Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage [Live Thread 10:45 Statement]

Fox News ^ | 02.24.04

[justshutupandtakeit]

The ENTIRE Bill of Rights did not apply to the states thus states could restrict the RTKaBA, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. Making it apply to the states was a good thing because the Southern ones were determined that the Blacks would NOT have ANY constitutional rights or legal protections.

The only real problem with the 14th is the phrasing wrt citizenship which has been interpreted as meaning that even illegal immigrants' children born here are automatically citizens. This is not the only interpretation of that phrasing which makes sense and if we can get judges who aren't raving Leftists on the Court others may become predominant.

I see nothing wrong with section 2, 3 or 4 of the amendment
Certainly they do not lead to any "tyranny" on the part of the federal government.

[Burkeman1]

By conceding that this is even a federal issue Bush has betrayed conservatives yet again and we have already lost. But it will be an issue for years that phoneycons in the GOP can use in their stupid fundraising letters.

[Peach]

Good! We are going to need it to refer to in the months ahead as this battles its way through Congress.

This isn't about civil liberties. It's about defending our children against those who want to lower the age of consent, take away the taboo of pedophilia, and want to recruit our children into a lifestyle choice when they are barely able to decide what to wear to school in the morning.

[LdSentinal]

The timing is perfect.

What better way to please the Chriistian evangelicals than to announce this amendment the day before The Passion comes out in theatres?

[Miss Marple]

Whaht lifestyle are you talking about, Rose? If you are talking about pushing their relationships on us in public and asking for approval, I am all with you.

But if you are saying that a gay guy can't come on TV and tell me how to color coordinate my family room, you are wrong.

How do you know those guys are gay? Do they TELL you? No. You are just assuming they are because of their profession and their mannerisms.

When I was young, no one talked about homosexuality (and lest you think I am really old, I am talking about the late 50's and early 60's). I am certain that at least one gym teacher and two art teachers I had in those years were gay. But we didn't know about homosexuality, so we considered them odd and let it go at that.

People on "Trading Places" or "Designer's Challenge" aren't talking about their sexual orientation. They are simply giving decorating advice. (And I always pay attention, because I think they are usually a whole lot better at it than I am.)

[rikkir]

I understand what Rose is upset about. About a week ago I posted a link to a site ( http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wyatt/tv-characters.html )
that shows how much mainstream TV has been innundated by the sexual perversion of less than 1% of the population. This is clearly an agenda to soften the "blow" of their attack on our morals. Incementalism is the favorite weapon of the left, and I mean no disrespect, but it is succeeding in the sense that you don't find the behavior of the characters on these shows reprehensible,or as you say we wouldn't have any style if it weren't for people who are at best sexually immature.
Although I don't watch, I find the premise of Queer eye for the straight guy particularly insidious. The whole "metrosexual" idea that assumes because I am a stupid white straight male, that I can't figure out how to dress or groom myself is insulting. Also I can't understand what straight male would want to follow these "butt pirates" advice anyway. I really don't want to dress or groom in way to attract "hairy legs", I want to dress in a way that is appealing to nice, soft, beautiful women.

[ohioWfan]

You see presidents are truly public servants. Whenever one gets to thinking he is in control we get rid of him....

EXCELLENT point. And that is exactly what the fringers here on FR would like to have happen.

They would like to get rid of President Bush and replace him with what??? The tooth fairy?? I think for most of them, their motives are clear, but the only viable conclusion if their wishes were granted would be a John Kerry presidency.

I, for one, thank God for this servant of His, who is also a servant of the American people.

[Trinity_Tx]

"This clause does not, and has never required, any state to accept as legal that which it specifically prohibits by law"...

I'm coming in on this discussion late, but...

Remember when other states were forced to recognize a divorce made in Nevada? Individual states could pass all the restrictions they wanted, but all one had to do was go to vegas to get it, and their state had to accept that divorce as legal.

Same with marriages today... if Arkansas allows 10 yr olds to marry, Texas has to recognize it... thereby forcing Texas to indeed "accept as legal that which it specifically prohibits by law"...

[onyx]

By conceding that this is even a federal issue Bush has betrayed conservatives yet again and we have already lost. But it will be an issue for years that phoneycons in the GOP can use in their stupid fundraising letters.

You write a lot of stupid comments, but this one is one of your most outrageous. YOU are NOT a conservative. Don't even attempt to speak for conservatives, and a perceived betrayal.

