Bush: Wait on Amendment Defining Marriage

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

[ladyinred]

Strange, if we already have the law on the books, then why do we need another one pray tell?

[sinkspur]

Do you think he will take the specter of gay marriage personally or not?

I take it personally, because my rep will vote on a Defense of Marriage Amendment.

Bush, as president, has no input on any amendment to the Constitution.

He's already expressed his opinion on marriage: that it is between a man and a woman.

Could he be any more clear?

[Miss Marple]

We need another law as a "get Bush" law, pure and simple.

I would guess that unless this new law includes locking gays in stocks and pelting them with rotten tomatoes, it wouldn't be good enough.

But then, the idea of some here is to divide Bush's supporters, in order to make sure he can't run a strong campaign. I refuse to listen to them. They would promote gay rights tomorrow if they thought it would divide the Republicans.

[ladyinred]

I think he said exactly what he means, that he supports marriage as between a man and a woman. Most Americans do. We already have this law according to this article so why pass yet another one.? Let's enforce the one we have, if that is at all possible.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You mean that like the dissenting Justices in Lawrence, he saw that the Texas law was a bad law?

You mean that this president promotes people based on merit, and sees all as American citizens?

You mean that he believes in not discriminating over discriminating?

"...our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right." ---Thomas Jefferson

Imagine that!

[Jhoffa_]

And your comment about Bush not caaarring about a lot of things wasn't?

No, it's completely accurate..

He doesn't care about the drug subsidy, he doesn't care to brief the SC on Lawrence, he doesn't care about signing unconstitutional legislation like CFR (and Congress doesn't care either..) and he doesn't care about the AWB. Looks like he doesn't care much about immigration either, come to think of it.

No, there's quite a few things he doesn't appear to care much about.

How do you know what Bush cares about, other than Laura, his daughters, his dogs, killing terrorists, and his time at his ranch?

I do what I always do.. I study his actions.

I drew several conclusions in this manner. Here's a good example: He obviously cares about taxes.

I would say that's an accurate and objective statement.. Wouldn't you?

Bush is president, of all the people, not national psychologist.

Again, that's a nice sound byte.. But it really has no bearing on the matter at hand.

[justshe]

FYI. It appears the OPM has made a decision also, based on what is unclear by my research.

---

Other federal laws, not enforced by EEOC, also prohibit discrimination and reprisal against federal employees and applicants. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. The CSRA also prohibits reprisal against federal employees or applicants for whistle-blowing, or for exercising an appeal, complaint, or grievance right. The CSRA is enforced by both the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

[Sabertooth]

Do you think Thomas Jefferson thought that buggery was a civil right?

[AntiGuv]

I mean precisely what I've stated verbatim in my various posts.

[justshe]

Sorry. SOURCE

[Jhoffa_]

I take it personally, because my rep will vote on a Defense of Marriage Amendment.

I am glad to hear that, I take it personally as well. It's a big issue.

Bush, as president, has no input on any amendment to the Constitution.

But he has the pulpit, he's our leader. So, his endorcement means allot.

Like campaigning for our guy's.. Dubya may not be a resident, and able to vote for them personally.. But that didn't keep him from getting involved.

He gave it his all and tried his best to help them out. I just want to see some effort on these other issues also.

If it doesn't work, I want to be able to think: "Damn! Well, Dubya tried anyway.. He gave it his best shot.."

That's it.. It's all I would ever ask.

[colorado tanker]

Let me read the opinion and talk to my lawyers before I decide what to do? Gee, that's a novel approach. Most people want Bush to "Ready Fire Aim."

[onyx]

To: AntiGuv

To be crystal clear:

You asserted: "You don't really think GWB has some profoundly intense conviction against same-sex marriage...?"

I replied: Yes, I do.


17 posted on 07/02/2003 4:09 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)

---

Now, I come back on-line to find that you have gone so far off your original assertion, (see your post #29 to me) that I can only conclude that you might be Buckeroo in disguise!

[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!

I made neither statement, there or elsewhere. In fact I stated the opposite in posts #39/43 & #27, respectively. Is this reply sufficient for us to stop discussing the remarks which exist nowhere but in your imagination, or should I explicitly say that you are wrong.

[Torie]

Where do you stand on this constitutional amendment matter? Do you support Frist's proposal, or my proposal (an anmendment that states have the power to proscribe gay marriage, but congress will have the authority to decide the matter by a federal statutue one way or the other, so that we don't get the Vermont tail wagging the Texas dog via the application of the full faith and credit doctrine). The approach of my amendment of course is that neither side on the matter gets to load the dice by putting their position into the constitution. It remains a matter to be fought out in the public square. Would you support Frist's proposal if mine does not get any traction, because some folks see their chances and mean to take them? Do you oppose any amendment? It is time to stand up and be counted, at least when once informed.

[SUSSA]

Look, Bush is a politician first and foremost. Why say more until he is sure Congress has a real chance of sending him the Amendment?

Let Congress get a little farther along and see if he pushes for passage. Until we know there are enough votes in Congress to get close to passing this, there is no need for him to spend any political capital endorsing it.

Right now our focus should be on demanding Congress pass this.

[Howlin]

This is the second article that I have seen today that completely misquotes Bush's statement.

[dogbyte12]

We tried once to limit the liberties of states, and their citizens. It was called prohibition. I agree with you I believe.

An Amendment that allows states to do civil unions, while in this one exception, allowing other states not to honor it, is a Solomonic decision.

It might actually end up having social benefits. If say just 3 states permit it, you can have a bit of transmigration. People offended by it, can move out, while gays seeking to live as a married couple can move in. Gays are happier in being in a place that accept them, people opposed to gay rights can live in a state that more reflects their values.

[Howlin]

I am against amending the Constitution, period.

[Howlin]

See #79, please.