Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals [Archive]

View Full Version : Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals

VV o n g B a

07-30-2003, 11:14 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) --President Bush said Wednesday he has government lawyers working on a law that would define marriage as a union between a woman and a man, casting aside calls to legalize gay marriages.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that," the president said a wide-ranging news conference at the White House Rose Garden.

Bush also urged, however, that America remain a "welcoming country" -- not polarized on the issue of homosexuality.

"I am mindful that we're all sinners and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said. "I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts."

"On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage," he added.

Bush has long opposed gay marriage but as recently as earlier this month had said that a constitutional ban on gay marriage proposed in the House might not be needed despite a Supreme Court decision that some conservatives think opens the door to legalizing same-sex marriages.

The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that made homosexual sex a crime, overturning an earlier ruling that said states could punish homosexuals for having sex.

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia fired off a blistering dissent of the ruling.

The "opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned," Scalia wrote. The ruling specifically said that the court was not addressing that issue, but Scalia warned, "Do not believe it."

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado, is the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred on June 25 to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.

To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage.ap/index.html ://http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS....ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage.ap/index.html)

RasFarengi

07-30-2003, 11:15 AM

He actually said something smart. :rolleyes:

punkdrummer56

07-30-2003, 11:17 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 30 2003, 12:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> He actually said something smart. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
impossible. his writer-monkeys told him what to say. he'd probably say, "all y'all gays folk oughta just go ta canada."

RasFarengi

07-30-2003, 11:42 AM

Punk:

True dat... :lol:

MellowDrama

07-30-2003, 12:30 PM

Too bad it won't pass constitutional muster!

lethal

07-30-2003, 12:59 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MellowDrama @ Jul 30 2003, 02:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Too bad it won't pass constitutional muster! [/b][/quote]
That and there's no justification for the federal government to regulate marriages since they are otherwise regulated by the states.

Unless they pass a Constitutional Amendment, which will not happen.  2/3 of both the House and the Senate and 3/4 of the states?  Just looking at the states, you only need 13 to block passage.  I count California, Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, and Minnesota at least among the states that would be opposed.

MellowDrama

07-30-2003, 01:14 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lethalweapon @ Jul 30 2003, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> That and there's no justification for the federal government to regulate marriages since they are otherwise regulated by the states.

Unless they pass a Constitutional Amendment, which will not happen. 2/3 of both the House and the Senate and 3/4 of the states? Just looking at the states, you only need 13 to block passage. I count California, Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, and Minnesota at least among the states that would be opposed. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, they know in advance it doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of passing the state ratification, yet they will waste countless hours debating this POS bill, while we have more pressing things to worry about - bad economy, war, terror, and so on.  :pissed:

YuheiCarreau

07-30-2003, 01:29 PM

It's not the job of the government to define marriage, is it? Since it's a religious institution? I think the government should create something like that civil union thing, where gays can get all the legal benefits of marriage. "Seperate but equal" hasn't always worked out in the past, but since marriage as we know it today is rooted in religious tradition I think it's up to individual religions to decide if they want to recognize gay marriages. If the government tries to tell Catholics they must allow gay marriages in their churches, that's unconstitutional; so to me having two kinds of marriage (a religious marriage that is recognized by the state and a legal union that has all the same benifits) seems the best way to go. We already have state-performed marriages between a man and a woman, would it be so hard to include gays too?

angel nympho

07-30-2003, 02:41 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YuheiCarreau @ Jul 30 2003, 07:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It's not the job of the government to define marriage, is it? Since it's a religious institution? I think the government should create something like that civil union thing, where gays can get all the legal benefits of marriage. "Seperate but equal" hasn't always worked out in the past, but since marriage as we know it today is rooted in religious tradition I think it's up to individual religions to decide if they want to recognize gay marriages. If the government tries to tell Catholics they must allow gay marriages in their churches, that's unconstitutional; so to me having two kinds of marriage (a religious marriage that is recognized by the state and a legal union that has all the same benifits) seems the best way to go. We already have state-performed marriages between a man and a woman, would it be so hard to include gays too? [/b][/quote]
Marriage is more than a religious institution.  A legal marriage has different benefits, tax things, and ownership things in the eyes of the law, right?  In America, I think the religious notions that go with marriage are forgotten by many.  I agree about the civil union thing where gays should be allowed the same legal benefits as a marriage... but how is that different from an actual marriage?  It's not, right?  So what's so separate about that?

