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..

[commish]

If homosexuals want to change current law, let them be the ones to propose a constitutional amendment to allow it.

Ahh I see, the old head in the sand approach. Gotcha.

Let's just ignore Gavin newsom and the 3700 Gay couples in San Francisco. After all, they haven't introduced an amendment.

Let's just ignore the Massachusett's Supreme Court and thier edict ordering the Mass Legislature to pass a law allowing gay marraige. After all, they haven't introduced an amendment.

While we are at it, let's just ignore Al Quida. After all, they haven't attacked America in 3 years. Let's just ignore Iran and N. Korea. After all, they haven't set off a nuke yet.

[sr4402]

The only reason I can think of is that it's what I called it -- a side-show diversion from his gross failures on real issues (spending, RKBA, etc).

Steve-B, are you a democrat?

[Indy Pendance]

You said: "Full faith and credit" does not extend the legislative authority of any state over another state. If a gay marriage, civil union or whatever is not legal in a state, it is not legal in a state.

Which is clearly the opposite of Article IV, which states:

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.

If one state makes a law, all other states must follow that law if Congress prescribes it. I understand your idea of wanting to remove judicial activist judges by the means set forth in our Constitution, it's not happening. We still have too many liberals in power. Activist judges and other public servants must be held accountible for their actions, and frankly, they should have been arrested for disobeying the law. It has to stop, but won't until we can change the tone of this country from 70+ years of creeping socialism. We've only had 2 years of republican control, and our founding fathers purposely designed our government to be slow and cumbersome so a dictator could not rule. I know we all want action now! But, we need to review history, and how it took the democrats over 70 years to get our country to this point. An amendment can be removed if we ever get our judges and public servants to abide by the laws of the land.

[DollyCali]

Kerry.. hahaha..

enjoyed hearing Rush rant on how hard the dwarfs have been fighting to see who can lose to Bush

[cyncooper]

Your tagline is exactly what I had in mind when I added the "so angry" observation regarding Kerry's bizarre response.

You are right on.

[section9]

However, if you are a believer in States' Rights, you might have a slight problem with appointed judges making law in Massachussetts that will apply in Idaho, when Idaho's legislature has made no such law.

I don't give a rat's fingernail if Massachussetts passes Free Rump Ranging in their legislature. However, Willie Brown in California gave the game away when he spoke of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the USC.

Libertarian you may be, but shouldn't the state legislatures have the right to have a say on this?

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[William McKinley]

You missed part of my reply in your eagerness to throw out some eye catching bold.

"Some wordings include a sentence defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. I certainly wouldn't oppose that being included."

The main thing is to prevent judges from trying to impose gay marriage. The only part the other sentence accomplishes is to prevent legislatures from doing the same. Right now, the problem is that judges are doing it.

[rdb3]

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.

Am I reading this correctly?

Let the blow fall, I await its coming.

[CA Conservative]

You know and I know that the media would do that no matter which time he picked; ergo, it's not a valid justification for delay.

Wrong! Yes, the media will still make the attempt, but events have changed the political landscape. Now, we have the Mass. court decision and the situation in SF - people are now aware that this is a real and present danger. So even if the media tries to paint it as Bush "creating" an issue, the current events proves that to be a lie without Bush ever having to make the argument. Thus, he can argue the substance of the amendment without having to prove that there is the need for one.

As I said, in politics, timing is critical for success. With your sense of timing, don't ever run for office, okay?

[William McKinley]

So if the proposed amendment said "Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.", your objection would be what, exactly? This is what would prevent the judicial fiat nonsense being perpetrated right now in the name of various State constitutions.

[ohioWfan]

btw.....YOUR tagline is one of the great lines from last night's speech too.

If any RAT thinks President Bush is on the run from them because 'he has no record to run on' (Kerry said that this am!) they're NUTS.

And that's why they're going to LOSE in November.

[KQQL]

H.R. 3396 (Defense of Marriage Act) Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Signed the Letter Backing Gay Marriage - massequality.org 07/12/02

"Kerry indicated he might eventually back gay marriages if a public consensus developed for them," Brownstein Notes.
http://www.massinsider.com/archives/001261.phtml

[MEGoody]

No flaming, but your 'reasoning' is why I cannot vote Libertarian. While the Libertarian party does stand for fiscal and 'social' conservativism, it also stands for moral liberalism. At this point in our history, I think taking stands on moral issues is a more important thing for me to do.

[TatieBug]

I just wrote another check...some how this "law breaking" has just got to be stopped.

[TatieBug]

I just wrote another check...some how this "law breaking" has just got to be stopped.

[Sabertooth]

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

It's not my schedule, it's the events of last Summer to which I'm referring.

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

No, that's revisionist:

WASHINGTON (BP)--President Bush has affirmed marriage "is between a man and a woman" but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment to protect the institution.

In the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that could set the stage for homosexual unions, a reporter asked Bush July 2 if he supported an amendment to "define marriage as a union between a man and a woman."

"I don't know if it's necessary yet," the president said. "Let's let the lawyers look at the full ramifications of the recent Supreme Court [ruling]. What I do support is the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman."
Bush affirms traditional marriage, although uncertain about Federal Marriage Amendment
BP News | Jul 3, 2003 | By Staff

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--President Bush said Dec. 16 that the nation might need a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

His comments in an interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC's "Primetime" were the closest he has come to embracing the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. In July Bush said that government lawyers were studying the "best way" to protect the definition of marriage.

"If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman [and would] codify that," he told Sawyer.
Bush: Nation 'may need' constitutional marriage amendment
BP News | Dec 17, 2003 | Michael Fous

The President has been on the right side of the attack on Marriage, but was slow to recognize the need for a CMA.

Glad he decided to get on board now.

Some people might perceive the timing to be perfect.

Perfect Panglossians are predictable propagators of such perceptions.

[Imal]

The scenario you describe appears to use the wording of the 14th Amendment, which has also been used for countless other federal abuses, as a means to actually circumvent the sovereignty of the states.

Why not instead change the 14th Amendment, and put that and countless other related problems to rest? I am not saying the Constitution is perfect as amended, just the opposite: much of the trouble we have today are the results of poorly considered amendments.

The dutchboy and dike approach doesn't adress the underlying problem.

[Beck_isright]

"Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage"

Translation:

Kerry loses general election by 10%.

[Remole]

Nah, that fear will never come to pass. In my area (metro area of a million and a half in the Midwest of the USA), every year the top 5 in the annual spelling bee are homeschooled children. Also many of the High Schoolers who achieve 800s on the SATs.

[ohioWfan]

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

No, that's revisionist:

No. That's exactly what he said, and exactly what he did.

And he didn't just 'decide to get on board now,' Saber. His position against gay marriage hasn't changed.......most likely his entire life, but definitely not since the Lord got a hold of his heart.

You're the revisionist.