"Bush hunts for way to doom gay marriages" --Randall Mikkelsen in Washington

The Sidney Morning Herald - Reuters - The Washington Post ^ | 2AUG03 | Randall Mikkelsen

[familyop]

Bush hunts for way to doom gay marriages

By Randall Mikkelsen in Washington

The Bush Administration may consider seeking a constitutional amendment to ensure a ban on same-sex marriages, the White House says.

President George Bush, who said this week that Administration lawyers were studying ways of banning gay marriages, was also opposed to civil unions as an alternative, said the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan.

Asked on Thursday about the possibility of a constitutional amendment, Mr McClellan said: "Obviously that is something to look at in this context."

Any official action would depend on the outcome of pending court cases - including an imminent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court - on the gay marriage issue, he said.

"The President is strongly committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage and defending a sacred institution that he believes is between a man and a woman," Mr McClellan said.

The move came as the Vatican on Thursday condemned same-sex unions as deviant and a grave threat to society. The strongly worded document was approved by Pope John Paul.

Mr McClellan said Mr Bush also opposed legalising homosexual civil unions, which are allowed in Vermont. Mr McClellan cited Mr Bush's support for current US federal law which rules that states are not obligated to recognise same-sex civil unions granted by another state.

Debate over the issue has intensified since Canada took steps to legalise gay marriages and the US Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in Texas.

Conservative critics say the Supreme Court's ruling could open the door to same-sex marriages in the US.

The Vatican joined the fray on Thursday, issuing a strongly worded document that attacked same-sex marriages as deviant and a grave threat to society.

The Supreme Court decision appears to have triggered a reversal to what was a steady erosion of opposition to same-sex marriages. Polls show public support for gay rights in general, and of civil unions for same-sex couple in particular, have since fallen by about 10 per cent.

Leaders of the Christian Right say this is because Americans have realised that the legalisation of gay marriage, which once seemed remote, is suddenly a real possibility.

Conservative Christians are urging the Republican Party to make opposition to gay marriage a big campaign issue in next year's presidential election.

Mr Bush said on Wednesday that he would not compromise his belief in the "sanctity of marriage". But earlier this month he said a constitutional ban on gay marriage proposed in the House of Representatives might not be necessary despite the Supreme Court's decision.

The 1996 Defence of Marriage Act, signed by the former president Bill Clinton, defines marriage for federal purposes as between one woman and one man.

A gay rights group, Human Rights Campaign, has criticised Mr Bush's stance, saying it suggests "further codifying discrimination".

Any proposal to amend the constitution must be approved by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate and be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

Reuters, The Washington Post

[familyop]

It's a good way to get the vote back from moral conservatives and ethnic groups we've recently found to be most morally conservative. Marriage Amendment, here we come. :-)

[breakem]

let's have one outlawing divorce and false Gods also.

[Paleo Conservative]

Marriage Amendment, here we come. :-)

We need to make Congress vote on it just prior to the 2004 elections.

[swheats]

Parden me for posting without reading this tripe.

Gay marriages are already doomed.

[Palladin]

It's just plain crazy that we need an amendment to the Constitution in order to assert what has been known from time immemorial, even to the pagans and cavemen, that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Sometimes I feel like Alice in Wonderland!

[dufekin]

We shouldn't need a marriage amendment. We simply need judges with either intellgence or instinct--or both--to reject as outlandish any attempt to change the pre-existing definition of marriage that has stood essentially unchanged for all of history, indeed all of eternity.

[HitmanLV]

Gosh, I certainly hope so.

I always wanted to run for office and just be blunt and honest. Like if some idiot reporter asked 'what would you tell the gays and lesbians in the community who are concerned about your stand on gay marriage?" I would just say, "Look, I'd tell them not to vote for me. I don't want to extend the marriage definition to their situation. If someone is straight and cares about gay marriage more than they do about national security and the economy, then I'd tell them don't vote for me, either."

How do you think the media talking heads would react?