Well, maybe it's because I'm not a particularly religious person that I don't understand what the difference between a marriage recognized by the church and a marriage recognized by the state is.  I was raised Catholic, and plan to be married in a church... I just still don't see the difference.  *Scratches head*  I'm just confused.  Don't mind me...

krome

07-30-2003, 02:45 PM

Hetero divorce rate is like 55%.
I wonder what homo would be?

AngryABCGirl

07-30-2003, 03:20 PM

I'll say what everyone else will be too eloquent to say:

Bush is a hateful ignorant homophobic little shit.

Have a nice day.  :D

rice cracker

07-30-2003, 03:26 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AzNBuffGrL @ Jul 30 2003, 01:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'll say what everyone else will be too eloquent to say:

Bush is a hateful ignorant homophobic little shit.

Have a nice day. :D [/b][/quote]
*claps her hands* Thank you.

MellowDrama

07-30-2003, 06:19 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (krome @ Jul 30 2003, 02:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Hetero divorce rate is like 55%.
I wonder what homo would be? [/b][/quote]
Good point. I wonder what those stats would be like. Do we have any prelim. stats on  "civil unions" in Vermont?

Faithless

07-30-2003, 11:14 PM

"On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage," he added.

Bush has long opposed gay marriage but as recently as earlier this month had said that a constitutional ban on gay marriage proposed in the House might not be needed despite a Supreme Court decision that some conservatives think opens the door to legalizing same-sex marriages.

He's also kissing conservative ass. Someone should have asked him what of extending the same marriage rights to domestic partnerships.

Chris

07-30-2003, 11:30 PM

For an actual gay guy. I would just like the same benefits for me and my partners in the future. I don't care about getting married. I just wanted to treated as an equal.  if the word "marriage" comes to a word. Then screw the word.

ism

07-31-2003, 12:04 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MellowDrama @ Jul 30 2003, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (krome @ Jul 30 2003, 02:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Hetero divorce rate is like 55%.
I wonder what homo would be? [/b][/quote]
Good point. I wonder what those stats would be like. Do we have any prelim. stats on  "civil unions" in Vermont? [/b][/quote]
I can't find the article I was thinking of, but this one is similar (http://tlc.discovery.com/news/afp/20030714/marriage.html).

You can get civil unioned, but getting divorced might not actually be possible depending on where you actually live.

This shows one reason why making gay marriage the same as hetero marriage is important, if the laws written for the latter is to apply uniformly to the former.  Civil unions aren't going to cut it.

pfc beansprout

07-31-2003, 08:27 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AzNBuffGrL @ Jul 30 2003, 04:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'll say what everyone else will be too eloquent to say:

Bush is a hateful ignorant homophobic little shit.

Have a nice day. :D [/b][/quote]
WERD.......

don't get me wrong, in a way, he's gettin balls by sayin what he believed in on a controversial subject, (similar to af. action)...but this dood is one cocky motherfucker...

blue hoodie

07-31-2003, 01:00 PM

White House Mulls Constitution Ban on Gay Marriage

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration would consider seeking a constitutional amendment to ensure a ban on same-sex marriages, a White House spokesman said on Thursday.

Spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush (news - web sites), who on Wednesday said administration lawyers were studying ways to ban gay marriages, also was opposed to civil unions as an alternative.

Asked about the possibility of a constitutional amendment, McClellan said, "obviously that is something to look at in this context."

Any administration action would depend on the outcome of pending court cases on the gay-marriage issue, he said.

"The president is strongly committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage and defending a sacred institution that he believes is a between a man and a woman," McClellan said. "We are looking at what may be needed in the context of the court cases that are pending now."

