Bush Says He Could Back Gay Marriage Ban

[Tony]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031217/D7VFS6HG1.html ...full article



WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Tuesday that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court last month struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional and giving state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to wed.

Bush has condemned the ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. On Tuesday, he criticized it as "a very activist court in making the decision it made."




A ban on gay marriage, IMO, is un-American. But when has that ever stopped government officials from imposing their morality?

[Bikewer]

It is difficult for me to understand the reaction to the idea of gay marriage. Oh, I know, the politicians are catering to what they percieve as thier power-base and all, essentially a religious arguement.

Still, the "right" tends to try to marginalize gays as a tiny, abberant percentage of the population. Presumably only a percentage of THAT percentage would actually want to get married.....Difficult to see how this would "destroy the American family", as you hear the pundits go on about.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Bikewer
It is difficult for me to understand the reaction to the idea of gay marriage. Oh, I know, the politicians are catering to what they percieve as thier power-base and all, essentially a religious arguement.

Still, the "right" tends to try to marginalize gays as a tiny, abberant percentage of the population. Presumably only a percentage of THAT percentage would actually want to get married.....Difficult to see how this would "destroy the American family", as you hear the pundits go on about. The perceived threat is that sexual orientation is actually a lifestyle preference, that gays are recruiting, that new legitimacy and openness aids in recruitment and THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

[The Don]

Is the idea that if THEY are in loveless, pointless marriages, their gay constituents should be forced to do likewise by marrying a "beard" rather than the man they love ?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony
A ban on gay marriage, IMO, is un-American. But when has that ever stopped government officials from imposing their morality? Agreed. Such an amendment would create a group of second-class citizens who are uneligable for certain privelages that ultimately keep them from the same pursuit of happiness granted to other citzens based on nothing more than religious baises. I whole heartedly agree that it would be completely un-American.

[Larspeart]

I think it is a shame that an issue that is so blantently 'none of the governments business' and so obviously a matter of personal choice and freedom should be an issue in the USA.

But, those who believe we live in a free country or are anything other then a buerocratic socialism are blind.

Gays should be able to do whatever they want, and if they want to get married, who is to say that they can't? That's right, whatever Church wants to/doesn't want to marry them. NOT the federal government.

If George Bush/the government wants to call marriage a religious institution (which it obviously seems they do) then doesn't this whole thing STINK of a seperation of church and state issue???

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tony
A ban on gay marriage, IMO, is un-American. But when has that ever stopped government officials from imposing their morality?

A bigger issue, I think, is a constitutional amendment? For this? It's not _that_ important, is it?

Save the modifying the constitution for things that are big issues, as opposed to the hot topic of the day.

Jeez, at least even prohibition came as a result of 20 - 30 years of ground-swell by the tea-totts.

How much of an issue will this be in 20 years? My guess? Ho-hum, dog's bum...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Larspeart
If George Bush/the government wants to call marriage a religious institution (which it obviously seems they do) then doesn't this whole thing STINK of a seperation of church and state issue??? Good point. Look at all the legal advantages the government bestows on this religious institution: inheretance rights, power of atterny (sp?), joint filing of taxes, etc.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


A bigger issue, I think, is a constitutional amendment? For this? It's not _that_ important, is it?

Save the modifying the constitution for things that are big issues, as opposed to the hot topic of the day.

Jeez, at least even prohibition came as a result of 20 - 30 years of ground-swell by the tea-totts.

How much of an issue will this be in 20 years? My guess? Ho-hum, dog's bum...

I don't know. If you're gay, this seems like a pretty big freakin issue to my mind. I mean it's about basic personally liberties, which is kind of what our constitution deals with. What's disgusting is when a politician actually uses the constitution to LIMIT those freedoms.

Makes me ill.

I mean I don't see this as any less important than suffrage really.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Jeez, at least even prohibition came as a result of 20 - 30 years of ground-swell by the tea-totts.Well, arguably, homosexuality has been a hot-topic for religious types since at least the 60's and really reved up into high gear with higher general awarness of AIDS in the 80's. Granted, the gay marriage issue is a relatively new hot-topic, but it's really about the morality of homosexuality just like prohibition was really about the morality of intoxication.

