Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bush to Seek Gay-Marriage Ban in Second Term, Top Aide Says

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   


Bush to Seek Gay-Marriage Ban in Second Term, Top Aide Says
By REUTERS

Published: November 7, 2004

Filed at 12:28 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a "hopeful and decent'' society, his top political aide said on Sunday.

Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriages failed last year in Congress, but his position was seen as a key factor motivating Christian conservatives concerned about ``moral values'' to turn out in large numbers and help supply Bush with a winning margin in last week's election.

If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman,'' Bush political aide Karl Rove told "Fox News Sunday.''

Rove said Bush would ``absolutely'' push the Republican-controlled Congress for a constitutional amendment, which he said was needed to avert the aims of "activist judges'' who would permit gay marriages.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   
When will they realise that allowing same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage will not be the end of the world and won't lead to decline in morality in the US!



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
EDIT: No, I was wrong. I just re-read the debates and he doesn't think it's a state issue. Too much of a chance it would become something like the Dred Scott case, I suppose.


[edit on 7-11-2004 by curme]



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
When will they realise that allowing same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage will not be the end of the world and won't lead to decline in morality in the US!


This is the civil rights movement of our generation. Blacks had to fight and many died for equal rights, now gays will have to fight a government seemingly unwilling to give them equal rights.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
These anti-choice creeps make my skin crawl.

The opposition to universal marriage freedom is just stupid, it in no way undervalues straight marriage.

Yet again we see decisions made against people who make southerners feel "icky" inside.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
The opposition to universal marriage freedom is just stupid, it in no way undervalues straight marriage.


You know what's funny? You hear this # all the time about the "sanctity" of marriage.... marriage is sacred and all that BS. This coming from a nation where over 50% of marriages end in divorce.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ocelot
This is the civil rights movement of our generation. Blacks had to fight and many died for equal rights, now gays will have to fight a government seemingly unwilling to give them equal rights.


I agree.
Maybe they'll eventually gaze up at Canada and see that our society hasn't experienced a moral decline in granting same-sex couples their right to the legal benefits of marriage.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
The major reason for marriage should be children. No, before you all flmae me, let me continue my thought.

Why do we need marriage unless there are children involved?
All other committed couples should be able to have rights and benefits without being married.
I think marriage should not be a government issue in any case. Let it be a religious activity, or a personal ceremony. Just keep uncle sam out of the bedroom!

There should be some sort of civil guidelines allowing anyone of legal age to cohabit with another without government intervention. And with full rights and protections.
Maybe call it a relationship license


There are others besides gays who suffer mariiage penalties: the elderly often don't remarry to preserve their social security benefits.
People like me and my sweetie don't marry for whatever reason. Although straight, we are still denied benefits because we don't play by societies' rules.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
The relationship license was already thought of. It was called a Civil Union.
This is what Democrats tried to push for, instead of 'Marrage'. Unfortionately people are confused about the two, and instead choose to see them as one and the same. :-/



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
LEAVE MY CONSTITUTION ALONE!



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Hmm this is a hot topic right here.

Let me put it this way. Bush has a right too do this. It is the will of the people. 11/11 of the states that had this up for referendum passed it. What does that say about the people in the country. They do not want this abomination to happen. THose states that passed a ban werent all southern states either.

There is a social decline in the world right now. Look at europe. They are in a state of moral-relitiveness. Canada is well on its way to that also.

This also is not on the same level as the civil rights movement. These are miles and miles apart. The civil rights movement was a just effort to reform an ignorant government. This is the attempt to reform the moral standing this country has had for the past 200 years. Yes we screw up everyone does. This is also a attack on the church. I for one wont take it. This minority is attempting to destroy everything that makes this country diffent from all the others. In this past election the people spoke that they dont want this moral decray in our country.

Im not goin to say i have noting against gays cause i do. Im not goin to go out and discriminate against them or go beat one up. I dont agree with them at all. I love them as a brother and i will pray for them but thats it. it is a wicked wicked sin they are commiting every minute of their life.


now ....the flaming



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
It is a state level issue. It is none of the federal government's business. The federal government does not know the will of the majority of the people in a state that has not passed the marriage law. This is a state level issue.