Bush also opposed legalization of homosexual civil unions, which are allowed in Vermont, McClellan said. He cited Bush's support for current federal law, which holds that states do not have to recognize such civil unions granted by another state.

The gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign on Wednesday criticized the president's stance, saying it suggests "further codifying discrimination."

Debate over the issue of same-sex unions has intensified since Canada has taken steps to legalize gay marriages and the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) in June struck down state sodomy laws. Conservative critics say the Supreme Court's ruling could open the door to same-sex marriages in the United States.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed by former Democratic President Bill Clinton (news - web sites), defines marriage for federal purposes as between one woman and one man. Gay marriages are forbidden in the United States.

Bush said on Wednesday he would not compromise his belief in the "sanctity of marriage."

But, as recently as earlier this month, he said a constitutional ban on gay marriage proposed in the House of Representatives might not be necessary despite the high court's decision.

Any proposal to amend the constitution faces high hurdles. To be successful, it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-quarters of the states.

When asked his views of homosexuality on Wednesday, Bush said "we're all sinners," but McClellan said this should not be interpreted as a belief that homosexuality was a sin.

He noted that Bush's questioner began by saying many of the president's supporters thought homosexuality was immoral. Bush's response expressed a conviction that it was "not his place" to judge others, McClellan said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._homosexuals_dc

wat kind of bullshit is that? It's not his place to judge others? Then don't be saying that gay marriages are wrong!

kimpossible

08-01-2003, 01:40 PM

I'll make sure to give Bush the finger from BC when I attend my friends' wedding this fall.

Emperor_Mike

08-01-2003, 04:35 PM

It is amusing to watch people like George W. Bush look upon gay marriages as immoral and improper whilst he and his people engage in affairs that rob others of their lives and livelihoods. Being Catholic and as such supposedly an automatic adherent of Vatican policies on gay unions, I have to say that I wholeheartedly decline to offer my support for any notion that would deprive individuals of their God given right to have someone to love. It is deplorable to stand by and watch as less-than-perfect elements of society call upon the threats of "fire and brimstone" to attempt to suppress something as fundamental as a life long commitment between two souls.

Naturally, George W. Bush may be doing this on a purely political basis, but still I don't think it is anyone's right to rob another of having someone to share their lives with. Knowing full well that my initiatives will deprive two people (regardless of sexual preferences) of an opportunity to share their joys, sorrows, triumphs, and failures is not something I'd want to or could ever live with.

Eros

08-01-2003, 05:19 PM

Amazingly, my dad was the person to bring this up to me.  He is very homophobic and against the idea of gay marriage.  However, after mentioning what Bush said he said "With all the stuff going on in the middle of the east and the economy, this really isn't big enough of an issue to talk about in his address."  I was surprised he wasn't on the side of it.  Ah well, he's already spoken quite a bit how, as a conservative, he thinks Bush is doing some stupid stuff.

As for my stance on the issue, I agree with the people who have said they'd rather have civil unions if people are going to be so defensive about marriage.  After all, people can always get the civil union then get married by some church that provides gay marriages (granted, it's an extra step, but this issue seems to need small steps rather than dramatic changes).  I'd be happy to see a civil union thing either like the PAX in france (almost the same as marriage, availible to all people) or the British version (same as marriage except no right to adopt, only availible to gay people) that is recognized in all the states.  While these are small steps in the overall picture, at least the pretty huge steps in the right direction.

Emperor_Mike

08-01-2003, 05:59 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Eros @ Aug 1 2003, 03:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Amazingly, my dad was the person to bring this up to me. He is very homophobic and against the idea of gay marriage. However, after mentioning what Bush said he said "With all the stuff going on in the middle of the east and the economy, this really isn't big enough of an issue to talk about in his address." I was surprised he wasn't on the side of it. Ah well, he's already spoken quite a bit how, as a conservative, he thinks Bush is doing some stupid stuff.

