Bush announces support of Marriage Amendment

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday he supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to prevent "the meaning of marriage from being changed forever."


CNN - Bush on Marriage Amendment


This is great news. Now the ball is rolling. Perhaps he is more conservative than previously thought by some here.

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
Perhaps he is more conservative than previously thought by some here.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess this offsets his increasing the Department of Education budget, the largest entitlement increase in U.S. history with Medicare prescription drugs, etc., etc., etc.

I appreciate his joining with the rest of we Christian conservatives who were ahead of him in supporting this amendment. That's right...he's joining, not leading.

And I do appreciate him being on our side on this issue. I just hope he gives more than lip service to his support.

I think that the logic behind this amendment is the same as Prohibition in the 1920s. It is fueled by “Christian” dogma and will, like prohibition, create a big backlash. To me it just seems that GW is using the Constitution of the United States for political gain. That is sad. He is just throwing the conservatives “Christians” a bone in hopes of garnishing their support in the upcoming election. If he truly believed in this he would have done it earlier in his presidency.

I think that the logic behind this amendment is the same as Prohibition in the 1920s. It is fueled by “Christian” dogma and will, like prohibition, create a big backlash. To me it just seems that GW is using the Constitution of the United States for political gain. That is sad. He is just throwing the conservatives “Christians” a bone in hopes of garnishing their support in the upcoming election. If he truly believed in this he would have done it earlier in his presidency.

I think that the logic behind this amendment is the same as Prohibition in the 1920s. It is fueled by “Christian” dogma and will, like prohibition, create a big backlash. To me it just seems that GW is using the Constitution of the United States for political gain. That is sad. He is just throwing the conservatives “Christians” a bone in hopes of garnishing their support in the upcoming election. If he truly believed in this he would have done it earlier in his presidency.

I think that the logic behind this amendment is the same as Prohibition in the 1920s. It is fueled by “Christian” dogma and will, like prohibition, create a big backlash. To me it just seems that GW is using the Constitution of the United States for political gain. That is sad. He is just throwing the conservatives “Christians” a bone in hopes of garnishing their support in the upcoming election. If he truly believed in this he would have done it earlier in his presidency.

The issue was not as big earlier in his presidency. And like all good leaders, he has carefully weighed the issue before him, looked at the pros and cons of actually amending the Constitution(no easy task), and decided that he approves of the idea.

Had he immediately went forward saying that he wants an amendment people would have thought him rushing into changing the Constitution. That's a big step, no matter what the issue, and I'm glad he took his time.

It is unlike here in Texas, where every law is actually an amendment to our Constitution. Probably why ours is so long, confusing, and full of holes where long since departed amendments once were.

BTW, I would not be in favor of the amendment, seeing that marriage is, IMHO, a state issue, if not for the Full Faith and Credit Clause forcing states to recognize such actions of other states.

While I support marriage amendments at the state level, I think a marriage amendment at the federal level is unwise; what is needed is the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (H.R. 3799, and S. 2082), which was introduced two weeks ago, sponsors of the bill include Rep. Robert Aderholt (AL), Rep. Michael Pence (IN), Sen. Richard Shelby (AL), Sen. Zell Miller (GA), Sen. Sam Brownback (KS), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC).

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 strikes at the heart of the matter when it states, "In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than the constitutional law and English common law." The legislation makes clear that impeachment and conviction are the appropriate deterrents for radical judges who play the role of legislator with regard to marriage at the bidding of the immoral minority.

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
if not for the Full Faith and Credit Clause forcing states to recognize such actions of other states.

Click to expand...

That is why I support it as well. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in the mid-90s could very easily be ruled unconstitutional by a judge; thus, it is not sufficient to stop liberal activist judges.

I just see any state or federal marriage amendment as another example of good old Christian affirmative action trying to prop up another Christian institution. Only problem is it doesn't say what kind of union between a man and a woman, ie; civil, sexual, labor, economic or religious.

I would prefer words in the Constitution to the following effect:

Marriage in the US shall consist of the written vows exchanged by the couple prior to their consummation of the solemn rites of Holy Matrimony.

Of course, I'm just an old-fashioned chauvinist trying to revive the time-honored ideal and tradition of equally licensed patriarchal and matriarchal families.

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
BTW, I would not be in favor of the amendment, seeing that marriage is, IMHO, a state issue, if not for the Full Faith and Credit Clause forcing states to recognize such actions of other states.

Click to expand...

The problem with it being a state issue is that we Christians tend to say something is a state issue when the feds do something we dont' like, and then we say the feds shoudl step in when a state doesn't do something we dont' like.

