Bush: No marriages for gay couples

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/...iage/index.html

 

President Bush indicated Wednesday he opposes extending marriage rights to homosexuals, saying he believes marriage "is between a man and a woman," and government attorneys are at work on writing that into law.

 

Bush said it is "important for society to welcome each individual," but administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals, he said.

 

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. "And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

 

Earlier this month, Bush said a constitutional amendment to block gay marriages might not be necessary, although the proposal has the support of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee.

 

The question of gay marriage has moved to the foreground of American politics after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that struck down state laws banning sodomy. Canada courts also have recently recognized gay marriages. In addition, the Massachusetts high court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether the state can allow gay marriages.

 

The prospect has outraged religious conservatives, an important voting bloc in the Republican Party. And a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll suggest the Supreme Court ruling has prompted a backlash: The number of people who have endorsed the idea that homosexual relations should be legal has dropped from 60 percent to 48 percent since the ruling, and only 40 percent of Americans say they now would support civil unions for homosexuals.

 

"I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush said Wednesday. "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage."

 

A number of states have passed laws forbidding gays from marrying or barring the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another state. The federal government's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act affirms that states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

 

The act also defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

 

Where are the conservatives and their "states rights" stuff now? Anyone?

[Guest Youth N Asia]

I really don't even have too much of an opinion on this. I think people should be able to marry how they want. But then again the idea creeps me out a tad.

 

I'm not homophobic. But it just uneases me a little.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

An amendment would never pass, and normal laws can be struck down. He's simply talking big to cozy up to those religious right wackos he's been turning off recently.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

He's also got a sagging approval rating (compared to previous levels) and he's going into a re-election campaign. With stuff like this he's going to piss off some small groups of Republicans and, more importantly, Democrats who feel their candidates are too far left.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Pardon me if that doesn't upset me.

[Guest Steve J. Rogers]

I'll go on record here and say

 

A) Bush will NOT be reelected

 

and

 

B) Its not going to be a sure bet that he'll even get the Republican nomination

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Same here, I'm just blown away that after keeping his lid shut for this long, that he picks NOW to open up and say what will probably disillusion more people than if he took the other side.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'll go on record here and say

 

A) Bush will NOT be reelected

 

and

 

B) Its not going to be a sure bet that he'll even get the Republican nomination

That's a bit too far. Who the hell will they run against him?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Same here, I'm just blown away that after keeping his lid shut for this long, that he picks NOW to open up and say what will probably disillusion more people than if he took the other side.

I completely agree, I thought the Rove train had done a great job of dodging this issue. However, by further pandering to the fundamentalists, he's going to throw himself into the fire (and brimstone?)...

 

Hey, I don't mind.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Stupid Bush. There's no reason to bring his personal opinion into this...

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

It's not just that he's inserting his opinion, it's that he's trying to move us from "every state can decide whether to acknowledge gay marriage or not," a perfectly traditional Conservative law that favors the states and doesn't have the federal government telling everyone what to do, to going big government.

 

So it's almost un-Republican in a way. Keep Congress Republican and kick this joker out. Quite a few people on the right see him as Not Really A Conservative and the gridlock created between the executive and legislative branch if they lean in different directions will cut down on the pork.

[Guest Retro Rob]

I don't see why the government should have any say in whether or not two people can get married. Obviously there are many issues that would come out of a same-sex marriage that could cause situations that have not been encountered before. As far as this story goes, nothing is going to come out of it. A federal law would not be passed that bans gay marriages. Bush is simply trying to pick up steam for the upcoming election. Is this the best way to do it? Probably not. But that is how this country functions. Ignore the large global and national issues, but push issues that have little bearing on the prosperity of America.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

http://republicansfordean.blogspot.com

[Guest Vyce]

Stupid Bush. There's no reason to bring his personal opinion into this...

You do realize that at least half of Americans feel the same way as he does, don't you?

 

A recent poll reveals America's shocking attitude towards homosexuality: there's too much GAY!

