Bush Battles The Gays

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-05 11:16am

Oh, that silly little, old fashioned chimp.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-05 11:17am

WASHINGTON (Feb. 5) - President Bush, reacting to a new Massachusetts state court ruling, says a constitutional amendment will be necessary to ban gay marriages if judges persist in approving them.

In a written statement late Wednesday, Bush termed ''deeply troubling'' the decision that same-sex couples in Massachusetts have a right to marry - not just form civil unions - and reiterated a position staked out in his State of the Union speech last month.

''Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,'' he said in the statement. ''If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.''

The Massachusetts Supreme Court's advisory opinion that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage set the stage for the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by the spring.

The issue has the potential to become a hot factor in the presidential campaign.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in his own statement: ''I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples - from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision.''

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, another Democratic presidential candidate, said: ''I leave that to the states and the courts - whether you call it a marriage or not, I leave up to the states and churches and synagogues and mosques.''

Bush's statement was similar to his remarks in his Jan. 20 State of the Union address in which he said that if judges ''insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.''

Conservative activists and religious groups, banding together under the name the Arlington Group, gathered in Washington this week to plot strategy. Some participants said they left with a White House commitment to fight for a constitutional amendment.

''We were given direct assurances from the very top,'' said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation. ''There's no doubt. It's our understanding that the president is waiting for a day when there is not a massive news story to do it himself.''

Another group, the Alliance Defense Fund based in Scottsdale, Ariz., sent out an e-mail asserting, ''This morning, President Bush agreed to join the effort to push for the passage of this amendment.''

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading group of social conservatives, said, ''I would not be surprised at all to see the president come out very soon calling on Congress to act.'' He said he could not speak for Bush but that ''it appears that things are falling in line for that to happen.''

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a conservative who is close to the White House, said a constitutional amendment ''is what you'd expect the president to do. ... They are forcing the president's hand - if you say only an amendment can fix this, guess what, you're going to get an amendment.''

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration would review the Massachusetts' opinion.

Recalling Bush's remarks in his State of the Union speech, McClellan said, ''What he said at that time, that if judges continue to force their arbitrary will upon the people, that the only alternative to the people would be a constitutional process. And that remains his view.''

*Mumbles about AOL news links*

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-05 11:34am

I like the way he says that it's judges being "arbitrary" rather than a legitimate interpretation of anti-discrimination statutes.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-05 11:37am

Does anyone have an article or table on which states are actively opposed to gay marriage etc. and which are undecided and for it?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-05 01:44pm

Darth Wong wrote:I like the way he says that it's judges being "arbitrary" rather than a legitimate interpretation of anti-discrimination statutes.

You like that?

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2004-02-05 01:50pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Does anyone have an article or table on which states are actively opposed to gay marriage etc. and which are undecided and for it?

Here you go

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-05 01:53pm

Gunshy wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Does anyone have an article or table on which states are actively opposed to gay marriage etc. and which are undecided and for it?
Here you go

Ta very much.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-02-05 01:56pm

To which I say:

Shut the Fuck Up, Shrub!

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-02-05 01:58pm

I welcome the amendment try, once these fundie fucks get slapped down when a 2/3 majority won't vote for it then they're fucked. No more recourse and a clear fucking signal that this country does not support their views and maybe politicians will stop suckling from their teat.

I am disapppointed that Kerry took the safe answer instead of boldly saying yes to Gay mariage. This middle of the road shit really gets annoying after awhile.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-02-05 03:17pm

In other news, the world proceded .274 degrees around the sun yesterday and rotated exactly one time.

Nothing suprising in Bush's statement. We all knew what he was going to say from the get go.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-02-05 03:19pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:In other news, the world proceded .274 degrees around the sun yesterday and rotated exactly one time.

Argh, that should say percent, not degrees.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-02-05 03:59pm

Has Bush ever said why we need to defend the sanctity of marriage, and what terrible catatrosphe will occur if we don't?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-02-05 04:02pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Has Bush ever said why we need to defend the sanctity of marriage, and what terrible catatrosphe will occur if we don't?

