Bush calls for gay marriage ban

[RedSkunk]

Of course. The Republican homophobic rhetoric is beginning to ratchet up. It's not surprising, but dissapointing all the same. A beginning excerpt:

"President George W Bush has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would ban marriages of same-sex couples.

It comes after a court in Massachusetts ruled in favour of gay weddings, and thousands of same-sex couples married in San Francisco earlier this month.

Mr Bush said he wanted to stop activist judges from changing the definition of the 'most enduring human institution'.

Correspondents say Mr Bush has seized the initiative on an important issue in presidential election year.

'If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America,' said Mr Bush.

He said that while some states might want to have legal arrangements for gay people, marriage should only ever be between a man and a woman. "

---

Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3518117.stm

---

It'd be nice to keep on the issue of Bush calling for the amendment, the implications in Novemember, and any possible backlash or, heck, maybe even a surge in popularity. Who thinks such a ban could take place soon?

Leave the actual gay marriage debate in one of the zillion other misogynic threads.

[Raptorman]

Election year politics. Constitutional ammendments are purposly difficult to pass and I don't think this one has the steam to come close. I doubt if Bush really cares about the issue much one way or the other. What he is trying to do is force his eventual Democratic opponent (who MUST oppose it) into a spirited opposition of the ammendment, thereby making it easier to paint them with the dreaded "L" word and swing a few centerist votes his way. It will probably work too.

[TheShrike]

I hope that this doesn't make it through. Sadly, though...

[LeonTrotsky]

God damn Bush and his Republican party, the party that should have intervined when the Nazi's were starting to run rampant aroumd Europe. You Americans really need a 3rd Party too choose from.

[lapslf]

At 2/24/04 03:31 PM, LeonTrotsky wrote: You Americans really need a 3rd Party too choose from.

Or about 20 parties, like we do :-D

[Dagodevas]

At 2/24/04 03:14 PM, TheShrike wrote: I hope that this doesn't make it through. Sadly, though...

I highly doubt it will.

[Zalbun]

how many libertarian congressman do you know? or green?

Anyway I don't see how you can prevent two grown adults from doing this. It just seems entirely irrational.

By the way my favorite asshole, Jerry Falwell (for those of you who don't know Jerry Falwell is a uber conservative leader of the American christian right, as well as fat-ass) tried to prove the need for a constitutional amendment by citing biblical verses which have absolutely nothing to do with anything considering a nifty little thing called seperation of church and state, and comparing the health risks of homosexual sex to that of Polygamy and Incest.

.....douschebag.

[Proteas]

At 2/24/04 03:56 PM, Veggiemeal wrote:

At 2/24/04 03:31 PM, LeonTrotsky wrote: You Americans really need a 3rd Party too choose from.

Or about 20 parties, like we do :-D

We have a multitude of political parties to choose from here in the U.S., it's just that the media only pays attention to Democrats, Republican, and Independents.

I can understand Bush wanting to call a ban on Gay Marriage though. Sodomy is considered a reprehensible act in most states. If you give it the o.k., it would open the door for other immoral sexual acts to be legalized (so I'm told).

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/24/04 03:14 PM, TheShrike wrote: I hope that this doesn't make it through. Sadly, though...

I thought gay marriage was already illegal in the States...

[Raptorman]

At 2/24/04 04:40 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: I thought gay marriage was already illegal in the States...

Not Illeagal, just not recognized by leagal authorities. Important distiction there.

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/24/04 04:45 PM, Raptorman wrote:

At 2/24/04 04:40 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: I thought gay marriage was already illegal in the States...

Not Illeagal, just not recognized by leagal authorities. Important distiction there.

Ah. If it passes, will gay people presently married be arrested/charged, or only couples who marry AFTER it?

[Raptorman]

At 2/24/04 04:48 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Ah. If it passes, will gay people presently married be arrested/charged, or only couples who marry AFTER it?

Neither, since it still would not be illegal. In the unlikely event that it passes, it would set the supreme law of the land as marriage is only between one man and one woman. Any other marriage would simply be voided in the eyes of the law (But not necessarily in the eyes of any church, corporation, ect.)

Any sanction, criminal or otherwise, would have to be addressed through additional legislation. Legislation that would have serious equal protection issues. (I say serious to mean DOA/DNR)

[Zalbun]

it will have to be after due to the constitutional ban of ex-post facto laws.

Also, why would something like gay marriagr lead to other sexual acts besides "sodomy." The health reasons begind the ban of beastiality/incest/polygamy. If they are two grown adults, whatever floats your boat i guess.

[Ravens-Grin]

Honestly, the Federal government has no right to intervene on this topic. In the Constitutuion it gives powers not expressed in that document are given to the state. It is just unfounded that Bush thinks he has the power to do this, but then again the Executive Office has become the main office, and the Senate and House of Represanatvies are taking a back seat.

[GooieGreen]

He can say all he wants about making an amendment. However, he has no power over it being passed or not, so I don't care. Is he ignortant? ...
...
*snickers*
I don't know, you tell me

[DrxFeelgood]

At 2/24/04 01:26 PM, -redskunk- wrote: Of course. The Republican homophobic rhetoric is beginning to ratchet up. It's not surprising, but dissapointing all the same.

Oh shut hell up. The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man. It figures you would be bitchin' about this because you like to play for the pink team.

"President George W Bush has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would ban marriages of same-sex couples.

Good.

marriage should only ever be between a man and a woman.

That's correct.

[DeathSimian]

CNN was just showing the 2000 Vice Pres. debate where Dick Cheney showed his support for homosexual equality, saying it's no one else's business what two grown people do, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. Now, today the Bush administration has completely reversed that view.

Also, Cheney's daughter is a homosexual.

I'm growing weary of this debate. I've been argueing non-stop with others at my school about this. I'll say it again, no one else has the right to influence the freedoms and priveledges of another person, as long as those freedoms do not affect others. Gay marriage has no effect on anyone but the people it brings together.

I'm just thankful there's little-to-no chance this amendment would ever be passed.

[GooieGreen]

At 2/24/04 09:35 PM, 70TA wrote:

At 2/24/04 01:26 PM, -redskunk- wrote: Of course. The Republican homophobic rhetoric is beginning to ratchet up. It's not surprising, but dissapointing all the same.

Oh shut hell up. The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man. It figures you would be bitchin' about this because you like to play for the pink team.

WOAH Bill O'Reily! Just because he has a different view doesn't mhim gay. In this case, it does, because Red and I are lovers, isn't that right, Red?

Tell me, do you think gays want to expose themselves to all of this? Ridiculed? Beaten? Killed? No. Many believe that people are born that way (or just more accepting of universal love). Studies have been done showing gays having different (and stronger) nueral patterns.

"President George W Bush has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would ban marriages of same-sex couples.

Good.

Yeah, but it isn't up to the executive branch for this to happen. A little rash, no? An amendment?

marriage should only ever be between a man and a woman.

That's correct.

That's for the courts to decide

[RedSkunk]

At 2/24/04 09:43 PM, Gooie wrote: WOAH Bill O'Reily! Just because he has a different view doesn't mhim gay. In this case, it does, because Red and I are lovers, isn't that right, Red?

... Yeah. Uh huh...

At 2/24/04 09:38 PM, DeathSimian wrote: CNN was just showing the 2000 Vice Pres. debate where Dick Cheney showed his support for homosexual equality, saying it's no one else's business what two grown people do, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

Wow, I must of missed that one. That's news to me. Interesting, it's a pretty far out there position, specially for Cheney.

Also, Cheney's daughter is a homosexual.

I think I've heard this before. But they don't say much about it. I wonder what she thinks about this all? Imagine if she spoke out against her father.. Woof.

I'm growing weary of this debate.

Yeah, me too. I wanted to avoid the whole argument about whether they should or not, and look at the repercussions of the president calling for it to happen, the implications for the election, etc.

[GooieGreen]

At 2/24/04 09:51 PM, -redskunk- wrote:

At 2/24/04 09:43 PM, Gooie wrote: WOAH Bill O'Reily! Just because he has a different view doesn't mhim gay. In this case, it does, because Red and I are lovers, isn't that right, Red?

... Yeah. Uh huh...

Damnit! Let it be known! Don't let "Righty" take our love away!
(yeah, I'm kidding)

[DeathSimian]

At 2/24/04 09:51 PM, -redskunk- wrote:

Wow, I must of missed that one. That's news to me. Interesting, it's a pretty far out there position, specially for Cheney.

Yeah, I was quite surprised as I watched it. He seemed like a different person for a few short moments.

I wonder what she thinks about this all? Imagine if she spoke out against her father.. Woof.

That would be great. I really hope she goes public about it in some form. That would really stir things up.

[TheWakingDeath]

the bush administration is just trying to get kerry to take a stance on gay marriage, and the bush team already called the "against" team. so, wouldn't it be akward if they got up to debate on something they both agreed on?

come to think of it, isn't that all political debate in this country, at least on the government level?

kerry isn't for gay marraige but he is for gay "equality." he wants to stay ambigous in this area so he doesn't lose voters. bush is trying to bait him. it would be stupid for any of the pseudo liberals to take a stance on gay marraige this election year. i hope to hell kerry is smart enough to keep his mouth shut.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/24/04 10:17 PM, Izuamoto wrote: kerry isn't for gay marraige but he is for gay "equality." he wants to stay ambigous in this area so he doesn't lose voters. bush is trying to bait him. it would be stupid for any of the pseudo liberals to take a stance on gay marraige this election year. i hope to hell kerry is smart enough to keep his mouth shut.

Yes, exactly. Kerry has said previously he's not in support of marriage, but kinda for unions. But he'll try to avoid restating his position, in fear of alienating people.

[zeebo156]

At 2/24/04 09:35 PM, 70TA wrote:

At 2/24/04 01:26 PM, -redskunk- wrote:

Oh shut hell up. The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man. It figures you would be bitchin' about this because you like to play for the pink team.

you shut the hell up 70TA tell me how are you not being as bad as the nazis were against the jews besides killing them tell me how your not descriminating against gay people

[GooieGreen]

Yeah, Bush again united the country like he said he would

[Raptorman]

At 2/24/04 11:03 PM, zeebo156 wrote: as bad as the nazis were against the jews besides killing them

That's kind of a big one.

[TheWakingDeath]

man, you know, i was really excited, cuz i thought this topic would be different from all the other topics that so much as grazed the subject of homosexuals. i thought this was about the election and how this amendment fits into bushes nefarious scheme to steal the presidency for another four years.

[GooieGreen]

At 2/24/04 11:20 PM, Izuamoto wrote: man, you know, i was really excited, cuz i thought this topic would be different from all the other topics that so much as grazed the subject of homosexuals. i thought this was about the election and how this amendment fits into bushes nefarious scheme to steal the presidency for another four years.

Nope, you just got Punk'd

[RedSkunk]

At 2/24/04 11:20 PM, Izuamoto wrote: man, you know, i was really excited, cuz i thought this topic would be different from all the other topics that so much as grazed the subject of homosexuals.

Are you saying that my wish was too idealistic? That was what I was going for.........

[TheWakingDeath]

wow, is the word "GULLIBLE" like, written on my forehead or what