[hgc]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

A bigger issue, I think, is a constitutional amendment? For this? It's not _that_ important, is it?

Save the modifying the constitution for things that are big issues, as opposed to the hot topic of the day.

Jeez, at least even prohibition came as a result of 20 - 30 years of ground-swell by the tea-totts.

How much of an issue will this be in 20 years? My guess? Ho-hum, dog's bum... The Republicans have been itching to amend the constitution a lot lately. The "Contract with America" (1994) had numerous proposals for constitutional amendments, including for school prayer. It's a good thing that it's such a hard thing to do.

Also, remember, the president has no official part in the process. Only potential influence. It's entirely up to 2/3 or each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

[Upchurch]

Question: Would a ban on gay marriages exlude the possibility of gay civil unions?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Andonyx


I don't know. If you're gay, this seems like a pretty big freakin issue to my mind. I mean it's about basic personally liberties, which is kind of what our constitution deals with. What's disgusting is when a politician actually uses the constitution to LIMIT those freedoms.

Makes me ill.

I mean I don't see this as any less important than suffrage really.

But suffrage was an issue of _ensuring_ rights. This is an issue of deliberately _restricting_ rights.

Thus, my question about how important is it to _restrict_ rights.

When I say that in 20 years gay marriage will be a non-issue, I am saying that in 20 years, no one will care about gay marriage., it will just be one of those things that happens. Young people today are for the most part very tolerant of homosexuality, and homosexuality tolerance is growing all the time. In 20 years, when the current congress is old and senile, the attitude of the country will be far more accepting to homosexuality.

Given no action by congress, how much support will there be for a gay marriage ban in 20 years? Will it be more, less, or the same? All indications are that it will be less. OTOH, consider prohibition, where support for the measure grew over years, as more and more localities enacted their own alcohol laws. We might see some attempts to get gay marriage bans in the states right now, but after enough get thrown out as unconstitutional, not enough people will care to fight it any more (especially as it becomes clear that it is not causing the downfall of civilization).

I was a little sloppy in my original post, but basically, the point (which you support) is that we should be very concerned about the use of the constitution to limit rights. Interesting, I usually consider the beauty of the constitution to be in its ability to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Basically, this supposed amendment would codify the tyranny of the majority to remove rights from a minority group. It's everything the constitution is NOT about...

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

The Canadian government and the courts are trying to facilitate the extension of marriage rights to same sex relationships, so that it is no longer restricted to the union of a man and woman.

There is quite a debate going on in Canada, as the Liberal administration is pushing forward despite the majority of Canadians being uncomfortable with the idea of allowing same sex marriages in Canada.

Some of the Liberals, like recent ex. Prime Minister Jean Cretien, hold that the majority should not decide what rights and responsibilities minorities can or can not have. Cretien and others held hold that minorities should have a large part in debating and negotioating what rights and responsibilites they should have. This irks many provinces, religious groups, and the political right. The opponents hold that courts should not be intrumental in creating laws, that the Government should not go against the majority's wishes to hold up morals, values, and traditions of the majority.

Hot topics in Canada are :

minority rights/freedoms
1st Nations rights
same-sex rights
immigrant rights
housing of poor and homeless and the rights of homeless/vagrants

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by pgwenthold




I was a little sloppy in my original post, but basically, the point (which you support) is that we should be very concerned about the use of the constitution to limit rights. Interesting, I usually consider the beauty of the constitution to be in its ability to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Basically, this supposed amendment would codify the tyranny of the majority to remove rights from a minority group. It's everything the constitution is NOT about...

You are correct we ultimately agree. I guess I'm thinking of it this way....

If somebody were to create a ban on gay marriages either at state or federal levels. I would not be immediately opposed to considering constitutional ammendments to guarantee the freedom to marry or union, or whatever you want to call it to ALL people.

