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

Fox News ^ | 02.24.04

[Sabertooth]

*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.

Back atcha, only half-factetiously.

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.

I'm only taking credit for realizing back when Lawrence v. Texas was handed down that a CMA was necessary. Why shouldn't I? I posted extensivley on the matter.

I also said that President Bush's comments regarding the sanctity of marriage were the surprise high-point of his last SOTU speech.

So, yeah, I'm taking credit for being on the right side of this issue, early.

From your posts on this thread, it appears that you don't believe a CMA is necessary. Why not?

[puroresu]

Your posts are right on. Plus, once "gay marriage" is imposed on us by the federal courts, it will be only the beginning. The gay propaganda aimed at kids will increase exponentially. School texts will eliminate "homophobic" terms such as husband and wife. Gay sex acts will be taught (they already are) and gay couples will be featured as normal. Courts will order schools to have gay counselors. Courts will strike down any remaining restrictions on gay adoptions.

The narrow 5-4 ruling upholding the Boy Scouts' right to freedom of association and freedom of conscience will likely meet the same fate as the 5-4 Georgia sodomy ruling from the 1980's.

Imagine a restaurant owner or other business proprietor who offers a Valentine's Day special for couples and fails to include gays. Federal lawsuits will blossom.

Churches that don't sanction "gay marriage" will become increasingly marginalized. The treatment Bill Pryor received from Senate Democrats will be childs play once a fundamental right to "gay marriage" has been declared. Such churches will likely be barred from many faith based programs and could even lose their tax exemption.

As we've seen in Canada, Sweden, and elsewhere, hate crimes laws can be used to actually criminalize opposition to homosexuality. True, we have a 1st Amendment which will be a barrier for the gay radicals on this issue, but we'll also be at the mercy of "liberal" justices as to which is most important: Free Speech or the "right of gays to be free to be themselves without suffering negative vibes," or whatever other term our touchy-feely judges might come up with.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is needed.

[Howlin]

From your posts on this thread, it appears that you don't believe a CMA is necessary.

Care to link my post insinuating anything close to that?

[Torie]

I don't know your stand, but here is my stand, which is in the I don't know column. I call them as I see them and sometimes my call, is "undecided." I see no real need to make a rush to judgment on a Hobson's choice matter. I posted it to jwaslsh07 elsewhere.

"I still think an amendment giving Congress the power to resolve this matter is best. But nobody listens to me. I dislike the idea of an amendment that precludes a majority from deciding the issue, one way or the other. And it is a federal issue of course, it has to be, for reasons which we both know. Now I have to weigh an amendment that trumps the rogue courts (or indeed rogue state legislatures), but also trumps my "right" to have the majority agree with me some day. Those are two trumps cards that when played together cause me cognitive dissonance.

[Sabertooth]

*From your posts on this thread, it appears that you don't believe a CMA is necessary.

**Care to link my post insinuating anything close to that?

These two (red and bold emphasis mine):

---

To: rikkir; Miss Marple

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.

473 posted on 02/24/2004 12:20:07 PM PST by Howlin

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: Burkeman1

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.

475 posted on 02/24/2004 12:26:35 PM PST by Howlin

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

So, have I misunderstood?

Do you support a CMA?

[Sabertooth]

"I still think an amendment giving Congress the power to resolve this matter is best. But nobody listens to me. I dislike the idea of an amendment that precludes a majority from deciding the issue, one way or the other."

Well, it precludes an Orwellian majority. Marriage already has meaning, and a definition.

What is the sense of empowering the majority with the ability to vote that fish are frogs or cats are dogs?

"And it is a federal issue of course, it has to be, for reasons which we both know. Now I have to weigh an amendment that trumps the rogue courts (or indeed rogue state legislatures), but also trumps my "right" to have the majority agree with me some day. Those are two trumps cards that when played together cause me cognitive dissonance.

The CMA is a dirty fix to the immediate symptom of the rogue judiciary.

We just don't have time for the necessary impeachments.

[Howlin]

So, have I misunderstood?

A quote about Will & Grace is against CMA?

Saying Bush shouldn't have jumped in the middle of this is against CMA?

I see that you're no longer content to tell us what we can and cannot say to each other, now you're telling us what we say!