Nope

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-02-05 04:10pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Has Bush ever said why we need to defend the sanctity of marriage, and what terrible catatrosphe will occur if we don't?

He had credible intelligence corroborated by the British that something terrible would happen but he just can't share that with us now for security reasons. But trust him...it's bbaaaddd.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-02-05 05:17pm

I always hear that it's a sacred institution and our society is going to collapse if we allow gay marriage to happen.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-02-05 05:19pm

Natorgator wrote:I always hear that it's a sacred institution and our society is going to collapse if we allow gay marriage to happen.

"Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire."

"The Bachelor."

"The Bachelorette."

"Joe Millionaire."

Skyrocketing divorce rates from 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. marriages

Heterosexuals do more damage to marriage in a day...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-05 05:31pm

Natorgator wrote:I always hear that it's a sacred institution and our society is going to collapse if we allow gay marriage to happen.

Marriage is an important institution, which is all the more reason to keep improving it. It seems to me that for a social conservative, they consider it self-evident that anything important must never be changed. Of course, that's their mindset on everything; the ways of the past are always presumed superior to the ways of the present.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-02-05 05:36pm

Stravo wrote:I welcome the amendment try, once these fundie fucks get slapped down when a 2/3 majority won't vote for it then they're fucked. No more recourse and a clear fucking signal that this country does not support their views and maybe politicians will stop suckling from their teat.

Sadly, I imagine similar things were said about the 18th amendment.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-02-05 05:38pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Stravo wrote:I welcome the amendment try, once these fundie fucks get slapped down when a 2/3 majority won't vote for it then they're fucked. No more recourse and a clear fucking signal that this country does not support their views and maybe politicians will stop suckling from their teat.
Sadly, I imagine similar things were said about the 18th amendment.

That's different. The country was different then. The movement for prohibition was sweeping across the country. All the polls now point to a very lax view on marriage. I don't think that other than the southern states they can drum up enough votes for the measure.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-02-05 05:58pm

Stravo wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:
Stravo wrote:I welcome the amendment try, once these fundie fucks get slapped down when a 2/3 majority won't vote for it then they're fucked. No more recourse and a clear fucking signal that this country does not support their views and maybe politicians will stop suckling from their teat.
Sadly, I imagine similar things were said about the 18th amendment.
That's different. The country was different then. The movement for prohibition was sweeping across the country. All the polls now point to a very lax view on marriage. I don't think that other than the southern states they can drum up enough votes for the measure.

An outspoken minority succesfully lobbied for the 18th amendment, against the prevailing atitudes of most people.
Whitewash something with morality, and a lot of people won't get very vocal in their objections.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-02-05 06:10pm

Wow, this took Bush longer than I thought.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-05 07:39pm

Stravo wrote:I am disapppointed that Kerry took the safe answer instead of boldly saying yes to Gay mariage. This middle of the road shit really gets annoying after awhile.

I'll take neutral over actively evil though.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-02-05 08:14pm

Iceberg wrote:
Natorgator wrote:I always hear that it's a sacred institution and our society is going to collapse if we allow gay marriage to happen.
"Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire."

"The Bachelor."

"The Bachelorette."

"Joe Millionaire."

Skyrocketing divorce rates from 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. marriages

Heterosexuals do more damage to marriage in a day...

Not to mention Britney Spears's stunt.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-02-05 08:39pm

Andrew J. wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
Natorgator wrote:I always hear that it's a sacred institution and our society is going to collapse if we allow gay marriage to happen.
"Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire."

"The Bachelor."

"The Bachelorette."

"Joe Millionaire."

Skyrocketing divorce rates from 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. marriages

Heterosexuals do more damage to marriage in a day...
Not to mention Britney Spears's stunt.

But that's okay, since it's a heterosexual marraige! In fact, unhappy, abusive, dysfunctional, shortlived, and untructworthy don't harm the sanctity of marraige, as long as they aren't gay!(/fundie mindset)

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-02-05 08:43pm

Damnit, I made a few typos that I only noticed after submitting. Could an admin puit "marraiges that are" between "In fact,", and "unhappy,", so it makes sense?