anywhere in all of scripture, but then conveniently forget about their Bibles when making cuts to programs helping the poor.
Conservative leader doubles down on gay bashing
Once again a leading member of the Republican Lunatic Tea Party (GOLTP) is demonstrating exactly why they’re continuously getting pummeled on the national level politically; Michigan GOLTP National Committee leader Dave Agema’s defending an article he shared on Facebook suggesting gays and lesbians are responsible for “half the murders in major cities.” Agema’s responded to critics (meaning anyone with half a brain) of the post by declaring the piece was “worth sharing given the debate over gay marriage that is happening in the Supreme Court.”
Republican National Committee’s Dave Agema says he’s just trying to maintain the GOP’s traditional platform (meaning of hate, bigotry and intolerance)
But wait, Agema’s not finished! He’s also responding to a GOLTP petition calling for a more inclusive party. According to a release from Grand Traverse County Republican precinct delegate Dennis Lennox, Agema joined the thread and posted: “The real issue is the homosexual community is pushing same-sex marriage which will be taught in schools as an alternative lifestyle.”
Another delegate responded: “Our point is that it is one thing to articulate your values but another to be mean about them. Virtuous decorum is symbolic of a principled man of integrity. Let’s keep the smut on the sidelines.”
Not to be corrected, Agema fired back:
“You have misquoted and maligned — exactly what you accused me of but I didn’t. The people of America have the right to know what lays ahead if the Supreme Court rules the wrong way.”
Of course the “wrong way” means any way but the his way.
“You want to change the landscape of our party in a direction that has not be accepted for over 230 years. I’m trying to maintain our platform. You are trying to change it,” he mewed.
Meaning he wants to keep his white male Christian dominated party of hate, bigotry and intolerance just the way it is thank you very much.
Agema then posted, “Ask yourself what is mean? Ask yourself what facts you are willing to accept or whose studies are valid.”
I’m waiting to see a link to the study that was conducted showing 50% of all murders are committed by gays and lesbians, of course it’s probably next to the one stating the other half are committed by angry old white bigoted conservatives.
Lennox and other state party officials have called for Agema’s resignation:
“After trying to hide his ignorance and bigotry for several days, Dave Agema has finally admitted he seeks to promote hate, viciousness and vitriol instead of the Republican Party’s traditional forward-looking message of equal opportunity for all. Dave Agema’s extremism has no place in our Republican Party.”
Well done Mr. Lennox, Agema’s extremism has no place in 21st century America, much less a major political party. He’s a dinosaur; it’s one thing to oppose same sex marriage, it’s another to make stuff up to continue to build on the hype and fear mongering. Today’s Republican unfortunately has become just that, a party built upon a foundation of hate, mistrust and fear.
Image
Just a thought …
This applies to not choosing to believe as well. There’s a reason the Founding Fathers were inspired to place a separation of church and state in the First Amendment, it was to prevent religious beliefs, or teachings, from being forced on the general public in the form of laws. Thus, if limiting same sex marriage is based on religious beliefs, it’s not Constitutional.
Sometimes the hard part about living in a country with a Constitution like ours is being willing to protect and defend the rights of others to have the inalienable, God given right to choose how they will live their lives. In short, if you don’t mind religions telling other citizens – through the civil government – how to live their lives, I’m sure you won’t mind when other citizens – through that same civil government – start telling you how to worship.
Where is the dividing line?
I have some questions, and I’m not trying to pick a fight, these are legitimate questions:
Calling marriage a civil union changes it how?
My parents were not married by a priest, or a bishop, they were married by a Justice of the Peace. Was that a civil union, or a marriage?
A man and woman can be married, but a woman and woman or a man and a man can only be joined in a civil union, but both will have the exact same legal restrictions and benefits attached, so it’s just a name thing?
If marriage is a religious sacrament, then can it only be performed by someone appointed to do so by religions, and if so why do those performing a religious sacrament have to be recognized by the state (government) for it to be accepted by the state?
Clearly marriage is not only a religious sacrament, but an act of the state as well. I had to get a marriage license from the state of Maryland before I could be married (sealed) in the Washington DC Temple to my wife; so, which is it, a religious sacrament or a civil act of the state?
Do we – as a nation – change the term marriage so it means only the act performed by religious authority, and if performed by anyone else it’s a civil union? And which religions do we recognize to be legally able to perform this rite?
Same sex relationships are taught by almost every religion to be sinful, but in the United States of America we have a clearly defined separation of Church and State, which by-the-way, protects not only the civil population from a state proscribed religion but the state – and hence the civil population – from religious theocratic rule. If we, as a people, proscribe marriage based on religious definition upon the civil population, what else will we proscribe thence, and which religion gets to be the determining authority? Which brand of Christianity gets to rule the nation from behind the curtain, or which group of religions? Is this not the beginnings of the dreaded Sharia Law as practiced by some in the world of Islam?
What other rules from the Old Testament do we proscribe upon the civil population? Do we – as parents – get to stone our children if they are disobedient? Do we kill the man who plants two different crops side by side? Do we kill those who break the Sabbath?
What is the dividing line between theocratic rule and our constitutionally established democratic republic?
Mittens Grilled on Same-Sex Marriage Rights
The Associated Press (AP) is reporting a gay veteran lit into GOTP presidential candidate Mittens Romney at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, challenging the former Massachusetts governor on his views on same-sex marriage.
Mittens approached Bob Garon, a gay man seated with his husband at the Chez Vachon restaurant, taking note of the man’s Vietnam Veteran hat.
“Vietnam veteran!” Romney said, taking a seat at the couple’s booth, according to the Washington Post.
Mittens arrogantly assumed because Garon was wearing a Vietnam veterans hat he must’ve been a conservative like himself, and thought he’d get some quick press talking to a vet, what he got was something quite different; Garon, a self-avowed independent voter, reportedly quickly launched into a question about New Hampshire’s gay marriage law, asking Romney if he supported recent stirrings by GOP presidential candidates about repealing the legislation, which allows same-sex couples to get married.
“I support the repeal of the New Hampshire law,” Romney responded. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s my view.”
“It’s good to know how you feel, that you do not believe everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights,” Garon shot back.
“No, actually, I think at the time the Constitution was written it was pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Romney replied. “And I don’t believe the Supreme Court has changed that.”
I’d love to know where in the Constitution – or the writings of the Founding Fathers – where marriage is discussed between a man and a woman and where it’s protected? Oh wait; it doesn’t.
Seeing the tight spot Mittens had placed himself into, an aide rushed in to extricate him from the situation, claiming the candidate had another interview with FOX PAC.
“Oh, I guess the question was too hot,” Garon said. Before getting up to leave the booth, Romney said he had given Garon a yes or no answer.
The exchange was enough to make up Garon’s mind on how he felt about Romney.
“I was undecided,” Garon said. But now “I’m totally convinced today that he’s not going to be my president — at least in my book. At least Obama will entertain the idea. This man is ‘no way, Jose.’ Well, take that ‘no way, Jose’ back to Massachusetts.”
“The guy ain’t going to make it,” he told reporters later. “You can’t trust him. I can see it in his eyes.”
Garon’s nailed it exactly, Mittens can’t be trusted, and YOU CAN see it in his eyes.
The Liberty Tree 