Ashcroft rules out gay 'marriage,' but not civil unions

[Nambe]

Washington Times (rag)

Attorney General John Ashcroft yesterday left open the prospect of a system of civil unions for same-sex couples amid the raging debate over homosexual "marriage."

Mr. Ashcroft said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday" that he supported President Bush's call to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

But he declined to comment on the Bush administration's stance on civil unions, which would grant same-sex couples many of the same rights enjoyed by married couples.

"That's a very complex question that I'm not going to make a recommendation on. We're doing research on that now," Mr. Ashcroft told the television program. ---

[Paschall]

1. As if...

Suggested reading: John Ashcroft’s anti-gay crusade by Michelangelo Signorile, January 16, 2001

<snip> Voting against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in 1998, Ashcroft expressed his fear that employers would not be allowed to discriminate against gays in hiring, something he believes is proper and sound public policy. Stooping to base demagoguery and sensationalism, Ashcroft cited a case in Virginia where a boys' gym teacher was discovered to have appeared in gay porn films. "He led a double life," Ashcroft ridiculously wailed on the Senate floor, as if the same couldn't be true of any heterosexual teacher, and as if most gays and lesbians are moonlighting in skin flicks. "On the West Coast a gay porno star, on the East Coast, a gym teacher."

ENDA, he concluded, "contains seeds of real instability and inappropriate activity, which could grow way out of hand and send the wrong signals to young people." </snip>

[DemBones DemBones]

2. This could be a sign of how they're going to handle the issue,

please their base by forbidding same-sex marriage, please some other people with civil unions. Obviously, it won't please everybody. Ashcroft floating this idea on FOX and the Washington Times picking up on it mean the idea's being run past their base.

[w4rma]

3. ??!??

:wow: Cool! That's a good sign for civil rights that the Republican leadership is taking this into consideration.

[ferg]

4. probably just giving lip service

Like their proposed study on global warming.

Still, I didn't think they'd try to weasel this one but would come out strongly against all gay rights.

Maybe the polling numbers and focus groups say that civil unions are a big winner and they're afraid to attack it directly.

[Peregrine]

10. 100% right

It is easy to give luke warm support to something that you know has no chance in hell of making it through congress.

What I am confused about is what right does the federal government have over regulating marriage. Silly me, except for enforcing reciprocity (full faith and credit), I always thought that marriage was a state function.

Even if they removed "full faith and credit" from gay marriages, they would run afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I would think they would have to remove reciprocity from all marriages to avoid a constitutional issue. Boy that would be a mess. When you move to a new state you would have to register your vehicle and you marriage. So their only out would be an amendment.

[Dulcinea]

5. Because he won't be able to stop it.

I can see individual churches or faiths refusing to sanction gay marriages, but not the government. For example, the Catholic church, Mormon church & fundie churches will probably never allow it, but there will definitely be civil unions in the next 10 years. Ashcroft is just covering his posterior.

[Democat]

6. I think they might try to offer a trade

A constitutional amendment protecting marriage for a weak law allowing civil unions.

It would be a mistake to allow the right wing to tamper with the constitution in any way, regardless of what they offer in return.

[FlashHarry]

7. Ashcroft handing out a religious edict? Say it ain't so!

It sounds as if they're defining 'marriage' as a religious institution, which it is, to most people. Personally, I think that's fine, as long as they're comfortable alienating soccer moms. The important issue is Civil Unions. Nobody, but nobody, should be treated differently by the federal government because of their sexual orientation. If the churches want to do so, it's up to them. But last time I checked, there was a separation between church and state. Which begs the question, why the hell is this even an issue?

[Mari333]

8. I dont trust one word that comes out of the mouth of that slimeball

[dArKeR]

9. We don't give a phlying phuck what you say. We're taking back our country

and we're going to put you in prison with a gay cellmate you're gonna wish was married to someone!

http://darkerxdarker.tripod.com/