I want to take some time to thank our fine upstanding leader for defending the rights of the majority from feeling less special, cuz a minority group wants to feel special too. The wife and I have been up in arms and so damn confused about the state of our 'civil union' now that those "other people" are demanding access to our exclusive club. Our marriage has been seriously undermined, and we can barely look each other in the eyes anymore--we need help, and fast!

Thankfully, Bush has offered to amend our sacred Constitution to officially limit the civil rights of those "other people", so that we can go on feeling special and exclusive. Thank goodness the government is so willing to enforce mandatory pelvic exams before the issuance of marriage licenses. That's true leadership for ya...

Bush urges amendment banning gay marriage

By DEB RIECHMANN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- President Bush urged approval of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages on Tuesday, pushing a divisive social issue to the center of the election campaign and setting a clear policy contrast with Democratic challengers John Kerry and John Edwards.

Bush said "activist judges and local officials" from Massachusetts to San Francisco to New Mexico were attempting to redefine marriage and "change the most fundamental institution of civilization" by allowing same-sex weddings. "On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard," he said.

Democrats accused Bush of pandering to right-wing supporters and tinkering with the Constitution to divert attention from his record on jobs, health care and foreign policy. "He is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people," Kerry said.

Both Kerry and Edwards said they oppose gay marriages but would not support a constitutional amendment.

Banning gay marriage is a top priority for Bush's conservative supporters, particularly those among religious and family-oriented groups. But while a majority of Americans - sometimes by as much as a 2-1 margin - oppose legalizing gay marriages, Bush's move could hold political risks, particularly if voters see him as intolerant or question his self-description as a "compassionate conservative."

"The president needs to worry about fair-minded swing voters in America, not a Republican base that he has locked up," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group.

Mindful of the high emotions and clear differences on the issue, Bush said, "We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger."

Conservatives were delighted Bush had plunged in. "There is no more important issue for our nation than the preservation of the institution of marriage," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation, a family advocacy group.

Momentum for a constitutional amendment has grown as San Francisco officials have performed thousands of same-sex marriages and have challenged their state law barring such unions. In Massachusetts, the state's highest court has ruled that a state law falling short of allowing full-fledged marriage for gays would be unconstitutional.

Bush softened his announcement by leaving the door open for states to legalize civil unions, which gay rights groups say is an insufficient alternative to marriage. "The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage," said Bush, who had opposed legalizing civil unions when he was governor of Texas.

Republican officials said there was no rush to bring an amendment to the floor in the House. Some conservatives want a broader approach than Bush supports, and others oppose federalizing the issue, at least for now.

"The groups that are for a constitutional amendment are split over what it should be," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "We are trying to bring them all together and unify them."

California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.

"I will say that I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue," said Dreier, a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary." Lewis said changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, said she would fight any amendment. "Never before has a constitutional amendment been used to discriminate against a group of people, and we must not start now," she said.

Amending the Constitution is not quick or simple. A two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate must pass an amendment, and then it would be sent to the states for ratification. It must be approved by three-fourths, or 38 of the 50. Bush's father pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning but it was not approved.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that amendment legislation submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., meets his principles in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women. But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular legislation.

Bush's call for a gay-marriage amendment came as the president sought to regain his footing after he was thrown on the defensive about issues ranging from his Vietnam-era military record to missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said.

Answering Bush, Kerry said, "All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign."

"I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions," Kerry said. "I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states"

Edwards, campaigning in Georgia, where the state legislature is debating its own ban on gay marriage, said, "I don't personally support gay marriage myself. My position has always been that it's for the states to decide."

I'm sorry to hear about your marriage troubles. I'm glad the president's stance on gay marriages helped you and your wife. I wasn't going to vote for him this fall but your story is touching and I think maybe now he deserves to be re-elected. Thanks for changing my mind and good luck with the marriage.

__________________
http://www.benzworld.org/forums/imag...e_steering.gif
1998 C43 ///AMG
1999 C230 Custom 5-Speed Manual

It sure seems odd that this is a much bigger issue now than is was 4 years ago.

BTW, I thought marriage was a God thing?

...apparently it's a Guv thing.

God -- President -- marriage councelor: The line is getting blurred......

Politics is a never-ending descent from the ideal to the ridiculous.

So now we have the Republicans, the bastion of small government and states rights, nationalizing an issue of personal choice. And we have the Democrats, the defender of national government and sublimation of states rights, defending the rights of states to make local choices.

Reminds me of the Florida election fiasco.

Principle has NOTHING to do with the struggle between these parties. Its all about power and who will have supremacy. When the major parties will sacrifice their principles to maintain or gain power only one outcome is certain: the people will lose.

Botnst

Ya ya ya, we all know about that evil party stuff...but, how's your marriage? Undermined? Confused? Teetering? In dire need of saving? .gov wants to know...

I didnt even know it was a right to be able to marry??? Did I just miss that in the constitution or someplace?

I think the whole question of marriage is archaic and we don't even know it, yet.

In a dozen years at most, we will likely have full command of the genetic and developmental control of human creation and ontogeny. We are a decade away from designer children and organic accessorizing and our laws and morals still have not adjusted to the extraordinary changes wrought from just birth control pills.

Given that almost inevitability, what possible difference will it make to the state whose parts get rubbed together?

The lack of perspective is mind-boggling.

B

Speaking of a mind-boggling lack of perspective, remember when the .gov nannies last tried to constitutionally restrict human behavior? That was a real winner...

Didn't Congress enact a Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") that is intended to accomplish by statute what W now wants to accomplish by changing the Constitution? Shouldn't W wait until DOMA makes it way through the courts before he goes monkeying with the foundation of our government? Wouldn't that be the conservative thing to do?

And to think this was a considered decision. I wonder if there are enough homophobes to hide behind Bush....

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

I don't think its Homophobes; it's in defense of marriage as a religious institution.

I do think that in the true spirit of separation of church and state the there should be a domestic partner law allowing same sex partners the same rights as others. The law should be balanced to make partnerships have to jump through the same hoops as traditional marriages in the event of separation.

Keep in mind that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage bill in 1996. Dubbya isn't alone; he's just taking the heat.

The problem with that is: The Federal law could be challenged by a state (oh say, Massachussetts) that allows marriage of gays. It quickly goes to the Supremes. Do we REALLY want laws governing fundamental social issues decided by unelected officials? If so, why bother having a legislative branch, we could just do it by executive order--this is despotism.

It really should be decided by vote. If the Amendment gets defeated, then that is de facto acceptance of marriage controlled at the state level. What would then happen is each state would make laws tailored to their own peculiarities. This would be my ideal outcome. In LA (that's Louisiana), a rather conservative state with a large proportion of Roman Catholics, the chances are we would write a law defining marriage naroowly. In Utah, they would probably keep it man/woman but expand it to several women. In Mass, gay marriage would be okay but multiple marriage, probably not. In Wyoming, sheep.....nevermind.

Why? Do they elaborate specifically on their positions as to the reason(s) for opposing gay marriage?