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..

[BigSkyFreeper]

Don't you think it would have been better to have formed the HSD before 9/11 instead of after, for example?

Either way you would have come on here wondering "What the hell is he doing?!?"

[justshutupandtakeit]

It was Barron vs the Mayor and city council of Baltimore.

[BigSkyFreeper]

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

You betcha! Just bought some popcorn at the local market this afternoon.

[BigSkyFreeper]

..there is very little chance this will actually win the approval of 38 of the 50 states...

61% of California voters disagree with you.

(getting 2/3rds of the Senate to go along is hardly a given, either),The Democrats (namely Boxer and Frank) are in favor of the ban on gay marriages for political reasons. They're only coming out against Bush because he finally took a principled stand. They hate Bush, that much is known, but Democrats tend to masquerade their core principles, which is to truly screw up this country, just to win over votes.

[thinktwice]

I think this will be going to the Supreme Court before it reaches the Constitutional Amendment stage, and then the Amendment should not be ratified; because ...

The institution of marriage is legally a secular matter, and religious customs should not conflict with individual freedom in a free, secular, and multicultural nation.

[Imal]

Thanks for the reference! I found a writeup on it at www.constitution.org.

Although I need to read and digest it fully before rendering my final opinion on it, my initial impression is that it was a bad decision.

The Commentary by Jon Roland which accompanies the decision, and appears both well-informed and well-considered, agrees with my impression.

Just because the Supreme Court has decided something does not mean it's right or constitutionally correct, nor that it can't be addressed by Congress, the states or the people in the future. It is binding until overturned, but it can be overturned.

History is rich with examples, both current and ancient, and this seems to be one of them.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Still, with Bush's early support imagine where we'd be on it today instead of where we are.

You'd still be asking "What the Hell is he doing?!?"

[BigSkyFreeper]

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?

Yep, "What the Hell is he doing?!?".

You spend your days on here criticizing every Bush speech, stance, and headfake, you're never satisfied before, during, and after the event.

[Common Tator]

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?

What you or I believe is not worth a warm pitcher of spit.

Did you ever notice that woman have the vote? And about half the voters are women?

No judge who wants to live past tomorrows sunrise would be so stupid as to make polygamy legal.

Even the supreme court will not cross an angry public.. especially if half that public is female.

American women will not share men.. they may kill 'us but they won't share 'us.

[BigSkyFreeper]

You did infer he was dragged kicking and screaming to the podium this morning after all that foot dragging since May 21, 2003. Nevermind it was without question he was against gay marriages as far back as the RNC Convention in 2000 in Philly. This much is publically known. What isn't known is when he grabbed hold of this core principle of being against gay marriages. I'd say it's been decades, since it's known he's publically a very religious man. What is important to this discussion is that he wasn't dragged kicking and screaming. If anyone is kicking and screaming now, it's the Democrats who've always been for gay marriages.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Daschle will have to go against his core political beliefs and side with Bush if he is to save his political skin this year.

[Imal]

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.

I'm referring to the doctrine of "selective incorporation", which has everything to do with how the 14th Amendment is being used to pervert and apply the 1st Amendment outside its clearly defined and restricted scope.

The doctrine was instrumental in the supreme court decision (McCollum) which effectively elevated a phrase from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, "separation of church a state", into a universal law.

Selective incorporation, and the abuses resulting from the wording of the 14th Amendment, is at the heart of many modern constitutional problems, but it is just one of many consequences of imprudent or misinterpreted constitutional amendments. Much of what we call "judicial activism" and "judicial legislation" these days can be traced back to this doctrine, and the judicial philosophies behind it.

As for local corruption, I can only say that we get the government we deserve, not the government we want. The people of a locality can clean up their government, but only if they want to. The same applies to our federal government, but it's a lot harder, especially in light of how many people eat federal pork these days and how much of the corruption is now enshrined in law.

As an aside, although I may not agree with you on every point, I must thank you for your opinions and information, which clearly originate from a wizened mind. Also, I am grateful that our exchanges are not as rancorous as they might otherwise be, and that my initial impressions of you were apparently quite wrong indeed.

This is exactly what I come to the Free Republic for.

[BigSkyFreeper]

It's a win-win situation for Bush. The losers in this debate no matter what happens, are the Democrats.

[Imal]

Correction: I used the term "selective incorporation" in some places where plain "incorporation" should have been used.

"Incorporation" was the overall principle that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states.

"Selective incorporation" points to the fact that, in practice, the Supreme Court has only applied some of the BoR amendments, and not others.

Sorry for the mix-up.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Those 38 states did so by Constitutional Amendments, California being one of them. No different than the crux of what Bush proposed.

I agree it should be left up to the state, but to say this gives the Feds more power is "bravo sierra". If your heterosexual and married with kids, this proposal on the surface has nothing to do with you personally.

[BigSkyFreeper]

If someone offers you an smidgen of tolerance, take a cupful.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Bush has betrayed conservatives

The way I see it, the Democrats are now back to where they were in the first place. For gay marriages. For the last three weeks, they were on the same page as the American people, but once Bush let it be known just where he stood vis-a-vis gay marriages, they cleared out of the corner and let it be known, they've always been for gay marriages.

[BigSkyFreeper]

This will be the test of just who truly is for or against gay marriages. Watch the Democrats come out against Bush's proposal, while we've been watching them tell San Francisco to stop the nonsense for the past 3 weeks.

[Imal]

Although Chief Justice Marshall's opinion has some philosophical persuasiveness, the reason it is wrong is fairly simple.

His argument that the U.S. Constitution was binding only upon the federal government is inconsistent with several provisions within it that apply to the states, but the one with which his argument, and thus the decision in Barron vs Mayor, cannot be reconciled is the Supremacy Clause:

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The decision was wrong, and the Bill of Rights, as with the rest of the Constitution, is very much binding upon the states and supercedes anything contrary to them, with the sole exception of the 1st Amendment, which is binding only upon Congress (just like it says!).

[MEG33]

Reading your posts,I can see there is great disappointment
over being constantly let down by people not acting as they should ,or if they do,not using proper words and timing.I realize you are not slamming Bush.

You are slamming the imperfection of mortals.Some are more perfect than others.