Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage [Live Thread 10:45 Statement]

Fox News ^ | 02.24.04

[Dr. Marten]

Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Breaking news...no details yet..

[Mo1]

I don't think so. He gave the states its own leeway to do the right thing. Now that it's getting totally out of control, he is stepping in and endorsing an amendment.

You are correct .. and the same can be said for these activists Judges ... Now everyone is seeing what they are doing

[steve-b]

Piffle. Taking time for this side-show while spending explodes out of control has pretty well torn it as far as I'm concerned.

[Mo1]

Did you SEE him last night, Mo??

Yep .. and that was just a warm up .. these nitwits won't know what hit them.

[Peach]

So you'll be voting for a Democrat instead who wants immediate citizenship for the illegals and wants more money spent on social programs? Please. Grow up.

[Imal]

Banning slavery was a bad idea? Suuure it was. Or the 11th or 12th or 15th or 20th or 21st? Apparently you are not real familiar with the ACTUAL constitution.

The 14th Amendment "banning slavery" has been used as the foundation for most of the federal intrusion into state powers. To use slavery as a way to deflect attention from its bad language and disastrous consequences is intellectually dishonest and not constructive to reasoned discussion of the problems with it.

As for your assumptions about my familiarity with the "ACTUAL constitution", I think you already know how valuable such ad hominem nonsense is, and I am embarrassed for you that you feel the need to resort to it.

If you want to talk about the Constitution, great. If you want to talk about your false and insulting assumptions about me, you'll be talking to yourself.

[Indy Pendance]

The Constitution of the United States

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[elfman2]

"Can you say rope-a-dope? "

You’d think they’d learn by now, but they're so desperate that they don’t dare restrain the aggressive tendencies that make them so vulnerable to this. It’s like throwing one screen pass after another to a blitzing defense. Bush’s playing this election so well.

[TeleStraightShooter]

However, there is no need for a constitutional amendment to stop this madness. Congress should use the "Exceptions clause" to remove the jurisdiction of the Court from ruling on the constitutionality of bans.

Concur
The "Exceptions Clause" {USC Art 3/ Sec 2/ Clause 2} would be a great "lead blocker" for said amendment.

If it was passed as legislation prior to the constitutional amendment, it would:
A) take care of the problem now, whilst the lengthy ratification process dragged on;
-and-
B) it would have the effect of positive politicizing the issue: In the elections to follow, the people could affirm this wise course through hour republican form of government!

[LincolnLover]

I'm all for the attempt, at least, to amend because I think the end result will be beneficial to the country as a whole.

I agree that there is very little chance this will actually win the approval of 38 of the 50 states (getting 2/3rds of the Senate to go along is hardly a given, either), but the years (and it will take years) of effort put into trying to garner approval on the state level will sharpen the debate on both sides and cause millions to take a closer look at the issue.

Regardless of your views on this issue, a good healthy detailed debate is always a good thing for democracy in general.

[CougarGA7]

Agreed. Re. my post #179.

[GraniteStateConservative]

He knew that Musgrave was going to introduce this last May. He could have come out at the same time, had her at the WH for the ceremony, and announced that he was in full support of the language of her amendment and that he'd work to get it approved in the House and Senate as quickly as possible. That's all I'm saying.

[Flux Capacitor]

I have several gay friends, they are fine people, and so I have been on the fence about this amendment business for quite some time. Not that I'm exactly partial to the idea of gay nuptials, but I have been wrestling with the questions of individual states' rights on the issue; the place of the federal government to decide this sort of thing; the drastic step of amending the Constitution, etc.

But this recent insanity in Massachusetts and San Francisco has been all it's taken to convince me that a marriage amendment is necessary.... the ultimate step of a Constitutional amendment is necessary as a last-ditch effort to enshrine in law the people's will on this matter, before that will is totally nullified by a court the way its will on abortion was. These power-abusing elected officials and dictatorial, unelected judges have gone far enough.

-Dan

[ohioWfan]

Guess the President doesn't work on your schedule, Saber.

He said he was watching..........and he made this move after the American people have been made startlingly aware of the homosexual agenda.

Some people might perceive the timing to be perfect.

[Imal]

Yes it is but that seems to be what the majority of Americans want; both liberal and conservative.

I have seen no evidence that the majority of Americans support amending the Constitution for this.

[Sabertooth]

I think many people, including President Bush, did not for a second believe the gay marriage issue would be pushed to the point where judges are willing to break the law.

It was obvious last Summer when the Lawrence v. Texas decision was handed down that a CMA would be necessary. Anyone who didn't see it coming wasn't paying attention.

Thanks for the Tammy Bruce info on your earlier post.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Sure there are cases, but many are people who either didn't have children or had long ago divorced their spouse.

[Peach]

Was that the sodomy case? Even so, I didn't believe we'd get to this, but I'm naive. LOL

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Looks like you want the Democrats to take back control of this country to spite your biter perfectionist values. If so, you'll have decades of issues to rage over. (Thank God you don't represent the majority!)

[steve-b]

Now if the boy would just develop a pair for something substantive like going AGAINST the semiauto ban renewal or cutting his "drunken sailor" spending spree.

*** DING DING DING *** No more calls; we have a winner!

[ohioWfan]

Do you remember what was going on last May, Granite?

Think about it.