Bush Seeks Amendment Against Gay Marriage

[sundog]

:grr:

Bush Seeks Amendment Against Gay Marriage
2 hours, 51 minutes ago


By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it.

A few activist judges and local officials have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage, Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

Leading the chorus of support for an amendment, Bush said, "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040710/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_gay_marriage_1

:grr:

[Mari333]

1. He has nothing to run on.

this stinks to high heaven of desperation. The US public is sinking into major bankruptcy and debt, and the GOP is so desperate they are forcing some inane wedge issue into the spotlight for votes.
Aint
gonna
work.
US public is fed up with this crap.

[sundog]

2. may he burn in hell

that's the nicest thing I can say right now :mad:

[Mari333]

4. He will, if there is a God. n/t

[sundog]

6. i mean, wtf...

all it does is earn him more contempt & demonstrates the full capacity of his pea sized brain

[Andy_Stephenson]

3. And the Spineless Senate Democrats had this to say

" Senate Democrats signaled they will not throw barriers in front of the resolution, paving the way for a vote on the amendment as early as next Wednesday."

Fuck EM!

This will be the last straw. IF the Democrats do not put up a fight on this one...I will be voting GREEN straight down the line. If they want my vote now...they have to earn it!

[TexasSissy]

5. If you vote Green, then there will for sure be a Constitutional Amendment.

Take your pick. Constitutional Amendment....or no Constitutional Amendment (Kerry's position is that it's a state decision, not federal government). The Green Party will, of course, not win (this time around).

[Andy_Stephenson]

14. Ummmm...

When asked whether he might support Massachusetts' constitutional amendment, he said it was possible.

"It depends entirely on the language on whether it supports civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union, I'm for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded,"Kerry's position is also contrary to that of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, which last month endorsed gay marriage.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001856164_kerrygays12.html


It will be interesting to see if he even shows up to vote on this. Kerry is always absent on controversial issue votes. This one will be no different.

[dsc]

15. absent = no in this case

They need 2/3 of the whole Senate, not the part of the Senate which shows up.

[Andy_Stephenson]

18. Absent =

He does not have the balls to stand up for me. If he is absent or votes anything other than NO. I will be voting Green. If he does not take a stand on this FUCK HIM!

[dsc]

20. He voted against DOMA, the law

and has spoken out against a federal amendment. If he campaigns instead of actually voting no, that is no big deal. I don't like his position within his state but his position federally has been good.

[Andy_Stephenson]

22. Sorry DSC I respectfully disagree...

I need to see him standing up against this. DOMA was nothing compared to this. I want a strong NO from him. Otherwise it is just lip service.

[TexasSissy]

25. He is against gay marriage. He's not going to protest for your cause.

But he is FOR it's being a state's decision, so he will veto a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He has stated so.

That's his position. There is NO ONE who has a hope of winning this election who is assertively FOR gay marriage. That's just a fact. But only ONE of the candidates asserts it has no business being banned in the nation's constitution. The other candidate is using the issue to gain support among his base, who want to make sure that gay marriage never comes to pass (which requires a national consitutional amendment).

I feel for your position, but unfortunately, those are the two choices this year. At least w/Kerry you can protest and try to gain support. There is no hope of that with Bush. There is no hope of getting a valid third candidate on the ballot. Those are the choices.

The gay rights activists, IMO, would be better off playing it low key right now, and then protesting and working actively on it AFTER they get a somewhat sympathetic President in office. And then the activists can work to gain public support. That's where the harm is coming. The public is against gay marriage. The public = votes. If the public changes its mind, or gets to be half and half, then politicians will follow the votes.

[Freya]

31. Have you even bothered to read the amendment?

Probably not with your "who gives a damn about GLBT issues - we have to win the election" attitude.

It would deny everything from civil unions to even what GLBT have been doing for years - making contracts with each other, power of attorney, hospital visitation agreement, etc. The amendment says not only can you not have marriage you can't even have the "incidents thereof". Therefore it's going to be VERY easy for the next right wing judge to interpret this to mean they can't even make simple contracts with each other that provide them something marriage would have. Say good bye to civil unions too.

The amendment

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

I would suggest everyone go to www.hrc.org and sign the petition, send an email, and go to www.aclu.org and send a free fax. The HRC is keeping a record of how many emails are sent and how many are signing the petition. Even though this is unlikely to pass the MORE PEOPLE that OPPOSE this sends a bigger message to the republicans AND the democrats.

