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..

[teletech]

No, I don't have the patience for pandering from focus groups and polls.

Oh, I get it, you just want to bash Bush. WHO, prey tell, would be "conservative" enough to suit you?

[MEGoody]

"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)."

Gross failures? That's a bit over the top. You may not agree with everything Bush has done, but the 'gross failures' terminology makes you sound like one who would hate Bush no matter what he did. That's not who are you are, is it?

[carton253]

My word, but you have your bowels in an uproar! During the 2000 campaign, the President said that he did not favor gay marriage. He has never retreated from this stand.

Musgrave stuck her neck out? Yes... and so did the President.

[ohioWfan]

Let me correct myself. I see that you said get on board for CMA.

To that I will say, you have absolutely NO idea when he decided that was the best course of action because it was made necessary by activist courts and lawbreakers.

You have NO idea, nor do I, because all we see are his actions and not his thoughts.

[mwl1]

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

Uh, I think that everyone on this thread, plus the President of the United States, would like to agree with you, but the judges in Massachusetts have just sort of made that approach rather moot.

[mhking]

If I'm reading his comments in his prior posts correctly, I think he's trying to say that using slavery, and the constitutional abolishment of it as an necessary example here is nothing but a red herring; and in that light, I have to agree.

This is an issue for the states themselves to hash out. Amending the Constitution without careful regard for larger consequences is not something that I relish.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Yes and No. Like I said, I don't think that either the Massachusetts court or SF's mayor are going about it correctly. However, if one of these state's legislatures passed a bill giving recognition to gay marriage, that would be something else.

Thing is, in a legal sense, marriage has no religious component. It is a contract to join two people's finances, household, etc. Full faith & credit means (at least as I understand it) that that contracts signed in one state have to be respected in another.

Therefore, a Constitutional Amendment would put an exception for certain contracts into the Constitution. Besides opening the Constitution to social engineering amendments by the left, this would also open the door to amending more exceptions to full faith and credit.

Two other point. I believe in individual rights before I believe in state's rights. That is, a state cannot pass a low violating an individual's right, then fall back on states' rights to see it enforced. In that area, I believe the federal judiciary can and should trump states' rights.

The other thing is that I question whether the government should be involved in "marriage" at all. After all, if marriage, as others have stated, is primarily a religious term, government has no business defining what it is. Legal "marriage" is a contractual relationship with no religious component. I've suggested a solution to the gay marriage issue to simply to do away with marriage as a legal term for heterosexual, as well as homosexual relationships, in favor of "civil unions" or "joint household agreements."

Mind you, even if it's a good idea, I don't think it's one we're too likely to see.

[GraniteStateConservative]

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.

Judges are out of control. Musgrave introduced her amendment because she could see the writing on the wall that judges and justices would rule state anti-gay marriage laws (like the one in Colorado she got signed) unconstitutional and she could see that no one would defend marriages from this assault by impeaching out of control judges and justices. This wasn't about states and giving them leeway.

[Peach]

Our library had the book amazingly enough. It is a bestseller.

I've just bought a copy and will lend it to friends and neighbors when it arrives.

People have NO idea what's going on with the radical gays.

[Imal]

That reasoning would have gambling be legal in every state because it is legal in Nevada.

"Full faith and credit" does NOT extend the legislative authority of any state over another state.

Just because a judge in Massachusetts decides the Massachusetts constitution requires recognition of gay marriages does not mean all the other states must.

However, Congress does have the power to prescribe the effect thereof. In this case, that would probably be the best way to address it.

Congress does not need to recognize gay marriage just because a state does, and can legislate accordingly, and that would also cover the various tax and socialist program consequences mentioned in this thread.

If support for appropriate legislation specific to gay marriage cannot be garnered in Congress, why would we expect a constitutional amendment be passed instead?

[cyncooper]

Is it already cocktail hour where you are, or what?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

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.

You are correct as far as you go. However, if gay marriage were to become a law in a state by legitimate means -- passing through the state legislature and being signed by a governor -- this would also allow other states to ignore it.

Marriage in a legal sense is a contract. Allow one type of contract to be ignored by the states and you open the door to other types of contracts being ignored by the states. The left would just love that.

[Coop]

You've ignored my question (apparently deliberately) twice now. That says a lot.

The Founders gave us a way to stop judicial activism.

Indeed they did. By supporting for election and re-election conservatives which will nominate and hopefully confirm conservative judges. Yet you consciously and repeatedly do the exact opposite. You routinely attempt to belittle the man giving us the best chance to stop judicial activism.

[rdb3]

How is it a non-starter?

It's a non-starter because your very arguments are the exact same ones used that kept goring our collective ox. All this was done in the name of defending the Constitution. None of this would have mattered if the rights of the Constitution were upheld in our case. But they were not. In fact, they were trampled viciously.

Like I said, we've heard all that before. I ain't buying.

Let the blow fall, I await its coming.

[onyx]

I have her book and you are exactly right.

[Imal]

Yes, yes, I was referring to the 14th, and of course the 13th abolished slavery. And no, I don't support slavery, never have and have always wondered how men so passionate about freedom could hold slaves.

I was referring to the dishonest use of slavery as a canard to justify the use of the 14th Amendment to steamroller over state powers, as has repeatedly been done.

The resulting flood of direct federal usurpation of state powers threatens to make slaves of us all, if we do not reverse it.

[davidosborne]

God Bless President Bush......

** ACTION ALERT ** SUPPORT S.J.RES.26 (7 Co-Sponsors) ** H.J.RES.56 (112 Co-Sponsors)

[justshutupandtakeit]

Anyone who replaces reason with insults might be a proper target. I just ADD the latter to the former.

But most important is replying to the absurdity of your comment wrt the amendments.

[Sabertooth]

To that I will say, you have absolutely NO idea when he decided that was the best course of action because it was made necessary by activist courts and lawbreakers.

You have NO idea, nor do I, because all we see are his actions and not his thoughts.

No, we also have his words.

If we take the President at his word in his comments about a CMA last July and December (posted at #296), we see that he had not yet concluded it was necessary.

Anyone who read Lawrence v. Texas when it was handed down last Summer could and should have seen at a CMA would be necessary.

So, I'm glad the President finally came to te correctt conclusion because the attack on marriage is the most important issue of this election cycle.

[William McKinley]

That's one of the debates. Does the amendment include a line defining it as one man and one woman, or not. The version without means that legislatures could enact same sex marriage, just not judges.

Of course, no legislature would right now, not even in Massachusettes.

Vermont would be hosed though, since the legislature there passed something under edict of the judiciary; that would end up being litigated as to if it would be repealed by such an amendment.

But if I am hearing you correctly, if it was without the line about a man and a woman, you would support it.

I am sure others would not support it without, so obviously there is going to need to be some coalition building that involves counting which way would have more support.

But I think we all agree that something needs to be done, that an amendment is required as shown by the actions of the Mass and Vt judiciaries. And this is exactly what Bush said today. You should be agreeing with him, not disagreeing.