Bush: Wait on Amendment Defining Marriage

NewsMax.com ^ | 7/02/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[AntiGuv]

You mean aside from the conspicuously absent DOJ amicus in the SCOTUS proceedings??

His appointment of openly gay Michael Guest as Ambassador to Romania - a notably homophobic nation - including acknowledgment that his domestic partner would join him in residence.

His appointment of Log Cabin Republican leader Scott Evertz as Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy; and his immediate retreat from support of Christian activist Jerry Thacker's appointment to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS upon the first hint of controversy.

His endorsement of the Mychal Judge Act which provided implicit acknowledgement of equivalency between gay partnerships & married couples for the first time in federal law.

His preservation of every single anti-discrimination executive order issued by President Clinton to cover gay & lesbian employees of Federal agencies (including the CIA & DOJ).

[AntiGuv]

You will note a list of all legal briefs submitted for consideration in the Lawrence v Texas ruling near the lower part of this FindLaw docket. Enjoy your game of find the DOJ amicus curiae....

[William McKinley]

whatever that meant

It means that the case before the Supreme Court regarding marriage has not been decided yet. The reason this is suddenly on the front burner and Bush is getting asked about it now in advance of the Supreme Court decision is that Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence pretty much tipped the Court's hand. They are going to say that prohibitions against gay marriage is unconstitutional, unless one of the five who signed on to the opinion (Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, or Stevens) changes their view.

But until such a time as the Court does rule, it would be premature for Bush to be talking about the action to follow the ruling.

[William McKinley]

Are you addressing the President, or the Supreme Court.

If the latter modifies the Constitution by fiat, the people may have to modify it by the methods proscribed in the Constitution.

[AntiGuv]

It's 38 states and it would no doubt take at least two to three years since several states require a majority of their legislators to stand for intervening election before they may vote on a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[William McKinley]

I don't think Bush wants this to overshadow his re-election campaign.

I think that if Massachusettes comes down during the campaign, and puts the question of the judiciary on the front burner with a bevy of strict constructionists who would defend against such judicial activism stuck behind Democrat filibusters, Bush and Rove would not be terribly upset with that as a political matter.

[AntiGuv]

I have no problem whatsoever with President Bush's statement, which I'm in agreement with. I do not think that this Supreme Court would rule in favor of gay marriage, nor do I think that Lawrence legalized same-sex marriage, or provided precedent to its legalization.

[onyx]

FGS, POTUS has never once supported "same sex marriage" and Lawrence v Texas was NOT about gay marriage no matter how you try to twist it!

[AntiGuv]

FGS, POTUS has never once supported "same sex marriage" and Lawrence v Texas was NOT about gay marriage no matter how you try to twist it!

Reread my posts & tell me where I made either statement. Pay particular attention to my post #27.

[sinkspur]

You don't really think GWB has some profoundly intense conviction against same-sex marriage or homosexuality in general, do you? His actions indicate otherwise.

I do, and his actions indicate nothing of the sort.

[Dane]

(Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, or Stevens)

Let's just take a look at how those 5 got on the court. Kennedy's seat should have been Robert Bork's, but Oldsmobile Ted and the dems "Borked" him. Stevens was a Jerry Ford pick, case closed. Souter has McCain mentor Warren Rudman's fingerprints all over his selection and Bush 41 learned his lesson after that disaster with the subsequent selection of Clarence Thomas.

Ginsburg and Breyer were selected by Clinton, whom a lot of "conservatives" by voting for Perot let Clinton in.

After all, the mantra of the "Perot conservatives" was, "how much damage could Clinton do?".

[sinkspur]

It will take the better part of a year for this amendment to be passed through 37 states.

It will take a hell of a lot longer than that.

Texas, after this special session, won't meet again until 2005.

[AntiGuv]

Including his actions listed in post #12 and #21??

[Jhoffa_]

He had better not putz around on this...

I like his statement, it's encouraging.. But Frist's was better and I would feel more comfortable with something along the lines of:

"YES, marriage is between a man and a woman.. And YES, I am going to do something pro-active to ensure it remains that way.. Even if the SC does strike it down, I won't let it go without a fight."

This is not an issue to piddle fart around on.. If universal gay marriage becomes a reality, I want to be able to honestly (because, I won't lie for the guy..) tell people:

"George W Bush stuck to his guns and did everything imagineable to prevent it."

[sinkspur]

Your #21 only indicates that Bush doesn't take sexual orientation into account in nominations, and that he doesn't discriminate in the federal workplace against homosexuals.

None of which, of course, has anything to do with supporting gay marriage.

[AntiGuv]

Nor contradict my initial remarks...

[Jhoffa_]

Including his actions listed in post #12 and #21??

Hummm..

Not very encouraging, is it?

[sinkspur]

Nor contradict my original remarks...

Which were:

You don't really think GWB has some profoundly intense conviction against same-sex marriage or homosexuality in general, do you? His actions indicate otherwise.

Tell me what non-discrimination in the federal workplace tells you about Bush's convictions about same-sex marriage, which he convincingly stomped on, today?

[AntiGuv]

In my assessment, President Bush is more or less where most of the nation is on this issue. He has no particular animosity toward homosexuals and would rather maintain the traditional institution of marriage, but won't be tore up either way, nor go out of his way to generate any controversy on the matter, unless he really has to for political reasons..

[AntiGuv]

The Mychal Judge act went well beyond the issue of discrimination in the Federal workplace...