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..

[livius]

Excellent post!

[Imal]

Do you have any specific examples of that? I haven't seen anything which really explores issues such as the 10-year-old marriage example.

As for the the Nevada divorce issue, I found an interesting article on Williams v. State of North Carolina 317 U.S. 287 (1942), but that was was somewhat clouded by such issues of service of process and residency, and while it covered a lot of ground, including "full faith and credit", I'm not really sure it clearly decided the issue in question. I would presume there is a better case example for that.

Based on what I have seen (and admittedly, I am hardly a legal encyclopedia), there is indeed a strong bias toward honoring court decisions in other states (both based on Article IV Sect. 1 and 28 USC 687 passed pursuant to it), but I have not seen anything that specifically requires a state to "accept as legal that which it specifically prohibits by law" within its own jurisdiction, and the consequences of any decision which would do so would not be trivial.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The USSC ruled in 1831 that the BoR did not apply to the states. I once believed as you did wrt to state applicability but sadly it ain't true.

There has been no jihad against Christianity launched under color of the 14th just the 1st. Nor against religious expression. Feds have used the 14th to force equal treatment under the laws and have intervened in political issues such as drawing lines for voting districts etc. but not in the areas you indicated.

State legislators make the Federal look like Solons. They are among the biggest clowns I have ever seen. Illinois' legislature is pathetic and the others not much better if at all. There is little doubt that the most talented soon leave to federal office if possible. Our whole history shows that it is not a presumption but an observation of reality. A handful of states have legislatures which provide a model but they are almost always MORE grasping of power than the feds. (Wisconsin, NY, California)

[livius]

Bush had no business jumping in the middle of this

Normally, you might be right. But remember that in this case, the states have proven themselves incapable of regulating this issue, even when they actually have laws on the books defining marriage. This is thanks to activist judges, in the case of MA, and thanks to local pols in the case of CA, aided and abetted by an out of control legal apparatus (SF Supreme Court and Lockyer).

So in this case, as much as I normally oppose things like this, I think there's little other option but to go the Federal route.

[puroresu]

This issue is a HUGE winner for Bush and the GOP, though they will have to remain vigilant and not let the 'Rats weasel their way out of the trap. Kerry, for example, can't be allowed to get away with his phony claim to support states' rights on this issue.

I'm pleased with President Bush's endorsement of the amendment. I was worried he wouldn't have the political will to do the right thing. It'll boost his candidacy big time.

[puroresu]

You're right. Because of the actions of the courts and the gay lobby, the states' rights option is dead. There will either be a constitutional amendment banning "gay marriage", or such "marriages" will be forcibly imposed on all the states via a federal judicial decree.

[Howlin]

The law of unintended consequences is what bothers me about it.

And isn't there ANYTHING Arnold can do? I mean, they are HIS laws, aren't they?

[RWR8189]

If you get married in Vegas is it still good in Washington?

[Miss Marple]

Arnold has done what he can do. He ordered the AG of California to file motion to stop this. Lockyear has been dragging his feet. Remember, everyone in the California government is democrat, except Arnold and a few advisers. The legislature is democrat, so they areen't going to impeach the judges. Arnold COULD call out the National Guard, but how would that provide a permanent solution?

The only course for this is an amendment; even taking it the Supreme Court wouldn't guarantee us a victory, as we have sadly learned the last couple of years.

[Howlin]

It's just a big damn mess; I wonder how many "couples" will be "married" by the time they even get to a vote on the floor of Congress?

I have my doubts about whether they can get it out of there.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I was a Sununu Town Chair, so, no, I am not smarting over the defeat of Crazy Bob Smith.

[GraniteStateConservative]

With early support it could have already made it through both houses. At least we could have pressured the Dem hold outs and pinned the whole Dem Party as out of step with mainstream America early on. We could have possibly hurt interest in the Dem primary by independents and conservative Democrats and we might still have Howard Dean in the race. Bush had much more political capital last May than now and the state of things today could be different.

