Bush: "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

[Pookie]

Bush: States shouldn't change marriage
President stops short of endorsing amendment

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush has addressed the contentious topic of same-sex marriage in his annual speech to the nation, saying, "our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

He stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment that would ban marriages for gay and lesbian couples, as social conservative groups had hoped.

Instead, Bush said, "if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

The president's comments, made during his State of the Union speech, said the issue stems from "activist judges" who have "begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people."

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that the state "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to prohibit same-sex marriages, and gave the state Legislature six months to rewrite the marriage laws for the benefit of gay and lesbian couples.

That has raised fears among conservatives that other states might be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, as states now routinely recognize heterosexual marriages performed in other states.

After a court in Hawaii struck down a ban on same-sex marriages in 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed into law.

Bush noted the law in his address and, in a move not typical for the president, mentioned Clinton by name.

The law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and barred federal recognition of same-sex unions performed in any state.

Hawaii voters later amended their state constitution to overturn the court's decision.

At least 37 states followed suit with their own defense of marriage acts, refusing to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states.

But supporters of same-sex marriage say such laws are unconstitutional because the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution requires states to recognize one another's legal proceedings.

They also point to a 1967 Supreme Court decision that struck down state laws banning interracial marriages.

Some social conservatives, afraid courts might strike down defense of marriage acts, want to amend the U.S. Constitution to explicitly allow states to refuse to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.

White House lawyers have been studying the legal implications of the Massachusetts decision in light of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and a possible constitutional amendment.

To the dismay of some social conservatives, Bush has so far not endorsed an amendment.

Bush's comments Tuesday fell short of an endorsement, and instead characterized an amendment as a possible course of action.

Bush also attempted to keep his comments on the point of same-sex marriage and away from the broader subject of civil rights for gay and lesbians.

"A strong America must also value the institution of marriage," he said. "I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization."

Before changing topics, Bush said, "The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight."

In an October 2000 debate, vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney said the issue should be left to the states to resolve.

"I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area," said Cheney, who is now vice president.

"People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to," said Cheney, whose daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. "Should these relationships be treated the way traditional marriage is? That is a tougher problem. I try to be open-minded as much as I can."

Bush opposed the notion of same-sex marriage during a presidential debate the same year.

In July 2003, Bush said he wanted to "codify" his belief that marriage should be limited to unions between a man and a woman. A spokesman said a constitutional amendment was being debated.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee has endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota has said he believes the Defense of Marriage Act provides enough protection for the definition of marriage and that an amendment is not necessary.

Same-sex marriage has the support of none of the major Democratic presidential candidates, including Howard Dean, who as governor of Vermont signed a bill authorizing civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

The candidates are united in opposing a constitutional amendment, and they have expressed varying degrees of support for creating civil unions, which would provide legal rights and recognition to same-sex couples that are similar to marriage.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/same.sex.marriage/index.html

 

[Pookie]

Before State of the Union, ACLU Notes Conservative Opposition to Marriage Amendment, Political Unpopularity of Faith-Based Initiative

January 20, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON - Responding to media previews of President Bush’s 2004 State of the Union address tonight, the American Civil Liberties Union today urged the President to leave the issue of marriage out of the Constitution and noted the lingering lack of popularity in Congress for legislation to permit employment discrimination by taxpayer-funded religious social service providers.

"Not only are conservative and moderate Republicans split on whether the Constitution should be altered to deny same-sex couples legal rights, the faith-based initiative is a dead letter on the Hill," said Gregory T. Nojeim, Associate Director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. "These issues are losers from a political standpoint and potential disasters from a civil liberties perspective."

The President’s annual speech, which is also expected to contain a call for federal heterosexual marriage promotion programs, is reportedly going to maintain the ambiguous White House support for a constitutional marriage amendment, contingent on whether inaction or action by the courts and state legislatures make it necessary.

It is unclear what specifically he will request regarding the faith-based initiative, but the annual speech to Congress comes just a week after he renewed his call for programs and policies that permit religious groups that discriminate openly in hiring, firing and the provision of services to provide social services with taxpayer dollars.

Although the President often frames the initiative as providing religious groups equal access to social services funds, many religious groups already fulfill their charitable mandates with taxpayer dollars while happily abiding by civil rights laws. Indeed most such groups, like Catholic Charities, point more to a lack of resources than an inability to discriminate against persons who do not share their religion as the biggest problem facing faith-based services today.

