Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest JMA

Bush would back constitutional ban...

Recommended Posts

Guest JMA
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- While calling for tolerance, President Bush said Tuesday he would support a constitutional amendment, if one is needed, that defines marriage as being between a man and woman.

 

"If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that," Bush told ABC's Diane Sawyer.

 

The president -- in an apparent nod to some recognition of gay civil unions -- also said it would be the position of his administration that "whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state."

 

Overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriages, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in November cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to wed, ruling that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right.

 

The court gave state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to marry.

 

The president criticized the court, saying it had overstepped its bounds.

 

"It was a very activist court in making the decision it made," Bush said. "As you know, I'm a person who believes in judicial restraint, as opposed to judicial activism that takes the place of the Legislative Branch."

 

Bush said a constitutional amendment will be needed if "judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage."

 

In October, Bush said administration lawyers were looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.

 

Asked by Sawyer if gays were sinners, Bush responded: "We're all sinners. We're all sinners."

 

"No distinction?" she queried.

 

"I think we're all sinners. One of my favorite Bible verses says, 'Why would I take a speck out of your eye when I have a log in my own?' And having said that, however, I do believe in the sanctity of marriage. But I don't see that as conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding person."

 

Bush counts many conservative Christians and Christian groups among his supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush is very religious so it's not shocking he doesn't want the word "marriage" used.

At least he doesn't have a problem with civil unions....course I really don't see what the stupid difference is.

 

Could someone possibly explain the difference between civil union and marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not meant has criticism towards you JMA.

 

Not this again. Gay Marriage has been discussed to death. The President has said he'd support an amendment. Some are against it (for different reasons), others are for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Bush is THAT religious. Isn't he a born-again? Where you go through something tramatic in your life that suddenly, "opens your eyes" and then you just start blindly following, No Questions Asked? So he seems more the type that would just tell you to hush and read the bible then to sit down and have a logical coversation regarding questioning the bible.

 

I still get a kick out of the, "protecting the sanctity of marriage" line. It is so perposterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if I was against gay marriage (I'm not) a constitutional ammendment is NOT the way to deal with the issue. I think Edmund Burke would be rolling in his grave if he knew conservatives were favouring constitutional change as a way of imposing morality. That is NOT a conservative position, in the classical sense at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the more libertarian tradition of the party, but with the folks like Reagan, the religon comes in, and if Bush could have his way we'd have a bloody theocracy here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's such bullshit.

 

While I'm sure that Bush has some religious beliefs which strike a very personal core with him - say, against gay marriage or against abortion - he's not some bloody zealot, and portraying him as such is idiotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA

I also wouldn't put Bush in the same category as religious nuts such as Falwell and Robertson. I don't agree with a lot of the things he says, but I don't think it's fair to portray him as an ultra-fundamentalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people that support banning gay marriage are indeed religiously motivated though and that is a fact. If you take out the religion factor, then there is not really a good argument to be made, and don't give me this "protecting the sanctity of marriage" line of bullshit that is such a popular phrase to be using these days.

 

With that being said, one's religion should not dictate how someone else should be able to live or pursue their happiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But religion is tied to most people's morality, and when you start deciding that you can't make decisions regarding morality - which the court essentially argued in Lawrence v. Texas - than you run into HUGE moral relativism problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA
But religion is tied to most people's morality, and when you start deciding that you can't make decisions regarding morality - which the court essentially argued in Lawrence v. Texas - than you run into HUGE moral relativism problems.

I'd say morality is much, MUCH bigger than religion.

 

Like someone once said: "There's a right and wrong in the universe. And the distinction isn't very hard to make."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But religion is tied to most people's morality, and when you start deciding that you can't make decisions regarding morality - which the court essentially argued in Lawrence v. Texas - than you run into HUGE moral relativism problems.

If we want to go down that road, where does it stop? Should gay marriage be only the first step into how the bible dictates the way I live? Marriage is not only a religious institution see. You can be legally married by a judge, which means marriage in fact by law does not HAVE TO do anything with god and/or religion. So therefore I don't see how people can say marriage = religion = bible = jesus.....etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×