Posted on 12/05/2004 11:27:47 AM PST by JustAnotherOkie
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that a proposed constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples would be "an act of discrimination" against gays.
Noting that some Republicans in Congress joined Democrats in opposing a federal ban gay marriage, Pelosi told "Fox News Sunday," "There were many Republicans who did not want to taint the Constitution with an act of discrimination. Many Republicans fell into that category."
The San Francisco Democrat made her comments while claiming that Sen. John Kerry was unfairly painted as pro-gay marriage during the presidential campaign.
"President Bush and Sen. Kerry were substantively at the same place on gay marriage," she claimed. "They both opposed it and they both supported civil unions."
The top House Democrat added, "Clearly the public is not ready for the idea of gay marriage. But Sen. Kerry's position was identical to President Bush's on that score."
When Fox host Chris Wallace noted that Kerry opposed the constitutional marriage amendment favored by Bush, Pelosi countered with her comments that amendment opponents "didn't want to taint the Constitution with an act of discrimination."
As long as they donate to the DNC.
No, it doesn't. Gays can still marry other people of the opposite sex. They just can't pervert marriage to support their bizarre "lifestyle."
"The top House Democrat added, 'Clearly the public is not ready for the idea of gay marriage. But Sen. Kerry's position was identical to President Bush's on that score.'"
Actually, the voters were smart enough to see through Kerry. By the time gay marriage became an issue in the election, we knew him well enough to know that he would say, do, be ANYTHING on any given day to get elected. We recognize a slippery-slope when we see one. (Most times...)
Very great point. Never thought of it like that before.
Gays fail to realize that the only reason this ammendment came up is because of their unwillingness to compromise with Civil Unions. We were giving them equal rights and everything but still not good enough.
Let's see... drug laws discriminate against crackheads... "age of consent" laws discriminate against child molesters... RICO laws discrminate against mobsters... Game laws discrminate against poachers... Homicide laws discrminate against murderers...
Ther's an awful lot of horrifying discrimination going on here!
I saw the show..DHe was awful..Chris Wallace nailed her to the door...He read a long list of her votes, then asked her if she was in fact too liberal to lead the Dems...she waffled big time..it was NOT a good performance by the House Minority leader..
Just keep talkin'...you're doing fine. Make sure everyone understands where you and your party stand on this.
And duh! Pelosi is one whacked out old crone.
And unfortunately, not enough spell checking to go along with it! Sorry for the typos!
Pelosi: NFL Players Discriminate Against Puny, Weak Men.
Pelosi: Democrats Discriminate Against Constitutionalists.
Pelosi: Symphonies Discriminate Against Those Who Cannot Play An Instrument.
Pelosi: YMCA Lifeguard Guidelines Discriminate Against Non-Swimmers.
LOL!
Didn't Bush say he supported the right of states to have civil unions if they CHOSE to, not that he personallys supported them?
Senator Kerry's position was NOT identical to President Bush's. Bush was BELIEVABLE in opposing homosexual marriage. Kerry had a 100% pro-homosexual rating from homo-advocacy group HRC. Kerry's position was a political opportunist lie.
I would turn the whole "ready" issue around. It is the 19% liberals of the USA are not ready to accept the FACT that homosexual marriage is not and will never be acceptable. (in any same as form)
...it just a matter of time before these people start push for "equal rights" for poligamists.
constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples would be "an act of discrimination" against gays
That is RIGHT, that is the way the AMerican People want it to be, because we refuse to live with these abomination to God. This immoral lifestyle has been rejected in State Elections. If we want to discriminate it is our right to discriminate. We know what is right and what is wrong, and the limits of Love and Hate. The Socialist want us to accept this lifestyle while our inherant moralality tells us it is Wrong.
The Dummos don't get it and won't get it.They will continue to try to force this upon us and try to bend us to there way of thinking. We will not allow this effort to continue. We must begin to roll back the chnages the Socialist have made to our society on all levels and in all areas.
Nancy Pelosi, a "So called Catholic", She does not meet the standards of the Pre Vatican II Catholic CHurch, She is not a REAL Catholic. SHe places the Laws of man before the Laws of God. She is a Socialist wven though she may not admit it.
The FMA would return the issue to the states where it was supposed to remain. As of now it is a federal issue working its way through the courts to be judged by leftist judges trained by leftist law professors.
President Bush also seemed to grasp the concept that cohabitation agreements would be equal to the task of what homosexual couples desire to memorialize their recreational sex partnerships.
Well, you're right that their insistence on having the word "marriage" in addition to the legal status of it by another name is indeed a sign of their extremism, but there is no offer of compromise on civil unions because its no compromise at all for those wanting to be consistent. It makes no sense to protect the word "marriage" but leave the concept and institution of it open to radical change.
I'm well aware of the exit polls that showed a majority in favor of either gay marriage or civil unions, but in 8 of the 11 states to ban gay marriage the voters also banned civil unions. This included the battleground states of Ohio and Michigan. I think its safe to say that if it is truly left to the people and/or state legislatures, then no state in the South would recognize civil unions. Or the Rocky Mtn West. Or the Breadbasket. Or the Sunbelt. Or most of the Midwest. This holds true now and for the foreseeable future.
So if the Left were indeed happy to settle for this euphemistic game and have civil unions instead of gay marriage, then they would be in the exact same position they are now with regards to gay marriage in most parts of the country. In other words, they would have to have it imposed by the Courts as most states would not voluntarily recognize them.
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.