For many libertarian and classical conservatives, like former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr and Washington Post columnist George Will, the Federal Marriage Amendment is unpalatable in its treatment of the Constitution as a malleable playground for religiously-motivated social policy. Among many partisan Republicans, the amendment is unpopular because of a clear lack of popular support for the measure.

Interestingly, polling on the issue shows the country generally opposed to changing the Constitution to deny same-sex couples legal rights. A September ABC News Poll showed only 20 percent support for an amendment.

"Undoubtedly, the current White House is stuck in between this rock and a hard place: its conservative base and political reality," Nojeim said. "Hopefully, moderation on these issues will be the result."

http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14748&c=101

 

[College_geek]

What gets me is that same-sex marriage supposedly, according to them, destroy the sanctity of marriage, but people can get married and divorced in only days time, as long as it's a man marrying a woman. Britney Spears 55-hour marriage? Yeah, that's defending the sanctity of marriage. And she's not the only one.

The fact that people of the same gender can spend their lives together and not get married legally, but people can marry the opposite gender and not even last a year makes me angry.

 

[Cigan]

Honestly I'm past being angry about this whole fiasco, and it really is a fiasco. I have ceased to have any faith in the current generation in political power to do anything of civil competency. I have some vain hope that the upcoming generation will have a larger percentage of accepting people in it, but it is a small hope. Personally I just want to get the hell out of this country before I'm woken up to be taken to the camps.

 

[MzChrista]

"if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

Thats pretty funny considering that the only reason his crooked coke sniffing ass got to be president was by judges forcing their arbitrary will on the people.

 

[Mary Hall]

Bush needs to pull his head out his ass

 

[deliciously_naughty]

This is why I miss Carol Mosely Braun...

She blantantly said that laws forbidding gay marriage are no different than the miscegenation laws that were passed after the Civil War (that made it illegal for a black person and a white person to have sex for fear that it would pollute the white race...in the language of the time).

And she's right

 

[College_geek]

This is why I miss Carol Mosely Braun...

She blantantly said that laws forbidding gay marriage are no different than the miscegenation laws that were passed after the Civil War (that made it illegal for a black person and a white person to have sex for fear that it would pollute the white race...in the language of the time).

And she's right

That's wonderfully put.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if one of Bush's sleazy daughters (or did they ever clean up their act...ah, who care) came and publically said that she was a lesbian, wanted to marry her lover, and moved to Canada. Would he disown her? Would he try to get her "fixed" or some crap like that? Would it maybe change his statements? (probably not, but it's a possibility) Ah, well.

 

[lakritze]

I wanted to find out....

what the term "sanctity of marriage" really meant.So I turned to America's newest sweetheart couple;Britney and Jason for the answer,but found out they were no longer together.

 

[GNelson]

I'm sorry

but after 9-11, I'd have to say that same-sex marriage wouldn't in my "urgent" file, if'n I was the Prez.
No disrespect meant.

 

[Pookie]

This is why I miss Carol Mosely Braun...

She blantantly said that laws forbidding gay marriage are no different than the miscegenation laws that were passed after the Civil War (that made it illegal for a black person and a white person to have sex for fear that it would pollute the white race...in the language of the time).

And she's right

I agree. In fact, it's amazing how similar some of the reasons given in opposition to interracial marriage are now given to oppose gay marriage. Discrimination is discrimination. It's as simple as that. The Constitution is on our side, but it will eventually take the Courts for us to get the same privileges that other Americans have.

 

[69forever]

"if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

Thats pretty funny considering that the only reason his crooked coke sniffing ass got to be president was by judges forcing their arbitrary will on the people.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Equal Justice my ass!!!

 

[RenzaJones]

Maybe they should pass a law to ban divorce, so as not to shit on the sanctity of marriage.

 

[69forever]

I agree. In fact, it's amazing how similar some of the reasons given in opposition to interracial marriage are now given to oppose gay marriage. Discrimination is discrimination. It's as simple as that. The Constitution is on our side, but it will eventually take the Courts for us to get the same privileges that other Americans have.

That's because no matter personal bias or even lack of it, no politician is going to commit political suicide and come out for this issue. Besides the moral right you have the financial interests against it. Insurance company's being the largest. If one out of ten are gay or lesbian, that's 10% that must pay their own way.

If gay marriage was recognized, with all the rights of heterosexual couples, think of the money they would lose from being able to buy family coverage instead of two single policies!!!

It's a two headed beast we fight here.

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

It's my opinion that the government should just stop trying to police people's personal lives. I am all for the *sanctity of marriage*, I believe whole-heartedly in those 3 words. Nevertheless, a joining of any 2 people should be between them..not the government and everyone else.

