Bush for Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage-Source

Reuters ^

[The G Man]

Feb 19, 11:54 AM (ET)

By Alan Elsner

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.

[StonyBurk]

Well In 1885 the Federal Court declared in Murphy v. Ramsey
that marriage was defined as "Consisting in and springing from that union for life of one man an done woman in the Holy estate of matrimony."Now Science has identified what
genetic markers identify a man and a woman and can with reasonable accuracy determine form th ewomb to the tomb and beyond if a specimin came from a male or female. All
attempts to disguise what the Creator has given aside-
for appearance can decieve.

[Fishing-guy]

I agree. This ban on gay marriage can easily be done on the State level or in Congress. I do believe that certain legal protection should be extended to gay and lesbian unions.

Using a Constitutional amendment for special interest will only trivialize the importance of the Constitution. Next thing you know, every special interest group will be lobbying the President for their "important" amendment to the Constitution.

[international american]

Bush won't waffle on this one.

[StonyBurk]

Then exactly how would you propose resolving the issue that
activist Judges continue to violate the clear language and
intent of the US Constitution.Are you an assasine,with
plans to take out the threat? Are you an anarchist who
would not support any Law? What do you propose?

[rintense]

And you just KNOW that's where the parsing of words will be debated. Hell, if you can throw out a law because of a semi colon, why not challenge the definition of what a man or a woman is?

[TheEaglehasLanded]

When Bush says it and uses his political muscle to push it then I'll be happy. As Toby Keith says, a Little Less Talk and a LOT MORE ACTION

[rintense]

It HAS to become a federal law. Period. If left up to states, there would be far too may lawsuits between states that would not recognize a marriage from another state. It would end up in the hands of judges.

And I'd rather have this decided by the American people, not judges.

[tomahawk]

When liberal judges rewrite the Constitution with words that aren't there, we have to amend the Constitution to put words that are there to fix it, or else we live under a judicial tyranny.

[DonQ]

Kinda spiteful of Bush to prevent his VP's daughter from settling down with her significant other.

[jwalsh07]

This ban on gay marriage can easily be done on the State level or in Congress.

Exactly wrong. The courts are out of control. Constitutions and laws mean nothing to them when they have room to wiggle.

There are three ways to rein them in, impeach them, order them to leave marraige and abortion alone, or by a crisp , clear Constitutional Amendment.

The only one politically possible is an amendment.

Marriage has to be constitutionally defined in any case because when if indivdual states allow marriage outside of one man, one woman the feds have IRS, SS and medicare and medicaid issues revolving around who is married to whom.

An amendment is required, no doubt about it.

[steve-b]

Can't see how this can hurt Bush

I can see how it will kill Bush -- "He won't fight to get spending under control, but he'll fight for this sideshow?!?"

[puroresu]

I respect your love for the Constitution, but here are two questions for you, or for any other conservative who opposes a constitutional amendment:

Suppose gay marriage becomes the law in one state, let's say Massachusetts. Shortly thereafter, we start hearing sob stories from Katie Couric and Oprah on daily television about how these oppressed gay married couples are "prisoners" in the state of Massachusetts. We'll see Brucie from Boston on TV explaining that he had a wonderful job offer in Dallas, but couldn't accept it because his "husband" isn't legally recognized in Texas. We'll see Brunhilda from Worcester explaining that her plans to pursue an advanced degree at Northwestern University had to be dropped because her "wife" couldn't go with her to Illinois with the same legal recognition and protections.

And, of course, Brucie and Brunhilda will file lawsuits under the 14th amendment equal protection clause, and likely will win at the Supreme Court.

A) How do you stop that from happening?

B) Which would you prefer: A real, legitimately ratified constitutional amendment either banning gay marriage or leaving the issue up to the states, or a judicially created national right to gay marriage, imposed by fiat on the states by the federal courts?

[Redcloak]

This is a no-brainer for Bush. A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage IN CALIFORNIA passed here with nearly a 2/3 majority. If gay marriage is that unacceptable here, then what about "fly-over" country? The idiot rats in the Bay Area and Massachusetts have handed Bush a winning issue on a silver platter.

