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..

[reg45]

We will not stand by and allow a bunch of un-elected, un-accountable judges to write faggotry into the Constitution.

[Miss Marple]

The most auspicious time for the President to do this was when we had had two weeks of the goings on in San Francisco on national television, with comments about how this could move to other states.

His backing of the amendment won't be lost in the shuffle now. Americans are paying attention.

[Sabertooth]

*Beware, beware, beware of a constitutional amendment. We don't want one. President Bush should have done his homework.......or he's being naive or ill-advised.

*The liberals and leftists will try to take over and control the amendment process and it can be a total disaster for us. Remember, they can file to amend the constitution with a variety of leftist amendments just as well as our side can file with just one, and at the same time, also. All kinds of mischief can take place. We can't take this chance.

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

You're thinking of Constitutional Conventions, and that is not what President Bush was discussing today. Conventions are open-ended, but a Constitutional Amendment passed by 2/3 of each chamber of Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures would stand alone, without a Constitutional Convention.

Gay marriage MUST be handled at the state legislature level!

That's already been done by way of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

Unfortunately the Massachusetts Supreme Court has found a way to trump the DMA. By ruling that same-sex marriage was protected by the Mass Constitution, the way was opened for a court challenge based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which holds that contracts entered into in one state are valid in all states. Since marriage is a contract, and since there is now a "right to sodomy" (and much more) based on last year's horrible Lawrence v. Texas decison, the SCOTUS would have no rational basis for exempting marriage contracts from the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

A CMA is the only way to prevent a few rogue judges from usurping power in this area and redefining marriage for the entire nation, forever.

President Bush is absolutely right to support a CMA.

[Howlin]

I know exactly what I was thinking of and I sure as hell don't need you lecturing me.

Bush can talk about a marriage amendment until the cows come home; Congress will decide whether it's the state legislatures or a Constitutional convention in each state that votes on any amendment they may pass.

[Sabertooth]

No doubt that's what Bush's aids are telling him.

Preventing Amnesty is as important as it ever was, but preserving the definition of marriage is more important.

[NittanyLion]

Leave to a pretender like you to think that somebody would take a stance like that simply because they don't like somebody. Very telling. Contrary to what you may think, this isn't a word game.

I think we both know that's exactly what's happened here. You're perfectly happy to tell conservatives they can stuff their opinions so long as the administration agrees with your views. The minute the administration wavers to your "opponents" side (i.e. conservatives on this site - or "unappeasables" if you prefer), all of a sudden they must be pandering.

It appears your entire thought process involved determining whether your cyber enemies would be in favor of this proposal, and then taking the opposing position.

[Mulder]

I wish they'd simply abide by the existing Constitutional amendments before adding new ones.

[Howlin]

It appears your entire thought process involved determining whether your cyber enemies would be in favor of this proposal, and then taking the opposing position.

Actually, I posted what I did because that's what I believe, period.

Make of it what you want; it's not as if you're somebody's whose opinion I value.

[NittanyLion]

Actually, I posted what I did because that's what I believe, period.

So you believe the Administration is pandering? I never thought I'd see the day...

[NittanyLion]

Bush can talk about a marriage amendment until the cows come home; Congress will decide whether it's the state legislatures or a Constitutional convention in each state that votes on any amendment they may pass.

Congress has only specified ratifying conventions in the case of one amendment. It's unlikely they'd do so for this one, but even if they chose to utilize that mechanism it would likely make little difference. The appeal of ratifying conventions is only there when populist opinion diverges from the opinion of state legislators, which I don't think is the case here.

[Sabertooth]

I know exactly what I was thinking of and I sure as hell don't need you lecturing me.

Bush can talk about a marriage amendment until the cows come home; Congress will decide whether it's the state legislatures or a Constitutional convention in each state that votes on any amendment they may pass.

Well, that's not what Leni was talking about in the post where she said "President Bush should have done his homework.......or he's being naive or ill-advised < -snip- >All kinds of mischief can take place," to which you responded "That's my understanding, too. Unless I am mistaken, once a Constitutional Congress was convened, they can change any damn thing they want to."

