Posted on 11/10/2004 5:56:22 AM PST by SmithPatterson
Bush speaks on gay unions By Bob Mahlburg Tallahassee Bureau
November 10, 2004
TALLAHASSEE -- Republican Gov. Jeb Bush weighed in on the explosive issue of same sex marriage Tuesday, saying he might support a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if the courts open the door to such unions in Florida.
It was his strongest statement yet on the issue and came the same day that the Florida Baptist State Convention in Jacksonville unanimously agreed to seek a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Bush said he thinks the state's Defense of Marriage Act prohibits gay marriages, but he might back putting a constitutional question on the ballot if court rulings force the issue.
"If there was a threat that gay marriage would be accepted in our state, then I might be supportive of it," Bush said. "I'm not sure it's necessary to do this in a pre-emptive fashion."
Bush said he thinks the Legislature would enthusiastically back a constitutional move to ban same-sex marriages if conditions change.
Gay groups and some liberal state lawmakers pounced on the governor's comment, saying it could signal a political move to push for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage such as those passed last week in 11 states.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
I don't see why anyone would see this an "explosive issue", state after state have approved a ban by very wide margins.
So Jeb loses the sodomite vote, which he never had to begin with.
I just hope this does NOT turn into the Bushs answer to "Don't ask. Don't tell." in that homosexuals can a 'civil union', just not a 'marriage' (like there will be a difference when the dust settles except in name only).
Here in Georgia we don't even DEBATE the issue and it still only passed around 2 out 3 for it. If it have been debated it might have been an around a even 50/50 split that could have gone either way. So this issue may not be as popular as you think.
that's exactly true. I don't see why politicians have to cater to groups that won't vote for them anyway.
I agree. Civil Union laws will turn into an effort to make all marriage civil unions. (per the homosexual lobby)
The only issue is whether an amendment with a definition of marriage and a prohibition of civil unions would violate the "one item rule" for amendment initiatives.
I'm not familiar with Florida law. Can Jeb run for a third term?
No, Jeb Cannot run again. Florida has term limits.
But I'm sure Jeb would like to leave office with an R Governor in place.
I think Jeb is the only one who can beat Nelson for the senate.
HUH?
The only issue is whether an amendment with a definition of marriage and a prohibition of civil unions would violate the "one item rule" for amendment initiatives.
I think it would because 'civil unions' and 'marriages' are being define as two separate issues. And because of this the Bushs have painted the religious parts of the Republican party into a corner on the issue. I give them credit, that is clever.
WHAT STATE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? The General Assembly of Georgia was nearly torn apart in the debate over gay marriage. That debate--with Dems opposing the effort to put the issue on the ballot--was the single biggest political issue behind the transformation of the state House from majority Democrat to overwhelmingly Republican for the first time since Reconstruction. And the amendment itself passed with 78% of the vote--which is quite a bit more than two out of three.
If there had been any more debate on the issue in our state, the only Democrats left would be the gays and lesbians!
I was NOT talking about the General Assembly, I was talking about the election in itself. I live in rural Georgia and barring a three paragraph article in the back of the local newspaper, there was not discussion, let alone debate on the issue. And the fun part is that those I talked too in my town were against the Ammendment.
So I was around 10% off. Last I heard it was 2 out 3. No need to go rabid on the subject.
This is NOT and "explosive issue." This last election made that clear.
There's a lot more wrong with your original post than your statistics. I cannot imagine why you think more discussion of the gay-marriage issue would have led to a closer vote. That is the line that was adopted by the gay-marriage advocates, and it was--and is--beyond ridiculous. If I sound "rabid" to you about it, that is because I hate seeing DU-style lies repeated on this forum.
Because all one would have to ask is "How is homosexual marriage a threat to hetrosexual marriage?". I have previously asked this question here on F.R. and have yet to recieve a logical answer, a lot of ranting and bible quoting, but not a rational, let alone a logical answer too the question.
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.