[Imal]

The 1st Amendment restricted Congress, the 2nd Amendment was a prohibition applicable to all levels of government. The distinction was deliberate and reflected in the language, long with the rest of the BoR.

We can differ on whether or not that was a good thing, but the way the 14th Amendment has been used for such things as extending federal power into areas that should be reserved to the states, with consequences such as the federal jihad against religion and religious expression, is something no one will ever convice me is anything but bad.

If a state decided to prohibit free speech or establish state religions (like they had prior to and after the ratification of the Constitution), I can't say I would agree with their choice, but I do believe we had it right the first time.

To presume that states are less qualified to rule than the federal government is the first step toward discarding the model of the republic. I contend that doing so is a bad thing.

[Miss Marple]

And as an illustration of your point, Burkeman1 has just announced that President Bush, by proposing this amendment, has "betrayed all conservatives."

[rikkir]

Please read my post 466. I agree none of us want to get involved in people's private sexual trysts, but to me it is becoming the same argument as " I support the troops, but not the war or the President". At some point we have to stand and say what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong. Their implied behavior is as offensive as actually seeing it actually acted out on our TV screens.
UGH! This discussion is making me shudder. I just can't imagine anything sexy about a guy's ol' hairy butt. YUCK!

[Howlin]

and I mean no disrespect, but it is succeeding in the sense that you don't find the behavior of the characters on these shows reprehensible

Listen to me very carefully: don't EVER judge me or anybody else on this forum by your narrow minded agenda. You have absolutely NO RIGHT decide what I do and do not find reprehensible.

For all you know, those you are posting to may have homosexual sons or lesbian daughters, but somehow I don't think that would much bother you.

And unless you feel morally qualified and superior to the rest of us in the way you lead your life, it might be better if you kept your proselytizing to yourself.

If you are a conservative, remember conservatives are the ones who don't want the government OR YOU sticking your collective noses in our lives, much less in our bedrooms.

If you are a Christian, remember "Judge not, lest you be judged."

And you certainly DID mean disrespect. You felt like you could lecture ME and try to shove YOUR agenda onto me and my life. That is, in fact, very disrespectful.

[Howlin]

My stomach turned.

Then turn it off.

[Howlin]

By conceding that this is even a federal issue Bush has betrayed conservatives yet again and we have already lost.

I actually agree with you, but not for the same reasons probably.

This is a HUGE mistake, IMO; Bush had no business jumping in the middle of this -- and it's going to backfire big time.

And I believe this is nothing more than pandering to the hard right; when the tidal wave comes, we can thank them for more than likely losing this election.

[maica]

Although I don't watch, I find the premise of Queer eye for the straight guy particularly insidious.

*****

So do I, as a past her prime woman, find the appeal of this show insidius. My, also elderly, female bridge partners, think it is so funny, wouldn't miss a show, etc.

They don't see that they are contributing to the mainstreaming of harmful behavior when they support that show. Of course, gays 'uniting' do not 'harm' 60-somethings. But how about their grandchildren? I am amazed at what people do NOT see as harmful to children, America's future.

[WhiteGuy]

So What?

I don't care.

This is leadership?

[Miss Marple]

If I am watching "Trading Spaces," I am watching decorating. What the characters do off-screen I have no idea, therefore I cannot find it reprehensible. They may be in the homosexual lifestyle; they may be acting a part; they may be celibate gays. I have no idea.

No one is asking me to watch them engage in sex. They aren't even MENTIONING it! As far as "Will and Grace" goes, I don't know becaue I don't watch sitcoms.

There is a big difference between a situation comedy which tries to make homosexuality acceptable, and a show which uses men who are possibly homosexual to give decorating advice.

Do you see the difference, with all due respect?

[Miss Marple]

I must disagree. It is not pandering. I have assumed for some time he would end up going with an amendment...especially after the Supreme Court action anad the Massachusetts court decision.

This is not pandering. It is a belief he has that without the amendment we will just have more of this stuff.

You should know he doesn't pander (regardless of what people think about his immigration proposal. Ha!).

[beckett]

The President is going to regret this. He and his advisors all are very well aware that a constitutional amendment will never get off the ground, let alone pass into law.

He made this speech to fire up his base, many of whom post here at FR. But his action also has the highly unfortunate effect of moving this exasperating and annoying, and, yes, minor issue onto center stage in the coming election debates. It doesn't belong there! We have more important things to worry about.