[Aetius]

Didn't Bush say he supported the right of states to have civil unions if they CHOSE to, not that he personallys supported them?

[longtermmemmory]

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.

[weegee]

Those pushing the homosexual agenda are unwilling to compromise on anything less that full national embracing of same sex couples. They claim that they wanted it to be at the state level (that is their excuse for opposing an amendment to the Constitution) but then they want every state to recognize their marriage.

Much like John Kerry, they will say anything to anyone to get their agenda through.

What President Bush has said is that the people in the states should be deciding this, not activist judges. A constitutional amendment may be the only thing that the courts would ever abide by (it WOULD BE Constitutional then). I believe that if there is NOT an amendment prohibiting same sex marriage, we will soon find constitutional protection for sexual proclivities the same way there are for race/creed/color/sex. And don't fall for attempts to link sexual fetishes to "sex" (male/female). Transvestites are screwed in the head. We are born naked, there is no "wear the opposite sex's clothes" gene.

A person's politics are not protected by the Constitution (while you have free speech, you are not protected against being fired for being a Republican or having epithets shouted at you, and there is no "hate crimes" law to push for additional punishment of those painting swastikas on Bush-Cheney 2004 signs or Republicans homes.