THIS IS NOT A NATIONAL ISSUE.

And I don't want anybody placing an unnecessary amendment on the constitution!



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
But Valhall its nots bush's fault its goin to be a national issue. Its teh activist supreme court who will. I agree its a states right thing. But when the supreme court rules that its unconstitutional for them to ban something like that then it becomes a national issue. 11 states dont want it. THat great. But what if those 11 states were told they couldnt make their own decision but the supreme court does. Bush is tryin to even the playin field. Im opposed to a straight out ban on gay marriage. I think the states should decide but we need an ammendment to make it clear if they dont want it then they dont have to have it.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
That's why the supreme court is way out of control. They are far passed their boundaries. If the supreme court continues one we will continue to have state level issues brought to the national level that embitters the states and eventually this will lead to no good.

I oppose any federal action on this. I'm just stating my position. Just as I oppose any federal action on abortion, I oppose any federal action on this.

This is where both liberal and conservative don't realise what they mean when they want a certain make up of the supreme court. It doesn't matter if the supreme court is liberal or conservative, we need a constitution-protecting supreme court, irrespective of their political leanings.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
That's why the supreme court is way out of control. They are far passed their boundaries. If the supreme court continues one we will continue to have state level issues brought to the national level that embitters the states and eventually this will lead to no good.

I oppose any federal action on this. I'm just stating my position. Just as I oppose any federal action on abortion, I oppose any federal action on this.

This is where both liberal and conservative don't realise what they mean when they want a certain make up of the supreme court. It doesn't matter if the supreme court is liberal or conservative, we need a constitution-protecting supreme court, irrespective of their political leanings.


You know what i agree with you 99%. Everythign but the abortion stance but thats another debate. I this activist court we have now is goin crazy. THe founders never intended up to be under judicial rule. Before and ban ammendments coem around i think we should have an ammendment to limit judicial power



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
This is where both liberal and conservative don't realise what they mean when they want a certain make up of the supreme court. It doesn't matter if the supreme court is liberal or conservative, we need a constitution-protecting supreme court, irrespective of their political leanings.

Boy, you got that right. We don't need a politically correct Supreme Court. We need a court who will uphold and defend the Constitution.

______
RE: the states who had the marriage issue
Michigan passed the proposal definging marriage. Michigan went for Kerry.
So, it's not only republican states caught up in this issue.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
These anti-choice creeps make my skin crawl.


Anti-choice? Oh, I get it. You mean killing babies. Everyone I know is pro-choice. We just believe that the time to make that choice is before conception and live with the consequences of one's own actions, instead of murdering the only innocent party in the equation.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I posted this on another gay marriage post but it bears repeating.

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Article IV of the US Constitution


Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.


If I choose to marry in California under this section every other state has to recognize my marriage. So if even one state in this country recognizes gay marriage - all other states have to recognize the validity of that marriage. Because of the Full Faith and Credit it is already a federal issue - the states lost the ability to determine this a long time ago.

One way or another this will end up in the hands of SCOTUS. Not because they want it - not because they are trying to impose an agenda - but because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause

The only way those who oppose gay marriage can discriminate or deny this right to gay/lesbian couples is to adopt a constitutional amendment that specifically does just that.



B.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Bleys,

There are precedents in a license issued in a given state not being recognized as valid in another state. And that's what we're talking about here. A license.

I am a P.E. (professional engineer) licensed in the state of Oklahoma. There are only certain states that show "reciprocity" in recognizing another state's P.E. license. And even for those states that do, there is still a process to validate.

But for many many states in the U.S. they require you be licensed in their state. They do not recognize the P.E. license of another state.

It is the very same circumstance. The VERY same. And I would hope that this be kept at the state level so that the MAJORITY of people in a given state can speak their will on this issue and not have the federal government cram one side or the other down their throats with no voice from them.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I cannot believe so much time and energy is being wasted on such a matter. Do we really care if two men or two woman marry? I sure the hell don't but that may be because I'm not religous. Why does anyone have a problem with this?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join