It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Presses Case Against Gay Marriage

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Greetings,

This news article popped up in my AOL Members news section and I thought I might share it with you...



WASHINGTON (July 11) - President Bush says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it. A few activist judges and local officials have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage, Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

Leading the chorus of support for an amendment, Bush said, "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened.''

His remarks follow the opening of Senate debate Friday on a constitutional amendment effectively banning gay marriage.

Reflecting the election-year sensitivity of the issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Republicans are using the constitutional amendment as a bulletin board for campaign sloganeering.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of holding inconsistent positions.

Kerry and running mate Sen. John Edwards oppose gay marriage, but support civil unions.

Bush singled out Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which called marriage an evolving paradigm. "That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution,'' he said.

The president urged the House and Senate to send to the states for ratification an amendment that defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Senate Democrats signaled they will not throw barriers in front of the resolution, paving the way for a vote on the amendment as early as Wednesday.

A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly, Bush said, "yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice.''

The vote puts some Democrats and Republicans in a difficult position. One senator acknowledged the political risk in trying to walk a line supporting both traditional marriage and gay rights.

"I intend to be your champion on many issues in the future, if you want me,'' Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said in remarks directed at gay and lesbian voters. Smith is a leader in efforts to make attacks against homosexuals a federal hate crime.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political organization, said the president and congressional allies ``should focus on the priorities of the American people, not the agenda of their extremist base.''


What are your thoughts?

Regards,
Bro. Daniel Brown




posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Decretal
What are your thoughts?


That this part...

Senate Democrats signaled they will not throw barriers in front of the resolution, paving the way for a vote on the amendment as early as Wednesday.


...possibly signals the official start of the cultural war that's been in cold war rhetoric mode since Reagen. So if the Dems are seriously considering letting it go to a vote now, then bully for them.

Let's get the bigots on record.


It's always bothered me that some politicians on both sides consider talking big game to their constituents enough, when in reality they have NO INTENT to do a dang thing.

So in the words of Bush regarding new cultural legislation... Bring 'em on!

I hope he presses a Constitutional Abortion Ban next. Just make the Constitution a big piece of toilet paper for his re-election campaign.

Then we'll see who's standing after the votes.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The hypocrisy never ends does it.:shk:

I don't know if most members are old enough to remember, but a couple of decades ago the ERA movement was in full swing. Repugnants (tribute to the missed colonel) threw a fit about amending the constitution to formalize and define equal rights.

The arguments they continually spouted were that our constitution was a sacred document which should not be amended to meet a "political agenda." Especially when the safeguards of judicial review would define any laws that were passed and protect individual rights and freedoms.

Well they are certainly singing a different tune now.

Now that the Courts are recognizing gay marriages, all of sudden, it's okay to amend our constitution? Hypocrits.:bnghd:



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I see it this way, something is wrong with bush, it looks to me that for being a politician certain opinions are not good to be in the open for political gain, but in bush case he is so oppose of gay that it borders on persecution, and that is weird, it make me think that bush had something going on before becoming a religious born and now his is so guilty that is driving him crazy and he wants revenge.
:shk:



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Personally I tend to agree with the assessment that it would weaken the institution, but that has already happened through a myriad of sources from pop culture to drugs.

I DO have to say this.

MOST ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE FOLKS ARE NOT BIGOTS. Phew, all this yelling.

I am against it and I have little to no problem with gay people at all (unless it regards their parades, which sometimes cross the line I think. But if it isn't "lewd" then they can do it and I'll not stop them, I just don't like it).

Anyway, I don't want to get into a big debate about it, the topic is really about the actions surrounding it.

I do NOT want more crap in the constitution.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Bush singled out Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which called marriage an evolving paradigm. "That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution,'' he said.


So the fact of Henry VIII's subversion and outright attack on the then current institution of marriage has had no enduring effect on the following generations?!?

"Ages of moral teaching and human experience" Is he talking about all human-kind or just Christians?

