Bush Threatens Amendment Vs. Gay Marriage

[bigpoppanils]

Bush Threatens Amendment Vs. Gay Marriage

Bush Blasts Massachussetts Ruling on Gay Marriage, Says Constitutional Amendment Might Be Necessary

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Feb. 5 — President Bush, reacting to a new Massachusetts state court ruling, says a constitutional amendment will be necessary to ban gay marriages if judges persist in approving them.

In a written statement late Wednesday, Bush termed "deeply troubling" the decision that same-sex couples in Massachusetts have a right to marry not just form civil unions and reiterated a position staked out in his State of the Union speech last month.

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said in the statement. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

The Massachusetts Supreme Court's advisory opinion that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage set the stage for the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by the spring.

The issue has the potential to become a hot factor in the presidential campaign.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in his own statement: "I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision."

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, another Democratic presidential candidate, said: "I leave that to the states and the courts whether you call it a marriage or not, I leave up to the states and churches and synagogues and mosques."

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., an acknowledged homosexual, said Thursday he believes that in practice the Massachusetts court decision "doesn't mean a great deal."

Fewer than half of the members of Congress so far have embraced a constitutional amendment that would prohibit gay marriage, he said on NBC's "Today" show. "It (the ruling) in no way affects traditional marriage. The fact that you now are given an option that has absolutely no appeal to you will not affect your marriage."

Patrick Buchanan, who twice has run for president, said on the same show he thinks gay marriage will be a wedge issue in the 2004 campaign and that Bush will benefit from it.

"John Kerry, if he supports it (gay marriage), is going to be swallowing hemlock," Buchanan said.

Bush's statement was similar to his remarks in his Jan. 20 State of the Union address in which he said that if judges "insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

Conservative activists and religious groups, banding together under the name the Arlington Group, gathered in Washington this week to plot strategy. Some participants said they left with a White House commitment to fight for a constitutional amendment.

"We were given direct assurances from the very top," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation. "There's no doubt. It's our understanding that the president is waiting for a day when there is not a massive news story to do it himself."

Another group, the Alliance Defense Fund based in Scottsdale, Ariz., sent out an e-mail asserting, "This morning, President Bush agreed to join the effort to push for the passage of this amendment."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading group of social conservatives, said, "I would not be surprised at all to see the president come out very soon calling on Congress to act." He said he could not speak for Bush but that "it appears that things are falling in line for that to happen."

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a conservative who is close to the White House, said a constitutional amendment "is what you'd expect the president to do. ... They are forcing the president's hand if you say only an amendment can fix this, guess what, you're going to get an amendment."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration would review the Massachusetts' opinion.

Recalling Bush's remarks in his State of the Union speech, McClellan said, "What he said at that time, that if judges continue to force their arbitrary will upon the people, that the only alternative to the people would be a constitutional process. And that remains his view."

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

wonderful. the first amendment made to the Constitution aimed at excluding a group of people from certain rights.

[jamiroguy1]

Why is Bush so scared to let gay people marry? Who is he to say who is allowed to be married or not? Seems like he's playing god here.

[mrmatas2277]

this IS def. a hot potato....

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by mrmatas2277

this IS def. a hot potato....

Tell me about it.

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

Why is Bush so scared to let gay people marry? Who is he to say who is allowed to be married or not? Seems like he's playing god here.

Marriage is one of the 7 holy sacrements and in the church's eye homosexuality is a sin thats why gays cannot marry you can't observe one and ignore the other, bottomline.. I am all for civil unions but against marriage.

[djxeno]

Originally posted by mr mahs

Marriage is one of the 7 holy sacrements and in the church's eye homosexuality is a sin thats why gays cannot marry you can't observe one and ignore the other, bottomline.. I am all for civil unions but against marriage.

yeah but what ever happened to the separation of church and state.

since when did the U.S become a christian country?

[ghhhhhost]

whenever this debate comes up..i always say the same thing...

this country will let retards marry....but has a problem against gay marriage??

the bible is against it...so what? the bible is also against lying..cheating..stealing..but we all do it on a regular basis...

let him without sin cast the first stone

[tribal]

as a Libertarian, i have no problem with people being gay. its your business and no one should tell you how to live your life. Republicans suck with this issue and the one thing most people cant stand, is a 40 year old former coke head telling them what is right and what is immoral

now why cant we have this compromise with this issue.

1. allow gays to have similar and almost identical rights as married couples

2. do not call it 'marriage' because that would dilute its true meaning which has always been 'a union between a man and a woman' not a 'union between a man and a queen'

3. the difference would be in a name only, so men and women together would be 'marriage' while 2 guys or 2 girls would be 'union' for example. same rights, different names for it.

now as for the issue of child adoption for gay couples, i do not know anything regarding this issue. perhaps a child psychologist should answer that.

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by tribal

now why cant we have this compromise with this issue.

1. allow gays to have similar and almost identical rights as married couples

i am against gay marriages...but 100% behind civil unions...i dont know why they cannot meet half way...if u dont have some sort of civil union/marriage, then u are discriminating against them...i am def. against marriage, but civil unions should meet what they want...

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by mr mahs

Marriage is one of the 7 holy sacrements and in the church's eye homosexuality is a sin thats why gays cannot marry you can't observe one and ignore the other, bottomline.. I am all for civil unions but against marriage.

It's not up to the church to tell how people are to be wed. Besides, civil union couples do not have the same rights as married couples and that's not fair. Who are we to decide who gets more benifits because it doesn't fit in our regious ideology.

Here are some limitations with civil unions:

-Portability:

Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states. GLAD believes there are strong arguments that civil unions deserve respect across the country just like marriages. But the two appellate courts that have addressed the issue (in Connecticut and Georgia) have disrespected them based on the fact that their states do not grant civil

unions themselves.