And I oppose the Bush ammendment not just because it's not worthy of constitutional ammendment, but because it's a gross abuse of that principle.

[Tony]

Originally posted by pgwenthold



When I say that in 20 years gay marriage will be a non-issue, I am saying that in 20 years, no one will care about gay marriage., it will just be one of those things that happens. Young people today are for the most part very tolerant of homosexuality, and homosexuality tolerance is growing all the time. In 20 years, when the current congress is old and senile, the attitude of the country will be far more accepting to homosexuality.




Perhaps the politicians advocating an amendment (to ban gay marriage) know this fact and are advocating the amendment so that when the time the general population is for gay marriage comes, it (gay marriage) will be harder to institute?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony

Perhaps the politicians advocating an amendment (to ban gay marriage) know this fact and are advocating the amendment so that when the time the general population is for gay marriage comes, it (gay marriage) will be harder to institute? What? Forethought in government? Surely that's not legal?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Tony



Perhaps the politicians advocating an amendment (to ban gay marriage) know this fact and are advocating the amendment so that when the time the general population is for gay marriage comes, it (gay marriage) will be harder to institute?

Hmmm... that's attributing a lot of downright malice and deviousness to our politicians. Not that most of them aren't capable of that...

I think it's more likely that they are all just blowing with the political wind. Right now this is a hot button issue and the safe bet is to voice support for the status quo, which is that Gay marriage is not allowed. I think the talk of the ammendment is just that....talk.

But...you could be right, and that's scary.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tony



Perhaps the politicians advocating an amendment (to ban gay marriage) know this fact and are advocating the amendment so that when the time the general population is for gay marriage comes, it (gay marriage) will be harder to institute?

This is exactly what I am thinking, and exactly why I think it is wrong. If you don't think there will be support for the amendment in 20 years or whatever, you have absolutely no business creating it in the first place. The constitution should only be modified if it is something that so fundamental that it is not subject to the current wave of popular opinion, and will always be something that the country will embrace. There is no indication that a gay marriage ban will do that.

The closest comparison we have is probably prohibition (regulating morality and all that), but as I have noted, there was a 30-odd year temperance movement that made a lot progress before the 18th amendment passed. If in 20 years, the gay ban movement has made a lot of inroads, then they can start talking constitutional amendment. But "Do it now because it won't pass tomorrow" is the absolute worst reason for a constitutional amendment.

[specious_reasons]

I find Bush's "support" amusing:

US Constitution, Article V
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.

What, exactly, does the President have to do with passing Amendments?

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
In 20 years, when the current congress is old and senile...

What, as opposed to now? I'd say 96% of the Senate and 90% of the House are either cowards or fascists, more concerned with maintaining what power they have rather than respect the rights of the citizenry. It's impossible to get an appointment with one's Representative, unless you openly bribe them. And Senators? Don't . . .

Okay, long day. I'm done.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I find Bush's "support" amusing:

US Constitution, Article V


What, exactly, does the President have to do with passing Amendments?

The President (generally) has enormous political influence, especially on members of his own party.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony
Perhaps the politicians advocating an amendment (to ban gay marriage) know this fact and are advocating the amendment so that when the time the general population is for gay marriage comes, it (gay marriage) will be harder to institute?

In other words, the fascists-in-power realize that their rhetoric is starting to stale, their vilification is starting to be obvious, and their methods are starting to look bad, so they want to do as much harm as they can before they get their butts thrown out on the street, or in the case of some parts of this administration, maybe sent for an Allenwood vacation?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I find Bush's "support" amusing:

US Constitution, Article V


What, exactly, does the President have to do with passing Amendments?

About the same as it has to do with declaring war...

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Nasarius

The President (generally) has enormous political influence, especially on members of his own party.

Another of my feeble attempt at humor gone awry, I have to work on my delivery. :D

[Khalid01]

(I know it's probably been said in anyone's mind who is intelligent, but I'll vocalize it for my own sake, and so I can feel self-important)

Could someone remind Shrub that the constitution is suppose to limit his rights (i.e. the gubmint) and not the electorate's rights?

