Congress Not Rushing Gay Marriage Ban

30 senators already have announced that they're against it, including a good number of Republicans. Note also that a significant number of Democrats from strongly blue states haven't registered their opinions yet. And you might want to check-out Article V of the U.S. Constitution - it's 2/3 of all Senators required, rather than 2/3 of all Senators present at the vote.

So it looks like this is gonna fail, hehe! You might as well give it up. Too bad.. this was your last chance to pass something like this before younger, more socially liberal voters begin to vote more often and influence U.S. policy more. That, and don't forget demographic changes that the country will go through.. with Latinos & African Americans casting near 50% of the vote, the Democrats will more easily control the government and not have to worry much about this, haha!

This battle of the culture war is all but over. We're just going through the motions now. Mwa-ha-ha-ha!!! Suckers!

Zotus Maximus....where them nordic kitties at? Hey, do I get a bounty for this?

when the SCOTUS tosses the Federal defense of marriage act, these positions will shift.

This Amendment is Dead on Arrival - for now.

The Elephant in the Room is when newly married gay couples from MA try to have their marriages recognized in other states.

I think the only fair solution is to get the State out of the marriage business entirely.

when the SCOTUS tosses the Federal defense of marriage act, these positions will shift.

I happen to think GWB jumped the gun on this one.

Why not post the article as it appears at the originating website?

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) wants quick election-year enactment of a constitutional amendment prohibiting gays from marrying each other, but Republicans in Congress are not rushing to heed his call.

After Bush's announcement Tuesday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said it would take time to gauge the level of support in Congress for a constitutional amendment. He suggested the difficulty of passing one may cause lawmakers to take a different approach to preserving marriage as a solely man-woman union.

"We don't want to do this in haste," DeLay said.

The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, and his leading rival, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina, struggled to make their opposition to Bush's stance clear as they carefully tiptoed around politically sensitive turf.

Kerry said he supports civil unions, "and I think that that is permissible within state law and it ought to be."

"If he really wants to help married couples, what he should be doing is helping them resolve their economic problems, their health care problems," Edwards said while campaigning in Georgia.

Meeting long-held expectations of his most conservative supporters, Bush argued that same-sex weddings threaten the institution of marriage — and thus society — and that actions by several local jurisdictions allowing gay marriage make federal intervention the only recourse.

"If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America," the president said. "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."

Bush called on Congress "to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification" an amendment to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. He had opposed legalizing civil unions as governor of Texas, but Bush left the door open for states to do so now — an alternative gay rights groups find insufficient.

Bush's conservative supporters who view prohibiting gay marriage as a priority were thrilled.

"We are delighted the president has stepped forward on this issue and his announcement serves as a critical catalyst to energize and organize those who will work diligently to ensure that marriage remains an institution between one man and one woman," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a law firm founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson.

A majority of Americans — sometimes by as much as a 2-1 margin — oppose legalizing gay marriages. Still, Bush's move could hold political risks, especially if voters see him as intolerant or question his self-description as a "compassionate conservative."

Democrats promised to fight the amendment and criticized Bush for wanting to use the Constitution to take away rights. They said he is trying change the subject from questions on his leadership, the economy, his Vietnam-era military service and the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction he had alleged were in Iraq (news - web sites).

"President Bush is tinkering with America's most sacred document in a shameful attempt to turn our attention away from his record as president," said Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

Several GOP lawmakers said they would prefer to see Congress take a different route rather than amend the Constitution.

Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000, said he doesn't support a constitutional amendment. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary," he said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the matter should be left to the states, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue.

With some conservatives wanting a broader approach than Bush supports, and others opposing federalizing the issue, DeLay said it's "going to take some time" to unify those groups and examine other options.

"Constitutional amendment — I believe that is the ultimate remedy left for the Congress," he said. "We are looking at other ways of doing it."

The Log Cabin Republicans (news - web sites), a gay GOP group, worried that Bush risks alienating the 1 million gays and lesbians who voted for him in 2000 by pushing for the constitutional amendment.

"We believe that this is a move to start a culture war, fueled and pushed by the radical right, that will end up in George Bush's defeat, and defeat for a lot of good Republicans who are with us on equality," Mark Mead, the group's political director, said in an interview with AP Radio.

President Bush wants quick election-year enactment of a constitutional amendment prohibiting gays from marrying each other

As a supporter of President Bush, I certainly hope this isn't true. The Constitutional amendment process is not supposed to be a political campaign tool.

You're calling us "suckers?" Hahahaha.....

perhaps. but still, I like it. Lets put the SCOTUS on the spot too. Let's get everyone on board with where they stand on this, let everyone take a position.

You have to condsider who we are dealing with--politicians. They make a career out of calculating and positioning based on the way the wind is blowing. They can afford to take positions on a dead letter that they couldn't take on something with any chance of passage. I don't think this will really ferret anyone out.

Goodbye!

I happen to agree with you.

This amendment should not be necessary. These actions by SF's mayor and the Massachutsetts judiciary are lawless and unconstitutional. We simply cannot amend the constitution every time the left decides to disregard it. We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.

Whatever happened to just doing the right thing because it is right! obviously a man marrying a man or woman marrying a woman is wrong. What do you say about a society that can't even agree that marrigage is about a man and woman cohabitating and the woman bearing chldren. What kind of society are we evolving into? WHere did we go wrong?

Very well stated. I think everything got turned topsy-turvy when the country saw and allowed Clinton to circumvent the law time and time again. It took away what dwindling respect that was left in many peoples minds for law and order.

I happen to think GWB jumped the gun on this one.

I think so, too. Is this setting up a repeat of the 1992 convention?

I happen to think GWB jumped the gun on this one.

Disagree. Bush sent a shot across the bow. Normally, a proposal to amend the constitution has about seven years to go through the process. Congress will start focussing on an amendment once someone challenges the constitutionality of DOMA and probably wins.

The media must do a better job of pressing politicians on what they mean when they say that gay marriage is a states' rights issue. This line is being spouted by weasel politicians like Kerry, Edwards, and Barney Frank to avoid taking a position on the issue. Kerry and Edwards have taken the dodge that most of the politicians have used, i.e., "although I am personally against same sex marriage, it is up to the individual states to decide." Kerry also says his position is the same as Dick Cheney's.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) states that,

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

The reason for this clause is that the Federal government needs to have a definition of marriage in order to administer social security, federal pension plans, and survivors benefits just to name a few. The DOMA currently defines marriage and spouse, but without a Constitutional amendment, the courts can declare DOMA unconstitutional. The Federal government cannot avoid this issue and hide its head in the sand.

Kerry voted against DOMA and Edwards said he would have also if he had been in the Senate at the time. I wish someone would ask Kerry and Edwards what definition of marriage the Federal government should use to administer its programs. It would be very difficult for them to wiggle off of that hook.

Whatever happened to just doing the right thing because it is right!

It's not that simple. We can say always tell the truth, but what to do when your wife asks you if she looks fat, and you think she does? There are practical realities the prudent person considers before taking action. Knowing the right outcome is certainly important, but knowing how to achieve it is something else altogether. Know what I mean?

The DOMA currently defines marriage and spouse, but without a Constitutional amendment, the courts can declare DOMA unconstitutional.

Well, I think we should blow up that bridge when we come to it, and not before. But you have a well thought out argument, and I am certainly not the wisest soul in the world, so who knows? We shall see what happens.