[First Amendment]

Polls show public support for gay rights in general, and of civil unions for same-sex couple in particular, have since fallen by about 10 per cent.

YESSS! It's a start.

A gay rights group, Human Rights Campaign, has criticised Mr Bush's stance, saying it suggests "further codifying discrimination".

Actually "discrimonation" means using our God-given common sense and finer intelligence to determine the difference between right and wrong. Homo-activists have hijacked the term from civil rights usage indicating criminal racial discrimination. Now they are claiming that using our intelligence and common sense to see the difference between matrimony and two (or more) men (or women) committing sodomy with each other is just as bad as criminal racial bias.

[First Amendment]

That's DISCRIMINATION, pram!!! (can't you spel or reed?)

[Chad Fairbanks]

let's have one outlawing divorce and false Gods also.

Dang skippy! If anyone refuses to follow Ioskeha and Iouskeha, they will be put to the sword! Woo-hoo!

[LasVegasMac]

let's have one outlawing divorce and false Gods also.

Let's have one outlawing those that call for outlawing divorce and false Gods, also!

LVM

[RLK]

We don't need a constitutional ammendment. It would take years and we probably wouldn't get one anyway. Other than that, it's to specific a burden on the constitution. What is needed is simple reference to a dictionary and common usage of language. For 200 years in this country marriage has referred to a union between a man and a woman. The legal structure has been related to that context. That context and argument from that historical context makes a constitutional ammendment unnecessary.

[Kevin Curry]

We shouldn't need a marriage amendment. We simply need judges with either intellgence or instinct--or both--to reject as outlandish any attempt to change the pre-existing definition of marriage that has stood essentially unchanged for all of history, indeed all of eternity.

In short, we need a marriage amendment.

[EGPWS]

It's just plain crazy that we need an amendment to the Constitution in order to assert what has been known from time immemorial, even to the pagans and cavemen, that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Thats what happens when governments start dictating. If it wasn't for the "marriage perts" through marriage tax exceptions "gay marriage" would have never become an issue.

As for "plain crazy"? IMHO it's added to a list that could cover the distance of Rhode Island from shore to opposite shore.

I'm for the thrust to maintain the sanctity of marriage and what it stands for, and although it is a grain on the beach of craziness it's a start for a change of direction for the better.

[familyop]

We'll probably never get the right judges to do it without
the Constitutional Amendment. And see what lawyers are
making of the law now. The Constitutional Amendment is
the only way to fix the problem. It's the only way to
keep lawyers from further munging the meanings and contexts
of the Constitution.

And yes, maybe we should also clarify unabridged freedom
of religious expression to put a stop to the "separation
of church and state" nonsense. Granted, this wouldn't
go over so well in the handfull of brothel states,...

[Brimack34]

It is amazing who many post's and how many ways people can spin one line from a press conference. By the end of the weekend it will say Pres. Bush wants to get rid of all gay's.

[EGPWS]

In short, we need a marriage amendment.

You said it in the best and most concise way!

[BritExPatInFla]

breakem wrote: "let's have one outlawing divorce and false Gods also. "

Sounds great, but I'd have to insist on piggybacking an amendment that makes illegal the practices of 'Testifying' and 'Evangilizing' one's religion upon those not interested in what is being crammed down their throats. If you think about it, it's a fair deal. What you consider to be 'Immoral' will be 'outlawed' and what I consider an intrusion and general pain in the a$$ will be 'outlawed'. Everybody wins.

[July 4th]

Polls show public support for gay rights in general, and of civil unions for same-sex couple in particular, have since fallen by about 10 per cent.

I think the Supreme Court decision was a little wake-up call for people who tend not to pay attention. Basically, it's the majority of America who thought, "whoa, I've got nothing against gays personally, but this is just a bit too far."

[microgood]

Sometimes I feel like Alice in Wonderland!

So true. It is really sad that President Bush has to spend his time doing this at a time like this.

Its like 9/11 never happened.