-Ending a Civil Union:

If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in Vermont and filing for divorce there. This has already created problems for some couples who now have no way to terminate their legal commitment.

-Federal Benefits:

According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

-Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:

Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

-Filling out forms:

Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don't fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal

penalties.

-Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:

Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We've been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

How real are these differences between marriage and civil unions, given that a federal law and some state laws discriminate against all marriages of same-sex couples?

Would any of this change immediately with marriage of same-sex couples? Probably not, because married same-sex couples will face other layers of discrimination against their marriages. Right now, a federal law denies recognition of same-sex unions conferred by any state for purposes of all federal programs and requirements and over 30 state laws do the same. Ending discrimination in marriage does not mean the end of all discrimination, but using the term "marriage" rather than "civil union" is an essential first step to opening the door and addressing whether continued governmental discrimination against civil marriages of gay and lesbian people makes sense.

Marriage and civil unions remain different, both in practice and in

principle.

First, more than a dozen states have not taken a discriminatory position against civil marriages of gay and lesbian couples. In those states, civilly married gay and lesbian couples should be able to live and travel freely and without fear that their relationship will be disrespected.

Second, even as to those states with discriminatory laws, legally married gay and lesbian couples from those states may well face some discrimination in some quarters, but their marriages will also be treated with legal respect in other arenas. Marriages are far more likely to be respected by others than newly minted "civil unions."

Using the term marriage also prompts a discussion about fairness. Allowing same sex couples to marry (rather than enter a separate status) will allow gay and lesbian people to talk with their neighbors, their local elected officials, and the Congress about whether discrimination against their marriages is fair. Where gay and lesbian people and their children are part of the social fabric, is it right to continue discriminating against them in civil marriage? The federal government and states that have taken discriminatory positions against marriages of gay and lesbian couples could rethink those policies and go back to respecting state laws about marriage, as they have done for hundreds of years. In the end, we will not be able to have this discussion until gay and lesbian folks have what everyone else has: civil marriage.

Civil Marriage & Freedom of Religion

A myth: A major myth about ending discrimination in civil marriage is that it will somehow compel religious faiths to change their doctrine or practices about who they marry. This is flatly incorrect. We have freedom of religion in this country. When a court or legislature ends discrimination in civil (governmental) marriage, there is no compulsory impact on any faith. Each faith is-and will remain-free to define its own requirements for its marriage rite: who, what, when, where and why.

Some people say marriage is a sacrament. And it is for some religious faiths. But the government is not in the sacrament business. The only "marriage" to which the couples in the Massachusetts case are seeking access is civil/governmental marriage. Governmental marriage already exists side by side with each faith's different rules for their religious rite of marriage. Nothing can change that.

Two Types of Marriages

Though people may think about marriage in different ways, there are only two types of marriage - either civil or religious. In some ceremonies, both are celebrated at once. Couples may have one or both types of marriage. However, to receive the legal protections of marriage, a couple must have a civil marriage. It is only civil marriage that can be addressed by courts or legislatures.

Civil Marriage

Any couple can have a civil marriage if they meet the government's requirements. Right now, the requirements in Massachusetts are that the partners be adults, pass a blood test, and not be already married or closely related. Most of us also think about marriage as a public commitment of love and support by adult couples. The government does, too, and uses the commitment of marriage as a gateway to hundreds of legal protections, responsibilities and benefits established by the state, and over 1000 by the federal government. Ever since the founding of this country, states have regulated who may enter into a marriage and under what conditions.

Religious Rite of Marriage

Only couples who meet the requirements of a particular faith tradition can have a religious marriage. Religions have complete autonomy in deciding which marriages they will consecrate; they do whatever suits their faith tradition. Some religions will not marry people who were divorced, or people of different faiths, even though these same people could have a civil marriage. Every religious community always has the

right to perform or not perform any marriage rite it deems appropriate, regardless of the partners' sex. Religious marriages do not convey legal rights or responsibilities.

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects every citizen's right to freedom of religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The founders of American government made it clear from the beginning that in this new nation religion and government would exist side by side, and the law would not define religious practice.

In addition to allowing free rein to religious practice, our Constitution protects freedom of religion by preventing any one religion from dictating the content of law. For all religious views to be protected and respected, it is critical that laws not be made with a particular religious viewpoint in mind, including laws about civil

marriage.

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by ghhhhhost

the bible is against it...so what? the bible is also against lying..cheating..stealing..but we all do it on a regular basis...

the bible is also against interest

the bible also promotes slavery and unequal treatment of women.

[pattbateman]

you open the flood gates

pretty soon people will want to marry their dogs...

then their sister or brother...

why not stop there how about their kitchen sink where do you put an end to it???

where do you draw the line

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by pattbateman

you open the flood gates

pretty soon people will want to marry their dogs...

then their sister or brother...

why not stop there how about their kitchen sink where do you put an end to it???

where do you draw the line

Dogs don't file joint income tax returns. Gay married couples do.

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by pattbateman

then their sister or brother...

actually, according to the jerry springer show, that has already happened :laugh:

quite frankly, i'm not sure laws exist that condemn that

[cintron]

seperation of church and state.

church rules its against gay marriage.

goverment shouldnt use the church's argument of immorality as ammunition against it.

on top of that, stop fucking with in-state decisions. It's not like they decided washington DC should be painted pink.

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by cintron

on top of that, stop fucking with in-state decisions. It's not like they decided washington DC should be painted pink.

its just yet another time that this administration has decided to mess around with states' rights. Its suprising, seeing how the GOP has historically been a champion of them.

[siceone]

I think this is a perfect example of separation of church and state MArriage is a religous term