[TexasSissy]

40. Reality seems to upset you. Fine. Vote for Bush. See what that gets

you for your cause. A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Makes me no difference. Makes no difference to most Americans. We're not gay.

But the Democratic Party is far more on your side in this issue than the Republican Party. I was just pointing out what the smart thing to do would be to further your cause, which is to pursue the matter in the courts when the Democrats are in power. Democrats are less likely to make an issue of it, and they agree that the battle belongs in the courts and with the states.

But if you can't wait, hey, no skin off my nose. If you want a constitutional amendment, you're going about it the right way.

[TexasSissy]

24. Okay. Boom. Constitutional Amendment. Gays cannot get married

anywhere in the country, as a matter of constitutional rights. No Kerry to veto it.

[Yupster]

37. President has no say

in the amendment process.

To amend the Constitution you need

2/3 House

2/3 Senate

3/4 State Legislatures

No president anywhere in the process.

[TexasSissy]

23. He may vote against it in MA, but as Prez, he'll veto a Const. Amendment.

His position is that it's a state's decision. He does not support a Constitutional Amendment. Personally, however, he is against gay marriage.

Since most Americans, according to the polls I've seen, are against gay marriage....Kerry sorta has to say that, don't you think? That is, if he wants to win.

[dsc]

26. No he won't

Presidents can't veto Constitutional amendments.

[Andy_Stephenson]

27. Bush...Kerry

Kerry...Bush

same difference...

:sigh:

[dsc]

28. That wasn't my point

My point in that post was that other than the bully pulpit, which is a substantial thing, Presidents have no role in Constitutional amendments. A President Barney Frank also wouldn't veto the amendment.

[Andy_Stephenson]

29. and you missed mine...

On this issue...Bush and Kerry agree. No gay marriage.

[TexasSissy]

38. I believe he can veto any bill for whatever purpose. Not true?

[dsc]

42. It isn't a bill

Yes he can veto any bill but this isn't a bill so it doesn't count.

[Freya]

32. Please take a class in law/gov

Or read the constitution.

The president can NOT veto a constitutional amendment. EVER.

For one thing - congress has already voted with enough votes to override a veto - 2nd, the constitution does not permit it.

[TexasSissy]

39. Thank you so much for your kind, informative post.

Please take a class in people skills.

[dsc]

9. Let them have their vote

No one thinks they will win it. I have heard of only one or two Democrats voting for and several Republicans voting against. They need every Republican and about 16 Democrats. I would rather have an up or down vote, now, than this drag out for weeks or months.

[Freya]

30. NO

I saw them speak in the senate.

What they mean is they won't try to filibuster or anything like that.

They KNOW they have the votes to put it down, so they want to do so. They have no need to procedurally try to take it down. They can take it down on a simple vote. The republicans are going to look like weak fools between monday and wednesday.

Get the pop corn ready. This is going to be some nice entertainment. Starting 1PM ET CSPAN 2.

[PA Democrat]

7. Terror warnings, growing numbers of uninsured, 1000 plus coalition troops

dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, growing budget deficits, people dying of AIDS and starvation by the millions around the world.....

and Bush's TOP legislative priority is to corrupt the Constitution with an anti-gay amendment?

THIS is what the Democrats should be screaming about!

[patricia92243]

8. Do all 50 states have to ratify an amendment? Could the amendment be twist

twisted in the future to include "the sanctity of marriage" and divorce would not be allowed. Maybe that would not happen right now, but eventually it would. It is a very, very slippery slope to add an amendment to the constitution.

[dsc]

10. They need 3/4 of the states

which is 37.

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. If I am not mistaken...and I am not

More than 37 states have DOMA laws. An amendment would pass handily.


And instantly...I would become a second class citizen...well I already am...it would just be defined in the constitution.

[dsc]

13. I think it is exactly 37 though it may be 38 or 39

I am not totally sure it would pass. A couple of states with DOMA laws got them through referenda and ratification would be by legislature. One of those is California where I don't think there would be any chance of a DOMA passing the legislature. It would be close if it got out of Congress but it won't.

[Andy_Stephenson]

16. How much you want to bet?

"be close if it got out of Congress but it won't."

If this rights grab is added to the Constitution...I will not pay another cent in taxes and will consider relocating to a more civilized country. The Congressional Democrats are showing their true colors on this. Face it brothers and sisters...we are not wanted in this country...not even by our party. Shame on them if they lets this hate come to a vote. It will pass...mark my words. When it does, don't say I didn't warn you. We are next on the list of scapegoats.