As for my stance on the issue, I agree with the people who have said they'd rather have civil unions if people are going to be so defensive about marriage. After all, people can always get the civil union then get married by some church that provides gay marriages (granted, it's an extra step, but this issue seems to need small steps rather than dramatic changes). I'd be happy to see a civil union thing either like the PAX in france (almost the same as marriage, availible to all people) or the British version (same as marriage except no right to adopt, only availible to gay people) that is recognized in all the states. While these are small steps in the overall picture, at least the pretty huge steps in the right direction. [/b][/quote]
Or interested parties can move to British Columbia where gay marriages are legal. Our Prime Minister is taking heavy fire from Catholic and Christian groups, however. Even at my own church the pews are usually abuzz every Sunday morning since the news broke. One thing you won't read about in the dailies is how dividing an issue this has become. Some progressive Catholics endorse the aspect of gay marriages (like me) while others are conservative to the point of being intolerably stubborn. I, for one, refuse to endorse anything that remotely suggests intolerance. I'll leave final judgement up to the Man himself and will continue to support initiatives aimed at promoting values such as tolerance and respect for one another regardless of other factors. Our priest is anti-Gay Marriage (of course) but a few of the Sisters are fairly liberal and I've acquired some of their insights on the matter.

YuheiCarreau

08-01-2003, 07:23 PM

One thing that interested me about Bush's response was the fact that he prefaced his announcement with a statement that went something like "We are all born sinners... So I can't judge another man". Which to me sounds like a pretty sneaky way of saying "Gays are sinners" so the Moral Majority would stand by him, but without being directly homophobic.

Eros

08-01-2003, 11:58 PM

Meh... that's the usual arguement.  "We're all sinners, so YOU should repent."  Plus, it's about the only way he could bring any sort of religious statements in without being flamed (though, the whole church/state thing kind got screwed in that sentence).

As for going to Canada to get married, it's nice when your home country acknowledges your union.  Of course, the people could move to Canada, but I think that would be the except more than the majority.

angel nympho

08-02-2003, 01:13 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YuheiCarreau @ Aug 2 2003, 01:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> One thing that interested me about Bush's response was the fact that he prefaced his announcement with a statement that went something like "We are all born sinners... So I can't judge another man". Which to me sounds like a pretty sneaky way of saying "Gays are sinners" so the Moral Majority would stand by him, but without being directly homophobic. [/b][/quote]
I agree with you.  When I heard that, I was like...... Ugh.

pfc beansprout

08-02-2003, 12:12 PM

remember...his dad was just as fucked up..he had to have rubbed off on junior...

-during the aids epidemic (when it first hit, 1981), reagan didn't even mention AIDS in public until 7 years later...they figured it was a gay disease and didn't care to discuss it....he even cut spending for research (part of "smaller government)...the cdc was pinchin it's pennies and strugglin over this red tape..

from my textbook:
-bush senior, when he was speaking about the aids problem at a convention (first international aids conference -he was VP at the time)....

First, in the exhibit area there was a huge map of the United States which said on the top: "the Problem: AIDS. The solumtion: Banish All homosexuals." It had little pushpins on all the major cities of the United States indicating how many homosexuals lived in each. Second, then-Vice President George Bush addressed the assemply. When people started to boo and shout, Bush stepped back from the podium a bit, turned around and said to the Secret Service agent standing behind him (thinking he was turned away from the microphone), "It must be a gay group." The words reverberated throught the auditorium of the Washington Hilton.

Faithless

08-04-2003, 05:11 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YuheiCarreau @ Aug 1 2003, 05:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> One thing that interested me about Bush's response was the fact that he prefaced his announcement with a statement that went something like "We are all born sinners... So I can't judge another man". Which to me sounds like a pretty sneaky way of saying "Gays are sinners" so the Moral Majority would stand by him, but without being directly homophobic. [/b][/quote]
Ditto.

We are not all sinners because we are not all christians. A sinner is a label contrived by christians.

We may be born fallable. And fallable people can create faulty laws. But we can make amends with god by undoing what we do to hurt or restrict one another.