[New Ager]

(Bikewer)

Still, the "right" tends to try to marginalize gays as a tiny, abberant percentage of the population.

(New Ager)

They are tiny. Less than 5%.

[The Don]

People from North Dakota also represent less than 5% of the population, but they're not denied the right to marry. Likewise people of Latvian descent

[New Ager]

(hgc)

The perceived threat is that sexual orientation is actually a lifestyle preference, that gays are recruiting, that new legitimacy and openness aids in recruitment and THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

(New Ager)

LOL! Hardly. Let me help you out.

The threat is the homosexual community trying to make homosexuality the moral equivalent to heterosexuality.

The homosexual community seems to need the acceptance of the "right" in this country that what they are doing is morally right. They will never get it.

[New Ager]

(pgwenthold)

This is an issue of deliberately _restricting_ rights.

(New Ager)

There is no "right" to marriage.

(The Don)

People from North Dakota also represent less than 5% of the population, but they're not denied the right to marry. Likewise people of Latvian descent

(New Ager)

Strawman!

[Darat]

Originally posted by New Ager
(hgc)

The perceived threat is that sexual orientation is actually a lifestyle preference, that gays are recruiting, that new legitimacy and openness aids in recruitment and THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

(New Ager)

LOL! Hardly. Let me help you out.

The threat is the homosexual community trying to make homosexuality the moral equivalent to heterosexuality.

The homosexual community seems to need the acceptance of the "right" in this country that what they are doing is morally right. They will never get it.

I think whilst there is some justification for the view that the "homosexual community" wants some moral "legitimisation" I think the most pressure is coming from just wanting the same rights(?) that heterosexual married people enjoy.


(Including but not limited to being legally the default next-of-kin, tax breaks, inheritance rights and so on.)

[Bikewer]

That seems to be the most important aspect of the whole thing. At present, gays can be denied access to hospitalized partners, denied inheritance rights and so forth.

Most of those whom I"ve listened to on various talk shows and debates don't give a fig as to labelling it "marriage" or "civil union", they just want similar legal rights.

There does not seem to be any good reason to deny same, in my opinion.

5% of the population (or six, or seven, depending on who you listen to) represents a sizeable fraction, larger than many ethnic minorities.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

PRESIDENT BUSH: If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, and will — the position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or [?] start at the state level. Let me tell you, the court I thought overreached its bounds as a court. It did the job of the legislature. It was a very activist court in making the decision it made. As you know, I'm a person who believes in judicial restraint, as opposed to judicial activism that takes the place of the Legislative Branch.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/US/bush_sawyer_excerpts_3_031216.html


Bush believes in Judicial restraint, but is there any indication that he believes in executive restraint?


As someone pointed out earlier, does Bush know the constitution restricts the executive's power?

I am not American and probably have no place in commenting on the agenda of presidents as it pertains to the constiution, but here is my worthless point of view

I have grave concerns regarding this
faith initiative, black and white perspective, constitution amending, Christian Fundamentalist certaintist, prayer in schools, creating 2nd class citizens, leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

[daenku32]

Originally posted by New Ager
(hgc)

The perceived threat is that sexual orientation is actually a lifestyle preference, that gays are recruiting, that new legitimacy and openness aids in recruitment and THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

(New Ager)

LOL! Hardly. Let me help you out.

The threat is the homosexual community trying to make homosexuality the moral equivalent to heterosexuality.

The homosexual community seems to need the acceptance of the "right" in this country that what they are doing is morally right. They will never get it.

Why would legalization of gay marriage change your or society's morality towards it?

Most Americans consider Atheism immoral. Yet we can marry.

[Mercutio]

Bush and Congress need a queer makeover.

Yes, that is a joke, but there is a point to it: Our culture is undergoing a sea-change (or perhaps just appears to be, and this will in hindsight be a mere bump in the road) in terms of public acceptability of gays. (Although, to me, the idea of "who falls in love with whom" has got to be the best example of "not anybody else's damned business" I have ever seen.)