[dsc]

17. I would be willing to bet a substantial amount

it won't pass the Senate. But, in fairness, I won't have money for over a month so it wouldn't be fair to bet. But, every report of head count that I have seen, no matter who it was from, shows our side with well over the 34 votes needed to stop this.

[Andy_Stephenson]

19. Arm twisting and back room deals are the norm these days.

Until it is defeated...it is a threat!

And we have seen how the Democrats have given Bush everything he has asked for. Why not this?

[dsc]

21. I agree with the idea that until it is defeated it is a threat

that is one of the reasons I want the vote now and not later.

On edit:

Here is a list of firm no votes on the amendment

Washington Cantwell, Murray
Oregon Wyden
California Feinstein, Boxer
Hawaii Inone, Akaka
Arizona McCain
Rhode Island Chafee, the Democrat (can't recall his name)
Massachusetts Kennedy, Kerry
Connecticut Dodd, Lieberman
Deleware Biden, Carper
Vermont Jeffords, Leahey
New York Shummer, Clinton
Illinois Durbin
Michigan Levin, Stebbenow
Maryland Mulkaski, Sarbanes
WV Rockefeller
PA Specter
WI Feingold, Kohl
Iowa Harkin
North Carolina Edwards
Florida Graham
Minnesota Dayton
Utah Bennet

[Freya]

34. I don't think it will

I think we have the votes in the senate to put down from every tally that I have seen.

God help us though if it passes the senate. There will be no stopping it after that.

We also should worry about the other manner of amending the constitution. The constitution says that if a sufficient number of states call for a convention (independent from the national congress) they can hold a constitutional convention to modify the constitution.

Therefore even though we can stop it in the national congress there are indeed sufficient states to call for a convention independent of the national congress. I am hoping the right isn't smart/able enough to organize this, but I wouldn't put anything past them.

[Freya]

33. 37 states

and unfortunately if you count the states that have passed a DOMA I think it as at 36 (or more).

Therefore it can be assumed that every state that passed its own DOMA would pass this amendment.

Therefore if it passes the senate we are royally screwed.

[sherrem]

36. To Freya, totally, completely, and grossly off topic....

But I just had to say...my daughter's name is Freya and I have never seen another person use the name. :) Nice to meet you.

[Deja Q]

He's shoveling cattle cack. Gays are not the problem.

People who get divorced are.

He's got no case for re-election (or a first legit election) so he's clutching at the most divisive of issues to gain votes.

He is a true pig.

[Deja Q]

11. He's shoveling cattle cack. Gays are not the problem.

People who get divorced are.

He's got no case for re-election (or a first legit election) so he's clutching at the most divisive of issues to gain votes.

He is a true pig.

[sherrem]

35. I'll tell ya something...

My marriage is a "mere legal contract" not recognized by the church, and I am NOT gay. We had a beautiful ceremony in a mansion built by one of the founders of our town--married by a retired judge who was also a family friend. Our rings were not blessed, we weren't married in church, and the name "God" wasn't spoken, but the word "love" was. We held a marriage ceremony and signed a LEGAL document stating we were now married. My husband is an atheist.

My husband and I have been married 5 years. In that 5 years neither of us has cheated on one another, we have 4 beautiful children, and we live by the vows we spoke. We don't beat our children, we don't show them pornography, we don't swear in front of them, we do not tolerate rascist or sexual inuendo. In my opinion, we lead (the republican buzz word) moral lives.

Should we be considered "less married" then our friends who had their rings blessed and married in a church--who have since become DIVORCED?! Marriage is not about religion, its not about culture, its not about WHO you are marrying, its about two people loving each other and wanting to spend their lives together.

You create a constitutional amendement making it impossible for gays to get married, why not add atheists to the mix as well--after all they have to be just as "immoral" as gays, right? How far does this need to go? The government has never recognized marriage as anything MORE than a legal contract!!

If the government REALLY wants to redeem the "meaning" of marriage, they could institute mandatory marriage counseling and a waiting period for people who want to get married--gay, straight, purple, bald. Oh but wait, moral people like Brittney Spears couldn't marry people on a whim and uphold that oh so pure "meaning" of marriage all republicans seem to preach about.

[Sweetpea]

41. This wedge issue is the type that triggers blind faith in people

who can't see past their interpretation of the Bible.
It is sooo obvious these religious zealots have to reinstate who the "liberals" are supporting and fighting for, now that they are getting slaughtered in the polls.