THAT sure didn't take long.

[docwebster]

Looks President Flightsuit and his Religious Reich buddies are a little peeved by Massachusetts.

Right. Judges don't get to define marriage. Only religious freakoid slime-licking purulent wastes of cellular matter on an intellectual plateau with, say, decaying goat cheese do.

Right. THIS has to take precedence over getting our men and women out of Iraqandrollallnight right along with investigating You Know Who's tits.

November can't get here fast enough.

Comments

Riiiight...

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process," Mr. Bush said in the State of the Union speech.

Ok, so only you & your friends can force your will on the people then Mr Bush?

Viva la Revolution!

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

Do you honestly think that a President Kerry (or Edwards, or Dean, or Clark) would go on the record as supporting gay marriage? Kerry is already on record as being against it, and at this point, he's the likely Democratic standard-bearer.

[docwebster.livejournal.com]

Well, Kerry isn't in office right now and Bush is and can do something about it and apparently IS going to do something about it. This is bread and circuses bullhonkus, is what it is.

Re:

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

It certainly is that. But let's not forget that DOMA was passed with bipartisan majorities, and signed by President Clinton. Gay marriage is one of those areas in which the Republicans are at least more honest and bold about their bigotry than the craven, calculating Democrats.

Re:

[docwebster.livejournal.com]

Oh, make no mistake about it. I might not have been on LJ at the time, but I gave Billy Boy a massive chewing as well. Not on the order of Monica's, but oh well. AHEM! ;)

[oceansedge.livejournal.com]

Ok... so lemme get this right?... The courts rule it's unconstitutional, and Shrub is pissed at the courts for writing law?

Excusssssssssssssse ME? I thought that constitutionally that was the whole POINT of having the courts system separate from the government? As a safeguard against the government acting against it's own constitution? Oh that's rich!

And... cirrect me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a requirement of 48 states or something for quorum on a constitutional changes? Didn't they try that with flag burning.... and no WAY they could get 48 states to agree on it, or the wording? And he wants to try this with a BIG issue, like this one? How long have they been bickering over the ERA?? Aren't the elections in November?

Sooooooo George W. is pissing in the wind?

Re:

[drdemure.livejournal.com]

If I recall correctly from the failed EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT for women (can you tell I'm still pissed?), you need 31 states to pass a constitutional amendment. Last time I checked, judges don't generally rule arbitrarily. They apply the law and legal precedents in their rulings. This is not the definition of the word "arbitrary". Once again, Mr. Bush proves that he was not paying attention in school. Too bad there was no "No Child Left Behind" program when *he* was in school. He was obviously left WAY behind.

If you're still not pissed off enough at Bush, check out what I just posted in my LJ today. more outrageousness

Re:

[oceansedge.livejournal.com]

Ghods that's just plain SCARY.... makes me all the more glad to be a Canadian... grant you we ain't perfect by any means... but ... DAMN!

[naudia.livejournal.com]

So, what? Only he gets to inflict his will on the public?