Bush Says He Could Back Gay Marriage Ban

[Queersetti]

From Associated Press

Bush Says He Could Back Gay Marriage Ban



_
Dec 16, 9:45 PM (ET)

By JENNIFER LOVEN


WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Tuesday that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court last month struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional and giving state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to wed.

Bush has condemned the ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. On Tuesday, he criticized it as "a very activist court in making the decision it made."

"The court, I thought, overreached its bounds as a court," Bush said. "It did the job of the Legislature."

Previously, though Bush has said he would support whatever is "legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition.

But on Tuesday, the president waded deeper into the topic, saying state rulings such as the one in Massachusetts and a couple of other states "undermine the sanctity of marriage" and could mean that "we may need a constitutional amendment."

"If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that," he said. "The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."

Bush said he believes his view on the topic does not make him intolerant.

"I do believe in the sanctity of marriage ... but I don't see that as conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding person," he said.

His remarks drew criticism from gay rights groups.

"It is never necessary to insert prejudice and discrimination into the U.S. Constitution - a document that has a proud history of being used to expand an individual's liberty and freedom, not to take them away," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign.

 

[Pookie]

I expected Bush would change his mind after the Mass. ruling. *shakes head in disgust*

It's very difficult to amend the US Constitution. I doubt there is enough support to get it out of Congress, or even then get the necessary number of states to approve it. But we all must be vigilant with this.

 

[Queersetti]

I expected Bush would change his mind after the Mass. ruling. *shakes head in disgust*

It's very difficult to amend the US Constitution. I doubt there is enough support to get it out of Congress, or even then get the necessary number of states to approve it. But we all must be vigilant with this.

I don't think the GOP believes they can get this through Congress. I think the point of it is to make Democrats go on the record as being "anti-marriage" before the election.

 

[Cigan]

I don't think the GOP believes they can get this through Congress. I think the point of it is to make Democrats go on the record as being "anti-marriage" before the election.

I don't necesserily think there is that much coherency to this. Teh extreme right wing wants this to pass, and I believe they think they can get it to pass by some strange delusion. I think the politicians are just keeping their stable voting base happy.

 

[sigh]

I find it ironic that the Republicans, the purported party of states' rights and limited federal interference in private lives, aren't reticent in the least when it comes to using federal law to codify their vision of the American dream.

After years of Republican complaints about federal interference in schools, Bush came up with his "no child left behind" plan, taking such interference to a whole new level.

When faced with a populace consistently in favor of choice, Congress responds by drafting a federal law to ban partial birth abortions.

And now when faced with a rising groudswell of support for gay marriages, they take a stand for a constitutional amendment defining marriage.

Hypocrisy has always flourished in Washington. It's certainly flourishing now. Doesn't GW notice the inherent conflict in this statement?:

"If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that," he said. "The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."

 

[College_geek]

I just love how stuff like this is teaching the younger generations about how wonderful democracy is. Remember that? Larger amounts of the population start agreeing with one thing that the government and their close followers don't like, and what do they do? Help support it because that's what the people want? Of course not! Let's ban it because we don't like it! Who cares about the people we'll be shutting out? They're not our problem! They're just the citizens of the country that we're supposedly running well. Gah, it pisses me off...and right before a final too. Thanks Bush.

 

[Mary Hall]

Bush is a fucking idiot....if you don`t mind me saying

 

[Cigan]

Bush is a fucking idiot....if you don`t mind me saying

Oh my God. Bush and idiot? I can't believe you said that he is such a well traveled, worldly, wise, and temperate leader. . . . . . .

We will get back to your regularly scheduled smart assness after your host picks himself up off the floor from laughing his ass off at what he just wrote. . . .

In the mean time we present to you for your view pleasure, a republican in a monkey suit.

 

[webber1998]

Bush is a fucking idiot....if you don`t mind me saying

OH NO, don't mind you saying it !! And I agree.......

Needs that religous vote, no matter what.

I know one Rep who will not vote for re-election this year.

 

[College_geek]

"If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that," he said. "The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."

I finally read this quote, and man, I don't think he knows what he's saying. I think he really is just a monkey reading off the cue cards.

 

[Mary Hall]

I hate to say it but Bush seems like a total dumbfuck, no offense

 

[SweetCherry]

In the mean time we present to you for your view pleasure, a republican in a monkey suit.

Shouldn't that be a monkey in a republican suit?

And I apologize to all those monkeys that I offended with that comment.

 

[Cigan]

Shouldn't that be a monkey in a republican suit?

