Bush for Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage-Source

Reuters ^

[AFA-Michigan]

I also was in the Arlington Group meeting, where Rove said Bush's endorsement of a Federal Marriage Amendment would come by the end of February, and that the president would apply as much pressure for its passage as he did the Medicare legislation. Nine days and counting, as pro-family leaders wait to see if the promised action actually occurs, or if we're just being played.

[Conservative til I die]

If I remembered it correctly, every State in the Union has to approve the Constitution Amendment by 3/4 majority for it to pass. That is almost impossible now a day.

No. It's 3/4th of the states that have to approve, not every state by a 75-25 margin.

[AFA-Michigan]

You folks who don't think a federal marriage amendment is necessary, please explain to me how 50 state laws or state constitutional provisions protecting marriage will stop five members of the U.S. Supreme Court from invalidating them all. ONLY a federal amendment will permanently block such a ruling.

[Unam Sanctam]

I read somewhere that the Boston Globe and NYTimes lobbied hard to get three Mass judges seated, years ago, just for the dabacle we are facing now.

The Chief Justice, Margaret Marshall, is married to Anthony Lewis, former editor of the New York Times. Governor Cellucci (R) appointed her though -- I don't know what he was thinking!

[conserv13]

You could say the same thing about any issue. Abortion, voting, etc... The Democrats said it when the Supreme Court ruled for Bush in 2000.

[Agamemnon]

I don't relish being wrongfully classified by liberals as a hater

Why do you even care what liberals think? Your response is hopelessly weak and needlessly fearful. It sounds as though the homosexual lobby have gotten to you and just battered your good sense into submission and now they have you repeating their rhetoric and using their terminology.

You say your religious beliefs, as you term them, have no proscription against acts of homosexuality. Which religion adheres to that doctrine?

It appears that you are more worried about offending perverts and less inclined to steal your resolve to stand up to them. Hopefully while the gays are sticking it to the Dems and their self-absorbed gay wing takes them down, you won't wind up feeling sorry for the Dems and feel compelled to bind their wounds or hand out band aids.

If Dems are going down by "the users and takers" in their midst, let's encourage the drain on their campaigning resources, and let's do what we can to facilitate their defeat. Take no prisoners in '04.

[AFA-Michigan]

Show us a post quoting the president re: the federal marriage amendment, in which the word "if" does not appear. I'm unaware of any statement on his part that is not conditional. What we're waiting for is his flat-out, unconditional endorsement, calling on Congress to enact the FMA. Rove told us they were waiting for (1) the next shoe to drop from the judiciary, so the issue could be framed as an "activist judges" issue rather than a homosexual issue, or (2) the end of February at the latest.

The very next morning, the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued its most recent ruling. Rove was so adamant about that being the trigger, that all of us expected a presidential announcement later that very same day...or the next day at the latest.

Now, we're waiting to see if the very plain English Rove spoke about the end of February also didn't actually mean anything.

[Unam Sanctam]

You have misunderstood me. My religious beliefs most definitely condemn homosexual activity as sin and consider the inclination disordered. My religious beliefs most definitely say I should love the sinner and hate the sin (as we all have inclinations to some sorts of sin). I am against gay marriage and have written to all my legislators against it. I am just worried that conservatives will be wrongly condemned as hating the sinner when we (or I at least) are rather condemning the sin and don't think the government should encourage what many citizens believe to be sin.

[AFA-Michigan]

I don't understand your reference to abortion. A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court DID overturn all state laws regulating abortion, just as the USSC could overturn 50 state laws defining marriage.

We strongly agree that each state should maximize its protection of marriage. We've led the charge for a state Marriage Protection Amendment in Michigan, but in part because it will help pressure Michigan's congressional delegation to support a federal amendment, which is necessary to stop the USSC from invalidating whatever we do at the state level.

[cyncooper]

An announcement of what? Are you under the impression that President Bush has the power to singlehandedly start the ball rolling? He did, as I showed you. His "if" was clearly used and you and others who are bent on criticizing him instead of seeing that he's taking the lead on the issue either refuse to understand or are deliberately twisting it for your own ends.

Why don't you show me where the dreaded "Rove" said a damn thing.

[BikerNYC]

No one cares anymore whether you have kids while married or single, because marriage is no longer looked on as a necessary or important.

I agree. But prohibiting gay people from getting married will only add to that problem, as children see more and more alternatives to marriage. Better, I think, to insist that commiitted gay couples (I think I read that the first couple married in SF last week has been together 51 years) get married.

[Agamemnon]

This statement:

My religious beliefs most definitely condemn homosexual activity as sin and consider the inclination disordered.

...does not appear to square with your earlier statement:

I don't wish to deny the freedom to act of anyone else who feels homosexual activity is fine.

Why are you so concerned about protecting a homosexual's "right" to practice homosexuality? Either you condemn such behavior, or you don't.

[AFA-Michigan]

The president's announcement -- without "ifs" -- that he is calling on Congress to submit to the states a Federal Marriage Amendment and pledging that he will commit the full weight of the White House to its approval.

Guess you'll have to take Bay Buchanan's and my word for it as to what Rove said on the phone call.

[Protagoras]

The things you want for those who prefer homosexual sexual realtions regarding bank accounts etc. should be available to any two people who make a binding legal contracts among themselves, notwithstanding their perverse sexual preferences. Any two people should, and can, make those arrangements. If they are prohibited by tyranical government pukes with guns from doing so, we should rectify that.