[Torie]

Well, it precludes an Orwellian majority

I strongly dissent from the notion that those that think that one adult committed to another desiring to seal the bond in marriage, who are not within the strictures of cansanguinity, is "Orwellian." I strongly dissent from that. Orwell was all about the issue of killing off the human spirit for self realization in favor of some impersonal state goals, achieved by evil ends. The analogy is inapposite and tendentious.

I also strongly dissent from the notion that this issue should be loaded in process for one side or the other. That is a recipe for toxicity in the public square, as we have seen over and over again.

Give democracy a chance. I think Americans overall by and large make intelligent choices over time. I am generally amazed at their good judgment.

[Sabertooth]

A quote about Will & Grace is against CMA?

In the context of a thread where the President announces support for CMA, and you say "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," it doesn't seem that you're talking about Will and Grace, so one might think you were talking about... the CMA.

Saying Bush shouldn't have jumped in the middle of this is against CMA?

When you also accuse President Bush of pandering to the hard right and risking a tidal wave of an electoral backlash, it kinda sounds like you're against CMA.

That's why I've been asking you if you are, because it appears that you are.

Feel free to clarify your position.

I see that you're no longer content to tell us what we can and cannot say to each other, now you're telling us what we say!

I'm telling you what your posts appear to say.

What's your position on CMA?

[Howlin]

I'm telling you what your posts appear to say.

To you, maybe, but everybody else that replied to me about that post knew exactly what I was talking about.

Sometimes word mean what they spell.

Feel free to clarify your position.

Not to you.

[sigarms]

1. I believe that homosexuals (and any non-heterosexuals for that matter) have the right to whatever private relationships that they choose.

2. But these relationships should be excluded from all of our public institutions, because any public recognition of gay marriage (or 'civil unions') necessarily involves the issue of children and families.

3. The gay relationship violates nature's order. Having a child placed into the care of a homosexual couple causes psychological harm to that child. We should not allow our children to be harmed by a fundamentally disordered environment.

[Kryptonite]

Your comments remind me of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. More pithy of course, but equally prescient.

[Sabertooth]

I strongly dissent from the notion that those that think that one adult committed to another desiring to seal the bond in marriage, who are not within the strictures of cansanguinity, is "Orwellian." I strongly dissent from that.

It's Orwellian because it's redefining words for the purpose of social manipulation.

Orwell was all about the issue of killing off the human spirit for self realization in favor of some impersonal state goals, achieved by evil ends. The analogy is inapposite and tendentious.

I think you're splitting hairs here. States are made of people, and people controlling the state have certain goals. Orwell showed how whatever goals the ruling elite might desire can be achieved through the dishonest manipulation of language.

I also strongly dissent from the notion that this issue should be loaded in process for one side or the other. That is a recipe for toxicity in the public square, as we have seen over and over again.

Yep, bad things will probably come from this. Worse things will come from not doing it.

Give democracy a chance. I think Americans overall by and large make intelligent choices over time. I am generally amazed at their good judgment.

It's by democracy that a CMA would be submitted and ratified.

[Torie]

It's by democracy that a CMA would be submitted and ratified

Yep. But you have succeeded in moving slightly in favor of opposing it, because I am so irritated. No doubt I will in time remove this exchange from the equation. I still find the term "Orwellian" offensive, and will continue to do so in any event. The term is not conducive to calm debate.

[Sabertooth]

To you, maybe, but everybody else that replied to me about that post knew exactly what I was talking about.

Doubt it.

Sometimes word mean what they spell.

Word do?

Not to you.

You win; I've been neenered.

[Torie]

By the way, the manipulation of langauge charge also misses the mark. You are making the a priori assumption, that by definition, the term "marriage" cannot apply to gays, even though it is a legal term, and we are talking here only about legal terms, which are defined by law, and law is subject to change. The issue to me is what is the best way for the public square to hash that issue out, in a state of disagreement.

In the religious sphere, define it anyway you want. I don't care.

[Howlin]

I was referring to the Will & Grace discussion.

And the ones who replied to me about the "pandering" remark didn't seem to think I was coming out against CMA.

Only you did that; but, of course, you're trolling again.

[I'm ALL Right!]

THAT'S MY PRESIDENT!

[jwalsh07]

I think you're off target on Orwell. He even coined a new term for it, newspeak. I think it is apt.

[jwalsh07]

new•speak ('nü-"spEk, 'nyü-), noun, Usage: often capitalized. : propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings. Etymology: Newspeak, a language "designed to diminish the range of thought," in the novel 1984 (1949) by George Orwell. Date: 1950