Bush announces support of Marriage Amendment

Well the problem is, at least in California, the marriage lienses issued are by one local municipality, that has chosen to ignore the law. Marriage in California is defined as being between one mand and one woman. The Mayor of San Francisco is violating that law.

 

And nobody has the backbone to do anything about it. Lucky for him he didn't try to pull something like posting the Ten Commandments in his office building.

 

Good point Jcrawford. I'm just not sure if we should try to scatter them, or if we should try to convert them. If we could convert their religious views then their political views would be converted as well. After all that's part of the whole problem with most liberals. They have no religious views and make their political views based on who is going to vote for them rather than on what the believe. Which is the cause of their hippocritical nature. This is why I love Bush so much. He may not have all of the right answers, but at least he thinks he does and he tries to improve things to the way that he thinks they should be. He doesn't play the political game of what groups of constituents can I pick up if I say the right things.

 

It's about time our silly liberal President came on board with regard to the need for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage. He didn't see the need in his State of the Union speech. And I maintain that the need has been crystal clear ever since the Mass. Supreme Court declared that failure to grant marriage benefits to same-sex "couples" was a violation of the state Equal Protection clause of the state Constitution.

The Courts are out of control. That is fairly obvious. How long has that EP clause been in the Mass Constitution? And for what period of time was homosexual sodomy a FELONY in Mass.? What period of time did those things overlap? What reasonable person doesn't see that there is a "rational basis" to treat same-sex "couples" differently than opposite-sex couples? That's all equal protection requires...a rational basis. Now, maybe the state of Mass. lost the case because their liberal state attorney general failed to give the huge number of rational bases that exist, not least of which (on a secular basis) is childbearing.

It's still sad to me that politicians fail to recognize that same-sex "marriage" will not do one bit of damage to heterosexual marriage in comparison with the advent of no-fault divorce. The divorce rate is so high in the US, that granting homosexuals marriage-equivalent right will not do all that much more damage to the institution of marriage in my opinion. But what do I know?

I support an Amendment that clarifies for this nation's wacko judges what marriage is. Because they are obviously too stupid (or result oriented)to understand it on their own. Imho. However, the Amendment needs to be carefully crafted. It should not intrude the federal judiciary into matters of family law other than to strike down and declare unconstitutional any same-sex marriages which a state purports to accept.

I think you will probably find that Sen. Kerry ALSO SUPPORTS the version of the Amendment that is able to pass the Senate by a 2/3 majority.

I don't think even Bush II wants an amendment that forbids "civil unions." Civil unions would allow a number of rights to same-sex "couples" but would fall short of actual marriage. I don't think an Amendment that forbids civil unions will make it through the Senate by 2/3.

I think that folks should look at whether Kerry and Edwards support an Amendment also before deciding that Bush II is really "more conservative" than we thought.

 

I believe it is unlikely that any marriage amendment will pass, and Bush knows this. To amend the constitution, you need a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate, then ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Even if passed by Congress, I'm not sure that 38 states will ratify.

Charles

 

That's completely false. The Governor has denounced the Mayor of San Francisco, and has called upon the State Attorney General to seek legal action against the City. Several lawsuits have been filed, on both ends of the spectrum. The first of them is scheduled to be heard soon.

 

John, I'll bet if you ever commit a crime you'd be happy to get by with a "denouncement".

"Seek legal action against the city". Sure.

 

Charlesga,

I predict that a marriage amendment would be ratified. More than the requisite number of states have "no same sex marriage" laws on the books. And there is the public outrage factor to consider as well.

I don't want to predict whether the marriage amendment will pass Congress by a 2/3 majority. I think it will if Bush II is willing to compromise on language. I don't think there are enough extremely liberal Dems who want to explain to their constituents why they wouldn't vote for an Amendment on which members of both parties had compromised as to language.

 

I don't appreciate your tone. It's rather demeaning, and quite judgemental, imo. California has a law that limits marriage to be between a man and a woman. Yet you seem to disgregard that fact as much as the Mayor of San Francisco does.

 

Sorry if I came across as a wise#$%. I have to work on that.

I was just pointing out that someone should be arrested, but all I hear from those who should be enforcing the law is talk about what should be done.

 

So where now are the ones who condemned and finally successfully removed Judge Moore for violating the law? Probably not converging on Frisco.

 

They're probably huddled somewhere analyzing a poll on the issue.

 

My prayer is that the Constitution Party will reconsider and support the Federal Marriage Amendment.

www.nogaymarriage.com

<><

 

Let's see...
Abortion on demand 1.5 million a year
Filth from Hollywood (all in the name of 'art')
Filth on television
Moral relativism, contempt for Christianity taught in our public schools
Courts embracing radical liberal agenda
10 Commandments outlawed
Homosexual 'marriage' being promoted by courts, liberal 'Christians'
Divorce on the rise
Children suicide on the increase
Child drug use on the increase
Record industry sells trash to our teenagers
Christians supporting a pro-abortion, pro-gay Presidential candidate

One wonders what's next...

 

Calvin,

I see your point, but would argue that more are opposed to the amendment than the Defense of Marriage Act Laws and are very cautious about amending the Consitution. Others argue that there is no need for the amendment.

Here in Georgia, the issue of a constitutional amendment to our state constitution has passed the state Senate, but has had more difficulty passing the state House, and we are one of the more conservative states. Imagine the fight in some more moderate states.

While I think the president would like to see the amendement, I do believe the timing appears to make it a political maneuver....which is okay, politicians do it all the time.

Time will tell....should be interesting to watch from a political standpoint. This may be a defining issue in the election.

Charles

 

Religous revolution.

 

I don't believe anybody has mentioned the fact that Bush SUPPORTS government legal recognition of civil unions for gays, which has been one of the primary goals of the gay rights movement for years.

Supporting gay civil unions is both anti-Christian and anti-Conservative.

Just one more reason to vote Constitution Party.

 

Just one more reason to support the Third American Revolution. (TAR)

Tar and feather them.

- Sex Police. 9.11

 

The Constitution Party should set aside their doctrine on the law and support the Federal Marriage Amendment. In a close contest, the Federal Marriage Amendment will need the help of third parties in order to pass. If the CP continues to back away, the Democrats under Kerry will stall the Federal Marriage Amendment.

www.nogaymarriage.com

 

The CP isn't backing away from anything. We're supporting the U.S. Constitution as laid down by the Founding Fathers--men far wiser than you.

You love to bash the CP and its members, but then you expect them to support your poorly thought out pie-in-the-sky panaceas.

Bush SUPPORTS government legal recognition of gay civil unions. God calls homosexuality an "absolute abomination". Bush's position stands against both God and Conservatives.