NEWS: Bush to Support Constitutional Ammendment to Ban Same Sex Marriages

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   
President George Bush is backing a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Bush states he wants to stop activist judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution." Stating that constitutional amendments should not be taken lightly, President Bush feels that this particular amendment is necessary to protect the meaning of marriage between a man and a woman. 38 states have already passed laws protecting the "sanctity of marriage" and the president will call on Congress to move quickly to pass legislation that can then be sent to the states for ratification.
Passing a constitutional amendment is a difficult and lengthy process. Winning the support of two-thirds of the House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the states can take years.
 

The union of man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious or natural roots without weakening the good influence of society today."
With the announcement, Bush is wading into a volatile social issue. The conservative wing of his party has been anxious for Bush to follow up his rhetoric on the issue with action. In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly said he was "troubled" by the Massachusetts court decision and the gay marriages in San Francisco, but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment.
ap.tbo.com...
Related ATS Discussions
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...




[Edited on 24-2-2004 by SkepticOverlord]




posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I am categorically opposed to any constitutional amendment that seeks to control or restrict actions and freedoms.

I predict that this will go nowhere.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
3/4 of the states already support this, so getting it to pass should not be difficult.

I support it.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
i have a feeling that this one will be tied up in the congressional process for a very long time.

Unfortunately, it seems like many futuristic stories in which homosexuality becomes illegal may actually be headed to fruition. It's amazes me that with all that with all that we have on our plates, some still feel that what individuals do in their private life is more important that the welfare of the elderly, the current war, and many other social issues that we have.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   
whoa who didnt see this coming ? I think this is one of the most contraversial topics in the media right now and i think bush is gonna hurt if this ammendment does not pass.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Why do straight, white men insist on making laws to control gays, minorities and women?

The three most important things to a white male conservative these days are gays, affirmative action and reproductive rights...

AND NONE OF HIS BUSINESS!!!



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by kramtronix
3/4 of the states already support this, so getting it to pass should not be difficult.

I support it.


Why do you suport it? What difference does it make to you?


jhh

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Well anyone that votes against the ammendment may have a tough time in the next election with moderates, those that vote for the ammendment have just lost the liberal base, and has no chance in hell if they are a democrat.

Seems clear why this issue has been brought up.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I HAVE A FEELING Bush is homophobic, in a sense that he believes they'll destruct THE GOOD 'SECULAR 'AMERICA. He's absolutely trying to Dictate what America's morals and values should be defined, in a sense of famliy...along with 3/4 of the States and 1/3 of you! It's all political carpet crap and it's tiring.

And I agree with rant, but I say, what's with these white men?



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 07:25 PM
link   
yes. let's protect the sanctity of marriage so Britney Spears can get married in Vegas and have it mean something. marriage is only as sacred as the couple getting married thinks it is. guess what? there are straight couples that don't take getting married seriously at all, and there are gay couples that do.

on another note, this amendment has a shot at passing while the equal rights amendment couldn't? shows what a cruel, nasty country we've become. we can pass laws designed to cause pain and keep people down, but we can't pass ones to lift them up and promote equality. disgusting.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I really tire of the subjugate blame game.

Affermative Action elimination is not going to keep minorities down. It will free up government requirements which are Unconstitutional. Poor areas are in more need of priority when it comes to college then race (since race covers all financial backgrounds it makes the current system inconsistent).

Reproductive rights is one thing. Abortion is quite another and never should have been given in the first place. It is the governments right to protect life in all forms.

Anti Gay Marriage bill will only serve to keep the states from fighting each other. As far as the government is concerned, people are only required to be alloted the same rights, and last time I checked marriage was not a right, it is legal recognition. Banning gay marriage changes nothing about a gay persons life nor does it affect them negatively in any way aside from taxes, probate law, and other legal considerations which should be given to them. We can call it whatever we like, be it "civil union" or other



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Banning gay marriage changes nothing about a gay persons life nor does it affect them negatively in any way aside from taxes, probate law, and other legal considerations which should be given to them. We can call it whatever we like, be it "civil union" or other


Ahhh, I see KJ, you're for "SPECIAL RIGHTS" set aside for Gays. Seperate but equal. Hmmm, thought you were against special rights. I guess it all just depends huh?

So Gays get this special legal union thing, and straights get (not a right) but the PRIVELEGE of marriage. How nice for you all smug and hypocritical, rebel without a clue.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Conservatives are funny sometimes. They go on and on about liberal governments being too big and having too much control over people, and then they support control over the most personal aspects of peoples lives - who gets married, abortion, what you can put into your body etc.

Mad.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
Conservatives are funny sometimes. They go on and on about liberal governments being too big and having too much control over people, and then they support control over the most personal aspects of peoples lives - who gets married, abortion, what you can put into your body etc.

Mad.


I think they're HYSTERICAL and this issue pounds it home. Suddenly every straight white boy is not only an expert on who minority organizations should be allowed to give scholarships to and what women can and can't do with their bodies, but now they are the self proclaimed experts on the gay rights movement. Look at KrazyJethro's post. He's got it alllllll figured out what the gays need and don't need. Thank God he came along to set those silly queers straight on the issues.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Ahhh, I see KJ, you're for "SPECIAL RIGHTS" set aside for Gays. Seperate but equal. Hmmm, thought you were against special rights. I guess it all just depends huh?

Where'd you get that idea from?

So Gays get this special legal union thing, and straights get (not a right) but the PRIVELEGE of marriage. How nice for you all smug and hypocritical, rebel without a clue.

No stupid. I didn't comment on how it should work. I think that ALL unions going through the state (not a church) should be civil unions (to include straight and gay people). They would be afforded the same rights, but not the title. They would get a different licence.




But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Maybe you should ask if you don't know something instead of being a snide son of a bitch.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
They would be afforded the same rights, but not the title. They would get a different licence.

But thanks for putting words in my mouth.



If the words fit, SUCK ON 'EM. Can you say SEPERATE BUT EQUAL? I think you can: "They would be afforded the same rights, but not the title. They would get a different licence."

I'm a proud son a bitch by the way and will say whatever I think. However, if it's a gay issue, or womens issue or minority issue I'm not STUPID enough to speak for them. I defer to those affected. Interesting point of view isn't it? Think you could handle it?



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

If the words fit, SUCK ON 'EM.

They don't fit, cause you put them there. Thanks for dreaming what I mean though.

Can you say SEPERATE BUT EQUAL?

This is not even close to the same thing, but it's cool, shout your banner phrase from the rooftops cause it makes others sound like they support racism. Let the religious people have the term. The only thing the government is required to give is the rights and I am all for that.


I'm a proud son a bitch by the way and will say whatever I think. However, if it's a gay issue, or womens issue or minority issue I'm not STUPID enough to speak for them.

That is by far the least intellegent thing you could possibly say. Hell, if it was only gay people speaking for gay marriage or women's rights, they would have been trounced by now. It's stupid NOT to speak for what you believe, as misguilded as I think it is.

I defer to those affected. Interesting point of view isn't it? Think you could handle it?

Sure, one less person to fight. Thanks for hindering your causes.




posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   
No I'll champion their cause from the rooftop, but I don't pretend to be an expert on Gay, Women's or Minority issues like Conservatives do by virtue of their "Father Knows Best" arguments.

Big difference.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
OOOHHHH, now I get what you're saying.

If Conservatives do it, it's being an expert.

If you do, it's just plain charming.




posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
OOOHHHH, now I get what you're saying.

If Conservatives do it, it's being an expert.

If you do, it's just plain charming.


No you're right, and every bit as endearing as Archie Bunker.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join