Posted on 05/17/2004 12:11:17 PM PDT by george wythe
President Bush renewed his call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday as gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts became the first in the United States to marry legally.
"The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate," the Republican president said in a written statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at wireservice.wired.com ...
Still, local officials in Provincetown, Worcester and Somerville, have said they will not enforce Romney's order and will give licenses to any couples who ask, as long as they sign the customary affidavit attesting that they know of no impediment to their marriage.Sure enough, Chris McCary, 43, and his partner of six years, John Sullivan, 37, of Anniston, Alabama, were first in line outside town hall in Provincetown Monday morning.
"This is the most important day of my life," said McCary, who planned to return to Alabama with Sullivan, even though their union won't be recognized there. "This window could be closed in the future but it's still worth it."
Better yet if he could get a vote on it in Congress this year.
Justice Clarence Thomas correctly predicted this whent he SC overturnded the Texas statute last year. He further said that if would not be long before polygamy advocates make their case in court. My fearless prediction is that very soon, three men, or three women, will sue for the right to get married..
Right now, most Sheep think 'not my problem'... it will become real to them when gay couples return from MA to have the marriages enforced in states like Missouri, Ohio, etc...
Bush's reiteration of his stance will get buried as usual. When POTUS utters the phrase "activist judges", the public ought to sit up and take notice. This is not just partisan play or assuaging the base. It is objectively true that activist judges are over-reaching their properly limited authority.
I will stay home on Election Day. Republicans sold out traditional marriage by doing nothing except to decry this and wring their hands. They did not act; neither will I. Let their opponents be elected.
How could they act? Bush isn't a dictator that can unilaterally overrule State Supreme Courts. A lot of people are against gay marraige, BUT they are equally against amending the Constitution for something so frivolous.
Sept. 21, 1996 –- President Clinton signs Defense of Marriage Act into law. The law prevents federal government from recognizing same-sex “marriage” and gives states the option of not recognizing another state’s same-sex “marriage.” The law partially is in reaction to court rulings in Alaska and Hawaii.
Nov. 3, 1998 –- Voters in Alaska and Hawaii overwhelming approve state constitutional amendments, ending threats from respective states courts to legalize same-sex “marriage.”
Dec. 20, 1999 –- Vermont Supreme Court rules that the state must give legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Legislature follows by legalizing “civil unions.”
Nov. 18, 2003 -- Massachusetts’ high court rules that the state’s marriage laws violate the state’s constitution and that same-sex “marriage” must be legalized. Court stays its opinion 180 days.
Exactly. And the news media is doing its best to cover up the whole day and the implications to come in a town near you.
Oh, grow up!
Huh? what do you want Bush to do, send troops to invade Massachucetts? Everything that could be done was done, whether the votes are there to do something more is up to the electorate. you want change - we have to have the votes to make it happen. If the other side has the votes to elect people - they win on these issues, its that simple.
Actually, I would think many people simply don't see this as their problem, period. After all, it's not as if they're being told they can't marry who they choose. Truly, I think that while I have no desire to marry someone of the same gender, this is none of my business (and I suspect many other Republicans would agree with me--big government isn't just something you rail about when you don't want to pay taxes, it's something you truly don't want intruding into your business for no good reason).
If you are a member of the so-called Religious Right, and you believe that the government should be telling us what we can and cannot do, you are *not* anti-big government, you are not libertarian (with a lower-case L), and you are not being particularly mindful of the Constitution. Sure, get all upset when you're asked to pay income taxes, but suddenly some people you don't know want to get married and it's a moral abomination that must be stopped?
What, please enlighten me, is the legal or rational justification for this?
Bush is the last stand.
I'm a CONSERVATIVE, not a religeous right, who is against the courts redefining what marriage has always been - a union between a man and a woman.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Bush is saying what I want him to say. And today is a good day to say it.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Go see your physician, REAL FAST!
Tell him you need his help to remove your head from your A$$!
Once that task has been accomplished, get some anti-liberal media bias Visine and wash your eyes out!
We don't want or need Hanoi John Kerry and turning our future over to the UN, just because you and other Republicans with thin skins got your collective panties in a wad!
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.