State ratifying conventions on individual Amendments are alternatives to ratification by state legislatures, and have nothing to do with the convening of a "Constitutional Congress," as you put it.

So no, the Democrats can't "change any damn thing they want to" because of President Bush's support of a CMA.

Here's Article V of the US Constitution, which explains the ways the Constitution may be Amended:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
U.S. Constitution

[Howlin]

Which part of THIS post:

"I know exactly what I was thinking of and I sure as hell don't need you lecturing me.

Bush can talk about a marriage amendment until the cows come home; Congress will decide whether it's the state legislatures or a Constitutional convention in each state that votes on any amendment they may pass."

made you think I was interested in any more of your pontifications about this subject?


Do you move you lips when you type all that stuff out because you love the sound of your own thoughts?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Preventing Amnesty is as important as it ever was, but preserving the definition of marriage is more important.

It's all smoke. What 3 percent of the population desires is almost meaningless compared to the epic invasion of our country.

[Sabertooth]

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

It's an ugly solution to an uglier problem.

Because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, the newfound right to "define one's sense of self and place in the universe" (to paraphrase Anthony Kennedy's civilization-erasing rhetoric in Lawrence v. Texas), and the Massachusetts ruling that their constituion contained a right to same-sex marriage, this issue was inevitably federalized, and the federalization was going to mean a redefinition of marriage by judicial fiat.

There is no other alternative to a CMA for preventing same-sex marriage, and the polygamy, polyandry, adult incest, group marriage, etc. that would follow. This could have been prevented with some well-targeted judicial impeachments decades ago, but those are shoulda-woulda-couldas.

President Bush is playing the hand he's been dealt. A little slowly for my druthers, but he's playing it correctly.

[Steve Eisenberg]

You know the thing I don't get, everyone is getting their bowels in an uproar over the gay marriage thing, but the thing I don't get is why we, and that's any of us, have to ask the government to get married in the first place.

You don't. Some liberal US churches have been doing same-sex marriages for 25 or 30 years. Howver, experience in Scandanavia is that when full legal recognition of gay marriage is granted, the whole marriage thing loses its allure for all but the most religiously committed, and you have the death of marriage. What is wrong with this: broken families.

My wife was widowed and our daughter thus is not raised by her natural parents. But she knows her natural father would be with her if he could. Most Scandanavian kids today cannot say or feel that. The crime situation now in American neighborhoods where marriage is the exception may be coming to all of us if we don't stop this thing. These are the stakes Bush does not have the cojones to mention. Actually, politically, he can't, because we have already gone too far down the libertine road with too many voters already being illegitimate parents.

[Sabertooth]

Which part of THIS post:

"I know exactly what I was thinking of and I sure as hell don't need you lecturing me.

Bush can talk about a marriage amendment until the cows come home; Congress will decide whether it's the state legislatures or a Constitutional convention in each state that votes on any amendment they may pass."

made you think I was interested in any more of your pontifications about this subject?

The fact that you dishonestly backpedaled from what you'd posted in the first place made it interesting to me to post further.

Do you move you lips when you type all that stuff out because you love the sound of your own thoughts?

Not to this point, but it might be fun.

Anyway, try to have more faith in President Bush on this one because he's doing the right thing.

[Howlin]

Anyway, try to have more faith in President Bush on this one because he's doing the right thing.

Honest to God, I'm amazed you aren't struck dead when you say stuff like that.

Don't think people aren't noticing that you all are trying to claim the credit though.....and getting a big laugh out of it.

[Sabertooth]

It's all smoke. What 3 percent of the population desires is almost meaningless compared to the epic invasion of our country.

It's not smoke, Joe.

We're now a few slam-dunk court decisions away from ending marriage as we've known it for 6,000 years. Once the redefinition starts, anything goes. In 20 years, every perversion of marriage will be a Constitutional Right in every square inch of our country, and we won't have borders worth protecting.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Your right, it's not all smoke. It's like everything else sliding down the slippery slope.

[rikkir]

"I think I'll just let your sanctimonious remarks stand on their own."

And yours as well.