Bush Urges Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

MilitaryGirl83

New Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
3,605
Reaction score
0
Bush Urges Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
By DEB RIECHMANN

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush urged approval of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages on Tuesday, pushing a divisive social issue to the center of the election campaign and setting a clear policy contrast with Democratic challengers John Kerry and John Edwards.

Bush said ``activist judges and local officials'' from Massachusetts to San Francisco to New Mexico were attempting to redefine marriage and ``change the most fundamental institution of civilization'' by allowing same-sex weddings. ``On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard,'' he said.

Democrats accused Bush of pandering to right-wing supporters and tinkering with the Constitution to divert attention from his record on jobs, health care and foreign policy. ``He is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people,'' Kerry said.

Both Kerry and Edwards said they oppose gay marriages but would not support a constitutional amendment.


Banning gay marriage is a top priority for Bush's conservative supporters, particularly those among religious and family-oriented groups. But while a majority of Americans - sometimes by as much as a 2-1 margin - oppose legalizing gay marriages, Bush's move could hold political risks, particularly if voters see him as intolerant or question his self-description as a ``compassionate conservative.''


``The president needs to worry about fair-minded swing voters in America, not a Republican base that he has locked up,'' said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group.


Mindful of the high emotions and clear differences on the issue, Bush said, ``We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.''


Conservatives were delighted Bush had plunged in. ``There is no more important issue for our nation than the preservation of the institution of marriage,'' said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation, a family advocacy group.


Momentum for a constitutional amendment has grown as San Francisco officials have performed thousands of same-sex marriages and have challenged their state law barring such unions. In Massachusetts, the state's highest court has ruled that a state law falling short of allowing full-fledged marriage for gays would be unconstitutional.


Bush softened his announcement by leaving the door open for states to legalize civil unions, which gay rights groups say is an insufficient alternative to marriage. ``The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage,'' said Bush, who had opposed legalizing civil unions when he was governor of Texas.


Republican officials said there was no rush to bring an amendment to the floor in the House. Some conservatives want a broader approach than Bush supports, and others oppose federalizing the issue, at least for now.


``The groups that are for a constitutional amendment are split over what it should be,'' said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. ``We are trying to bring them all together and unify them.''


California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.


``I will say that I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue,'' said Dreier, a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000. ``I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary.'' Lewis said changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue.


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, said she would fight any amendment. ``Never before has a constitutional amendment been used to discriminate against a group of people, and we must not start now,'' she said.


Amending the Constitution is not quick or simple. A two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate must pass an amendment, and then it would be sent to the states for ratification. It must be approved by three-fourths, or 38 of the 50. Bush's father pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning but it was not approved.


White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that amendment legislation submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., meets his principles in protecting the ``sanctity of marriage'' between men and women. But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular legislation.


Bush's call for a gay-marriage amendment came as the president sought to regain his footing after he was thrown on the defensive about issues ranging from his Vietnam-era military record to missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


``After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization,'' the president said.


Answering Bush, Kerry said, ``All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign.''


``I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions,'' Kerry said. ``I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states''


Edwards, campaigning in Georgia, where the state legislature is debating its own ban on gay marriage, said, ``I don't personally support gay marriage myself. My position has always been that it's for the states to decide.''



02/24/04 20:39


© Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Geez...Bush is getting more demanding now and wanting it to be banned immedity. :fu2: I don't like it at all.
 
It'll be dragged on for years, a constitutional amendment take a while to get passed.

Hopefully it won't happen.
 
I think bush dumbya doesn t see what equality is, all he see is MONEY and he' ll always be stuck on stupid abt discriminations and so forth! So this is blanant Discrimination as well! RME at bush say BYEBYE to him we gotta make sure he doesn't put it into effect before nov voting!
 
Hey, Dumbya...
Have you heard of interracial marriages years ago? Oh, you can't marry a black husband because it is a taboo!! Get real!! Look at them...they can get married and have beautiful interracial children.

What's wrong with gay marriages? I spell the word for you, Dumbya...

D U H!! :asshole:
 
Yeah...even Tiger Woods got himself a white g/f! is there anything wrong with the picture?
 
javapride said:
I think bush dumbya doesn t see what equality is, all he see is MONEY and he' ll always be stuck on stupid abt discriminations and so forth! So this is blanant Discrimination as well! RME at bush say BYEBYE to him we gotta make sure he doesn't put it into effect before nov voting!

I think gay marriage went out of control - they take awful risk to rush into marriage. Soon, later they would be lot divorce. It could be messy. Same-sex should take more careful before decide to make. Therefore, they had enough with it.

How about... if there is new special license that allow same-sex to get the benefit for serve just same as marriage does? How does it sound? It's pretty harmless to me.
 
illustrator said:
I think gay marriage went out of control - they take awful risk to rush into marriage. Soon, later they would be lot divorce. It could be messy. Same-sex should take more careful before decide to make. Therefore, they had enough with it.

What has same-sex got to do with "rushing into marriage" - the divorce statistics for woman-man marriages suggest that heterosexual couples are at least as bad at "rushing into" things - and rushing out again if they don't like it.

I agree with Javapride on this - what Bush is doing is a feeble-minded bit of old-fashioned discrimination. Why? Because the man is riddled with prejudice. At least that's how I see it.
 
illustrator said:
How about... if there is new special license that allow same-sex to get the benefit for serve just same as marriage does? How does it sound? It's pretty harmless to me.

No, that's just a natural recipe for more fraud claims.
 
hohprof said:
What has same-sex got to do with "rushing into marriage" - the divorce statistics for woman-man marriages suggest that heterosexual couples are at least as bad at "rushing into" things - and rushing out again if they don't like it.

I agree with Javapride on this - what Bush is doing is a feeble-minded bit of old-fashioned discrimination. Why? Because the man is riddled with prejudice. At least that's how I see it.

No, there is no prejudge. You're keep point at Bush. CA went out of control when people are award that there is no such a law for sam-sex marriage and it required to have court to make permit for same-sex.. Government told them to obey the law. No, San Fransico Mayor disobey and it went out of control. There are too much flame going on in that city. That's reason why Bush listen to anti-gay marriage that lead to decide to protect. Same thing Alex decide to protect certain website (non-porn) aren't acceptable. I can't blame him and I had to obey without break the rule.
 
illustrator said:
No, there is no prejudge. You're keep point at Bush. CA went out of control when people are award that there is no such a law for sam-sex marriage and it required to have court to make permit for same-sex.. Government told them to obey the law. No, San Fransico Mayor disobey and it went out of control. There are too much flame going on in that city. That's reason why Bush listen to anti-gay marriage that lead to decide to protect. Same thing Alex decide to protect certain website (non-porn) aren't acceptable. I can't blame him and I had to obey without break the rule.

The californbia constitution states that all persons shall be treated EQUALLY under the law, Gay people are persons as well and are not a sub class of human being.

Also, state constitutuions are the highest law of the state excepting federal law.

Any law which contradicts a constitutional law can be interpreted by the courts to be invalid.
 
dhw5320 said:
Any law which contradicts a constitutional law can be interpreted by the courts to be invalid.

I am awared of that kind law in CA. That's why I am saying it went out of control.
 
Back
Top