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

Fox News ^ | 02.24.04

[Imal]

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.

Do you have the case name or number for that? All I keep turning up is Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 30 U.S. 1 (1831), and I don't see that particular issue addressed there (although I could have missed it).

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.

I'm referring to the campaign to remove religious symbols from public property, suppression of religious expression in schools, etc. These are very current and very well-publicized events. To claim that the 1st Amendment prohibits these things isn't exactly true. It only bars Congress from making laws respecting them.

The spillover and jihad rely on the use of the 14th Amendment to apply the 1st Amendment in a manner which is opposite to its original meaning based on relatively recent decisions like McCollum v. Board of Education 333 U.S. 203 (1948), etc., in which "separation of church and state", a doctrine not actually supported by the Constitution or prior statute, assumed the status of law. It has all gone downhill from there.

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)

I will never be convinced that incompetence or greed for power in state government is a good reason for abandoning the republic in favor of a large, monolithic, all-powerful "federal" state. It is easier to clean up the government of a state than to clean up the federal government, which is far more bloated and corrupt than any state government could aspire to be.

The U.S. Constitution clearly and unambiguously defines a true republic. That's the form of government I want and believe I am entitled to under law. To the extent the powers that be deny me that, they are not doing so under legitimate constitutional authority, but as despots.

[EllaMinnow]

If he was truly pandering to the right, he'd have come out against civil unions, which he didn't.
He wants every state to make its own choice and set its own rules on civil unions, but have the same legal definition of marriage that as always existed - a union between a man and a woman.
It boils down to a couple getting married in Massachusetts in May can't return to their home state and file a joint/married tax return. I know it won't be done by May, but we're in for several years of court battles anyway - IMHO, the amendment will help states define their own standards.

[idget]

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong in my conjecture here?

My problem with gay marriage is that I believe that once you've changed the line from man/woman to "consenting adults", I can't see how one can rule out polygamy. Isn't that discrimination against 3 or 4 or more "consenting adults" in love?

Therefore, I believe the argument becomes economic. Do employers now have to pay benefits for all spouses, no matter how many? Can someone tell me what impact polygamy would have on state & federal benefits? Why has no one brought this up? (Or have I just missed it?)

[rikkir]

I do see the difference. I was only stating that I find the entire lifestyle offensive. That's JMHO. The only thing that I found a problem with was the statement that we wouldn't have any style without homosexuals. I kinda figured you were joking.
I just get a little tired of losing things that entertain me because of someone injecting their agenda into. Not just the gay issue, but the list of shows that I have turned off (because that's what everyone tells me I should do instead of complaining) due to the constant slamming of consevatives grows and grows. I am a huge movie and music buff, and I miss the enjoyment of this hobby because jacka$$es like Whoopi, Alec B., G. Clooney, can't just support their party, without calling me stupid, bigoted, homophobe, etc.
I dont' have a problem with TSpaces. My wife and I watch regularly. No offence meant, and I don't even call for the other stuff to be removed. I turn it off.
Sorry it took me so long to respond, I type slow.

[Dr. Marten]

I strongly disagree with as do many other people in this country.

I do agree that there are many other issues that need to be dealt with, but I believe that this one is no less important either.

[nopardons]

Right you are.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Would it have been more courageous and shown more leadership to have embraced this last May?

Back then you would have said "What the Hell is he doing? That does it for me, I'm not voting for him come November 2004". As if you were going to vote for him in the first place anyway. You've never found thing one to like about Bush. All you do is spend your posting time on here criticizing every little move or headfake by Bush.

[BigSkyFreeper]

No, you can impeach out-of-control activist judges. We should have done it over a lot less than this and a lot sooner than now.

In some instances, the people can decide that themselves at the ballot box.

[BigSkyFreeper]

We know what God thinks of homosexuality

In many ways I think God is working through Bush to turn this country and the world around on it's heels.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Yep .. and that was just a warm up .. these nitwits won't know what hit them.

Agreed! Like I said on this very forum weeks ago when many were saying "Why isn't he fighting back!?!", he'll come out with all guns blazing at the Democrats. We're just witness to the very start of this fight.

