Bush Reiterates Call for Gay Marriage Ban

Reuters ^ | May 17 2004

[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.

[nopardons]

From time immemorial,marriage has been between a man and a woman and in a few cases, between a man and several, to 1,000s of women;thought most were considered concubines,which is NOT wife status and NOT exactly marriage either.

Governments,from Ancient Persia,UR,Israel,Egypt,Greece,and Rome, ALL had laws about marriage and NONE of them allowed marriages between men or between women.

The marriage between one man and one woman is the cornerstone of every civilization.

Libertarians,either big or small Ls,all talk about someone's rights ending at the end of their noses.Though you appear to be unable to see the consequences of same sex marriage,upon the larger populace,I suggest that you now begin to investigate it.

[breakem]

I'm asking this guy a question related to his position. This is done on dozens of threads a day. What's the problem?

[little jeremiah]

You have not answered any of my questions about your views on homosexuality. You must have missed that post.

Which views of Jim Rob's do you disagree with?

[KrispyKringle]

I agree that gay marriage should neither be promoted nor discouraged; I simply don't see any issues I find terribly compelling here.

[VRWC_minion]

Actually, I would think many people simply don't see this as their problem, period

It will cause the weakest in our society to eventually lose the protections they have by the marriage laws. We have today redefined the purpose of marriage as being the confering of rights. In doing so we have begun the legal journey of moving from a marriage contract that imposes obligations of the individual parties to one that confers rights.

As time and cases go by this reorientation will result in cases the ban the states from imposing any obligations on parties. The pace will be particularly hastened when gay divorce hits the courts and the concept of impoverihsed spouse and abandoned children lose their importance to the more important issues of whose rights are whose.

[Admin Moderator]

You're stalking, I suggest you stop it now.

[little jeremiah]

Which lifetime are you asking about?

[breakem]

I am trying to get a relevant question answered. There is a strong possibility that we have a hypocrit. He says he has answered one of the questions before. He will not tell the answer or provide the link. I am trying to point out that his refusal is significant. I did not intend to repeat it over and over. That in my eyes would then be stalking.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks, he's really lost his wits today. Stuck on like a burr on a longhaired cat.

I have absolutely no problem debating in a rational or even slightly heated manner with those who disagree with me. But breakem's really crossing the line here. His personal animosity is not healthy.

[breakem]

Can't respond to your sarcasm now for obvious reasons. C-YA

[VRWC_minion]

Marriage is something legislated and conducted by states, not by the federal government, and if voters in a particular state decide they want to allow gay marriage, why should that suddenly be made illegal, due to federal intervention?

Because the way the constitution was written, federal laws will require each state to recognize the other states marriages. The cuurent federal law that supposedly stops marriage from being recognized by other states won't hold a challenge to the constitution. Everyone knows this.

[nopardons]

You don't know that laws about marriage,in one state, are guaranteed by all others,by the Constitution,I guess.

Could you explain WHY you joined FR today,please?

[little jeremiah]

I don't believe you. If you don't find the issue of "gay marriage" compelling, then why did you sign up on FR today to support it?

You are being disingenuous at best. I don't believe you are telling the truth about your viewpoints. If you really didn't care you wouldn't be here even entering the discussion. You'd be at Walmart or working or something.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Hypocrisy is not a wonderful thing, but it is not the worst thing. Let's focus on the issues, opinions, and facts.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Let's take KK at his words for now and just debate honestly. Those who signup to dishonestly trash a position usually show their colors soon enough.

[KrispyKringle]

I didn't. I signed up to answer a post about Iraq (check the chronology of my posts if you don't believe me). My post on gay marriage was really an offhand comment, nothing more.

I don't find it a terribly interesting discussion, as I said before, and I don't really feel like continuing it. I don't personally see a big difference between marriage and living together--which presumably these couples are already practicing--except for the tax issues, and I don't know enough about tax law to have a big opinion on it.

[Unam Sanctam]

Civil gay marriage in and of itself is a promotion of homosexual activity -- an imprimatur by the government. Unlike heterosexual marriage, which should be encouraged for the sake of children, there is no public policy reason for the state to encourage homosexual activity through civil gay marriage.

[nopardons]

You may have studied Latin,but you obviously don't know that same sex marriage,in Ancient Rome was proscribed/illegal.As a matter of fact,Augustus Caesar's marriage laws,clearly stated that ALL those who would hold office,MUST be married...MARRIED TO A WOMAN,and his laws were NEVER repealed.

[JCEccles]

You want to make it a federal issue for no good reason, simply because you happen to dislike the notion, on a personal level, of gay marriage.

Unless gay marriage is prohibited by Constitutional amendment the day will come (sooner rather than later) when a liberal SCOTUS will extend the judicially-fashioned Massachussets rule on all states via the 14th Amendment, including states that have passed laws and constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage. It is destined to be an all-or-nothing contest. Your laissez-faire solution merely eviserates the state legislatures that are opposed to gay marriage.

Federalism will not work in this instance. Liberals courts will not allow it to work. So, you can't have it both ways. Gay marriage will either be forced on all 50 states, or it will be banned in all 50 states. Do you really prefer the former?

[hunter112]

If he isn't a conservative in any way, shape or form, he should find himself another place to play.

Well, I'll admit, I didn't look up any of his posts on any other thread, but there are a lot of conservatives who question the way the WOT is being fought. I'm one who thinks that you either use diplomacy or fight to win. You don't win a war by being PC in your military tactics.

KK's statements about gay marriage are not dissimilar from other non-religious libertarians on FR. His abortion views, while not on the far right extreme, are certainly not leftist, either. Those people regard abortion as a feminist sacrament. His gun views are not left, either. Anyone who favors carry permits for law-abiding, sane adults cannot be considered leftist. As for the UN, if it were 100% American values that infused it, we'd all be for it, too. Certainly its degradation into a Third World scam pit has soured conservatives on it, to the point we'd like to see it abolished.

As for who KK voted for, I find it notable that he admitted to voting for no one in the last election. I can understand that a lot of people without strong feelings for one side or the other in 2000 were just simply turned off to politics. I'm sure a lot of them in the post-9/11 era realize that it is no longer an option to simply not care about who gets in, and who doesn't, and they are casting about for answers to their questions.

I understand that many people question the posts of newbies, and I further understand that this is a tough day for you, and many here at FR, but please, lets try to see if we can persuade KK, if he's a sincere individual, to see the rationality of the majority of our reasons for voting for the President, rather than Sen. Kerry.