Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage [Live Thread 10:45 Statement]
Fox News ^ | 02.24.04

Posted on 02/24/2004 7:15:06 AM PST by Dr. Marten

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 621-632 next last
To: sinkspur
I'd add that he did the same with Joe Lieberman's idea for a Homeland Security Dept.
41 posted on 02/24/2004 7:32:59 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: KJacob
Can you say rope-a-dope?

Suspected this all along.

Looks like the Left misunderestimated him again.

Let the enemy define himself first, then counterpunch.

It's the same thing with Vietnam. DNC brought it up and now doesn't want to talk about it.

If McAwful is getting paid ANYTHING, he's being overpaid.
42 posted on 02/24/2004 7:33:13 AM PST by EEDUDE (Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: zarf
It will solve the "wild west" attitude of Democratic government officials who blatantly break the law in the name of misplaced "compassion".
43 posted on 02/24/2004 7:33:48 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
I should have said the Bush bashers.
44 posted on 02/24/2004 7:34:08 AM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
Marriage defined as between a man and a woman.

Activist judges -- and wayward mayors -- take heed!
45 posted on 02/24/2004 7:34:16 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Gotcha. "Extreme" right has become a generic label that the Democrats slap on anyone in favor of saving society.

46 posted on 02/24/2004 7:35:22 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping -

Bush steps up to the plate.

I wish they wouldn't call it Gay Marriage. It's not like the Gay Nineties.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this list.
47 posted on 02/24/2004 7:35:28 AM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zarf
This is most certainly not "pure politics"...sounds like something a DUer would say. The President has felt this way ALWAYS.
48 posted on 02/24/2004 7:35:51 AM PST by Wait4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
It's been apparent he backs it to those with eyes to see and ears to hear...

Now he'll spell it out for those who didn't "get it".

49 posted on 02/24/2004 7:35:51 AM PST by cyncooper ("Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
We shouldn't allow civil unions for gays either - period

We should not confer status based upon the fact of having sexual relations, or not-except for marriage.

Any two persons should be able to contract with each other to perform certain services and to hold power of attorney (I think this is now the case, if not, it should be).

Normal contract law should govern such relations, including a term up to and including ones natural lifespan, and nonseverability with specified damages for nonperformance or termination.

In this regard, personal services contracts entered into between homosexuals would be (legally) stronger than marriage.

The state does not have to "permit" such contracts, it already does.

What homosexual "civil unions" or "marriages" do above and beyond personal service contracts is confer public recognition that a relationship is sexual in nature.

This, the People seem manifestly unwilling to do-even to the point of amending the Constitution to prevent it.

50 posted on 02/24/2004 7:36:13 AM PST by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EEDUDE
If Mcawful were a Republican plant what would he do differently?
Just kidding, but his hate message seems to really help republicans.
51 posted on 02/24/2004 7:36:28 AM PST by KJacob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
He had not yet made a decision to back the ammendment process but I think the actions of the pro-gay mayor in SF might have just broke the straw on the camels back.

Yes, he had. He said in his SOTU Address that if activist judges continued (and that speech was before Mass and CA and NM acted) that the amendment would be the only recourse.

Logic dictates that by pointing that out, he backed that course.

52 posted on 02/24/2004 7:37:58 AM PST by cyncooper ("Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 1Mike; 3catsanadog; ~Vor~; ~Kim4VRWC's~; A CA Guy; A Citizen Reporter; abner; Aeronaut; AFPhys; ...
Breaking News Bump!
53 posted on 02/24/2004 7:38:07 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
If I remember correctly, he said he was against gay marriage way back in the 2000 campaign. This is not "pure politics" as one poster said. Some people are never happy no matter what the President says or does. Nothing is ever enough.
54 posted on 02/24/2004 7:38:12 AM PST by Wait4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
civil unions may have to be left to the states to decide

You are correct.

55 posted on 02/24/2004 7:38:24 AM PST by cyncooper ("Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
Thank God!!!!!
56 posted on 02/24/2004 7:38:28 AM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
We don't need to amend the Constitution. We need to be impeaching judges.
57 posted on 02/24/2004 7:38:39 AM PST by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
True. True.
58 posted on 02/24/2004 7:38:47 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
It will happen.

Mark my words.
59 posted on 02/24/2004 7:38:54 AM PST by cyncooper ("Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wait4Truth
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.
60 posted on 02/24/2004 7:39:05 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 621-632 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson