Posted on 12/16/2003 5:11:13 PM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -
President Bush said Tuesday that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court last month struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional and giving state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to wed.
Bush has condemned the ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. But though he has said he would support whatever is "legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition.
But on Tuesday, the president said he endorsed a constitutional amendment "which would honor marriage between a man and a woman." At the same time, however, he also seemed to leave the door open to different arrangements in different states.
Bush made the comments in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer, and the network released a transcript of the remarks.
"The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level," he told Sawyer.
"I do believe in the sanctity of marriage," he added. "It's an important differentiation, but I don't see that as conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding person."
The president also said that he - like any politician - could lose his next run for office, next year's bid for a second term in the White House.
"Everybody's beatable in a democracy," Bush said. "And that's the great thing about a democracy. People get to make that decision. I know how I'm voting."
Bush said he has not decided who would be in his Cabinet and other top administration posts - other than retaining Vice President Dick Cheney - if he is "fortunate enough" to win.
--
LOL, ignorance is truly bliss. There is a method to this madness and the method is the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution which will be held to apply by 5 SCOTUS justices. Wake up.
What Massachusetts decides to allow or disallow has no Constitutional bearing on any other state.
Congress and 37 states' legislatures already have passed laws intended to block recognition of other states' approval of same-sex marriages. Short of militarily conquering the United States Government and other states with the Massachusetts Highway Patrol, Massachusetts can not force any other state to recognize the legal validity of a Massachusetts same-sex marriage.
I'm simply puzzled you would post this less than a week after the USSC ran roughshod over the first amendment. The USSC will do what it wants; the full faith and credit clause will be the vehicle.
Only if that union meets the new state's legal defintion of marriage. For same-sex marriages, that is not the case:
STATES THAT PREVENT RECOGNITION OF OUT-OF-STATE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LICENSE
As you can see, they include both Florida and Illinois.
In the South, the standard reply to the argument that (fill in the black) was legal in Massachusetts is:
"Well, you're not in Massachusetts anymore, boy, and it ain't legal here!"
Precisely.
The power rests with SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts is as irrelevant to the final outcome of this issue as the Supreme Court of Florida was to the final outcome of the 2000 Presidential election.
As I documented in Post 65, I would not have that particular problem in Iowa because Iowa is one of the 37 states that specifically bans the recognition of out-state same-sex marriages.
STATES THAT PREVENT RECOGNITION OF OUT-OF-STATE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LICENSE
If I lived in Massachusetts, I would have that particular problem. However, I would blame nobody but myself for being stupid enough to want to live in such a state.
I currently live in Washington State. Liberal as it is, Washington State is one of those states that specifically bans the recognition of out-state same-sex marriages.
Certainly not, the SJC of Mass cited Lawrence v Texas in their opinion.
That is the first step, the second step is the "full faith and credit" clause. There are at least 5 votes to uphold that as regards the Mass SJC opinion. Absent the Mass SJC decision the case would never come before the SCOTUS. DOMA is irrelevant to a SCOTUS that cites European precedent to impose mores on America.
Here's your first mistake. One of our mottos is "E Pluribus Unum". "Out of many, one" We don't celebrate diversity. We celebrate union with our founding fathers ideals. Great melting pot and all that.
There are people who live in America who aren't christians, and who don't have a problem with gay marriage.
And some of them have been actively trying to destroy my way of life and make it all but illegal to be a Christian. If they can work against me why can't I work against them?
We don't all have the same beliefs and the same religion. That's freedom.
They are free to hold to whatever religious beliefs they want (within the bounds of the constitution) even if they are wrong. But they had better hold to the beliefs enshrined in our founding documents and the writings of our founding fathers.
Could anyone explain to me why someone else being gay, or being in a gay marriage, would actually hurt them?
You don't read much do you? Let me point you to a list of links that documents this in an overwhelming level of detail. The list is sorted by topic so you can read only the applicable links.
Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links
I'd recommend reading the health hazard, marriage and child abuse sections.
This issue really brings the bigots out of the woodwork!
"Bigot: One fanatically devoted to one's own group, race, religion, or politics, and intolerant of those who differ." (Websters II)
Yep that's me. And proud of it too. When you are right, you should stand up for what you believe in. That's the spirit that this country was founded in.
BTW welcome to FreeRepublic. Stick around and learn.
The third step is the second half of Article IV, Section 1 :
"And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
Key words: Congress. General Laws (as in DOMA).
You mistake smugness and condescension for amusement. In any case, perhaps you woke up.
If, if, SCOTUS ignores the second half of Article IV, Section 1, then it would be the time to sully the Constitution of the United States with the tawdry subject of same-sex marriages.
Until such time, I would prefer that the venerable U.S. Constitution not even go there.
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.