Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Says He Could Support Ban On Gay Marriage
AP ^ | 12/16/03

Posted on 12/16/2003 5:11:13 PM PST by 11th Earl of Mar

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
To: RJCogburn
You would rather let a narrow majority of one state court in effect amend the constitutions of every other state? Gay marriage is based on the false notion that men and women are interchangeable beings, so that marriage can redefined by the stroke of a pen. A natural institution is thereby replaced by an artificial one.
21 posted on 12/16/2003 6:19:38 PM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
The president said he endorsed a constitutional amendment "which would honor marriage between a man and a woman."

"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

Can someone explain to me how these two statements aren't directly contradictory?

22 posted on 12/16/2003 6:20:56 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Bush has condemned the ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union.

Marriage as the union of a man and a woman? What a reactionary, bigoted concept!

23 posted on 12/16/2003 6:20:59 PM PST by Rebellans (Arlen Specter as Senate Judiciary chairman? <shudder>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Incredible. They have this article on the wires before it even hits the airwaves.

Just another attempt to drop the President a notch or two. Pathetic.

24 posted on 12/16/2003 6:29:55 PM PST by Maigrey (Second question: Where is Scott Speicher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: waterstraat
Actually, right to bear arms, and protecting our borders, is more important to me than having the federal government worrying about/checking what people do in their own bedrooms.

This is not about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. There is nothing preventing homosexuals from doing what they want in private, and the proposed amendment would not change that.

This is about the definition of marriage, which is very much a public institution.

25 posted on 12/16/2003 6:30:05 PM PST by Rebellans (Arlen Specter as Senate Judiciary chairman? <shudder>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All
This is the text of the proposed amendment:

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Alliance for Marriage

26 posted on 12/16/2003 6:44:39 PM PST by Rebellans (Arlen Specter as Senate Judiciary chairman? <shudder>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rebellans
what people do in their own bedrooms. Goes back to the contreceptive decision. Code for sex has nothing to do with reproduction, and ought not to, because human reproduction is dangerous for all mankind. Better to let the human race die out so that the planet can be saved. Words of the Devil, who hates mankind.
27 posted on 12/16/2003 6:46:08 PM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
I agree with you about the contraceptive mentality. I was just pointing out to waterstraat that the proposed amendment would deal solely with the definition of marriage.
28 posted on 12/16/2003 6:56:39 PM PST by Rebellans (Arlen Specter as Senate Judiciary chairman? <shudder>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
This is another check he has written hoping it will never be cashed.
29 posted on 12/16/2003 7:01:05 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks; mrmeyer
I'd like for him to saw he'd support an admendment for passing out free ice cream on Saturday and half price booze and hookers the rest of the week. But since he hasn't done that he's a crappy president. Let's vote a Democrat in instead . . .
30 posted on 12/16/2003 7:15:43 PM PST by Tempest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I suspect that what the President is telegraphing is that he will likely support a Consitutional amendment that says that no state is required to give full faith and credit to a "gay marriage" entered into by members of the same sex in another state. This would be in lieu of his supporting a stricter amendment that flat-out bans any state from permitting gay marriage. Keep in mind, in the name of "compassionate conservatism" the Bush administration tried to split the difference in the U of M affirmative action cases, suggesting to the Court in its brief that racial preferences are unconstitutional in those particular admissions programs, but not in all cases.

Based on previous Supreme Court decisions and the (il) logic of Justices Kennedy and O'Connor (along with the four liberals) in Lawrence v. Texas, as forewarned by Justice Scalia it is extremely likely that the current Court will indeed require all states to honor a gay marriage performed in liberal state like Massachusetts. A constitutional amendment truly is necessary simply to keep the status quo of allowing states to determine their own criteria for what constitutes a "marriage".
31 posted on 12/16/2003 7:20:52 PM PST by larlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: larlaw
I suspect that what the President is telegraphing is that he will likely support a Consitutional amendment that says that no state is required to give full faith and credit to a "gay marriage" entered into by members of the same sex in another state

I suspect you're right. Bush has triangulated on many issues, including AA. I think he's delusional if he thinks this will satisfy conservatives. The FMA is ready to go; let's roll.

32 posted on 12/16/2003 7:25:29 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Wait a minute. Some states have "age of consent" laws that allow sexual intercourse with 14 year olds. In other states this could get you thrown in jail for statutory rape. It's not true that all states have to obey each other's laws sexual, especially.
33 posted on 12/16/2003 7:27:09 PM PST by boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION NOT RATIFIED BY THE STATES
During the course of our history, in addition to the 27 amendments that have been ratified by the required three-fourths of the States, six other amendments have been submitted to the States but have not been ratified by them.

Beginning with the proposed Eighteenth Amendment, Congress has customarily included a provision requiring ratification within seven years from the time of the submission to the States. The Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act is a political question to be determined by the Congress.

And so on...(follow the link for the text of the six proposed amendments which were actually submitted to the states for ratification.)

34 posted on 12/16/2003 7:27:25 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
he's a populist. I voted for him last time, I'll vote for him again.

I find his support of the so-called assault weapons ban offensive.

enjoy your hooker.
35 posted on 12/16/2003 7:27:56 PM PST by glock rocks (molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
Let's vote a Democrat in instead . . .

At some point you have to ask; would that be better? Jimmy Carter was maybe the best thing to happen to conservatism in the 20th century. Before him we had two liberal Republicans, after him we had Reagan, and RINOs became a lot rarer.

Gay marriage is a no-lose issue for the GOP. A large majority of Americans are against it. We had a very similar amendment to the FMA in our state, and it passed nearly 3:1, with every major newspaper against it. If GWB can't get behind the FMA, you have to question his conservatism. You can't argue it's politically harmful; all the evidence is it's a winner. So what's the problem?

36 posted on 12/16/2003 7:33:02 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
A Supreme Court ruling mandating gay marriage is a gun held in the face of every straight Christian who rejects homosexuality. In ten years it will be impossible to keep your job if you're open in your opposition to homosexual marriage.
37 posted on 12/16/2003 7:56:11 PM PST by Ronly Bonly Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
LOL!!! Ahhh yes the whole sacraficial lamb arguement. It seems that you must have passed up on the President's interview this evening or else you wouldn't bother to bring up FMA. But hey that's not my problem.

Anyways if you really think shooting yourself in the foot and thinking that you'll grow back a newer and shinier foot in the future is the way to go. So be it. It's funny though, I alwyas thought that it was the Republican party that was supposed to be big on common sense.

Personally I think that theirs a LOT of impetuous "conservatives" out there that think that the world of politics is like Burger King and that they can have thing their way whenever they want it. Fortunately I don't subscribe to such silliness.
38 posted on 12/16/2003 8:12:36 PM PST by Tempest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The point of the judiciary is to be a check on the other branches of government.. If the supreme court was elected in the same way as the other branches, it would lose that power. The judiciary exists because there needs to be a branch that is free from the corruptive influences that political pandering and lobbying and campaigning bring. The injustice done by the Judiciary being too powerful would be dwarfed by the injustice of weakening it.
39 posted on 12/16/2003 8:19:01 PM PST by fiscally_right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rebellans
The gay definition of marriage is absurd unless the differences between men and women are merely a matter of convention. Only by leaving reproduction out of account, however, can men and women be treated as interchangeable entities. I remember the Frank Sinatra song " "Love and Marriage" go together like a horse and carriage" Boy, how things have changed in fifty years.
40 posted on 12/16/2003 8:24:31 PM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson