Bush's attempts to ban same-sex marriages

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-15 05:22pm

Perhaps it does. But those are his most recent statements on the matter.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 05:23pm

Thank you, neoolong.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-01-15 05:27pm

The reasoning behind this is rather clear. Those with the highest divorce rates, ie the white southern fundies, have the highest divorce rates. What do you do when your main supporters have problems, well you throw obscene amount of money at them of couse.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 05:27pm

Joe wrote:Perhaps it does. But those are his most recent statements on the matter.

His most recent statements on the matter directly state that he supports a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as between a man and a woman. Of course, since you are a rabid Bush supporter (you claim not to be, but at every turn you are practically the first one there fighting tooth and nail to defend him and his administration every time), you just glossed over that.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-15 05:35pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Joe wrote:Perhaps it does. But those are his most recent statements on the matter.
His most recent statements on the matter directly state that he supports a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as between a man and a woman. Of course, since you are a rabid Bush supporter (you claim not to be, but at every turn you are practically the first one there fighting tooth and nail to defend him and his administration every time), you just glossed over that.

His most recent statements state that he doesn't want to do anything, you idiot.

"The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."

What part of this are you not understanding? He doesn't WANT to sign the fucking amendment!

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 05:40pm

Joe wrote:His most recent statements state that he doesn't want to do anything, you idiot.

"The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."
What part of this are you not understanding? He doesn't WANT to sign the fucking amendment!

Yes he does want to sign it.

"If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that"

He says right there that he's support the amendment. If he didn't want to sign, he would have said "I would not support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, because..." and then talk about keeping it at the state level.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-15 05:45pm

He says right there that he's support the amendment. If he didn't want to sign, he would have said "I would not support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, because..." and then talk about keeping it at the state level.

If you cannot grasp the distinction between "I support this and want to sign it" and "I will only support this in the event where it becomes necessary," I'm finished with this discussion.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 05:45pm

Damn I wish this forum had an edit button. Anyway...

What you don't seem to get is that the first part of that quote represents intention, and the second part reflects current policy. The second part is where things stand in the here and now, so the Administration supports whatever the individual state's decide. The first part however states that he does, in fact, support the constitutional amendment to codify marriage as between a man and a woman, and that should the Amendment make it though Congress, he will sign it. Do not mistake the second part for the first.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 05:47pm

Joe wrote:If you cannot grasp the distinction between "I support this and want to sign it" and "I will only support this in the event where it becomes necessary," I'm finished with this discussion.

Did you miss the quote that neoolong posted, that he wants to make a law that codifies his belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that he's got his lawyers looking for the best way to do it? He does want to sign this, if he gets the chance.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-15 05:57pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Joe wrote:If you cannot grasp the distinction between "I support this and want to sign it" and "I will only support this in the event where it becomes necessary," I'm finished with this discussion.
Did you miss the quote that neoolong posted, that he wants to make a law that codifies his belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that he's got his lawyers looking for the best way to do it? He does want to sign this, if he gets the chance.

WHY DOES THIS NECESSARILY MEAN THAT GAYS AND LESBIANS CAN'T HAVE AN INSTITUTION IDENTICAL TO MARRIAGE, SO LONG AS IT INVOLVES A DIFFERENT TERM?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-01-15 06:03pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:
Joe wrote:If you cannot grasp the distinction between "I support this and want to sign it" and "I will only support this in the event where it becomes necessary," I'm finished with this discussion.
Did you miss the quote that neoolong posted, that he wants to make a law that codifies his belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that he's got his lawyers looking for the best way to do it? He does want to sign this, if he gets the chance.
WHY DOES THIS NECESSARILY MEAN THAT GAYS AND LESBIANS CAN'T HAVE AN INSTITUTION IDENTICAL TO MARRIAGE, SO LONG AS IT INVOLVES A DIFFERENT TERM?

"Seperate but equal" ring a bell? If it's going to be the same damn thing, then it should be called the same thing.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 06:05pm

*uses his Liberal Psychic Powers™ to read Durran's mind and sees an oddly muscular George Bush with a Batman hood and Utility Belt sitting behind his desk when Cheney bursts into the office*

CHENEY: "Holy anal sodomy, Bushman! We just got word that Gay Marriage is destroying the country! Vermont and Massachuetts have already been taken over with more to come!"
BUSHMAN: "I see that using my handy Bushman Electro-Demographic Scope, old chum."
CHENEY: "The Justice League passed a constitutional amendment that would defeat Gay Marriage, even though Wonder Woman..."
*Cheney flexes his pointer finger with his middle finger and licks the space*
"...Was against it.
BUSHMAN: "I didn't want it to come to this, my young ward, but it looks like it's necessary... NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT!"
*Cheney gasps*
BUSHMAN: "To the Bushmobile!"

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-15 06:07pm

What you don't seem to get is that the first part of that quote represents intention, and the second part reflects current policy.

And he SUPPORTS the current policy, which is "no amendment; leave it to the states."

Fact; the President does not feel that we are at the point where we need an amendment banning gay marriage and therefore does not support such an amendment. The fact that he could conceivably change his position in the future is of no relevance to the fact that he doesn't support the amendment now.

Did you miss the quote that neoolong posted, that he wants to make a law that codifies his belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that he's got his lawyers looking for the best way to do it? He does want to sign this, if he gets the chance.

That's old. These statements are the most recent and they do arguably contradict what he has previously said.

And the fact is, his most recent statements, even the one stating that he would support an amendment codifying that marriage is a between a man and a woman ONLY if necessary, do not by any means support the FMA which is currently before Congress. The FMA would ban any sort of same-sex civil union the states choose to legislate. Even in the worst-case scenario (which we are not in, and Bush does not believe we are in, either), all Bush would do would be to sign an amendment codifying that marriage is between a man and a woman, leaving plenty of wiggle room open for the states to conceive of other domestic unions. He has stated quite clearly that he has absolutely no problem with the states recognizing civil unions between gay couples, nor does he want to ban them from allowing gays to participate in the institution of marriage, either. For the love of GOD, what is so fucking difficult to understand about this?

THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Accept it.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 06:08pm

Master of Ossus wrote:WHY DOES THIS NECESSARILY MEAN THAT GAYS AND LESBIANS CAN'T HAVE AN INSTITUTION IDENTICAL TO MARRIAGE, SO LONG AS IT INVOLVES A DIFFERENT TERM?

I never said they couldn't, but that's not the point. What I'm talking about is whether or not Bush is saying that he supports a the constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, which I say he does and Joe says he doesn't, despite Bush's own comments.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-15 06:11pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:*snip bullshit*

Oh, that's really fucking mature. Keep living in your dream world where a conservative GOP President who's stated that he supports allowing homosexuals to enter into "whatever legal arrangments [they] want to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level" is out to get the homosexuals.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 06:24pm

Joe wrote:And he SUPPORTS the current policy, which is "no amendment; leave it to the states."

No, he says that he will support the Constitutional Amendment if he gets the chance. If he wasn't willing to support it, he wouldn't have said that he was.

Fact; the President does not feel that we are at the point where we need an amendment banning gay marriage and therefore does not support such an amendment. The fact that he could conceivably change his position in the future is of no relevance to the fact that he doesn't support the amendment now.

No the Fact is that he supports the Constitutional Amendment. He says so himself and has been saying that he's been looking to codify his belief that a marriage is between a man and woman for a while, which is why he has his lawyers on it.

That's old. These statements are the most recent and they do arguably contradict what he has previously said.

What, suddenly he doesn't believe his previous stated beliefs anymore? What changed and why would he have his lawyers looking for the best way to codify it if he really didn't want the law?

And the fact is, his most recent statements, even the one stating that he would support an amendment codifying that marriage is a between a man and a woman ONLY if necessary, do not by any means support the FMA which is currently before Congress. The FMA would ban any sort of same-sex civil union the states choose to legislate. Even in the worst-case scenario (which we are not in, and Bush does not believe we are in, either), all Bush would do would be to sign an amendment codifying that marriage is between a man and a woman, leaving plenty of wiggle room open for the states to conceive of other domestic unions. He has stated quite clearly that he has absolutely no problem with the states recognizing civil unions between gay couples, nor does he want to ban them from allowing gays to participate in the institution of marriage, either. For the love of GOD, what is so fucking difficult to understand about this?

THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Accept it.

What exactly would be the conditions where it is "necessary" to sign that? And you still haven't explained why, if he really doesn't support banning gay marriage, that he's repeatedly said that he thinks that marriage is only between a man and a woman and he wants to make that into law.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 06:25pm

Joe wrote:Oh, that's really fucking mature. Keep living in your dream world where a conservative GOP President who's stated that he supports allowing homosexuals to enter into "whatever legal arrangments [they] want to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level" is out to get the homosexuals.

No, that was me trying to lighten things up.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 06:39pm

Besides...

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 18, 2003

President Defends Sanctity of Marriage
Statement by the President

Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 118-4.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 3, 2003

Marriage Protection Week, 2003
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society. Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents.

<snipped the rest for length, follow link>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 03-12.html

I could post more quotes from other sources, but I wanted to use sources directly from the White House to show that Joe's idea that President Bush supports allowing anyone except men and women to marry is silly.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-15 06:43pm

No, he says that he will support the Constitutional Amendment if he gets the chance. If he wasn't willing to support it, he wouldn't have said that he was.

1) Bush has stated he would only support an amendment if it became necessary.
2) He doesn't think it's necessary. The status quo is fine.
3) Therefore, he does not currently support an amendment codifying heterosexual marriage.

What, suddenly he doesn't believe his previous stated beliefs anymore? What changed and why would he have his lawyers looking for the best way to codify it if he really didn't want the law?

I don't know, I can't get inside his head. Perhaps he didn't give a shit either way, but had to appease the fundies? Perhaps he actually came to the realization that the amendment wasn't necessary right now in America? I don't care what the case is, his most recent statements clearly reveal that he doesn't think we need the amendment.

What exactly would be the conditions where it is "necessary" to sign that? And you still haven't explained why, if he really doesn't support banning gay marriage, that he's repeatedly said that he thinks that marriage is only between a man and a woman and he wants to make that into law.

I'm not interested in what he said in the past on this issue, I'm interested in what he has said most recently, because that will be most up-to-date. And I'm sorry that we don't see eye-to-eye on this issue, but I'm simply failing to understand how you can pretend that his recent statements indicate that he would prefer to sign an amendment over leaving things as they currently are.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-15 06:47pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:snip

Wow, Einstein, so Bush feels strongly about heterosexual marriage? Who would've thought?

And again I ask, what part of "leave it to the states" are you not understanding?

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-01-15 08:03pm

Bush doesn't feel a constitutional amendment is necessary because he believes the Defense of Marriage Act to be constitutional. He doesn't want to ban gay marriage on the constitutional level, because it's already been banned on the legislative level. If SCOTUS ever found said act to be unconstitutional then Bush would consider the amendment necessary.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 08:33pm

Joe wrote:Wow, Einstein, so Bush feels strongly about heterosexual marriage? Who would've thought?

And again I ask, what part of "leave it to the states" are you not understanding?

Yet when one of the states Massechuetts did make gay civil unions legal, the first thing he did was to condemn it as an attack on marriage and promised to work with congress to prevent other such attacks. He can say "leave it to the states" all he wants, but in practice, as we can see from his press release when Mass. did it, he clearly doesn't support the states on the issue.