Marg,
Are you implying thay Dubya may have taken it up the ol' pooper, or maybe that he participated in a little knob gobbling? That with his coversion to funda-mental-ism, that he converted/perverted his view of his past? Why, I think you may be on to something! After all, Asscroft is obviously a closet-case/homophobe.

I'm with Rant. Let's bring it to a vote and see just where the cards fall. I think most of these imbeciles are all bluster and no conviction. Let's find out. Of course someone could add some pork to this bill that would keep Repugnants from voting for it. Like adding hate-crime legislation vis a vi homosexuals. That might stifle them for a minute.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   


Are you implying thay Dubya may have taken it up the ol' pooper, or maybe that he participated in a little knob gobbling?


ha, ha, ha, Well it was another thread that we had discussed I will say not more
I don't remember the name of the thread.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at ALL. That would solve that problem in a hurry, don't you think?


What if we do this instead? Let's say the government will offer legal benefits to anyone who lives together in a house -- and this doesn't have to have anything to do with love or sex (like roommates in college, siblings living together away from their parents, elderly folks retiring together in condomeniums) -- but, it's not the government's business to ask who's in love or having sex with each other, so of course any couple living together (whether straight or gay) will recieve those benefits too...

When people live together, it reduces the need for more housing space, which in turn reduces urban sprawl. It also helps communities form. That can be the rationale for the legal benefit.


And have no government-sponsored ceremony of any kind... ceremonies are for churches and vacation spots... I'm just proposing a tax break for anyone who lives together; getting this tax break would be like getting a tax break because you're raising kids. No ceremony, no pomp and circumstance; just sign on the dotted line and mail it to the IRS.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 01:18 AM
link   
i am against gay marriage for one reason only.

i do not want to see a whole other segment of the population dragging each other into court to divy up belongings and moneys because they couldnt get along. i dont want to see any children they might have being used as pawns in their own sick twisted game during divorce proceedings.

marriage in the sense that is a legally binding thing recognized by the courts and the government is not a true marriage, its a business dealing, nothing more.

marriage to me is simply two people choosing to be with each other and only each other through commitment because they genuinely love each other. not to get insurance or to share their benefits with the other person. thats something entirely different and doesnt have to be adressed through "legal" marriages. that should be taken up with insurance companies that have stupid policies and rules.

people shouldnt have to go to the government for these things. the government shouldnt be interfering in people's lives. the government should be less intrusive.

but hey...they'll be able to take advantage of the tax breaks bush gave married couples. but thats more or less about money, not love.

but hey if they want to take the risk of being dragged to court for a divorce more power to them. i hope they enjoy paying alimony and child support (imagine paying child support to a child that you didnt create and isnt biologicially yours) just like all the other divorces couple out there have to deal with. makes me no never mind.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I'm like "Krazy". I consider it unnecessary noise, and I DO NOT want the Constitution tinkered with. It would be the first time something was put into the Constitution limiting individual rights.

It goes back to my theory that the true "liberals" are the ones who constantly want Constitutional Amendments legislating morality. They want the government to take care of the problem when it is really up to the individual.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   


do not want to see a whole other segment of the population dragging each other into court to divy up belongings and moneys because they couldnt get along. i dont want to see any children they might have being used as pawns in their own sick twisted game during divorce proceedings.


Sorry to say this is already a sickening vice and it happens everyday and lets not talk about single parents that have to deal with the raising on children with only one income.

I have been married long enough to say that even two loving parents male and female still have theirs problems and two incomes is still no enough for some families.

I really care not about what two persons in love wants to do be all male or female but I am going to said love or not love I have my rights and my insurances health, life and whatever regardless of love or not love, after all I have two kids to think about and to support if something happens with my more than perfect marriage.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   
It seems that Cheney's wife disagree with him on this issue and is going public on it.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I think gays should be allowed to wed it is there business. As long as they don't go around having parades all the time. Then it doesn't really even bother me. Let them do what they wanna do.




top topics



 
0

log in

join