I would hope that Bush's appeals to his base (which is what this is) are an appeal to an ever-shrinking segment of our population. Sadly, with the percentage of folk who vote, that may be all he needs.

[Snide]

Originally posted by New Ager
(pgwenthold)

This is an issue of deliberately _restricting_ rights.

(New Ager)

There is no "right" to marriage.

(Snide)

The Supreme Court has disagreed since 1803. Now, hopefully, they'll finally catch up and rule that the right should include sexual orientation.

(The Don)

People from North Dakota also represent less than 5% of the population, but they're not denied the right to marry. Likewise people of Latvian descent

(New Ager)

Strawman! Don't like that one? Then how about this...color blind people represent less than 5% of the population (8% male, 1% female). My dad is color blind. I'm glad we didn't have any ludicrous notions of color-blind morality that would have kept me from happening. If left-handedness could once have been considered "evil," it is certainly not a stretch that color blindness could once have been.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by New Ager
The threat is the homosexual community trying to make homosexuality the moral equivalent to heterosexuality.

I don't have a problem with that, since they are morally equivalent, unless your morals are based on the writings of ancient goat-herders.

[GroundStrength]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


I don't have a problem with that, since they are morally equivalent, unless your morals are based on the writings of ancient goat-herders.

Well, that is the first thing I have read from you that I agree with.:)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Snide
Don't like that one? Then how about this...color blind people represent less than 5% of the population (8% male, 1% female). My dad is color blind. I'm glad we didn't have any ludicrous notions of color-blind morality that would have kept me from happening. If left-handedness could once have been considered "evil," it is certainly not a stretch that color blindness could once have been.


or lets try restrictions based on blood type

at one time, not too long ago as I understand, states/jursisdictions would not legalise marriage between people with "uncompatible" blood types, or rh factors. Science and technology has aided in the elimination of most restrictions, but it shows there is precident.

Undesirable traits or persuasions could easily be defined and laws can be passed (as they were in the past, some were institutionalised restrictions) to restrict the rights and freedoms of those with undesirable characteristics.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031217/D7VFS6HG1.html ...full article





A ban on gay marriage, IMO, is un-American. But when has that ever stopped government officials from imposing their morality? Holy crap! Something we agree on!!

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by GroundStrength


Well, that is the first thing I have read from you that I agree with.:)

Really? I don't 'member discussing politics with you in any particular thread . . . or are you referring to the LFTKBS Driver's Licenses for Illegal Immigrants Thread Hijacking (still unresolved, btw) or like the Iraq War Being Fundamentally Unjustified Threads or what? Glad we have at least one thing in common, tho'.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by New Ager
The threat is the homosexual community trying to make homosexuality the moral equivalent to heterosexuality.

The homosexual community seems to need the acceptance of the "right" in this country that what they are doing is morally right. They will never get it. Homosexuality or heterosexuality, what makes its practice "moral" or not?

I'm curious. Can you state what the moral component is with regard to consensual sex between adults?

[Zero]

I think the point is that the government doesn't get to decide on religious matters, and vice versa.

[Schizobunny]

Bush is a bigot and unfortunetly there is nothing we can do about it. Good thing the 2004 election is almost here. These last three years have been horrible.

[Schizobunny]

Outlawing gay marriages is wrong.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Getting 2/3 majority for Constitutional Gay Ban (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/07/14/same-sex_marriage040714.html) will be difficult


it sounds like they are going to do a " if at first you can't get a 2/3 majority, try it again, and again, and again, and again..."


This is the start and it's not going to be over after tomorrow. We'll come back in the future. Bill Frist, the Republican leader in the Senate, July 14, 2004.



A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly - yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice - G.W. Bush, July 2004


Why does the United States of America have no other choice?

[darling]

Originally posted by New Ager
(pgwenthold)

This is an issue of deliberately _restricting_ rights.

(New Ager)

There is no "right" to marriage.
Then there is no need for an amendment.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Homosexuality or heterosexuality, what makes its practice "moral" or not?


