Posted on 06/01/2006 2:28:31 PM PDT by new yorker 77
President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a cause dear to his conservative backers, at a Rose Garden event Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the issue.
The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.
It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat — Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska — says he will vote for it.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the amendment on May 18 along party lines after a shouting match between a Democrat and the chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa. He bid Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., "good riddance" after Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment and his intention to leave the meeting.
Bush aides said he would be making his remarks on the subject Monday.
A slim majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press from March. But the poll also showed attitudes are changing: 63 percent opposed gay marriage in February 2004.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to legalize such marriages in 2003. A year later, San Francisco issued thousands of marriage licenses to gay couples.
This November, initiatives banning same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. In 2004, 13 states approved initiatives prohibiting gay marriage or civil unions, with 11 states casting votes on Election Day.
Bush benefited as religious conservatives turned out to vote and helped him defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry in 2004. In Ohio, an initiative rejecting the legality of civil unions won handily. The same state tipped the election to Bush.
"The president firmly believes that marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women and has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage," White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.
Bush has lost support among conservatives who blame the White House and Congress for runaway government spending, illegal immigration and lack of action on social issues such as the gay marriage amendment.
Opponents of the amendment objected to Bush's use of the Rose Garden to promote a measure they said amounts to discrimination.
"This is fundamentally both a civil rights and religious freedom issue and the president's position of supporting amending the constitution is just dead wrong," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "This is simply to give ammunition to the so-called religious right just to show that the president is still with them."
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
""President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a cause dear to his conservative backers, at a Rose Garden event Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the issue. ""
Yawn, Karl, yawn.
Nice try, George. We've still got our eyes firmly focused on your inadequate attempts to get spending under control and you utter NON-effort to get the borders secured.
This is rhetoric fight we are going to have endlessly with the MSM.
It's not a gay marriage ban. It is a "definition of marriage."
Well, there's lotsa folks that don't think it's important. That the ONLY thing that matters is the border. They are wrong. This matters, the partial birth abortion issue matters, the WOT matters, Iran matters, Iraq matters, the tax cuts matter.
"Nice try, George."
Not fooled, eh?
Why even bother doing anything, is what I say. If you can't get it all done at once, no need to do anything piecemeal.
just a lame attempt at placating the base, he knows it wont pass, and that's the only reason he is backing it.
Sodomy is a right!
It doesn't cost him any business lobby money. It's a near freebie, like his father denouncing broccoli - how many broccoli farmers are there?
My understanding is it's already the law. The "Defense of Marriage" act. That act hasn't been declared unconstitutional so there is no need for what Bush is declaring.
It's just pandering.
The last time Bush spoke at length on this issue, he said he wanted an amendment to give states the right to define relationships other than marriage, while keeping marriage at 1 man and 1 woman.
The judges who have been redefining marriage are saying that marriage should be any two people so as not to discriminate, but these same judges aren't realizing that limiting marriage to two people is also discriminatory.
There's already been at least one lawsuit filed to legalize polygamy, though no courts have yet legalized it. Yet....
If it's arbitrary and discriminatory to limit marriage to opposite sex couples, it's also discriminatory to limit to 2 people, or limit marriages among close family members.
While I oppose same sex marriage, I think if it happens it should happen through state legislatures passing a law, not an activist judge re-writing the law.
The fact is, that our current marriage laws do not discriminate against anyone. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Any eligible woman can marry any eligible man. Thus,everyone has the same rights regarding marriage. Thus, there is no discrimination.
Right. Since Bush is not with us on immigration, then he is against us on everything else too because there is only one issue - immigration - "everything, all the time". We might as well issue smarmy comments and belittle the President on things he does that is right. After all there is no difference between Republicans and Dems up there in DC. Kerry probably would have supported a Marriage Amendment too, right ... (wait a minute)
(sarcasm)
I would rather that ever QUEER on the planet get married than have our borders unsecure for another day
Dude, as if you oppose gay marriage anyway. You've expressed your feelings quite clearly about those supposedly authoritarian religious conservatives.
But many are whiners and won't be glad there is action being taken on it. Same will be true if Pres. Bush takes action on ANWR, tax reduction, Social Security, or any other reforms in his next 2 years.
Babies are one-issue people.
I can't blame him for not liking authoritarian religious conservatives, I don't care for them either.
The good things such as this that Bush supports are the things that either don't stand a chance at getting passed or they will get struck down by the courts. After that you will never hear another word about them from GW.
Wow, lots of "so called" Conservatives on this site use every article to attack the President dont they?
Great posting. I especially liked the "wait a minute" parenthetical. I laughed aloud. Sarcasm at its finest.
*** DING DING DING *** No more calls; we have a winner!
Like pro-lifers? Opponents of gay marriage? Those intolerant people trying to impose their morality on others?