That is not marriage, and they deserve nothing which is not afforded also to two consenting adults who do not have unusual sexual experiences.

There is no human dignity to butt f-cking or female muff diving.

[puroresu]

The U.S. Senate will be where the battle will be hardest. I think the U.S. House will pass it, and it will actually be easy getting 38 states to ratify it, **IF** they can get it passed through the U.S. Senate.

38 states already have state Defense of Marriage Acts. Of those 38, only in California would it be hard to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. That's because the California state DOMA was passed by the voters when the legislature refused to pass it. On a constitutional amendment, only the legislature can act, so the voters can't by-pass them. However, with enough constituent pressure, even California's legislature isn't totally unreachable on this issue.

Among the 12 states which don't have state DOMAs, there are several which could still pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. Indiana, for example, doesn't have a state DOMA, but that isn't because there's support for gay marriage there. It's just that the legislature hasn't gotten around to voting on it, for whatever reason. That was also true in Ohio, but when they got around to voting on it a few weeks ago, the DOMA passed overwhelmingly. The same thing would happen in Indiana on a state DOMA or a Federal Marriage Amendment. Wisconsin has a socially conservative state legislature that is often thwarted by the leftist governor there (he keeps vetoing pro-life legislation and concealed carry), but the gov would be out of the picture on a constitutional amendment. In fact, I think Wisconsin is about to take up a state DOMA bill. Ditto for New Hampshire, where a state DOMA is being considered and should pass. Oregon and New Mexico are two other states without state DOMAs that might pass a Federal Marriage Amendment, or a state DOMA, if it came up for a vote.

The battle will be in the U.S. Senate. Woe unto any state legislature that refuses to ratify a Federal Marriage Amendment. The voters would kick ass over that one. They cleaned house in Vermont after that state voted in civil unions, ousting several pro-civil union legislators and putting the GOP in control of the legislature. And that was in "liberal" Vermont!

Some people argue that some states which have passed state DOMAs would balk at changing the constitution on this issue, but I think that's wrong. The argument that we shouldn't amend the constitution on this issue would crumble once the proponents of the amendment simply asked what other way there would be to stop gay marriage. Those libertarian-type conservatives would find themselves in the same position, and on the same side, as John Kerry, claiming they oppose gay marriage, but also oppose anything that would block it.

Look for easy ratification **IF** they can get the Federal Marriage Amendment through the U.S. Senate. That's where the 'Rats will try to kill it, since senators only have to face the voters every six years. That will allow the Mary Landrieu types to vote "no" and hope the voters forget it by the year 2008.

[BikerNYC]

There is no human dignity to . . . female muff diving.

Male muff-diving, on the other hand, overflows with dignity.

[longtermmemmory]

For this I borrow from the 11th's upholding FL prohibition of homosexual adoption. A man and woman are a mother and father raising the children. The production and raising do not have to be with same people.

However, it is well documented that a child adopted does not have to be told or ever find out they are adopted. It is a easily accepted normal fact. Even your childless parents prove that marriage is about raising children.

There is no way to conceal the ugly truth from a child being raised in the abnormal environment of homosexuals. The new zeland study of the children of lesbian couples additionally documents the high probability of psychological problems that will inevitable hit those children.

Homosexual couples do not adopt as a couple. One adopts and the second is given guardianship rights. Under no circumstances will two men or two women ever be one mother and one father. Under no circumstances will two men or two women be able to model proper conduct for children.

Homosexuals who adopt are irrelevant to the marriage debate because they are by definition a couple based solely on sexual gratification. A child in a homosexual couple is little more than an accessory for an alternative lifestyle. If you any doubt about that, you can than the ALI and their model domestic code which was written to consider children of "domestic partners" (homosexuals) accessories to the relationship.

[Unam Sanctam]

There is no inconsistency. I morally condemn the sinful behavior. However, I am willing that the civil laws permit it, as there is no societal consensus on its morality and, unlike abortion, there is not great physical harm done to another person other than those adults consensually acting out the activity. However, I object to the government promoting sinful behavior through state-sponsored same sex marriage. You can argue for making homosexual activity a crime again, but you won't win the argument, and after the Lawrence case you'll need a Constitutional amendment t do it.

[MountainPatriot]

This is the silver bullet. Liberal Democrats at the National Level will finish off the Roosevelt Coalition Dems in the South and Midwest.

In Kentucky, Dems at the local level almost go into convulsions trying to run from this issue. When linked with it they freak out. One such candidate is State Senator Ray Jones in Pikeville. He has his daddy defending his good Christian upbringing and the fact that he lives at the foot of the cross.

It's THE ISSUE and we must use it and use it hard against Dems at all levels.

[jveritas]

Gay marriage may become the most important issue of the 2004 election. It is a very emotional subject and it will have everyone in the nation talking about it. If President Bush will push hard for a federal amendment banning gay marriage, he will win at least 40 states in the November election. John Kerry is to weak on this issue even if he is saying now that he is against gay marriage. John Kerry voted against the Defense of marriage act in 1996 and he sent a letter in 2002 to activist gay groups in Massachusetts opposing the change of Massachusetts constitution to ban gay marriage, and he is for civil union. His flip-flops on this issue cannot work and he is very badly cornered, and he will be totally destroyed.