Bush to Seek Gay-Marriage Ban in New Term

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-11-07 05:05pm

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a "hopeful and decent" society, his top political aide said on Sunday.

Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriages failed last year in Congress, but his position was seen as a key factor motivating Christian conservatives concerned about "moral values" to turn out in large numbers and help supply Bush with a winning margin in last week's election.

"If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman," Bush political aide Karl Rove told "Fox News Sunday."

Rove said Bush would "absolutely" push the Republican-controlled Congress for a constitutional amendment, which he said was needed to avert the aims of "activist judges" who would permit gay marriages.

Renewing his push for an amendment -- despite its slim chances of success -- would be a way for Bush to reward his conservative base. The amendment would face a steep hurdle winning the needed approval of three-fourths of the states.

Other items on Bush's second-term agenda included nominating -- without a "litmus test" on abortion -- judges who would "strictly interpret" the Constitution, and tax reform. Rove said Bush wanted to review the tax code "in its entirety," which suggested a broad-based reform was possible.

Republicans' ability to deliver on their campaign agenda will help determine whether the party can realize its potential to retain a governing majority for decades, he said.

The gay-marriage issue leaped into the campaign spotlight this year after Massachusetts legalized the practice in response to a state Supreme Court ruling, and San Francisco began performing gay marriages in defiance of a state ban.

Ballot measures in 11 states to ban gay marriages all passed last week. Gay-rights groups have vowed to keep fighting for legal protections of same-sex relationships despite the election setbacks.

CIVIL UNIONS

Bush said last month that he disagreed with a Republican Party platform provision that would also ban civil unions of same-sex couples, and he said states should be able to allow such legal arrangements if they wish.

Rove elaborated on this on Sunday.

"He (Bush) believes that there are ways that states can deal with some of the issues that have been raised, for example, visitation rights in hospitals, or the right to inherit, or benefit rights, property rights, but these can all be dealt with at the state level, without overturning the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), a Maine Republican, said a constitutional amendment was unnecessary. "The states are perfectly able to handle this important issue on their own," Collins said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2004-11-07 05:08pm

There was more to that article.

linky

Bush to seek gay-marriage ban in new term -aide
Sun Nov 7, 2004 12:10 PM ET

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a "hopeful and decent" society, his top political aide said on Sunday.

Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriages failed last year in Congress, but his position was seen as a key factor motivating Christian conservatives concerned about "moral values" to turn out in large numbers and help supply Bush with a winning margin in last week's election.

"If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman," Bush political aide Karl Rove told "Fox News Sunday."

Rove said Bush would "absolutely" push the Republican-controlled Congress for a constitutional amendment, which he said was needed to avert the aims of "activist judges" who would permit gay marriages.

Renewing his push for an amendment -- despite its slim chances of success -- would be a way for Bush to reward his conservative base. The amendment would face a steep hurdle winning the needed approval of three-fourths of the states.

Other items on Bush's second-term agenda included nominating -- without a "litmus test" on abortion -- judges who would "strictly interpret" the Constitution, and tax reform. Rove said Bush wanted to review the tax code "in its entirety," which suggested a broad-based reform was possible.

Republicans' ability to deliver on their campaign agenda will help determine whether the party can realize its potential to retain a governing majority for decades, he said.

The gay-marriage issue leaped into the campaign spotlight this year after Massachusetts legalized the practice in response to a state Supreme Court ruling, and San Francisco began performing gay marriages in defiance of a state ban.

Ballot measures in 11 states to ban gay marriages all passed last week. Gay-rights groups have vowed to keep fighting for legal protections of same-sex relationships despite the election setbacks.

CIVIL UNIONS

Bush said last month that he disagreed with a Republican Party platform provision that would also ban civil unions of same-sex couples, and he said states should be able to allow such legal arrangements if they wish.

Rove elaborated on this on Sunday.

"He (Bush) believes that there are ways that states can deal with some of the issues that have been raised, for example, visitation rights in hospitals, or the right to inherit, or benefit rights, property rights, but these can all be dealt with at the state level, without overturning the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said a constitutional amendment was unnecessary. "The states are perfectly able to handle this important issue on their own," Collins said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

ABORTION

Asked whether Bush intended to appoint anti-abortion judges to Supreme Court vacancies considered likely to come open in Bush's second term, Rove said the president would not use a litmus test. He said Bush wanted his judicial nominees to be "impartial umpires" who would strictly interpret the law and Constitution.

He played down a conservative firestorm over a suggestion last week by Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, that Bush would have a hard time winning confirmation of any Supreme Court nominees who would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Specter is expected to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee with authority over judicial nominations.

Rove said Specter has assured Bush that his nominees would receive a prompt hearing and those picked for an appellate court would receive a vote by the full Senate.

Specter said on CBS that he had only been trying to point out that Republicans, while they expanded their Senate control in Tuesday's election, still lacked the Senate votes to overcome a united Democratic front.

© Copyright Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Any copying, re-publication or re-distribution of Reuters content or of any content used on this site, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without prior written consent of Reuters.

Quotes and other data are provided for your personal information only, and are not intended for trading purposes. Reuters, the members of its Group and its data providers shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the quotes or other data, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

© Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-11-07 05:09pm

There was more to that article.

