Bush move to ban gay marriage takes pressure off Newsom

SF Gate ^ | 2/25/04 | Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

For as much as they oppose President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and his crew wasted no time spinning it their way.

They even see Bush's move as having given the pro-gay marriage forces a tactical advantage -- one that takes a bit of the national heat off Newsom himself.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

And Bush should keep his hands off the Constitution.

[mrsmith]

"the gay marriage boom has netted the city $375,000"
The state should prosecute this guy for fraud since I suppose none of these victims of Newsom's fraud will file charges.

It's sad that we have to amend the Constitution just to protect it from the courts, but the evidence is that we do.

[SolutionsOnly]

The real issue here is renegade judges. We need to start impeaching judges for legislating from the bench and circumventing the democratic process. I'm totally opposed to the attack on the institution of marriage, but I'm not in favor of a constitiutional amendment.

[Joshh86]

right on

[George from New England]

Just like the pro-life issue where the media calls us anti-abortion...

This is about defining marriage as 1 man and 1 women, NOT banning gay marriage.

[Desron13]

"How it started: Believe it or not, up until the mid-1970s the California law that San Francisco is now challenging said nothing about marriage being between only a man and a woman."

Before 1970 the thought that marriage could be something other than between a man and a woman never occurred to 99% of the people. Just goes to show how fast and how far we have sunk.

[reagandemocrat]

It was Newsom's uncle, Ed Asner, who said "First we take down Rush, then Sean Hannity". Well last I checked, both Rush and Hannity were going stronger than ever.

I'm sorry Mr. Asner, but it looks more like, first goes Gray Davis, then your nephew.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The real issue here is renegade judges. We need to start impeaching judges for legislating from the bench and circumventing the democratic process.

Power to the gays or any other group fighting for their agenda in a Democratic manner.

Courts rule on the constitutionality of laws, they don't impose current cultural climate on the people, and certainly have not the right to make their laws.

[Tempest]

The latest disingenous arguement from the liberals is that there is no constitutional admendment neccessary and that it should be a states right issue?

Is anyone actually stupid enough to buy into that load of crap?!

Errrr... guess what. The state of California disallows gay marriage. The city of SF is in defiance of state law. The city will take the case to the supreme court to overturn the law on a civil rights matter and most likely win.

Does anyone still not understand why there needs to be a constitutional admendment?!?!?

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Does anyone still not understand why there needs to be a constitutional admendment?

The root of these problems lies in activist courts.

[mrsmith]

The Founders obviously did not intend for 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states to have to take an action that they allowed a way for merely 2/3 of the Senate to handle.

But the courts have such high esteem among the citizenry (which esteem they are throwing away with their poll-driven partisanship) and the media that the general understanding is that a judge should not be removed for his rulings no matter how egregiously wrong and harmful they are.

[Joshh86]

yeah the word ban is used far 2 often, we should define what is right not itemize and ban everything that isn't.




(Did i say that right?)