I agree that it’s political grandstanding. I also think it’ll work. Because we’re caught up in a war and a slumping economy, the Republicans want the next election to be about how the Republicans want to keep you safe from homosexuals and Mexicans.
They aren’t taking away anyone’s rights, they don’t have the votes.
From a realpolitik standpoint gays are better off when stuff like this happens, it polarizes people and I think tends to drive away support from certain people on the right. Effectively undermining their efforts and strengthening the gay cause.
Obviously of course they’d have to maintain their facade of outrage.
Actually Bush has been more supportive of Mexicans than any president before him.
Wasn’t there when I posted, asshole.
Were you here for the last presidential election?
The timestamps say otherwise.
No facade here. The end doesn’t justify the means. I’m no less outraged by the actions and attitudes of those who wish to write discrimination into the Constitution, even if it might very well backfire on them.
On the other hand, as it’s been pointed out already, this is likely a tactic to secure the anti-gay marriage vote. Sort of a way of saying to their supporters “We may have done things you don’t like, but look, we’re still the anti-gay marriage side! Vote for me!”. It’s just a way of keeping and regaining those voters who (inevitably, with any politician) have disagreed with some part of their platform and action history.
Facade? Because there’s a snowball’s chance in hell it’ll pass, their actions should be written off as acceptable? They’re making political points by making a big show of trying to stop the inevitable tide of gay marriage. Regardless of whether we, the voters, or even they know it won’t help anything, it’s still a pretty shitty way of building up your base.
That’s not even to mention that my stance on this is pretty well known, and the substance of the post combined with the OP indicates what my feelings on the matter really are.
This is just another fine example of knee-jerk reactionary posting over something quite innocuous. Ooooh, he’s so SELFISH! :rolleyes:
It would be selfish if this had any chance whatsoever of passing, which it doesn’t. It would be selfish if I said “I got mine, TS for you”. But I didn’t.
It’s pretty typical in these types of threads that if someone posts anything but “Ooooh, I’m so outraged, even though it doesn’t matter” you get pounced upon and torn apart. I’ll try to remember that in the future so we can allow the knee-jerkers to save their froth for more important things.
I agree with you here, and am sorry I was among the knee-jerks in this case.
I was thinking of “the wall” between the US and Mexico, another idea that will never succeed, but some people will surely want a roll-call around election time so they can be for it and their opponents against it.
And the dreaded homosexual Mexicans.
Honestly, Sampiro, you don’t normally strike me as being naive.
There’s a midterm election coming up within five months of that scheduled vote.
And on preview, what Walter Windchill said (and FinnAgain implied).
Oh. My. Fucking. God. The posts are four minutes apart. His post was not in the thread when I started my reply. I hit the reply button on his first post. It took probably 20 seconds for my computer to load up the reply window. It took me maybe a minute to insert a {/quote} tag after Doors’ first sentence and type my response. I took maybe another minute to put quote and unquote tags around his second sentence, start to type a response to it and then decide not to and delete it.
I hit the post button and it took maybe another 15-20 seconds for the reply to appear in the thread.
Do you really, honestly think I would bother lying about his second post not being in the thread when I started my reply? Fuck you.
For the record, my computer clock read 2:50 PM CST when I started typing this post. It now reads 2:56 PM.
What about homosexual Mexicans?
Ah! Las mariposas Mexicanas! Muy mal!
So what happens when the Republicans gain more seats and the vote passes?
Yeah, let me know when they get 67 votes on this one, willya?
It will NEVER happen. Even if it does it requires the consent of 38 states to enshrine it into the Constitution, and since the trend is towards legitimization of gay marriage rather than away from it I feel quite confident in repeating that it will NEVER happen.
See, people often complain about how hard it is to pass a Constitutional amendment. it is for precisely this reason that it is hard, so that stupid people don’t make their stupidity permanent for all to see for all eternity. That, and it saves people from dubious, questionable, and outright despicable laws.
You mean homosexicans?