Same gender couples should have the same rights as any other couple, period. Until that day happens, we will have to muddle through the best we can. I eagerly await the day when I can legally join with the woman that I love. I just know it's not gonna happen anytime soon.

 

[ReBeLBeLLe]

Right now in our United States there are two types of unions between two people that love each other. They are a civil union, which is governmental, and then we have marriage, which is religious. Herein lies our biggest problem.
Marriage, for many Americans is a religious ceremony. There are many people that have been "raised" under religious beliefs that having sex with one of the same gender is wrong. In the past many gays, lesbians, or bi's struggled with the religious factor as an additional issue in coming out and even accepting their own sexuality. I have struggled with my own religious beliefs. I find it hard to fault an individual whose stance evolves from their religious beliefs. For these people I can fully see why they may not support it. Now I'm not talking about those individuals that choose which of their religious stances they want to support. Either stand for all, or shut the hell up....
The second union, the civil union is chosen by many people for many reasons, some of those being they have no interest in the religious aspects of a marriage. This union offers no less, no more than a marriage in a legal sense. This union also is one that is accepted by a large majority of Americans as one that they could support between two individuals of the same sex. In fact, just a couple of short months ago when Americans were polled the numbers supporting civil unions between same sex couples was in the 60th percentile range, whereas marriage was only in the 10's percentile range.
So what do we do about this? Many would like to try to make this a political issue, but the truth is it is far more than that. In fact, many of our politicians that do not support marriage between two same sex couples would support a civil union between two same sex couples. They don't support marriage because of their religious beliefs. Yes, we can add in the factor that there is political motivation in their support base for elections, but this I feel is overshadowed by what they inherently feel is right or wrong on a religiously moral level.
The fight for marriage for us is in changing the views of the religious majority that are against it. Personally I really don't see this happening anywhere in the near future.
On a personal level, I want to be able to marry the woman I love. Marriage above all else has always signified a committment I would make for a life together with someone I love. It's purely an emotional viewpoint. Would a civil union lessen the committment? No, it won't. If I use my own words, I can include my God, in that union. Bottom line...if I want a legal union bewteen me and the woman I love I will gladly accept a civil union.
I have for years believed that we would be better off looking for our own type of union...a life partnership, one that can be recognized by a civil union, and yet not offend the religious morals of our fellow Americans. Why beat my head against a religious wall, when I can legally unite my love, and my committment to another in so many other ways other than a religious ceremony.
I love my girlfriend, and my life is committed to her. No man, no judge, no relgious sect can change that, nor can they tell me what I feel.

 

[Netzach]

Exactly what Finest Silk said. It's a huge intrustion of religious principles on civic life, and one of the reasons I never married my last partner (opposite sex) was because my queer friends and lovers don't have the same luxury.

Then something weird happened and they all started buying rings and getting married and civilly committed even without equal legal protection...

I hope that, if anything, the institution of marriage is improved by all these people choosing it because they want it, not because it's what you grow up and do. I hope that marriage is improved and expanded in every way.

 

[TheFrenchGuy]

How about the children ?

My two Euro cents...

The big fuss here in France (since gay people were allowed to get PACSed (a low cost marriage contract...)) is the question whether homosexual couples could be allowed to adopt children (which is nowadays almost impossible). Of course the question is mostly raised by gay male couples, since lesbians can get easily pregnant. Some friends of mine found a solution : a woman, living with 2 gay guys, got pregnant by one of them. Now the kid lives with a mom and 2 dads.
From what I've read of Bush's address, there's nothing about such a question. Since bearing mothers (correct ??) are legal in the States, I assume the question isn't a fuss at all there.
Can somone enlight me on this ?

 

[College_geek]

Re: How about the children ?

My two Euro cents...

The big fuss here in France (since gay people were allowed to get PACSed (a low cost marriage contract...)) is the question whether homosexual couples could be allowed to adopt children (which is nowadays almost impossible). Of course the question is mostly raised by gay male couples, since lesbians can get easily pregnant. Some friends of mine found a solution : a woman, living with 2 gay guys, got pregnant by one of them. Now the kid lives with a mom and 2 dads.
From what I've read of Bush's address, there's nothing about such a question. Since bearing mothers (correct ??) are legal in the States, I assume the question isn't a fuss at all there.
Can somone enlight me on this ?

