Posted on 02/18/2004 9:28:40 AM PST by KantianBurke
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday he was "troubled" by gay weddings in San Francisco and by legal decisions in Massachusetts that could clear the way for same-sex marriage. But he declined to say whether he is any closer to backing a constitutional ban on such vows.
"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision."
"I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen," Bush said.
He didn't answer directly when asked whether he is any closer to endorsing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, as conservative groups say the White House has assured them Bush will do.
"I strongly believe marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman," Bush said during an Oval Office session with Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage."
"People need to be involved in this decision," Bush said. "Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts. And I'm watching it carefully."
Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and more than 20 states have lined up outside the ornate San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples six days ago. City officials said 172 couples were married Tuesday, a pace that would bring the total number who have taken vows promising to be "spouses for life" to over 3,000 by Friday.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Under the decision, the nation's first legally sanctioned gay marriages are scheduled to begin in mid-May.
Lawmakers are proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and the Legislature resumes its deliberations of amendments on March 11.
Excuse me, the above should say reply #19.
Your anger is misplaced, the governator is the chief executive in California.
I can give you links to the sources of anything in the post that you question. I didn't want to clutter the post with numerous links and footnotes. The only agenda I "push" is returning to the "limited government" that our founding fathers set in place, and educating both politicians and voters on the US Constitution. If this can be accomplished by Republican candidates I have and will continue to vote for them, if not I will vote for the candidate that will stand up for the US Constitution regardless of their political party affiliation.
Both partisan Democrats and partisan Republicans are so hungry for power that they forgot why they supposed to be in power. Both the politicians and the votes take an oath to uphold the US Constitution, but most don't.
From the US and Europe, and that's all there is? It couldn't have cost that much to keep them in the mental institutions!
AIDs funding and tolerance training are costing more than their care in the nut houses would!
All they could round up was a small handful of sexually dysfunctional freaks, and they demand the entire world change to accommodate them? WTF'n Kerry??
I'll bet there are more environmentalists having sex with knot holes in trees than there are butt humpers in SF!
RIGHT HERE? He loses your vote because of this social issue that has been festering for the past several years?
I think you need to take a deep breath and think about the big picture. I personally don't believe it is ever wise to throw away your vote, no matter how angry you may be at the preferred candidate. No matter what, a vote against Bush will be a vote for the Democrat candidate. This is how Clinton got elected in '92, and again in '96.
Besides, I don't believe Bush can do anything anyway unless you want him to send in the National Guard, and this clearly is not a federal issue. It is a California State issue.
Until they manage to destroy them from within. Then they'll be gone.
They want to destroy it's moral authority, just like they did the Catholic Church. There, they weren't just claiming to be Republicans, they were actually claiming to be men ordained by god!
Actually I'm voting for Michael Peroutka, and no he won't "force Americans to daily recite the living Word of God". Your showing your bitterness towards Christians by that statement.
I would vote for Thomas Jefferson, who was not a Christian, if he were alive today, before I would vote for George W. Bush.
Well....nothing wrong with a little brainstorming. We've got to put all the options on the table, even if they are a little extreme. LOL.
NAMBLA will be able to legally adopt their very own little sex toys.
Because of the Texas sodomy law, who can arrest them? It's in the privacy of their own bedroom, remember?
What part of Bush's previous quotes of saying that marriage is bewteen a man and a woman don't you understand.
BTW, what would Mr. Peroutka do about what is going on now in San Francisco.
We will probably never know since all Mr. Peroutka and his 0.01% followers do is rant that Bush isn't conservative enough.
Sodom's Depravity
Two Evil Cities Destroyed
1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground.
2And he said, "Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." And they said, "No, but we will spend the night in the open square."
3But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
4Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house.
5And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."
6So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him,
7and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!
8See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof."
9And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door.
10But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.
23The sun had risen upon the earth when Lot entered Zoar.
24Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.
25So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
I see a strong parallel between the foolish things the President has done with respect to ILLEGAL ALIENS as with GAY RIGHTS (and by extension, GAY MARRAIGE).
President Bush, while personally moral and a nice guy, nevertheless helped opened the floodgates for further illegal immigration with his & Rove's assinine plan for regularization/legalization for foreign illegals.
Bush also met with the disgraceful "AUSTIN 12" Homosexual G.O.P. activists in Austin, Texas in 2000, pandering to them to get the vote, and trying to be all things to all people. He was "reasonable" and "compassionate", opening dialogue with them, and being 'incluuuuuusive' and for 'diverrrrrsity'.
Now what the hell do you expect four years later? The President should have known that those he met with, probably to a man or to a woman (or to a man-boy as the case may be) supported GAY MARRIAGE.
I say, DONT ACCEPT Gay Group endorsements or overtures, lobbying or otherwise;, like Bob Dole, DONT ACCEPT their money or their influence.
What part of the compassionate The Austin 12-Governor Bush 2000 Austin, Texas Meeting and it's overall impact do you fail to comprehend?
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.