Said unions would then simply become invalid.
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.
Remember, the North American Man/Boy Love Association is homosexual.
Homosexual pedophiles who like boys from birth up.
They call their sex with young boys "love", too.
If homosexuals can marry, so can homosexual pedophiles.
They can then legally adopt young boys. Because of the Texas sodomy law, no social worker or police officer would be able to stop the molestations.
They'd legally be able to adopt their very own sex toys, and there will be no limit.
How many NAMBLA members just "married" in SF?
For Bush 41 it was the Flag.
For Bush 43 it will be the fag
Homosexuality has a way of destroying anything it touches: intellectual credibility, one's identity, families, churches, institutions, and relationships of all types.
Why not the whole Democrat Party this time?
As a wedge I see it carving their party to bits. Let's pull up a chair, pop the popcorn, turn up the volume and just revel in watching it all happen! Let the gays stick the sword into them and twist it -- or whatever else it is that they might more convenient.
Maybe Rove believes that this issue, handed to the Republican's on a silver platter and around which America can rally against as a clear and present threat to our way of life, has the possibility of destroying thr identity of the Democrat Party the same way that activity detroys the identity of those who engage in it.
This election isn't about jusy re-electing Bush. It's about destroying the opposition about as thoroughly as it can be done, so that more conservatives will be elected to carry forward a solidly conservative mandate at all levels --- starting in congressional legislation and seeing it all the way to the judiciary.
Moms and dads are watching. They're seeing the perverse world their kids might have to grow up in.
If they've never voted before, they will now.
This homosexual issue will scare the hell out of them. They'll be running to the polls.
But being fruitful and multiplying can mean many things to many people, imposing your current western cultural views upon the text is wrong. You and God must evolve with the times. He wants us to be fruitful in all our endeavors and multiply our love among all people because God is love. < revisionist>
You are wrong. This is exactly the case where the "full faith and credit clause" applies.
In MA, the new law legalizing gay marriage specifically states that any other state does not have to recognize it.
That they placed such a limitation in the law supports the case that they think such a "marriage" would otherwise have to be recognized by every other state in the Union, due to the "full faith and credit clause".
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.
Actually, due to the "full faith and credit clause", they would have to recognize it. That's why this is a federal issue.
Nope. You're joking, maybe?
The word will never die. Gods laws are the laws of nature. All nature. He created everything.
The 10 commandments are the laws of human nature. When disobeyed, mans evil nature takes over, and mankind suffers.
Read the last page of Revelation. He warns people not to do it!
You read the Bible the way the liberals read the Constitution. Just change what you don't like.
Said unions would then simply become invalid.
Render them legally null & void.
It should get an easy 2/3 in both U.S. houses.
As for the states, why wouldn't the same 38 states with DOMA/State Amendments also pass the federal amendment?
What would be the problem?
The Constitution will be amended over the definition of marriage, it is just a question of whether unelected judges or democratically elected representatives do the amending. No written amendment means judicially imposed gay marriage sooner or later.
Dream on. There's no stopping activist judges intent on imposing their agenda. The judges will change the Constitution whether you like it or not, and will make mincemeat of any statute on the matter, trumping it with a constitutional right, as they have done in Massachusetts.
Thanks for being one of the few people who recognize the real issue at stake. I have said this over and over -- the issue is not freedom or discrimination but government promotion of behavior that many have differing moral views about.
You must be missing my closing tags.
God doesn't change but like any science, theology changes and makes new discoveries all the time. What we Moses thought he heard God say and what the disciples heard Jesus say and what the prophets were told to write may not be really what God meant. After all, the cell phone service wasn't all that good back then. < /revisionism>
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.