I just quoted what was relevant to the title of the thread.

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2004-11-07 05:13pm

Marksist wrote:
There was more to that article.
I just quoted what was relevant to the title of the thread.

*shrugs* Alright.

Note that this is all just "Bush, according to Karl Rove".

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-11-07 05:56pm

May GOD be praised! At last, the toehold of legislating religiously defined institutions has become a possibilty in this Christian Nation!

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-11-07 06:42pm

Fuck Rove.

If there was a revolution, I'd advocate stringing him up first thing.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-07 06:45pm

It's nice to know that the president does not consider Vermont or any states which recognize gay marriage to be hopeful or decent.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-11-07 06:47pm

Fortunately, there's still no way they've got the votes to get this thing through.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-07 06:52pm

Joe wrote:Fortunately, there's still no way they've got the votes to get this thing through.

The why does Bush contiune to rty? He doesn't have to pander to the fundies anymore, he just got re-elected.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-07 06:54pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Joe wrote:Fortunately, there's still no way they've got the votes to get this thing through.
The why does Bush contiune to rty? He doesn't have to pander to the fundies anymore, he just got re-elected.

Because he was on the phone with God last night, and God was still upset that there wasn't a Constitutional ban on gay marriage yet. Granted, not upset enough to just do something about it himself, but as far as deities' moods go, his was pretty sour.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-11-07 06:57pm

Well, there goes my hope that he woud moderate his stances.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-07 07:11pm

Durandal wrote: Because he was on the phone with God last night, and God was still upset that there wasn't a Constitutional ban on gay marriage yet. Granted, not upset enough to just do something about it himself, but as far as deities' moods go, his was pretty sour.

Either that or his coke snorting days are coming back and haunting him in the form of halucinations. After all Moses thought a burning bush was God. Maybe Bush thinks that those swirling colours are talking to him.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-11-07 08:15pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Joe wrote:Fortunately, there's still no way they've got the votes to get this thing through.
The why does Bush contiune to rty? He doesn't have to pander to the fundies anymore, he just got re-elected.

It's probably for his 2005 campaign.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-07 08:23pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote: It's probably for his 2005 campaign.

2005 campaign?

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-11-07 08:46pm

Joe wrote:Fortunately, there's still no way they've got the votes to get this thing through.

I thought the same thing about Bush being re-elected. Unfortunately, I seem to have a nasty habit of underestimating the dumbassery of the American people.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-11-07 09:34pm

It will die in the senate

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-11-07 09:40pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:It will die in the senate

And then their vote can be used as ammunition against them when they try to run for their seats.

Actually, did that happen in other states? Were the senators who voted against bringing the amendment up to a vote pointed out in ads by people campaigning against them? I only know about the ads in Georgia, but since the senator going out was Zell Miller, nothing of the sort was ever mentioned.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-11-07 09:46pm

Mayabird wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:It will die in the senate
And then their vote can be used as ammunition against them when they try to run for their seats.

Actually, did that happen in other states? Were the senators who voted against bringing the amendment up to a vote pointed out in ads by people campaigning against them? I only know about the ads in Georgia, but since the senator going out was Zell Miller, nothing of the sort was ever mentioned.

That may be the case, but I try to have some faith in humanity.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-07 09:47pm

I saw none in Oklahoma. The Ads against Carson just suggested he would sell out Oklahoma to the DNC, there was a hateful one that had a cardboard cutout of him dancing with a cardboard cut out of Hillary. I thought that no way people would buy that...

I was wrong.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-07 09:54pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Joe wrote:Fortunately, there's still no way they've got the votes to get this thing through.
The why does Bush contiune to rty? He doesn't have to pander to the fundies anymore, he just got re-elected.

Because he's still not going to piss away the political support for his party. And he still has to worry about his legislative agenda as well as maintaining the majority in Congress. So there's plenty of reasons to pander.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-11-07 10:26pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Joe wrote:Fortunately, there's still no way they've got the votes to get this thing through.
The why does Bush contiune to rty? He doesn't have to pander to the fundies anymore, he just got re-elected.

Politics. "Democratic Senator X voted against the gay marriage amendment!" could potentially be hot electoral property for Republican senators during the midterm elections.

Loner · Post by **Loner** » 2004-11-07 11:27pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote: That may be the case, but I try to have some faith in humanity.

Prepare to be disappointed.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-11-07 11:36pm

What a surprise! Although I do question exactly where he'll get the votes for it. Didn't it fail miserably last time?

Post by **Edi** » 2004-11-08 02:55am

Yeah, he's going to work hard to reach out to the people who did not vote for him and unite the country during his second term as per his acceptance speech.

It's been only five days since the election and that retarded asshat is already showing that he will do his best to ram his version of morality down everybody else's throats and generally just drive deeper wedges into the fault lines of American society while pissing on the very principle your country was founded on. And sadly, anybody surprised by this can quite accurately called a moron.

Edi

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-11-08 03:01am

Call me cynical, but I think Bush knows it won't pass and is merely using it as a political foil against the Democrats.

Of course, this is probably ethically worse than if he really believed it would pass, as he's doing it for political gain than for misguided principles.