That's what's meant when people accuse religious conservatives that way. They're not allowed to base any legislation on religious teaching. Only atheism and materialism and utilitarianism can be imposed on people.
It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat — Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska — says he will vote for it.
"I can't blame him for not liking authoritarian religious conservatives, I don't care for them either."
Do you like secular fundamentalists more?
At least the religious people are in tune with human nature on this issue.
Redefining marriage will create more fatherless boys, and will also lead to the expansion of the welfare state. Why bother being reactionary against "authoritarian religious conservatives," who don't run a religious state anyways?
The one issue wonders are sure to come out on this one. We need a federal ban to combat these activist judges.
""Right. Since Bush is not with us on immigration, then he is against us on everything else""
I understand your point. But Bush made the same announcement before the 2004 election. He submitted no bill.
This is another empty, insincere ploy on the administration's part.
Apparently Rove is under the mistaken impression that what George Bush says will help Republicans running in 2006. Have you seen Bush's popularity polls?
Indeed there is a lack of reporting on such polls since he publicly played his cards on the amnesty. No business interest or the Democrats want to poll now! LOL.
I'll do what I can to ensure my two Republican senators vote against it.
I don't like either of them. I don't need any zealot telling me how to live my life whether Christian, Muslim, Atheist etc... As far as creating more fatherless boys, I don't think same sex marriage will make much of a difference now to be honest. All I have to do is drive by the Utah Pride Day celebration every June in Salt Lake City and see many same sex couples with children already. I feel like a lot of that is already a lost cause and the amendment won't do much good. This is just my opinion, I don't mean to be so pessimistic, it's just the way I feel about the issue now.
This gay marriage topic pales in comparison to the first two.
I didn't know Presidents submitted Bills.
"I didn't know Presidents submitted Bills."
Whatever you call it. Presidents "propose" or whatever.
The other things pale in importance.
Well, we can look on the bright side. Same sex marriage won't destroy traditional marriage if heterosexuals, the vast majority of people, still get married and raise children. That's the good part in all of this, straights outnumber gays by 95-97%! Normal people will keep going on just like they always have regardless of the few oddballs that come along.
Indeed it is. It is a big bullet, too.
Regardless of whether the Senate passes the amendment this year, by putting it on the table and getting Bush's support, the Republican Senate has forced the liberals to respond and to declare their support of gay marriage. Democrats were hoping to sneak past the November elections without having to do that.
When the Democrats start shouting their support of gay marriage, they will concede a net 2-10 percentage points to Republicans in every Senate and House race in the country.
Ditto. I think nothing will stop it anyway. They had their chances years ago, and muffed it, I mean, blew it.
Wonder if anyone has read the Constitution of the United States lately? It sets forth the powers of each branch of the government. It doesn’t say the President shall fix our borders. It gives that power specifically to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. So if we are going to be mad at anyone, it should be the preponderance of Senators that voted ‘yea’ on the Immigration Bill.
Tied of $3.00 plus gas prices? Look at the coasts of our Country and Alaska where there are NIMBY posting all along our coasts prohibiting the Oil Companies from drilling in the US where there is oil. Forcing them to get our supplies from overseas governments—some friendly, some not so friendly—putting our National Security on the line and while costing us our hard earned money.
Put your focus of your anger where it belongs.
Yes they all do matter. However, from a businessman who has run dozens of large projects, you have to think about prioritizing requirements. Because some issues become meaningless depending on the outcome of other issues.
Bush has the power to undermine such laws. From February last year:
"...The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations." ..."
If the planet is blown up, then traditional marriage won't exist because we'll already be dead.
I'm glad you're not on any of my project teams. The company would be bankrupt before the next quarter's earnings statement was published.
That is true. So as important as the borders are, and they are, winning the WOT is no less important, not only for the USA, but for the world we live in.
" It is a poverty to Kill a Child so you can live as you wish!"
I thought it quite profound...
The border issue is part of the WOT.
Some issues are intertwined. Others are not.
Some issues are dependent on others.
Some run parallel with each other, and others run in a single thread.
I believe its already too late. This fight should have been settled 20 years ago, then the scenario you laid out may have been undone back then. Not now.
There is lots of play left. And no one ever wins by breaking and running. Hold the line.
President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a cause dear to his conservative backers, at a Rose Garden event Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the issue.
As I have been saying for years, these so-called conservatives will throw a small bone out like this issue & then turn around sell us out on the biggies. Nothing new except possibly the people won't go along with this crapola in the next elections.
As I have been saying for years, these so-called conservatives will throw a small bone out like this issue & then turn around sell us out on the biggies. Nothing new except possibly the people won't go along with this crapola in the next elections.
OUR civilization is NOT based on immigration, but it IS based on "one man, one woman marriage"!!! If you let that go, it's OVER!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.