Wag the Fag?

Bush press secretary says gay marriage amendment civil rights measure; Stumbles when asked to define civil rights
06/05/2006 @ 2:29 pm
Filed by RAW STORY

At the White House press briefing today, Bush press secretary Tony Snow signaled that Bush considers an amendment barring same-sex marriage a "civil rights" matter, then stumbled when asked to define civil rights, RAW STORY has found.

Relevant transcript from White House press briefing follows, followed by full transcript relating to all questions about the Federal Marriage Amendment.
#

WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY TONY SNOW: Whether it passes or not, as you know, Terry, there have been a number of cases where civil rights matters have risen on a number of occasions, and they've been brought up for repeated consideration by the United States Senate and other legislative bodies...

Q You mentioned civil rights. Are you comparing this to various civil rights measures which have come to the Congress over the years?

MR. SNOW: Not -- well, these -- it --

Q Is this a civil right?

MR. SNOW: Marriage? It actually -- what we're really talking about here is an attempt to try to maintain the traditional meaning of an institution that has maintained one meeting for -- meaning for a period of centuries. And furthermore --

Q And you would equate that with civil rights?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm just saying that I think -- well, I don't know. How do you define civil rights?

Q It's not up to me. Up to you.

MR. SNOW: Okay. Well, no, it's your question. So I -- if I --

Q (Chuckles.)

MR. SNOW: I need to get a more precise definition.

http://www.rawstory.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=2145
 
Quote from riserburn:

And they are all doing so well? None of them needs further work?

Using this logic, it's time for the Senate to rack up yet another POS legislation that goes nowhere.

If Dubyah actually gave a damn about this issue, he would have tackled it years ago. If the Senate met the IQ requirement suggested above, they wouldn't attempt to present a bill that has a slim chance of success right after they tried to shovel one out that defies the will of the majority of legal citizens in this country. Let's call this what it really is: an attempt to divert attention away from the failures of this administration and the pandering of a social conservative constituancy.


I should certainly hope that the "intelligent" voters in this country would start to realize that voting strictly along the lines of party loyalty gets you nowhere. However, judging from your response, I suppose that won't be the case.
More...


When someone tries to redefine what marriage has been for all of time, that is radical, and it is extreme. To suggest otherwise does not pass the IQ test.
 
And another thing. When certain judges were rendering these perverse decisions which now have to be dealt with, why weren't any of you yelping about them having more important things to do, pandering, etc, .....hypocrites.
 
Quote from fhl:

When someone tries to redefine what marriage has been for all of time, that is radical, and it is extreme. To suggest otherwise does not pass the IQ test.
More...
Oh do please show the rest of us where this definition exists. The only "defining" that I see here is an attempt by some to write one.

Fifty percent of the same individuals trying to do so claim to hold the sanctity of marriage so high, they get divorced. Pa-leeze, thump your bibles to the tune of tougher divorce laws and you might convince me that that arguement holds water in this debate. Otherwise, we can call this what it really is: homophobia. Hell, my ex-wife was a bigger danger to the institution of marriage than a bunch of fags or radical judges could ever dream of being.

Besides, that wasn't my point. This country has far greater immediate problems and issues that needs to be resolved than whether or not a bunch of gays have the right to call themselves husband-and-husband or wife-and-wife. "To suggest otherwise does not pass the IQ test".
 
Quote from riserburn:

Oh do please show the rest of us where this definition exists. The only "defining" that I see here is an attempt by some to write one.

Fifty percent of the same individuals trying to do so claim to hold the sanctity of marriage so high, they get divorced. Pa-leeze, thump your bibles to the tune of tougher divorce laws and you might convince me that that arguement holds water in this debate. Otherwise, we can call this what it really is: homophobia. Hell, my ex-wife was a bigger danger to the institution of marriage than a bunch of fags or radical judges could ever dream of being.

Besides, that wasn't my point. This country has far greater immediate problems and issues that needs to be resolved than whether or not a bunch of gays have the right to call themselves husband-and-husband or wife-and-wife. "To suggest otherwise does not pass the IQ test".
More...

You want to know where my definition of marriage exists? Did you think of maybe looking in the dictionary? Try dictionary.com and type in marriage and hit enter. You couldn't figure this out and you want to denegrate my IQ?
 
Quote from fhl:

Try dictionary.com and type in marriage and hit enter.
More...
"mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
1) a)The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b)The state of being married; wedlock.
c)A common-law marriage.
d) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2) A wedding.
3) A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4) Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.""

Next time you attempt to use a source to make a case for your arguement, you might try checking it yourself first.

You couldn't figure this out and you want to denegrate my IQ?
More...
I don't have to degenrate your IQ. You're doing a fine job all on your own. See above. DUH??????!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top