Posted on 01/16/2005 10:41:43 AM PST by Mike Fieschko
WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush (news - web sites) will not actively seek to ban gay marriage in the United States during his second term in office, a stance certain to anger the social conservatives who helped re-elect him.The Washington Post asked Bush if he would aggressively lobby senators during his second term in office to pass an amendment outlawing marriage in all 50 states.
"I do believe it's necessary," Bush said Sunday. But he went on to imply that pursuing it in the US Senate, which must approve a constitutional amendment by 67 of its 100 votes, would be futile.
Many Senators think the Defense of Marriage Act, an existing law that allows states not to recognize gay marriages enacted in other states, is sufficient, according to Bush.
"The point is, is that Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take that admonition seriously," Bush told the Post.
Bush voiced active support for a gay marriage ban during the 2004 presidential camaign, whipping up support from social conservatives including Evangelical Christians who turned out in droves to re-elect him.
Immediately after his election victory his top political strategist said the president would "absolutely" continue his fight on the politically and socially divisive issue.
"Without the protection of that amendment, we are at the mercy of activist federal judges or activist state judges who could, without the involvement of the people, determine ... that marriage no longer consists of a union between a man and a woman," Karl Rove told Fox News.
"Without the protection of that amendment, we are at the mercy of activist federal judges or activist state judges who could, without the involvement of the people, determine ... that marriage no longer consists of a union between a man and a woman," Karl Rove told Fox News.
Washington post...
slanted but correct that unless the DOMA comes under attack, senators will use that as an excuse not to pass an amendment. No way can he get 67 senators to approve it now.
I don’t think that the Amendment was such a big deal to social conservatives, but I do think that watching the renegade mayors and judges cram gay marriage down the electorate’s throat made them and most everyone else angry.
I think what’s most important for us all was to stop the radical gays' momentum. Bush stopped it dead in its tracks, and that’s what’s important.
I think we are in a battle of diminishing backlashes. Most places in America, the electorate reacts decisively against gay marriage when there is a political choice. Fear of that backlash will stall momentum for quite a time, and may even further marginalize the radical judges who dare to leap into the breach.
But pushing for a Constitutional Amendment does have an opposite backlash. Even though I am in favor of FMA, I can see putting it on hold.
It's good hardball, the Republican Senators can lay off the media storm on Bush, and the Prez loses little by doing that which he said that he would do.
I doubt that anything will ever happen if something is not done in 05.
They just can't help themselves, but in this case it will backfire on the WP's liberal agenda.
But if we forced them to vote on it now, a no vote could be used against them the next time they're up for reelection.
2 words for ya "W" Constitutional Convention. We The People Need NO Federal Govt's permission to hold one of those. AND the US Constitution does not was what a National Con Con has to look like so these could be VERY dangerous!
"I think what’s most important for us all was to stop the radical gays' momentum. Bush stopped it dead in its tracks, and that’s what’s important."
Agreed. The DOMA is a strong piece of legislature that needs to be wielded like a club. I don't want to see the Constitution amended over "Gay Marriage." We have more pressing matters than that.
"The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law."
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
If Bush does not intend to push for an Amendment against Same Sex Marriage, He should start to retire the Federal Judges that misinterpret the meaning of the Laws!
I think this whole episode was a political ploy by Bush.
It was a way to appeal to the base while knowing all along
that a constitutional amendment would go nowhere. If you
doubt this, I refer you to Article V of the Constitution
which says that simply to PROPOSE an amendment requires
2/3 of congress or the state legislatures. But to RATIFY
an amendment requires 3/4 of the same! Bush and you and I
know very well that we have a better chance of walking on
water than to see this come to pass. DOMA will probably
be ruled unconstitutional because it violates the "full
faith and credit" clause of the constitution.
I am very much aware of the difficulties of ammending the US Constitution. You should reread the full faith and credit clause. Congress is authorized to write laws regualting how and what the full faith and credit clause applies to.
Yes, but you seem to forget that we are living at a time
when the Judicial branch has preempted the role of the
Legislative branch - we have activist judges who prefer
to be legislators. Unfortunately, the old saying is only
too true -- " it's only law if the court says it is."
If you disagee, please explain to me how the supremes
could uphold laws that impose racial discrimination in
the recent Michigan case, albeit in the name of "affirmative action" ? I could cite 1000 other examples
but you doubtless are too familiar with them already.
Proposition 187 in California was overturned by a few
pointy-headed judges despite its passage by a large
majority -- and so it goes.
I don't know but those pinhead judges (look at the
9th circus court of appeals!) could care less about Bush
and his polls. They're not elected or accountable so they
do what they damn well please.
"I do believe it's necessary," Bush said Sunday. But he went on to imply that pursuing it in the US Senate, which must approve a constitutional amendment by 67 of its 100 votes, would be futile.
- Human Events[HE]:
- What is the most significant thing that happened during the impeachment process that the country doesn’t know about but should?
Schippers [S]:- I think the most important factor that the public should know that they don’t know is that, before we ever appeared on the floor of the United States Senate, the House impeachment managers and I were told that there was no way we could win.
- HE:
- Who told you that?
- S:
- Six Republican senators. Members of the leadership.
- HE:
- Members of the Republican leadership came over to you?
- S:
- No, we were over there. We were discussing the kind of method by which we would try the case, and we, the managers and myself, were told, “Look we’re just trying to keep you from embarrassing yourselves.” I mean, this is after a vote of the House of Representatives impeaching the President.
In that same meeting one of the senators -- and because I do not know which one it was, I will not name any of the senators -- turned to Henry Hyde and he said, “Henry, I don’t care. No way are you going to get 67 votes.” This was before anything had occurred on the floor of the Senate.
Schippers Speaks (but nobody listened)
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.