Page 1 of 2

Bush to Support Gay Amendment

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:26 am
by Loeln
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/01/bush.marriage.ap/index.html
Bush to promote gay marriage amendment

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat -- Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- says he will vote for it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the amendment on May 18 along party lines after a shouting match between a Democrat and the chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania. He bid Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, "good riddance" after Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment and his intention to leave the meeting.

Bush aides said he would be making his remarks on the subject Monday.

A slim majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press from March. But the poll also showed attitudes are changing: 63 percent opposed gay marriage in February 2004.

Those poll results don't reflect how people might feel about amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to legalize such marriages in 2003. A year later, San Francisco issued thousands of marriage licenses to gay couples.

This November, initiatives banning same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. In 2004, 13 states approved initiatives prohibiting gay marriage or civil unions, with 11 states casting votes on Election Day.

Bush benefited as religious conservatives turned out to vote and helped him defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry in 2004. In Ohio, an initiative rejecting the legality of civil unions won handily. The same state tipped the election to Bush.

"The president firmly believes that marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women and has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage," White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.

Bush has lost support among conservatives who blame the White House and Congress for runaway government spending, illegal immigration and lack of action on social issues such as the gay marriage amendment.

Opponents of the amendment objected to Bush promoting a measure they said amounts to discrimination.

"This is fundamentally both a civil rights and religious freedom issue and the president's position of supporting amending the constitution is just dead wrong," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "This is simply to give ammunition to the so-called religious right just to show that the president is still with them."
Really, with there being such a slim majority opposing gay marriage, is it really wise politically to even propose an amendment against it, knowing that that majority will most likely become a minority a generation or two down the line and the Republican party will look all the worse for supporting such an amendment?

Legally (and ethically, and morally), it's moronic.



Heh, wait. I suggested Bush planning for the future. Funny.

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:33 am
by Niko123000
The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to legalize such marriages in 2003. A year later, San Francisco issued thousands of marriage licenses to gay couples.
one of the many reasons taxachusettes rocks, c'mon Miles E and Ibun, which state is the best? TAXACHUSETTS!

I knew a long time ago that this was gonna happen, I was just wondering when. and maybe some of them should get a look at BoP's Av

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:45 am
by Bringerofpie
<---

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:19 pm
by Muninn
Bush approval ratings are in the 30's, he had to do something that looked like action and appealed to his base, it's what any politician would have done.

Christians aware of their faith would know better than to reference Old Testament scripture. When Jesus came and passed on his teachings to form the New Testament it was used by the early Christians to imply their new covenant with God. To the best of my knowledge Jesus never even said anything about homosexuality.

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:32 pm
by Tom Flapwell
In terms of direct quotes from Jesus, the only ones that come to mind on anything really sexual have to do with his uncompromising definition of adultery.

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:18 pm
by Muninn
The Senate blocked the amendmant, 49 votes for when 60 were needed for it to pass.

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:07 pm
by CodeCat
There is hope for you yet...

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:01 pm
by Tom Flapwell
"You" being residents of the United States?

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:11 pm
by CodeCat
Yup. That and your government.

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:17 pm
by DesertFoxCat
While we're on the subject, is there anyone here who is against gay marriage? My brain has been doing a lot of thinking lately and I always find it easier to think when somone with the exact opposite beliefs is talking to me. Your help would be greatly appreciated. 8)

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:02 pm
by Tavis
This is one of those things that I can find myself in quite the odd position. Being Roman Catholic, I have a very traditional view on what marriage should be, but... I am also aware that because my views on marriage are based so strongly on religion, applying such a view to the legal definition of marriage would be too restrictive to those who do not practice Christianity, or even those who would not consider it a sacrament. People get legally married without any regard to religion, so it seems the legal definition of marriage cannot be solely derived from religion either.

And this is where most people meet a stumbling block. Lots of people have an idea of what marriage should be, what marriage must be because it is what is specified by their respective faiths. It would appear heretical to permit (which some read as "encourage") someone else to act contrary to that specification. It is like encouraging the nation to adopt a policy permitting public nudity; it isn't really a harmful practice as long as proper precautions (hygeine, physical protection) are made, but it can be unsettling for a lot of people who are not personally open to the idea.

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:14 pm
by Muninn
While we're on the subject, is there anyone here who is against gay marriage? My brain has been doing a lot of thinking lately and I always find it easier to think when somone with the exact opposite beliefs is talking to me. Your help would be greatly appreciated. 8)
Someone could play the devil's advocate, someone with better debating skills than me. :?

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:43 pm
by Niko123000
bEING AN aTHEIST (OR WHATEVER THAT WORD IS FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN gOD)(Excuse caps) This is my view: If two people love each other, Then they should have the option to get married. Whether Man and Woman, Woman and Woman, or Man and Man, If they love each other enough, why7 shuldn't they be wed?

In fact, most members of the Gay and Lesbian community have great qualities. They're usually great with kids, Loving and caring, Fun to hang out with, and many more things. If stupid [size=0]Bush pantsless[/size] people want to procicute Gays because if the way they act, All I can say is: "Holocaust 2.0"

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:53 pm
by Muninn
If stupid [size=0]Bush pantsless[/size] people want to procicute Gays because if the way they act, All I can say is: "Holocaust 2.0"
That's a wrong comparison. Yes, the holocaust involved massive persecution but it also involved genocide and systematic killing. I don't think the latter is happening now to homosexuals.

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:00 pm
by Niko123000
If stupid [size=0]Bush pantsless[/size] people want to procicute Gays because if the way they act, All I can say is: "Holocaust 2.0"
That's a wrong comparison. Yes, the holocaust involved massive persecution but it also involved genocide and systematic killing. I don't think the latter is happening now to homosexuals.
It Also happened through a slow process by first putting blame on the Jews, then slowly and carefully taking away their privalges at such a slow rate, that no one noticed until it was too late. Stratagy by Hitler. And when that Amendment was put forth, "Holocaust 2.0" popped in my mind, making me think, "This will be a slow process done by bush to remove the rights of Gays untill eventually it lead to Genocide."

Sorry but that's how my mind works. 3 things go through it constantly:

1. Bush is an idiot and a *cenesor*
2. FURRIES!
3. When will she be my Girlfriend?

the last part involves a LONG story so don't ask.