Skip to comments.Bush for Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage-Source
Posted on 02/19/2004 10:11:50 AM PST by The G Man
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's political director has told a group of prominent conservatives that the president would soon publicly endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Bay Buchanan, sister of former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, told Reuters she was one of several conservatives who heard the message from political director Karl Rove two weeks ago.
"We were told by Karl Rove that the president would support the constitutional amendment -- not just that he would endorse it but also that he would fight for it," Buchanan said.
Specifically, Rove told the alliance of conservatives known as the Arlington Group in a telephone conversation that Bush would back the amendment being put forward by Colorado Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and that his statement would come "sooner rather than later."
The proposed amendment would reserve marriages solely for "unions between a man and a woman." It would allow state voters and legislatures to determine if they want to legalize civil unions between same-sex couples but would state that no court can require states to accept such civil unions.
Buchanan said she and colleagues were a little concerned that Bush had not yet spoken out in favor of the amendment.
"We had expected it by now. There have been several opportunities for the president to speak out since that time. We're not sure what he's waiting for," she said.
In his latest comment on the issue, Bush said on Wednesday he was troubled San Francisco was issuing marriage licenses to gays and lesbians "even though the law states otherwise."
"I'm troubled by what I've seen," Bush told reporters in his first public comments on the flood of City Hall weddings that have made San Francisco the focus of the gay marriage movement.
"I have consistently stated that I'll support (a) law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. And, obviously, these events are influencing my decision," Bush said.
Amending the constitution is a difficult task. It can take years to win the support of two-thirds of the House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the states.
But conservatives have made the constitutional amendment a litmus test for Bush. Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry, says he favors civil unions for gays but not marriage.
Does it define "man" and "woman"?
I know I have. I hope this news is true, but I've got to hear it straight from him to believe it.
|What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda|
|Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)|
according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. According to the survey, 61 percent said no when asked whether gay marriages should be recognized as valid by law. Thirty-five percent said yes.
What percent of the public wants to put that into the Constitution of the United States of America? Think about two other recent amendments: Prohibition and Income Tax.
You know, those terms have taken on so much cultural baggage since Adam and Eve, especially the last 2 thousand years of western thought that we have lost sight of God's original intentions when he created Eve.
He didn't create Eve to be a reproductive partner, he created Eve to be a "helpmate". A helpmate can be either male or female. We need to bring social justice to bear on the defintion of men and women lest we begin to turn the clock back slavery. </ revisionist>
I agress, at the federal level a marriage amendment is unwise; what is needed is the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (S. 2082), which was introduced last week and co-sponsored by Senator Zell Miller.
It didn't need to be amended to make slavery illegal either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.