Bush Plans To Back Marriage Amendment: Constitution Would Specify Man, Woman (Bush Hears His Base?)

Washington Post ^ | February 11, 2004 | Mike Allen and Alan Cooperman

[Pubbie]

President Bush plans to endorse a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman in response to a Massachusetts court decision requiring legal recognition of gay marriages in that state, key advisers said yesterday.

Bush plans to endorse language introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) that backers contend would ban gay marriage but not prevent state legislatures from allowing the kind of civil unions and same-sex partnership arrangements that exist in Vermont and California.

Bush has moved incrementally over seven months toward embracing a ban on gay marriage, and the advisers said he will clarify his position with a public statement shortly.

"We'd like to see Congress take it up, and the president will be supportive," a top Republican official said. "We would like to see both chambers act sooner rather than later."

Bush's move could put cultural issues at the forefront of an election year that had been dominated by economic and national-security issues.

[SNIP]

Kerry opposes gay marriage but does not support a constitutional amendment, his campaign said yesterday. "I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples, from inheritance to health benefits," he said in a statement. "I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision."

[Pubbie]

An excellent move!

It forces the squishy Kerry to take a firm position for or against Gay Marriage.

If Kerry endorses the Amendment he will piss off his base.

If he goes against the Constitutional Amendment, then it will make it easy for the Republicans to paint him as an elitist Massachusetts Liberal and Kerry will get wipped out in the South and take a number of Democratic Senate candidates down with him.

[Mike Darancette]

Your move Lurch.

[longtermmemmory]

BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP!!!!!

[Nateman]

A constitutional amendment to prevent guy marriage is like using a nuke to kill a mosquito. It would be easier to impeach and remove the pinhead judges who are pushing this nonsense.

If you have to have a constitutional amendment how a balanced budget amendment that freezes the budget until it is balanced ,the debt all paid, and then continues to freeze the budget until no American citizen pays more than 10% in federal taxes and limits the taxation to that rate forever more? (With exceptions for declared war budgets of course as long as over payments are solely for purposes of fighting said war, and budgets again frooze after war until debt is gone)

[ambrose]

Terrible move.

We're a Federal Republic. If Massachusetts wants to be a state full of left-wing nuts, they should have that right. Conversely, if Utah wants to be conservative, they should have that right as well.

[Nateman]

A constitutional amendment to prevent guy marriage is like using a nuke to kill a mosquito. It would be easier to impeach and remove the pinhead judges who are pushing this nonsense.

If you have to have a constitutional amendment how a balanced budget amendment that freezes the budget until it is balanced ,the debt all paid, and then continues to freeze the budget until no American citizen pays more than 10% in federal taxes and limits the taxation to that rate forever more? (With exceptions for declared war budgets of course as long as over payments are solely for purposes of fighting said war, and budgets again frooze after war until debt is gone)

[jwalsh07]

About time. They waited too long in Massachusetts and voila, the oligarchy decreed it.

[longtermmemmory]

Don't forget the Mass advisory rulling. There is no more middle ground to hide behind. The SJC said its marriage or bust. Civil unions were unacceptable. Any statement regarding civil unions is now a no-go.

Bush has the upper ground because the marriage amendment puts the civil union to the states.

Kerry has no choice but to advocate the one man one woman and explain how a courts dominated by liberal lawyers in black robes will not overturn a mere law doma.

The lesson here, don't play poker with Bush unles you are dead searious.

[tortoise]

Maybe I'm not his base, but I don't give a crap about a "marriage amendment"; it is so far down the list of priorities that it isn't worth mentioning. All this nonsense about "protection of marriage" is a classic case of political style over substance. Marriage will continue to be the disaster it was before any such amendment was passed; sticking it to the homosexual lobby fixes nothing because they aren't the reason heterosexual marriage is in its abysmal state.

I would much rather Bush be cutting government and stopping his irresponsible and arguably peurile spending spree.

[longtermmemmory]

No a constitutional amendment is a shield against the unpredictable bullets from the liberal dominated lawyers as judges courts.

Impeachment is not going to happen.

This is a clear and present danger to the children now and future generations. We have to act now, a constitional amendment is an appropriate response to these judges. Remember Ginsberg was president of her ACLU, her decisions is definitly anti marriage.

The Human Rights Coalition has been working since 1996 to get a Full Faith and Credit case by having one state forced to homosexual marriage. They tried to back door with divorce law and vermont's civil unions. They were shot down in CT, GA and recently TX.

Homosexuals must be stopped. It is just a sexual behavior that is private. Private sex is not deserving of legislative approval.

[raloxk]

you forgot full faith and credit, your analogy is flawed. whose to say the US Supreme Court doesnt recognize a 14th amendment right to gay marriage

[raloxk]

"Maybe I'm not his base, but I don't give a crap about a "marriage amendment"; "


that's because your name is Moby.

[ambrose]

There is the Protection of Marriage Act of 96.

If the US Supremes knock that down, THEN we can talk about a constitutional amendment.

[longtermmemmory]

Just wait and see the costs of homosexual marriages. Social security disability impact will be imediate. There is also the cost to immigration, any homosexual will be ablt to bring a lover over for "vacation" based on a fiance visa. Otherwise excludable homosexuals will no longer be excluded at the border based on a sex partner's citizenship. Fraud in marriage green cards will be even more rampant. (remember the woman who helped over 30 men with marriage visas. The going rate is $5000.00 for a cooperating citizen. Homosexuals are frequent participants in this growth industry.)

No reason you cant cut spending and memorialze one man/one woman in the black letter law .

[longtermmemmory]

The 96 law is garbage and EASILY overturned. It is a MERE law.

The Human Rights Coalition has been setting the Mass Full Faith and Credict case from before clinton signing that law. Clinton signed the law EXPECTING it to be overturned.

You can not wait for the mushroom cloud to act. Action must be taken now. If the US Supremes rule, it is too late.

Besides a first year law student could tell you Full Faith and Credit would trump DOMA. Ginsber would do it. The SJC of Mass would do it.

[tortoise]

that's because your name is Moby.

No, Moby is an uber-twit.

All these cultural, family, and marriage issues are symptoms. You can't legislate away the symptoms without addressing the causes. Pissing away political energy on something that won't actually solve any problems is monumental waste of effort. All style over substance. All heat, no light. Get the picture?

[ambrose]

Yeah, but we also expected them to overturn McCain-Fiengold.

[expatpat]

This will also serve as a major wedge issue relative to congressional Demos.

[longtermmemmory]

Which proves lawyers in black robes are not to be trusted.

The constitution must be amended to take the issue out of hands of the court. With the constitutional amendment there is zero doubt. Marriage can not be redefined by the whim of some judge.

It also removes the issue of civil unions thanks to the SJC rulling that civil unions are unacceptable.

If a battle is to be fought, you must take a beachead. This is a doable goal for conservatives. After this getting government out of other parts of our lives becomes possible.

[Paleo Conservative]

You can not wait for the mushroom cloud to act. Action must be taken now. If the US Supremes rule, it is too late.

Besides a first year law student could tell you Full Faith and Credit would trump DOMA. Ginsber would do it. The SJC of Mass would do it.

Article IV.

Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Well if the courts ever bothered looking at the Constitution, they actually might find that Congress does posess the right to pass legislation defining what official state acts have to be recognized by other states. On the other hand activists judges just love twisting the meaning of laws and the Constitution to impose their agendas.