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..

[DollyCali]

Wow! DollyCali, I think I'm in love.

Gee, I sure hope it is with someone of the OPPOSITE sex !!!

*G*

[Sabertooth]

Do you have any idea how arrogant your words make you seem, Saber?

You are glad that the President 'finally came to the correct conclusion??' LOL!

I don't know why it's arrogant to be right all aong about something; it happens. And yes I'm glad that President Bush has finally recognized the necessity to support at CMA, which, by his own words, he didn't recognize last July and December.

Suggest you read my comments from July 3rd and a few days previous to that. I was clear on the need for a CMA, and clear that Bush wasn't clear, and gave him the benefit of the doubt, nonetheless.

btw, what public office do you hold, so that you can actually put into practice your absolute, and flawless political ideas......including their timing? Or are you just a 'pundit' who doesn't have to govern wisely, and live with the consequences of his decisions..................as the President does??

Not even sure I qualify as a pundit, but your post here is an appeal to authority fallacy, in any case.

Oh, yeah.......and you still would have to be reading his mind to determine that he had not made a decision yet about this issue last July, or last December. All you know is that he hadn't determined to act on it......until now.

No, I've read his comments and taken him at his word.

If you don't, then who is doing the mind-reading?

[tuckrdout]

The issue of homosexual marriage is truly an issue of inhibiting our freedoms.

Homosexual behavior is a moral issue, just as promiscuity and adultery are. Religions have the right and responisibility to condemn immorallity. For the government to all of a sudden approve of immoral behavior...to make a MORAL judgment and actually legalize immorality, this act would take way our freedom of Religion. This would establish a religious opinion by the government and would PROHIBIT THE FREE EXORCISE of religion...our first guarantee of freedom! To pass a homosexual marriage law, is tandamount to taking away our freedoms of speech and religion.

[DocJ69]

AS A MATTER OF FACT I DO HAVE MEDALS< AND I AM SUPPORTIVE OF W IN THIS EFFORT!

[kinghorse]

Please understand. I don't give a care about what consenting adults do. It's their mental health, they have to deal with it.

But I'll be darned if the lifestyle becomes the norm. It's statistically way out of whack and like you say in your colorful manner, all due to the demographically out of whack percentages in the entertainment industry.

[Howlin]

Hear that Will and Grace?

I happen to like Will & Grace; what's YOUR problem?

[Howlin]

They are forcing themselves down our throats whether we like it or not...

Who, exactly, is forcing you to watch Trading Spaces?

[Imal]

How do you propose we restore the proper balance of power between the federal and state governments now, which clearly is out of control and only going to become worse?

There's the $64,000 question, and a damn good one.

While I am by no means a political strategist, the solution will clearly not come from those who profit from the status quo, namely the federal government, its beneficiaries and cheerleaders. Currently, in aggregate, they represent a power that eclipses all else, our New Rome, vile and corrupt. Good people can still be found in our federal government, if they can be reached, but I do not look to Washington to voluntarily surrender stolen power back to the states or to the people.

The majority of the people of our nation believe they benefit from a strong central government, and many have no idea why we need states at all, seeming to prefer that every issue and every problem be resolved in Washington, D.C. I call that "think locally, act globally". Because of the "federal teat" effect, and general ignorance regarding the importance of separating state and federal powers on the part of most Americans, I doubt enough support can be directly leveraged to have a "popular revolt" restore balance.

Many observers, including myself more often than not, consider the problem so entrenched that it may never be resolved, and that a single, monolithic state will ultimately rule America (the "United States" will be an anachronistic name, symbolic, obsolete and meaningless). It's a nightmare I hope not to ever see, but that's where we're heading.

So how to restore the balance (if there is such a thing in real-world politics) between state and federal power?

The answer must come from the states themselves. I am not sure how they might be mobilized, but the state governments have the most to lose from the federal steamroller, and the most to gain by dismantling it. Since the abomination of the 17th Amendment, however, they have no direct power in Washington anymore, so I'm not sure what they can do, or how they could do it. As it is, state governments are left to beg for federal handouts to make ends meet, and show only symbolic trappings of sovereignty these days..

But ultimately, if anyone will be able to halt the juggernaut of federal tyranny, it will have to be the states. I pray they will recognize the problem and take action before it's too late, if it's not too late already.

[Howlin]

Dubya's goal in life is not to satisfy DollyCali's every whim....

I know! He's got too many OTHER Freepers who are demanding he do what THEY want!

[Aggie Mama]

I think there is a difference b/w a talented homosexual male giving advice on the color of drapery and a show where the homosexual lifestyle is lauded. JMHO.

I understand your frustration b/c it does seem that the entertainment industry has gone out of it's way lately to promote the homosexual lifestyle; but I think there are plenty of homosexual men that have contributed greatly to fashion, art and music (I'm excluding the Maplethorpes of the world in this).

[Howlin]

All kinds of mischief can take place.

That's my understanding, too. Unless I am mistaken, once a Constitutional Congress was convened, they can change any damn thing they want to.

[zook]

Ouch! Sorry. My department switched some stuff around last summer. Here's the new link:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/c/rcs8/roger2.htm

[ohioWfan]

When you tell me that you haven't been 'right all along' about ANYthing, I'll believe you have a touch of humility, and aren't as completely arrogant as you seem.

Anyone who is 'right all along' about so many things should run for public office, and not sit at the computer all day long pontificating (which you have honed to a fine art, I might add).

Just a suggestion.........not that you'll give it any thought, of course. But then again, I'm not a mind reader.......

[Coop]

If I want to see RAT lies allowed to stand without challenge I can tune into CNN.

By all means do, for a week or two straight. Sometimes a grass-is-greener wake-up call can do wonders.

[lelio]

There are already 38 states with laws on the books banning Gay marriage (not to mention a handful more considering it). Why would they not then support a Federal ban?

You have your answer right there. Its a state issue, let the states decide.

Why people on FR are crazy for giving the feds more power is beyond me.

[Howlin]

It's a sensible proposal to have the people who want gay marriage to amend the constitution.

Hey, that's a great idea!

[lelio]

The FF&C clause of the US Constitution requires the federal government

So if WA state passes a law then people in OR are expected to recognize it on their turf?

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Now he has to spend political capital to get it passed out of the Congress and withstand the left wing push back

[Imal]

I'm recommending that we zoom out a bit from the specific issue of gay marriage, and addressing the underlying -- and extremely serious -- legal problems that are paving the way for it.

If we solve them, the problem of gay marriage and other legal wangling based on bad laws will also be solved.

If we don't solve them, far greater disasters than married gays will destroy us.

[RWR8189]

The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution would make state laws regarding marriage irrelevant if one state grants marriage licenses and the couple moves to a state that bans it.

FMA would protect the state's right to maintain the institution of marriage.