Posted on 10/26/2004 5:05:21 AM PDT by ruralgal
"ruralgal" new to FR 10/22/2004.
Time to report your proud dirty work to your fellow "clymers" at DU.
Sounds good to me. Let states decide.
Ever occur to you it's what he actually believes?
Bush is pushing for a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees what the states have asked for all along, and what they have on their books as law ALREADY. These states need the amendment because they have already voted for and passed laws regarding this issue.
Unfortunately, we are now living under an unconstitutional "Judicial Fiat", where the laws are made by the Judicial branch instead. The voters, and the legislators have no power in the present structure. A new amendment, properly written, should correct the situation, not just address this one issue.
Gay "marriage" and "civil unions" are two different things. The latter are arrangements that make it easier for unrelated people living together to dispose of assets, etc. Some states, for example, recognize "commmon law marriage," and some don't; probably any changes would be similar to the regularizing of common law (heterosexual) marriages.
The Constitutional amendment relates to gay "marriage."
He's not saying anything different than he has always said, but ABC was fishing for a soundbite, and unfortunately they got one.
Dirty work? Did I do something wrong by posting this? Gay marriage is one of my main issues as a Christian so this is very relevant to me.
Yes. We're asking for another 70 billion in emergency funding for Iraq. Flopsweat will howl that we don't have enough money for flu vaccine, heated classrooms, clean water, grandma's defibrillator and government subsidized cheese! I would have thought we could have held off on that request until Nov. 3rd.
Nonsense.
I don't agree. A civil union is the equivalent of marriage in all but name. I do oppose it and so do the American people.
Wake up! Can you not see that every day now the NYTimes is trying to hit President Bush and help their boy, Kerry? Everyday!
It is disgraceful. The Times is engaged in blatant political activism. It's as if Terry McAulliff is actually directing what hits he wants the Times to take on President Bush
It is so obvious. You are a hopeless fool if you fall for it, or succumb to it.
I understand the difference between civil unions and gay marriage, but I'm strongly opposed to both. It's an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
Instead of believing snips from the NY Times let's wait to see and hear what was really said - I have a hard time believing Pres. Bush would say something like this one week from election.
I have to say this dissapoints me.
He's not saying that Gays should be able to get married, though. He's saying that they should be able to have the same rights as married couples if the states choose to approve it. The difference is that while granting rights to homosexuals, it does not make homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples and so does infringe on the rights of those who view homosexuality as wrong. The biggest threat of gay marriage, and the major reason that the gay lobby is pushing so hard for it, is that once Gays are considered the same as heterosexuals, it would be only one more step to declaring any teaching against homosexual behavior to be a hate crime.
Ah, another hit piece by the NYT. Trying to cut into the Presidents base.
Josh...That was in response to your step in another pothole question.
States rights. States rights. States rights. That's Bush's position. And it's the right one.
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.