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..

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I hesitate to call myself a moral liberal -- I favor permitting a lot more than I indulge in or even want to indulge in -- but moral issues are the one major area, where I break from the GOP. However, I think the Democrats are just as bad, if not worse, in issues of personal conscience.

However, at this point of history, I believe national security is the most important issue -- without it questions of morals all become rather moot in the face of day-to-day survival -- which is why Bush is guaranteed my vote in November.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have little hope that Congress will actually use that clause. Perhaps I will be wrong in that regard but I fear not.

[onyx]

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.


193 posted on 02/24/2004 8:20:22 AM PST by ohioWfan


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Speech last night to GOP Governors and what a way to kick-off campaing 2004.

TIMING IS PERFECT, AND THE ISSUE IS A DREAM COME TRUE FOR GOP AND A NIGHTMARE FOR DEMOCRATS.

[Imal]

(MH, I forgot to include you in this response to rdb3, so *ping*)

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.

[GraniteStateConservative]

He's busy. We're at war.

We're at war now, too. He could have come out in favor of this last May.

#2. 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.

Musgrave could see judges getting ready to stop state anti-gay marriage laws, like the one in Colorado, and she acted.

#3. That the president doesn't do things in YOUR timeframe in no way undermines his presidency or his leadership.

He did this in a politician's timeframe-- waiting until he was dragged kicking and screaming because he didn't want to deal with this in an election year. That's defensible, but it can be called what it is.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

ABC says this is a divisive issue and that their polls show a split. BS!!!!

Of course...

1,000,000:1

Since it's not unanimous, we have division. Therefore, it's devisive.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

ABC says this is a divisive issue and that their polls show a split. BS!!!!

Of course...

1,000,000:1

Since it's not unanimous, we have division. Therefore, it's devisive.

[TigersEye]

It may already be too late, but I believe it is worth tolerating insults and abuse to defend that which so many of my countrymen have defended with their lives.

More power to you. I've taken my share but I'm not sure I've changed any minds. When I consider that the average FReeper understands the Constitution far better than perhaps 80% of the population ... just keep your powder dry, that's all.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Fox is sucking almost as bad as the rest of the electronic media. I am tired of having the same rejected RATS on night after night. Screw fair and balanced I want none of them give me the correct, the righteous and the pro-American to hell with these democRATS.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Not quite. My problem with the Amendment is that a legislature could pass a law allowing a certain type of contract, but that other states would be free to ignore that specific type of contract.

[JFC]

RUSH is the one who is supporting President Bush

So do I!

Come on freepers... it is time to FIGHT!

[cyncooper]

I'm running hot and cold on Rush lately and right now he is ticking me off mightily.

Ranting on about President Bush and today's announcement and he must have realized how he sounds because he just paused to say "this is not a criticism of the president".

Well, yes it is.

He wants to get rid of the judges doing this. Um, OK, Rush, we right thinking types agree, but it would not be as easy as he thinks.

I'm about to click him OFF. He just said "This is not the solution".

[beaversmom]

President Bush Supports Amendment to DEFINE Marriage

[cyncooper]

Right now he is bashing President Bush.

But has twice disclaimed that's what he's doing.

It is precisely what he's doing and he sounds like a jackass.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I think Scalia may have even predicted this outcome.

[Miss Marple]

Despite the grumblings from those who don't understand public opinion and politics, I believe the President has just laid the smack-down on the Rats.

As quite a few have opined, coming out for the amendment last year would have been perceived as a stunt. By waiting until we had nice visual evidence for about two weeks with that fiasco in San Francisco, everyone knows what's going on.

I will eat my hat if the Republican leadership doesn't get an amendment pushed through for a vote as quickly as possible. Everyone is going to have to VOTE, and the people will be watching. Any delays in bringing it up for a vote, a la Tom Daschle, is going to cost the democrats dearly in the fall.

And by forcing the Rats to back this, the gay lobby will lose their clout, since they will have cost the jobs of many in Congress.

I personally think this is a most excellent political maneuver in order to get something that most of us want.

In addition, we have a very big argument in why President Bush needs to be able to appoint HIS judges and this will certainly make people pay attention!

[rintense]

Don't you think it would have been better to have formed the HSD before 9/11 instead of after, for example?

Um, cart before the horse, hind sight is 20-20. You get the picture.

Marilyn Musgrave saw what is happening now and acted last year. That's true leadership.

Goodie for her. The President thought kicking Saddam Hussein out of Iraq was a better idea. He was right. And the liberals and their activist judges played right into his hands with this issue. Not only has he nipped the issue of gay marriage in the bud, but he's also establishing precedent to start impeaching these activist judges.

[GraniteStateConservative]

That ruling basicly declared that homosexuality (consenting adults and in private) isn't an illegal activity. From there, it was easy to see how ridiculous it would strike some people that gay people couldn't enjoy all the rights and benefits of heterosexuals.

[Indy Pendance]

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.

Do you really trust our congress to legislate accordingly, considering what's happened with activist judges? MA Supreme Court dictated their congress enact laws. What's to stop the US Supreme Court to dictate to the US Congress the same? Especially if dems get control of the presidency and houses? This all stems from activist judges and public servants. What we really need is enforcement of the laws of the land. Until we have more conservatives leading this country, we are in dire danger of becoming a completely socialist nation. I understand you're wanting no more amendments, how do you propose to get our elected officials to enforce the already written rules with an out of control judiciary?

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

How about an amendment defining legislating from all judicial branches of government and defining the penalty for such actions?

[William McKinley]

So you oppose federalism.

And you would prefer a status quo where the judiciary in one state can impose things on the entire country.

The fact of the matter is that no one is going to get everything they want. For those who believe that it is wrong for a judge in Mass. to change the culture of the country by fiat, we are all going to have to compromise a bit to come up with a tenable amendment that can get sufficient public support to pass.

Those are the two options. Rule by judges in one state, or some sort of compromise amendment.