 

I'm being a bit smartass, but ever since the Supreme Court ruling against the TX sodomy laws, attitudes are perhaps swinging a bit AGAINST gay issues such as gay marriage.

 

While I'm for gay marriage, unlike others on this board, I don't believe this statement from Bush (which is virtually NO change from what he's always said about the subject) will somehow hurt his chances of reelection. There's far too many other issues for this to be one that will make or break ANYONE in the 2004 election.

 

"every state can decide whether to acknowledge gay marriage or not," a perfectly traditional Conservative law that favors the states and doesn't have the federal government telling everyone what to do

 

As it should be.

[Guest Vyce]

http://republicansfordean.blogspot.com

Judas goats.

[Guest Ripper]

But how is gay marriage a states right, or anyone's right issue. As American's we have the right to marry any other concenting adult we want. Using the theory of state rights, a state could decide they don't want interracial marriages in their state ( and trust me, there are some states with enough ignorant black AND white people to get it passed). A law like that would be viewed as a racist thing to even suggest, yet it is okay to say the same for same sex couples because you don't like it.

 

What is the difference to you, a outside party, if a homosexual couple is married or not. They will still be together. No marriage is not changing that. The only people that it would affect are those involved. It is bullshit and goes completely against he separation of church and state (which is the only argument anyone could have against homosexual marriages...that they think it is a sin.)

 

What is fucking pathetic is that shows like "Who wants to marry {insert who the fuck ever}" can be put on the air where two complete strangers can tie the knot and get all the tax breaks that come with it but somehow 2 men or women that love each other and have known each other for years wanting to get married is somehow going to degrade society. Whatever.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

 

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

What is fucking pathetic is that shows like "Who wants to marry {insert who the fuck ever}" can be put on the air where two complete strangers can tie the knot and get all the tax breaks that come with it but somehow 2 men or women that love each other and have known each other for years wanting to get married is somehow going to degrade society. Whatever.

Totally agree here. The idea of marriage being "sacrosanct" has already been eroded through ridiculous shows such as these, as well as celeb weddings that are put on like media events, which end in a divorce a few months later and one week after that, the two "lovebirds" are being spotted on the red carpet with some new attachments to keep the gutter press talking.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that churches be forced to perform gay weddings either. Gay couples should have the right to marry and receive normal government benefits that married couples get when they fill out a piece of paper at the registration office.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

You do realize that at least half of Americans feel the same way as he does, don't you?

You do realize that this is something you say AFTER you've cinched an election, don't you?

 

While I'm for gay marriage, unlike others on this board, I don't believe this statement from Bush (which is virtually NO change from what he's always said about the subject) will somehow hurt his chances of reelection.  There's far too many other issues for this to be one that will make or break ANYONE in the 2004 election.

 

It sours people's opinions of him. People have never really LIKED Bush's policies in great numbers, but he's still had a high approval rating because people like to rally around the Prez in tough times and he had been smartly avoiding wrecking his own good publicity.

 

This isn't the straw that breaks it all, but it's not a step in the right direction from a PR perspective, as well as many swing voters.

[Guest Ripper]

And I do think that whoever is in charge of the Bush camp is a fucking retard.

 

I mean RIGHT after whats-his-name made his comments about how life would've been better if strom thrumond had won the presidency and everywhere they were calling the Republicans the party of racist good ol boys, he comes out with a speech calling for the abolishment of affermitive action. Not that he was right or wrong, but thats just plain bad timing.

 

Now, with his approval rating slipping after the whole "Did he lie or didn't he" thing, he comes out and says he supports a law that would take away the rights of some americans because he doesn't agree with it. Once again, its his stance and all, but the timing dude...the timing.

[Guest JMA]

I think it's obvious Bush is just trying to suck up to the Religious Right here. If he wants to get re-elected he should stay closer to the center on issues such as this. The religious right is the cancer of the Republican party--it desparately needs to be cut out. It also wouldn't hurt to toss off douche-bags like Ashcroft.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Stupid Bush. There's no reason to bring his personal opinion into this...

You do realize that at least half of Americans feel the same way as he does, don't you?