And I apologize to all those monkeys that I offended with that comment.

The monkeys of the world understand. They're a forgiving sort. The republicans on the other hand do not. And the republican is in the monkey suit because they are too stupid to realize the monkeys eat the bannanas. They are hoping someone will do something else with it. And as long as they are in the monkey suit no one will know it was them. Sadly they will be waiting for a very long time.

 

[Lady Christabel]

This "protecting the sanctity of marriage" crap from the Republicans sounds a lot like "protecting the sanctity of the white race" garbage from the Klan. Hate is hate. Intolerance is intolerance. They can use whatever pretty words they want, but it's still hate.

 

[College_geek]

This "protecting the sanctity of marriage" crap from the Republicans sounds a lot like "protecting the sanctity of the white race" garbage from the Klan. Hate is hate. Intolerance is intolerance. They can use whatever pretty words they want, but it's still hate.

Ooh, that's a really good quote. We should make big posters and send them to GW.

Not that it would do anything because he probably wouldn't understand it.

 

[Ms_Lilith]

Okay, so, I have a question:

Isn't a law that allows and supports divorce a law that threatens and puts asunder the sanctity of marriage, and it parts two people that God has joined? (If you want to get all sanctity-ish on me).

So if divorce is legal, and divorce threatens the sanctity of marriage, why shouldn't gay marriage be legal, if they're viewed as the same, blanketed threat to marriage?

What I find funny is that gay marriage is PROMOTING marriage, just not someone's "vision" of "right marriage". Gay marriage promotes the coming together of loving individuals for the sake of creating legalized families. It is asking for rights that straight people have, and have tossed out the window with their own threat to marriage, divorce.

Oh, and affairs aren't illegal, either, so what about that threat to marriage?

Bah.

 

[Mary Hall]

This situation reminds me of the time Fox news sued Fox

 

[madmanmike]

an actual bush quote

"No i dont think aethiests should be counted as american citizens. This is one nation under god." - W

this is why i dont like him. if it isnt his religion he doesnt like it.

 

[College_geek]

Okay, so, I have a question:

Isn't a law that allows and supports divorce a law that threatens and puts asunder the sanctity of marriage, and it parts two people that God has joined? (If you want to get all sanctity-ish on me).

So if divorce is legal, and divorce threatens the sanctity of marriage, why shouldn't gay marriage be legal, if they're viewed as the same, blanketed threat to marriage?

What I find funny is that gay marriage is PROMOTING marriage, just not someone's "vision" of "right marriage". Gay marriage promotes the coming together of loving individuals for the sake of creating legalized families. It is asking for rights that straight people have, and have tossed out the window with their own threat to marriage, divorce.

Oh, and affairs aren't illegal, either, so what about that threat to marriage?

Bah.

I remember reading somewhere once, someone's stupid reason for why gay marriages should be allowed. (I forget where I saw it, but I remember it's basic message) It was something like "homosexuals are fickle, they wouldn't be able to stay married". Well is that so? Well then, I guess people like Jennifer Lopez must be homosexual because they can't seem to stay married for very long. And what about the same-sex couples who have stayed together for 20, 30, 40 years? That's fickle?

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Bush never seemed to understand that he is the leader of a secular nation, not that leader of a theocracy.

Moron...

 

[Mary Hall]

I feel sorry for you Americans, Tony Blair might have his faults but at least he`s competent

 

[lavender]

What I will never understand is Gay Republicans. You see them with their banners at every Republican Convention. Why the hell would someone vote for a party that obviously doesn't believe they are equals?

 

[College_geek]

What I will never understand is Gay Republicans. You see them with their banners at every Republican Convention. Why the hell would someone vote for a party that obviously doesn't believe they are equals?

I was thinking about that too. There was an article in my college newspaper about that a month or so ago, with a guy talking about he can't help but laugh at gay republicans because they're supporting people who, in general because there are a few exceptions, do not support them. Go figure.

 

[Dannyblake]

What I will never understand is Gay Republicans. You see them with their banners at every Republican Convention. Why the hell would someone vote for a party that obviously doesn't believe they are equals?

Unbeleivable, isn't it? Iv'e seen gay Republicans, Jews for Jesus, and even people that would dare to put ketchup on a hot dog.

Certain things simply do not go together, and the current administration's views on religion, sexuality, and personal freedoms make should make "W" a certain loser in the '04 election

 

[GNelson]

GW Bush

With all that's going on, I don't think Dubya's views on homosexuality matters much. My 2 cents.