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..

[MrB]

Why should we have to amend our Constitution to do this?
Those in favor of gay "marriage" should have to get the amendment - the onus is on them.

All that has to be done is remove this from the "incorporation" doctrine. Let the states vote their laws, allowing or disallowing, and don't make other states honor the "union" legally.

[anniegetyourgun]

Welcome to FR. There couldn't be a clearer difference between two candidates - on prosperity, security, character, or domestic issues.

[mwl1]

You are being unduly harsh. There can be room for more than one leader.

Bush is putting the prestige of the presidency behind this proposed amendment. That alone constitutes leadership.

[JohnnyZ]

You can run, Johnny, but you can't hide...

But I'm not running OR hiding . . .

[Petronski]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED....



....that ABC News broke in on regular programming to carry these comments. They think it's a losing issue for Dubya.



Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!

[Califelephant]

Remole is right: we need to change the terms of the debate from "Civil Rights" to the "Greater Good of our Children". Without this amendment, sooner or later our the message our government will be sending our children is that it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether you marry someone of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex.

[MJY1288]

I knew it wouldn't take long

[dixiepatriot]

This is good. Now if we could only get Bush to ban illegal immigration, call for the repeal of "campaign finance reform", reverse his position to support the Clinton gun ban, reverse his decision to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, put the brakes on his massive spending proposals, etc......

[William McKinley]

Reflex criticism and objection merely marginalizes oneself.

[mwl1]

Do those jackasses really think this is a losing issue for GWB? Arrogant, elitist fools.

[af_vet_1981]

We shouldn't allow civil unions for gays either - period.

There should be no sanction for homosexual behavior whatsoever. It is abomination.

[RightWingMama]

Thank you for the ping.

Howard Kaloogian who is running for the Senate has started a recall of our Attorney General today! He refuses to stop the San Francisco mess.

[MrB]

government will be sending our children is that it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether you marry someone of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex...

or one, or two, or a dozen people,
or 21, 18, or 8 years old, (the left's ultimate goal),
or human or beast.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Of course it will. You cannot make the mistake of believing there is any good will in that bunch.

[Imal]

There is no way I will ever support monkeying with the Constitution for issues like this that clearly should be decided by the states.

This is precisely the sort of thing the Constitution's architects warned us to avoid.

I hold no malice toward those who seek to ban gay marriage at the federal level -- I oppose it, myself -- but this is just another step in a continuing trend away from a true republic consisting of sovereign states and toward a growing monolithic federal despotism that will spell the death of a free America.

With the notable exception of the first ten, virtually every amendment to the Constitution has resulted in far more harm than good. This would be no exception.

We don't need to concentrate more power in the federal government. It has far too much power already, through grant and usurpation, with potentially ruinous results if we do not reign it in while we still can (if we still can).

Opposition to gay marriage is legitimate. Buying into the idea that the federal government is the only government we have, and the only place for addressing issues that have always been the domain of the states is wrong-headed and dangerous.

I urge those supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, or any modifications to the United States Constitution to carefully consider the dangerous consequences of taking such and approach.

[OXENinFLA]

I hope C-span re-runs this later tonight, I don't get FNC at work.

[King Black Robe]

The Musgrave amendment is fine with me. If a majority of a state legislature wants civil unions, then they shall have them. But keep in mind, even the Vermont legislature was forced by the courts to decide in favor of civil unions. No state legislature has yet decided in favor of this on their own accord, other than California's domestic partner law -- one that contradicts the will of the people in California. But the people can change their voting habits to correct it if they so desire.

[cyncooper]

You are absolutely correct.

[Peach]

So you're here! There are only 3 threads on about this.

[freeperfromnj]

This is great. He's going to force Massachusetts ketchup boy to take a stand on the issue.