 

A recent poll reveals America's shocking attitude towards homosexuality: there's too much GAY!

 

I'm being a bit smartass, but ever since the Supreme Court ruling against the TX sodomy laws, attitudes are perhaps swinging a bit AGAINST gay issues such as gay marriage.

 

While I'm for gay marriage, unlike others on this board, I don't believe this statement from Bush (which is virtually NO change from what he's always said about the subject) will somehow hurt his chances of reelection. There's far too many other issues for this to be one that will make or break ANYONE in the 2004 election.

 

"every state can decide whether to acknowledge gay marriage or not," a perfectly traditional Conservative law that favors the states and doesn't have the federal government telling everyone what to do

 

As it should be.

I know, but it would be better for him to have kept his mouth shut on the subject, or at least not say "I believe it is wrong".

 

And you've gotta worry about any country where the President openly opposes gay marriage in order to get more votes.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Privatize all marriage.

[Guest Vyce]

You do realize that at least half of Americans feel the same way as he does, don't you?

You do realize that this is something you say AFTER you've cinched an election, don't you?

 

While I'm for gay marriage, unlike others on this board, I don't believe this statement from Bush (which is virtually NO change from what he's always said about the subject) will somehow hurt his chances of reelection.  There's far too many other issues for this to be one that will make or break ANYONE in the 2004 election.

 

It sours people's opinions of him. People have never really LIKED Bush's policies in great numbers, but he's still had a high approval rating because people like to rally around the Prez in tough times and he had been smartly avoiding wrecking his own good publicity.

 

This isn't the straw that breaks it all, but it's not a step in the right direction from a PR perspective, as well as many swing voters.

Dude, come on.

 

By the time the election comes around, Bush's stance on gay marriage will probably be issue #498 that the Democrats beat him over the head with.

 

Not to say that it isn't an important issue.....but it isn't. Not compared to Iraq and the intelligence issues and the economy. It's WAY down the list.

[Guest Powerplay]

Question: Is this a civil union between a gay couple or gay marriage. In politics, both are very very different. I read not long ago in USA Today (I read it everyday on break) that no Democratic contender right now actively endorses gay marriage, but does endorse gay unions. He looks to strictly be talking about Gay Marraige, which means absolutely nothing when it comes to civil unions. Of course, if you can show me where he says he doesn't want those as well, I'll rescind my comments. Otherwise, I don't really see this as a surprise because this has been out there for a long time.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Then he's working soley for religious interests. While the President is allowed to be religious, he's not supposed to let religion direct his action.

 

By saying "I believe marriage ought to be between a man and a woman" and then trying to make a law about that, that certainly sounds like it. Plus you skipped over the whole overruling states and telling them what to do thing.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

By the time the election comes around, Bush's stance on gay marriage will probably be issue #498 that the Democrats beat him over the head with.

 

Not to say that it isn't an important issue.....but it isn't. Not compared to Iraq and the intelligence issues and the economy. It's WAY down the list.

Agreed. Most people don't care about gay marriages, and there's no chance Bush will lose the election because he's against gay marriage.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I just hate the "sanctity" of marriage line. It is such a spoonful of bullshit There are so many things that hurt the sanctity of marriage, and being homosexual is NOT one of them. I really don't like folks trying to mask their religious beliefs behind empty rhetoric. If Bush believes homos are going to hell because it is a sin to be gay, then fucking come out and say.(yes I know that is unrealistic, but fuck it). It doesn't take a genius to see through a line like, "I believe in the sanctity of marriage, and I am looking for some way to codify it"

 

My personal belief is, who gives a flying fuck if gay people want to get married. I don't see how it degenerates society, or hurts anyone, and there has been ZERO evidence to show support for that opinion.

Edited July 31, 2003 by NoCalMike

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

While the President is allowed to be religious, he's not supposed to let religion direct his action.

Absolutely wrong.

[Guest NoCalMike]

While the President is allowed to be religious, he's not supposed to let religion direct his action.

Absolutely wrong.

Well he definately should put the religion aside or at least into perspective, since he is so supposed to represent the people, not the "religious people"