[rikkir]

"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."

I have every right to judge or decide what I believe is right or wrong, but I do not have the right to be agreed with. I also I believe as this is a forum for political discourse I can state my beliefs. My "assumption" of what you find reprehensible was based on your staement that you like the show "Will and Grace". I have watched, and I find it offensive, however as with all assumptions, I should have waited until you stated what part of the show you like and what part of the show, if any you don't. Point taken.

"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."

You are correct, it would not bother me. If I had a child who was homosexual, I would still believe it was wrong. I am not calling for their arrest, harrasment, etc. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. Too many people in this country have a problem with standing up and stating what they believe because the favorite response is for someone to jump up and say who are you to judge. Well I'm just me, and I believe I have the right to that something is right or wrong. We do it all the time, ie. laws. Some people don't believe pedophelia is wrong (NAMBLA) are we not to judge them?

"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."

No I did not mean disrepect, how dare you assume to know what I am thinking any more I did to you. As far as an agenda, If you do support the homosexual agenda (which I will not assume) it is those who have saturated my TV viewing with a homosexual character in something like 60% of the shows on air, when that part of the population only represents 1% of us who is shoving their agenda on someone.

As for my "proselytizing" unless JimRob or one of the Admins tell me otherwise I will continue to speak my mind. We can agree to disagree but you will not shut me up.
So what's next, am I now a homophobe?

[livius]

I know, there is always a danger that some activist judge will find one of those "penumbras" in any new amendment...You know, Amendment XYZ, Penumbra 3.

[NittanyLion]

Tons of FR people long for a dictator.. You know what a dictator is, don't you? A dictator is someone who could care less what the voters want, and only does what he thinks is right. I used to not understand how Germany om 1933, then the most educated nation on earth, could vote in a Hitler. But many posters on FR show me why. They long for a principled leader that will not wait for the public and instead will act on their desires. That is how Germany got Hitler. And with the state of the economy in Germany today, I would not be surprised to see them do it again.

A dictator is "one ruling absolutely and often oppressively" (Merriam Online) - not someone who merely does what he/she thinks is right. In the US, we expect our politicians to work within the bounds of the Constitution; so long as their actions are consistent with that document they're certainly not a dictator. Foolish politician, perhaps.

You're an intelligent poster - I'm surprised you'd make such an off-the-wall claim as this. Indeed, your thinly-veiled comparison between FreeRepublic posters and Hitler supporters is beyond the pale.

Thank goodness this nation has never had a principled leader who does what he wants. Every President so far has done what a majority of the voters wants or he has been defeated or removed.

While that's certainly the mechanism in play when we put politicians up for reelection every 2, 4 or 6 years (and rightly so), I find it odd that you'd "thank goodness" we've never had a principled leader. Are you suggesting that principled leadership and electoral appeal are mutually exclusive? If so, I'd beg to differ.

[Cboldt]

I wonder how many "couples" will be "married" by the time they even get to a vote on the floor of Congress?

Exactly zero, if the rest of the world refuses to recognize the illegal acts of the SF mayor. "Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

[livius]

Someone on another thread also raised the possibility that, if this is accepted as legal, churches will be forced to perform gay "marriages" or lose their tax exemption. I think this is probably what is going to happen, and I suppose it will, if nothing else, separate the sheep from the goats. Some churches will do it, and others will just put the property up on e-bay and start meeting in people's houses (as in Red China).

[rdb3]

Tons of FR people long for a dictator.

I completely agree with that statement.

Let the blow fall, I await its coming.

[NittanyLion]

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.

I've never seen you accuse President Bush of pandering to any group. Are you really so jaded by internet disputes that, when the President agrees with your "enemies", you must then disagree with him?

Isn't it possible that in this instance conservatives and President Bush could simply be right?

[Cboldt]

If you get married in Vegas is it still good in Washington?

It depends. If you were married to a cat, no.

So-called "full faith and credit" isn't as cut and dried as it sounds.