[longtermmemmory]

First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms
Third Amendment - Quartering Soldiers
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
Seventh Amendment - Civil Trials
Eighth Amendment - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
Eleventh Amendment - Suits Against States
Twelfth Amendment - Election of President
Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed, Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Fifteenth Amendment - Rights of Citizens to Vote
Sixteenth Amendment - Income Tax
Seventeenth Amendment - Popular Election of Senators
Eighteenth Amendment - Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors
Nineteenth Amendment - Woman's Suffrage Rights
Twentieth Amendment - Commencement of the Terms of the President, Vice President and Members of Congress.
Twenty-First Amendment - Repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment
Twenty-Second Amendment - Presidential Tenure
Twenty-Third Amendment - Presidential Electors for the District of Columbia
Twenty-Fourth Amendment - Abolition of the Poll Tax Qualification in Federal Elections
Twenty-Fifth Amendment - Presidential Vacancy, Disability, and Inability
Twenty-Sixth Amendment - Reduction of Voting Age Qualification
Twenty-Seventh Amendment - Congressional Pay Limitation

All after the tenth were beratted as trivializing the constitution. Marriage is now a federal issue. No amount of wishful thinking can change that.

Voting age could have been achieved by law, congressional pay could have been done by law. All at some point were said to be able to be done by a state or fed law.

Homosexuals already have the ability to "protect". They can enter into cohabitation agreements. It has always existed. This is not about protection. Protection is a BStreisand argument. This is about recieving a public sanction of their private sexual behavior. How someone pops an orgasm is not subject to sanction under the law.

The left should view this as separation of adult sexual behavior and state.

There is no reason for civil unions. There is no reason for any equivalency but for the "m" word.

Marriage is an institution for the raising and creating of children not for government sanction of feeeeeeelings.

[Fishing-guy]

I do believe that certain protection (like social security, insurance, etc.) should be given to gay unions.

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.

[The G Man]

"Kinda spiteful of Bush to prevent his VP's daughter from settling down with her significant other"

There's nothing preventing her from "settling down." She just can't get married ... unless she changes teams, that is.

[VRWC_minion]

It HAS to become a federal law which only applies to states which doesn't recognize marriage.

[KQQL]

Monsieur John Kerry

I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations. - The Crimson 02/18/1970
"A bold progressive internationalism," Kerry. - JK Website

H.R. 3396 (Defense of Marriage Act) Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Signed the Letter Backing Gay Marriage - massequality.org 07/12/02

10. Would you support a congressional repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which would allow gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers the right to serve openly in the military as is currently the policy in nearly every NATO country.
KERRY: SUPPORT
Comments: In 1993, I was one of four Senators who testified before the Armed Services committee that it was fundamentally wrong to continue to deny gay and lesbian Americans the right of participate in the armed forces of the United States
hrc.org/2004 Presidential Questionnaire Responses

"Kerry indicated he might eventually back gay marriages if a public consensus developed for them," Brownstein Notes.
http://www.massinsider.com/archives/001261.phtml

[jwalsh07]

I do believe that certain protection (like social security, insurance, etc.) should be given to gay unions.

How about ungay unions? Polyamory unions? Platonic unions? Brothers and sisters?

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.

38 states have voted for DOMA, that is more than three quarters. The polls show a majority for constitutiional amendments in almost every state. Hawaii, a liberal state, amended their constitution when there judicial oligarch ruled that homosexual "marriage" was a right.

I think you underestimate the resonance of this issue.

[longtermmemmory]

Tell it to the elderly that homosexuals will be qualified to get senior citizens social security money for survivor benefits from their aids dead.

It EXTREMELY likely to pass. There are already 38 states with DOMA's who give every indication of passing the FMA. Two additional states are looking to pass constitutional doma's. GA comes to mind.

The Senate passed Federal DOMA in 1996 by 80%. Now with a republican majority it is probably even higher.

There are 8 sponsors in the senate and at last count 108 co-sponsors in the house.

This has a high pass probability.