[Trinity_Tx]

I'm far from being a legal encyclopedia too, so I honestly don't know. I'm right in the middle of things here at home, so I don't have time to research it now but I will... I'll ping you on whatever I find out - please let me know if you do as well, ok?

I know that in Loughran v. Loughran, the scotus said a state can refuse to honor something that violates a 'strong public policy' codified by statute, which is why so many states recently codified their marriage laws. That should be enough, but we all know it wont be.

I don't like amending the constitution or making it a federal issue either. But since we know it's going to wind up before the SC, it seems that we're better off with a specific amendment they can't ignore. Otherwise we take the chance of their using something as foggy as the right to privacy to force all states to legalize gay marriage.

[BigSkyFreeper]

He's a leader by coming out in favor of an amendment he didn't author and that was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary nearly one year ago on May 21st, 2003? Sounds like a follower. Musgrave is the leader.

On that specific date, the nation's focus was trained on the liberation of Baghdad. Banning gay marriage wasn't even registering on the radar screens of voters of all persuasion, including the gays.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am sorry but I don't have the name but it had something to do with Baltimore. Bolton vs Baltimore or something along those lines. I get nothing from Google on that but will try and find the reference and get it to you.

The religious issues you reference are all based upon twisting the meaning of the 1st amendment they are not related to anything in the 14th.

One would believe that state or local government is easier to clean up but the reality is that that just in not true. Federal government employees, officials and elected officers are FAR less corrupt than their state and local counterparts. In Chicago bribery is a way of life and has been for over a hundred yrs. We have had ex-governors jailed in Illinois for financial misdeeds and hope to include the last Republican one in that list. While Clinton was an exception to the rule most Presidents are far more honest than state officials. LBJ was also an exception. But Presidents have generally been financially honest even if deluded or misinformed.

There is no definition of a "republic" in the Constitution. Most Founders agreed that it was essentially a form of government with rotation of officers, representative elections and no titles of nobility. Other than that it was pretty vague. And the vast majority of the population had no vote or voice. In Virginia prior to the Civil war about 2% of the people could vote. Northern states were not so restrictive but only a tiny minority made up the electorate in most states there as well.

[BigSkyFreeper]

It's funny! Just last week, Democrats were saying this wasn't the time or place (CA) to be doing this and it needs to stop. Bush comes out against gay marriages by way of this speech this morning, and the Democratic party as a whole does a flip-flop! Demonstrating that the Democrats were using their "against" stance all along as a political tool to regain power.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The Democrats, namely Boxer and Frank have been "playing politics" on this issue long before Bush come out this morning to "play politics" on this issue. The Democrats are now FOR gay marriages by coming out AGAINST Bush! I love it!

[Mo1]

Agreed! Like I said on this very forum weeks ago when many were saying "Why isn't he fighting back!?!", he'll come out with all guns blazing at the Democrats. We're just witness to the very start of this fight.

My mother use to say .. all good things come to those who wait

So make sure you're stocked up on the popcorn .. it will be fun to watch

[BigSkyFreeper]

Reading through this thread, that's the first thing you got right. Congratulations. LOL

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" The issue was not ripe at that time, and the media would have just painted him as an intolerant bigot creating a problem that didn't exist just for political gain. That would have done more harm than good to the cause. As I said in a previous post, in politics, timing is everything. Newsom and the Massachussets SCOJ changed the political dynamic."

You are right on. Last spring, we did not have lines of gay couples in bridal ensembles, kissing and exchanging rings on national tv.
If you flipped on the tv the last two weeks, while getting the kids ready for school,you were greeted with those very hard to explain images.
A picture is worth a thousand words and what may have been an intangible last spring,has now splashed like Rosie O'Donnell doing a cannonball, into everyone's living room.

[unspun]

In Boston today they are holding a Fisting seminar at a college. It is sponsored by the Massachusetts DOE!

"If it feels... good? ...do it?"

Nothing like piece of M'ass-achusetts.

[BigSkyFreeper]

On a more serious note, the acknowledging the gripes and acting in favor of the gay movement isn't about shedding the shackles of slavery. The gays aren't enslaved, period.