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.

[Robert_Paulson2]

good idea

[DBrow]

A Federal amendment will be too late- soon, homosexual marriage will be a fact in Massachusetts; then there will be lots of homosexual marriages there, and some will go back to their home states and claim both "equal protection" and state reciprocity a la drivers licences (but not carry permits or fishing lics).

These will quickly be settled in activist courts.

By the time the feds get through the procedural steps, there will be thousands of married homosexuals and scores of court cases pro and con.

Assuming a Constitutional Amendment is ratified, what do you do with the many homosexual unions in existence?

[codercpc]

I have a question for Constitutionalists out there. When this Amendment is sent to the states for ratification, does it go to the legislatures? Which State house?, or does it go to the voters? I know that the governor doesn't have the say, but who does?

If it is different for each state, where can I find out how my state (Wisconsin), does it?

[conserv13]

It didn't need to be amended to make slavery illegal either.

I think that the Constitution should be amended only in very extreme cases. The owning of certain human beings by others is such a case. I don't consider gay marriage to be all that important or a threat to this country.

[mrtysmm]

The dem/libs have asked for this. I can't see anyway this is going to benefit them. The country has made it clear that the majority does NOT support gay marriage. If the dems were smart they would leave this issue alone until after the election. Considering they have little in the way of a positive agenda I see the persuit of this by the dems as a "fool's" issue. In the long run I think they are shooting tmenselves in the foot...but...I say "bring it on".

[Zack Nguyen]

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

I'm afraid this just won't work. The Supreme Court, as presently constituted, will decree homosexual marriage for the entire country. That's why we need a Constitutional amendment - there is no other way that I know of.

[longtermmemmory]

It then reverts to the originating state to deal with it. It also becomes a non issue for federal law. No immigration based on homosexual marriage. No social security claims. (or survivor claims)

[Zack Nguyen]

I don't consider gay marriage to be all that important or a threat to this country.

I would strongly disagree. The enforced normalization of homosexual conduct, indeed it's exhultation to the same level as true marriage would be devastating. A generation would be raised up taught to see homosexual behavior as no different than normal human relationships. The idea of marriage as unique and special would be driven even further into the gutter. The homosexual lifestyle would be taught as normative in schools across the country. Marriage would no longer be considered necessary or important.

Finally, the idea of marriage being the most desirbale avenue for rearing children would be completely shot to hell. I have read about Scandinavia, in which homosexual marriage has more or less been a reality for ten years. The illegitimacy rate is over 50%. No one cares anymore whether you have kids while married or single, because marriage is no longer looked on as a necessary or important.

[longtermmemmory]

marriage is about children. Homosexuals are about sexual gratification. short and sweet.

[VRWC_minion]

I think that the Constitution should be amended only in very extreme cases. The owning of certain human beings by others is such a case

The point is it didn't need to be amended for that. Its fine as it was.

[Rutles4Ever]

I guess those existing marriages will be grandfathered in the states that they were licensed in and disregarded elsewhere. The key here is not about whether it's "too late" to stop the current wave of marriages. This will affect forseeable generations, too, so I don't see it ever being "too late"

[Guillermo]

Oh goodness...I can just picture it now...some activist judge comes up with a new definition of male and female.

After all, "gender identities" are nothing more than social constructs.

[Protagoras]

I do believe that certain legal protection should be extended to gay and lesbian unions.

Why does sodomy define who should have "legal protection"? What do these people need that isn't already afforded them?

Using a Constitutional amendment for special interest will only trivialize the importance of the Constitution.

But using it for toliet paper by every politicion on every other issue hasn't?

[George W. Bush]

But conservatives have made the constitutional amendment a litmus test for Bush.

Yes, it is a litmus. And he's running late on it. Shift it into high gear, Rove. Ram it through the Senate and send it to the states NOW!

Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry, says he favors civil unions for gays but not marriage.

I'm sure he 'opposes' sodomy marriage. But he'll also oppose a constitutional amendment as well.

[George W. Bush]

Watch for the media to indundate the airwaves with anecdotal stories of "love" and hardship for homosexual couples in response to this. Look further for an emphasis on homosexuals raising (indoctrinating) children.

I expect the usual suspects will concoct stories about increased homo-bashings as well. Naturally, it'll all be Bush's fault, the usual liberal PC circus in full tilt.

[TheDon]

It's the only way to do it, due to the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. The only solution to prevent the judiciary from legislating in this case is a constitutional ammendment.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - Bush is on the side of Light and Truth. Anyone doubt it?

Let me know if you want on/off this list.

[conserv13]

I don't think the full faith and credit clause would apply. In MA, the new law legalizing gay marriage specifically states that any other state does not have to recognize it. I live in Maryland where the age of consent laws are 16. If I went to Alabama where the age of consent is 15 (or whatever), married a 15 year old and brought her back to MD, my state would not necessarily recognize it.

I see this as a states' rights issue. If MA or VT voters say gays should be able to marry, then that is that. Marriage should not be federalized. If anything, maybe we could have an amendment to say that: Marriage is NOT a federal institution, never has been.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

If it takes a constitutional amendment to START tying the hands of judges,i'm all for it!This country has changed for the worse and the constitution must be able to protect us from the judiciary and other perverts.

[conserv13]

What do these people need that isn't already afforded them?

If two people of the same sex share a house, bank account, and other financial and personal assets, they should be protected. If one half of a gay couple is in an accident and in a coma, the other should have a medical directive and access to information etc...

Here is another thing they want (and I know I will get flamed big time on this one, so I put my suit on): human dignity. I know several gay couples and they love each other just as much as straight couples do. They laugh and cry at the same things, have spats and make ups just like any straight couple does. They want their commitment to each other to be recognized.

Personally as a conservative, it is none of my business if two people want to be married or not. I especially can't see why both sides are battling over this while Al Queda is trying to kill ALL of us anyway.