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..

[ken5050]

Brilliant, and cogent, analysis, as always, Miss M...

[CougarGA7]

I disagree. He has stated from the get-go that he believes that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Yet he has also stated that he hoped that it wouldn't come down to having to amend the constitution (per Diane Sawyer interview). He has let it stand pat until now. Now that it has finally come to a head. He sees that the states are not going to take care of it. He sees that the states are not going to do anything about these activist judges, so now he is issuing a official opinion in favor of an amendment to the Constitution.

[k2blader]

Good!!!

Scrolling now to check for any articles...

[kinghorse]

Based on public sentiment after the mastubatory/stripping SuperBowl Halftime cesspool, I suspect it's a fight GWB cherishes.

We've had our fill of the homosexual diversity jamboree. Hear that Will and Grace?

[rdb3]

That pic shows that he's no regular guy, doesn't it?

You can't eat something like that without getting your hands greasy. But he's trying his best not to.

What a jerk.

Let the blow fall, I await its coming.

[January24th]

Can't we just be like the Mexicans, and take the sensible approach to all this? They have a "civil union" first, and later, sometimes much later, they have a "marriage ceremony" in the church of their choice.

The one is a legal contract with the "State" and the church community does not even need to acknowledge it other than the couple's legal intent to merge their lives and fortunes. The other "marriage ceremony" is a community affirmation of a particular belief about joined lives, and the State could care less.

If the gay community wants the privilege of paying higher taxes because they're married, fine, let 'em have a "civil union" and manage their ...er...assets accordingly. If they want the State to make a moral statement about their intentions, the the State's position is doomed to be untenable on either side of the issue.

Now, what to do about adoptions?...nothing but problems...

[k2blader]

I sure do wish we had a human life amendment, though. Since I'm a big believer in efficiency, why not push both at the same time?

Great question. And I wish we had a Life amendment too.

[tuckrdout]

ALRIGHT!!! Now THIS is the guy I voted for!!

[Imal]

Adding insults does not strengthen your argument, and it does not appear that you need to resort to them in any case.

You are right in pointing out the absurdity of my saying "virtually every amendment to the Constitution has resulted in far more harm than good". That was not the right way to express myself, since I don't believe that, nor that the Constitution should never be amended.

The amount of time I spend composing posts in live threads is much shorter than normal, and, consequently, errors are guaranteed.

Having said that, I still maintain that the Constitution should only be amended as a last resort, however, and for good reason.

So please allow me to amend my Post #75 to read as follows (if we can amend the Constitution, we can amend posts, I hope):

With the notable exception of the first ten, far too many amendments to the Constitution have resulted in more harm than good. This would be no exception.

Reinforcing federal power in response to excessive federal power is not the answer.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between man and woman in every society at every time in history.

See Black's Law Dictionary.

None of this would be necessary if the Courts weren't determined to throw away thousands of years of human history and law.

No individual has the right to be considered a member of the opposite sex.

[GraniteStateConservative]

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

Great American Cleanup, 2003?
Signing of Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003?
Congratulating the Anaheim Angels for beating the Yankees in the World Series?
Urging Congress to Act on the Healthy Forests Initiative?
Visiting a tornado-stricken town in Missouri?
Meeting with Nebraskans to discuss economic growth?

Should I go on?

[Smogger]

Attention California Freepers:

I already called Bill Lockyer's office and demanded that he enforce proposition 22. I waz told that he was "looking into it." I suggested that his comments in the SF Chronicle indicate that he is letting his personal feelings interfere with his duty, and that he should immidiately seek an injunction to halt gay marriages in SF. Furthermore, I think we should all remind the AG that he too can be recalled if he chooses to ignore the will of the people.

Not it's your turn:

CALL
1-916-324-5437
FAX
916-445-6749
E MAIL
bill.lockyer@doj.ca.gov

[k2blader]

This is the most important issue of this election cycle, and probably the most important issue since the Civil War.

Agreed, Sabertooth.

This issue eclipses the illegal amnesty blunder.

I missed the President's actual words but will hopefully hear it later on sometime.

[GraniteStateConservative]

And just look at all the people flocking to make use of the Constitutional means already at our disposal.

I stand in that "flock." There are others.

[Miss Marple]

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.

Some people would probably not like to have this come up in an election year, but it isn't President Bush. It is the RATS who don't want it, since they will have to choose between their constituents and the gay lobby. I fail to see why you think the President had to be forced to do this. I personally believe they have had that statement ready for a week. LOL!

You obviously don't understand that last year the American people were paying attention to Iraq and would have considered this a waste of time, thinking that nothing like gay marriage could happen.

But with Gavin Newsome's stupid blunder, we have been treated to two weeks of seeing the sights of the San Francisco clerk's office, and of course the media has gone for the most shocking pictures, which was unwittingly quite kind of them.

Now people who didn't really give this issue much thought will be on board and paying attention, which the democrats will absolutely hate; they cannot delay the amendment coming up in Congress, or we can hammer them with that. They will have to vote, THIS YEAR, and they aren't going to like that one bit.

If it passes by 2/3, we win. If it doesn't pass because of democrats, they will give justification for voting Republican in every Senate and Congressional race.

I do not think the President had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this at all. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he has been ready to go, looking for a good opportunity.

[Humidston]

>>We don't need to amend the Constitution. We need to be impeaching judges.<<

AMEN!

If we're forced to amend the Constitution, we'd better add beastiality and incest as well because that'll be next the next salvo from the leftist judges!

[Coop]

Fox is sucking almost as bad as the rest of the electronic media.

Complete-and-utter-nonsense bump.

[mrsmith]

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

Well, there was still the possibility of a revolt against the judiciary- the impeachment of judges. That would be the best solution.

Unfortunately it appears amending the Constitution is easier than removing judges who subvert it.

That's not "the way things ought to be", but apparently it's the way things are.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The fourteenth amendment was necessary in order to secure the newly freed slaves' rights as Americans. DemocRATS refused to accept their freedom and imposed all manner of means to re-enslave them in every sense.

Don't like the 14th? Blame the RATS for forcing the federal government to protect the ex-slaves from REAL tyranny, disenfranchisement, persecution and murder. Without that amendment even more thousands would have been lynched, burned and slaughtered than were by the murderous and hate-filled RATS. THAT was tyranny not what you claim.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Musgrave, on this issue, is hardly obscure. Still, with Bush's early support imagine where we'd be on it today instead of where we are.