That's an interesting question. I haven't really heard of anything like that being brought up, but maybe someone else has. It's probably not ever considered since gay marriage isn't legal yet. But since Bush is so pro-life, the kid would probably end up being born and living with the mother. Then again, trying to think like him, that would be bad because a child born out of wedlock, to a woman and a gay man no less, would be living in this country (oh no!). But even more "then again", the child would have been created by a man and a woman, which is defending the sanctity of sex. I really hope that I'm just ranting here and what I said never happens. *crosses fingers*

 

[TheFrenchGuy]

Re: Re: How about the children ?

the child would have been created by a man and a woman, which is defending the sanctity of sex.

The sanctity of sex.... I like that !!!

Men, don't waste your sperm on masturbation !
Women, swallow !!!!

 

[College_geek]

Re: Re: Re: How about the children ?

The sanctity of sex.... I like that !!!

Men, don't waste your sperm on masturbation !
Women, swallow !!!!

Sure, it sounds great and all, but Bush wouldn't tell women to swallow. That and if he did say something about "sanctity of sex", it would basically be an excuse for adding sodomy laws to the Constitution. And you know, I wouldn't put it past him to do that.

 

[TheFrenchGuy]

I don't see why he wouldn't make sodomy constitutionally legal since he's so screwed...

 

[Bitchslapper]

Aside from the fact that IMO the most common concept of marriage (or civil union, whatever you prefer) is obsolete, my question is this: Why do gays and lesbians want to get married? As it stands now, there is a 50% divorce rate (approx.) in the U.S., so do homosexuals want to get in on all the broken-home fun or what?

And another thing, if it's about children, then that's not a good reason either because single people are allowed to adopt children, so marriage really isn't required anymore by us as a society to provide a stable environment for the child(ren).

And lastly, if all they want is to live together and 'prove thier love' for each other, why don't they just write up a mutually-binding contract that says as much if they don't trust each other without a piece of paper? It's all part of the flawed concept that when you fall in love you get married (or civilly united or whatever). The only reason marriage was created was to provide a stable environment for the rearing of children, and as I stated earlier, that is no longer required by us as a society.

I think it's just a part of the "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" mentality. It's not enough that we live and let live, do unto others, etc. and just accept them, we have to praise them [sarcasm]for having the courage and fortitude to do something so bold and outside the mainstream[/sarcasm] or something. Or maybe some of them even think they're superior and insist that we acknowledge it.

 

[Pookie]

Aside from the fact that IMO the most common concept of marriage (or civil union, whatever you prefer) is obsolete, my question is this: Why do gays and lesbians want to get married? As it stands now, there is a 50% divorce rate (approx.) in the U.S., so do homosexuals want to get in on all the broken-home fun or what?

And another thing, if it's about children, then that's not a good reason either because single people are allowed to adopt children, so marriage really isn't required anymore by us as a society to provide a stable environment for the child(ren).

And lastly, if all they want is to live together and 'prove thier love' for each other, why don't they just write up a mutually-binding contract that says as much if they don't trust each other without a piece of paper? It's all part of the flawed concept that when you fall in love you get married (or civilly united or whatever). The only reason marriage was created was to provide a stable environment for the rearing of children, and as I stated earlier, that is no longer required by us as a society.

I think it's just a part of the "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" mentality. It's not enough that we live and let live, do unto others, etc. and just accept them, we have to praise them [sarcasm]for having the courage and fortitude to do something so bold and outside the mainstream[/sarcasm] or something. Or maybe some of them even think they're superior and insist that we acknowledge it.

Why do gays and lesbians want to get married? For the same reasons that straight couples want to get married. Do homosexuals want to get in on all the "broken-home fun"? No, we want to get in on the 50% that aren't getting divorced. Who knows? We might just cause the divorce rate to lower.

It basically comes down to discrimination. Allowing even one right or privilege to be unconstitutionally denied to us is a horrible precedent to make. If we don't stand up for our own rights/privaleges, who will? If homosexuals were to say it's okay to deny marriage to us, then where does it stop? Who gets to draw the line, and where? Scary.

 

[Bitchslapper]

What reason is that? Why does anyone want to get married? That's my point. Why do it in the first place? Getting married when you don't plan on raising kids with the person is like giving a fish a drink of water.

And if we're talking about discrimination, well that's just full of holes, because no matter what we do, some group will always have an advantage over another. Absolute equality and democracy do not mix.

Like I said, it's just to make a point. You really don't want gay marriage, otherwise you'd just get a civil union and save yourself the heart trouble. It's political. How many homosexuals would rush out to get married once it's legal? A whole bunch I bet. How many of them will stay married? Not any more than straight or bi people, and I can guarantee you that. Gays aren't any more perfect than the rest of humanity, and thier relationships sure as hell aren't automatically more stable either.