However, I do agree that it should be a state issue. The problem here in CA is that a local city (San Francisco) is doing what it wants to, despite the fact that marriage between a male and female is a state law.

Now, that being said, I am still on the fence as to whether an amendment at the Constitution level would be a good thing or not. If the Defense of Marriage act is likely to be overturned, then yes, perhaps a marriage amendment is a good idea.

Besides, it's about time we folks got hyped up about constitutional amendments. The last amendment was ratified without anyone knowing.

How is marriage a state issue any more than it is a church issue, a family issue, a sexual issue and a personal issue?

Is the Institution of Holy Matrimony only up for grabs by some state, federal or civil government and courts?

whatever happened to we, the people? We're the ones getting married by God and divorced by the state.

What's going on? (Marvin Gaye)

"The problem with it being a state issue is that we Christians tend to say something is a state issue when the feds do something we dont' like, and then we say the feds shoudl step in when a state doesn't do something we dont' like."

If other states want to grant Homo marriage, then that's their business. I'm concerned with what's going on in my state. The problem is that with the law of the US as it currently stands, if California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, or any other classically liberal state chose to legal same sex marriage, then we in Texas would have to recognize it as legal if that "couple" were ever to move here. That is something I will not put up with. However, if other states have gone so far down the toilet that they need to recognize these "marriages", then that's their prerogative and I have no beef with that. I just don't want it here.

You know, there is a reason I live in Texas and not Cali, NY, or Vermont, and it ain't cuz I like hot weather.

Now, if the Full Faith and Credit Clause were abolished, then there wouldn't be an iminent need for new legislation. Of course, some judge, somewhere, is going to bring the issue to the forefront sooner or later.

My only beef with the Amendment is that, with times and technology the way they are, shouldn't it read a union between a naturally born man and woman? I think the next stink after the gay marriage hub-bub will be transexuals wanting to marry. Then what do we do?

Everything is becoming so confusing. Maybe we should just topple the system and start over with a new one. Or, better yet, make all of the gay people in the US be the first astronauts to go to Mars.

I want to comment first on the connection to Prohibition. Gay/lesbian marriage is not near as popular as beer/moonshine was. Lack of public support doomed Prohibition, but if we as Christians stand up for this amendment, I believe it would stick. Now to the state issue argument. You have a point. There are a billion issues that are supposed to be state issues that the federal government has gotten its hands way too dirty in. However, that is the way of our country now. States no longer take stands against the federal government overstepping its bounds. Therefore, I will support the federal government making this amendment. Also, maybe it will show that a lot of things should be returned to the states and taken out of the federal governments control. Well, I'll get off my soap box now.

Rather than topple the system why don't we just re-invent government as Al Gore was fond of saying?

Let's rewrite the Marriage Amendment as currently proposed. We, the people could call a Constitutional Convention on the Internet and draft an Amendment which would satisfy all our needs. Some of us have already drafted two versions, one secular and the other religious.
Should be interesting to see where some Christians really stand.

Going that route, we would never get enough support. A constitutional convention would have to support the amendment in three-fourths of the fifty states. I don't think we could pull that off and there is still no precedent for making an amendment in that manner. It would be great if we could do that, but I don't think that it is feasible at this time.

I agree with NetPublicist; the Constitutional restoration act should be implementted. I am nervous about fooling around with the US Constitution. Any two of the founders had more brains than about 530 of the 546 clowns now occupying Washington DC.

Bush's words, from the article:

"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," Bush said. "Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

Well said.

Originally posted by drp737:
Going that route, we would never get enough support. A constitutional convention would have to support the amendment in three-fourths of the fifty states. I don't think we could pull that off and there is still no precedent for making an amendment in that manner. It would be great if we could do that, but I don't think that it is feasible at this time.

Click to expand...

At least we would make our voices heard.
When anti-Christians start hearing the ceaseless voice and chatter of Christians they get so rattled that they just scatter.

Originally posted by jcrawford:
Is the Institution of Holy Matrimony only up for grabs by some state, federal or civil government and courts?

Click to expand...

The government doesn't recognize "Holy" matrimony. It recognizes the marital contract as one that the government has a vested interest in (hence, the right of it to regulate it between a man and woman, between persons of a certain age, between not more than two persons, etc. The State acknowleges that certain religious personnel, like certain civic and military personnel, have authorization to approve the contract on behalf of the state.

If we truly called for only "Holy Matrimony" to be recognized, then marriages between two atheists, or between non-Christians, would not be valid.