Selective interpretations of a book of 2000+ year-old stories inspired by an invisible magic skydaddy.

And the book is true, because skydaddy says so, right there in the book.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Homosexuality or heterosexuality, what makes its practice "moral" or not?Originally posted by Snide
Selective interpretations of a book of 2000+ year-old stories inspired by an invisible magic skydaddy.

And the book is true, because skydaddy says so, right there in the book.So it's largely arbitrary. Thought so.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
So it's largely arbitrary. Thought so.

But it says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!! It's right there in the rule book!!

'Scuse me a minute...my son just disobeyed me...where is that rule book, now? Oh yeah, here it is, something about stoning him...

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Will the Senate's rejection of a constitutional amendment procedural motion to ban gay marriage bring on the second coming of Christ?

[Snide]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Will the Senate's rejection of a constitutional amendment procedural motion to ban gay marriage bring on the second coming of Christ?

Well it oughtta, if you believe this guy:

``I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance,'' said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. ``Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?''

Source (may need to register for free) (http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4875733.html)

Gee, if it's really that important, maybe JC will be compelled to show his face.

Seriously, as stated before, the "full faith and credit" among the states will be interesting to watch from here on out (as long as the ammendment continues to get shot down, that is.

So many words take on new meanings. "Nice" wassn't even a nice word, really. It is now, though. So why should anyone give a frog's fat backside if "marriage" came to mean "a consenting pair of life partners of any gender?"

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Snide


But it says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!

To quote David Rackoff:

"Of course not Adam and Steve. Never Adam and Steve. ... It's Adam and STEVEN."

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Bush says changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples undermines the traditional family structure and harms society. In a on July 14, 2004 , he said he was deeply disappointed with the Senate vote and urged the House of Representatives to pass a similar constitutional amendment.

says Bush: Marriage between a man and woman is an important part of a stable family

It is not about hate. It is not about gay bashing. It is simply about doing the right thing for the basic glue that holds society together. Sen. Rick Santorum,R, Pennsylvania.

What supports the premise that marriage between a man and woman is the glue that holds society together?

Same Sex Marriage Vote (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=apDv8MDmB2BU&refer=top_world_news)

[Bikewer]

Regarding Santorum....

Sex columnist Dan Savage (Savage Love) has been promoting a campaign to have the good senator's name associated with the by-product of a certain sexual activity.
To judge from reader response, he may well be successful.

[peptoabysmal]

It's all about the "M" word. Neither side is willing to give it up.

The Zax
by Dr. Seuss
From The Sneetches and Other Stories
Copyright 1961 by Theodor S. Geisel and Audrey S. Geisel, renewed 1989.

One day, making tracks
In the prairie of Prax,
Came a North-Going Zax
And a South-Going Zax.

And it happened that both of them came to a place
Where they bumped. There they stood.
Foot to foot. Face to face.

"Look here, now!" the North-Going Zax said, "I say!
You are blocking my path. You are right in my way.
I'm a North-Going Zax and I always go north.
Get out of my way, now, and let me go forth!"

"Who's in whose way?" snapped the South-Going Zax.
"I always go south, making south-going tracks.
So you're in MY way! And I ask you to move
And let me go south in my south-going groove."

Then the North-Going Zax puffed his chest up with pride.
"I never," he said, "take a step to one side.
And I'll prove to you that I won't change my ways
If I have to keep standing here fifty-nine days!"

"And I'll prove to YOU," yelled the South-Going Zax,
"That I can stand here in the prairie of Prax
For fifty-nine years! For I live by a rule
That I learned as a boy back in South-Going School.
Never budge! That's my rule. Never budge in the least!
Not an inch to the west! Not an inch to the east!
I'll stay here, not budging! I can and I will
If it makes you and me and the whole world stand still!"

Well...
Of course the world didn't stand still. The world grew.
In a couple of years, the new highway came through
And they built it right over those two stubborn Zax
And left them there, standing un-budge in their tracks.